4 ms·

I am interested in whether, if you turned the questions around and asked questions like "I want to give up my grocery store discount in exchange for the company

I am interested in whether, if you turned the questions around and asked questions like "I want to give up my grocery store discount in exchange for the company running the store not collecting information about me", you would get the same results. Those loyalty cards are completely opt-in, the way they are used is widely known, and out in the real world with money on the line, people turn out to say "yes, I want this". What does this tell us about the results of this survey?

gnoway 11y ago
That it may illustrate the article's premise: while people know what's going on with data collection, they believe they are powerless to stop it. Or that we have a society where 5% off is so important that people are willing to give up their privacy to get it.
- wutbrodo 11y ago
  > Or that we have a society where 5% off is so important that people are willing to give up their privacy to get it This latter statement is directly contradictory to the article's premise. It means they _are_ willing to take a discount for tracking.
AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> I am interested in whether, if you turned the questions around and asked questions like "I want to give up my grocery store discount in exchange for the company running the store not collecting information about me", you would get the same results. That isn't the same question at all. The amount of the penalty for not using the loyalty card is chosen by the merchant and the merchant naturally chooses an amount that induces a majority of their customers to use it. That doesn't mean the customers like it. The interesting question is to what extent the customer benefits from providing the merchant with the information outside of the artificial penalty. But in all likelihood providing the information has negative value to the customer, because the merchant can use the information against the customer, e.g. to better determine when they can get away with charging higher prices. The trouble is that it's a collective action problem. Paying the penalty to opt out doesn't prevent the merchant from figuring out how to get more of your money without providing you with any additional value, because they can do it with a statistical sample of people who are like you but didn't opt out. So everyone is collectively worse off when a critical mass of people use the loyalty cards, but taking the "discount" is in the selfish interest of each person individually. Classic tragedy of the commons. The way we solve problems like that is with legislation, e.g. by requiring merchants to charge the same price regardless of whether the customer uses a loyalty card.
- asuffield 11y ago
  It is of course not the same question: the article poses the question "would you like to have this nice thing?", and the reversed form I posed is "are you willing to pay for it?" My immediate observation is that the majority of people will tend to say "yes" to the first and "no" to the second, and what we can learn from this is that mostly people tend to want. I think you have rather casually tossed out the proposition that the status quo brings the customer negative value, without supplying any justification for that claim. I also think that your proposal of passing legislation to force all merchants to raise their lowest prices is unlikely to prove popular. (This proposal is commonly referred to as "increasing sales tax", and seems like it would be regressive in nature)
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    > It is of course not the same question: the article poses the question "would you like to have this nice thing?", and the reversed form I posed is "are you willing to pay for it?" It isn't a matter of willingness to pay. If the seller doesn't want you to "buy" something (e.g. privacy) then they can set the price arbitrarily high so that you won't. > I think you have rather casually tossed out the proposition that the status quo brings the customer negative value, without supplying any justification for that claim. Why do you imagine the merchant is offering the "discount" if it isn't net profitable? When the merchant makes money by exploiting the data they collect, whose pocket does that money come out of? > I also think that your proposal of passing legislation to force all merchants to raise their lowest prices is unlikely to prove popular. I don't recall proposing that merchants be required to raise their prices, only that the prices they charge be the same regardless of whether customers use loyalty cards.
    - asuffield 11y ago
      Here's how "net profitable" works. Before: Merchant buys 5 units of item at $1 each and sells them at $3. Supplier makes $5 in revenue. 5 customers each get one item at $3. Merchant makes a profit of $10. After: Merchant buys 20 units of item A at $1 and sells them at $2. Supplier makes $20 in revenue. 20 customers each get one item at $2. Merchant makes a profit of $20. Net profit: merchant is $10 richer, supplier is $15 richer, 20 customers are each $1 richer. People have different resources and trade between them generates wealth. More trade generates more wealth. This is not a zero-sum game.
seanp2k2 11y ago
...that people are bad at on-the-spot risk/reward analysis, and saying "...but you could save $.50 right now" is a powerful psychological device capable of reliably defeating rational thought and long-term reasoning for many people.
- blfr 11y ago
  But that's not how those cards work. Usually, you need to collect points, or visits, or whatever, and only receive the benefit (prize, discount) at some point in the future. It's the opposite of 50¢ right now.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    Where I am, the supermarket cards provide a discount on (almost) everything you buy. Loyalty programs at cafes and airlines work as you describe.
oneandoneis2 11y ago
Not a fair comparison - the store can and will track my habits just as easily via the card I pay with. If I forsake the loyalty card, I don't get my privacy back - I just get tracked via another method unless I go out of my way to always carry enough cash to pay anonymously. All the loyalty card does is allow them to track the occasional time I DO pay with cash, which is insignificant enough to be worth the discount. If a store made a genuine, binding offer to only track people with loyalty cards, THEN your question would be a valid comparison. At the moment, it just isn't.

