Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I bet that you thought I was going to post something related to US politics didn't you. No such luck.

I got an offer for car insurance today with the following headline in large font: " Our analysts have determined that you're paying XXX* too much for auto insurance".

The fine print at the bottom was ( Paraphrasing ): *Figures determined by averaging savings of new customers who previously carried auto insurance with another carrier

Well yes....I don't know of anyone who would purchase a new automobile policy that is more expensive than the one they have, short of truly horrible experiences with their insurer. I presume other offers stating something to the effect of "Our customers pay X less than "average"" are calculated the same way.

Perhaps you think that the concept is so obvious that it isn't worth mentioning, but I've never actually read one of these offers before. Just thought it was funny.

Nope. Yuo're exactly right.

There are two more that I love.


One is:
"The more you spend, the more you save!"
Really? Because, to my estimations, the more I spend, the less I have... So, the LESS I've saved.


The other... not "numbers" directly, but semi-related:

"You've been PRE SELECTED to apply for our credit card!"

PRE-SELECTED is meant to invoke the old assumptions of "pre-approved," giving the person the feeling like he's gonna get the card when, in fact, it's just a ploy to get more people to apply becuse credit applications are like armor saves; the more you get your victims to make, the better your odds.

..As if someone who WASN'T "pre-selected" would be turned away.
"Oh. So sorry, old chap. Only 'pre-selected' individuals may apply to be OUR indentured servants for life."


Puh-lease.

Eric

Agreed.

It's not an offer, they will turn you down if they don't like the cut of your jib.

MagickalMemories wrote:

One is:
"The more you spend, the more you save!"
Really? Because, to my estimations, the more I spend, the less I have... So, the LESS I've saved.

That's why I don't go into buying frenzies over discounts anymore.

We're all slaves to the financial empire. The central bank creates money out of thin air and tells you what it's worth. Ever since the institution of the central bank in the US in 1916, the value of the dollar has declined 96%. Only 3% of this 'money' is actually represented by physical currency, the rest is 1's and 0'. It's all designed to keep them in power and keep us in debt. The credit card companies are their frontline soldiers.

MagickalMemories wrote:.
"The more you spend, the more you save!"
Really? Because, to my estimations, the more I spend, the less I have... So, the LESS I've saved.

This implies that as you buy more goods the price per item drops. It does not imply you spend less money.

I have no problems with ths if:

The goods you buy multiples of are goods you would in good time need multiples of and are convenient and reasonable to store.

So milk wont count as milk is perishable.
Toolboxes wont count as I weont need spare toolboxes.
Wine could count as it is perfectly reaonable to buy more wine than you need and consume the rest later.

MagickalMemories wrote:.
"You've been PRE SELECTED to apply for our credit card!"

Its just a variant of "congratulations you have won."

Standard sales patter as old as the hills.

Orlanth wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:.
"The more you spend, the more you save!"
Really? Because, to my estimations, the more I spend, the less I have... So, the LESS I've saved.

This implies that as you buy more goods the price per item drops.

That isn't true at all.
Price per item is that same, whether you buy one or ten.

For example (fictitional):

Spiral Bound Notebook
Was: $.97 each
Now: $.47 each
You Save: $.50 each!

The more you buy, the more you save!

They imply that, by buying more, you're saving more.
I mean, buy 1 and you're only saving $.50. Buy 10, and you've saved $5.00.
WOW! What a steal!
The thing is, however, I see it like this.

If I have $100 and I buy 10, I have $95.30 (excludes tax).
If I have $100 and I buy 1, I have $99.53 (excludes tax).
If I don't buy any of the damned things, I still have my hundred bucks, and that's more than I have with theother options. By not buying, I've saved up to $4.70.

The more you DON'T buy, the more you save!

Orlanth wrote:It does not imply you spend less money.

In fact, that is exactly what the term does. It implies that, by buying more, you're spending less. Not immediately, but in the long run.

"Spend the $4.70, now instead of $9.70 over time and save five bucks," is exactly what it implies (in the case of the aforementioned fictitious notebooks).

Note that "price per item" was the same if buying 1 or 10.


Eric

Then the example given in the circumstances given is not misleading, its is an outright lie.

Here advertising standards tell people to take down incorrect advertising, misleading advertising is more of a grey area.

A good example of 'the more you spend the more you save' would be a fruit stall that sells fruit at:
"£1 a lb
£2 for 3lb"

The more you buy the more you pay, but the more you save per unit. So it works both ways and people are encouraged to overbuy.

warpcrafter wrote:We're all slaves to the financial empire. The central bank creates money out of thin air and tells you what it's worth. Ever since the institution of the central bank in the US in 1916, the value of the dollar has declined 96%. Only 3% of this 'money' is actually represented by physical currency, the rest is 1's and 0'. It's all designed to keep them in power and keep us in debt. The credit card companies are their frontline soldiers.

