2 For 1 Offers

Author
Discussion

bad company

Original Poster:

18,483 posts

265 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
Countdown said:
In the vast majority of cases they aren't defrauding you. They are able to price the second item cheaper because they have recovered their "fixed" costs in the sale of the first item. They will also have obtained a discount from the supplier for the sme reason (for FMCG the marginal cost will be lower as supply increases).

BOGOF et al works fine for us. The way we play the game is - if we need/want something on BOGOF we buy it. If we don't need/want we don't buy.. Cunning eh biggrin
I never said defrauded. To me the first item is overpriced to allow them to discount the second. Nothing on this thread has convinced me otherwise. If the price of the first item increased at the start of a BOGOF campaign it would all look a bit obvious.

bad company

Original Poster:

18,483 posts

265 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
furtive said:
How much did you end up paying for them compared to the Boots price?
Fair question but I ended up with a different brand so can't answer.

iphonedyou

9,234 posts

156 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
bad company said:
Not defrauding no. But they are inflating the price of one item to subsidize the second (usually unwanted) item.
Well, no. You understand the concept of margins and taking a hit, surely? Well I guess you don't but that's surprising for a grown up.

What an odd thread. Sales must be a nightmare for you!

Edited by iphonedyou on Thursday 28th August 20:19

bad company

Original Poster:

18,483 posts

265 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
Tiggsy said:
op today....


that apple is £1

I'll take it

you can have a second for free if you like

what???? you can keep your apple - I'm outta here and off to moan on the web
Good example. It would be madness to pay £1 for a single apple so clearly the retailer would be using that sale to be able to offer the second apple FOC. wink

Edited by bad company on Thursday 28th August 22:49

Countdown

39,690 posts

195 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
bad company said:
Countdown said:
In the vast majority of cases they aren't defrauding you. They are able to price the second item cheaper because they have recovered their "fixed" costs in the sale of the first item. They will also have obtained a discount from the supplier for the sme reason (for FMCG the marginal cost will be lower as supply increases).

BOGOF et al works fine for us. The way we play the game is - if we need/want something on BOGOF we buy it. If we don't need/want we don't buy.. Cunning eh biggrin
I never said defrauded. To me the first item is overpriced to allow them to discount the second. Nothing on this thread has convinced me otherwise. If the price of the first item increased at the start of a BOGOF campaign it would all look a bit obvious.
The first item isn't overpriced. It's priced at full cost recovery. This allows the second item to be priced at marginal cost recovery.

Say you go to harrods and buy an apple for £1. The taxi fare cost £10. Total cost is £11.

If you buy 2 apples it will cost you £12 (£10 + £1 + £1).

The first apple was 1000% overpriced. It's just all the other costs that need to be factored in.

chris1roll

1,689 posts

243 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
National Tyres had "2 for 1" on Avon tyres. Good, I think, my wifes' car is looking a bit thin on front.
Priced the ZV5 through our local garage for £61 each fitted.
National tyres price for 2x Avon zv5's fitted, £120....confused
So they might be BOGOF, but they start off at twice the price!

So we're paying £2 more to support our local independent.

Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
bad company said:
I never said defrauded. To me the first item is overpriced to allow them to discount the second. Nothing on this thread has convinced me otherwise. If the price of the first item increased at the start of a BOGOF campaign it would all look a bit obvious.
Even if this were true - I still don't see how this affects the OPs position.

If they had happened to walk into Boots on a normal day when the offer wasn't on - they would have just bought the tablets at whatever the shelf price was (even if it was overpriced to allow them to discount at some future point).

The fact that the OP went in on a day when the offer was on doesn't change the fact that they would have paid the same price for one packet regardless.

blindswelledrat

25,257 posts

231 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
bad company said:
Nothing on this thread has convinced me otherwise.
Soo 100 people saying that they don't inflate the price of the first item hence you are paying the same doesn't 'convince you otherwise'?
Interesting stubborn stance.
It's not antihistamines you need for those sniffles its a tissue and to stop being a massive crybaby

bad company

Original Poster:

18,483 posts

265 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
blindswelledrat said:
Soo 100 people saying that they don't inflate the price of the first item hence you are paying the same doesn't 'convince you otherwise'?
Interesting stubborn stance.
It's not antihistamines you need for those sniffles its a tissue and to stop being a massive crybaby
Why do you think you can win an argument by name calling?

blindswelledrat

25,257 posts

231 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
bad company said:
Why do you think you can win an argument by name calling?
The 'argument' was already won. I was just mocking your stubbornness to acknowledge anything that has been said.

paranoid airbag

2,679 posts

158 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
Countdown said:
The first item isn't overpriced. It's priced at full cost recovery. This allows the second item to be priced at marginal cost recovery.

