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

System

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

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.

Yeah I don't have you on block. I know I said that a while back. I think because you had bested me in an argument

Jeff_Bridges_hair

goater78 wrote: »

Yeah I don't have you on block. I know I said that a while back. I think because you had bested me in an argument

LOL.


And another thing - when compaing to high street stores and their over headds being factored in yet prices still the same, is Azari claiming that high street overheads are the same as a £3.50 delivery option?

now that there, is down right comedy gold.

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

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

This is like wading through treacle!

It may well be that if you lower the price you make more sales and thus get a better quantity discount which may offset some, all, or even more than the cost reduction.

However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the delivery charge.

The point (which both you and Jeff Bridges Hair seem to be wilfully incapable of understanding) is that the delivery company has to be paid and, the only continuing source of money to pay them is the customer - whether directly, by a stated delivery charge, or indirectly as part of the cost of the goods.

No matter how much you and JBH witter on about irrelevances, if a company offers free delivery it is getting the money from its customers as part of what they are paying for goods. No matter how you view it, if they stop offering free delivery and start making an explicit charge, that will enable them to reduce the cost of goods because it no longer has to include a sum to cover the cost of free delivery.

It's so simple.

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

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.

It is true. As you say, there's no need for it and it's unlikely to achieve anything positive which is why your second sentence is wrong.

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

I didn't say I approve.

I was just pointing out that an intelligent person will ignore ad hominems and will not let it detract from (or enhance) the argument to which it is attached.

If someone posts: 2+2 = 4, you utter buffoon, that does not invalidate their salient point; two plus two is still four.

Azari

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

And another thing - when compaing to high street stores and their over headds being factored in yet prices still the same, is Azari claiming that high street overheads are the same as a £3.50 delivery option?

now that there, is down right comedy gold.

Except, or course, that I did not say that.

Your woeful English language comprehension is letting you down.

What I said was: "The high street retailer will have other overheads that will offset the saving they make by not having to offer 'free' delivery"

The fact that their overheads will offset the cost of delivery does not imply to anyone of even the meanest intelligence that they are the same.

That is a classic straw man.

System

Azari wrote: »

This is like wading through treacle!

It may well be that if you lower the price you make more sales and thus get a better quantity discount which may offset some, all, or even more than the cost reduction.

However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the delivery charge.

The point (which both you and Jeff Bridges Hair seem to be wilfully incapable of understanding) is that the delivery company has to be paid and, the only continuing source of money to pay them is the customer - whether directly, by a stated delivery charge, or indirectly as part of the cost of the goods.

No matter how much you and JBH witter on about irrelevances, if a company offers free delivery it is getting the money from its customers as part of what they are paying for goods. No matter how you view it, if they stop offering free delivery and start making an explicit charge, that will enable them to reduce the cost of goods because it no longer has to include a sum to cover the cost of free delivery.

It's so simple.

You are changing your argument now to try and recover from your mistake.

You posted

"It's either a separate charge or the prices are all set higher to include a an amount to pay for p&p"

Now you are saying this

"It may well be that if you lower the price you make more sales and thus get a better quantity discount which may offset some, all, or even more than the cost reduction"

Which contradicts the first point you made.

So just to clarify are you still saying that if they offer free delivery are the prices of the items higher or not?

Your view on business is charmingly simple. I accept to a layman what you say appears to be sensible but the realities of business are not as straightforward.

On a side note it costs about 37p per parcel for a business to send a parcel to the weight of 17kg. Companies that charge £3.99 for delivery do it just to make as much profit as possible.

RichardD1970

Azari wrote: »

I don't want to get into some long and stupid argument about this.

But then go on to argue for the next 45 posts. It takes two (or more) to argue, if you don't want to just stop. :rotfl:

System

RichardD1970 wrote: »

But then go on to argue for the next 45 posts. It takes two (or more) to argue, if you don't want to just stop. :rotfl:

He lives to argue

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

You are changing your argument now to try and recover from your mistake.

You posted

"It's either a separate charge or the prices are all set higher to include a an amount to pay for p&p"

Now you are saying this

"It may well be that if you lower the price you make more sales and thus get a better quantity discount which may offset some, all, or even more than the cost reduction"

Which contradicts the first point you made.

No it does not.

The second statement is universal and is not specifically related to a delivery charge - although it applies to shipping costs just the same as it applies to anything else.

So just to clarify are you still saying that if they offer free delivery are the prices of the items higher or not?

If they offer 'free' delivery, they must get the money to pay the delivery company from somewhere. There is nowhere it can come from except the people paying the business money - i.e. the customers. Thus, if they stopped offering 'free' delivery, they would require less from the headline price the customers pay (because they are paying for delivery explicitly). Therefore, all other things being equal, they would be able to charge the customers a lower headline price and still balance the books..

Your view on business is charmingly simple. I accept to a layman what you say appears to be sensible but the realities of business are not as straightforward.

It is a very simple piece of business logic. The fact that you cannot understand it as such reflects only on you.

On a side note it costs about 37p per parcel for a business to send a parcel to the weight of 17kg. Companies that charge £3.99 for delivery do it just to make as much profit as possible.

I call complete and utter BS on that.

Let's see a link to back that up.

hgotsparkle

H&M have always been very slow with delivery because it comes from their warehouse in Europe (can't remember which country).So if you pay 50p for a second class stamp, you're expecting it to get there on a first class basis?