If a website has the cheek to charge you for shipping, it should be next day delivery

Azari

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

And if the price is the same as a high street retailer that does not have an online presence?

Any business, on line or off can decide the price they charge based on any number of factors. The high street retailer will have other overheads that will offset the saving they make by not having to offer 'free' delivery. That is so simple I can't believe you needed to ask.

Just for amusement value, can you tell us where you think the money to pay for the couriers comes from when there is 'free' delivery?

System

Azari wrote: »

Just who do the people who think that delivery costs are not added to the cost of goods on the site think are paying these costs?

Serious question.

The cost is of course met by the customer as all business costs are met by the customer.

What I disagree with is your statement that the price of the item is higher when a company offers free delivery. It's a too simplistic argument.

Companies gamble on free delivery bringing in more custom and therefore accept a lot of small profits as opposed to a less number of big profits.

Moglex

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

And yet the answer to my question has still not been answered. Funny that.

IUn fact the same goes for my record buying too - prices online are no different to the shops yet some online sites charge for delivery and some dont.


So where is the price being factored into the delivery if the high street store sells at the same price?

Quite honestly you're coming across as a bit of a plank now.

Stop wriggling and squirming and answer the fundamental question: Who pays for the delivery company if it is not the customers? And if it IS the customers and there is no delivery charge, how do you think the business gets the money other than by adding it to the cost of goods?

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Azari wrote: »

Any business, on line or off can decide the price they charge based on any number of factors. The high street retailer will have other overheads that will offset the saving they make by not having to offer 'free' delivery. That is so simple I can't believe you needed to ask.

Just for amusement value, can you tell us where you think the money to pay for the couriers comes from when there is 'free' delivery?

You are correct, they can indeed the price of anything. And the high street retailer will have over heads too, that is very true. And they will have factored it into their prices. But to have them the exact same price as an online entity? Thats a strong coincidence wouldnt you say.


Well, funny you should ask because I know the people who run 2 of the online stores that I mention I use and they themselves say they do it on a reduced margin and to get the business from other online retailers, the more they sell the more money they may and by having free delivery they entice more custom that way.

And one of them only charges for delivery if under £100, price of the goods is still the same though no matter what you spend.

System

Moglex wrote: »

Quite honestly you're coming across as a bit of a plank now.

Stop wriggling and squirming and answer the fundamental question: Who pays for the delivery company if it is not the customers? And if it IS the customers and there is no delivery charge, how do you think the business gets the money other than by adding it to the cost of goods?

You shouldn't revert to insults. It makes you look worse than the person you are insulting and cheapens your argument

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

The cost is of course met by the customer as all business costs are met by the customer.

What I disagree with is your statement that the price of the item is higher when a company offers free delivery. It's a too simplistic argument.

Companies gamble on free delivery bringing in more custom and therefore accept a lot of small profits as opposed to a less number of big profits.

And if they are prepared to accept small profits and offer 'free' delivery then, if they scrapped 'free' delivery they would have a wodge of cash available which they could use to lower the price still further.

If they offer 'free' delivery then delivery is a factor in their variable costs and the variable costs have to be apportioned over all goods sold and thus the price of the goods is higher.

It's utterly basic business accounting.

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

You shouldn't revert to insults. It makes you look worse than the person you are insulting and cheapens your argument

Actually, that's a fallacy.

An intelligent person will look at an argument on merit.

It's the stupid or desperate that use any hint of rudeness as a lifeline to distract from the paucity of their argument.

System

Azari wrote: »

And if they are prepared to accept small profits and offer 'free' delivery then, if they scrapped 'free' delivery they would have a wodge of cash available which they could use to lower the price still further.

If they offer 'free' delivery then delivery is a factor in their variable costs and the variable costs have to be apportioned over all goods sold and thus the price of the goods is higher.

It's utterly basic business accounting.

No I'm afraid you're wrong again. Free delivery generates more sales which means the company requires more stock. The more stock you buy the cheaper the unit price you can negotiate with the supplier.

That keeps the price low.

You are putting far too much importance on the cost of delivery to the items price. I can only assume you don't work in the industry which explains your simplistic view

System

Azari wrote: »

Actually, that's a fallacy.

An intelligent person will look at an argument on merit.

It's the stupid or desperate that use any hint of rudeness as a lifeline to distract from the paucity of their argument.

No that's not true. If it was true all intelligent arguments would be littered with insults. There is no need to call someone a plank just because they disagree with you.

I am surprised a poster like you approves of this. I will now start using similar insults when we engage you prat

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Moglex wrote: »

Quite honestly you're coming across as a bit of a plank now.

Stop wriggling and squirming and answer the fundamental question: Who pays for the delivery company if it is not the customers? And if it IS the customers and there is no delivery charge, how do you think the business gets the money other than by adding it to the cost of goods?

Im not wriggling and squirming at all, in fact the very post below yours explains it more.

And goater himself has even said the same, even though I think he has me on block.

Just because you and Azari think one way does not make the other way wrong, no matter how much you try and preach it.