Poll
10 votes (35.71%) | |||
15 votes (53.57%) | |||
2 votes (7.14%) | |||
1 vote (3.57%) |
28 members have voted
TARE, sometimes called unladen weight, is the weight of an empty vehicle or container.
I would also considerate to be the weight of non-food in a food product in this case.
When browsing the bulk candy at a grocery store, a Charms Blow Pop caught my eye. I decided to buy one... just one. There was a self-service scale that allowed you to bag, weigh, and tag your own candy. I placed the sucker on the scale, typed in the code, and basically got a message saying, "This doesn't weigh enough to print a tag."
I decided to add a second sucker. Still, "Doesn't weigh enough." A third? Yes. The total weight was "0.02 lb", with the cost of $2.50 per pound. I printed a tag for 5 cents. A nickel for three semi-premium lollipops! Hot damn!
A closer inspection of the scale showed that the actual weight was 0.10 lb, with 0.08 deducted for TARE.
I tested other candies' codes. Not all of them had the same TARE value, as some were not wrapped (i.e. jelly beans) or did not have a paper stick like suckers, but still had wrappers (i.e. Bit O Honey).
How much would 4 Blow Pops cost me? The Gross weight was 0.13 lb, minus TARE of 0.08, for a total of 0.05 lb. That's 13 cents, an increase of 8 cents.
Whoa! Adding one more sucker MORE than doubled the price. So I did what anyone in my situation would do. I bought 99 Blow Pops in 33 separate bags. Total cost: $1.65 for 99 suckers.
That's right; I stood there and bagged, weighed, and tagged 33 bags, took them to checkout, and paid for them. My excuse? "I bag them separately for students in my class."
# of suckers | Gross wt. | Net wt. | Final Price | Price per |
---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 0.10 lb | 0.02 lb | $ 0.05 | $ 0.02 |
4 | 0.13 lb | 0.05 lb | $ 0.13 | $ 0.03 |
5 | 0.17 lb | 0.09 lb | $ 0.23 | $ 0.05 |
6 | 0.20 lb | 0.12 lb | $ 0.30 | $ 0.05 |
7 | 0.23 lb | 0.15 lb | $ 0.38 | $ 0.06 |
8 | 0.27 lb | 0.19 lb | $ 0.48 | $ 0.06 |
9 | 0.30 lb | 0.22 lb | $ 0.55 | $ 0.06 |
10 | 0.33 lb | 0.25 lb | $ 0.63 | $ 0.06 |
20 | 0.67 lb | 0.59 lb | $ 1.48 | $ 0.07 |
30 | 1.00 lb | 0.92 lb | $ 2.30 | $ 0.08 |
50 | 1.67 lb | 1.59 lb | $ 3.98 | $ 0.08 |
100 | 3.33 lb | 3.25 lb | $ 8.13 | $ 0.08 |
As the number of suckers approaches infinity, the cost of each one levels out to $0.83333.. each. But by buying only 3 at a time, the cost is over 75% less.
Granted, I've done this only one time in my life. I do however still buy 3 Charms Blow Pops on occasion.
The self-service scale was removed from all stores in the chain a few months later. All weighings are done at the register, you just have to provide the code number for each candy. The TARE is the same though; you still have to purchase at least 3 Charms Blow Pops for it to register enough weight.
So, is this stealing?
I hope you reused or recycled all those bags!
Now, why would they TARE the stick, wrapper and bag, but not a chicken breast bone? :)
Is it your fault that someone set the tare vaule incorrectly?
Loophole? Call it such if you wish, but don't feel guilty.
Now if purchasing 99 suckers in 33 bags of 3 doesn't raise suspicions or cause someone to scratch their head and investigate, then it's their own damn fault for listening to your lie about packaging them for your students.
I would see a problem if you removed the wrapper and stick prior to weighing to get double the tare value.
Going to the effort to buy 3 at a time when you really want 100 is at best silly, but I would also have a problem with paying a quantity "premium" as opposed to getting a quantity "discount". Stores encourage shoppers to get a better price per unit. Usually this involves buying a bigger size or bigger quantity. In this case they encourage buying less or at least less at a time.
I suspect that their real price is that $.08 per unit, but don't mind loosing a cent here and there on the smaller quantities where accuracy is a problem as it would cost more than it's worth to get better scales or gather more accurate data for every item. You are taking advantage of the situation. While not completely in the spirit of fair play, it is not stealing or being dishonest.
