Savings are too good to show price!



  • I was looking at some stuff on eBay and found this amplifier. Notice the price isn't shown. Hmm, must be a pretty good deal then.

     

    I clicked on the item, still couldn't see the price. Clicked on "See Details" and finally saw the price, and the "savings" that made them hide the price.

     

    90 cents! Wow! What a deal! If I bought this I'll have just saved enough to go buy a pack of gum...wait, I don't chew gum. Okay, I can buy half a Mountain Dew! Totally worth it!


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    No one's gotten a mug in a while. This thread deserves it.



  • 90 cents and free shipping! What a deal.

    I'd think this is some sort of trick to scam you out of 90 cents, but it seems a little excessive for such a small gain.



  • @Snowyowl said:

    90 cents and free shipping! What a deal.

    I'd think this is some sort of trick to scam you out of 90 cents, but it seems a little excessive for such a small gain.

     

    I think it's some retarded system to both increase their pageviews, and to "defeat" price-comparison bots (in the same way that using javascript to obfuscate spambots "defeats" them).

     I'd say it was something forced upon them, like what Amazon did for a while back (where you had to Add to Cart to see the actual price)-- but then I remember this is eBay. It's a user selling their own item. That, and eBay is massively and technically incompetent when it comes to both UX and hyperbole.

     



  • Not sure which one is the bigger WTF here:



    The vendor has chosen to have massively reduced the effect of his marketing, without making the price difference competitive enough to be worth anyone's time?



    ...or...



    Marshall are so concerned with people undercutting their RRP, they'll try and hinder someone offering a quarter of a percentage saving?



  • This is forced upon retailers by some vendors.  They say they can't advertise a price below $X.XX.  If you want to show a price below that, you have to go through some side process (normally adding it to the cart).  The code is perfectly normal, marketing just didn't realize that they set it $0.90 below this value.



  • @Snowyowl said:

    90 cents and free shipping! What a deal.

    I'd think this is some sort of trick to scam you out of 90 cents, but it seems a little excessive for such a small gain.

    You know what I did? I misread the post as "this guitar amp is selling for 90 cents", rather than "selling for 90 cents less than it was before". My perfectly sincere comment now reads as heavy sarcasm.

    I'm kind of disappointed by the WTF now.

     



  • @Sutherlands said:

    This is forced upon retailers by some vendors.  They say they can't advertise a price below $X.XX.  If you want to show a price below that, you have to go through some side process (normally adding it to the cart).  The code is perfectly normal, marketing just didn't realize that they set it $0.90 below this value.

    This is exactly correct. Technically, it's illegal for the vedor to tell the retailer "you can't sell this for less than $X.XX." However, it's perfectly legal for them to say "Since you did sell it for less than $X.XX, we're not going to do business for you." That doesn't happen much, though. What usually happans is that the vendor uses a MAP system - Minimum Advertised Price - which says "If you do not advertise this item for less than $X.XX, we will give you $Y,YYY in money to advertise our products," with $Y,YYY often being enough to pay for the entire cost of of the ad (especially if you're running direct mail ads, and most of the stuff in them is from vendors who do this). It's a powerful incentive when advertising is expensive. Note that the restriction isn't "we won't pay for this ad if this ad includes a price below $X.XX," but rather "we won't give you any matching dollars if you advertise this item for less than $X.XX anywhere, and that includes on the internet."

    I suspect the seller in this case is a business with a brick & mortar presence somewhere, who is disposing of excess stock on eBay. If not, it's retarded, but if it is, it makes sense in a "what the hell is wrong with the world" sort of way.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    No one's gotten a mug in a while. This thread deserves it.

    Was that ever a thing that existed? Can I really get a Mug™ by posting a shitty excuse for a WTF in the sidebar?



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    No one's gotten a mug in a while. This thread deserves it.

    Was that ever a thing that existed? Can I really get a Mug™ by posting a shitty excuse for a WTF in the sidebar?

    I've wondered if that is still a thing. I'd like a WTMug, but I don't know if the 'send stuff in and get stuff in return' thing is still going on/


  • @MiffTheFox said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    No one's gotten a mug in a while. This thread deserves it.

    Was that ever a thing that existed? Can I really get a Mug™ by posting a shitty excuse for a WTF in the sidebar?

    No. The "Mug" was just a booby prize meme we "handed out" to shitty WTFs. There was no real mug.

