Elite 11+ shopping and chat thread

mhoc

bubbs wrote: »

Can you not do on lappy or are you out?

no I am in. Going to see if I can get it online via the main computer but I think I had vast problems last time I tried, seemed to be only app friendly ...

tweets

bubbs wrote: »

Hello
Whats that?
Edit
Perhaps i hadnt ought to ask:o:rotfl::rotfl:

:spam:

Bananas with sausages

bubbs

mhoc wrote: »

no I am in. Going to see if I can get it online via the main computer but I think I had vast problems last time I tried, seemed to be only app friendly ...

I always do mne on lappy as have trouble with app:o

bubbs

tweets wrote: »

:spam:

Bananas with sausages

Ahh ok ta
Hope you are ok tweets?
I am going to do jobs now

mhoc

bubbs wrote: »

I always do mne on lappy as have trouble with app:o

with me its the other way round, I can figure out the app (usually) but on the main computer the little time clock just goes around and around and around and never opens

It has though let me take the unwanted ones off so I can start again and I've figure out which is my card

Savvybuyer

Anon wrote: »

I notice even advent chocolates have been downsized :eek:.

Is nothing safe?

Anon

Correct, nothing is safe. Chocolate products, in particular, have been downsized over the years (or, even, on some occasions, over the year:eek:) - as it looks better for them to do that - and is less likely to be noticed or taken as badly by customers I suspect - rather than increasing the price. However, reducing the weight amounts to increasing the price. As far as I am concerned, a weight reduction is a price increase (unless the amount charged does down by at least as much proportionate to the weight loss).

I note that one manufacturer I recently saw quoted (and this time folks I can't remember where:rotfl:) said that they cut the weight rather than increase the price - in fact I can remember, it is Toblerone. However, I deem a weight reduction to be a price increase, I reject the manufacturer's approach completely (fwiw:rotfl:), and I note that the Office for National Statistics, when it compiles the inflation figures, also takes this approach and does take into account the weights of products and, if weights generally go down, but the 'prices' charged stay the same, the inflation rate will increase!

The manufacturer is increasing the price - the price per unit will increase. It will cost more to buy the same amount, even if the "price" is unchanged - but that "unchanged" price obtains a lower amount of product, so the product is more costly - or at least you are getting less but paying the same amount, for that less product, and therefore paying more for the product than before. Or, at least, the product is "inferior" (to what it was before), being lower weight than it was, and therefore the price should be lower, to compensate for that loss, and not the same. Of course that's the whole point - they don't reduce the price, this is done as their costs have risen and achieves the same thing as increasing the price which, in effect, it is, as they are not supplying as much as before but charging the same cost (or actually charging more for it by the amount got). There is no compensation for the loss of weight - indeed no-one would expect such (that's the whole point!) as they need, in effect, to increase the price (and the lack of compensation amounts to doing that, I would argue).

Anon

Savvybuyer wrote: »

Correct, nothing is safe. Chocolate products, in particular, have been downsized over the years (or, even, on some occasions, over the year:eek:) - as it looks better for them to do that - and is less likely to be noticed or taken as badly by customers I suspect - rather than increasing the price. However, reducing the weight amounts to increasing the price. As far as I am concerned, a weight reduction is a price increase (unless the amount charged does down by at least as much proportionate to the weight loss).

I agree - I wonder whether size reduction for the same price is factored into inflation figures?

Anon

tweets

bubbs wrote: »

Ahh ok ta
Hope you are ok tweets?
I am going to do jobs now

Yes I am ok been preparing my homemade vegetable soup for tonight's and tomorrow's tea and had a bath . Am now sat in my comfy PJ's and dressing gown

C'mon Matt tonight X Factor :j

Anon

Did we know about the PayPal return shipping on us promo until the end of this month? Need to activate before purchase but pay with Paypal can claim up to £15 for each of 4 returns:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/cheap-online-shopping-shopbots#paypal

Worth considering if you are not 100% about buying something.

HTH

Anon

Savvybuyer

mhoc wrote: »

Ive just been looking at mysupermarket and found
Birds Eye Inspirations lightly dusted lemon black pepper
£4 or 3 for £6

but only £2 in Morribobs

so in theory you could use 2 of the mag MOCs all a bit speculative, would only work if the BG machine ignores multibuys

looking at last weeks recs you could add u&g, hipps and soup as fillers
then there is Pringles on offer in Morribobs but pringles are not always picked up by the BM machine ...

Well, again they should be as they are currently cheaper in M so, if they are not, people here will be paying more when T claim you'll "never pay more" so it's just not on! Not happy - and no excuse for their own system to fail if it does - I demand and require that they price match M as claimed:p.

They should always pick everything (branded grocery) up in order to ensure that people never pay more. Or they should cease making that claim.

They should pick every branded grocery item up at and the correct competitor price on every occasion without exception and I expect and require that they do so! Otherwise, the claim "never" cannot be true.

They are a major supermarket, the biggest in the country, with huge resources behind them. There is therefore no excuse, especially on something so routine and commonly bought as Pringles. It's just unacceptable if they are not able to do so.