Paraphrasing from the recent "Supermarkets: The tricks of the trade"
episode of "Tonight":

A supermarket sells two kinds of wine, one for £ 3.79 (Brand A) and
another for £ 4.49 (Brand B), which differ only in quality. On
average, about two-thirds of customers buy Brand A and one-third buy
Brand B. Problem: Increase total turnover on these items without
cutting or raising prices. Solution: Introduce a third and better kind
of wine (Brand C) selling at £ 9.99. It turns out that even though
very few customers will buy Brand C, about half of those who used to
buy Brand A will shift to Brand B, thereby increasing total turnover.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-01-21/s...trade-tonight/

--
Bob
The joint that time is out of
www.kanyak.com

--
Bob
The joint that time is out of
www.kanyak.com

On 1/30/2016 12:29 PM, Opinicus wrote:
> Paraphrasing from the recent "Supermarkets: The tricks of the trade"
> episode of "Tonight":
>
> A supermarket sells two kinds of wine, one for £ 3.79 (Brand A) and
> another for £ 4.49 (Brand B), which differ only in quality. On
> average, about two-thirds of customers buy Brand A and one-third buy
> Brand B. Problem: Increase total turnover on these items without
> cutting or raising prices. Solution: Introduce a third and better kind
> of wine (Brand C) selling at £ 9.99. It turns out that even though
> very few customers will buy Brand C, about half of those who used to
> buy Brand A will shift to Brand B, thereby increasing total turnover.
>
> http://www.itv.com/news/2016-01-21/s...trade-tonight/
>


I don't see it as a trick though. Adding a premium brand attracts more
customers, adding those that care for the lower end stuff. It did move
a few people from the low to the now mid price. The shift did not
increase total turnover, adding a third option did.

On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:36:26 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>> Brand B. Problem: Increase total turnover on these items...
> Is this a weekly posting?
So the earlier postings did get through? Giganews appears to have beem
trashing the ones with "A bottle of your second-cheapest wine, my good
man" in the subject line. At least on my end.

--
Bob
The joint that time is out of
www.kanyak.com

On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 21:45:32 +0200, Opinicus
> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:36:26 -0600, Sqwertz >
>wrote:
>
>>> Brand B. Problem: Increase total turnover on these items...
>> Is this a weekly posting?
>So the earlier postings did get through? Giganews appears to have beem
>trashing the ones with "A bottle of your second-cheapest wine, my good
>man" in the subject line. At least on my end.

I only see one original post from you, using the individual.net
server.

On 30/01/2016 12:58 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 21:45:32 +0200, Opinicus
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:36:26 -0600, Sqwertz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Brand B. Problem: Increase total turnover on these items...
>>> Is this a weekly posting?
>> So the earlier postings did get through? Giganews appears to have beem
>> trashing the ones with "A bottle of your second-cheapest wine, my good
>> man" in the subject line. At least on my end.
>
> I only see one original post from you, using the individual.net
> server.
>
I've had posts disappear into the æther this past week as well.
Graham

On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 14:49:32 -0700, graham > wrote:

>On 30/01/2016 12:58 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 21:45:32 +0200, Opinicus
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:36:26 -0600, Sqwertz >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Brand B. Problem: Increase total turnover on these items...
>>>> Is this a weekly posting?
>>> So the earlier postings did get through? Giganews appears to have beem
>>> trashing the ones with "A bottle of your second-cheapest wine, my good
>>> man" in the subject line. At least on my end.
>>
>> I only see one original post from you, using the individual.net
>> server.
>>
>I've had posts disappear into the æther this past week as well.
>Graham

I had that problem all the time with the previous server I was using,
I'm currently using individual.net and completion seems to be much
better. Pity it's not as fast as the Australian based server I was
using though.

In this case, if the posts were merely multiple copies of the same
post, then it's a good thing they're missing on most servers.

On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:35:07 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>>>> Brand B. Problem: Increase total turnover on these items...
>>> Is this a weekly posting?
>> So the earlier postings did get through? Giganews appears to have beem
>> trashing the ones with "A bottle of your second-cheapest wine, my good
>> man" in the subject line. At least on my end.

>90 responses. Only 59 responses if you don't count all the posts from
OK. Since others have seen it that means it's not my filters
misbehaving.. I tried sending the message with the previous subject
line in this NG and then in giganews.test. Neither showed up. That
means there must be something in "A bottle of your second-cheapest
wine, my good man" (a Homer Simpsons quote if anyone cares) that
Giganews's spam filters don't like.

--
Bob
The joint that time is out of
www.kanyak.com

On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 6:51:46 PM UTC-10, Opinicus wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:35:07 -0600, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
> >>>> Brand B. Problem: Increase total turnover on these items...
> >>> Is this a weekly posting?
> >> So the earlier postings did get through? Giganews appears to have beem
> >> trashing the ones with "A bottle of your second-cheapest wine, my good
> >> man" in the subject line. At least on my end.
>
> >90 responses. Only 59 responses if you don't count all the posts from
> OK. Since others have seen it that means it's not my filters
> misbehaving.. I tried sending the message with the previous subject
> line in this NG and then in giganews.test. Neither showed up. That
> means there must be something in "A bottle of your second-cheapest
> wine, my good man" (a Homer Simpsons quote if anyone cares) that
> Giganews's spam filters don't like.
>
> --
> Bob
> The joint that time is out of
> www.kanyak.com

This would have never happened if you guys just used Google Groups!

dsi1 wrote:
>
> This would have never happened if you guys just used Google Groups!

That's a good guess. :-D

On 2/02/2016 6:27 AM, Gary wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> This would have never happened if you guys just used Google Groups!
>
> That's a good guess. :-D
>
A good guess? maybe.. Bad advice? Definitely..

--

Xeno

On 2/1/2016 10:37 AM, Xeno wrote:
> On 2/02/2016 6:27 AM, Gary wrote:
>> dsi1 wrote:
>>>
>>> This would have never happened if you guys just used Google Groups!
>>
>> That's a good guess. :-D
>>
> A good guess? maybe.. Bad advice? Definitely..
>

I make no claim of good or bad. That is a subjective matter. I will
stand by my statement's truthfulness i.e., it's not a guess.

On 2/1/2016 2:27 PM, Gary wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> This would have never happened if you guys just used Google Groups!
>
> That's a good guess. :-D
>
Terribly bad advice. I have no idea why dsi1 is so in love with Google
Groups. It truly sucks.

Jill