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

Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

cardsagainsthumanity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 168 posts

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#141

Post by VLM »

gawker wrote: post #10

I think it's absolutely great that they've donated all the proceeds to Wikipedia :) Congratulations. It's heartwarming to know that although there are some free loaders, you were still made a pretty penny. On the other hand, how come all the design work, copy writing, etc are considered free? That's just masking the actual cost of the product.

"I think it's absolutely great that they've donated all the proceeds to Wikipedia"

Looking at their quirky web page of comparisons, I think it would be hilarious if the wikipedia deletionist camp responded by deleting all the articles quoted on their page. I'll never donate a penny to wikipedia until that social problem is eradicated. "Here's $70K of value... whoops deleted"

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#142

Post by ceautery »

shizcakes wrote: post #17
matthooks wrote: post #11

Hey guys, I developed this site. I'll be around for a little while if you have any tech questions. Edit: Please note that this pay what you can was just for the holiday-related expansion set, not the full game.

One comment: Myself and others were initially confused by the layout of the page into thinking that CAH had turned a massive loss. It's only when you get to the bottom that there was any indication of sales.

It was pretty clear they made a profit from reading the top paragraph saying $3 per unit was the total cost, and the first block of numbers said they averaged $3.89 in payments. So, that's $0.89 x 85,000 profit. I figured the rest was a story leading up to a good punchline.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#143

Post by Ntrails »

d0mine wrote: post #94
fleitz wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, it's logical thinking that is bizzarre. Irrationality is the norm.

Logical thinking is fine: garbage in — garbage out. Logical thinking won't help if you give it incorrect input data. Unless you believe in supernatural; everything is math provided a correct model.

That is a complete misunderstanding of the word model. Models are tools to help describe expected behaviour given a plethora of assumptions - they are not there to perfectly predict what can and will happen.

The idea that a model can do so has caused innumerable problems of late and it is frustrating to hear such myths perpetuated.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#144

Post by colinshark »

lywald wrote: post #136
MicahWedemeyer wrote: post #31

It seems like one takeaway is that a significant portion of people will just pay the default as stated, even if given a choice. I think people just have a hard time deciding what something is actually worth, so they'll take whatever advice is given. So, when pricing your products, if you're wondering if you should charge more, the default answer should be "Yes"

I'll bite: this is immoral, isn't it? To charge more than what you think it's worth. Because that's taking money you don't think you deserve. Anyway, this whole community seems oblivious to morals... I can almost feel the nihilism through the internet.

No, because there is no single ideal price for anything. The ideal price varies between customers.

Real world: Customer A thinks the $14 pizza is overpriced. No sale. Customer B thinks the $14 pizza is delicious and worth it. Would pay up to $20 if forced. Pays $14 and enjoys $6 in surplus value.

Ideal world: Customer A thinks the $14 pizza is worth about $6. Buys it for $6 (Arriving at the deal is the tricky part). Customer B thinks the $20 pizza is worth about $20. Buys it for $20 (Arriving at the deal is the tricky part).

Now both customers are happy with their pizzas, and the pizza maker made $26 in revenue instead of $14.

There is no "true" price for anything. It's not morally wrong for the cheap customer to pay $1 in a PWYW deal, and it's not morally wrong for the seller to enjoy it when someone pays $100 in the same deal.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#145

Post by scrumper »

ars wrote: post #96
scrumper wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First two points make sense as reasons why people wouldn't pay, but I'm not sure how you get from those to your conclusion. Why do those two things not apply to other examples?

Compare to leaving a platter of bagels with a card asking people to pay if they can. People are not curious if they can take a bagel for free - it's obvious that they can. So people are not tempted to do it just for the experiment. And people wanting to pay can use cash, so the second situation doesn't apply either. Most real world situations are more like this case than the cards case.

That answered my question, thanks. I was thinking of larger-scale, internet efforts (In Rainbows, Louis CK) but of course those don't involve physical delivery. Had not even considered honesty boxes.

Thinking more, I do remember reading about someone who started a business in DC delivering muffin baskets to beltway-area office buildings. Their business was purely honesty based, and I think losses due to cheapskatery were around 5%. In the end, they'd cut off buildings with rates worse than that. All that is more support for your points.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#146

Post by JoeAltmaier »

tptacek wrote: post #54
IheartApplesDix wrote: post #53

Why did they not donate to Wayback Machine instead? Wikimedia is doing just fine and their fund raising is mostly for advertising and marketing. The site is at zero risk of running out of operating funds. Personally, I'd rather see money go to historic records than revisionist, popular encyclopedia. Source: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_P... Last financial report: http://wikimediafoundati…

Because they already donated to Wikimedia. Two good times to recommend alternative charities: (i) on threads where people ask, "where should I donate my money", and (ii) on threads about disasters, when you have an opportunity to spur donations to targeted charities. You almost certainly didn't mean anything by this comment, but you generally want to avoid the appearance of litigating someone's good deed as a missed…

Yeah, telling people what they mean is also pointless, but ok.

