Web Scraping Finds Price Fluctuation
blog.scrapinghub.com
blog.scrapinghub.com
Bottom line, none of these products are essentials to life. The price is either worth it to you as a buyer, or not. Thinking you lost money because it's later available for less is the same sort of faulty logic used by people who think they are "saving" money by buying something on sale (when it's an item they wouldn't ordinarily buy). I had a friend who used to do that all the time. We'd be at a store, and he'd see something on sale that he had no intention of buying before he walked in. He'd buy it, and congratulate himself on "saving" money. I'd point out "no, you just spent $50 that you hadn't planned to spend." He just didn't see it that way.
However I do still believe some level on consumer protection is necessary. I do not think we ought to let the less-savvy be taken advantage simply because someone is smarter than them. Where to draw that line? That's always in flux.
Further it's not "price fluctuation". It's a systemic raising of prices prior to a "sale" event, to deceive people into thinking they paid less than they would have by not waiting for the sale.
As for the person you are talking about may be acting irrationally, but there are many people who rationally wait for something they want to be on sale - because such a thing should save them some money. These people are maybe being naive - but without easy access to perfect market information, they have to rely on some sort of price messaging.
Finally - articles like this are good for people who shop to get better informed. Even if I were to track the price of something, to know that it used to be cheaper, I have no way of knowing if a given "sale" is a good price since future prices are unpredictable. However if I know of the "price inflation before sale" practice, with data to back it up, I can infer a pattern suggesting whether I should wait longer or not on a purchase.
225. No merchant, manufacturer or advertiser may, falsely, by any means whatever,
(a) invoke a price reduction;
(b) indicate a regular price or another reference price for goods or services;
(c) let it be believed that the price of certain goods or services is advantageous.
[...]
231. No merchant, manufacturer or advertiser may, by any means whatever, advertise goods or services of which he has an insufficient quantity to meet public demand unless mention is made in his advertisement that only a limited quantity of the goods or services is available and such quantity is indicated.
The merchant, manufacturer or advertiser who establishes to the satisfaction of the court that he had reasonable cause to believe that he could meet public demand or who offered the consumer, for the same price, other goods of the same nature and of an equal or greater cost price is not guilty of any infraction of this section.
I feel that the United States are a bit reluctant to protect their citizens.
The law you're referencing is a protection against raising the price before a sale so you can advertise the sale price as x% off the inflated price instead of the store's regular price. Most e-shopping sites advertise a discount relative to MSRP, not relative to any price they've previously charged, which leaves them free to raise or lower the prices as they want.
Your reaction to this is to just be okay with entities profiting from the delusion of your friend?
Right, the problem comes when the stores inflate prices artificially just before a sale event so that they can display a bigger discount percent on the day of the sale. This in turn makes the consumers think they're getting a better deal than they're actually getting, it's also a bigger incentive for them to spend their money.
The problem is that it's a fake incentive. While this is not a crime it's certainly deceptive and shady.
We're not entitled to low nor consistent prices. We should expect pricing to fluctuate.
Buy at a price where an item is worth as much (or more) to you than the price you pay, and you'll always get your money's worth. Sometimes this means not buying the item.
If you want to know which stores practice consistent pricing, or want to know which stores fluctuated low in last year's known-big sale days, this article is useful.
So price variation isn't necessarily evidence of anything nefarious, it can be the result of an effort to provide optimal pricing that's sensitive to logistical variations.
(Note that this is all in a B2B context, which is maybe a little different from consumers.)
Turns out their customer base really liked the sense of saving money, even though the straight forward pricing was actually saving them more money.
This kind of a thing feels unethical - especially to those with an analytical mindset like a lot of programmers. But the proof is in the pudding. People (at least older people in the U.S.) prefer bargain shopping to straightforward pricing.
Culturally, there are differences like this around the world. In Japan, they cannot grasp subscription models very well. In many places in the middle east, negotiation is just a part of shopping. In the U.S. we really like sales. In Russia, you get in line and then ask the people around you what it is that you are buying (granted, haven't been there since the 80s).
