Talk:Buy one, get one free
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Mind Control
And finally from me, something a little crazy- which is why its on talk and not the main page. I have read that people almost hynotically pick up items on buy oen get one free, possibly subconsciously reacting to the fact that "Buy one get one free" is actually a command, just like "Do not steal." Possible links to subliminal messages played over the instore PA systems, there is certainly evidence that they use "do not steal" messages.Wizlop (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy
I'm currently looking for some information/sources about the controversy regarding Buy on get one free. It is often brought up in newspapers such as the Independent. The root of the controversy is that it is nothing more than trickery. The customer trusts the retailer will sell items at a fair and standard price. By inflating the price of one and then giving something "free" (which of course isn't free at all) the shop is abusing the customers trust. It has also been argued that the popularity of Buy one get one free discriminates aganst smaller shops, who may lack the storage space to support such "deals." I'll update the article with current legislation. Finally the large UK supermarkets came under a lot of criticism in my local newspapers for selling fireworks buy one get one free, effectivly doubling the number of fireworks people were buying, leading to more noise and misuse.Wizlop (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History/Evolution
I've made a brief reference to the history and evolution of Buy one get one free. Originally it was typically used just as a method to clear overstocked items, items that were approaching the end of their shelf life, items that hadn't sold well etc. Nowadays it is used in a considered and deliberate way, and is a major part of the marketing of many large supermarkets. If anyone could build on this history, that would eb evry useful. I also think this kind of thing is most relevant to the article. Most interesting too is the fact that originally it was a technique to CLEAR items, whereas now it is often used to promote new, or temporary/seasonal items. Basically , it would be interesting if this article could consider the evolution of buy one get one free from a sponateous sales technic, to a calaculated and planned marketing strategy. If nothing else, there is no doubt it has been a massive success.Wizlop (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Please build this
It would be helpful if people could build this article, making reference to good and reliabkle sources. I've removed the Iceland reference because I see no evidence for it, and like wise the BOGOFF just seems to be a joke- Bog Off being a slang term for "go away."Wizlop (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Editting main Body
I'll edit the main body - currently the discussion does not actually relate to what is being said in the source that they cite.Wizlop (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Wizlop (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Clean Up
This is a rather confusing article. Buy one Get one free is a markinging strategy. As such I feel an encyclopedia entry should explain WHAT it is, and provide some history about its usage. I don't think it really needs personal speculation as to the logic behind buy on get one free- which may well be different, depending on different items, retailers, national trends etc. I think that any specualtion about the economic/marketing strategy behind this really does need backing up with proper references to academic and professional studies. Unless this article can cite good sources, I think all that is required is a basic description of Buy on get one free.Wizlop (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Things to add, perhaps?
If someone is so minded, may I suggest adding a paragraph that explains what the seller gets out of the deal? Presumably BOGOF works only if the profit margin is high enough to cover the cost of making and selling both items... and wouldn't work on a low profit margin? So it's an indication of a high profit margin to start with?? I'm just speculating. Or is the idea to get people into a buying pattern -- to buy an item at least once that they will then buy many times in future. So the profit comes from the repeat purchase and the BOGOF is a loss-leader? Perhaps both strategies are used. Maybe someone who understands can explain this further. It's one of the things missing from the article as it stands now. Thanks! Marcusswann 12:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The article seems to me to be completely explicit in some length on this point. I had the same question in my mind, and found my question completely answered. The point is to get the consumer to buy two items when they might have bought none. The sleight of hand - if one can call it that - is that it appears that the seller is accepting a lower margin than they might without the BOGOF. But this assumes that the customer was going to buy the product in any case. Yes, the seller gets less for the units that would have been bought anyway, but this is more than compensated for byu increased volume. The other benefits may well play a part - as in any promotion.
Thanks for the clarification, but I really don't think it's that simple. Yes, obviously some customers buy two items instead of none... but that only makes financial sense in some cases. Which cases? How would I, as a shopkeeper, know which items to offer on BOGOF? There must be products for which BOGOF promotions make sense and ones for which they don't. Otherwise, everything would be sold on a BOGOF basis, always, right? So why aren't things like cars sold on BOGOF? I think there's more to it than you suggest and I'd be grateful if anyone who knows the secrets would reveal them! Marcusswann 21:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This is my basic understanding on the econmoics of BOGOF, im not even sure that this is right. BOGOF would only apply to necessary goods i.e. food products. These products do not make huge amounts of profits but they are usually price elastic, so when sold as BOGOF they make less profit but sales are increased to cover and excell that lost profit. BOGOF could not apply to cars because they are a luxury good and have a low price elasticity. They are expensive to manufactor etc so BOGOF would lose revenue. It also might be an idea to add something about the surplus the customers enjoy when buying these products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.32.203 (talk) 05:10 December 29, 2007 UTC
[edit] Original research
- Although the article is interesting in it's analysis of BOGOF, I really do have to question whether or not the whole thing is just OR. I really do have to question the claim that "the main aim of BOGOF is to persuade buyers to purchase two items", because more often than not the item that has the BOGOF sale is something that consumers would purchase with regularity anyway, like baked beans or a DVD. In which case BOGOF would truly be giving them something for free, because they were going to buy it anyway just like they have been buying that item regularly in the past. I think that perhaps BOGOF could perhaps have less malicious intentions than selling two items when the customer would be unlikely to buy one. To the retailer BOGOF could be a great way to get rid of surplus stock, increase interest in a product that may have been losing popularity, attract people to their stores and instill a sense of store loyality because the customer may feel that the store is giving them something for free, so they will be more likely to be happy with the experience, tell their friends about it and of course shop their again.
- In any case I am forced to place an original research warning on this page until someone can find some citations or until someone deletes the original research. JayKeaton (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with that, and would like to include that information in the article. Is the information you provided from a source? If so, could you please leave that on my talk page? - Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 01:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
