Avoid The Diabolical Target Lysol Disinfectant Wipe Trap

Target loves to keep you on your toes. Which is the better deal? 110 wipes for $4.79 or 80 wipes for $4.79?

Reader Costner says:

Attached are two images taken the same day in the same Target. The two products are literally inches apart from one another, but one is $4.79 for the 80 count Lysol wipes while the other is $4.79 for the 110 count Lysol wipes. Now I’m not real strong at math, but I’m guessing the 110 count just might be a better deal. The sad part was the 110 count appeared to be full while the space holding the 80 count was partially empty.

…I opted to buy the 110 count version which actually rang up at the correct price of $4.79.

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. MostlyHarmless says:

    GO Target!!! GO FOR THE HATTRICK!!!

  2. FrasierKingfisher says:

    One cannot just assume 110 sheets are more than 80. One must take into consideration the size of the sheet. Surface area does account and I always check sheet sizes when buying TP :)

  3. bohemian says:

    I see this all the time at Target. Dish washer cubes and dishwasher powder soap are ones I have seen like this multiple times. The pricing and quantities change every time I buy soap. I have had to pull out the handy calculator a few times to make sure I wasn’t adding things wrong in my head. The box with more will be the same price as the exact same brand & item with less in it.

  4. HalOfBorg says:

    I like supporting corporations. I don’t pay $4.79 for the 110, I pay $10.99 for the 80!

    Oh wait, no, I’m a cheap bastard.

  5. SatisfriedCrustomer says:

    The “110 sheets” package is covered with fancy “New-and-improved” style wrapping which would make anyone suspicious. I’ll take the tried and true 80′s too.

  6. triscuitbiscuit says:

    They look like two different types of the lysol wipes and thus probably the different prices.

  7. Greasy Thumb Guzik says:

    This is getting really fascinating!
    Almost every week, Consumerist puts out yet another thread of truly bizarre pricing problems at Target, yet it appears that Target upper management does nothing about the problem.
    You would think that somebody with actual authority at Target would get their ass in gear & make sure that pricing errors just don’t happen!
    If that meant an end to constant changes & price changes were allowed only once a week, then do that.
    Small problems like this, and this is a relatively small problem in the course of running a huge retailer, even though to an affected customer it’s a big annoyance, usually means that there are far bigger problems that we as customers don’t see that aren’t being addressed either.
    Look for Target to have earnings or profit concerns in 2010 if those problems aren’t fixed.
    The customers will take it out on them eventually!

    • Jakuub says:

      @Greasy Thumb Guzik: Fix the problems? and give up on all the free publicity consumerist gives them for things that may not even be mistakes?

    • RogerTheAlien says:

      Besides, the fact that Consumerist posts something EVERY WEEK about Target is lame in and of itself. Yes. We get it: Target’s thousands of stores have some inept people. Got it. Let’s all move-the-fuck-on already.

      Plus, it’s not like Target’s intentionally screwing customers (that we know of). Besides, how many people who read Consumerist have gone to Target just to see if there are any pricing screw-ups? And if those that did actually bought something, then Target ends up on top anyway.

      These threads are getting old and worn out. Pick something new, Consumerist!

  8. speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

    It just looks crazy. It’s probably just logistics.

    Here’s an example of how it might work. When they bought the 80-count packages, the price might have worked out to, say, 3.67 per unit. At a later time, when they needed to stock the warehouse, they might have brokered an excellent deal on the 110-count packages, or obtained them from a closer supplier (minimizing their shipping costs), making their final cost per unit similar to the 80-count packages they bought earlier. Applying a similar markup could have resulted in the same shelf price.

  9. bitslammer says:

    Yes but the 80 count wipes are probably “wipier” than the 100 count wipes and therefore worth it.

  10. foodfeed says:

    i just bought target brand wipes. 2x 80ct for the same price as one lysol 110ct.

  11. Blueskylaw says:

    My cupholder can’t hold the 110 count container.

  12. eigenvector says:

    They’re two different products as far as scent is concerned. That and the usual influence of supply and demand are almost certainly the cause.

    I don’t see anything particularly “sneaky”, especially since the products are placed so closely. An observant, price-conscious shopper would compare all the similar products and decide if dealing with the scent would really be worth it.

  13. Colonel Jack O'Neill says:

    Those are 2 different products, you can tell by the label on the bottle, they both have a different shade of green.

    Most likely different scents.

    And what the hell is the point of sending Consumerist images of labels that are wrong, why not just ask someone in the store why are there two different prices.

  14. justagigilo85 says:

    Maybe it was one of those packages that advertise 29% more FREE!! or something like that. OP could have taken the picture of the whole package…

    ..or maybe he just wanted to get the consumerist?

  15. duffbeer703 says:

    Consumerist posts these stories about Target on a slow day about once every 1-2 weeks. What’s the point?

    How about getting hold of some PR flack at Target, figuring out why they do this, POST THAT and maybe repost it every 6-8 weeks.

  16. alshultz says:

    These price difference post are terrible. Yes, make sure when you visit a store the items ring up correctly. But for stores like Target and your local grocery store, the thousands of signs and tags are changed by employees all the time. The computer system automatically updates individual UPS with the correct price set by corporate/whoever does it. If it rings up wrong it means the tag is wrong, and it is HUMAN error. Thousands of tags in a store and some are sure to be missed if a price changes for a product overnight.

  17. Charmander says:

    I work in a retail store, which will remain unnamed, but I noticed a similar thing the other day. We sell Rubbermaid food storage containers. For one kind, you can either buy a single container for $1.99 – or – the VALUE PACK, which gives you 2 containers for $3.99.

    You’d actually save a penny buy buying the two of the single ones. Doesn’t make sense, does it?

  18. baristabrawl says:

    Does the bottom picture have “Micro-Lock Technology?” I think not. Are they, “4-in-1?” I think not.

    Okay, wait. I’m making this point for them.

  19. catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:
  20. Costner says:

    @parad0x360: Well as much free time as I might have, ripping off labels just to take a picture isn’t exactly how I spend my time.

    Trust me – the entire situation was baffling, and maybe had I bought the 80 count it would ring up a different price, but somehow based upon my experience with Target….I doubt it.

    That being said, I just thought it was comical how the 80ct seemed to be selling while the 110ct (on a lower shelf mind you) didn’t. Are people just too lazy to bend down or are they really that oblivious to minor quirks in pricing?

  21. coffeeculture says:

    @pecan 3.14159265: This one looks like a price mistake…but I’ve done the math on a lot of these products (qty 60 vs. 90 for example) and the qty 90 is grossly overpriced vs. the 60. It’ll catch people who assume buying in bulk is cheaper.

    Good thing I know basic math?

  22. justagigilo85 says:

    @Costner: Yup.

  23. VagrantRadio says:

    @Costner: Most people are too busy or occupied with other things to really care about pricing on a shelf or the count of things in a plastic dispenser at a Target store…

  24. Costner says:

    @VagrantRadio: Well I’m not one of those people, and if you have time to post comments on this site… you must not be one of them either.