Want Consumerist in your inbox? We will not sell or rent your email
James spotted this at a Shaw’s in Brighton, MA.
Logically speaking, it’s absolutely correct. — BEN POPKEN
Well, they get points for being technically correct.
(Pssst….don’t look now, there’s a can of Old El Paso enchilada sauce trying to blend in with the Ravioli)
Oh yes, Shaw’s and their “hostage card” deals. A “2 for $5.00″ deal quickly turns into a really bad deal if you don’t have the card. In fact, I think they jack the price up over what it usually is for non-cardholders.
I’m a cheapskate and do most of my shopping at Market Basket.
Aren’t you saving almost 95 cents if you buy zero?
Love, the semantics jerk
Couldn’t you actually save infinite cents if you buy zero?
Technically, you’re saving nothing, since it costs nothing.
Buying infinity of nothing still means nothing. It’s just a lot of nothing.
Shouter’s right (though it’s $.89, the retail price). Then again, it’s difficult to calculate the money saved in the long term by not eating Chef Boyardee Spaghetti with Meatballs altogether.
Anticipating a slow day here, eh, team? Thanks for the probably photoshopped non-news.
I see this kind of thing fairly often. Almost as bad are the ones that brag you will save $.01 with your card if you buy 2. Umm, thanks.
Probably not photoshopped. I used to be a pricing person for a local grocery chain. Data entry at the main office often made mistakes like this. And to answer the “jacked up” price statement. Some items were gradually increased in price and then put on sale to their “regular” price.
Return to top of page
Proudly powered by WordPress · Theme: Modern News by StudioPress.