Slashdot Mirror
Privacy Incursions to Support Price Discrimination
An anonymous reader writes "BusinessWeek has an interesting interview with academic Andrew Odlyzko about how increased corporate spying will inevitably lead to targeted pricing and how this system can be abused." The paper (pdf) makes interesting reading. Very good insights into the reasons why businesses want to get to know you.
Couldn't this be turned around by making false online identies? Tailoring it to garner the best prices?
You stop by CNN.com, and a pop-up flashes on screen: "Hello, Mr Thompson, you look like you could use a bigger penis!"
That Bill Gates will get charged $1000 for a pack of gum?
If so, I'm all for it.
I suspect that this field will become increasingly important in the years ahead. One problem (from the supplier side) in the current economy is the lack of pricing power available to boost earnings. Partly due to influences like the availability of product information on the web, consumers are more willing and able to find the best deal on a given item, rather than just march down to the store and pay MSRP.
People also have to realize that price descrimination is and has been all around us for a very long time. Coupons, "daily specials", business-class travel, etc. are all examples of this. There should be plenty of opportunities to increase price descrimination without impacting customer privacy (i.e. the temperature-sensitive drink machine in the article).
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Legality is dependant on how much you are able to spend.
For instance, a tow truck or taxi driver may charge a well-to-do suburban driver who breaks down in the inner city several times the going rate, just to get their rich butt to safety.
And imagine the poor diabetic about to go into insulin shock at the pharmacy, why, they'd pay treble to stave off a medical emergency.
Now, a nice sense of business ethics, based on such hokey premises such as "Thou Shalt Not Steal" might mitigate this, but I have trouble imagining it in our liberalist society.
A. Rightmann
Price fixing is when multiple suppliers get together and artificially raise the price of an item to the market as a whole. Price descrimination is a different animal entirely.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
"So, I'd like to buy a lamp. I'll pay a dirham for it."
"Bah, this lamp is made of the finest brass, five dirhams is the least I can accept!"
"Eh... out of pity, I might be persuaded to go as high as two dirhams."
"Sir, I can see you are a man of discriminating taste. As a special favor, I will let it go for three dirhams."
"Done, provided the lamp is filled with oil."
"You drive a hard bargain sir. Done."
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Now don't you go getting any ideas...
Actually, my last job was as a pricing analyst, and it was all about this topic. How to price differentiate while staying within the bounds of the law. Arguably this increases overall economic efficiency.
Felt kind of weird, however, trying to figure out how to wring every possible penny out of the small buyers but coming back, while at the same time keeping the national accounts in check with huge price reductions (50% or more). The 3rd factor is making sure that the little guys never knew about the big boy pricing, or at least never knew more than the fact that buying more could be a positive thing for their own price structure.
Keeping small guy prices high is easy.
Keeping big guy prices low is easy.
Keeping the both happy customers is not.
So does this mean that all those people claiming that the software they steal isn't a loss because they wouldn't buy it anyway will get to buy it for $0.01? I mean, that's accurately priced for them...
Sig & Below
Yuck Fou
Price discrimination by itself is totally legal; in fact, it is almost always economically efficient, so that some otherwise possibly illegal acts (subject to "rule of reason" antitrust analysis) can be legal if they enhance price discrimination.
On the other hand, in conventional economic models at least, the existence of price discrimination is evidence that someone has market power and so should be subject to antitrust scrutiny. But, of course, there are lots of legal ways to have a monopoly (own IP, just happen to make the product better than anyone else...)
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
"Price Discrimination" sounds evil, but really it's used every day, you've seen it a thousand times, and it's never bothered you before. Been to a movie lately? How come a ticket costs less if you're a senior citizen? Are the costs of showing a movie to an old woman significantly lower than that of showing it to a young man, such that a $3 difference in ticket price is warranted? Same thing for airline seats, amusement park tickets, etc. It's really no big deal.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
It's not illegal, and it's not price fixing (setting prices above a competitive level). Levels of (2nd degree) price discrimination (although supported by limited quality differentiation) are widely practiced by airlines (last minute business traveler fares anyone?).
In fact it has been attempted on a consumer-by-consumer (3rd degree) basis by Amazon not too long ago. What happened is people found out through discussion in forums, consumer outcry followed and Amazon stopped it (search for the articles/blogs if you want).
It seems that companies claiming prices as 'confidential' want it all their own way. That doesn't seems like a very pure form of capitalism.
Until an unplanned meeting with some black ice and a nearby tree, I used to own a Jaguar XJR. Now, big luxury cars depreciate fast and this Jaguar was seven years' old at the time of its demise. In other words, most people's year-old hatchbacks cost more than this car's second-hand value.
