|
 |
| | | Author: | yorbrick  | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 04:47 | | Subject: | Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 241 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Why does bricklink show this? A simple IF statement could be used to only show
a discount when it is possible for a buyer to achieve. Then it doesn't make
the store look stupid by offering discounts that a buyer cannot possibly take
advantage of.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | cycbuild | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 05:52 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Why does bricklink show this? A simple IF statement could be used to only show
a discount when it is possible for a buyer to achieve. Then it doesn't make
the store look stupid by offering discounts that a buyer cannot possibly take
advantage of.
|
Keeps its value(s) once they replenish or rotate their stock. Thinking as a buyer-
what's hypothetical is unhelpful, now, but potentially nice to know?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 06:56 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Keeps its value(s) once they replenish or rotate their stock.
|
Yes, it can be kept for the seller with their inventory - but there is not really
any reason to show it to the buyer. If anything, it puts a buyer off buying from
the store now if they think there will be a discount in the future if the store
replenishes stock.
An alternative is that a seller could opt to give a discount on min(all, N) where
N is a variable. So if their stock drops below N, a buyer can still buy all the
seller can supply right now at their discount level.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 07:02 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Why does bricklink show this? A simple IF statement could be used to only show
a discount when it is possible for a buyer to achieve. Then it doesn't make
the store look stupid by offering discounts that a buyer cannot possibly take
advantage of.
|
I notice almost every day that the perfect way to ensure Dutch people will never
buy croissants or buns, is by putting a sign "4 for €1" when there's 3 left.
Pretty sure that if they'd remove the sign, people would be willing to pay
€1 each 
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 07:10 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Why does bricklink show this? A simple IF statement could be used to only show
a discount when it is possible for a buyer to achieve. Then it doesn't make
the store look stupid by offering discounts that a buyer cannot possibly take
advantage of.
|
I notice almost every day that the perfect way to ensure Dutch people will never
buy croissants or buns, is by putting a sign "4 for €1" when there's 3 left.
Pretty sure that if they'd remove the sign, people would be willing to pay
€1 each
|
Yes, we have the same here with "buy one get one free" which often means the
store is overcharging for one but when you get two for the same price they are
charging about the right price for each. And if there is only one left on the
shelf, it will never sell.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 10:43 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Why does bricklink show this? A simple IF statement could be used to only show
a discount when it is possible for a buyer to achieve. Then it doesn't make
the store look stupid by offering discounts that a buyer cannot possibly take
advantage of.
|
I notice almost every day that the perfect way to ensure Dutch people will never
buy croissants or buns, is by putting a sign "4 for €1" when there's 3 left.
Pretty sure that if they'd remove the sign, people would be willing to pay
€1 each
|
"Verkoopt U ook kussentjes?" 
Niek.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 12:02 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | "Verkoopt U ook kussentjes?"
|
Goedemiddag
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | crazylegoman | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 09:01 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Buying | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Why does bricklink show this? A simple IF statement could be used to only show
a discount when it is possible for a buyer to achieve. Then it doesn't make
the store look stupid by offering discounts that a buyer cannot possibly take
advantage of.
|
The older version of Bricklink used to do this automatically. It's a bug
that they've never fixed.
David
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 11:49 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Buying | |
|
| In Buying, crazylegoman writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Why does bricklink show this? A simple IF statement could be used to only show
a discount when it is possible for a buyer to achieve. Then it doesn't make
the store look stupid by offering discounts that a buyer cannot possibly take
advantage of.
|
The older version of Bricklink used to do this automatically. It's a bug
that they've never fixed.
David
|
Yeah, I thought it used to work correctly but couldn't really remember. It
is difficult to tell whether something automatically disappeared or the seller
removed a discount.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | jbroman | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 09:05 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Why does bricklink show this? A simple IF statement could be used to only show
a discount when it is possible for a buyer to achieve. Then it doesn't make
the store look stupid by offering discounts that a buyer cannot possibly take
advantage of.
|
Or the one that gets me... sell in quantities of 10. 9 remaining. Can’t buy what
I’m there for.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Legoboy_II | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 21:20 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, jbroman writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Why does bricklink show this? A simple IF statement could be used to only show
a discount when it is possible for a buyer to achieve. Then it doesn't make
the store look stupid by offering discounts that a buyer cannot possibly take
advantage of.
|
Or the one that gets me... sell in quantities of 10. 9 remaining. Can’t buy what
I’m there for.