Quote: kp
Going to the effort to buy 3 at a time when you really want 100 is at best silly, but I would also have a problem with paying a quantity "premium" as opposed to getting a quantity "discount". Stores encourage shoppers to get a better price per unit. Usually this involves buying a bigger size or bigger quantity. In this case they encourage buying less or at least less at a time.
I see it as he went through the effort to buy 99 when he really only originally wanted one! If he had made a clerk bag 3 at a time 33 times I'd say he was a schmuck, but in the example he gave he bought 99 times the amount of product he originally intended to buy and bagged it all up himself. All the cashier had to do was ring up 33 @ 5 cents. And now they haven't made it impossible to repeat the procedure, they've just put the burden of weighing and tagging on the staff instead of the customer. He could still buy 33 bags at a time, but it would be a pain in the ass for someone else. That wouldn't be stealing, either, just assy.
Quote: FarFromVegasI think in this case, YOU are the one providing the extra labor to justify the lower cost of the goods. I'm assuming they removed the scale to combat the people who would lift the bag as they were weighing it to cheat the scale, not as a result of your little caper.
At least in my country the scales aren't printing the tag while you lift the bag. I speculate they measure slight changes in weight and don't print the tag until the weight has remained constant for a period of time.
Is it stealing if you take some bulk candy in the bag, print the tag and add a couple of more candy? I used to do it as a child but don't do it anymore :-p
Quote: Jufo81Is it stealing if you take some bulk candy in the bag, print the tag and add a couple of more candy? I used to do it as a child but don't do it anymore :-p
Yes. :-P
Quote: WizardMy vote was to bag them together. I would put this on a level of not confessing a clerical error in your favor for receiving too much change. You don't lose as many karma points as the blatant shoplifter, but this still clearly violates the intended cost of the suckers and use of the scale.
I think he should have bagged and tagged 3 of them, then get to the register and complain he only wanted one and get a refund for the two extras, then. If he only wanted one, why should they make him pay for three? How can you calculated the intended cost as being 8 cents when they allow you to buy 3 for 5 cents? There was no minimum purchase stated.
Actually, I'm just teasing. But it's like counting cards--you don't change the outcome of the game; you're just making the rules the establishment sets work in your favor.
Quote: FarFromVegasI think he should have bagged and tagged 3 of them, then get to the register and complain he only wanted one and get a refund for the two extras, then. If he only wanted one, why should they make him pay for three? How can you calculated the intended cost as being 8 cents when they allow you to buy 3 for 5 cents? There was no minimum purchase stated.
Actually, I'm just teasing. But it's like counting cards--you don't change the outcome of the game; you're just making the rules the establishment sets work in your favor.
I have little problem with buying only 3 of them, if that is all you buy. If the store chooses to not sell them just 1 or 2, that is their prerogative. Much like you can't buy just one egg, you have to buy at least a carton of them. My objection is to the egregious way he took advantage of the mistake.
I don't buy the card counting example. Blackjack is a game, and the object of games is to win within the rules. Here the price of the suckers on a per pound basis was clearly violated. He tricked the store by taking advantage of a defective scale to get out of paying full price for the suckers. In other words, I see this as a rule violation between an implied contract for the price of the candy.
Quote: WizardI have little problem with buying only 3 of them, if that is all you buy. If the store chooses to not sell them just 1 or 2, that is their prerogative. Much like you can't buy just one egg, you have to buy at least a carton of them. My objection is to the egregious way he took advantage of the mistake.
I don't buy the card counting example. Blackjack is a game, and the object of games is to win within the rules. Here the price of the suckers on a per pound basis was clearly violated. He tricked the store by taking advantage of a defective scale to get out of paying full price for the suckers. In other words, I see this as a rule violation between an implied contract for the price of the candy.
So, it's more like hole-carding?
Quote: WizardI have little problem with buying only 3 of them, if that is all you buy. If the store chooses to not sell them just 1 or 2, that is their prerogative. Much like you can't buy just one egg, you have to buy at least a carton of them. My objection is to the egregious way he took advantage of the mistake.
I don't buy the card counting example. Blackjack is a game, and the object of games is to win within the rules. Here the price of the suckers on a per pound basis was clearly violated. He tricked the store by taking advantage of a defective scale to get out of paying full price for the suckers. In other words, I see this as a rule violation between an implied contract for the price of the candy.
The scale was not defective. The tare pricing just made it a better bargain to buy 3 instead of 4. The candy was not priced at 8 cents per piece. It was impossible to buy just one piece, but it wasn't necessary to buy the full number of pieces required to bring the price up to 8 cents per, like it is with the egg example.
I see it as him winning within the rules. I would have just grabbed a box of Blow Pops off the shelf at the warehouse club, myself. It's easier to buy in bulk when it's already packaged.
