Case 3 is one separate text string containing the words ‘Complete or Cancelled’ (hence the quotes).

Cheers yeah, that is standard usually. I was just having a whinge rather than asking for a solution. In this case the customer was trying to preempt having to complete a change request form (similar to what you’ve described) and get the relevant sign off etc, and had emailed over a “minor alteration” to an existing request, for which they should know better at this stage of the project.

I’ve been a SQL dev for years. Last week I spent half an hour reading up on why wrapping a bunch of queries in a transaction was giving me incorrect results compared to when they were separate committed statements. I was investigating locking or what might be happening in the execution plan that was throwing it off.

Turns out I just fucked up the where clause. I didn’t even consider the schoolboy stuff. This kind of shit happens all the time.

Make that 10.

No, but Microsoft made claims regarding the Xbox One’s potential to use the cloud for computation within games after it was clear how much the system specifications would result in an under-performance vs the PS4.

However, those claims were also clearly bollocks, since nobody did that, ever.

Yes I’m aware of this, I’m just saying that arbitrarily speculating on the potential original price for 1 item does nothing to change the current actual situation. If the cost was £10 for 1, I wouldn’t have bothered taking a photo.

Alternatively you could take the viewpoint that Next has already worked out that the price of 1 shirt is a minimum of £8, hence the costings for multiple units. Any price they put over £8 for 1 unit is additional profit, while the expected revenue per unit is £8+n where n is substantially close to zero. Latterly reducing the cost of 1 item does nothing except imply a perceived saving.

Additionally, the 2x and 3x offerings are not, and were never, discounted. The sticker reduces the price of 1 shirt, but if you were in the market for two, there’s no saving based on when you buy them. There might have been a saving originally, we assume, against the cost of buying 1 twice, but that’s irrelevant if you want two shirts at any point. Obviously the pricing would have been to incentivise the purchase of two when you would potentially only have bought one, so that is the driver for the sale, at which point the price per shirt is £8, and remains £8 per shirt for any multiple purchase, both before and after the sticker price amendment.

Yes - we don’t know what the original price was for 1x. You’re assuming it was more than £8. It could have been £5 - we’ll never know.

Either way, it doesn’t change the current value proposition for the customer, which is that a bulk purchase is meaningless.

I’m not sure what you’re suggesting was solved. You’re positing scenarios whereas I’m presenting facts - the photo. Which, for the consumer, is mildly infuriating.

Exactly. In which case the 3x price is redundant.

There is no curve.

Does it though? The moment 2x is £16 , the cost of 1 shirt is £8. Therefore there’s no scaling at 3x. It doesn’t matter how much the starting price was or how much the later prices were, if the 2x price is £16 and the 3x price is £24. The cost of 1 shirt is only ever £8 if you buy more than one, meaning that any pricing variant over 2x is pointless.

Yeah but it was never that. Only the original price was changed with a sticker. The 2x and 3x were always as they were.

Yeah, but only for 1. There would still have been no saving buying 3 over 2.

Gutted. One of my favourite series.

Great photo