Can I Get 50% Off with NY Lotto's Buy 1 Get 1 Free Deal?

[Gomar]

If item A costs $10, but on sale it's buy 1 get 1 free, so I pay $5 for each, thus 50% off?
Or is 50% off when you just pay $5?

NY Lotto gives you 2 tickets for $1. Their odds are 22.5m for $1; which is 50% off.

http://www.nylottery.org/ny/nyStore/cgi-bin/ProdSubEV_Cat_401_SubCat_201671_NavRoot_320.htm

However, don't you need to buy 50% to reduce by 1/2?
If 1 out of 10 boxes has $10. Tickets are $1 each. I need to buy 5 tickets($5) to get 50/50 odds of winning; not 2 tickets for $1 correct?

 

[HallsofIvy]

If the regular price for something is $1 and it is not "two for one", then you would pay $1 for two which means you are actually paying $0.50 for each. Yes, that is the same as "half off" (assuming you actuall want two of something).

 

[mathwonk]

Halls' last clause is key. otherwise you are paying full price, then getting another useless item for free.

 

[AC130Nav]

If item A costs $10, but on sale it's buy 1 get 1 free, so I pay $5 for each, thus 50% off?
Or is 50% off when you just pay $5?

NY Lotto gives you 2 tickets for $1. Their odds are 22.5m for $1; which is 50% off.

http://www.nylottery.org/ny/nyStore/cgi-bin/ProdSubEV_Cat_401_SubCat_201671_NavRoot_320.htm

However, don't you need to buy 50% to reduce by 1/2?
If 1 out of 10 boxes has $10. Tickets are $1 each. I need to buy 5 tickets($5) to get 50/50 odds of winning; not 2 tickets for $1 correct?

The newest sales program (not to say scam) is to say 3 for $3 (no other price listed). If you get to checkout with one, it costs $1. It should be outlawed.

Did you think legitimate companies didn't have sleazy executives?

 

[Studiot]

What amazes me is

What sort of family needs or wants three pumpkins for $3 or 3 melons for $4 or whatever?

Most normal families struggle to use one before they go off.

 

[AC130Nav]

What amazes me is

What sort of family needs or wants three pumpkins for $3 or 3 melons for $4 or whatever?

Most normal families struggle to use one before they go off.

Circular to the point.

One of the fallouts of WWII (Hiroshima being the other one) was proliferation of Goebbel's big lie, which the marketing pukes have taken up in earnest. What they're doing now isn't even a lie.

 

[Tom Gilroy]

Actually, this reminds me of a situation when I worked in a hardware store several years ago.

We had a certain terracotta plant pot that was quite a reasonable price (which I forget, but let's say €5, for the sake of the story), but was being sold as "buy one, get one free." Quite quickly, we sold through most of the stock, until there was only one pot left. A woman wished to buy it, assuming that it would be at half price.

What was quite interesting, is that (here in Ireland at least), there is a distinction between "buy one, get one free" and "50% off." Had the pots been sold as the latter, we would have been obliged to sell the last pot for €2.50. However, as they were being sold under "buy one, get one free," the price of a single pot was still €5, and we were under no obligation to provide the extra free pot as we had no more in stock.

 

[zgozvrm]

The newest sales program (not to say scam) is to say 3 for $3 (no other price listed). If you get to checkout with one, it costs $1. It should be outlawed.

Did you think legitimate companies didn't have sleazy executives?

I don't see the problem with this: You know you'll pay $3 for 3 of the item (no confusion there). If you only buy 1, and pay $1, there is still no confusion (in fact the division in this case is very simple).

Had they said 3 for $5, and you only wanted to buy one, the math is a bit more difficult for many people. But, as long as you are charged only $1.66 or $1.67, it's still a fair advertisement.

What I don't like, is what Tom Gilroy stated. I've seen this many times; you're given a "2 for 1" deal and you MUST buy two to benefit (one item still costs full price).

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see the problem with this: You know you'll pay $3 for 3 of the item (no confusion there). If you only buy 1, and pay $1, there is still no confusion (in fact the division in this case is very simple).

The confusion comes in when you assume that you don't pay $1 for 1. The sign is meant to decieve you into thinking that they cost more than $1 if purchased separately.

Be that as it may, every supermarket I've been in recently has both individual package and even unit pricing in the fine print under the main price so you know what one item costs and to make it easier to compare items in different sized packages (so you can tell if 3 six-packs is actually cheaper per can than a single 24-pack or not). I think that may actually be required by law now.

What I don't like, is what Tom Gilroy stated. I've seen this many times; you're given a "2 for 1" deal and you MUST buy two to benefit (one item still costs full price).

Huh? That's exactly the same as the main issue in the thread and there is nothing wrong with it as long as it is made clear! It's a classic volume discount strategy - an integral, essential and correct economic tool.

 

[zgozvrm]

The confusion comes in when you assume that you don't pay $1 for 1. The sign is meant to decieve you into thinking that they cost more than $1 if purchased separately.

If this confuses people, they have much bigger things to worry about.

