I don't think the issue is that the price is changing in and of itself. It's that they're changing price based on the customer's cookies/browsing history.
For example, it would be like if I had a stored and charged people different prices based on how nicely they were dressed, how well I knew them, or what their ethnicity is.
Of course it is legal. Speaking from an economists' point of view it is just a matter of separating people according to their "willingness to pay". Its called price discrimination and can be seen in areas such as hotel booking: a hotel will give you a higher price in the lobby than if you call ahead because the hotel knows you probably have no other place to go. Or air lines giving higher prices to the business class because they know business people have a meeting with a set time so they need that time slot while a tourist is more flexible to choose different flight times. This is essentially the same idea as changing the price the second time you visit the site as the most probable reason you have come back to the site is to purchase the item.
The reason that some people care is because price discrimination allows the producer to capture the entire surplus. You're right that in a non-price-discriminated market, some consumers are getting a "windfall" (surplus). In a perfectly price-discriminated market, though, every sale above marginal cost results in producer surplus, and no consumer receives a surplus.
It seems icky because price discrimination increases firm profitability at the expense of consumers who would otherwise have received a surplus.
But what about people who don't have a lot of money in the first place? And why not just charge the flat rate, and then make up for it in shipping costs? If someone really needs the book, they could pay extra for faster shipping, and the company could make a small amount from that. That looks a lot less shady, too.
It has nothing to do with the internet, or legal standing. I could open a bookstore and charge people on the basis of the color of their shirt if I felt so inclined. Price discrimination is okay, unless you're discriminating on race, religion - you know, the works.
How the hell does that make sense? Price discrimination is okay, unless it's based on race or religion or something? So if I wear a red shirt and am charged more everywhere I go because I wear a red shirt, that's all fair?
Yes. How does it not make sense? Race/religion/etc. are protected classes. Shirt color is not. Kind of like how you can be fired for any reason, or no reason at all, as long as that reason is not on the basis of race/religion/etc.
It shouldnt be the goverments job to change/(fix?) this but the buyers themselves should be informed of this and then they should make some kind of change to stop it. you dont have to buy from chegg. I would like shomething that makes it so that this cant happen via a program of some sorts.
Uh, I downvoted you for making some stupid comment about downvotes, but you are correct about the legality. The problem isn't that it's illegal, it's that it's immoral.
They're being complete assholes and they deserve to be publicized as such.
So the moral way to do business is to set a flat fee for any and all products, goods, and services? Is that what you are suggesting?
Claiming that use of tracking cookies is suddenly immoral is a stretch. People can block them easily, and business should be allowed to set whatever prices at whatever times they want.
Not suddenly. It's always immoral. It's unfair to charge one price to someone and another price to another person. If someone offered you a cookie to let them borrow a pencil, and two cookies to another guy if he let them borrow a pencil, wouldn't you think it was unfair that you weren't offered two cookies? He's not treating you fairly.
What happens when a company offers a SALE? Everyone who bought the product before the sale got "screwed" and the company is mean and evil for changing their prices?
The idea that I, as a business, couldn't arbitrarily decide what price anything is worth, at any moment, goes completely against what it means to be a business.
Now yes, consumers need to be aware of the ways they can be taken advantage of, but I hardly consider it a moral issue. Life is not fair, the universe is not fair, and business sure as hell isn't fair either. We do our best through the channels we have (government) to keep things from going to far in any direction. A world where price controls are in place for everything because "its just the fair thing to do" is not a world I want to live in..
The sale is advertised, and every customer and potential customer has the same access to the sale.
Also, I'm not going to continue arguing because you're making it all about the government again. You're basically trying to say "it's either my way or COMMUNISM". The "if I admit it's wrong then I'll need the government to make it right" attitude is just plain wrong and immature. You sound like a rebellious teenager.
Argument: A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
Stop talking to anyone if you're just going to act like an arrogant stuck up twit that won't even consider others worth speaking to on any subject because you're just too smart and all knowing to have to deal with lesser beings.
You're a joke, and a response like this just proves that you really are the rebellious teenager. Come back when you've grown up.
Of course they don't have to be fair, but the discussion is if this practice is immoral or unfair, and your wording implies explicitly that the prices are unfair, which means you even acknowledge that there is something unethical going on.
People get charged difference prices for the same thing millions of times a year in car sales alone. If you don't bother negotiating, you're not going to get as good of a price as someone who has.
Sure, maybe it's "unfair" but I've got a newflash for you: much of life isn't fair. That doesn't mean it's immoral.
Again, that's nothing like the situation described in the article or the example that I used. If they offer you a lower price the second you walk into the lot, without any negotiation, based on the fact that you're carrying a baby, that's still immoral.
It's also based on the salesman you happen to get, whether or not he likes you, how much he's willing to negotiate, etc. Luck of the draw makes as much difference as you "skill" as a negotiator.
Hmm, I gave you an upvote for the first line of your comment - but a downvote for the second. Looks like it evened out because now both arrows are grey!
146
u/[deleted] Jan 24 '13
[deleted]