7 ms·

I am surprised there were jerks that paid 0. Really? You can't afford give them five bucks? You spend more on beer OR lunch OR coffee in Starbucks if you feel k

I am surprised there were jerks that paid 0. Really? You can't afford give them five bucks? You spend more on beer OR lunch OR coffee in Starbucks if you feel kinky. At least humble bundle not allow you to pay 0 :)

scrumper 14y ago
I knew there'd be some, but 20% is a miserably high proportion. Does anyone know if that percentage is similar to how other well-known examples of pay-what-you-want turned out? Are there any studies into the propensity to freeload among anonymous groups?
- ars 14y ago
  It's probably just people who wanted to see if they would really send it. And it's teens without credit cards. So I doubt you could really compare it to other things.
  - scrumper 14y ago
    First two points make sense as reasons why people wouldn't pay, but I'm not sure how you get from those to your conclusion. Why do those two things not apply to other examples?
    - ars 14y ago
      Compare to leaving a platter of bagels with a card asking people to pay if they can. People are not curious if they can take a bagel for free - it's obvious that they can. So people are not tempted to do it just for the experiment. And people wanting to pay can use cash, so the second situation doesn't apply either. Most real world situations are more like this case than the cards case.
      - scrumper 14y ago
        That answered my question, thanks. I was thinking of larger-scale, internet efforts (In Rainbows, Louis CK) but of course those don't involve physical delivery. Had not even considered honesty boxes. Thinking more, I do remember reading about someone who started a business in DC delivering muffin baskets to beltway-area office buildings. Their business was purely honesty based, and I think losses due to cheapskatery were around 5%. In the end, they'd cut off buildings with rates worse than that. All that is more support for your points.
jzworkman 14y ago
Makes me feel better about just paying the normal full price of $25 to get a copy for my brother. The game is just so great, and definitely worth supporting.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
No kidding, I understand being frugal, but in that case, print them yourself and take the time to cut them out. Shockingly, the game is still just as fun.
baddox 14y ago
It's quite possible that profit (both margins and gross profit) could have been lower if they required a 1 cent minimum donation.
matthuggins 14y ago
The site even made you feel guilty (in a "please reconsider" way) if you put anything less than $3, explaining that the cost for them to create, produce, and mail a single pack will cost them $3, meaning they're taking a loss. That really speaks to how selfish people are (especially considering it's the "most wonderful time of the year").
- mratzloff 14y ago
  Yes. In any event, it's interesting data: at least 20% of people will never pay for something, no matter what the price is or the cost to create it.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    You can't take any kind of reliable conclusion about general behavior from this event, there are tons of variables that may be biasing it.
groby_b 14y ago
Starbucks is kinky? I think I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter ;)
- gabebw 14y ago
  It's a reference to the movie Idiocracy, which is set in a future where (among other changes) Starbucks is an erotic massage parlor: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fmUAFjqIPc4/T8aZMNekMfI/AAAAAAAAFBU/RShaeqZmGpg/s1600/1c7e6_idiocracy-starbucks-exotic-coffee-for-men.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fmUAFjqIPc4/T8aZMNekMfI/AAAAAAAAFB...
DoggettCK 14y ago
Bought it myself off Amazon for $25 for a Secret Santa gift, and it's well worth it. I did see this on reddit, I believe from someone who paid $0. I really hope it's real. http://i.imgur.com/8v2vc.jpg http://i.imgur.com/8v2vc.jpg
- icelancer 14y ago
  It isn't. That person put his name in as "Huge Asshole."
  - polshaw 14y ago
    And in doing so almost certainly netted CAH more profit via the free advertising than if they had paid $5 (which, they still may have done). TBH, i wouldn't be shocked if it was an inside job.
    - dbaupp 14y ago
      Maybe not. I'm sure quite a few other people tried $0just to see if they got called "Huge Asshole".
kirse 14y ago
I wonder if this has anything to do with the selected audience for this card game... i.e. Are the type of people who find these cards hilarious more prone to acting with "jerk" behavior? Only a hypothesis, but worth a look, since my primary assumption is that this is a selective (and interested) audience given that it's an expansion pack.
aw3c2 14y ago
You are a jerk for calling them jerks. If it is "pay what you want" then you are invited to do exactly that. If you want to pay nothing, you may do so. It is perfectly inside the rules of the event.
- andrewguenther 14y ago
  By paying nothing for it, you are telling CAH that that is exactly how much you think their product is worth to you. Nothing. If I were them, I would be a little bit hurt to see that.
  - jconnop 14y ago
    Key point: "to you". I imagine that if the $0 option wasn't included, many of those who chose it would simply not "buy" it at all. So at least they get some marketing benefit out of it. Of course this works better for those "pay what you want" digital goods, where there isn't much marginal cost to giving away a copy.
- trafficone 14y ago
  I think you're missing the point of the game. Being given freedom doesn't exclude someone from the consequences. For example: life is "punch whom you want" and you're still a jerk for punching someone.
  - pjlegato 14y ago
    Life is most definitely not "punch who you want"; that's illegal and will get you thrown in jail. There's a specific rule against that in most places. In certain designated areas of life, such as during a boxing match, the rules are different: if you're in a boxing match, you can indeed punch someone, and you won't get thrown in jail or suffer any other sanction (other than being punched back). A boxer who punches his opponent in a boxing match is not a jerk, because that is permitted by mutually agreed upon rules in that context. In the case of the cards, the rules do explicitly allow paying $0, so it's in no sense a perversion of the rules, and people who paid $0 are not jerks.
arjn 14y ago
I'm surprised at those people too. Almost 20%. I would not have thought it to be such a high number.