Despite that, the majority of people I dealt with who saw the car decided that I was obviously stinking rich, available to be fleeced and took the opportunity to try and rip me off. This would include car mechanics to a small extent (it was main-dealer serviced most of the time, you get ripped off there anyway) but also to workman calling at the house. Prices quoted for the same job varied enormously depending on whether I left the Jaguar parked outside the front or whether we left the MX-5 (Eunos Roadster/Miata by another name) parked outside.
Price discrimination? Yep, know all about that.
Cheers,
Ian
It pisses me off every time I'm in a store, but I only get really angry when the checker says something like 'Sir, you would have saved $15 on this purchase if you had used your discount card. Would you like me to give you one now that I'll use for this purchase.' If I have to pay outrageous fines to maintain my privacy, I'd rather not know how outrageous they are.
Recently (probably as complaints have risen from my demographic), most of upscale markets in our area have started granting the discount anyway if you tell them that you value your privacy, and they swipe a register card instead. Presumably they now are collecting data on privacy freaks, but at least it is as a group rather than as individuals.
--
BitTorrent in C -- LibBT
http://www.sf.net/projects/libbt
It may sound awful mean, but remember that the possibility of changing very high prices on occasion may be the only thing that makes the good available in the first place. The diabetic will surely be sorry he's not getting his insulin cheap, but if the possibility of his getting taken advantage of and providing big money to the pharmacist is the only reason the pharmacy is there in the first place, and otherwise the diabetic would die, then he can't be very sorry.
In the case of the taxi driver, remember that prices can't get too high, because (in the absence of collusion) otherwise other taxis would step in, at a price approximating their actual cost, not the benefit to the consumer, under perfect competition.
There are some laws limiting price discrimination. The most widely discussed is the rule of maritime law that a salvage ship can only charge a reasonable price, even if it's the only one around and gets the sinking ship's owner to promise something higher. There is extensive economic analysis of such rules; the general conclusion is that they are not useful, subject to the usual long list of exceptions.
There's a broader question, though. Suppose price gauging is "immoral" according to our common sense but its existence in a particular case is Pareto efficient: that is, it makes everyone in the world better off. Utilitarians would say that, in such a case, we are obligated to discard our moral intuition to make everyone better off. Do you disagree?
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
I recall buying my last car, where the salesman had to try several tactics in succession before realizing I wasn't the typical dumbass.
The tactics he tried were set up to catch people of decreasing stupidity, but, because he didn't know who I was, he had no choice but to make guesses about my intelligence and willingness to spend money. This means I was slightly empowered as a consumer, and the deck wasn't entirely stacked in the dealer's favor.
Now, imagine if the salesman had access to my entire purchasing history. If you think salespeople are agressive now, I don't want to imagine what it will be like if they use our own experience against us! The credit score is already bad enough as it is.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
It is not at all similar to price fixing. Price fixing occurs if competitors get together and agree on a price for their product. Therefore, competition is eliminated. This is a cartel and illegal under all antitrust laws know to me. Price fixing also occurs in other circumstances, when, for example a producer sets a minimum (or maximum) price at which a retailer is allowed to sell its product.
On the other hand, a company is price discriminating if it sells the same product at different prices. In many circumstances, this is entirely legal.
Why price discriminate?
Imagine a company selling product X. There are three different consumers, A, B and C. A values X at EUR50, B at EUR100 and C at EUR200.
In a market where the company is unable to distinguish these customers, it can only sell the item to each customer at the same price. If it sells at EUR50, all three customers will buy, if it sells at EUR150, only customer C will buy.
Therefore, the company has every incentive to price differentially, optimally EUR50 to A, EUR100 to B and EUR200 to C.
Two problems: (1) The company will have to find out about the valuations. (2) The possibility of trading amongst the customers limits price discrimnation (A buys at EUR50 and sells on to C at a higher price).
(1) is usually not solved perfectly. Price discrimination is usually applied across different groups that can be identified (ie customers in country A vs customers in country B or students vs non-students). However, the article describes how technology can be used to achieve perfect price discrimination.
(2) Either the characteristics of the product are such that trading is impossible (ie personalised products) or difficult (high transaction costs). Alternatively, the company could prevent trading by using contracts or other competitive threats. This could be illegal under some circumstances.
Discrimination against the "protected classes" (age, race, gender, etc.) is illegal, but any other form of price-setting is perfectly legal. The McDonald's in NYC has always charged more than the McDonald's in small-town USA, and Walmart is known to have different prices in its stores based on the existance (or lack of) local competition in the area.
Amazon.com tried this scheme before, offering the same item at different prices to different people to test reactions, but ended up embarassed when caught and refunded all those unknowingly involved in the test the difference between the price they paid and the lowest price that item was sold at during the test.
