24 ms·

They've switched to an interesting (though, to me, annoying and I hope it doesn't catch on but it kinda already has [other fast food places are doing it too] so

They've switched to an interesting (though, to me, annoying and I hope it doesn't catch on but it kinda already has [other fast food places are doing it too] so add it to the list of shit that's terrible about the current world) model where they price really high on the menu but then offer deals and coupons that get you back down to what would have been a sale price before the price hikes. It's a kind of price discrimination tactic—people willing to clip coupons or use the company's app might pay 1/3 or less the menu price, and those who aren't, pay the full (and crazy-high) menu price. Like, yes, coupon shopping has always been a thing, but not like this, because the normal menu prices used to already be pretty good. They're super expensive now, but if you burn some time, they'll give you a really good price, consistently, pretty much any time you want it.

imajoredinecon 4y ago
The combination of high and very low prices also stuck out to me. I agree it’s interesting, but I personally don’t mind it. It’s not a bad progressive model to have people who aren’t price-sensitive subsidize people who are.
- brimble 4y ago
  I dislike trends toward finding a way to make you pay as much as possible for your own time & attention, is the reason it bugs me. [EDIT] More generally, I just prefer my commerce to be fairly straightforward. I don't like having to second-guess whether there are hidden tricks going on to screw me.
- mr_toad 4y ago
  > It’s not a bad progressive model to have people who aren’t price-sensitive subsidize people who are. It is entirely bad. It arrogates consumer surplus to the supplier. The people paying higher prices don’t subsidise those paying lower prices, the supplier pockets most of the gains. They’d like you to believe that the people paying cheaper prices are subsidised, but they’re not selling to them at a loss. And it causes a deadweight efficiency loss. The fact that businesses can pass this off as some kind of progressive pricing and good for the consumer makes it as disingenuous as it is pernicious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

imajoredinecon 4y ago

The combination of high and very low prices also stuck out to me. I agree it’s interesting, but I personally don’t mind it. It’s not a bad progressive model to have people who aren’t price-sensitive subsidize people who are.

brimble 4y ago
I dislike trends toward finding a way to make you pay as much as possible for your own time & attention, is the reason it bugs me. [EDIT] More generally, I just prefer my commerce to be fairly straightforward. I don't like having to second-guess whether there are hidden tricks going on to screw me.
mr_toad 4y ago
> It’s not a bad progressive model to have people who aren’t price-sensitive subsidize people who are. It is entirely bad. It arrogates consumer surplus to the supplier. The people paying higher prices don’t subsidise those paying lower prices, the supplier pockets most of the gains. They’d like you to believe that the people paying cheaper prices are subsidised, but they’re not selling to them at a loss. And it causes a deadweight efficiency loss. The fact that businesses can pass this off as some kind of progressive pricing and good for the consumer makes it as disingenuous as it is pernicious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss