4 ms·
> I doubt the gains are cumulative Why do you doubt that? Aren't they presented as independent results? > bring value to the consumer This is vague, but also
by robbiemitchell 9y ago
> I doubt the gains are cumulative
Why do you doubt that? Aren't they presented as independent results?
> bring value to the consumer
This is vague, but also a separate goal. Perhaps another way of representing customer value is churn reduction. In any case, it could be appropriate to invest in gaining 3% more revenue per additional customer, then use the gains to invest in more customer value.
> #1 and #3 are dick moves and #2 needs some good crafting
Real scarcity exists, and there's value to communicating it to the customer. For example, saying there are two copies of something available, and the rest are backordered for three weeks, can be pretty useful information.
- dkersten 9y agoReal scarcity exists, and there's value to communicating it to the customer. I assume what was meant is that they're dick moves if done purely for sales optimisation (i.e. If they are lying) and not if the scarcity or time limitations actually naturally exist.
- Iv 9y agoI think they are not purely cumulative because I assume that consumer have a it of slack in their decision/budget and that each optimization consumes some of this slack. The basic idea behind 1 and 3 is to stress out the consumer into believing that he may miss a sale. I think that stressing them out with 1 or 3 more or less gives the same result and does not need to be applied twice. Real scarcity exists, but this paper gives an incentive to create artificial scarcity. I have seen a lot of websites mention low stocks but none mentioning backorders or restocking estimates. Saying "Only 3 items left" has a very different effect than "only 3 items left but 100 more arrive in 2 weeks".