> if you forced companies to advertise exact prices, everyone would go out of business
Sounds like many companies do not deserve to be in business then, if they cannot honestly charge what it costs to provide the goods or services they advertise and need to commit fraud to stay in business.
> In my opinion, enterprise pricing is an absolute racket.
That's one way of looking at it I guess. The other way of looking at it is that every company that doesn't charge each customer exactly what they can pay rather than something possibly less, is leaving money on the table.
> It makes me sad to time and time again learn that the low prices of services I love are unsustainable and instead subsidized by treating someone unfairly downstream.
In general, price competitiveness on the market is based on some form of workforce exploitation.
I know it's not a zero sum game and so on, but someone is paying the difference on the discounted price you are offered.
> We need to quit making that some kind of top priority.
Then how do we pay for it? You’re either making the customers pay the true cost or you’re just stealing it from the entire tax base.
If you do the latter then it’s unfair to any business competing in the same category and they will all eventually go out of business because they have to be sustainable.
So we end up with less efficiency and absolutely no other options.
A good portion of this is cartels that could be squashed. Notably, real estate (commercial and otherwise, driving up the single biggest cost of business/living). But, then, you'd have to deal with the people who rely on cartel-ized pricing power for their income, investment collateral, etc. (But someone is going to get thrown under the bus, so might as well be them.)
> I thought it's interesting that everything in the end gets put on the customers. It's the price we pay for convenience. I just don't like the way it's hidden to make it look like we're not actually the ones paying for it.
Where else would the cost go? Credit card costs, delivery costs, supply costs, advertising costs, the consumer always pays for it as they are the only one who are providing cash in any of these scenarios. I suppose the merchant could just eat the cost, but, assuming the markup isn't wild, that's a proposition that leads to a dead business.
> how expensive it is actually to have individuals deliver you stuff
That's not actually the expensive part. The expensive part is the greedy investors behind it and their attempt at monopolizing the industry (which thankfully is failing).
Yes. That's how price controls and messed up economies start out.
Sometimes profit margins are highly misleading. For instance, the profit margins for software development are extremely high if you calculate them a certain way. ("You're only paying how much for capital and electricity and you're charging me how much?")
The main thing is what value the business brings you. They can charge whatever they want. As long as you value their service/goods more than what they're charging you, who cares how much it costs them?
> I generally see dynamic pricing as a positive thing
I don't, because it makes it impossible to know what things cost until you are at the point of purchase. I see dynamic pricing as companies being actively hostile to their customers, and so avoid doing business with ones that do this.
> Everyday people honestly don't understand why prices are what they are. I've had a number of conversations with people and they truly believe that prices are arbitrarily set based on how much owners want to screw customers over.
Generally, a company will charge the highest price they can get away with, irrespective of the cost it took to produce the good or service.
Prices only approach the cost of production when there is strong competition among industry players. Basic tactics like branding, consolidation, and lack of transparency in an industry help subvert competition.
It is EXACTLY that easy: "$PRICE + applicable tax".
It's truly bizarre to see people here hurling themselves to defend slimy, deceptive business practices and acting like in 2024 this is some utterly complex insoluble problem.
And finally: too fucking bad for the businesses. Prices should be completely transparent, consumers should know precisely what they're going to be asked to pay upfront, if that creates a burden for businesses tough shit.
> It's utterly disgraceful to charge money for something like this as a service
Why?
> We really need to re-evaluate what our definition of 'value' is as a society.
If this saves me about half an hour a year it's valuable because it's cheaper. If it's easy to make, other people will come along to profit at lower price points.
> If businesses are trying to get more money, they should do it by transparently raising prices instead of tricking people into paying hidden fees.
Yup. This seems like a terrible long term strategy. If I'd eaten expecting $X, and the total is now $X + $Y, and they have the nerve to remind me it's not a tip, I'm probably not leaving a tip, and I'm -definitely- not coming back.
Most cities are rather static in populace. This is a great way to see yourself out of business for a tiny short term profit.
Sure it's hard. Do I care? Not in even the slightest. I have not one picogram of care.
The calculation is made at the point of sale. They can list a final price and work backwards. Does that make it harder for a business to set the price? Yeah maybe. I still don't care.
It's a clearly solvable problem. It'd provide a superior consumer experience. It'd be slightly inconvenient for businesses. SHIP IT.
> Their core problem is that their product is a commodity.
Even worse, the cheapest comparable alternatives are free. At least commodities can be sold at the market price if you can't differentiate yours enough.
> Would you prefer a less greedy corporation that goes where the most expensive labor is which then increases the cost of production which then increases the cost of the products you buy from said company?
Well, yes actually, if the higher cost of those products buys me something that I believe to be worthwhile. There's a whole bunch of stuff I am willing to pay more for, higher quality, better customer service, local ownership or representation, good labor practices, environmental concern, and on and on. I hate this idea that somehow price is the only thing that companies can compete on.
> If raising the prices drives away customers, you have now lost a notable value if you try to sell. Brand perception is (almost) everything. Unless you offer something truly unique or exceptional, you're replaceable in just about every market.
Agreed in general terms, but who is going to buy a business that cant even cover its costs? It sounds like this business has a negative expected value without raising prices.
That's the part that is disconcerting. It's a despicable way to conduct your business.
reply