I don't mean to be rude but that was gibberish.

My wife bought 2 cushions (to go with our 14-16 we alreadyhave) and a throw rug.... she explained they were 25% off.

I tried to explain that was 75% more than I wished to spend.

10 minutes and a throw rug and 2 cushions later we left the store.

Women are genetically disposed to buy cushions -- it's a kind of nesting instinct. I expect if Dr Who went back to caveman times he would find the caves full of tied up bundles of soft reeds stuffed with bracken.

Kilkrazy wrote:Women are genetically disposed to buy cushions -- .

QFT. And the worst thing is the first thing you or even they do when you want to sit down is move the poxy cushions out of the way.

Technically I think they are some form of parasite.

Cushions I mean, not women.

"The more you buy the more you save" actually does work though, you guys just aren't thinking big enough.

If you got to Wal-Mart and buy 1 note book you're going to pay $0.47/notebook. If you buy 10 notebooks, you're going to pay $0.47/notebook.

BUT, If you go to Hilroy (or any other notebook making company) and tell them you're going to be 1000 notebooks, they'll probably sell them to you at $0.37/notebook. 10,000? $0.27/notebook. 100,000? $0.17/notebook, etc etc.

What's sad about these cons is that someone out there is falling for it. And the worst part is that we're all weak to some type of con. For me, it's "I have $40 cash...I'd better go the LGS."

It took me a long time to get out of the more you buy the more you save mode.

Of course I'm talking about minis.

When GW or PP announce they're raising prices, I don't hurry to the store to pick
something up before it gets crazy. I just put off the purchases. While I MIGHT save
more in the long run, that's only assuming that I buy everything that I had intended
to buy to begin with. Instead, I might actually be doing something right for
once.

I went to Waitrose and bought two 1.5Kg bags of flour for £1 off. Then I went home and baked two loaves of bread and a batch of peanut butter cookies. I call that a bargain.

warpcrafter wrote:We're all slaves to the financial empire. The central bank creates money out of thin air and tells you what it's worth. Ever since the institution of the central bank in the US in 1916, the value of the dollar has declined 96%. Only 3% of this 'money' is actually represented by physical currency, the rest is 1's and 0'. It's all designed to keep them in power and keep us in debt. The credit card companies are their frontline soldiers.

Are you criticizing the concept of a fiat currency? Not clear what you're getting at there.

Again, I'm not really even criticizing the company that mailed me the offer. I could call, and when I find out that I'm not ( if I'm not, I could be a customer that hits their "average", in fairness) I just wouldn't buy their product. I probably shouldn't have implied it was decietful....more like, creative. I think its funny, sort of like your boss coming up and saying " You have 36 days you've called in sick this year", and you say, " I've been hard at work 90% of the time!".

In a lot of companies 40% of sick days are called in on Mondays or Fridays!

Orlanth wrote:Then the example given in the circumstances given is not misleading, its is an outright lie.

Here advertising standards tell people to take down incorrect advertising, misleading advertising is more of a grey area.

A good example of 'the more you spend the more you save' would be a fruit stall that sells fruit at:
"£1 a lb
£2 for 3lb"

The more you buy the more you pay, but the more you save per unit. So it works both ways and people are encouraged to overbuy.

It is misleading (which is why I hate it), but not a lie.
Their way of advertising it, while not totally forthcoming, is NOT illegal.

If I buy ONE, I save $.10 (off of the total original retail price of what I bought) but, if I buy FIVE, I save $.50 (off of the total original retail price of what I bought). As $.50 is more than $.10, it's not a lie.

"The more you buy, the more you save." They are just referring to the purchase in TOTAL and not per individual item.


Eric

WHAT?
Advertisers are using misleading comments to sell more stuff?
Say it ain't so!

Whatever is this world coming to?

Out of interest what is the average of amount of $s for your insurance anyway ? You don't pay a road tax as such either is that right ? oh, and over here it's actually illegal to drive without insurance is it the same stateside ?

Auto insurance varies greatly depending on where you live. Personally, I'm around $1300-1400/year (including collision coverage) for two mid-sized cars in a suburban county outside Philadelphia. In the city of Philadelphia, you're probably looking at twice that much, I'd guess? My parents in a different part of the state probably pay half what I do.

And yeah, it's illegal to drive without it. What's a road tax?

Road tax (or vehicle tax) is a flat annual payment, the amount depending on the class of vehicle, which the owner must pay to the government.

