4 ms·

Many comments saying something to the effect of "$140 for $80 worth of groceries? Robbery!" What's $80 worth of groceries? It's what you're willing to pay $80

Many comments saying something to the effect of "$140 for $80 worth of groceries? Robbery!" What's $80 worth of groceries? It's what you're willing to pay $80 for. The grocery store is marking up the food from their suppliers, is that a rip off? Grocery stores in urban areas charge more than in rural areas, rip off? When there's only 1 small store in an area (food deserts) they charge 10-30% more - an outrage? This is great information to have and a benefit to consumers that they know the difference, but if Instacart gives you a price and you pay it then that's a fair price by definition. It's not an outrage in any way.

CydeWeys 10y ago
The outrage is that they are intentionally obfuscating the cost of using their service. It's not unreasonable at all to want to know how much more using their service costs than if I were to go shopping myself; that's how I can do the cost evaluation of whether it's worth it for me to spend that extra money to save me the time of a shopping trip. Information is critical for driving free markets. Instacart is pulling some sleazy shenanigans, sending them down a path pretty similar to where Uber has ended up. I don't make it a habit of patronizing businesses that use deceptive pricing practices to try to rip me off.
- jon2k17 10y ago
  There are plenty of same as store price grocers on instacart. Why not shop there?
- tommynicholas 10y ago
  The price of their service was $140 for the groceries the customer selected. Hard stop. The grocery store doesn't tell you what the underlying cost of their food was, nobody does that. It's not a requirement. Now it could be something consumers DEMAND which would give a competitor an advantage if they did it (see Everlane with their transparent pricing) but it's not unethical or sleazy not to disclose the underlying costs of your goods.
  - brown9-2 10y ago
    It seems unethical for a company to tell you "our markup for this grocery store is 15%+" when in reality it was ~50%.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      Is it unethical for stores to advertise "savings up to 50%" and have most items not be on sale for 50%?
      - brown9-2 10y ago
        The difference here is that shoppers in that store can see the final price and actual savings before purchasing. Can you do the same with Instacart?
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        > Can you do the same with Instacart? Instacart shows you the final price. The price they paid for the goods is immaterial - you're choosing the convenience of not having to write your own delivery app, recruiting employees, or set up payment. When you walk into a book store, do you demand to see the book price broken down into manufacturer's price, store rent, employee pay, and store profit and complain when the difference between the manufacturer's price and the retail price is too high?
    - tommynicholas 10y ago
      That I agree with.
  - unethical_ban 10y ago
    No, not hard stop. If understanding the cost of a service/product is expected (via getting an itemized receipt), and the cost of service is separated from the product (as is done via delivery fee, service fee, etc) then it is unethical to build in markup on the product itself. It's the same reason I think mechanics are shitty when they charge 50%+ markup on parts for auto repair. I'm paying you for the service - the right thing to do is to show the cost of the service separate from the market price of the product. Alcohol/food at a restaurant is different - it is clear and known that service and product are interwoven in the list price.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > It's not unreasonable at all to want to know how much more using their service costs than if I were to go shopping myself They're not intentionally obfuscating anything. You know how much your bill will be before you order. What it costs them is immaterial. Would you expect a clothing store to tell you what their individual per-unit cost is for clothes you're buying, and to tell you how much money they're charging you for opening a storefront and negotiating with the manufacturer?
Nullabillity 10y ago
$160 for $80 worth of groceries is insane. $160 for $80 worth of groceries that you claim is worth $130 is fraud.

CydeWeys 10y ago

The outrage is that they are intentionally obfuscating the cost of using their service. It's not unreasonable at all to want to know how much more using their service costs than if I were to go shopping myself; that's how I can do the cost evaluation of whether it's worth it for me to spend that extra money to save me the time of a shopping trip. Information is critical for driving free markets. Instacart is pulling some sleazy shenanigans, sending them down a path pretty similar to where Uber has ended up. I don't make it a habit of patronizing businesses that use deceptive pricing practices to try to rip me off.

jon2k17 10y ago
There are plenty of same as store price grocers on instacart. Why not shop there?
tommynicholas 10y ago
The price of their service was $140 for the groceries the customer selected. Hard stop. The grocery store doesn't tell you what the underlying cost of their food was, nobody does that. It's not a requirement. Now it could be something consumers DEMAND which would give a competitor an advantage if they did it (see Everlane with their transparent pricing) but it's not unethical or sleazy not to disclose the underlying costs of your goods.
- brown9-2 10y ago
  It seems unethical for a company to tell you "our markup for this grocery store is 15%+" when in reality it was ~50%.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    Is it unethical for stores to advertise "savings up to 50%" and have most items not be on sale for 50%?
    - brown9-2 10y ago
      The difference here is that shoppers in that store can see the final price and actual savings before purchasing. Can you do the same with Instacart?
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        > Can you do the same with Instacart? Instacart shows you the final price. The price they paid for the goods is immaterial - you're choosing the convenience of not having to write your own delivery app, recruiting employees, or set up payment. When you walk into a book store, do you demand to see the book price broken down into manufacturer's price, store rent, employee pay, and store profit and complain when the difference between the manufacturer's price and the retail price is too high?
  - tommynicholas 10y ago
    That I agree with.
- unethical_ban 10y ago
  No, not hard stop. If understanding the cost of a service/product is expected (via getting an itemized receipt), and the cost of service is separated from the product (as is done via delivery fee, service fee, etc) then it is unethical to build in markup on the product itself. It's the same reason I think mechanics are shitty when they charge 50%+ markup on parts for auto repair. I'm paying you for the service - the right thing to do is to show the cost of the service separate from the market price of the product. Alcohol/food at a restaurant is different - it is clear and known that service and product are interwoven in the list price.
jimmywanger 10y ago
> It's not unreasonable at all to want to know how much more using their service costs than if I were to go shopping myself They're not intentionally obfuscating anything. You know how much your bill will be before you order. What it costs them is immaterial. Would you expect a clothing store to tell you what their individual per-unit cost is for clothes you're buying, and to tell you how much money they're charging you for opening a storefront and negotiating with the manufacturer?

Nullabillity 10y ago

$160 for $80 worth of groceries is insane. $160 for $80 worth of groceries that you claim is worth $130 is fraud.