    We had to stop the meme because people kept posting horrible threads and we finally figured out some of them thought it really was a contest to get an actual, physical mug.



  • @taustin said:

    If not, it's retarded, but if it is, it makes sense in a "what the hell is wrong with the world" sort of way.

    I don't see what's wrong with a vendor trying to keep retailers from advertising below a set price.



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    No one's gotten a mug in a while. This thread deserves it.

    Was that ever a thing that existed? Can I really get a Mug™ by posting a shitty excuse for a WTF in the sidebar?

     

    You don't have a mug? How quaint. {sips delicious alcohol from TDWTF mug}

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @taustin said:
    If not, it's retarded, but if it is, it makes sense in a "what the hell is wrong with the world" sort of way.

    I don't see what's wrong with a vendor trying to keep retailers from advertising below a set price.

    Why?  What is accomplished by that? Even if they don't advertise a lower price, they can still sell the item at a lower price, so what's the point?

    Typically, the manufacturer sells to a distributor, who sells to retailers, who sell to the customer.  By the time the customer sees the merchandise the distributor and manufacturer have already been paid.  Why would they care what price is advertised?  Regardless of whether the retailer advertises the amplifier for $349 or $3.49, the distirbutor and manufacturer already got their money.  And a retailer advertising a lower price would probably sell more amplifiers.  Which means they buy more from the distributor who then buys more from the manufacturer.  More money for everyone.

    The only possible explanation is some sort of weird idea about "it will hurt our brand image if the price is too low" or some bullshit like that.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    {sips delicious alcohol-flavored penis massage oil from TDWTF "Big Rex's Sausage Slings" mug}

    LKTFY.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    Why?  What is accomplished by that? Even if they don't advertise a lower price, they can still sell the item at a lower price, so what's the point?

    Typically, the manufacturer sells to a distributor, who sells to retailers, who sell to the customer.  By the time the customer sees the merchandise the distributor and manufacturer have already been paid.  Why would they care what price is advertised?  Regardless of whether the retailer advertises the amplifier for $349 or $3.49, the distirbutor and manufacturer already got their money.  And a retailer advertising a lower price would probably sell more amplifiers.  Which means they buy more from the distributor who then buys more from the manufacturer.  More money for everyone.

    The only possible explanation is some sort of weird idea about "it will hurt our brand image if the price is too low" or some bullshit like that.

    I always assumed it was because "Retailer X pays $300 for an amp, while Retailer Y pays $310." If Retailer X advertises the amp for $309, then they're clearly going to get most of Retailer Y's business. That means the manufacturer has to then sell to Retailer Y for $300, or just consider Retailer Y a very small part of sales, and either way they're losing the extra cash they'd get if they could sell it to Y for $310.

    Yes, Retailer X can still sell it for $309 if they want, but they just aren't supposed to advertise the fact. That way lots of people still go to Retailer Y and pay $319 for it ($310 of which goes to manufacturer).

    Edit: So basically it's a way for a manufacturer to push back against large retailers (like Wal-Mart or Amazon) who can demand the lowest prices from the manufacturer. It distributes their sales to smaller retailers, too, where they get a larger price. If all of your sales are to Wal-Mart and Amazon, guess what, before long you're going to be selling them that amp for just a smidge over cost.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @morbiuswilters said:

    So basically it's a way for a manufacturer to push back against large retailers (like Wal-Mart or Amazon) who can demand the lowest prices from the manufacturer. It distributes their sales to smaller retailers, too, where they get a larger price. If all of your sales are to Wal-Mart and Amazon, guess what, before long you're going to be selling them that amp for just a smidge over cost.
    I thought the usual way the big retailers fought back against this sort of thing was to drop carrying that manufacturer's products completely and instead bring in some (possibly rebadged) crappy replacement from an anonymous factory somewhere in China.



  • @dkf said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    So basically it's a way for a manufacturer to push back against large retailers (like Wal-Mart or Amazon) who can demand the lowest prices from the manufacturer. It distributes their sales to smaller retailers, too, where they get a larger price. If all of your sales are to Wal-Mart and Amazon, guess what, before long you're going to be selling them that amp for just a smidge over cost.
    I thought the usual way the big retailers fought back against this sort of thing was to drop carrying that manufacturer's products completely and instead bring in some (possibly rebadged) crappy replacement from an anonymous factory somewhere in China.

    They do, and that works for some things, but not others.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.