Quote: FarFromVegasThe scale was not defective. The tare pricing just made it a better bargain to buy 3 instead of 4. The candy was not priced at 8 cents per piece. It was impossible to buy just one piece, but it wasn't necessary to buy the full number of pieces required to bring the price up to 8 cents per, like it is with the egg example.
I see it as him winning within the rules. I would have just grabbed a box of Blow Pops off the shelf at the warehouse club, myself. It's easier to buy in bulk when it's already packaged.
I think the scale was defective because it deducted too much for TARE and it was not sensitive enough for small quantities. As stated the weight of 2 suckers is 2¢, 3 is 2¢, and 4 is 5¢. I think it rounds somehow to the nearest 0.03 pounds.
I'm not saying the store could make a case for shoplifting, but he underpaid based on the price per pound by taking advantage of the equipment. In other words, he obeyed one rule about proper procedure, but violated the the rule about paying the intended price per pound. To leave the store with karma intact one should respect all rules, posted and implied.
Quote: WizardI think the scale was defective because it deducted too much for TARE and it was not sensitive enough for small quantities. As stated the weight of 2 suckers is 2¢, 3 is 2¢, and 4 is 5¢. I think it rounds somehow to the nearest 0.03 pounds.
I'm not saying the store could make a case for shoplifting, but he underpaid based on the price per pound by taking advantage of the equipment. In other words, he obeyed one rule about proper procedure, but violated the the rule about paying the intended price per pound. To leave the store with karma intact one should respect all rules, posted and implied.
You see an implied minimum price per unit, where I see a stated price per pound. Dween came up with the pricing only after returning home and doing calculations. I DO see an implied minimum purchase set by the scale's ability to read the weight, and that is a minimum of three units. That is easily calculated by observation while still in the store. The stealing or cheating would come if he were to have put the single piece of candy in the bag and claim that since there was no stated minimum weight and the scale read zero then the price would therefore be zero.
(This is kind of fun. Like a Moot Court on the forum!)
Personally, that is not something I would be comfortable doing.
As for the $.96 is a $1.00 slot trick, it's also a loophole. I guess the EV on that slot would be the pure value of the wins on a $.04 slot.
I don't know if I'd feel comfortable or not, either.Quote: WizardHere was a similar advantage play that you may still be able to do. At the Plaza the slot ticket redemption machines paid a one dollar bill for a 96¢ ticket. So what some flea advantage players did was put $1 into a slot machine, bet 4¢; on one line, and repeat over and over. So they would have stacks of 96¢ tickets, and some for more than $1 on the times they did win. In other words, it was a no lose bet. You lose and you get your 4¢ back, you win and you get paid your fair winnings.
Personally, that is not something I would be comfortable doing.
But you know what? Those people must have a lot of time to kill, trying to repeatedly score 4¢!
Quote: DJTeddyBearBut you know what? Those people must have a lot of time to kill, trying to repeatedly score 4¢!
If it takes a minute to feed the bill, place the bet, lose it or win it, and get the ticket out, you make $2.40 an hour! You'd do a lot better begging outside the casino.
As to the OP, if a store makes a mistake on the price, that's their tough luck. And they should realize their mistake and correct it. Years ago the local Sam's Club had large bags of Hershey's miniatures for a ridiculous price. My brother went and bought maybe 30 pounds of bite-sized cookies & cream. I think we worked it out to $1 US per three pounds of candy. Surely that was a mistake.
Quote: DJTeddyBearThose people must have a lot of time to kill, trying to repeatedly score 4¢!
I saw some of the people doing it. They indeed looked like the type with nothing but time to kill.
This is my first post after not being here for a few months. I'd just say that my reason for leaving was because I was frustrated by a lot of the stupid arguments and rude comments such that my "enjoyment quotient" from visiting dipped below the level that made it worth stopping by. Someone told me things had gotten better, so I figured I'd give it a look this evening.
Quote: cclub79When I was a lil' kid, I noticed that when I bought a 5c Bazooka Joe Piece of Gum, it was 5c. But if I bought 2, it was 10c, which meant the NJ Sales tax kicked in and it was 11c. It was the first time I noticed an "error" in the way a price was figured. Why would it be more expensive per unit to buy 2? I imagined that when I was a grown-up and I could buy all the gum I wanted, I would only buy 1 piece at a time, and save thousands of dollars on sales tax.
This is my first post after not being here for a few months. I'd just say that my reason for leaving was because I was frustrated by a lot of the stupid arguments and rude comments such that my "enjoyment quotient" from visiting dipped below the level that made it worth stopping by. Someone told me things had gotten better, so I figured I'd give it a look this evening.