scrumper 14y ago

I knew there'd be some, but 20% is a miserably high proportion. Does anyone know if that percentage is similar to how other well-known examples of pay-what-you-want turned out? Are there any studies into the propensity to freeload among anonymous groups?

ars 14y ago
It's probably just people who wanted to see if they would really send it. And it's teens without credit cards. So I doubt you could really compare it to other things.
- scrumper 14y ago
  First two points make sense as reasons why people wouldn't pay, but I'm not sure how you get from those to your conclusion. Why do those two things not apply to other examples?
  - ars 14y ago
    Compare to leaving a platter of bagels with a card asking people to pay if they can. People are not curious if they can take a bagel for free - it's obvious that they can. So people are not tempted to do it just for the experiment. And people wanting to pay can use cash, so the second situation doesn't apply either. Most real world situations are more like this case than the cards case.
    - scrumper 14y ago
      That answered my question, thanks. I was thinking of larger-scale, internet efforts (In Rainbows, Louis CK) but of course those don't involve physical delivery. Had not even considered honesty boxes. Thinking more, I do remember reading about someone who started a business in DC delivering muffin baskets to beltway-area office buildings. Their business was purely honesty based, and I think losses due to cheapskatery were around 5%. In the end, they'd cut off buildings with rates worse than that. All that is more support for your points.

jzworkman 14y ago

Makes me feel better about just paying the normal full price of $25 to get a copy for my brother. The game is just so great, and definitely worth supporting.

drivebyacct2 14y ago

No kidding, I understand being frugal, but in that case, print them yourself and take the time to cut them out. Shockingly, the game is still just as fun.

baddox 14y ago

It's quite possible that profit (both margins and gross profit) could have been lower if they required a 1 cent minimum donation.

matthuggins 14y ago

The site even made you feel guilty (in a "please reconsider" way) if you put anything less than $3, explaining that the cost for them to create, produce, and mail a single pack will cost them $3, meaning they're taking a loss. That really speaks to how selfish people are (especially considering it's the "most wonderful time of the year").

mratzloff 14y ago
Yes. In any event, it's interesting data: at least 20% of people will never pay for something, no matter what the price is or the cost to create it.
- icebraining 14y ago
  You can't take any kind of reliable conclusion about general behavior from this event, there are tons of variables that may be biasing it.

groby_b 14y ago

Starbucks is kinky? I think I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter ;)

gabebw 14y ago
It's a reference to the movie Idiocracy, which is set in a future where (among other changes) Starbucks is an erotic massage parlor: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fmUAFjqIPc4/T8aZMNekMfI/AAAAAAAAFBU/RShaeqZmGpg/s1600/1c7e6_idiocracy-starbucks-exotic-coffee-for-men.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fmUAFjqIPc4/T8aZMNekMfI/AAAAAAAAFB...

DoggettCK 14y ago

Bought it myself off Amazon for $25 for a Secret Santa gift, and it's well worth it. I did see this on reddit, I believe from someone who paid $0. I really hope it's real. http://i.imgur.com/8v2vc.jpg http://i.imgur.com/8v2vc.jpg

icelancer 14y ago
It isn't. That person put his name in as "Huge Asshole."
- polshaw 14y ago
  And in doing so almost certainly netted CAH more profit via the free advertising than if they had paid $5 (which, they still may have done). TBH, i wouldn't be shocked if it was an inside job.
  - dbaupp 14y ago
    Maybe not. I'm sure quite a few other people tried $0just to see if they got called "Huge Asshole".

kirse 14y ago

I wonder if this has anything to do with the selected audience for this card game... i.e. Are the type of people who find these cards hilarious more prone to acting with "jerk" behavior? Only a hypothesis, but worth a look, since my primary assumption is that this is a selective (and interested) audience given that it's an expansion pack.

aw3c2 14y ago

You are a jerk for calling them jerks. If it is "pay what you want" then you are invited to do exactly that. If you want to pay nothing, you may do so. It is perfectly inside the rules of the event.

andrewguenther 14y ago
By paying nothing for it, you are telling CAH that that is exactly how much you think their product is worth to you. Nothing. If I were them, I would be a little bit hurt to see that.
- jconnop 14y ago
  Key point: "to you". I imagine that if the $0 option wasn't included, many of those who chose it would simply not "buy" it at all. So at least they get some marketing benefit out of it. Of course this works better for those "pay what you want" digital goods, where there isn't much marginal cost to giving away a copy.
trafficone 14y ago
I think you're missing the point of the game. Being given freedom doesn't exclude someone from the consequences. For example: life is "punch whom you want" and you're still a jerk for punching someone.
- pjlegato 14y ago
  Life is most definitely not "punch who you want"; that's illegal and will get you thrown in jail. There's a specific rule against that in most places. In certain designated areas of life, such as during a boxing match, the rules are different: if you're in a boxing match, you can indeed punch someone, and you won't get thrown in jail or suffer any other sanction (other than being punched back). A boxer who punches his opponent in a boxing match is not a jerk, because that is permitted by mutually agreed upon rules in that context. In the case of the cards, the rules do explicitly allow paying $0, so it's in no sense a perversion of the rules, and people who paid $0 are not jerks.

arjn 14y ago

I'm surprised at those people too. Almost 20%. I would not have thought it to be such a high number.