It's not price fixing... that's when the supposed competitors get together and agree on the price.
Mr. Odlyzco states that: "Economically, price discrimination is regarded as desirable."
Hoo boy, Where did that come from? Not only is that statement wrong, it is so fundamentally wrong I can't believe that anyone would interview this guy (obviously they haven't published his paper).
All beneficial aspects of market economics is based upon a "market clearing price." The "efficient market" is based upon a market like the New York stock exchange. The market clearing price is what drives down prices, and gives us what is called the "consumer surplus."
Price discrimination only results in higher output for a monopolist--because the monopolist makes his profit from restricting supply. The highest output is always achieved from a perfect market in which the price is driven down to the marginal cost per unit.
Only a monopolist can engage in true price discrimination, but all vendors wish to create "limited" monopolies and get price discrimination to certain degrees. Limited monopolies can be created through brand IDs, location, government franchise, patent and copywrite, being first to market, and so forth.
Price discrimination in airline fares is a complex intertwining of federal governement regulation, local airport regulation, kickbacks (where the flyer is not paying the fare), obfuscation and fraud.
If price discrimination were the rule, we would pay more for water than we do for wine. Every life-saving or limb saving medical operation would require the patient to file bankruptcy and pay every penny to the hospital because bankruptcy would always be preferable to losing an arm.
No prices would ever be posted anywhere. We would negotiate the price of every single purchase--including every hamburger and every Coke (his example).
It is this bleak vision that lead to over half of the world choosing communism in the first half of the century. It is the open market, that gives us our prosperity.
The issues of price discimination, monopolies and limited monopolies are so well documented that it is puzzling that Business Week would even think it worth while to interview this guy. In any case, it is pretty clear that after taking Econ 101, Mt. Odlyzco dropped out halfway through econ 102
Your sucker rating will haunt you like your credit rating. Now is the time to start being shrewd, before you build up a reputation a big fat sucker.
While being a bachelor here in Toronto I learned an important lesson in buying meat and how it is priced. Go to a rich neighborhood to buy your hamburger and go to a poor neighborhood to buy your expensive meats (steak, filet). What was interesting was that the quality of the lower cost meats was generally better.
When I got married, my wife didn't believe this until I did some comparison shopping with her. I suspect this is true in other cities as well.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
These systems are busy trying to figure out who's eager to blow big bucks (to charge him through the nose) and who's barely interested & very price sensitive (to charge their lowest price). Guess what - if you're willing to act poor when Big Bro's watching (and quietly pay cash after dickering price whenever you can for your luxuries), you can make this system work for you.
Much of the social status of being rich (vs. poor) comes from the blow-through-the-dough-and-don't-have-to-care (vs. sweating every penny) lifestyle & attitude. This system ain't much different from a bazaar 3000 years ago - the merchants knew perfectly well who was rich and who was poor.
It's easy to make up & spread cool- and credible-sounding stuff. Finding & checking hard facts is hard work.
For individual price fixing to work, it has to appeal to the consumer on a number of possible levels:
- Product appeal
- Convenience
- Value (or apparent value). Why do you think all those do-dads on TV include "free" items? To build value into otherwise worthless junk.
- Impulse purchase
- Level of trust
- Time limited offers
Any experienced on-line purchaser or consumer usually has a rough idea how much certain items are worth, i.e. CDs, movies, etc. This is why I don't think price discrimination will feature large differences is price. It's easy enough just to call down to my favorite music store and ask how much a particular movie or CD is before I purchase on-line, or check other web sites. The point is, comparison shop. If you shop around, the most a price discriminator could get away with is a few dollars, not the amounts that some people have indicated here, but YOU HAVE TO SHOP AROUND. Whenever I am considering a large on-line purchase, I compare the price to what is offered at a local store.
The problem, of course, with shopping around is it entails effort and many want the web to be effortless, so they impulse buy or worse yet trust the deal that's offered to them without shopping. It's the same in the real world, you have to comparison shop.
What I think you will find instead of huge price fluctuations is package deals and specials tailored to the individual consumer. I see nothing wrong with that, actually it quite appeals to me. I regularly receive specials from an on-line electronics dealer that I frequent and have taken advantage of quite a few of these specials, after comparing prices first.
My 2 cents.
To wit: imagine the "Preferred List" technique, where you and Mr. Jones receive a catalog. There is a product which normally lists for $700, but Mr. J's catalog has it for $500, where your catalog has it for $600. This is unfair. However, imagine being in an online auction for the same product. He bids $500, you bid $600. You win, AND you save money.
The only difference is that you feel superior in the auction method due to beating a number of people, whereas in the Preferred list method, you feel inferior due to being excluded from a perceived "gift".