Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Companies use drip pricing to overcharge consumers

passingtime.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 425 posts

Re: Companies use drip pricing to overcharge consumers

#161

Post by nraynaud »

crazygringo wrote: post #84

Note that drip pricing for restaurants (e.g. 10-20% non-tip surcharge) is illegal in many jurisdictions (if not "conspicuously advertised" before eating), but some restaurants try to do it anyways (claiming the policy is "conspicuously advertised" on the last page of the menu, or a tiny sign behind the bar). Sometimes you can just refuse to pay it and they'll back down because they want a repeat customer more. Someti…

In France the prices have to be visible from outside the restaurant and you’d better be able to pre-compute your final bill before pushing the door.

I am always surprised that a country like France protects its invisible market hand better than the US that is more capitalist minded. Information symmetry is absolutely essential for market actors to behave in their own best interest.

Re: Companies use drip pricing to overcharge consumers

#162

Post by SoftTalker »

adrianmonk wrote: post #158

I support restaurants breaking out health insurance as a separate charge so that it's very conspicuous. In the restaurant industry, it isn't customary to provide health insurance benefits. (It shouldn't be that way, but right now, in the US, it is.) If a restaurant is going to try to treat their employees better, it's crucial for customers understand why they're paying more. Otherwise, they'll just think it's a bad d…

Why should it be that way? Why should health insurance be the responsibility of an employer at all? It is in the US, for historical reasons as an unintended consequence of WWII-era price and wage controls, but I don't understand why we continue to think that makes any sense at all.

Re: Companies use drip pricing to overcharge consumers

#165

Post by II2II »

ericmcer wrote: post #44
voakbasda wrote: post #20

Boost Mobile did this recently when my wife and I switched cell carriers. They advertised a $30/month/line plan (after a 3-month introductory period at an even lower price), but we are now paying closer to $45. This has pissed me off enough that I want to look for another carrier, but this seems to be SOP for this industry. Telcos behave like nothing less than a criminal cartel, so I was hardly surprised by this play…

The same happens with my ISP. I just call customer service and tell them I want to cancel. They offer me a significantly better price for a year, I take the new price and after the year it goes up again and I call to cancel again.

The Canadian government compels the major telecommunications providers to lease their services to independent ISPs. Getting internet service installed with an independent ISP literally involves a visit from the major telecommunications provider and the service is pretty much equivalent to what the major telecommunications provider offers. The difference is price. Few of the independent ISPs try to attract customers with special offers since their rates are typically lower than their provider's consumer internet rates to start with, even when you consider the major provider's special rates.

The company I'm with was almost apologetic when they raised their rates, twice over the past decade, even though their increases were lower than inflation and the major ISPs were increasing their rates nearly every year. They don't play games with customer retention. If you want to cancel, they cancel. If you don't really want to cancel, well, you won't get a special rate.

While a part of the independent ISP's advantage is due to the rates they pay being regulated, I get the impression that they also keep their costs down by not playing games. It also keeps my costs down since I don't fall prey to their games. It also reduces the stress in my life since I really don't like playing exploitive games.

Choice is good.

EDIT: clarification.

Re: Companies use drip pricing to overcharge consumers

#167

Post by gorjusborg »

alistairSH wrote: post #67
mortenjorck wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an establishment adds a 20% surcharge to a dining check, that's a tip, and generally considered to be on the higher end in the US. I would simply consider them to have chosen my tip amount for me and leave it at that.

The restaurant in the article claimed the 20% surcharge was NOT a tip. :shrug:

I read that too and laughed.

The whole argument behind tipping is that the servers don't get paid enough without it.

I am all for restaurants paying a fair wage and benefits to their staff. I will not eat at a restaurant that tries to surcharge me for it.

There is already a way to pass along costs to the customer: the posted price.

There's definitely no way I am paying a tip and a surcharge.

Re: Companies use drip pricing to overcharge consumers

#168

Post by adrianmonk »

SoftTalker wrote: post #162
adrianmonk wrote: post #158

I support restaurants breaking out health insurance as a separate charge so that it's very conspicuous. In the restaurant industry, it isn't customary to provide health insurance benefits. (It shouldn't be that way, but right now, in the US, it is.) If a restaurant is going to try to treat their employees better, it's crucial for customers understand why they're paying more. Otherwise, they'll just think it's a bad d…

Why should it be that way? Why should health insurance be the responsibility of an employer at all? It is in the US, for historical reasons as an unintended consequence of WWII-era price and wage controls, but I don't understand why we continue to think that makes any sense at all.

I don't actually want restaurants to be the ones providing health insurance. I want the workers to have insurance.

Within the framework of the laws that exist today (which, like you, I think should be changed), there are tax advantages for employers that provide it, so that's the most practical approach right now.

Re: Companies use drip pricing to overcharge consumers

#169

Post by jeffbee »

A cafe near me started adding "shuumi land tax" on the price of a cup of coffee. It's fine by me if they want to participate in some weird scheme were they rent land from some native tribe who are long gone, but don't pass it through to me. Another place started charging 25¢ on to-go coffee cups which I assumed was some city litter tax so I asked for my coffee "for here" and the guy tapped the terminal a few times and it changed into a 25¢ "for here" surcharge! Naturally I do not frequent either of those places any more.
Post reply on HN