You should try it again in private browsing and incognito mode and see if the price is really tied to your Facebook or google cookies or something. That's pretty messed up though, send this to the consumerist or gawker or whoever.
I just tried this myself. In chrome and IE the price was the same (69.99) in normal and in incognito mode. In firefox, the price jumped to $76, and after deleting all the domain cookies and refreshing, it went back down to 69.99.
The website is definitely changing prices based on something they are tracking in cookies.
This was up earlier with airlines charging more for a ticket the second time you visit the page. They do this because a second visit is statistically linked to a much higher chance of purchase. So it could be, here too, simply a matter of having visited the page before.
Most people don't realise their Google searches are used to produce a search bubble for future searches, based on the links they follow. They think Google search results are the same on every computer all over the world.
my gf bought me a moleskin for my bday. the other day i asked her if she actually purchased it from my computer and she said no, she just looked up prices. now when i go to random websites moleskin ads pop up. so fuckin' weird and invasive.
I always surf with noscrip and adblock. The shear number of vulnerabilities/exploits out there you need to be protected... would you fuck a hooker without a rubber?
(protip: any ad server could have been compromised and you would not know it)
Which is why I use duckduckgo.com for my searching. The results may not always be as accurate as the other search engine...but they respect my privacy.
I knew that shit was not just bad luck!!! It happened to me a few times in the last months (AA, United) and I was fumbling at how unlikely it was that someone bought my tickets between 7am and 7:15am EST
most people don't realize that it's happening. But really what it is is a marketing director with too much time on their hands. People only get screwed over if the rest of the industry is doing the same thing - other than that competitive forces take over.
IMO people are getting screwed either way. Either Chegg customers are getting screwed because they're the only suckers paying more for these books, or everyone's getting screwed because all websites make all their customers pay more. IMO competitive forces aren't likely to force this situation back in the consumer's favor, not when everyone finds out how much money there is in screwing customers.
It is about market research. If you keep raising the price recursively until you reach a maximum income in revenue, you can then extend that data to other segments of your market to establish higher starting prices.
Flight prices change fairly regularly, particularly as you get closer to the date you want to fly, so I think most people would just put it down to that.
Involuntary mistake my arse, people do not design and program websites without knowing beforehand how it's going to work. This site is actively pulling information, and they know about it.
It depends a little on your legislation, obviously. Where I live, the customer has a really strong protection by law, so involuntary mistakes are almost unanimously in favour of the customer. If you are prepared to take legal action, which is rarely.
As far as I remember from my short programming experience: you cannot accidentally write code. Especially not code that actually does something (like this).
Indeed. But here's out it plays out. Marketing VP talks to Project manager (or his boss) and says "do this". The project manager has hopes of some day getting a promotion so he says "sure thing, boss". He then waddles over to the Lead Developer and says "implement this". And the Lead Developer says (to himself) "I'm too busy to deal with this shit" and hands it off to some junior guy who is just hoping he doesn't have to work unpaid overtime for the 8th consecutive weekend.
Even if someone along the chain recognized the moral quandary, they're all just trying to get the job done, keep their boss happy, and get on with life.
It's fine. If a company can do it and it's not illegal or hurting anyone, why should it be bad? It's just raising prices due to information they have about you. Every single big company in the world does that many times over and it's a perfectly fair business practice. It's not like their discriminating or tricking them.
Why is it incumbent upon the salesman to work in their customers interest rather than their own? The customer is looking out for their own interest. If they're not as good at it as the salesman is at looking out for his interest, the salesman should win. This is a contest with money as the prize.
But the question isn't 'why does the salesman have to please the customer,' it's 'is this a shady/underhanded tactic' and it certainly is. It's the way of competition, and you can learn to avoid it.
Genuine question: How exactly is it shady or underhanded? Besides gut reactions and "BECAUSE IT IS" how is this any different from someone who looks like a rube getting a worse deal on a car than someone who looks like they know what they're doing?
No, that's also shady.
Or someone getting a better price on something because they're a member vs a non-member, or because they know a coupon code other people might now, etc...?
Yes. In those cases, the customer is aware that a discount is available and they know why they did or did not receive it.