Welcome back! I had a similar childhood experience. I grew up in a metro area that spanned two counties, one of which had a 1/2% sales tax to finance a civic center. When I went grocery shopping with my mom, I'd spend some (read: all) of my $1/week allowance on candy. Depending on which local store we went to, my total would vary by $.01. There's no tax on "essential" items here, so my mom was indifferent about where she shopped for our groceries, but *I* sure had a preference!
Welcome back. Did you ever make your cross-country road trip?Quote: cclub79
Quote: cclub79This is my first post after not being here for a few months. I'd just say that my reason for leaving was because I was frustrated by a lot of the stupid arguments and rude comments such that my "enjoyment quotient" from visiting dipped below the level that made it worth stopping by. Someone told me things had gotten better, so I figured I'd give it a look this evening.
Yes, welcome back. You picked a good time.
If my speculation is correct, then you exploited an error in their system. I don't know that I would call it stealing, but you were certainly operating in a manner different from what was intended, and one that harmed the store owner. I would not be surprised if the change in operation eliminating the self-serve scale was not intended to prevent this "stealing" but to correct for problems inherent to a customer-operated scale.
On one of my trips to Las Vegas, I shopped at a grocery store and purchased some fruit sold by the pound. In the produce area, they had a scale for customer use, but they did not determine the price to be paid at that point. I found that I paid substantially more than I had expected because the scale at the checkout lane read far higher than the scale in the produce department. Maybe that was a sneaky marketing strategy, but I suspect it was just a case of an unreliable, user-operated scale, similar to the one in the OP's candy department.
Quote: DocWith regard to the original candy & tare weight question, I think I have to speculate a bit. My guess is that they intended for the tare weight to account for the weight of a bag that you put the candy in, not the individual wrappers, sticks, etc. Then, the price per pound would be applied appropriately for each type of candy, without charging you for the bag by the pound (or at all, for that matter). It appears, unfortunately, that the tare adjustment was not functioning properly, perhaps not for any amount of candy purchased.
I think you're wrong since he said each candy had it's own code and jelly beans for example did not have a TARE so therefore I think it was there so they could take into account the sticks etc. Otherwise why wouldn't every candy have a TARE to offset the bag?
Personally I don't have a problem with what the OP did at all.
Quote: JimMorrisonI think you're wrong since he said each candy had it's own code and jelly beans for example did not have a TARE so therefore I think it was there so they could take into account the sticks etc. Otherwise why wouldn't every candy have a TARE to offset the bag?
Personally I don't have a problem with what the OP did at all.
My assumption (clearly an assumption) was that each type of candy had its own code to indicate the proper price per pound. I did see that different products operated with different tare weights, but I suspect that this was one more aspect of an error in the tare weight adjustments. I doubt that the candy manufacturers even report an appropriate tare weight for their pieces of candy.
However, if I am mistaken (which I admit is quite common), just how would you design a system for "tare weight" to account for the stick in the suckers? Or for the wrappers on individual pieces of candy? It seems to me, it would have to be based on a percentage of the weight of the candy/stick/wrapper, not as a base weight to be subtracted from the total weight.
I think it is more reasonable to assume that the tare weight was supposed to be an adjustment for some fixed item that doesn't change with the amount of candy purchased; e.g., the bag. But the tare amount should be the same for all candies, if all are placed in the same kind of bag. If you want to adjust for the sticks and individual wrappers, just change the price per pound for that type of candy.
Quote: DocMy assumption (clearly an assumption) was that each type of candy had its own code to indicate the proper price per pound. I did see that different products operated with different tare weights, but I suspect that this was one more aspect of an error in the tare weight adjustments. I doubt that the candy manufacturers even report an appropriate tare weight for their pieces of candy.
However, if I am mistaken (which I admit is quite common), just how would you design a system for "tare weight" to account for the stick in the suckers? Or for the wrappers on individual pieces of candy? It seems to me, it would have to be based on a percentage of the weight of the candy/stick/wrapper, not as a base weight to be subtracted from the total weight.
I think it is more reasonable to assume that the tare weight was supposed to be an adjustment for some fixed item that doesn't change with the amount of candy purchased; e.g., the bag. But the tare amount should be the same for all candies, if all are placed in the same kind of bag.
I agree with what you're saying, I just bought into his theory about the stick, wrappers etc since every candy was different. If all other candies had one TARE and this one had something else I'd say that's an error. But with different TARE's it seems like they're trying to take into account different things. Pretty stupid to do it that way but some manager could have thought this was a fair idea or something.
