30% off vs 70% off Deal - Which will you pick?

• 

  ESEMCE on 02/11/2012 - 13:39

  +3

  I think we need a better example cause I have no idea what you're asking…

  I'll happily pay more for a better quality item if I believe the quality difference is worth the price premium.
  For example, I only buy Australian Made Drill bits… They cost a bucket-load more than the Chinese ones, but they Chinese ones are dead after a few uses wheras the Australian ones are still sharp.

  • 

    mrhorseham on 02/11/2012 - 13:46

    I was reading in my law textbook the other day, that to claim for "Australian made" only 50% of the manufacturing costs have to be incurred in Australia.

    • 

      AngryMan on 02/11/2012 - 14:21

      Which could mean than only 10% of the product was actually done here.

    • 

      ESEMCE on 05/11/2012 - 11:36

      Correct, and Product of Australia is greater than 50% of the Manufacturing cost and Ingredient Cost.

  • 

    waltermann on 02/11/2012 - 22:36

    I guess I mean for something like a restaurant/food?

    • Dinner for 2 @ $20 original price.
    • All-you-can-eat buffet for 2 @ $40 original price.

    Are the attitudes different for product vs service, in the above examples?

• 

  scotty on 02/11/2012 - 13:44

  they both are running the same deal at the same time, but at different prices

  Assuming exactly the same deal — same item, same product, etc. Then I think it would make sense to go for the cheaper one unless it's obviously scammy?

  But I'm also echoing what @scubacoles has said. "Same" needs to be defined here. Two drill bits of different brands/origins are not the same, and two "32GB USB Drive" of different brands and speed are not the same either.

  • 

    waltermann on 02/11/2012 - 22:39

    -2

    I'm mainly referring to service rather than product. Sorry about the confusion, I think I shouldnt have said it was run at the same time.

    What I am curious is, what are the consumer attitudes to something similar but priced + advertised differently (and you havent been to the restaurant before)?

    Would most consumers go for the 70% off and risk a possible chance of getting a scammy product/service?
    Or are they willing to go the extra mile and buy the insurance with a 30% off product/service?

    • 

      voteoften on 04/11/2012 - 16:17

      +3

      "Or are they willing to go the extra mile and buy the insurance with a 30% off product/service?"

      What insurance, EXACTLY, does someone get by buying a more expensive deal?
      You really do not seem to know what you are talking about and are making ridiculous assumptions.

      • 

        waltermann on 07/11/2012 - 14:01

        I could simply state that this "insurance" is excellent service + value for the more expensive deal. Whereas for the cheaper deal, you wont get this "insurance" at all.
        If I had asked it like that, it's pretty dam obvious which one every consumer would pick, knowing they will get terrible service for the cheaper one.

        We can go on about the likelihood of a vendor vouching for this "insurance" and the realism if such a thing exists at all but that is not what I want to focus discussion on. What I want to know is what consumers would THINK if they see these 2 similar deals priced differently (if they do not know what they are expecting beforehand). This is a more realistic scenario since most ppl buying deals wont have a clue about how good/bad the business is until they have redeemed it at the store. So coming back to the main question, would the consumer still go for the 30% deal, knowing there is a similar deal running at 70%?

      • 

        voteoften on 08/11/2012 - 02:30

        +2

        That is absolutely insane. The price paid will likely have no bearing on the "excellent service + value".

      • 

        leiiv on 08/11/2012 - 03:33

        Very true. It is like asking whether you want to buy $3 or $7 lotto.

• 

  retiredfeline on 02/11/2012 - 22:40

  +1

  If they are really the same, then everybody will pick the cheaper one. If they are not the same, then it depends, there is no general answer. Everything must be factored in, not just the quality of the service but also the reputation of the supplier(s).

  • 

    waltermann on 02/11/2012 - 22:49

    What would you do if had never been to the place before? Which I think that is the situation for most deals, trying something new. Say Scoopon advertises a Thai food deal in Sydney @ 30% off and groupon also has a Thai food deal in Sydney @ 70% off (they are $20 original price). Which one would you hit up?

    • 

      retiredfeline on 02/11/2012 - 22:56

      +2

      I would check the reviews if any and look at their menu. I would also consider convenience, like how close it is to me, opening hours and so forth. Also look at the T&Cs. And of course I would compare their offerings with what is available at regular price.

      And I may buy both if they are sufficiently attractive, it's not either/or.

      Other people have different factors and different weightings. You can think up of lots of others. If you need to find out which are the most important ones, you probably need to hire a psychologist and a survey designer.

      • 

        waltermann on 02/11/2012 - 23:04

        So you would still consider the 30% discount one, despite the 70% off one being totally cheaper?

        The reason I ask these questions is, quite often I hear about customers getting shoddy service or it falls below their expectations when they actually go to redeem it. Although it seems like it's the restaurant's fault, but I don't blame them.

        If they are pushed to do a deal that makes a loss, they will need to find methods of "making it happen". In that regard, the vendor will typically give below avg service or buy cheaper stock for ingredients, in order to service the mountain of unreasonably priced meals. Thus, why many customers having terrible experience from certain restaurants.