Say you go to harrods and buy an apple for £1. The taxi fare cost £10. Total cost is £11.

If you buy 2 apples it will cost you £12 (£10 + £1 + £1).

The first apple was 1000% overpriced. It's just all the other costs that need to be factored in.
clap

though I used to get into arguments with parents over this at uni - I would buy only what I needed, screw the offers. With a student dwelling of course, stuff you don't need is not stuff you have space for, so an extra thing would not provide any extra utility - arguably negative utility.

Similarly, buy a small bottle of water or coke or packet of sweets and they're expensive relative to bulk. If it doesn't provide you proportionately extra value, don't buy them.

bad company

Original Poster:

18,483 posts

265 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
blindswelledrat said:
The 'argument' was already won. I was just mocking your stubbornness to acknowledge anything that has been said.
Yes, of course you won the argument. rolleyes

What a clever chap you are.

wolves_wanderer

12,356 posts

236 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
bad company said:
Nothing on this thread has convinced me otherwise.
I worked in a shop that did this sort of offer all the time and the price never went up to allow the multibuy to be subsidised.

With your complete unwillingness to accept any contradictory evidence, have you considered a career doorkncoking for the Jehovah's Witnesses?

Mermaid

21,492 posts

170 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
Countdown said:
V8LM said:
BOGOF and the like is fine except when it involves medicines.
why excepting medicines?
Such promotions are to encourage consumption.

BOGOF, BOGOHP typically fully funded by manufacturer to encourage use/loyalty of their product against their competition. Retailers claim full discount from suppliers, and end up making a higher margin on the single items sold where the end customer has not taken benefit of the offer.

blindswelledrat

25,257 posts

231 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
wolves_wanderer said:
I worked in a shop that did this sort of offer all the time and the price never went up to allow the multibuy to be subsidised.

With your complete unwillingness to accept any contradictory evidence, have you considered a career doorkncoking for the Jehovah's Witnesses?
Can you just clarify, as there are several syllables in a few of those words:

When you ran a supermarket shop and did the buy-one-get-one-free offers, did you ever increase put up the price of the item so that it was higher than its pre-offer price effectively ergo thus so subsidising the cost of giving the second one free?

bad company

Original Poster:

18,483 posts

265 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
Mermaid said:
Such promotions are to encourage consumption.

BOGOF, BOGOHP typically fully funded by manufacturer to encourage use/loyalty of their product against their competition. Retailers claim full discount from suppliers, and end up making a higher margin on the single items sold where the end customer has not taken benefit of the offer.
clap

bad company

Original Poster:

18,483 posts

265 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
wolves_wanderer said:
I worked in a shop that did this sort of offer all the time and the price never went up to allow the multibuy to be subsidised.

With your complete unwillingness to accept any contradictory evidence, have you considered a career doorkncoking for the Jehovah's Witnesses?
So the shop just decided to give away the second item for nothing? As it was presumably not a charity shop this sounds unlikely.

The funding has to come from somewhere - if not the shop then the manufacturer.

blindswelledrat

25,257 posts

231 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all

blindswelledrat

25,257 posts

231 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
bad company said:
So the shop just decided to give away the second item for nothing? As it was presumably not a charity shop this sounds unlikely.

The funding has to come from somewhere - if not the shop then the manufacturer.
SHops do this to encourage shoppers into their shops.
The average person spends, hypothetically, £100 in a supermarket.
If they advertise BOGOF on a popular item it will encourage a number of people to visit their shop that otherwise wouldn't have, each spending £100. The cost of doing this is almost nothing, it just means they make a negligible amount on that particular product (although in many cases, as stated, the supplier also contributes for brand strength. It's not rocket science.

Just to clarify, in case you bother reading this and can stop worrying about it.
WHat you are describing used to happen even though it was generally illegal (or at least contrary to fair trading practices)
A couple/few years ago the Office of Fair trading made a massive thing out of it and effectively put a stop to it.
What you are saying doesn't happen.


Edited by blindswelledrat on Friday 29th August 11:07

bad company

Original Poster:

18,483 posts

265 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
blindswelledrat said:
Never mind the kids return to school next week and young tom won't be around as much.

Not very good at debate are you.