Although an item may cost $1, a sign telling me that I can buy 3 for $3.00 only tells me that they wasted several dollars printing signs that state the obvious.

That's exactly the same as the main issue in the thread and there is nothing wrong with it as long as it is made clear!

That's the problem; this is hardly ever made clear. In some stores, you can buy one item that is regularly priced at $1.75 but marked, "2 for $3.00" for $1.50, while at other stores, you MUST buy 2 of the item to get the deal.

It's a classic volume discount strategy - an integral, essential and correct economic tool.

This is hardly an "essential" tool. That's like saying that billboards are essential economic tools. They may help, but they're hardly essential.

People will generally buy the product they need or want, regardless of what a sign says. There are those that will buy a product because it was advertised, and others that will get the discount unknowingly, while still others that just don't care, and stick to buying what they came in for.

 

[Studiot]

People will generally buy the product they need or want

How many times have you gone to a supermarket and come out with exactly (no more , no less) than you went for?

I venture to suggest that most people have several things in their baskets that were not on their original list, by the time they reach the checkouts.

Supermarkets employ specialists to create ways to encourage this activity.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Although an item may cost $1, a sign telling me that I can buy 3 for $3.00 only tells me that they wasted several dollars printing signs that state the obvious.

Two for the price of one: If you buy only one of the product, you don't get it for half price.

On the other hand, if I say 3 for the price of $3, why would you assume that you can buy one for only $1? It's a complete leap of faith

 

[zgozvrm]

How many times have you gone to a supermarket and come out with exactly (no more , no less) than you went for?

Many times; I figure out what I need (and what I want) before hand. I don't want to spend any more time fighting the crowds at the grocery store than I have to. That's not to say that I never deviate from my list, though. If I buy something "extra," it's going to be something I already buy anyway - something that I just didn't think I wanted to buy at the time I made the list. It's more about cravings. Who craves something they've never had? (Very few people).

But that's not my point. My point is that just because something's "on special," doesn't mean someone's going to buy it. Now, if it is a product the consumer normally buys, he or she will probably buy more than usual, even if it wasn't on their list (not something they planned on buying).




But whatever. I'm not going to argue any of this with you. My 2 main points still hold:

1) There's really nothing wrong with advertising a $1.00 item at 3 for $3.00. If that "fools" someone into buying it, then so be it; they will likely be "tricked" into giving their money away in many other ways.

2) The way different stores handle selling individual items that are advertised such as "2 for $3.00" is inconsistent and usually unclear to the consumer.

 

[zgozvrm]

Two for the price of one: If you buy only one of the product, you don't get it for half price.

The point is that I have purchased items in that way many times (and it comes up in the store's computer that way).


Again, the point here is inconsistency and lack of clarity!

 

[zgozvrm]

Going back to the OP. The original question boils down to: Is "buy 1, get 1 free" the same as "50% off."

The answer is "yes and no."
Absolutely, if you buy in multiples of 2, otherwise, it depends on the seller's policy.

 

[Studiot]

But whatever. I'm not going to argue any of this with you. My 2 main points still hold:

Three posts, to answer my one, not to mention your previous post which elicited my comment?


The answer is, of course, more complicated than that because it also depends upon the sales laws in the country concerned.

Many items, particularly foodstuffs, which used to be sold by unit are now sold by weight in the EU. If the beaurocrats there have their way, all foodstuffs will be sold exclusively by weight.

Then again custom and practice play a part.

It was, and still is, very common to sell oranges in the UK by the unit eg 5 for 1/- or, these days, 5 for £1.
There is no expectation on the part of the seller or buyer that one orange would cost more or less than 1/5 or even that a single orange purchase could be made. If a single purchase could be made it would be as the result of a special negotiation.

However it was, and still is, unusual to sell apples that way. Apples are normally sold by weight.

Either way in the UK, custom and practice elicites the expectation of 50% off meaning you could purchase a single item or pack or whatever for half price.
The expectation of bogof is that you have to buy two and receive a unit cost reduction as a result.

I am not sure if a case couldn't or hasn't been made under the UK Trades Descriptions Act to support this.

 

[Studiot]

Absolutely, if you buy in multiples of 2,

Once again, reality is actually much more complicated.

There is in fact a huge and fundamental difference between the two statements.

The difference is in the question 50% off what?

The satement "2 for $1" is complete and unambiguous.

It states that if you pay $1 you will receive 2 items.

It does not contain any information about what the seller might charge for 1 or 7 items.
It does not contain any information about what the seller might have charged in the past or might charge in the future for 2 items.

On the other hand in order to take 50% off the seller must have charged $2 for 2 items in the past.

But how long ago, and where?

In the UK at least, trading law requires the goods to have been on sale for the higher price for at least one week in the previous month. Many chainstores quote in small print "50% off the price in their Oxford Street store, London, as this usually has higher prices than local shops.

 

[zgozvrm]

Three posts, to answer my one

Don't be so self-centric.

While I posted 3 times after your post, only one was in reply to yours. Of the other 2, one was in reply to Office_Shredder, and the other was a general post, directed to the OP.

 

[Studiot]

I see you have avoided an analytic dissection of your statements.