The workarounds parents can try to save on school supplies
![The workarounds parents can try to save on school supplies](https://theloadedgunn.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/The-workarounds-parents-can-try-to-save-on-school-supplies-780x470.jpg)
Three in four parents would try “any” workaround to save money on school supplies — with some even dumpster diving and stealing from work — finds a new survey.
A poll of 2,000 U.S. parents of elementary school kids found 77% believe staying under their budget is top priority for them.
The top resources parents have used to keep their back-to-school shopping under control include: purchasing school supplies whenever they go on sale, even after back-to-school season (49%) and shopping at multiple stores for the best deal (45%).
Commissioned by The Krazy Coupon Lady and conducted by Talker Research, many others said they’d also try to save money by wilder means.
They would try hoarding school supplies throughout the year (37%), shopping exclusively when there’s a deal (34%), extreme couponing (22%), looking for half-used items around the home (16%), joining buy-nothing groups on social media (10%), trading supplies with other parents (9%) and dumpster diving (5%).
And 12% admitted to stealing supplies from their workplace to give to their kids as school supplies.
Over half (57%) would also be willing to save money by group buying school supplies with other parents — purchasing certain items in bulk and then splitting the cost amongst the group.
The most likely supplies to be group-bought include pens and pencils (67%), art supplies (59%), notebooks (58%), folders (54%), glue and tape (52%) and desk accessories (47%).
“The reality is, parents are worried about what back-to-school shopping costs look like this year,” said Joanie Demer, co-founder and co-CEO at The Krazy Coupon Lady. “We’re seeing parents embracing getting creative with their budgeting. It’s clear that they want to save as much as possible when they prepare their kids for school — and that shouldn’t be a chore for them to do.”
While two in three parents reported feeling prepared for back-to-school shopping this year, the results also found 82% believe the cost for supplies has increased in the past year; especially for clothing (59%), shoes (51%), backpacks (50%) and school uniforms (26%).
On average, parents anticipate spending $280 on supplies this year.
Nearly all (95%) said they prefer to include their kids when shopping, but 64% believe they spend more money when their kids are present, spending an average $101 more on supplies if their kids tag along.
Forty-four percent of parents said they would consider giving their kids money of their own to spend on school supplies, but many believe their kids would end up using it on snacks (42%), candy (38%) and games (33%) over actual school supplies (32%).
The study also found kids are more concerned about their school supplies being name-brand than parents (41%, compared to 36%).
Nearly three in five (59%) feel like their kids pester them to buy a certain school supply item name brand on occasion.
Some parents shared what their kids have requested: Under Armour backpacks and clothing, Stanley tumblers and bottles, Nike and Jordan shoes, Mead notebooks and Crayola crayons.
“There’s a number of things parents can do to beat the costs,” continued Demer. “Start by comparing prices before you purchase, waiting for a sale, and paying attention to the clearance shelves. Parents deserve to have as many resources as they can gather to support their wallets and their peace of mind.”
How are parents staying under budget?
– Purchasing school supplies whenever it goes on sale – 49%
– Shopping at multiple stores for the best deal – 45%
– Saving school supplies throughout the year – 37%
– Shopping exclusively when there’s a deal – 34%
– Extreme couponing – 22%
– Looking for half-used items around the home – 16%
– Joining buy-nothing groups on social media – 10%
– Trading supplies with other parents – 9%
– Dumpster diving – 5%
Survey methodology:
Talker Research surveyed 2,000 parents of elementary school-aged children; the survey was commissioned by Krazy Coupon Lady and administered and conducted online by Talker Research between July 1 and July 8, 2024.
We are sourcing from a non-probability frame and the two main sources we use are:
● Traditional online access panels — where respondents opt-in to take part in online market research for an incentive
● Programmatic — where respondents are online and are given the option to take part in a survey to receive a virtual incentive usually related to the online activity they are engaging in
Those who did not fit the specified sample were terminated from the survey. As the survey is fielded, dynamic online sampling is used, adjusting targeting to achieve the quotas specified as part of the sampling plan.
Regardless of which sources a respondent came from, they were directed to an Online Survey, where the survey was conducted in English; a link to the questionnaire can be shared upon request. Respondents were awarded points for completing the survey. These points have a small cash equivalent monetary value.
Cells are only reported on for analysis if they have a minimum of 80 respondents, and statistical significance is calculated at the 95% level. Data is not weighted, but quotas and other parameters are put in place to reach the desired sample.
Interviews are excluded from the final analysis if they failed quality-checking measures.
This includes:
● Speeders: Respondents who complete the survey in a time that is quicker than one-third of the median length of interview are disqualified as speeders
● Open ends: All verbatim responses (full open-ended questions as well as other please specify options) are checked for inappropriate or irrelevant text
● Bots: Captcha is enabled on surveys, which allows the research team to identify and disqualify bots
● Duplicates: Survey software has “deduping” based on digital fingerprinting, which ensures nobody is allowed to take the survey more than once
It is worth noting that this survey was only available to individuals with internet access, and the results may not be generalizable to those without internet access.