People are irrational with money. These types of unethical practices just capitalize on that fact.
Getting more for less, is intrinsic to our species, regardless of being of analytical mind or not.
Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that it won't be done; the appeal of marketing tricks is too strong for many businesses, because psychology trumps buyer's rational consideration in the aggregate and thus these practices pay for themselves against any possible sanction.
(If it didn't work, the art of advertising would look completely different).
Apple for one has one of the most aggressive policies. I'm sure Target is counting on their size, and the fact that its a one day thing when they offered their discounts.
http://scrapinghub.com/pricing
https://web.archive.org/web/20150302014145/http://scrapinghu...
Edit: Joke was easier to get before they changed the HN title for this submission.
- Company puts an item on sale,
- After the sale, they follow of pattern of starting cautiously, but increasing the price on a regular basis until they see either a drop off in sales, or competitive pressure
- The next sale happens whenever it's scheduled to, based on calendar events, excess inventory, etc.
Amazon items fluctuate a lot, maybe especially for baby items. But I got 30%+ discounts on car seats and strollers by setting a price alert and waiting a few months.
Amazon has my sister's address information already saved, I can just click it from the list when I'm buying presents for my nephews.
Brands still have value when properly managed, don't let anyone tell you they don't.
It scares me a little bit that nobody is even trying to compete with Amazon. When somebody does do a better job at something than Amazon, it seems like Amazon just acquires them (Zappos, for example).
I've been surprised the extent to which Amazon's achieved voluntary lock-in for me. Amazon's good-enough in my spot-check price comparisons, and instantaneous with zero marginal-cost shipping, that they're now my default place to search for many products.
Find a niche to live in. Taking on Amazon directly is probably trouble.
I also don't buy big-ticket items lightly. If saving hundreds is a possibility, then there are also way way more considerations, and I'll probably end up targeting a particular model of a particular brand, then I'll search for the best price. Your solution may work for that, but so does Google and just going to each retailer's website manually.
With big ticket purchases, convenience isn't really a factor in my purchase decision. To me your product is a solution in search of a problem. I hope I'm wrong.
If everyone behaved like you, requiring a 40% discount before moving away from Amazon, then Amazon would just set its prices 1/.6 = 66% higher than the other stores. Fortunately, not everyone is like you, so Amazon's prices are often competitive.
To some degree, I suppose this is like buying index funds versus buying individual stocks. I only buy index funds. But the reason I can get away with it is that there are at least a few people out there searching for value. I can't compete with them. But I can price-compare online, or at gas stations, etc. I see shopping for low prices as part of my duty as a capitalist. :)
The term "price sensitive" is a bit misleading. A better term would be "value sensitive". Your duty as a free market participant (I prefer that term because "free market" is not necessarily the same as "capitalism") is to get the best value you can for your money. But that is value to you, and will be different for different people. Also, that value has to include the cost of the time and effort you spend searching for value, which is also different for different people.
> then Amazon would just set its prices 1/.6 = 66% higher than the other stores.
And such would be the price of convenience.
I shop at Publix and pay the higher prices over Kroger because Publix is 5 minutes away from my house whereas Kroger is 10. I don't do major grocery shopping as I'm single. I'm happy Publix exists and if everybody were so price sensitive they'd drive to Kroger instead, Publix would go out of business or lower the quality of their services so they can compete price-wise with Kroger.
Having multiple store options available diversifies not just the market for goods, but also the market for shopping experiences. Price-sensitive shopping, if everyone did it, would absolutely lower prices for everyone, but ultimately would reduce options. I would hate to live in that world.
I bet that Kroger has a better, more convenient experience than it would if Publix wasn't there, simply because Publix is an option. Kroger does have self-checkout lanes and nice decor, just not as nice as Publix's.
This needs to be made MUCH clearer on the site. I'd be curious about the changes for those products sold and fulfilled by Amazon.com versus sold by a third party (on the web site|and fulfilled by) Amazon.com.
I love the shopping experience when I don't have to wait in line because they have enough cashiers and don't have people haggling over $5 at the cashier, if you want their prices go to their store...
