Surveillance pricing defenders claim that surveillance pricing is better because it works both ways--it might offer a higher price to someone who is desperate, but someone who is likely not that motivated might get a sweet deal. I highly doubt that. A highly-advertised, transparent discount or sale is how you sell to someone who is not that motivated. Surveillance pricing is how you (secretly) extract as much money as possible from the desperate.
And they're subsidized by the revenue made by everyone else. A thousands of coupons start rolling in and meaningfully affecting revenue either the coupons go away or the MSRP increases. It's the exact same pig just slightly different lipstick.
In surveillance pricing, I wouldn't get that choice, I'd just get a custom-to-me price. I'd have no idea how the company decided to charge me more or less than they charged my friend. And no idea how to change the price I'm offered, so it would be terrible if the algorithm decided to charge me +15% for everything.
What's the difference between this and the company charging an absurdly high base price, then your discount is "customized" to you? That's basically how universities work with various scholarship and financial aid schemes working as discounts.
This assumes that the business would raise prices to make more money from people who they think can pay it and give that back to others as a discount.
Do you have evidence this would be the case?
>Do you have evidence this would be the case?
This is pretty standard economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
2. Do you have evidence that the we are operating under standard economics when massive personalized data collection is being used in conjunction with AI to individualize pricing per consumer instead of per market segment?
But personally I think goods should have one singular price for everybody. They can set their out the door price however they want, but anybody else should also be able to buy it at that price at the same time.