We’re still a little bit away from retailers “leaking” their Black Friday ads, so no one can say with certainty what bottom-dollar deals the stores will be using to attract shoppers away from their Thanksgiving dinners. One prediction for this year’s holiday season kickoff claims that 60″ TVs are going to be the most tempting bait, but you might have a hard time actually snaring that super-low price.
DealNews.com has released its full slate of predictions for Black Friday deals, and if the site is correct, anyone shopping for a cheap TV may want to get to the store early.
For the true bargain-hunter, DealNews predicts that you’ll see some 32″ TVs going for as low as $99 on Black Friday. When the doorbusters disappear, you will probably be able to pick up a screen that size for around $150, just don’t expect it to be a Samsung, Sony, or any other big brand.
The cheapest Black Friday prices you’re likely to see on name-brand TVs this year is around $235 for a 42″ set, but if you want to go those few extra inches into the 46-47″ range, you’re looking at around $200 more.
Even the doorbuster deals jump up significantly, between these two sizes, with 42″ doorbusters expected to sell for around $178 while the slightly larger screens will bottom out at $299, according to DealNews.
But the jump from 47″ to 55″ doesn’t result in anywhere near as steep of a predicted price increase. Doorbuster 55″ sets should go quickly at $360, with discounted name-brand 55″ TVs selling for around $545.
And while the predicted sale price for 60″ name-brand sets is around $725, the doorbusters at this size should go for around $420. And if you just need a big screen and don’t care about the brand, you should be able to find discounted off-brand 60″ TVs on sale for only about $40 more than the doorbusters.
DealNews cautions that the $420 price “will be very limited, and camping out at your local big-box may not even guarantee you a set at this price, but expect this to be the magic number retailers use to get your attention.”
by Chris Morran via Consumerist
No comments:
Post a Comment