61–70 of 85 posts
Frankly, I consider the aggressive use of these tactics to be a sign that the company is manipulative and untrustworthy.
(Firefox worked.)
a colleague sent me a link to "tactic 14." after reviewing the citations i'm skeptical of the rest. it appears the author misunderstood some research he cited. the thesis for tactic 14 is: > Anchoring not only works for prices, but it also works for any number, regardless whether that number is a price. the SSN example demonstrates anchoring based on price (not just any high number). the results of this experiment wo…
Also another thing that made me raise an eyebrow - "You should avoid charging different prices based on past behavior, demographics, or any other factor besides natural supply and demand."
Clicked the "X" shortly after.
People are eating out of his hand it seems though, so he has that going on for him at least. Many ebooks will be sold.
Conversion rate of 2 --> 2.39% Converison rate of 1.99 --> 5.2% Mind = Blown. I mean, I knew the *.99 affected the consumer perception about the price, but not in such a huge way... Fantastic article (and blog). PS: The "leaving know" modal is annoying, I was just trying to switch tabs
This kind of stuff is a strong argument for communism. An immense amount of mental energy was squandered on creating this list (not Nick Kolenda, the people who studied these things). That same energy could have been spent on curing any number of psychological ailments, but instead it was spent on getting people to pay more for less. It's interesting, but as far as I'm concerned the energy was wasted.
People tend to fail in simple predictions but communists and hardcore socialists still believe they can manually control systems of enormous complexity.
Number of failed communist regimes confirms they can't. (But these regimes are quite good at producing death and starvation.)
This kind of stuff is a strong argument for communism. An immense amount of mental energy was squandered on creating this list (not Nick Kolenda, the people who studied these things). That same energy could have been spent on curing any number of psychological ailments, but instead it was spent on getting people to pay more for less. It's interesting, but as far as I'm concerned the energy was wasted.
Nice write-up, but it hurts to see a generalized warning against dynamic pricing since that's what we provide with our product Baabedo[0] (we don't adjust prices on a per-customer level though). One point where we observed the exact opposite effect is the splitting of shipping cost. Products with free shipping sell better than with split pricing, but that might be a marketplace specific effect of Amazon. [0] https://…
I'd say the dynamic pricing should be done transparently, that is, the user should know that the products have been re-priced. It also depends very much on how you do it. From the article: >Is dynamic pricing always bad? Not necessarily. Dynamic pricing can be effective when adjustments are based on supply and demand (e.g., stadiums trying to fill remaining seats). >Dynamic pricing becomes harmful when adjustments ar…
Because we are currently only on Amazon we can't do optimization based on the customer because we only get information about him when a sale is made. So at the moment we optimize based on market and past sales history.
I am generally open to the idea of customer based pricing and think that it can be very powerful if done right and be benifical to both the merchant and the customer.
That's an interesting read. But it just feels wrong. And the worst is that it works. Could we all just stop buying things based on some annoying pricing tactics and start buying products of companies that we want to support for their good work?
Are you are suggesting consuming based on how the company makes you feel? If they make you feel good, or convince you that they are doing good work then should they get more business? Is that rational? What if they are lying or exaggerating? Doesn't a lot of marketing and advertising seek to increase the positiveness of the particular brand? How about morality? How about if a charity uses these tactics in their fund…
It is certainly more rational to believe a company should get more business if they can convince you that they're doing good work or better work than others. In order to protect customers from lying or exaggerations, there are (ideally) laws in place that should give you the right to return whatever it is that you bought. The whole discussion loses its purpose if we include fraud or otherwise illegal tactics.
> How about morality? How about if a charity uses these tactics in their fund raising?
That's a tricky question. I think you could reframe it into: Is it morally justifiable to do bad things in order to ultimately achieve a greater good? Morally, the answer is no since the morality of a society are a set of rules that determine what can be done and can't be done (instances of these rules can be found in the law). So, if something can't be done morally (e.g. child labour), you simply can't do it, whatever the context might be.
On the other hand, pricing tactics are not illegal and there's probably not enough consensus to derive morality from it. However, ethically, from my personal viewpoint, I would argue that it amounts to manipulation and therefore deceits people. Thus, I can not endorse charities that use manipulation, no matter the context. After all, if you want to do something good for people, why would you try to manipulate the ones trying to help you?
Conversion rate of 2 --> 2.39% Converison rate of 1.99 --> 5.2% Mind = Blown. I mean, I knew the *.99 affected the consumer perception about the price, but not in such a huge way... Fantastic article (and blog). PS: The "leaving know" modal is annoying, I was just trying to switch tabs
Hey, do you believe everything that you read on the Internet? Because I might have some bad news for you, that will blow your mind too.
Only when I put my tin foil hat on