Slashdot Mirror
Which Price is Right?
slashdotNum2Big2Register writes "An interesting article at fastcompany about how things are being priced nowadays. The only drawback that concerns me is how each item and price can be connected to an individual. Amazon was already found to be doing this with their prices."
"We've learned that certain aspects of our site resonate with customers in different ways, and we are continually fine-tuning our site presentation to see how these variables affect customers' purchasing decisions"
Last I checked... If you want to determine if "site changes" cause increase in purchasing etc you leave the price of a product static. This way you can determine if the increase came from better navigation. The price would be your static variable.
I bet that most people who read this ( not those of slashdot but of the world at large ) would fall for this simple and elegant lie.
I used to work at a music store, you know, one of those places that sells one damned cd for $16-$18. Anyways, I was reading online at VH1, after some searching, I found the article. What makes me sad is that people went and supported the stores involved anyways. Not sure how to make this a link, but here's the URL for that story: http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1457874/10012002/ id_0.jhtml
With sites like pricewatch.com, pricescan.com, and other competitive shopping sites I know what the market price is for any goods I buy online (generally big ticket electronics items, though I have used similar methods to check large appliances), so how does anyone ever pay much more than the market price for an item that isn't unique to a single online vendor? Do people really make impulse buys online?
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Perfect price discrimination isn't new. It's just very, very hard to do. With today's technology and consumers, it's a lot easier to guess at the price that each customer will accept. For more on PPD, check any low level econ text. or book on economic game theory. Or check out some Mises for those economically inclined poor souls who believe in the price of a good equals the amount of labor involved.
If he doesn't name the person who said it or the company for whom she works, yes. That's what "off the record" means. It doesn't mean you won't repeat it. It means you won't attribute it to the real source.
I've known this for a while now. I have a small network at home, a number of Windows workstation, a few Linux workstations and a number of OpenBSD servers. What I do is look for an item on Amazon I want to buy, then go to that item on every available browser on every computer at home. Through Netscape, Mozilla, IE, Konqueror, Opera, Phoenix and Galeon. Then I complete the purchase from the cheapest one.
It's worked very well for me. Some browsers were as much as 30 dollars more than others for larger priced items. That to me would seem like a grey area in the legal system. You aren't allowed to charge varying prices at regular stores based on the customers appearance. You'd see Walmart getting sued left and right if at the registers they charged 15% more because I was wearing a suit and tie as opposed to looking like white trash. Or charging more for black comedy DVD's if you are black, the ACLU would be all over them in a heartbeat.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
I dont think its so much due to the fact its IE vs Netscape, the reason they pointed this out was because its a totally different browser with different cache/history/cookies/etc so the server had no way to know it wasnt the same person.
I found this article about Wal*Mart to be an interesting read. It offers insight into the pricing game from the "other end".
-- derby
Charging the customer retail UPS shipping and pocketing your discount is as old as the hills! Just about every company that has decent shipping volume does this.
Of course, your calculation of $0.75 shipping costs doesn't include the packaging (toss in another few cents) or the cost to support the distribution center - which is quite a bit, considering the technology and infrastructure it takes to turn orders around as quick as you say.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
The point the article was making is that they select people at random within a demographic, and give them *different* prices. They call this scientific pricing because they maintain other people as the 'control', then gauge how you, the experimental group react to the new prices.
Since the selection is random I don't see an obvious way to exploit it, with the possible exception of re-loading to see if the price changes. Presumably Amazon has some system for preventing that (like requiring you to log in).
One of the interesting conclusions from many of the retailers interviewed in the article was that discounts should be smaller, but sooner. That sounds good to me, since in general I'm too lazy and impatient to wait around for the 'big sale', and end up paying higher prices. Maybe that same sentiment is why it works?
-Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
Financial services to the poor have, all else equal, much higher default risk. And default costs swamp everything else. Consider that the margin over cost of funds for most consumer credit is 2-3%. A default rate of 1% destroys the profitability.
Sorry, but that's the cover story for fleecing the poor. True, they represent a higher credit risk and therefore have a higher cost for default; however, at some point, the default costs are covered, and the rest is gravy. It's fairly well known that the poor are paying far more than their share.
Look at banking. A significant portion of profit (not simply revenue, but profit) comes from the various "poverty fees" they charge, like bounced check fees. People with money don't pay those fees, because the bank is willing to extend a small amount of credit to their checking accounts to cover shortages. But poor people get screwed in the ass if their checking account is short a few dollars.
Not every company allows employees to keep miles as a perk. The miles are applied to future business travel. And, I believe, in the U.S., federal employees and military members are not allowed to use miles for personal travel. When employees do enough flying -- certainly the case with the feds and the military -- it is worth the time and effort to track the miles earned by employees.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Amazon has a decent browsing systems in place, but once I find something I want I use a cheap book search engine or go elsewhere to find cheap computer components or use another engine to fine cheap stuff. In the end I pay less for the product + SH than any browser purchaseing directly from amazon.
Amazon does charge different people different prices, dumb people who shop there end up paying a lot more money.
We have the best government that money can buy.
I've nearly "made it big" three times now
This statements lends itself to the way you look at situations. It isn't about making it big, instead it is about making a sustainable positive flow income that one saves. "Big" people are dreaming just as much as those who believe in the lottery or making it to the NBA. Anyone can change their situation in life in America, despite who they know, if they are calculated and persistant.
--- I do not moderate.
Actually, there is a broad trend toward underservicing poor areas and replacing them with legal loan sharks. Local branch banks close down and in goes a payday loan outfit, often owned by the bank or it's parent corp.
My fifth semester towards a bachelors degree in software engineering I had to choose between paying rent and paying tuition.
I went homeless for several months, showered in friend's bathrooms when I got a chance and washed my clothes (both pair) in the dorm laundromat. I studied in the dining area of fast food resturants because they had the lights on 24x7, a particularly harsh reminder that I was hungry and didn't have enough money to splurge on fast food. I was working, had a job at the local grocery store as a cashier but that money went towards tuition, books, and food with nothing left over for rent.
That was over a decade ago and I have never regretted it. I look at today's homeless begging on streetcorners and I cry my single tear in memory of that semester, then I drive on.
Everybody has a choice. If I did it, no help from anybody, no handouts, no contacts, a minimum wage job, and no welfare (I was too proud to ask, and thought I was above it. Dumb, probably, but everybody has their pride inspired dumb allowance) then anybody can do it.
You (meaning the metaphysical you, not bagging on you in particular) can do it. I know because I did it. It isn't a question of can you do it, it is a question of are you willing.
Willing to pay that 782% interest on a paycheck loan to get you through the week.
Willing to give up television, cable, all of your worldly belongings and possessions to make it happen.
Basically, willing to pay the price today in order to succeed tomorrow. Those of us that did have no sympathy for those who didn't and won't.
It doesn't take a 4 year degree, but a 4 year degree certainly helps. A BS degree doesn't come cheap however, in what you will need to sacrifice to get it in terms of dollars and hours.
To summarize, I have been poor (homeless for 3-4 months qualifies) and I have been rich. Rich is better.
I was a man with no contacts, no power, and no wardrobe. Nobody GAVE anybody a crippling overdraft and credit card bills, those were a choice (and yes, rent is a choice, as is medical attention, warm food and pretty clothes and a vehicle are all choices...) and I lived on $3.35 an hour, 30 hours a week (that's $400 a month.) Granted that was a while back, but that's real life.
I used my skills constructively and guess what, became a self made man. Maybe I am the exception to the rule, but I sure hope not.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer