The per 100g price makes it seem like the 1kg (bottom) item is cheaper than the 2kg one.

I wonder how many people are baited into getting the more expensive item (by weight).

  • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Walmart unit price is completely broken in general. They also have glitches in the “did you forget to add?” page where it will show an item as a sale price, but when you add it, you’ll see total price increase by sale price, and a few seconds later, a second price increase to the normal price. Re-checking the cart will show the item as not on sale. There are some other real weird glitches with that e-commerce platform. A rat’s nest of bugs that might not be intentionally nefarious, but also could be.

    • Showroom7561@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Oh man, I’ve had their online cart show me a total amount “saved” that makes absolutely no sense.

      It’s crazy that one of the largest retailers on the planet is so incapable of having a working online ordering system.

  • unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    the per 100g price on the bottom is incorrect. they are 70 cents per 100g… or I’m too high. choosing by weight is literally the frugal method.

    edit: try living out of a vending machine - if you only have a dollar, you should buy the item with most weight and presumably most calories

        • pirat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Oh, which one are you referring to here – of all those different 750 g supposedly exotic fruitberry-flavoured water beverages, all with 0 kcal? One of those with a dose of factory-added vitamins, or just the funkiest sun-kissed fruit imitation available?

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 days ago

      There bottom one is 60 cents per 100 g. Top left it says 2 for 12$. It may be that the weight didn’t register correctly, as it says ‘1’ instead of ‘1kg’ or because some other conflict.

  • lukewarm_ozone@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    4 days ago

    What happened there? These are presumably calculated automatically, so does the second item has its mass listed as 2kg?

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      What happened? We live in corporate dictatorships where oligarchs can false advertise, price gouge, kick your dog, and fuck your wife… and your only recourse is a class action lawsuit where you make a few bucks after a decade.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      I’ve been noticing bad math in the Uber driver app lately.

      There have been a few times it tells me my ETA is 12 minutes but I’m 16 miles away. Like I know it doesn’t think I’m gonna be doing these residential streets at 90 mph

      • highduc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 days ago

        Afaik that’s deliberate to force the driver to get to the destination asap at all costs, but also to lie to the customer that their ride is just a few minutes away so there’s no need to cancel or look for alternatives.

      • lukewarm_ozone@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Even in the detailed info? If so that’s weird; probably something along the lines of “the seller messed up the weight, fixed it, but for some insane reason the site doesn’t recalculate the price”.

        • stevedice@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

          My guess is that there’s some funky spaghetti code that’s using the promo, which is for 2 kg, as the weight of the product on the calculations.

      • IceFoxX@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Second is scam by 2 for 12$ but 35c(lol?) per 100g. = 3,50 per 1kg = 7 for 2kg… So 6.97 for 1 kg by 35ct per 100g. Wtf?

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    “Great value” is like “all natural:” a totally meaningless phrase that signals nothing except that someone’s selling you something.

  • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Over here, peanut butter is an EXTREMELY costly delicacy. To have a store sell it in 2kg portions for less than 10usd looks like a dream to me.

    You people need to better appreciate what you have

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 days ago

    Only if it is a 2 pack of 1kg containers. I know costco does that often so I imagine walmart might too. (And if that 2-for-12 runs you a total of 4 kg.)

    • Showroom7561@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Top one is 2kg (single unit) and the bottom is sold as a 1 kg single unit, or 2 / $12 (2 x 1kg), which is STILL not a better value than the top one! LOL

      • expr@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        It very well could be typical corporate fuckery, but that makes me wonder if it’s actually a bug and that it’s computing the per kg price based on the single until price but dividing by the total weight of the pack.

        Or perhaps it’s a “bug” that’s left intentionally until called out.

        • Showroom7561@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          If it’s a “bug” that they are actively profiting from, likely for years, it’s probably a feature! LOL

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    That’s why I stopped shopping by listed price a long time ago. My punk ass was poor, as in below poverty line several times while still working. Had to learn that lesson quick lol.

    Once I learned that the per weight pricing was a more useful metric, I carried a calculator any time I shopped. Ain’t no reason to pay more for products that are functionally the same.

    Now, I’m not saying that any given brand is worth the savings per weight. Some store brands suck, and do so hard enough that even though they cost less, they’re a waste. The products do need to be in line with needs as a primary factor.

    Peanut butter in specific, there’s a chain here that it is so thick and gritty, you’d think it was a stripper. You take a taste and the only way you’d want it again is if it were twerking on a pole. So, even though name brands cost more, if it comes down to having to eat that crap or do without, I’m doing without.

  • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 days ago

    I have to admit, it took me a while to realize the bottom one was only 1kg. And all the numbers would “confirm” that they are both 2kg

    • dis_honestfamiliar@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      It took me a while also. It all make sense if the price by weight is calculated when 2 are bought. Also, a comment about 4kg need not be.

  • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    How are you going to pass on one called great value? Would be like buying something that doesn’t have the word best in it when another product does. I’m not dumb.

  • Pillagenplunder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 days ago

    The great value peanut butter has a weird taste, in my opinion. it’s worth a few bucks more to get something that tastes better.

    • Showroom7561@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      I was actually looking for 100% peanut butter, but this discrepancy caught my eye, and it really bothered me because I almost always ignore the product price and compare items by unit price. Now I’m second guessing everything they list!

      • Zier@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        They are routinely wrong. And sometimes they list (in the US) things by unit instead of weight. I have reported many wrong listings like this. Always double check any label/listing because people are lazy at so many companies.

        • Showroom7561@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          The worst is mixed units for the same items.

          With must items I buy on a regular basis, I’m able to make quick comparisons off the top of my head, but it would be nice if things were accurate!

    • Showroom7561@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think you missed the point. If they were both the same size jar (2kg or 1kg, it doesn’t matter), then there may be a difference in price between regular and lite.

      But the 1k jar is listed as being less expensive per 100g, and that’s flat out wrong when you do the math.