In return he gets a tax disc about 4 inches across, made of embossed paper, which is displayed in a plastic holder inside the windscreen so it can be easily viewed by police and traffic wardens.

Road tax varies from £35 to £400 per year for private cars, depending on the type of car, larger cars attracting a higher rate. Different rates apply to commercial vehicles such as lorries.

Before buying a new tax disc it is necessary to take your car for the MOT (Ministry of Transport) test, which checks basic road-worthiness such as lights, signals, tyres and exhaust pollution. You also need a valid insurance certificate.

Non-payment of road tax is an offence associated with non-payment of car insurance and driving without a licence. Irresponsible scumbag filth do it because a few pints of beer are worth more to them than an unknown family's life. Thus many accidents occur and compensation cannot be paid. They should be chemically castrated.

If you do not want to drive your car on the public highway, you have to fill in a Statutory Off Road Notification. This is free.

We pay a yearly registration fee and have yearly inspections (including emissions) in order to get a little sticker we place on our license plates. Our registration fees in PA are a lot lower than yours, although I think they can be quite high in California. It's handled differently in different states. But overall, it sounds pretty similar to our system.

reds8n wrote: Out of interest what is the average of amount of $s for your insurance anyway ? You don't pay a road tax as such either is that right ? oh, and over here it's actually illegal to drive without insurance is it the same stateside ?

You have to have liability insurance, in other words, you have to be insured against damages caused to another person's property or person due to an accident where you are at fault. You don't have to insure your own property ( your car ) against your own at fault accident, though most lenders will make you take collision insurance as a condition of loaning you money to purchase the car.

Kilkrazy, 800 dollars for a tax every year just to own a car sounds ridiculous. I couldn't afford to drive if that were the case here. At least it scales to the size of the automobile, which seems fair. Does that tax vary for individuals who actually need a large private vehicle to earn a living, farmers for instance? I ask because where I live, some people who own large pickups actually haul something other than air, and they need their vehicles, it isn't a luxury. Otherwise I think we should have a registration fee that scales with the fuel economy of the vehicle here in the states.

Part of our road tax is being spent on the War.

:p

Grignard wrote:
Kilkrazy, 800 dollars for a tax every year just to own a car sounds ridiculous. I couldn't afford to drive if that were the case here.

That's the idea. England, by virtue of a greater degree of urbanization, smaller geographic size, and better public transit is structured to keep people off the road. I expect America will move in a similar direction in the not-too-distant future as the need to keep food prices down forces a general tightening of the travel belt for the average citizen.

reds8n wrote: Out of interest what is the average of amount of $s for your insurance anyway ? You don't pay a road tax as such either is that right ? oh, and over here it's actually illegal to drive without insurance is it the same stateside ?

I'm from TX so my auto insurance at home is relatively cheap at $135 a month for two cars at a good deductibile. But since I live in Vegas right now my insurance has gone up considerably. For an F-150 Truck (mine) and the wife's Mazda 5 grocery getter we pay $265 a month with all things staying the same coverage wise. My insurance company, USAA, says that the rates are higher here because the level of risk to them to cover us is higher.

Since Vegas is a 24-hour city (there's always bars and casinos open all day everyday) at any given time there are estimated 40 - 50% of the drivers on the road impaired. That is impaired by alcohol, drugs or some combination of the two. In most cities you expect major accidents (fatality or injury) in the late evening to early morning hours. When my wife was preparing for the Police Academy here she was told that these type of accidents could occur at anytime of the day. It's kind of crazy.

Vegas also leads the nation in accidents caused by folks running red lights. In a recent local survey roughly half the folks said they actually make up their own rules when it comes to driving since the Police are to busy dealing with all the accidents to actually respond to minor traffic infractions.

dogma wrote:

Grignard wrote:
Kilkrazy, 800 dollars for a tax every year just to own a car sounds ridiculous. I couldn't afford to drive if that were the case here.

That's the idea. England, by virtue of a greater degree of urbanization, smaller geographic size, and better public transit is structured to keep people off the road. I expect America will move in a similar direction in the not-too-distant future as the need to keep food prices down forces a general tightening of the travel belt for the average citizen.

Why not lower the costs of registration for fuel efficient low or zero emission vehicles then? I'm not giving up my car any time soon, I like to drive and I just don't like other people enough to share my space with them. Sorry.

The price of registration is already incredibly low. In Illinois there is heated debate over raising the cost to $96, from the previous $78.

I think a better solution is simply to tax gasoline. The disproportionate affect this will have on rural areas could be offset with a geographically targeted tax credit.