|
I agree that this can be confusing for buyers, here's my $.002 worth:
1. Offering a tiered discount schedule can be a good marketing strategy, when
employed correctly and truly passes on a wholesale savings, elsewise, buyers
could see it as price gouging at the lower tiers, similar to the earlier comment
regarding same;
2. Regarding when there aren't enough items to meet a tier limit, I always
recommend to my clients that they advertise their scheme, and allow aggregation
of orders or backorders, IF they intend to replenish their stock in a timely
manner, though I discourage aggregation of future orders. Elsewise, remove the
advert;
3. Regarding 9 of 10, I have found that I can order the remaining stock without
issue, not sure if this a seller enabled feature, but I've not had an issue,
just some early on confusion. Not sure if this is mentioned in the seller's
store "Terms" or BL "Help", I just decided to try and wasn't rejected; and
4. Lastly, regarding the buns analogy, I generally recommend that the client
"market" their products accordingly, and concurrently advertise, on the signage,
"X for $Y or $Z each". This tells the customer they can get fewer, how much they
will be, and discloses any "inflated" price scheme, which I strongly discourage,
though a small savings is certainly appropriate, similar to the tiered system.
James
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 07:01 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
2. Regarding when there aren't enough items to meet a tier limit, I always
recommend to my clients that they advertise their scheme, and allow aggregation
of orders or backorders, IF they intend to replenish their stock in a timely
manner, though I discourage aggregation of future orders. Elsewise, remove the
advert;
|
Backorders are forbidden by BL ToS.
| | […]
4. Lastly, regarding the buns analogy, I generally recommend that the client
"market" their products accordingly, and concurrently advertise, on the signage,
"X for $Y or $Z each".
|
Isn’t it a legal obligation to show all prices in the USA?
| | This tells the customer they can get fewer, how much they
will be, and discloses any "inflated" price scheme, which I strongly discourage,
though a small savings is certainly appropriate, similar to the tiered system.
|
The problem in the bun example is not that the clients don’t know they can buy
only one, it’s that they don’t want to buy at the higher price because there’s
a lower price, so the last bun stays on the shelf.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Legoboy_II | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 15:05 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
2. Regarding when there aren't enough items to meet a tier limit, I always
recommend to my clients that they advertise their scheme, and allow aggregation
of orders or backorders, IF they intend to replenish their stock in a timely
manner, though I discourage aggregation of future orders. Elsewise, remove the
advert;
|
Backorders are forbidden by BL ToS.
|
Agreed, it would require a change to the rules, was just citing my recommendation...
| |
| | […]
4. Lastly, regarding the buns analogy, I generally recommend that the client
"market" their products accordingly, and concurrently advertise, on the signage,
"X for $Y or $Z each".
|
Isn’t it a legal obligation to show all prices in the USA?
|
Not at the national level, it may be the case in certain states, but not that
I've ever seen... In fact, almost every place I've traveled, there are
businesses you can walk in to and there are no prices posted at all...
| |
| | This tells the customer they can get fewer, how much they
will be, and discloses any "inflated" price scheme, which I strongly discourage,
though a small savings is certainly appropriate, similar to the tiered system.
|
The problem in the bun example is not that the clients don’t know they can buy
only one, it’s that they don’t want to buy at the higher price because there’s
a lower price, so the last bun stays on the shelf.
|
That certainly holds some truth, but what I have observed, more often than not,
is that stores sell a product for $X, then advertise it in multiples and simply
multiply the selling price, giving the illusion of a savings - it's
a psychological marketing strategy. In fact, if you go to most bulk discount
stores, it is likely that buying singles is actually cheaper because we have
conditioned the majority of the buying public to believe, without question, that
more is cheaper - extremely deceptive, but not illegal; caveat emptor.
I'm more altruistic and prefer transparency, hence why I recommend showing
both prices. I didn't mention it before, but it is unlikely that a business
will get even quantities, or maintain even quantities, and so when management
sees that an item has declined below the advertised lot quantity, they should
either strike the advertisement, or if there is an actual quantity discount,
offer the product at that cost savings.
James
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tracyd | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 15:09 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
2. Regarding when there aren't enough items to meet a tier limit, I always
recommend to my clients that they advertise their scheme, and allow aggregation
of orders or backorders, IF they intend to replenish their stock in a timely
manner, though I discourage aggregation of future orders. Elsewise, remove the
advert;
|
Backorders are forbidden by BL ToS.
|
Agreed, it would require a change to the rules, was just citing my recommendation...
| |
| | […]
4. Lastly, regarding the buns analogy, I generally recommend that the client
"market" their products accordingly, and concurrently advertise, on the signage,
"X for $Y or $Z each".
|
Isn’t it a legal obligation to show all prices in the USA?
|
Not at the national level, it may be the case in certain states, but not that
I've ever seen... In fact, almost every place I've traveled, there are
businesses you can walk in to and there are no prices posted at all...
| |
| | This tells the customer they can get fewer, how much they
will be, and discloses any "inflated" price scheme, which I strongly discourage,
though a small savings is certainly appropriate, similar to the tiered system.
|
The problem in the bun example is not that the clients don’t know they can buy
only one, it’s that they don’t want to buy at the higher price because there’s
a lower price, so the last bun stays on the shelf.
|
That certainly holds some truth, but what I have observed, more often than not,
is that stores sell a product for $X, then advertise it in multiples and simply
multiply the selling price, giving the illusion of a savings - it's
a psychological marketing strategy. In fact, if you go to most bulk discount
stores, it is likely that buying singles is actually cheaper because we have
conditioned the majority of the buying public to believe, without question, that
more is cheaper - extremely deceptive, but not illegal; caveat emptor.