As a general rule, anytime an institution [0] has an established reputation for lower prices such that people assume their prices are lower without doing comparisons, this becomes a license to charge higher prices.
[0] this is true beyond just institutions, too; "economy" packs of products frequently sell for higher per-unit costs than packs with fewer units per pack, because enough people assume that the cost is lower and don't do the math.
Assuming the "economy" pack is the only offer you visit a distinct store for and the good is perishable (so that stockpiling doesn't work), then it might be cheaper if you factor in the time you need to reach said store, shop there and get back home into the "cost". The less often you have to go shopping, the more time you save.
That is especially true with cat foods when your cat is a picky eater and only eats certain food from a certain place which is most unfortunately at the other end of the city...
I'm actually referring to same-store, same-time prices when neither the economy nor the smaller pack is specially discounted, so the travel, etc., cost is the same.
Stockpiling/perishability doesn't seem relevant in any way that favors economy packs -- an economy pack is either a larger single sealed pack (in which case, with most perishable goods -- which go bad faster once opened -- is strictly more problematic than stockpiling smaller packages with the same aggregate contents) or is itself an aggregate of smaller packages (in which case, its equivalent to stockpiling smaller packages.)
The only place I can see the convenience issue you raise being a factor is if one store only sells the economy pack and another store sells the smaller pack, and there is a convenience difference between the two stores. Then, there is a premium for the convenience of the store. But that kind of different-store scenario is not what I'm referring to.
I'd like to know the tricks that online stores use. I know that two people can click at the same time and get two significantly different prices on Amazon, for instance.
While demand is always applicable, production costs often dominate in more vertically integrated firms and there are large lags in adjusting to signals.
Like, for example, the current situation with new car prices.
I think the fact that toys, a product highly prone to fads and trends, are the main culprit would reinforce such an explanation. It would be nice if they had a baseline both before and after or an even average of multiple non-shopping holiday points, rather than one day.
This just in, major exchanges are guilty of stock inflation!
What you are calling "overcharging" is actually just the free market at work. Stores vary prices in order to find out what the best price for them to charge is--"best" meaning the price that maximizes their profit. Customers evaluate prices in order to find out what the best price for them to pay is--"best" meaning the price that maximizes their benefit from the purchase--the value of the item to them minus the cost. But "cost" includeds the time and effort spent price searching, and different people place different values on their time and effort relative to other things.
So in a free market, you should expect to see different prices for the same product at the same time at different stores, because they are selling to different customers with different relative priorities. It would be a lot more suspicious to see the same item sold for exactly the same price at every store--that would mean the market is not a free market any more.
It has nothing to do with free markets at work. It's simply a shady, dubious practice.
If you think buyers are somehow unable to tell when they are being tricked into buying something they don't really need, then you think free markets are basically impossible because you've defined "voluntary" out of existence. The problem with that is that all other methods of regulating the behavior of sellers do even worse. People who are in favor of free markets, like me, aren't in favor of them because we think they're perfect; we only think they're the best we can do. Often there is no perfect solution, since we don't have any omnipotent benevolent dictators to run our economies for us.
I think this is where our views diverge. In essence what they're doing is false advertising: "buy this product because it's at X% discount!!!" when in reality it's at a lower discount or in some cases it's not even discounted.
Advertising is regulated, and there are good reasons for that, just think about an ad like "smoke cigarettes, they cure cancer" (granted, hopefully, an overblown example).
Some view free markets as a goal onto themselves, I think this is a mistake. The goal is (or should be) a good society, whatever your definition for "good society" is. Just because the best societies so far developed using some forms of "free markets", doesn't mean that pure to the extreme free markets would be a better means to the goal when compared to more regulated markets.
> The definition of "free market" is that all transactions are voluntary.
That is correct, once both parties agree to the terms (price, quantity, quality, deadlines and so on) the transaction goes through. People usually view governments (the regulator) as third (intrusive) parties to the transaction, that's not true. Governments are representatives of the people, and as such, regulators simply add a priori terms to a transaction.
