4 ms·
You are way overcomplicating it. People are not talking about comparing the discounted price with some fictional “intrinsic utility” price and your comments abo
by mlthoughts2018 7y ago
You are way overcomplicating it. People are not talking about comparing the discounted price with some fictional “intrinsic utility” price and your comments about the utility of the item are tone deaf and missing the point.
Advertising that you are selling something at a discount is information that your price might be lower than a competitor. Nobody likes getting a discount at store A then seeing the same item for less at store B, and as a result, people don’t care much about discounts in an absolute sense. Only that the information announcement of the discount is advertising price competition with other sellers or substitutes.
When a seller lies about the original price to claim a discount, they are banking on consumers just “believing the lie” that the fake, pre-discount price was a competitive price compared with competitors or substitutes.
People choose to believe it’s a malicious & morally wrong action for the seller to do that, to intentionally play against consumers’ penchant to seek the lowest price among various alternatives by creating a discount from an inflated reference price that is intentionally not competitive with other sellers, and to hope that it fools some consumers who trust the seller instead of doing the legwork to compare prices & learn if the pre-discount price was in line with competitors.
People just choose to believe a seller that chooses to do this is shitty and acting antagonistically to manipulate buyers. They expect sellers to be honest about sources of price competition.
A discount should be with regard to a prevailing market aggregated price, or some close & sincere approximation from sampling the prices at competitors or prices of substitutes. If the discount is in regard to some other way of setting the pre-discount price, then it’s intentionally manipulating people to play on the cognitive flaw that they will nonetheless believe the discount is in regard to some notion of a “fair market value” price level, especially in situations driven by short-term cognition.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoI think expecting a seller to make sure they have the lowest price compared to other sellers is ridiculous. It’s not a seller’s job to make sure the buyer is getting the lowest price. It’s not possible for a seller to know every single other seller’s price so I don’t see how anyone has a reasonable expectation to that in the first place. People like to THINK they are getting a discount. They don’t care that the actually are. Clear evidence is JCPenney trying to offer people the best price without discounts: https://www.priceintelligently.com/blog/bid/152018/lessons-from-the-failure-of-j-c-penney-s-new-pricing-strategy https://www.priceintelligently.com/blog/bid/152018/lessons-f... It’s how Kohl’s and Bed Bath And Beyond survive. Consumers rewarded sellers that offer 80% off ridiculously marked up items versus JC Penney who tried to offer an “honest” market price, and they forced JC Penney to engage in “deceptive” sale pricing again.
- reroute1 7y agoPeople care more about feeling like they save money vs. actually saving money? If they found out they were just given the illusion of saving money vs. actually saving money who would choose the illusion? I sure as hell wouldn't it seems totally illogical.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoPeople can search the price on their phone and compare, but many don't. There does exist a significant population that feels better getting a discount.
- zrobotics 7y agoFrom your comment above: "It’s not possible for a seller to know every single other seller’s price so I don’t see how anyone has a reasonable expectation to that in the first place." So if the seller can't be expected to know their competitors prices how can the consumer be expected to keep track of all that information for all the products they buy? Additionally, sellers evaluate competitors' prices and compare them to their own all the time.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoI never implied a consumer should be expected to keep track. Not having perfect knowledge of every transaction in the marketplace is a risk for all buyers and sellers. Holding a seller liable for another seller's price is ludicrous though. That's the buyer's job to do, by not giving business to a seller who isn't in line with the market (other sellers). No reason to get lawyers and courts and regulatory bodies involved.
- reroute1 7y agoBusinesses can set prices however they want, but that doesn't mean anyone has to buy it. But when shady pricing and sales come in the consumer feels better because they think they're saving and don't realize they are being deceived. Certainly there are lazy people, but that's entirely different no one would willingly pay more for the same service. They're only "happy" because they're being lied to. Why should we reinforce this kind of behavior?