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."
The idea of pricing products is to charge every consumer the maximum amount they're willing to pay. The trick is that it's usually very hard to have a purshasing system that allows such price variance. Airline pricing is one example - the closer you are to the date you wish to fly, the higher the price. (This is a vast oversimplification, but you get the idea). This is because business travelers, who need to fly at a moment's notice, are willig to pay much more than a recreational traveler, who's planning vacations 6 months in advance and shopping for the best deal. Businesses like Amazone are going to try and use every edge they can to increase their margins. From their point of view it's a great idea to use the technology they already have.
"Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
Hey, is that a discrimination lawsuit I smell?
Amazon Exec 1: "This customer buys Precious Moments figurines."
Amazon Exec 2: "They must be some middle-aged soccer mom. Charge them double for new releases, and half price for Disney."
Amazon Exec 1: "What about customers who buy How to Make a Million Dollars a Second?
Amazon Exec 2: "Charge double for everything. They'll be able to afford it eventually..."
There are a few forums I used to frequent, one for webmasters. It was mostly freelancers or one-man shops, from what I could tell, but the forum moderators were strict to the point of being stupid over 'pricing discussions'. "We can be sued for supporting price fixing" is the standard response.
One person asked what it was customary to charge for a certain type of service. I replied back that I've seen people charge anywhere from $50 to $1500. *THAT* was considered 'potential price fixing'. How a number with a variation of hundreds of percents could be 'fixed' is well beyond my comprehension.
You'd think then that magazines or websites which have pricing on them (like, for example, ecommerce sites) would be collaborating in price fixing, as they can see info from other companies, and those companies can see their info, and adjust things accordingly.
There's a difference between knowing what someone else charges and actively engaging numerous people to all sell at a particular price, but people don't seem to see the difference.
creation science book
And thanks to me, they get a killer deal on shipping due to a little known program known as consignment shipping via UPS so they pay less than half of what they normally would pay; though they charge you for the full price of shipping, nearly all of this money goes straight into their pocket. They now claim it is for the manpower to ship your book but I have an Uncle that works for the warehouse down in Nevada and gets paid minimum and the time it takes to fill an order is less than 3 minutes ($10/hr x 3 seconds = approx 0.75).
Now, they then charge full price and have items that they overstocked pull up higher in searches with edited customer reviews to make them appear better than they are. True fact. They started editing reviews back when I was there.
Oh the horror stories I could tell...
"...people just like the feel of a dead tree in their hands." -Jeff Bezos
Then on top of that
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
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'
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.
And the proof of this is in the market. Credit companies are neither bashful nor shy. If there was money to make, your friends and Cap One and First USA would divert some of 1 billion or so peices of mail then send. Alliance capital tried and went bankrupt. Cap One tried, but was punished in the stock market for the risk.
The other minor effect is transaction costs. There is a smaller denominator to spread costs across. 1% of an $800 paycheck is different than 1% of a $200,000 mutual fund purchase.
This reminds of the myth about women being paid around 70% of what men are. If true, there must be someone out there hiring only women and killing their competitors with wildly lower labor costs. Ought to be easy, women are around 40% of the labor pool.
Oops. Doesn't seem to be happening. I know I'm willing to try it.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
It's called "discriminatory pricing", and is not at all illegal or unethical. Look at your local movie theater. Say they charge $2 for kids and $7 for adults. Why? Because they'd have a family of four pay $18 dollars, rather than that family not go at all because it's $28. 1 x $18 > 0 x $28
Same thing with cheap night. Tuesdays, all seats are $2, because they'd rather have some people at $2/seat, rather than no people at $7/seat.
What really baffles me is that people think they're entitled to know what goes on behind the scenes when businesses set prices, or base buying decisions on that. "They're charging $7 for shipping when it only costs then a dollar!" So what? Is the total value of getting the items to your house worth it, or isn't it?
If the browser identifies as Safari, boost prices on anything hip or cool by 20% due to Apple-user lust for fashion and style.
If the browser is Lynx, lower prices by 20%, they can't even afford a free-as-in-beer graphical browser!