      • 

        retiredfeline on 02/11/2012 - 23:09

        +2

        I would also factor in whether the 70% is realistic or due to inflated "value" estimates. You see OzB'ers doing this all the time, evaluating whether the claimed $X value is BS or not.

        But sometimes it's a genuinely good deal because the establishment understands that it's a loss leader marketing exercise.

      • 

        waltermann on 02/11/2012 - 23:14

        Is there a groupbuy website that doesnt actually blow up prices? Also, blowing up the number of people that actually bought?

        I find most vendors are communicated that itz a short-term cash-injection exercise rather than the loss leader marketing. But it's totally understandable, because the "business development managers" that go and get the deals only care about their quota, and not so much the well-being of the customers buying nor the business servicing the deal.

      • 

        retiredfeline on 02/11/2012 - 23:30

        +1

        To be honest, I don't look at the percentage first but what I will be getting for $X compared to normal prices. I regard it as a chance to check out a new establishment at a lower price if it looks attractive and suits me. If they provide bad service or poor food, then it will be my only visit.

• 

  ESEMCE on 05/11/2012 - 11:42

  If Restaurant A is offering a meal plus glass of wine for $20 (claiming 70% off) vs Restaurant B offering a meal plus glass of wine for $30 (claiming 40% off).
  I'd first check out reviews of Restaurant A.
  If they seemed to show that Restaurant A is a reasonably high class establishment that would indeed charge $50 for a plate of food plus $10 for a "cheap" glass of wine, then I'd be interested.
  However if it turns out to be a pub, or a more standard class restaurant, then I'd:
  a) be skeptical that it was 70% off
  b) would investigate Restaurant B's offer.

  • 

    waltermann on 07/11/2012 - 14:05

    So from that response, you are saying:

    1/ You will only consider 1 or the other, never both
    2/ You will only look @ B if A was not good enough
    3/ If A was already acceptable, B will not be considered during purchase process

    Is that correct?

    • 

      voteoften on 08/11/2012 - 02:32

      +2

      You are very demanding for someone who signed up less than a week ago. By the totality of your comments, you obviously have a barrow to push.

      It appears to be some justification for paying more, on the baseless hope that you'll get "excellent service + value"

• 

  leiiv on 08/11/2012 - 03:25

  +2

  If scoopon offers a whooper for 70% off, and groupon offers the same whooper for 30% off, and both deals are running at the same time, anyone with the sane mind will of course choose scoopon.
  If you are talking about a totally unknown establishment, it does not give you a guarantee that you will get a better service/product if you pay more. A crap food is always crap no matter how much you pay. The most logical action to minimise risk and loses is to choose the cheapest option.
  If you are talking about different offers on different establishments, then it is not really comparable. Which one you pick, 70% off bananas or 30% off strawberries?

  • 

    voteoften on 08/11/2012 - 05:47

    Depends on if the yellow ones were at an inflated rrp and the red ones were at a normal rrp. :-O

    • 

      waltermann on 08/11/2012 - 14:45

      I want to apologise if anything I posted sounded a bit demanding or unreasonable. I am just hungry for knowledge and I sometimes come off like that.

      From most of the comments I read so far, most people are opting for the 70% and scrapping the 30%, unless the 70% has an infamously terrible reputation. I guess this makes sense, since groupbuy is mostly about impulse buying and if it doesn't attract people instantly, then it probably won't the 2nd time around.

      I just wanted to note that the reality is, the business vendor supplying the 30% will be in a much better position to give better quality food and service as opposed to the one doing the 70% deal (financially speaking). What I mean is, they could hire more staff to service the extra customers and maintain same quality for food ingredients. Whether or not they do that, is a different case. I mean of course, there are exceptions where the 70% off is > 30% off establishment in every single aspect, but the probability of that happening is just lower. Think of it this way, if you were such a decent establishment, is there a need for you to go so low?

      We would expect the businesses to have enough common sense to not rip us off but the truth is, some businesses make money through the difference of "what customers know" and "what customers don't know". There are only a few handful of businesses that give the customers the best of everything, yet still making a fortune. So my conclusion (entirely opinionative and subjective) is that we are buying an "imaginery insurance" if we purchased the more expensive deal (30%) vs the 'safer' and more attractive choice (70%).

      • 

        voteoften on 08/11/2012 - 16:52

        While the business giving a 30% discount may or may not be in a position to provide better service, it does not always follow that way. Some businesses will still treat 30% off customers like crap. It isn't logical.

      • 

        SirFlibbled on 16/11/2012 - 11:35

        If a business does a deal which loses them money then they shouldn't have done the deal in the first place. Rule #1 for being in business is due dilligence. It's not my problem if you stuffed up.

  • 

    huntress_love on 06/12/2012 - 16:22

    totally agree, makes perfect sense.
    Don't really understand what the question is getting at?!?

    If the resturant was losing less money on one deal, will they offer you better service???
    Wouldn't it save them more money to offer just as crap service/product as the ppl who paid less!

• 

  jermony on 03/12/2012 - 19:00

  people always pick something they think worth that cost! and sometime too cheap is hard to be sold out