The Desk And Chair
My boss found an interesting implication to the desk and chair dilema this morning.
If taking away a chair increases the cost by $50, and by re-adding it back into the package the cost is reduced from $350 to $300, does that imply that if I ask for another chair, the price will be reduced to $250, and if I ask for 6 chairs and the desk I will get it for free? What happens if I ask for 7 chairs and a desk - do they owe me $50?
Ridiculous.
If taking away a chair increases the cost by $50, and by re-adding it back into the package the cost is reduced from $350 to $300, does that imply that if I ask for another chair, the price will be reduced to $250, and if I ask for 6 chairs and the desk I will get it for free? What happens if I ask for 7 chairs and a desk - do they owe me $50?
Ridiculous.
posted by Scotty at 12:44 PM
6 Comments:
I'm confused...
Where did the desk and chair dilemma come from?
By
Nato, at 1:59 PM, June 25, 2005
http://toastertim.blogspot.com/2005/06/assasination-of-common-sense.html
See also http://alexandrasdiary.blogspot.com/2005/06/anonymous-welcome-here.html
By
Scotty, at 2:03 PM, June 25, 2005
Chair equals item code 123 cost $100 and desk equal item code 124 cost $350. Together they form a package- a new item code 125 and cost $300. Take the chair away from the desk and they them go back to being individual items.
It makes perfect sense to me. The package is a good deal buy it. Sell the chair on Trade Me and make a few extra $.
By
Anita, at 4:00 PM, June 25, 2005
Chair equals item code 123 cost $100 and desk equal item code 124 cost $350. Together they form a package- a new item code 125 and cost $300. Take the chair away from the desk and sell the desk for $250 sell the chair for $100 as an idividual item. Make $50 extra profit and have a customer who is happy because he doesn't have the hastle of having to sell his chair on trade-me and can see that you have common sense.
That makes sense to me.
By
Jonathan, at 6:03 PM, June 25, 2005
Sorry Scotty, but I think that this is just a deal they are doing. It's kinda silly to read so much into it. If you went into a supermarket and there was a product, say... a brand of toilet tissue, and it had 20% extra free, and you picked that brand but the pack didnt say 20% free, they don't owe you 20%.
Do you kinda get what I'm saying, in a convoluted way.
By
AndyC, at 6:12 PM, June 25, 2005
Anita - your explanation does not take away the farcical nature of the situation. In other words, any way you explain it, it's still absurd. If the system works that way - it's a ludicrous system! The point of business is to make money. Because of the W_ S_ policy, I can make money that they could have made - by selling my chair! Their loss for being a bit slow on the uptake I suppose. All your argument does is shift the blame from the store manager to head office. It does not tackle the absurd nature of the situation. Here is an argument for what i am saying:-
Argument from The Selling of Individual Items.
1. The chair and desk are sold individually as well as in a package.
2. They could sell the desk and chair components of the package separately, making more money than they would if they sold it as a package, but not quite as much selling the items separately.
3. This situation would be analogous to me getting a discount on the desk sold separately.
4. There is no theoretical problem with point 3. ie. It is possible to get discounts off items.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Therefore there should be no theoretical problem with getting a discount from a package deal.
Let P= Package deal, D = desk, C = chair.
P = 300
If we split P into components, we must have numbers that are greater than or equal to 300, for no loss of profit.
ie.
D + C >/= 300
2:46 PM
By
Scotty, at 2:48 PM, June 26, 2005
Post a Comment
<< Home