I'm more altruistic and prefer transparency, hence why I recommend showing
both prices. I didn't mention it before, but it is unlikely that a business
will get even quantities, or maintain even quantities, and so when management
sees that an item has declined below the advertised lot quantity, they should
either strike the advertisement, or if there is an actual quantity discount,
offer the product at that cost savings.
James
|
When I open my store it will be buy 2 get 2 more for the price of 5. And if
I don't have the quantities for that it will be buy 1 at full price get the
second for full price. I guarantee I will sell more multiples than singles.
Tracyd
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Legoboy_II | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 20:07 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Tracyd writes:
| | In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
2. Regarding when there aren't enough items to meet a tier limit, I always
recommend to my clients that they advertise their scheme, and allow aggregation
of orders or backorders, IF they intend to replenish their stock in a timely
manner, though I discourage aggregation of future orders. Elsewise, remove the
advert;
|
Backorders are forbidden by BL ToS.
|
Agreed, it would require a change to the rules, was just citing my recommendation...
| |
| | […]
4. Lastly, regarding the buns analogy, I generally recommend that the client
"market" their products accordingly, and concurrently advertise, on the signage,
"X for $Y or $Z each".
|
Isn’t it a legal obligation to show all prices in the USA?
|
Not at the national level, it may be the case in certain states, but not that
I've ever seen... In fact, almost every place I've traveled, there are
businesses you can walk in to and there are no prices posted at all...
| |
| | This tells the customer they can get fewer, how much they
will be, and discloses any "inflated" price scheme, which I strongly discourage,
though a small savings is certainly appropriate, similar to the tiered system.
|
The problem in the bun example is not that the clients don’t know they can buy
only one, it’s that they don’t want to buy at the higher price because there’s
a lower price, so the last bun stays on the shelf.
|
That certainly holds some truth, but what I have observed, more often than not,
is that stores sell a product for $X, then advertise it in multiples and simply
multiply the selling price, giving the illusion of a savings - it's
a psychological marketing strategy. In fact, if you go to most bulk discount
stores, it is likely that buying singles is actually cheaper because we have
conditioned the majority of the buying public to believe, without question, that
more is cheaper - extremely deceptive, but not illegal; caveat emptor.
I'm more altruistic and prefer transparency, hence why I recommend showing
both prices. I didn't mention it before, but it is unlikely that a business
will get even quantities, or maintain even quantities, and so when management
sees that an item has declined below the advertised lot quantity, they should
either strike the advertisement, or if there is an actual quantity discount,
offer the product at that cost savings.
James
|
When I open my store it will be buy 2 get 2 more for the price of 5. And if
I don't have the quantities for that it will be buy 1 at full price get the
second for full price. I guarantee I will sell more multiples than singles.
Tracyd
|
And will you be having a Grand Opening sale when the first 100 buyers can get
a -25% discount?
Sign me up...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 15:51 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
That certainly holds some truth, but what I have observed, more often than not,
is that stores sell a product for $X, then advertise it in multiples and simply
multiply the selling price, giving the illusion of a savings - it's
a psychological marketing strategy. In fact, if you go to most bulk discount
stores, it is likely that buying singles is actually cheaper because we have
conditioned the majority of the buying public to believe, without question, that
more is cheaper - extremely deceptive, but not illegal; caveat emptor.
I'm more altruistic and prefer transparency, hence why I recommend showing
both prices.
|
Of course.
But transparency isn’t the silver bullet.
In France, showing prices is an obligation (and “TTC” all taxes included, too,
so the 20% VAT is invisible), and price per volume or weight too.
That doesn’t prevent stores (or brands or whoever defines the prices) to sell
“more for more”: some “family” packs are more expensive than singles or smaller
packs.
So I always check the price/qty.
Some people have trouble understanding prices are free, that’s why I often quote
a pair of “mock commercials” from (very) old French comedians (they ran a parodic
newspaper and a radio show):
“A metallized corkscrew, 3 Francs 20” and then, “The same but more expensive,
5 F 30.”
People sometimes laugh but without getting that it actually works that way IRL.
