Even if it increased the number of people paying the original listed price ($3.99) in this case to slightly >70% they would still gain less money than $5 and it would not have seemed as clean. In either case, I find it more interesting that so many people would pay money when they are not required.
Apparently even people "against humanity" still have a sense of justice.
He didn't know how many people would pay $5, I imagine it was just an arbitrary number he felt was reasonable. Only 25% went to charity, so really it was a pretty good guess. Maybe next time he'll charge $3.75.
reply