Quote: WizardHere was a similar advantage play that you may still be able to do. At the Plaza the slot ticket redemption machines paid a one dollar bill for a 96¢ ticket. So what some flea advantage players did was put $1 into a slot machine, bet 4¢; on one line, and repeat over and over. So they would have stacks of 96¢ tickets, and some for more than $1 on the times they did win. In other words, it was a no lose bet. You lose and you get your 4¢ back, you win and you get paid your fair winnings.
Personally, that is not something I would be comfortable doing.
I hope they felt really stupid when they hit something good with only a 4¢ bet! Not only would I not feel comfortable doing it, it seems like such a waste of time for so little payoff.
I'd rather take the four cents and go get two Blow Pops at Dween's store. :D
Quote: WizardHere was a similar advantage play that you may still be able to do. At the Plaza the slot ticket redemption machines paid a one dollar bill for a 96¢ ticket. So what some flea advantage players did was put $1 into a slot machine, bet 4¢; on one line, and repeat over and over. So they would have stacks of 96¢ tickets, and some for more than $1 on the times they did win. In other words, it was a no lose bet. You lose and you get your 4¢ back, you win and you get paid your fair winnings.
Personally, that is not something I would be comfortable doing.
How about accepting $3 for surrendering a $5 bet or $8 for getting BJ on a $5 bet because they don't have a $2.50 chip?
That's within the scope of the pre-determined rules, not due to an error when setting up the tare value.Quote: weaselmanHow about accepting $3 for surrendering a $5 bet or $8 for getting BJ on a $5 bet because they don't have a $2.50 chip?
Ditto for the Plaza's 4¢ thing.
Similarly, I would not object to receiving only $2 on a $5 surrender of $7 on a $5 BJ, if it were posted. Of course, after the first time it happened, I'd only be betting in even dollar amounts....
Quote: DJTeddyBearThat's within the scope of the pre-determined rules, not due to an error when setting up the tare value.
Ditto for the Plaza's 4¢ thing.
Exactly.
In both cases they round up the value because they find the simplicity of it worth the expense. If they did not want to do that, they could have changed the machine programming, or get a bunch of 50 cents coins for the BJ table.
I actually think that the same is going on with the tare adjustment - the scale sensitivity is just not high enough to accurately handle low weights. I am pretty sure that the store knows about it. They had a few choices - they could require a higher minimum amount of candy per bag (if you want less then ten, just pay 80 cents each), or they could set the per pound price including the tare weight, but the chose to just leave it the way it is, because it was easier for them, or because they wanted it to be more convenient to the customers or for whatever other reason.
I'll tell you what. Next time I go to the store, I will do the following:
1) Use the Self-Checkout lane, so I can see the weight and TARE info on-screen.
2) Buy 3 Charms Blow Pops (Wrapped + Stick)
3) Buy 4 Charms Blow Pops
4) Buy 3 Tootsie-Pops
5) Buy about a dozen Bit-O-Honey (Wrapped)
6) Buy about 20 Jelly Beans (Not wrapped)
I will report the TARE, price per pound, and my cost for each one. If the amount of candy I attempt to buy is not enough, I will place a coin on the scale to make it weigh more, so I can purchase it.
It has been a number of months, if not years, since I have bought Blow Pops from this chain, though I visit it weekly. I suspect nothing has changed.
Thank you, and thank you for remembering. I had some financial opportunities that were too good to pass up, so my trip was postponed, but it will hopefully be re-scheduled for this late summer or early fall.
Candy | per lb | Gross wt | TARE | Net wt | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 Blow Pops | $2.59 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.01 | $ 0.03 |
4 Blow Pops | $2.59 | 0.18 | 0.12 | 0.06 | $ 0.16 |
3 Tootsie Pops | $2.69 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.01 | $ 0.03 |
12 Bit-O-Honey | $2.39 | 0.19 | 0.08 | 0.11 | $ 0.26 |
20 Jelly Beans | $1.79 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.10 | $ 0.18 |
The plastic bag + twist tie weighs approx 0.01 lb... yet the TARE values are much higher.
Based on this small sample, wrapped candy gets a much larger TARE value, and candy with sticks even moreso.
Why don't all candies get the same TARE value?
Shouldn't the wrapper/stick be calculated into the price of the candy?
Interesting results. This time, the price increase was from $0.01 per Charms Blow Pop to $0.04. Buying an extra sucker quadrupled the price of the candy.
Looks like the sweet spot for Bit-O-Honey would be to buy 6 pieces; Jelly Beans, a lowly 3.