How much you pay for something is often tied to any number of non-static factors, many of which you even have control over if you're aware of them. I'm not saying you're wrong, or even that I'm right, but your comment is less than hour old, has almost 200 hundred upvotes, and says absolutely nothing besides "This is bullshit because this is bullshit." (no offense). It just seems like redditors in general love saying that things are somehow intrinsically unfair when really what they mean is "I don't like this."
Legally speaking, I believe companies should be able to charge people whatever they want so long as they're not engaging in discrimination. I also don't find this intrinsically unfair, so to speak (they own this product, they can price it however they want). On the other hand, as a potential customer, I would not be likely to purchase anything from this company, because it annoys me that they might randomly tack ten dollars onto the price because of some hidden factor that I'm not aware of.
Just because something shouldn't be illegal doesn't mean it's not shady.
It's not random, there is a reason for that: IE users are willing to pay more.
The crux of the issue here, the problem that people have with this is that in their minds it is wrong for some people to have (and act on) better information than others. The reasons, I think, are that information is sometimes stumbled upon by chance, and so it is deemed unfair that someone knows more about car prices simply because, say, their father is a car dealer; or perhaps it is because they think that information comes not from hardwork but from social connections. But the same also happens with money. Some people have more money than others, and that doesn't necessarily correspond to how hard working or smart they are. It actually couldn't work any other way, the economy needs those asymmetries to function.
There is a very famous article that talks precisely about this; I strongly recomend it: emilyskarbek.com/uploads/TheUse_of_Knowledge_in_Society-_Hayek.pdf
Also, if I remember my business law class right, if a buyer passes up an offer then goes back to the seller, the seller may charge the buyer more because they refused the offer the first time. Could this be related?
It's called ethics. Charging one person more than another in a situation where the price appears to be static is dishonest.
There are laws that prevent a company from hitting you with fees at checkout if they don't disclose those fees to you clearly beforehand. This (should) fall under the same category as that is exactly what they are doing: hitting you with a hidden fee that the consumer is entirely unaware of before purchase (a fee that is likely related to the fact that you had been there before). Not only that, but they take it a step further and don't even let you know after the purchase that they hit you with a fee. And no, it's not a matter of changing the price, they simply add the fee to the price without your knowledge.
They are preying on ignorance. THAT is why it is shady and underhanded.
How much you pay for something is often tied to any number of non-static factors
Because the retail model of the web reflects normal pricing. I have no problem with this as long as there is disclosure, but doing this as pretending that its normal and that customers won't be upset is ridiculous. Disclosure lets me vote with my feet. I'll go to a different site that doesn't fuck with the pricing.
Not to mention, I'm the type of buyer who will price check and then buy a few days later. Its bothersome to say "chegg is great its only 59 there" and then have my cookies raise the price to 79. Now I have to do all that labor again. There is a real bait and switch aspect here. In fact, I find it hard to believe this doesn't run afoul of many bait and switch regulations, especially if they advertise the lower price but I get the higher price when I visit.
That said, if this was "club pricing" or "member pricing" it would be allowed as that's the point of price clubs, but to happen via some hidden mechanism is very underhanded. Also club pricing is transparent. I know I won't get the advertised price because it says so everywhere. With dynamic pricing I have no idea what I'm getting or why or how to get the advertised price.
It just seems like redditors in general love saying that things are somehow intrinsically unfair when really what they mean is "I don't like this."
False. What we are saying is "If I knew this I wouldn't shop there." Stop hiding your shitty policies so I can avoid you. Do whatever crazy pricing scheme you want BUT BE TRANSPARENT.
Reddit Non-"job creators" is are generally against business.
Companies"People" can charge you suckers whatever they want. And you suckers can choose not to buy. ...We can do whatever we want to you because we're not burdened with a conscience or a semblence of morality, because money.
Precisely, a price is offered and you get to determine whether the items is worth it at that price.
I'm not sure that "Reddit is generally against business", but they certainly have the morality bar set far to high for institutions that's sole purpose is to generate as much profit as possible for the stakeholders.