I was also a little disappointed to see Wikimedia called a 'charity'. Because people ask you for money does not make them a worthy cause. Now, I'm sure Wikimedia is doing what they do out of the goodness of their hearts. But its not the same as feeding the hungry. In fact, its kind of a first-world problem being solved, isn't it?

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#147

Post by pflats »

aw3c2 wrote: post #47
mephi5t0 wrote: post #2

I am surprised there were jerks that paid 0. Really? You can't afford give them five bucks? You spend more on beer OR lunch OR coffee in Starbucks if you feel kinky. At least humble bundle not allow you to pay 0 :)

You are a jerk for calling them jerks. If it is "pay what you want" then you are invited to do exactly that. If you want to pay nothing, you may do so. It is perfectly inside the rules of the event.

Yes, it is within the rules of the event. There are lots of ways to play within the rules and still be a jerk.

Everyone who bought the cards for under $3 was faced with a decision: do I want these badly enough to literally cost the people who make them money?

Did you answer yes? Cool, you probably acted selfishly. Own it.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#148

Post by aw3c2 »

pflats wrote: post #147
aw3c2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are a jerk for calling them jerks. If it is "pay what you want" then you are invited to do exactly that. If you want to pay nothing, you may do so. It is perfectly inside the rules of the event.

Yes, it is within the rules of the event. There are lots of ways to play within the rules and still be a jerk. Everyone who bought the cards for under $3 was faced with a decision: do I want these badly enough to literally cost the people who make them money? Did you answer yes? Cool, you probably acted selfishly. Own it.

Selfishness is a perfectly fine motivation. I would even consider it important to a degree.

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#149

Post by aw3c2 »

peterwwillis wrote: post #130
pjlegato wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life is most definitely not "punch who you want"; that's illegal and will get you thrown in jail. There's a specific rule against that in most places. In certain designated areas of life, such as during a boxing match, the rules are different: if you're in a boxing match, you can indeed punch someone, and you won't get thrown in jail or suffer any other sanction (other than being punched back). A boxer who punches hi…

If I made a whole bunch of awesome potato skins for a party and said "It is suggested you only take up to two potato skins", and you take 10, you are a jerk. Or at an open bar, if you don't tip the bartenders you are a jerk. Or if there's a potluck and it's suggested everyone brings something, and you bring nothing. Jerk. "The rules" don't define whether you are a jerk or not. How you behave in the situation, does. T…

The wording makes all the difference. In this case it was "pay what you want", so "take as many potato skins as you want". Would someone who takes that invitation still be a jerk? Or just selfish? Or a hacker?

This reminds me of http://www.untoldentertainment.com/blog/2011/03/05/holding-t...

Re: Cards Against Humanity: Results of "pay what you want"

#150

Post by egypturnash »

colinshark wrote: post #144
lywald wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite: this is immoral, isn't it? To charge more than what you think it's worth. Because that's taking money you don't think you deserve. Anyway, this whole community seems oblivious to morals... I can almost feel the nihilism through the internet.

No, because there is no single ideal price for anything. The ideal price varies between customers. Real world: Customer A thinks the $14 pizza is overpriced. No sale. Customer B thinks the $14 pizza is delicious and worth it. Would pay up to $20 if forced. Pays $14 and enjoys $6 in surplus value. Ideal world: Customer A thinks the $14 pizza is worth about $6. Buys it for $6 (Arriving at the deal is the tricky part).…

The pizza maker made $26 minus whatever it costs to produce the pizza in time and materials. If the pizza cost $7 to make then the pizza maker makes $14 in profit versus $7. Also they lost a buck on that $6 pizza.

Further complexities: maybe it's a slow day and those employees were idle, and the raw materials were going to go bad without being used anyway - so if the $6 customer is buying it as cost the pizza maker may still be winning. Especially if they sold some fountain drinks to that customer, which are almost pure profit.

If you want a sustainable business, you need to cover your materials cost. Arguably paying less than the materials/shipping cost for something is morally wrong, especially if you know damn well this thing costs more than that to make and ship.

Post reply on HN