That didnt work against walmart. Fast food might be more resilient but once the AI lube and economic chaos commences, itll just be a brand behind a pinkslime wholesaler.

[dead]

[dead]

They definitely do, I agree. But it's also fun to see how some other companies keep the prices uniform across the country, here in Japan. Real estate prices are insanely different between my neighbourhood and 2 hours outside of the city. Yet the products are the same prices. I understand the general idea, reasons, and logistics, but it's still fun to experience it.

Agreed, and the use of "AI" in the headline is basically just ragebait. There were companies in the late 90s and I'm sure earlier that sold "pricing optimization software" - that's literally what capitalism is built on: charging a price that optimizes profits. And of course many companies have used things like coupons as a tool for price discrimination for decades.

There are parts further down in the article that are more concerning because they're using what should really be more private data in their pricing algorithms, like your geolocation, personal history or even the type of phone you have. But "store location" has been an aspect in pricing algorithms since basically the dawn of capitalism.

Can't they just do it with personalized discounts and other loyalty programs? That's what everyone's doing around here.

oof.

Thats a lot of overreach.

Getting AI boost though. Like watch traffic patterns and sporting events, crank it as much as they can!

Please ban all on demand pricing government. Limit it to 1 price a day or something

Like how letting a car insurance company surveil you will famously make your rates go down? This is a price-gouging tool first and foremost - if you walked into the restaurant then presumably you're already motivated to buy something, so now they just need to find the exact breaking point of each customer at which they will just barely decide not to leave. I have never heard of dynamic pricing being used in a good way, it is pure money extraction for nothing, so no, saying that it can really benefit us equally as much as it will hurt us is not an accurate way to rewrite the title.

Would they charge me less if I was poor? If they comped a family of fours meals because they were below the poverty line I would argue it was almost progressive, but they are only doing this to extract more money from people who they think might not be as price sensitive.

It’s so hard to tell whether this is really happening or not since journalists are so bad at understanding these concepts.

What I do know is that laws on these issues are woefully slow to adapt.

They also pair that with increased prices unless you use the app. It is particularly insidious.

Mind specifying which coffin?

It's not that simple because it's asymmetric. The companies track you (via firms that can see your purchases across different retailers) but how can you track the companies to find a bargain? Historically you might follow Consumer Reports, your neighbor's advice, or just look at advertised prices, but if everybody is offered a personalized price, now it becomes more difficult for you to compare or even identify prices. And what you're offered today might not be--and if Amazon is any indicator, won't be--the price offered tomorrow, making it more difficult to plan and budget across purchases (individuals don't have the scale and analytic prowess retailers have).

Fair price discrimination would involve some kind of bidding system, but that has high transaction costs for both sides. And naturally sellers aren't interested in maximizing global efficiency or competitiveness. Like any company they prefer "solutions" that give them an advantage over the consumer.

It still might be a net win overall, and I don't have strong opinions one way or another beyond being apprehensive about knee jerk public policy proposals, but surely the sellers will see a larger share of the benefits, possibly accelerating wealth inequality and people's growing sense of economic insecurity. That sense of security is critical for maintaining free (or freer) markets, otherwise the population is prone to using their political powers to try to take back bargaining power, and very often that winds up being a loss for everybody.

This is a poor take and reads like a strawman. The post is mentioning locations 2 miles from one another varying by almost $2USD for the same product.