241–250 of 250 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It requires more self control not to drink the third one when it's sitting in your fridge than when it's sitting in the supermarket
Easy. Don't put it in the fridge until you know you're going to drink it later that day. Or quick-cool it by dunking in ice water for about a hour.
Having it completely "Free" as the spend $12 Beer for Free T-Shirt example doesn't work in Asia as well. Because you would soon realise these market wont pay a $12 product to get a "Free" T-Shirt. It only works in Japan and Korea, and that also depends on the products.
Generally Speaking, Discount is better than Free with Strings attached in Asia Regions. Pricing Strategy, Consumer Expectation and Product Selection is so vastly in every Asian Market are part of the many reason why many large Retailers failed in China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if you did want to buy 3, or 6 or even 12 bottles then it is actually a saving. It's about shopping smart.
If you buy 12 there is often a case which is a lot cheaper. I don't drink that much that it makes sense to stockpile; I also have the problem that if I have a fridge full of beer I am going to drink a lot more than I would otherwise. I may be in a minority, but I prefer to buy a couple of beers just once in a while.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even without discount on the more expensive one, it can be used as a marketing trick to make you buy more expensive. For instance offer three versions of a product: $1 branded as cheap/bad, $2 branded as good, $5 branded as luxury. The last one exists mainly to anchor the value of the $2 as also cheap and to make you buy it. If one only had the choice between $1 and $2, most people would choose $1 option.
I agree that there's been a move to split "Store Brand X" into "Store Basics X", "Store Brand X" and "Store Finest X", and that the "basic" product is often perfectly good. However, for broader product categories, there's also a tendency for the most and least expensive products to be outliers, with the cheapest being barely enough to justify the label and the dearest being aimed at rich suckers. Hence the heuristic…
> Restaurants realize that many people won’t order the least expensive wine (no one wants to look like a cheapskate!) so they often go for the second cheapest. That’s exactly why it’s often the most marked-up bottle on the list.
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20131210062034/http://www.urbans...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What really annoys me though is Tesco displays the price per/unit using different units, so you're constantly having to figure it out in your head - one loaf of bread might display the price per 100g, another the price per 1kg etc.
In the US we take it to the next level by mixing in imperial measurements. I don’t know about most people but I’m using my phone for conversations between ounces, pounds, then some SI measurements, etc.
I'd imagine while a pain to deal with non round SI measures it should be reasonably easy to work out price per unit, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, the mythical caricature textbook economics that hasn't integrated bounded rationality or behavioral economics. Funny how I only find that in internet comments and not actual classrooms past 101 (which is too basic to get into this).
I may be too cynical, but I assume most MBA curricula do not contain bounded rationality ot behavioral economics at least as obligatory subject, but are happily restricting themselves to the world view of 101.
And other than the econ classes, business classes aren't modeling behavior or doing much theory work, so they aren't making assumptions like rationality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I may be too cynical, but I assume most MBA curricula do not contain bounded rationality ot behavioral economics at least as obligatory subject, but are happily restricting themselves to the world view of 101.
Business programs LOVE behavioral econ. You get Nudge and cognitive bias stuff starting in undergrad business classes. And other than the econ classes, business classes aren't modeling behavior or doing much theory work, so they aren't making assumptions like rationality.
> Most online clothing brands offer ‘free’ shipping, with the catch that you have to meet a minimum purchase amount (often $100) to qualify. Some 58% of consumers will add additional items to their cart — often things they didn’t originally intend to purchase — just to “save” $5 to $10 on handling fees. You will find people vigorously defending their behaviour when challenged on this. For example: Amazon Prime. Amazo…
I'm embarrassed to say Amazon got me with this trap a few times. I'm at the checkout with a $19 mouse but amazon reminds me that I could get free shipping if I get to the $25. So I go back and look for something I need for $6 bucks. Can't find anything I need for $6 bucks so out of frustration I somehow end up with a $70 worth of stuff I don't need just to save a couple of bucks on shipping.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I get what you mean. If I go to the store with a list of the usual items I purchased and some of those items are on sale, I end up spending less money for the exact same items.
The other replies have good examples. At it's simplest if you have $100 and go to the shops and leave with $20 you have not saved any money, you have lost $80. Reducing the amount you lose is not saving that money as money is still being lost. Yes you might lose less money than usual but the article and the point most people are making is that these offers short circuit rationality to make us think we are getting a d…