5 ms·

In relation to this, I really hate the South Korean convenience stores’ aggressive 2-for-1 on many of the most basic things, because you know you’re essentially

In relation to this, I really hate the South Korean convenience stores’ aggressive 2-for-1 on many of the most basic things, because you know you’re essentially being forced into buying the second item you didn’t need.

rightbyte 1y ago
I would extend that to packs of sausages and whatever. The price of a sausage varies wildly with how well package size and amount of dinner guests matches ...
jmlim00 1y ago
I’ve heard that if you use the convenience store’s app, you can just take one and“save” the extra item for free pickup at a later time. Never verified it myself though.
- grues-dinner 1y ago
  So an interest-free loan to the store, plus a penalty if you don't make a return visit. Then again, is food is inflating faster than the interest rates, then you could still come out ahead!
  - gruez 1y ago
    >So an interest-free loan to the store Unless you're not coming back for months, the "interest" you lost is under one cent and not worth worrying about
    - grues-dinner 1y ago
      Multiplied by all customers, it could be quite a bit. It's may be better than having to take both items home and wasting one, but I bet the accountants are quite happy about their little free money fund. It's also quite a "safe" loan to have because not only is it free to hold, you're probably never going to need to repay it all at once.
      - gruez 1y ago
        >It's may be better than having to take both items home and wasting one, ??? How is taking both items home, possibly wasting one, better than taking one home, and taking the other in a few weeks and having no wastage? You're just hurting yourself (by possibly wasting an item) just to deny business some fraction of a cent worth of interest, which in ironic given that convenience stores are high margin businesses and you're choosing to buy from them in the first place. Whatever margin they made on the sale far exceeds any "interest-free loan" you gave them.
        grues-dinner 1y ago
        No I mean it's better that they give you the option to come back later than not allowing it and you wasting one in (failed) pursuit of the "good deal", but overall they've engineered a few million in a distributed free loan by doing that. It's a smart move and works out well for everyone (but not as good for the customer as just selling the one at the average price, of course). There's a reason so many companies like to make it easy for you to top up some kind of prepayment account or otherwise hold benefits for you. Not only is it a free float, but it keeps bringing customers back.
andy99 1y ago
We have this in Canada as well. I generally either don’t buy it at all or if I really need to do so begrudgingly and go somewhere else next time.
anticorporate 1y ago
Some places regulate this better. "Buy one get one" is what is sounds like, "2 for $x" means you can, by law, get one for half that price. Unfortunately, even in places that such laws exist, retailers don't know this and it's poorly enforced.
- gruez 1y ago
  >"2 for $x" means you can, by law, get one for half that price Isn't that pretty easy to get around with better wording? eg. "2 for $x, min 2"
  - arealaccount 1y ago
    It doesn't seem to happen where I live. They don't advertise that you can just buy one, but if you buy one instead of two it's always 50% off.
  - reaperducer 1y ago
    Isn't that pretty easy to get around with better wording? eg. "2 for $x, min 2" Not if the same law doesn't permit minimums in order to get a discount. People on HN like to pretend that the people who write laws are completely clueless, but they've been doing it longer than we've been alive and know exactly what they're doing. It helps to read the infinitesimally small print on the sale tag on the shelf. As I've moved from state to state and city to city you can tell where this sort of thing is regulated or not. I shamelessly pull the tags off the shelves to read them. If the stores don't want me damaging the tags, they can simply make them in a size that's readable.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >Not if the same law doesn't permit minimums in order to get a discount. People on HN like to pretend that the people who write laws are completely clueless, but they've been doing it longer than we've been alive and know exactly what they're doing. Are there any jurisdictions that actually have such laws? This is basically bulk pricing and it's essentially impossible to outlaw without getting rid of it entirely, which come with other issues. Legislating "2 for $x = $x/2 for each item" is the most you can realistically implement. Moreover any such laws are trivial to bypass by gluing multiple packs together (like they do at costco) and selling that as a separate sku.
xtiansimon 1y ago
South Korea, US, all the same in this regard. When I lived in a tiny apartment, and had a tight budget, I felt completely unseen at the supermarket—I have no place for the surplus, and to get the discount I have significantly increase my spend. Thank goodness for “dollar stores”, who shift the other way to decrease the items value to keep it at the same price point (ie. 1/2-sheet paper towels in single packs).

