The ELITE- home of big birds, burgers and beautiful people!

nerfdad

Wheres_My_Cashback wrote: »

But all the Bom pots go to the foodbank....about 50 this week !

No need to poison them just because they are poor:eek::eek::eek:

Savvybuyer

David. wrote: »

I don't think they do. Looking at what people buy I dont think the majority even look at sel they just know they need x y and z and put it in their trolley even if 2x is cheaper than x. They are Muggles they can not see what we see

Savvybuyer wrote: »

Yeah you're right. But, sometimes, when they are looking, they are comparing different sizes using the pricing they see instore.

This was from last night (early hours of this morning:eek:) when I had already become tired and in truth could only give a reply without really considering it. It now leads on quite nicely from this.

Savvybuyer wrote: »

[...] Oh well, with my price perception I could have lived well for less (than what I thought:().[...]

Googling around "price perception", I came across lots of things, including this:

http://blog.kissmetrics.com/5-psychological-studies/

and this: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-price-perception.htm (along the lines of 'price perception is a marketing strategy where more expensive items are portrayed as being normal or similar to less pricey items')

So that's what Mr S means by 'based on price perception data'?:think: In other words, you are living for less than you think (not necessarily actually are living for less) by falling for much more expensive items that you feel (and here's where I lose most of you:D - by reason of their juxtaposition with other, less expensive items) are less costly than in fact they are:wall::wall:.

I have total distrust of Mr S's marketing and puffery tag-line by now!:rotfl:

There's lots of other articles, academic articles (e.g. Journal of Consumer Behaviour - I now can't recall which article I was taken to earlier) - but what about the one where the turquoise version of a product, instead of being put on half price as intended, was mistakenly doubled in price and then it sold out:eek:? Now it was double the price, consumers actually associated more value with the turquoise version and bought into it. Only the muggles who really don't consider anything rationally (i.e. most people:wall:).

So - people are willing to pay twice as much yet have the item on its original price and they ignored it! It was because of the association with the lower-priced items around it, that the turquoise now stood out and people bought it at twice the price.

I've now decided that, for example, the "magic" 10p per wash that we'd/I'd been using is in fact a fallacy into which I had fallen:(. There is nothing "magical" at all about it and I shouldn't have fallen for the attractive advertising-promotional effect of posters on these threads having said it is. In fact, to defeat the marketing and the price perception that may seem to try to rip us off, we have to take the opposite approach and reject all we're told. There's also a strong effect of the number nine at the end of a price. Just like items at 35p straight actually sell less than when the items are priced at 39p. Except that we would pay 44p:eek: if it were promoted with a crossed out 50p ("reference price") that then makes us think 44p is good value. It's all "relative". Well no, it isn't actually!:D 44p and 39p are too expensive and [Strike]it should be 35p[/Strike] so is 35p - it should be far less. That 10p per wash is a rip off. Only if it's 4p or less am I interested. (That way, the 'offer' prices of fairly normal 10ps look expensive and might encourage us to equally effective products that have 7 or 8p per washes and thus save us money!:D:D:rotfl:.)

Also - this is a good, interesting (or not) read: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/659703/Advertising-of-prices/Pricing-Practices.pdf
(Interesting that that's under a heading of "business leaflets". It's not aimed at us, but at businesses and to assist them to manipulate/alter our perceptions of what we think we are getting in a manner favourable to the producer and supplier rather than ourselves/consumer. Says the cynic.)

nerfdad

Claire1972 wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: on a Sunday night as well......

I was not happy:(

Wheres_My_Cashback

nerfdad wrote: »

No need to poison them just because they are poor:eek::eek::eek:

:rotfl::rotfl:

aau1

TrulyMadly wrote: »

Just as well you weren't selling your car at the same time:p

I have never been so fearful of getting my car stolen :eek:

nerfdad

aau1 wrote: »

I have never been so fearful of getting my car stolen :eek:

Were the goods inside the car worth more than the car:D:D:D

Dizzy_Ditzy

You lot still using JF, I'm still on tresemme :cool:

elainemn

We are still using the herbal essence shampoo from MrT's D the D. I still have aussie to go after it from Asda. Was short of conditioner until the Adsa 3 for £5 earlier this year but stocked up for next 12 months from that.
Looking for male deod next as only 6 left.

Savvybuyer

wendyak wrote: »

I think David is right Savvy, that's why when u mention a better deal they just shrug and walk away like you said a rude word to them.

I think this is because it's just too complicated for normal people and they therefore aren't interested.

Also, people don't like being told that they are making bad decisions (especially when in fact they are and don't like to hear that awful truth - instead, they like to think - quite wrongly - that their own judgement is good when in fact it's hopeless and wrong). Oh well - at least they are being ripped off and paying way over the odds and don't seem to care about it - more fool them!:rotfl::rotfl:

In fact: :T:T:T:T I like it that people are ripped off and are complaining about struggling in economic difficulty. It's their own fault, should have listened to us, more fool them that they choose not to. If you (i.e. they) don't want to help themselves (i.e. by listening to us)...:cool:

I should compound this seemingly harsh post now by going :p:p:p.

:rotfl::rotfl: But no, if something's bad, let us experience it's true bad effects so that we can change it. Or, as I am perfectly happy with this (my way of shopping) whilst other people (i.e. the muggles) are happy with how they are shopping (and in my view paying over the odds - in fact it's not just a view but mathematically demonstratable), no change is necessary: if people are happy with what they are paying or, even if not happy, are still prepared to pay it then good on them.

Btw, noticed some Oat So Simple products (sachets), presumably of the type my relative bought in A a week ago for £2, are now £1 and seem to me to be good T or S vs A items (have a look at msm/msl as your start point... and good luck. Although best to point out, in case I or you make a 'wrong' decision, that weren't these vs M at 90-odd p before - i.e. 81p thereabouts rather than the now expensive £1 r'llback? Although, given the 'high' prices (£2+) elsewhere and if you have cond.spends etc. this could well be a very significant great help to reaching the total and then the greater contributor to the PP/BM hopefully back).

aau1

bubbs wrote: »

I dont need any have about 240 odd rolls:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: nefry you should have come to me to get some

You could have given him some loo roll too