3 ms·
I think there's context & detail beyond immediate outrage. In context of article with specific point to make, it sounds awful. But think about it: if e.g. Marr
by NikolaNovak 5y ago
I think there's context & detail beyond immediate outrage.
In context of article with specific point to make, it sounds awful. But think about it: if e.g. Marriott starts selling rooms for $100 on their website, but $120 on any other site such as Bookings or Expedia or whatever, isn't this ALSO something you as a consumer would get peeved at? Wouldn't you immediately demand that they put a stop to that insidious practice, and regulate some law that forces Marriott to give same low prices to everybody? :->
- jjoonathan 5y agoI'm sure Expedia would try to spin it that way. But no, if Expedia wants a $20 cut, they should be providing a $20 service.
- lyubalesya 5y agoAbsolutely not. It is obvious that different sales channels have different overheads, that should be reflected in the price. E.g. shops owned by farmer co-ops are able to offer lower prices because there are fewer middle-men taking a cut.
- willcipriano 5y ago> if e.g. Marriott starts selling rooms for $100 on their website, but $120 on any other site such as Bookings or Expedia or whatever, isn't this ALSO something you as a consumer would get peeved at? I'm mad it's the other way around, the cheapest price should always be direct. If someone wants to "add value" let them justify the mark up.