rightbyte 1y ago

I would extend that to packs of sausages and whatever. The price of a sausage varies wildly with how well package size and amount of dinner guests matches ...

jmlim00 1y ago

I’ve heard that if you use the convenience store’s app, you can just take one and“save” the extra item for free pickup at a later time. Never verified it myself though.

grues-dinner 1y ago
So an interest-free loan to the store, plus a penalty if you don't make a return visit. Then again, is food is inflating faster than the interest rates, then you could still come out ahead!
- gruez 1y ago
  >So an interest-free loan to the store Unless you're not coming back for months, the "interest" you lost is under one cent and not worth worrying about
  - grues-dinner 1y ago
    Multiplied by all customers, it could be quite a bit. It's may be better than having to take both items home and wasting one, but I bet the accountants are quite happy about their little free money fund. It's also quite a "safe" loan to have because not only is it free to hold, you're probably never going to need to repay it all at once.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >It's may be better than having to take both items home and wasting one, ??? How is taking both items home, possibly wasting one, better than taking one home, and taking the other in a few weeks and having no wastage? You're just hurting yourself (by possibly wasting an item) just to deny business some fraction of a cent worth of interest, which in ironic given that convenience stores are high margin businesses and you're choosing to buy from them in the first place. Whatever margin they made on the sale far exceeds any "interest-free loan" you gave them.
      - grues-dinner 1y ago
        No I mean it's better that they give you the option to come back later than not allowing it and you wasting one in (failed) pursuit of the "good deal", but overall they've engineered a few million in a distributed free loan by doing that. It's a smart move and works out well for everyone (but not as good for the customer as just selling the one at the average price, of course). There's a reason so many companies like to make it easy for you to top up some kind of prepayment account or otherwise hold benefits for you. Not only is it a free float, but it keeps bringing customers back.

andy99 1y ago

We have this in Canada as well. I generally either don’t buy it at all or if I really need to do so begrudgingly and go somewhere else next time.

anticorporate 1y ago

Some places regulate this better. "Buy one get one" is what is sounds like, "2 for $x" means you can, by law, get one for half that price. Unfortunately, even in places that such laws exist, retailers don't know this and it's poorly enforced.

gruez 1y ago
>"2 for $x" means you can, by law, get one for half that price Isn't that pretty easy to get around with better wording? eg. "2 for $x, min 2"
- arealaccount 1y ago
  It doesn't seem to happen where I live. They don't advertise that you can just buy one, but if you buy one instead of two it's always 50% off.
- reaperducer 1y ago
  Isn't that pretty easy to get around with better wording? eg. "2 for $x, min 2" Not if the same law doesn't permit minimums in order to get a discount. People on HN like to pretend that the people who write laws are completely clueless, but they've been doing it longer than we've been alive and know exactly what they're doing. It helps to read the infinitesimally small print on the sale tag on the shelf. As I've moved from state to state and city to city you can tell where this sort of thing is regulated or not. I shamelessly pull the tags off the shelves to read them. If the stores don't want me damaging the tags, they can simply make them in a size that's readable.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Not if the same law doesn't permit minimums in order to get a discount. People on HN like to pretend that the people who write laws are completely clueless, but they've been doing it longer than we've been alive and know exactly what they're doing. Are there any jurisdictions that actually have such laws? This is basically bulk pricing and it's essentially impossible to outlaw without getting rid of it entirely, which come with other issues. Legislating "2 for $x = $x/2 for each item" is the most you can realistically implement. Moreover any such laws are trivial to bypass by gluing multiple packs together (like they do at costco) and selling that as a separate sku.

xtiansimon 1y ago

South Korea, US, all the same in this regard. When I lived in a tiny apartment, and had a tight budget, I felt completely unseen at the supermarket—I have no place for the surplus, and to get the discount I have significantly increase my spend. Thank goodness for “dollar stores”, who shift the other way to decrease the items value to keep it at the same price point (ie. 1/2-sheet paper towels in single packs).