Historically, regulation has managed to right some (not all) of the more awful side effects of free markets, including: child labor, deadly workplaces, labor bordering slavery, labor inequality, disastrous environmental externalities and more. Is regulation always perfect? No. But then again, by your own admission neither are free markets :).
Nothing you say in any way establishes that regulation by government works better than regulation by free market participants. All you're doing is describing what government regulation does.
> People usually view governments (the regulator) as third (intrusive) parties to the transaction, that's not true.
Certainly it is. Government regulators do not give or receive anything as part of the transaction, which is the definition of "a party to the transaction".
> Governments are representatives of the people, and as such, regulators simply add a priori terms to a transaction.
And those terms are not voluntarily chosen by the parties; the parties have to accept them whether they would choose to in the absence of the regulations or not. Therefore the transaction is not voluntary.
> Historically, regulation has managed to right some (not all) of the more awful side effects of free markets, including: child labor, deadly workplaces, labor bordering slavery, labor inequality, disastrous environmental externalities and more.
To the extent these things were "awful" (some, like child labor and labor inequality, weren't necessarily that way), they were not "side effects of free markets". They were side effects of markets that were meddled with by governments in different ways than governments meddle now. (Slavery, for example, was clearly not the result of a free market transaction; the slaves didn't voluntarily agree to be slaves. It could only exist because governments legitimized the taking of slaves by force.)
Regulation by free market participants? Is that a joke? You mean like rating agencies giving AAA ratings to subprime CDOs? Free markets do not self regulate, they simply don't exist to do that. Free markets don't have foresight or a self preservation instincts, why exactly would they self regulate? Monopolies, strange things, pure free markets inevitably lead to monopolies and monopolies inevitably destroy free markets.
I wonder, in your ideal world, would you do a microbial test on every milk carton you buy? I guess not, you would vote with your money, right? You would buy from trusted brands which have their milk tested by a third party, like a private milk rating agency. I bet you would only buy AAA milk ;). But what if all the milk producers would get together and get to an understanding that none of them will ever rate their milk and thus save themselves a lot of money? Where would you buy your milk now? You would grow your own cows, produce artisan milk? Multiply that for all the products you consume, how much effort would you need to expend in order to participate (and not get completely trashed) in a market unregulated by the government?
> Government regulators do not give or receive anything as part of the transaction, which is the definition of "a party to the transaction".
Governments are elected and as such they represent the people and the peoples will, thus any terms added by the government are in fact terms added by those participating in the transaction. The timing when the terms are added doesn't matter.
> And those terms are not voluntarily chosen by the parties;
Yes they are, when I buy milk, one of my terms is that it should have microbial content below dangerous levels as stated in the regulation related to microbial content of the milk.
> They were side effects of markets that were meddled with by governments in different ways than governments meddle now.
Really? I suppose you have an example to back that up? While you think of one, I suggest reading about working conditions and child labor during the industrial revolution.
> Slavery, for example, was clearly not the result of a free market transaction; the slaves didn't voluntarily agree to be slaves. It could only exist because governments legitimized the taking of slaves by force.
WAT? Before slavery, slavery was illegal? And the slaves didn't voluntarily agree to be slaves, as opposed to the slaves who voluntarily agree to be slaves?
No. I'm using "regulation" in a more general sense here, to mean "giving market participants incentives to behave in particular ways, and not to behave in other ways". That's what's really important. And every time you buy or sell something, or refuse to buy or sell something, you are contributing to the incentives of other market participants. Government regulation isn't magic; it's just another way of affecting incentives.
> Free markets do not self regulate
You are incorrect. To take just the most obvious example, prices in a free market are regulated by supply and demand. That is "self regulation", as opposed to, say, prices being regulated by government dictates.
> in your ideal world, would you do a microbial test on every milk carton you buy?
I think you need to spend some time actually looking at the models that libertarian economists have put together to show how a world without government regulation would work. I suggest David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom for a start.
Just as a brief response, you are making an underlying assumption that the only thing stopping, for example, milk suppliers from leaving harmful microbes in milk is government regulation. Do you have any support for that assumption?
> Governments are elected and as such they represent the people and the peoples will, thus any terms added by the government are in fact terms added by those participating in the transaction.