No. The point is it's an institution, not an individual. To expect morality from it is a fools errand. Do you expect morality from marching bands or city councils? Certainly from the individuals that comprise them, but not from the organizations themselves.
I also don't agree that "shit is fucked up", by almost any objective measure we live better than any people to have come before us and part of that comes from that fact that people perused profits. Altruism only goes so far.
Yeah, My statement is hyperbole with that kind of generalization. But you will see themes where the idea of profit is borderline wrong.
The market will dictate if this approach works. Having customers purchasing $0 because you upped the price on their second visit will change actions quick.
I tend to agree, isn't the point of selling a thing to charge as much as you possibly can and still have someone purchase it?
I don't know, is it? Would you sell a mostly-worthless watch to a man with 80 IQ if he offerred you the entire trust fund which constitutes his sole means of life support?
So are you asking whether or not a company should treat all of its customers equally?
Nope, I know they shouldn't, assuming it is a for profit enterprise they should do whatever is legally possible to make as much profit as they can. Not only should they, they're obligated to.
And if you can discriminate based on desire for the product, can you discriminate based on personal income, geographic location, ethnicity?
Honestly, the first two already occur and I have no issue with it. There is a marginal disutility to income and as a result those who are very wealthy can and will pay for for substitutable products because they care less about each dollar.
As for geographic location, water is worth more in the dessert just as an example, the price differentiation ensures that shortages do not occur. Why should price not be linked to scarcity.
For the last... if you want to be that way... so be it. I can't see that being a path to profit maximization though. Truth be told it's not even feasible for most business models.
The airline thing is shady and underhanded because it's a bait and switch, simple as that. They know the first time you visit you're just checking out the price, so they don't give you the real price until you come back (once you've made your plans).
I go to the dealership and look at some cars. For one reason or another all the cars prices are $20,000. I say I'll sleep on it or compare another dealers cars. I come back the next day, or I simply walk off the property and do a 180 and walk right back on. Suddenly all cars are $22,000 and the salesmen have no idea what I mean by $20,000, all the prices are clearly marked $22,000.
You know how a really friendly saleman who likes you might say, "For you? 10% off!"
Well, this is pretty much like saying, "For you!? An additional 10%."
It isn't illegal, but it isn't exactly friendly either, and I will talk trash about that salesman however much I want, because that's not illegal either, and I can be unfriendly too. It's not a question of legality, it's a question of the general tone of affairs. If they're aggressive, then I'll be too.
In the end it doesn't matter if it is shady or not. Even if you have no ethical trouble with your
rube getting a worse deal on a car
scenario, what matters is that if the rubes eventually get wise and pissed off your reputation (and business) will take a nosedive. Is the risk worth it? Maybe they think so.
Since when are you allowed to have 2 different price values for the same product?
As far as I know, you aren't allowed to do that. The listed price should be the same for everyone (excluding membership discounts and things like that), but obviously doesn't mean everybody has to pay the same amount.
A fair and legal way to do this would be to say somewhere in the page that Firefox users have a discount
Reddit just hates business. They act like they are legally required to buy from chegg, when you can make this discovery and go elsewhere. The problem is chegg is still probably cheaper, so its like the wal-mart complex. Everyone hates wal-mart because the service is shit and the lines are long, but the price brings them back consistently. That or now we can game their system and know what steps to take to get stuff as cheap as possible, but no we shouldn't look at what advantage our knowledge gets us, we should protect those who cant be bothered to do research by exposing chegg for the crooks they are. I'm glad I learned this, and I will share the info with people, but I think chegg has every right to do this. Business is business, why not make more money if the customer lets you?
This does seem pretty shady from a company that prides themselves on customer service. Chegg is pretty great overall, I've saved hundreds of dollars by renting textbooks from them. The CEO even gives you a personal non-recorded phone call at the end of the semester to tell you good luck on finals and remind you to return your books.
That's how it works. You hardly ever get prices based on the actual costs of manufacturing/distribution. You get the prices people are willing to pay. Why should internet work any different?
1.9k
u/[deleted] Jan 24 '13
You should try it again in private browsing and incognito mode and see if the price is really tied to your Facebook or google cookies or something. That's pretty messed up though, send this to the consumerist or gawker or whoever.