gnoway 11y ago

That it may illustrate the article's premise: while people know what's going on with data collection, they believe they are powerless to stop it. Or that we have a society where 5% off is so important that people are willing to give up their privacy to get it.

wutbrodo 11y ago
> Or that we have a society where 5% off is so important that people are willing to give up their privacy to get it This latter statement is directly contradictory to the article's premise. It means they _are_ willing to take a discount for tracking.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

> I am interested in whether, if you turned the questions around and asked questions like "I want to give up my grocery store discount in exchange for the company running the store not collecting information about me", you would get the same results. That isn't the same question at all. The amount of the penalty for not using the loyalty card is chosen by the merchant and the merchant naturally chooses an amount that induces a majority of their customers to use it. That doesn't mean the customers like it. The interesting question is to what extent the customer benefits from providing the merchant with the information outside of the artificial penalty. But in all likelihood providing the information has negative value to the customer, because the merchant can use the information against the customer, e.g. to better determine when they can get away with charging higher prices. The trouble is that it's a collective action problem. Paying the penalty to opt out doesn't prevent the merchant from figuring out how to get more of your money without providing you with any additional value, because they can do it with a statistical sample of people who are like you but didn't opt out. So everyone is collectively worse off when a critical mass of people use the loyalty cards, but taking the "discount" is in the selfish interest of each person individually. Classic tragedy of the commons. The way we solve problems like that is with legislation, e.g. by requiring merchants to charge the same price regardless of whether the customer uses a loyalty card.

asuffield 11y ago
It is of course not the same question: the article poses the question "would you like to have this nice thing?", and the reversed form I posed is "are you willing to pay for it?" My immediate observation is that the majority of people will tend to say "yes" to the first and "no" to the second, and what we can learn from this is that mostly people tend to want. I think you have rather casually tossed out the proposition that the status quo brings the customer negative value, without supplying any justification for that claim. I also think that your proposal of passing legislation to force all merchants to raise their lowest prices is unlikely to prove popular. (This proposal is commonly referred to as "increasing sales tax", and seems like it would be regressive in nature)
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > It is of course not the same question: the article poses the question "would you like to have this nice thing?", and the reversed form I posed is "are you willing to pay for it?" It isn't a matter of willingness to pay. If the seller doesn't want you to "buy" something (e.g. privacy) then they can set the price arbitrarily high so that you won't. > I think you have rather casually tossed out the proposition that the status quo brings the customer negative value, without supplying any justification for that claim. Why do you imagine the merchant is offering the "discount" if it isn't net profitable? When the merchant makes money by exploiting the data they collect, whose pocket does that money come out of? > I also think that your proposal of passing legislation to force all merchants to raise their lowest prices is unlikely to prove popular. I don't recall proposing that merchants be required to raise their prices, only that the prices they charge be the same regardless of whether customers use loyalty cards.
  - asuffield 11y ago
    Here's how "net profitable" works. Before: Merchant buys 5 units of item at $1 each and sells them at $3. Supplier makes $5 in revenue. 5 customers each get one item at $3. Merchant makes a profit of $10. After: Merchant buys 20 units of item A at $1 and sells them at $2. Supplier makes $20 in revenue. 20 customers each get one item at $2. Merchant makes a profit of $20. Net profit: merchant is $10 richer, supplier is $15 richer, 20 customers are each $1 richer. People have different resources and trade between them generates wealth. More trade generates more wealth. This is not a zero-sum game.

seanp2k2 11y ago

...that people are bad at on-the-spot risk/reward analysis, and saying "...but you could save $.50 right now" is a powerful psychological device capable of reliably defeating rational thought and long-term reasoning for many people.

blfr 11y ago
But that's not how those cards work. Usually, you need to collect points, or visits, or whatever, and only receive the benefit (prize, discount) at some point in the future. It's the opposite of 50¢ right now.
- hackuser 11y ago
  Where I am, the supermarket cards provide a discount on (almost) everything you buy. Loyalty programs at cafes and airlines work as you describe.

oneandoneis2 11y ago

Not a fair comparison - the store can and will track my habits just as easily via the card I pay with. If I forsake the loyalty card, I don't get my privacy back - I just get tracked via another method unless I go out of my way to always carry enough cash to pay anonymously. All the loyalty card does is allow them to track the occasional time I DO pay with cash, which is insignificant enough to be worth the discount. If a store made a genuine, binding offer to only track people with loyalty cards, THEN your question would be a valid comparison. At the moment, it just isn't.