| ▲ | delichon 2 hours ago |
| This is what I think of when I think of personalized pricing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlT3uHlNAg&t=111s It's pretty much what I've done when selling at flea markets all of my life. I ask what I think the market will bear, per person and situation. I don't feel at all guilty for it. It doesn't surprise me at all that mass customization in the information age has brought us to it at scale, or that the force of law would be necessary to repress it. Some people seem to feel they have a right to the best price without negotiating or shopping. I don't feel that I'm owed or owe that privilege. |
|
| ▲ | m4ck_ an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| How do I negotiate with a minimum wage cashier, self-checkout, or a checkout page? Have you ever been in a Kroger property, or Walmart, or any other multi-billion dollar retailer and negotiated on something? Maybe they'll price match and I guess that counts, but it's not as if we have access to data to do that in a meaningful way to compete with the data that they have to act on. In lieu of suppressing surveillance pricing, I could live with retailers being forced to open source, in real time, all product and sales related data, including historical as far back as they have. |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | >How do I negotiate with a minimum wage cashier, self-checkout, or a checkout page? You "negotiate" by switching to a competitor, or in some circumstances refusing to purchase at all. It's a "negotiation" in the same way that participating in an auction is a negotiation. | |
| ▲ | benced 7 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | I worry about corner cases like rural towns with only one grocery store (although I suspect that those are already gouging people?) but that isn't San Francisco. |
|
|
| ▲ | Eisenstein an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How much did you know about the person you were selling to? Did you know what websites they visited or what past purchases they made or what time they went to sleep every night? |
|
| ▲ | b345 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It is because you're on the side benefitting from it. It doesn't benefit the consumer or the working class. |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > It doesn't benefit the consumer or the working class It should absolutely benefit the blue-collar consumer. Whom it hurts is the moderately rich. (If it works as intended.) | | |
| ▲ | lokar an hour ago | parent [-] | | Like a rideshare app offering worse pay to drivers who they know are heavily in debt and near their payment deadline? Offering less pay to people who are desperate and have no other options? | | |
| ▲ | pc86 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Your example is both bad and irrelevant. Two completely unrelated things can be true simultaneously. | | |
| ▲ | radiorental an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm not seeing this example as unrelated. E.g. If a seller knows I've been searching for flu remedies, I've made a social media post related to the illness. Then I go to the pharmacy and everything related to alleviating those symptoms is more expensive for me. Put simply, if they know you absolutely need something, they will leverage that information. | | |
| ▲ | lokar an hour ago | parent [-] | | A larger more powerful organization has leverage over someone by collecting their data, and uses that to extract value from them. |
| |
| ▲ | 8note 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | its still surveillance pricing - the payment from the working class here is their labour. its the same exploitation in both cases | |
| ▲ | lokar an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I can’t quite understand your point. My example was a real reported behavior. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pc86 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well they also said they don't feel they're owed that privilege so it's probably not that simple. |
|
