We bought 4 20-ounce Pepsi’s at Target last night, and I checked the two remaining unopened pops, and sure enough, the low-tech hack works. Both were losers (making me pretty sure someone picked over Target — that would be 0 for 4).
All of which makes me ponder the merits of this giveaway. Let’s compare:
A) I buy three 20-ounce Pepsis for a total of $2.97 (assuming $0.99 each, which is rare).
Total Pepsi: 60 ounces
iTunes Songs: 1 (assuming an average of 1 out of 3 wins)
Cost: $2.97
B) I buy one 2-liter of Pepsi for a total of $1.19.
Total Pepsi: 67 ounces
iTunes Songs: 1 @ $0.99
Cost: $2.18
It seems option B is significantly cheaper and you get more Pepsi. You almost save enough to buy another song (of course it’s enough at Wal-Mart).
Of course the low-tech hack changes things:
A) Buy three 20-ouncers again, this time checking them for winners.
Total Pepsi: 60 ounces
iTunes Songs: 3
Cost: $2.97
B) Buy that 2-liter and pick up three songs for comparison’s sake.
Total Pepsi: 67 ounces
iTunes Songs: 3 @ $0.99
Cost: $4.16
Here the cheaters prosper, saving enough to buy another Pepsi (and a fourth free song). Even if you assumed a 20-ounce cost of $1.09, which is more common, it’s $3.27 for the cheaters, still cheaper than the 2-liter route.
All of which makes me wonder. The Pepsi/iTunes Giveaway works best if I cheat, otherwise I’m better off paying for my music. But is it really cheating to exploit an oversite in packaging? I’m not opening the product, I’m not damaging it anyway. It’s not like I’m opening Pepsis and stealing the winning bottle caps. While some store clerks would certainly stop you, there’s plenty of places where you could sneak a peek at the cap. It’s kind of like holding your Christmas presents up to the light to see if you can see through the package. You’re not technically opening your present.
It’s a moral quandry. Perhaps I should opt out and use Kazaa.
Just kidding. Maybe I should just stop drinking so much pop and spend my money on iTunes then. And thus I’ve caught on to their little game. It works pretty well, doesn’t it?