I can see we're just going to have to disagree here. Your definition of "voluntary" simply makes no sense to me. Nor is it the definition actually used in economics, where it is generally considered obvious that government regulations are involuntary with respect to individual market transactions.
> when I buy milk, one of my terms is that it should have microbial content below dangerous levels as stated in the regulation related to microbial content of the milk.
But suppose I disagree with you about what a "safe" microbial content is. I have no option to buy milk with different levels. So even if this particular transaction is "voluntary" for you, because the regulations just happen to match your preferences, that doesn't mean it's voluntary for others who have different preferences.
If you object that no reasonable person would have different preferences for microbial content in milk, I suggest that you spend some time looking into the disputes over whether pasteurization actually removes beneficial microbes (and nutrients) from milk. It is by no means the slam dunk that you appear to think it is.
> I suggest reading about working conditions and child labor during the industrial revolution.
I already have. And one of the things I read was that the industrial companies who imposed those conditions had government monopolies; they weren't competing in a free market. That's why they were able to exploit workers and children.
> Before slavery, slavery was illegal?
You're not reading very carefully. Slavery was legal, because governments legitimized it; there was never a time when it was illegal (prior to it being outlawed in most of the developed world over the past century or two). But it wasn't voluntary for the slaves, so you can't use slavery as an example of a free market having "awful" effects.
> as opposed to the slaves who voluntarily agree to be slaves?
Can you give any examples of slaves who voluntarily agreed to be enslaved? I'm not aware of any; the closest thing would be indentured servants, but they were only indentured for a specified period of time, and there were limits on what they could be required to do as part of their servitude. No such limits existed for slaves.
I'm using regulation in the sense of preventing destructive behavior.
> You are incorrect. To take just the most obvious example, prices in a free market are regulated by supply and demand. That is "self regulation", as opposed to, say, prices being regulated by government dictates.
I'm not against free markets, free prices for their most part are essential signals for free markets. We're not talking about price control.
> Just as a brief response, you are making an underlying assumption that the only thing stopping, for example, milk suppliers from leaving harmful microbes in milk is government regulation. Do you have any support for that assumption?
You conveniently ignored my previous examples of destructive byproducts of free markets. Monopolies for one are inevitable in pure free markets. Your assumption is that ALL suppliers will by some magic willfully expend the effort to provide people with safe milk. Care to explain why all of them will do that?
> If you object that no reasonable person would have different preferences for microbial content in milk, I suggest that you spend some time looking into the disputes over whether pasteurization actually removes beneficial microbes (and nutrients) from milk. It is by no means the slam dunk that you appear to think it is.
I will argue that no reasonable average person is equipped to reliably determine what safe milk is. You might be better equipped than the average, but most people around you aren't. Even so, you may have a different preference towards microbial levels in milk, but if you get them wrong you will become sick, and in some cases infectious. Once you're infectious, you are a danger to me. Putting someone at risk is a form of aggression. And in that case my rights of not being subjected to aggression thump your rights to choose specific levels of bacterial content in milk. Same argument goes for some drugs, food, guns, medical drugs, pollution or chlorine in the water for that matter or a lot more other regulated things.
> And one of the things I read was that the industrial companies who imposed those conditions had government monopolies;
There were thousands of private mining companies, thousands of private textile/cotton companies, and so on. Thousands of anything doesn't make a monopoly. I'm not sure what are you referring to.
>> as opposed to the slaves who voluntarily agree to be slaves?
That was a question for you, based on a statement of yours, not my statement.
> You're not reading very carefully. Slavery was legal, because governments legitimized it; there was never a time when it was illegal (prior to it being outlawed in most of the developed world over the past century or two). But it wasn't voluntary for the slaves, so you can't use slavery as an example of a free market having "awful" effects.
OK ... So basically your argument is ... because people had their freedom taken from them by some who then proceeded to sell and buy them, effectively turning them in commodities - this can't be used as an example of buying and selling?? You will have to elaborate on that, because if that's your argument it's dubious to say the least.
