5 ms·

> I really think that this is only seen as degrading today, because it's not needed yet. The point was that it's not needed period. There is no point in having

> I really think that this is only seen as degrading today, because it's not needed yet. The point was that it's not needed period. There is no point in having people wait for hours in a queue apart from satisfying the retailer's vanity. It's degrading to the prospective customer personally standing in line, much less a mere hired agent. The economically sound move would be to price the items at a point where there is no shortage, but if the company wants to create the appearance of a shortage at artificially low prices for dubious marketing reasons then they should just hold a lottery for the opportunity to purchase rather than making people waste their limited time in line.

gowld 7y ago
Pricing at a non-shortage point is even worse. Waiting in a queue means that some poor people have a chance at getting the product. Auctioning the desirable product guarantees they won't. Lottery is perhaps better, but it's probably easier to game a lottery than a line, since a rich person can buy many tickets.
- nybble41 7y ago
  As to the first point, it depends on what you're trying to achieve. That's why I mentioned the lottery option. You can limit the lottery to one entry per person and make the ticket, and the item itself, non-transferrable; anything less can be gamed to favor those with disposable funds, including queues. (After all, that's the subject of this thread.) However, I think that if someone took the time they'd otherwise have been wasting in lines and used it productively instead then they could probably earn enough to afford the higher market-clearing price, and society would be better for it.
  - mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
    If you do a lottery you're still more likely to have a higher proportion of folks with more money and less time than vice versa than you would if you force people to stand in line, and if you verify that the attendees actually stood in line you make it more difficult to game. Re: your second point, I can't imagine that's accurate given the extreme differences that exist in disposable income and earning ability. Edit: I'm realizing now that you may have been more focused on retail than events, in which case I suppose the identity verification option that I'm discussing I admit seems a bit stranger / less relevant.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      I'm not going to dispute your point that the lottery would be less likely to favor people with more free time compared to the queue, but I don't see why a company would care about that. Keep in mind that the context was "get the latest iPhone on launch day", not something with significant audience interaction like a concert. Keeping prices low to generate hype and make themselves look popular is one thing but the goal is still to attract people with money and connections in order to sell more product and build the brand. I'm not convinced this is about equality, either. The time-intensive approach disfavors the lower-middle class the most; on the <em>very</em> low end of the income scale you have a lot of time on your hands on account of not having a job, but for that reason probably can't afford the latest iPhone even at a scarcity-inducing discount. Above a certain point you have enough money to determine your own working hours and can afford to spend time waiting in line for something you really want.
      - mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
        Yeah, sorry, I didn't follow the thread carefully enough and had the context wrong / thought you were discussing the concert situation. I may be wrong here, but I still think a middle income person is more likely to be willing to spend time in line than a high income person - maybe not as much because they actually _have_ more time available, but rather because they don't value their time as highly, see it as "cheaper" to spend it waiting in line, or are simply more accustomed to being made to wait in lines. Conversely, if I am very rich, I may very well be able to afford waiting in lines, but I may also be more averse to doing so.
mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
It does has other effects that they may be interested in, at least if they require that the person in the queue actually be the attendee. Forcing people to stand in line in order to attend an event means that only those who are willing to spend time rather than money will be able to go. This has effects on the type of person who ends up in the crowd - arguably people who on average are more interested in the event, even relative to a lottery solution since that would give you a more random distribution of folks along the axes of access to time / money. That said, it does come at a cost. Edit: I'm realizing now that you may have been more focused on retail than events, in which case I suppose the identity verification option that I'm discussing I admit seems a bit stranger / less relevant.

gowld 7y ago

Pricing at a non-shortage point is even worse. Waiting in a queue means that some poor people have a chance at getting the product. Auctioning the desirable product guarantees they won't. Lottery is perhaps better, but it's probably easier to game a lottery than a line, since a rich person can buy many tickets.

nybble41 7y ago
As to the first point, it depends on what you're trying to achieve. That's why I mentioned the lottery option. You can limit the lottery to one entry per person and make the ticket, and the item itself, non-transferrable; anything less can be gamed to favor those with disposable funds, including queues. (After all, that's the subject of this thread.) However, I think that if someone took the time they'd otherwise have been wasting in lines and used it productively instead then they could probably earn enough to afford the higher market-clearing price, and society would be better for it.
- mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
  If you do a lottery you're still more likely to have a higher proportion of folks with more money and less time than vice versa than you would if you force people to stand in line, and if you verify that the attendees actually stood in line you make it more difficult to game. Re: your second point, I can't imagine that's accurate given the extreme differences that exist in disposable income and earning ability. Edit: I'm realizing now that you may have been more focused on retail than events, in which case I suppose the identity verification option that I'm discussing I admit seems a bit stranger / less relevant.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    I'm not going to dispute your point that the lottery would be less likely to favor people with more free time compared to the queue, but I don't see why a company would care about that. Keep in mind that the context was "get the latest iPhone on launch day", not something with significant audience interaction like a concert. Keeping prices low to generate hype and make themselves look popular is one thing but the goal is still to attract people with money and connections in order to sell more product and build the brand. I'm not convinced this is about equality, either. The time-intensive approach disfavors the lower-middle class the most; on the <em>very</em> low end of the income scale you have a lot of time on your hands on account of not having a job, but for that reason probably can't afford the latest iPhone even at a scarcity-inducing discount. Above a certain point you have enough money to determine your own working hours and can afford to spend time waiting in line for something you really want.
    - mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
      Yeah, sorry, I didn't follow the thread carefully enough and had the context wrong / thought you were discussing the concert situation. I may be wrong here, but I still think a middle income person is more likely to be willing to spend time in line than a high income person - maybe not as much because they actually _have_ more time available, but rather because they don't value their time as highly, see it as "cheaper" to spend it waiting in line, or are simply more accustomed to being made to wait in lines. Conversely, if I am very rich, I may very well be able to afford waiting in lines, but I may also be more averse to doing so.

mandelbrotwurst 7y ago

It does has other effects that they may be interested in, at least if they require that the person in the queue actually be the attendee. Forcing people to stand in line in order to attend an event means that only those who are willing to spend time rather than money will be able to go. This has effects on the type of person who ends up in the crowd - arguably people who on average are more interested in the event, even relative to a lottery solution since that would give you a more random distribution of folks along the axes of access to time / money. That said, it does come at a cost. Edit: I'm realizing now that you may have been more focused on retail than events, in which case I suppose the identity verification option that I'm discussing I admit seems a bit stranger / less relevant.