You can easily find this type of things: a “premium” version that has everything
the “basic” version has and nothing more! and there’s still people to
buy it, and be happy with it
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Legoboy_II | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 19:53 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | But transparency isn’t the silver bullet.
|
So true, there are no real silver bullets, at least not that I've ever found...
| | In France, showing prices is an obligation (and “TTC” all taxes included, too,
so the 20% VAT is invisible), and price per volume or weight too.
That doesn’t prevent stores (or brands or whoever defines the prices) to sell
“more for more”: some “family” packs are more expensive than singles or smaller
packs.
|
...I'm tracking with you...
| | So I always check the price/qty.
|
...we're old enough to know better, but...
| |
Some people have trouble understanding prices are free, that’s why I often quote
a pair of “mock commercials” from (very) old French comedians (they ran a parodic
newspaper and a radio show):
“A metallized corkscrew, 3 Francs 20” and then, “The same but more expensive,
5 F 30.”
People sometimes laugh but without getting that it actually works that way IRL.
You can easily find this type of things: a “premium” version that has everything
the “basic” version has and nothing more! and there’s still people to
buy it, and be happy with it
|
...precisely.
And toward that end, if the system used to autonomously "hide" tiers when appropriate,
I'm certainly okay with that, it's a way to strike the advert, but I
think store owners should have the option to configure their stores according
to their own business and marketing strategies?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 10:08 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | 1. Offering a tiered discount schedule can be a good marketing strategy, when
employed correctly and truly passes on a wholesale savings, elsewise, buyers
could see it as price gouging at the lower tiers, similar to the earlier comment
regarding same;
|
Sure, I have no issue with price tiers. They make sense if it helps sell a lot
of the same items. The thing I think weird is ...
| | 2. Regarding when there aren't enough items to meet a tier limit, I always
recommend to my clients that they advertise their scheme, and allow aggregation
of orders or backorders, IF they intend to replenish their stock in a timely
manner, though I discourage aggregation of future orders. Elsewise, remove the
advert;
|
... this. Sellers shouldn't tell a buyer they can buy 10 for a discount if
they only have 9.
It would be simple for BL to remove the tiered pricing from the buyer's view
when it cannot be met, even though it stays in the seller's inventory. Better
still would be a warning in the inventory page that highlights the issue to a
sell, so they can either reduce the number needing to be purchased in a tier
or increase stock numbers if they can fulfill it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Legoboy_II | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 15:54 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | 1. Offering a tiered discount schedule can be a good marketing strategy, when
employed correctly and truly passes on a wholesale savings, elsewise, buyers
could see it as price gouging at the lower tiers, similar to the earlier comment
regarding same;
|
Sure, I have no issue with price tiers. They make sense if it helps sell a lot
of the same items. The thing I think weird is ...
| | 2. Regarding when there aren't enough items to meet a tier limit, I always
recommend to my clients that they advertise their scheme, and allow aggregation
of orders or backorders, IF they intend to replenish their stock in a timely
manner, though I discourage aggregation of future orders. Elsewise, remove the
advert;
|
... this. Sellers shouldn't tell a buyer they can buy 10 for a discount if
they only have 9.
It would be simple for BL to remove the tiered pricing from the buyer's view
when it cannot be met, even though it stays in the seller's inventory. Better
still would be a warning in the inventory page that highlights the issue to a
sell, so they can either reduce the number needing to be purchased in a tier
or increase stock numbers if they can fulfill it.
|
Agreed, I'm not advocating for any particular change, just bringing a different
perspective.
Solid conversation, good points by all.
James
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | tEoS | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 21:37 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Unless BL isn't functioning properly, one should be able to buy the full
quantity available regardless of the "multiples of" feature.
In other words, you should be able to buy all nine, though I'm not 100% sure
what would happen if you tried to buy 8. My guess would be that the system might
block that quantity.
| | Or the one that gets me... sell in quantities of 10. 9 remaining. Can’t buy what
I’m there for.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 07:44 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Why does bricklink show this? A simple IF statement could be used to only show
a discount when it is possible for a buyer to achieve. Then it doesn't make
the store look stupid by offering discounts that a buyer cannot possibly take
advantage of.
|
It's worth mentioning that some stores like myself don't list all our
stock at any one time so being able to see the tiered pricing may prompt the
buyer to ask the seller about their stock situation which could result in one
of two things....
It could prompt the seller to adjust their stock allowing the buyer to proceed
at discounted pricing or it could mean that the seller decides to adjust the
bulk quantity down to whatevers left in stock in order to help the buyer out
and get rid of their remaining stock i.e if tiered price is 20x and seller only
has 18x left they may choose to make 18x the new bulk price so if it prompts
buyers to question bulk quantity discrepansies it probably helps to do more good
than harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom, England
USA, California
Netherlands, Utrecht
Canada, Alberta
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