There was a need for labor in the market, and the market happily fulfilled the need by stripping people of their freedom and turning them into cheap commodities - it externalized the suffering. The fact that governments eventually taxed this trade (I'm assuming this is what you mean by "governments legitimized it") did not legalize it or legitimized it, since it was a practice already very well entrenched. I hope you are aware that slavery did not start or end in the US, in fact it predates by a lot most forms of anything which would resemble a government.
Which is impossible. The best we can do is to give people as much incentive as possible not to engage in destructive behavior. The best way we know to do that is a free market. It's certainly not perfect but the alternatives are even worse.
> We're not talking about price control.
I said prices were just one example. Any "regulation" other than voluntary transactions in a free market has the same issues as price control does: it masks essential signals.
> Monopolies for one are inevitable in pure free markets.
On the contrary; monopolies are short-lived in pure free markets, because the conditions for natural monopolies are rare. Long-lived monopolies only occur because of government regulation. The original meaning of the word "monopoly" was a royal privilege granted to certain people to be the only allowed sellers of particular products.
> Your assumption is that ALL suppliers will by some magic willfully expend the effort to provide people with safe milk.
I made no such assumption. You were the one making an assumption, namely that the conditions imposed by government regulations were the optimal ones. (As I explained before, you also implicitly assumed that everyone had the same preferences, which is necessary for a "one size fits all" regulation to even possibly be optimal.)
> I will argue that no reasonable average person is equipped to reliably determine what safe milk is.
Really? Then how did people manage to do it for the thousands of years that milk was produced and consumed before we had microbial testing labs?
> my rights of not being subjected to aggression thump your rights to choose specific levels of bacterial content in milk
No, your rights of not being subjected to aggression trump my infecting you. So if I consume tained milk, and get infected, and infect you in turn, you have a valid claim against me for restitution. But that in no way demonstrates that the government is justified in preempting me.
> I'm not sure what are you referring to.
Look up how those mining companies, for example, got the rights to mine a specific area. They were given exclusive rights by governments (usually state or county governments, depending on how the land ownership was handled).
> So basically your argument is ... because people had their freedom taken from them by some who then proceeded to sell and buy them, effectively turning them in commodities - this can't be used as an example of buying and selling?
No; once again, you're not reading very carefully. The transaction that was involuntary was the initial enslavement of the slaves; they didn't voluntarily choose to be slaves. If their enslavement is taken as given, the transactions in which they were bought and sold were obviously buying and selling. But in a free market, you can't sell something you don't have a right to in the first place; and the only way to gain a valid right to something is to either produce it yourself, or buy it from someone else in a free market transaction. Since the slaves did not originally become commodities by a free market transaction, no transaction in which they were subsequently bought and sold can be a free market transaction. It can be a legally allowed transaction, but that's not the same as being a free market transaction.
> There was a need for labor in the market, and the market happily fulfilled the need
Not a free market. See above.
> The fact that governments eventually taxed this trade (I'm assuming this is what you mean by "governments legitimized it")
No. You are apparently very ignorant of the history of slavery. It has existed as long as civilization has existed; most wars for most of human history have ended up with the winning side enslaving the losing side. Governments legitimized it by practicing it directly. Offloading the grunt work to private companies or individuals and taxing the proceeds was a later innovation.
> it was a practice already very well entrenched
By governments. See above.
> I hope you are aware that slavery did not start or end in the US
Of course I am. See above.
> in fact it predates by a lot most forms of anything which would resemble a government.
This really depends on what you call a "government"; city-states at the beginning of civilization already had governments in at least some senses of the word. But even if we use a narrow sense of "government", it is still true that most governments in human history have practiced slavery directly, as I described above (by enslaving populations they defeated in wars). They certainly did not confine themselves to just taxing it. As I said above, that was a later innovation.
As for retailers using the word "sale" to mean "we raised the price a week ago and now we're dropping it back to where it was before, in the hope that you'll think it's a great deal", that could certainly be described as "shadiness", yes, but since you appear to agree with the market being free, the free market should sort that out just fine. If such practices hurt consumers, on net, then consumers can respond by not buying from such retailers.