4 ms·

Businesses 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 beca

Businesses 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?

lotsofpulp 7y ago
We shouldn't, but the more efficient, cheaper, long term, structural way to fix it is to create more educated consumers. Teach children in school how to make proper comparisons, how to avoid sales tactics, how to figure out the bottom line for them. How would you even police something like 80% off a "fake" retail price? Create a database of all transactions for all items and compare to the historical average in x amount of days? Force all sellers to maintain records of their sales to compare against, and then go around doing spot checks? Why not just have the government buy up billboards and TV ad spots educating everyone not to fall for the discounts and to compare the bottom line number they pay, and reward sellers that offer price transparency with their business?
- reroute1 7y ago
  Never said anything about policing PRICES... The sales pricing is dirty not illegal. Businesses should be free to price things however they want, but that doesn't mean certain sales pricing isn't a dirty trick. And it's DEFINITELEY not in the same category as these other practices. Dark UI patterns and deceptive tactics are definitely grounds for legislation though, and those are the particulars of the article and this discussion not a nebulous discussion about %50 sales. It's shitty and takes advantage of people. Dark patterns and automatically raising prices and making it near impossible to cancel accounts... this is what people are talking about legislating. Ff you are defending those dark patterns and deceptive tactics from being legislated against you are basically taking the position of a con man or someone who stands to profit from that behavior. They aren't providing a better service they're providing deceptive business practices. Why would you try to implement some nationwide educational campaign instead of outlawing by definition a deceptive business practice? That would be a giant misallocation of resources and not even guaranteed to help. How are you going to educate the old and succeptible? They are the ones most prone to these attacks. What you're saying isn't just late night TV ads can use $99.99 to appeal to customers, no one has a problem with that. You're saying sure go ahead and use Dark UI patterns and straight up deceiving pricing contracts to my elderly grandma, and you have no issue with that? She shoulda been better educated? OK then... Do you also think Kevin Trudeau is a stand up guy who deserves to be in business?
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    >You're saying sure go ahead and use Dark UI patterns and straight up deceiving pricing contracts to my elderly grandma, and you have no issue with that? She shoulda been better educated? OK then... Do you also think Kevin Trudeau is a stand up guy who deserves to be in business? I'm not saying this at all. My original comment was a reply to vmurthy whose comment was specifically about discounting a raised price, and my response to him states that I'm commenting about that specific sales tactic. For the record, I am against any practice that unnecessarily hides the price one is paying or makes buttons confusing and other "dark" UI patterns. However, if the price one is paying is clearly visible, I see no reason to regulate anything else regarding that price, such as x% off or limited time offer or that nonsense.
    - reroute1 7y ago
      Fair enough, though I'd say discounting a raised price is a borderline case for regulation. That is obviously deceiving and dubious at best. As I said you might feel good getting that discount, but it's an illusory savings which if people knew about they'd never choose that over actual savings, but no not illegal. So I agree with him I'd feel cheated. The FTC does hold advertisements to their claims and that's getting dangerously close depending on their exact language

lotsofpulp 7y ago

We shouldn't, but the more efficient, cheaper, long term, structural way to fix it is to create more educated consumers. Teach children in school how to make proper comparisons, how to avoid sales tactics, how to figure out the bottom line for them. How would you even police something like 80% off a "fake" retail price? Create a database of all transactions for all items and compare to the historical average in x amount of days? Force all sellers to maintain records of their sales to compare against, and then go around doing spot checks? Why not just have the government buy up billboards and TV ad spots educating everyone not to fall for the discounts and to compare the bottom line number they pay, and reward sellers that offer price transparency with their business?

reroute1 7y ago
Never said anything about policing PRICES... The sales pricing is dirty not illegal. Businesses should be free to price things however they want, but that doesn't mean certain sales pricing isn't a dirty trick. And it's DEFINITELEY not in the same category as these other practices. Dark UI patterns and deceptive tactics are definitely grounds for legislation though, and those are the particulars of the article and this discussion not a nebulous discussion about %50 sales. It's shitty and takes advantage of people. Dark patterns and automatically raising prices and making it near impossible to cancel accounts... this is what people are talking about legislating. Ff you are defending those dark patterns and deceptive tactics from being legislated against you are basically taking the position of a con man or someone who stands to profit from that behavior. They aren't providing a better service they're providing deceptive business practices. Why would you try to implement some nationwide educational campaign instead of outlawing by definition a deceptive business practice? That would be a giant misallocation of resources and not even guaranteed to help. How are you going to educate the old and succeptible? They are the ones most prone to these attacks. What you're saying isn't just late night TV ads can use $99.99 to appeal to customers, no one has a problem with that. You're saying sure go ahead and use Dark UI patterns and straight up deceiving pricing contracts to my elderly grandma, and you have no issue with that? She shoulda been better educated? OK then... Do you also think Kevin Trudeau is a stand up guy who deserves to be in business?
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  >You're saying sure go ahead and use Dark UI patterns and straight up deceiving pricing contracts to my elderly grandma, and you have no issue with that? She shoulda been better educated? OK then... Do you also think Kevin Trudeau is a stand up guy who deserves to be in business? I'm not saying this at all. My original comment was a reply to vmurthy whose comment was specifically about discounting a raised price, and my response to him states that I'm commenting about that specific sales tactic. For the record, I am against any practice that unnecessarily hides the price one is paying or makes buttons confusing and other "dark" UI patterns. However, if the price one is paying is clearly visible, I see no reason to regulate anything else regarding that price, such as x% off or limited time offer or that nonsense.
  - reroute1 7y ago
    Fair enough, though I'd say discounting a raised price is a borderline case for regulation. That is obviously deceiving and dubious at best. As I said you might feel good getting that discount, but it's an illusory savings which if people knew about they'd never choose that over actual savings, but no not illegal. So I agree with him I'd feel cheated. The FTC does hold advertisements to their claims and that's getting dangerously close depending on their exact language