Unlock Editor’s Digest Lock for Free
FT editor Roula Khalaf will select your favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
I was angry about that, I just bought tickets for the Big Oasis reunion held at Wembley in July. It cost £1,537 on resale site Viagogo.
My seat goes up behind the stage so I don’t have a great view. But at least you can overlook the Paupers, who have only paid about £400 for the last ticket in the area they are standing in.
Another good news: When Ticketmaster first sold tickets last fall, there is no evidence that Ticketmaster used the algorithm. That’s what the Competitive and Markets Bureau said in a survey last month.
Instead, Watchdog believes the ticket business has simply billed the insulting concert participants for their arms and legs in the old fashioned way. Ticketmaster quickly sold out low-priced standing tickets for around £135 each. It then charged concert participants vertically, without a decent explanation, and up to 2.5 times more.
OK, to be true, the ticket prices were realistic enough, but when I looked them up, I’m not going to see the Oasis. They’re a great band. And we cannot blame Monobloudmank for adopting “Wonderwall” as a party piece for a fierce young man with an acoustic guitar. But these days I prefer naps to bookstores, pubs, and rock and roll gigs.
However, I was intrigued by the idea that if the algorithm is responsible, consumers are particularly d’oeing about overcharging. It reflects the legitimate fear that everything we do is subject to scrutiny and price gouging by Mammon e-servants.
Programs that fine-tune prices to reflect demand have been around for decades, especially in the aviation industry. In recent years, they have permeated other sectors such as taxis, hotels, consumer goods and theme parks.
Merlin Entertainment, a massive visitor attraction business, was upset a year ago when it announced it would introduce “dynamic pricing.” It was the last straw for some parents, whose holiday cheers had already been tested by the prospect of a long hot trip to Legoland Windsor with Sprog luggage that tripped in Haribo.
Recommended
You can interpret “dynamic pricing.” The technology companies claim that it is different from “Surge Pricing.” This is what the former appears to impose a limit on prices.
Or just the “Surge Pricing” Smack, a budget airline that offers passengers the opportunity to upgrade to the moment of premium VIP (including free parachutes) after the aircraft explodes into flames.
This is certainly the way you can feel when prices for Uber rides skyrocket amidst storms and train cancellations.
The diagonals on Legoland booking webpages suggest that dynamic pricing had a non-innovative impact on unique prices. The website cited the Peak Easter holiday price of £43 per person compared to £29 after the school period began. For a family of four, that’s an extra £56. However, holiday season extras have always been applied in the travel industry.
The Premier Inn is a big and proud index of dynamic pricing. The punter who wanted to stay at the hotel closest to Ascott Racecourse on the eve of the Gold Cup in June was shelling £272 for the standard room when I checked. Prices fell to £93 the following Monday.
Legoland categorizes online price advances in this case, with a discounted alternative to the walk-up price of £68 per person. I think only the most harassing and forgetful people who visitors pay on a walk-up basis will probably blink in tears as they do.
Meanwhile, the subject of these columns, behavioural finance truthism, welcomes discounts almost as much as customers dislike extra charges.
In a report last fall, consumer Scotland came to the blindly clear conclusion that they like dynamic pricing when giving them an obvious bargain, but dislike it when they end up paying the best dollar.
Therefore, companies like Premier Inn and Merlin introduce price ceilings into their algorithms. Legoland Windsor prefers to sell Easter Sunday tickets rather than dispose of the last one for £400 and is accused of surge pricing.
Florian Stahl, a marketing professor at Mannheim University, says businesses that do not impose price caps choose to “trade with customers, not to have relationships.”
This certainly seemed to be the spirit of Uber co-founder Travis Kalanick. Ain Rand, the ultra-libertarian philosopher who thought transactions were preferred over relationships, is popular among tech siblings of the brain type.
However, as Professor Stahl points out, some consumers are shocked to discover that running shoes available on Amazon for $90 in the morning could cost $100 if they postpone purchases until the afternoon.
Most of us appreciate the price of goods and services being set by supply and demand. What damages our trust in the company is the suspicion that they may have overcharged us in connection with their strict response, or that we have purchased at a nosebleed level.
Dynamic pricing is becoming increasingly popular and refined. This makes companies difficult choices. Brand-friendly companies set intelligent ceiling prices and publicly outline their policies. Transactional rivals are struggling to tear the market and navigate it.
Computers make it happen that Champagne Supernova is not at fault with the ticket price of the Oasis. The dangers for business are highlighted by the resentment that it was.
Jonathan Guthrie is the writer, advisor and former director of former Rex. jonathanbuchananguthrie@gmail.com