If the browser is Internet Exploder, blue screen thier PC and charge them a subscription just to access our web site.
Yum, the future of price discrimination!
Actually, this reminds me of a demographics company called Claritas that sells demographics assignment services based on where you live. (Try it for yourself here.)
So now in the future can we expect people to get assigned based on their browsers and OS identification?
Users who run Mozilla on Linux tend to have:
Three or more pets, play video games on a hidden Windows partition they don't talk about and consume Doritos by the truckload.
Never confuse feeling with thinking.
Personally, I've paid $3+ for a bottle of water before, usually b/c I'm really thirsty and that's the only option. Now, if I'm dieing due to dehydration, it's certainly immoral to charge more than a fair/ standard price. Otherwise, let me make the decision.
Last note on bottled drink prices. They are expensive at sporting events, airports and rock concerts. Why? Scarcity of supply, which drives up prices, increases profits, which either go to maintain the airport and line the owner's pockets;. Note that the vendor doesn't relly make a killing. The rent (and other fixed costs) that he pays reflect the fact that he can maintain very high profit margins. I have no problem with that.
However, it makes my blood boil when I go to an event or place that charges $4+ for any sort of drink, and does not have drinking fountains available. I think it's a matter of time before some public parks decide to remove their water fountains (at some indeterminable savings), and gives the monopoly soft-drink contract to Coke or Pepsi, who then proceed to charge $1 for every drink in a public place. The park rangers/ city councilors will claim it's a win-win-win b/c 1) The city "saves" money by removing the water fountains, 2) the city is paid for giving the monopoly contract, 3) the consumers have a wider variety of drink choice! HAH!
I'd actually be fine with the scenario if there were no monopoly contract, b/c then the pricing would likely be reasonable. Ever notice how cheap Coke is in a Coke machine when it's next to a Pepsi machine? That's why the vendor wants the monopoly contract, and why public entities should NEVER give a true monopoly soft-drink contract (i.e, monopoly contract and water fountain removal).
-
What else? Well, what about Microsoft? Its margins are--can this be right?--44%, and it's sitting on $38 billion in cash. Mr. Sam would not approve. Log on to walmart.com and you'll find $199 computers powered by a fledgling Windows competitor, Lindows.
That's the Wal-Mart position. Either Microsoft is going to have to cut their prices, margins, and profits, or Wal-Mart is going to undersell them with Lindows. It's going to be an interesting battle. The outcome may be a special low-end version of Windows for Wal-Mart.This is important for open source. Wal-Mart likes generic products and price competition. No one supplier gets 100% of a product category at Wal-Mart. Start thinking "Linux for Joe Sixpack".
This is rehash of an old, flawed argument:
1) Assume that the labor market is perfectly competitive.
2) Assume that competitive markets will eliminate wage disparities between equally qualified men and women.
3) Observe that wage disparity exists between men and women.
4) Conclude that "unobserved differences" between men and women explain the wage disparity.
What justification is there for assumptions 1 & 2?
One point of the article is that businesses can make themselves better off by segmenting the market and selling products to different people for different prices. If businesses can do this when it comes to selling products, why can't they do the same for buy products, like say, labor?
The argument that markets will eliminate wage differentials based on gender or race assumes perfectly competitive markets composed of identical goods with many anonymous buyers and many anonymous sellers with full information available about the quality of the products and all prices. Every single one of these conditions is absent in the labor market.
foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
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.
This has no impact on the arguement at a Micro-Economic level.
Hypothetically, imagine that you are a clever entrepreneur, and start your own restaurant. The restaurant is doing well, so you decide to hire a IT person. You advertise on Monster and get 50 resumes. (In this economy you get 500 resumes). You winnow the list to the 10 qualified applicants, and then discover that 4 of them want 30% less money. Which do you hire?
This decision certainly does not depend on anonymity, identical applicants, or PERFECT competition. It just depends on smart people doing a good job of hiring.
I don't believe that we have a gender gap in productivity or ability. I believe we have a statistics gap.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke