February 26, 2013 at 12:42 pm
DavidBrown-731687 (2/26/2013)
I'm fully aware of the world I'm living in, thank you.What disgusts me is the way that corporate America gets away with this deception, and tries to thwart any attempt to bring ethical behavior into their business dealings. Marching under the banner of "Less regulation is good for America" they are trying to remove or restrict any oversight on their activities.
If the financial crisis of the last four years hasn't taught us anything, it should have taught us that 'laissez-faire' is a recipe for disaster, that corporations will NOT self-regulate, and we cannot (and should not) trust them to act in our interest as consumers.
Take this simple test. Try to think of the last time a corporation actually did something for you that didn't involve extracting more money from your wallet. OK, time's up! You couldn't think of anything, could you? More than likely, you could find plenty of examples of where they either upped your bill without giving you anything, or kept your bill the same and reduced your service. Either way, they lined their pockets at your expense.
If you say, "Well that's just the way things are," then they have won. I'm not ready to give up that fight quite yet. And neither should you.
I'll take your challenge and respond with the Grocery Store (NOT a small town store, this is a regional/national chain). Yep, last night I mentioned to the guy at the check out that I thought we had forgotten a bag of groceries the previous week that included a simple plug-in air freshener, but I really wasn't sure. He gave me one for free.
The Free Market is not what you've defined at all. The Free Market is simply that providers can bring goods or services to market for prices that they decide to charge. The other side of the equation is that you can either choose to buy or not buy based on the price and the perceived quality of said good or service. That's all the Free Market is.
Take a short test yourself, when was the last time that something happened on Wall Street or to a store that the first response of people in government was NOT "We need more government!" (aka "We need more regulations!")... bingo, NEVER, it's not about fixing a problem, it's about adding more to government JUST to have an excuse to add more to government.
February 26, 2013 at 2:48 pm
I think a free air freshener hardly qualifies as a sterling example of corporate caring. I stand by my original statement. Corporations consider you as a source of revenue...nothing more.
And as to the other opinions you stated, all I can say is that if corporate America acted responsibly, we wouldn't need the regulations we have. We can't trust them to police themselves.
And I don't subscribe to your interpretation of recent history as a power grab for government. It looks as if some media outlet convinced you that the Feds were going to take over the auto industry and the banks. If that were true, why aren't they apologizing now that the Feds sold their GM stock at a profit and sold their AIG stock at a profit. They can't do it, because it refutes their false narrative that everything government does is bad, and corporate America can do no wrong.
What a fiction THAT is...
February 26, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Miles Neale (2/26/2013)
jay-h (2/26/2013)
...But that is NOT the situation here. NO ONE was charged more for the same service, they were offered (firstly) more expensive services. A very different situation. This, by the way, is quite different from BMW's habit of charging ridiculous prices for service (and locking down the cars so that independent service is not always possible).It's more akin to your walking into a store in a quality suit, the salesman will probbably offer the higher quality goods first.
And by doing as you suggest there is a certain risk. Making the assumption that a person will buy higher priced or "nicer" things based on one item such as the suit they wear is silly. Also based on the type of browser, type of machine, or time of day a person comes to the site is not really the brightest light on the block as well.
M.
The opposite can also be true. I've had salesmen ignore me because they assumed they weren't going to make a sale at times when I was ready to spend money.
My mom had a saleswoman explain to her that something was really expensive. My mom wasn't stupid. She knew the price of the item and what she could afford to spend.
I've also had salesman lose a sale because they were so determined to sell me what would make the most commission when I was ready to buy something else. So, they ended up making no commission at all.
February 27, 2013 at 1:56 am
Miles Neale (2/26/2013)
jay-h (2/26/2013)
DavidBrown-731687 (2/26/2013)
I resent the notion that, just because I may be more affluent than another person, I should be expected to pay more for everything I buy. I purchased a BMW a few years ago, but sold it when it became obvious that every time I took it in for service the charge was higher than I paid for comparable service on other cars I've owned. ...But that is NOT the situation here. NO ONE was charged more for the same service, they were offered (firstly) more expensive services. A very different situation. This, by the way, is quite different from BMW's habit of charging ridiculous prices for service (and locking down the cars so that independent service is not always possible).
It's more akin to your walking into a store in a quality suit, the salesman will probbably offer the higher quality goods first.
<snip />Statistics tell us that making a conclusion on one assumed fact is dangerous <snip />
Which statistic are you assuming is applicable here? 😉
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
February 27, 2013 at 2:32 am
marcia.j.wilson (2/26/2013)
Miles Neale (2/26/2013)
jay-h (2/26/2013)
...But that is NOT the situation here. NO ONE was charged more for the same service, they were offered (firstly) more expensive services. A very different situation. This, by the way, is quite different from BMW's habit of charging ridiculous prices for service (and locking down the cars so that independent service is not always possible).It's more akin to your walking into a store in a quality suit, the salesman will probbably offer the higher quality goods first.
And by doing as you suggest there is a certain risk. Making the assumption that a person will buy higher priced or "nicer" things based on one item such as the suit they wear is silly. Also based on the type of browser, type of machine, or time of day a person comes to the site is not really the brightest light on the block as well.
M.
The opposite can also be true. I've had salesmen ignore me because they assumed they weren't going to make a sale at times when I was ready to spend money.
My mom had a saleswoman explain to her that something was really expensive. My mom wasn't stupid. She knew the price of the item and what she could afford to spend.
I've also had salesman lose a sale because they were so determined to sell me what would make the most commission when I was ready to buy something else. So, they ended up making no commission at all.
In the summer between school and college (in England so I was 16) I worked for an electrical retailer. I sold TVs, Hi-Fis, washing machines, vacuum cleaners etc. I worked with a full time career (at least at that point) sales team. I lived in a town with an extremely high proportion of retired people and given the time (1987) a lot of them were not technically competent which was more down to lack of experience with and lack of interest of technology in their lives than their potential to understand. Working what days I could get, which was 2-4 per week, I still outsold all my peer salespeople even when one started to put through half my stuff through the till as their boyfriend's sales. I am not bragging as it is just a simple and, importantly, salient fact proven by the sales sheets.
The reason why I tell this story is to explain why I performed better. Instead of trying to fleece the elderly with expensive products with features that they didn't need I suggested that they bought quality items that suited their needs. This was often, but not always, mid-ranged items with a mid-ranged price tag. This meant less commission for me and a lower sales figure than was actually realisable. On that one sale. As I wrote it that way, I highlighted what you no doubt worked out anyway: that I did more sales by selling more items. How did I achieve this? Repeat sales. If someone was sold a washing machine they needed as opposed to the one they didn't it only makes sense for them to return to the same place when they needed a vacuum cleaner, for example. Why? Trust!!!
This was emphasised not only by returning customers but by recommendations. I even caught a previous customer peeking through the window and pointing me out. Another sale ensued. I'm not even very good at sales.
In relation to the editorial, the question is whether Orbitz has lost the trust of their potential consumers. Only time will tell.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
February 27, 2013 at 6:50 am
"In relation to the editorial, the question is whether Orbitz has lost the trust of their potential consumers. Only time will tell. "
"And by doing as you suggest there is a certain risk. Making the assumption that a person will buy higher priced or "nicer" things based on one item such as the suit they wear is silly. Also based on the type of browser, type of machine, or time of day a person comes to the site is not really the brightest light on the block as well. "
Everybody seems to be viewing this as some sort of hard edged failure. If they misjudge the customer, then everything is wrong. Gee wiz, everyone knows that you can't fully predict what a customer wants from external clues. No surprise there. But they used this as a starting point. It affected what items were featured. That's all. This is hardly 'betrayal of trust', it's not fleecing the customer. It's not like there was no alterntative, if the customer wanted the lower priced deal, they could still get it, no problem. If they had quoted a higher price for the same accommodation, that would be betrayal, but from the article it does nto seem to be the case.
[It's certainly not like auto dealers are known to do: try to get certain customers to pay a higher price for the same product through psychological manipulation.]
It was simply a quick and dirty, and probably less than accurate, way of establishing a starting point for the presentation.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
February 27, 2013 at 9:09 am
David,
I like your logic. Though I am pretty sure we did not make a profit on GM. AIG though we did well. All I can say is if people were honest and truthful the need for the size of gov't would go down.
John
February 27, 2013 at 9:44 am
John Hanrahan (2/27/2013)
David,I like your logic. Though I am pretty sure we did not make a profit on GM. AIG though we did well. All I can say is if people were honest and truthful the need for the size of gov't would go down.
John
Truthfulness and honesty has absolutely nothing to do with that. "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" Do you all know who said that?:-D
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
February 27, 2013 at 10:06 am
Gary Varga (2/27/2013)
Miles Neale (2/26/2013)
jay-h (2/26/2013)
DavidBrown-731687 (2/26/2013)
I resent the notion that, just because I may be more affluent than another person, I should be expected to pay more for everything I buy. I purchased a BMW a few years ago, but sold it when it became obvious that every time I took it in for service the charge was higher than I paid for comparable service on other cars I've owned. ...But that is NOT the situation here. NO ONE was charged more for the same service, they were offered (firstly) more expensive services. A very different situation. This, by the way, is quite different from BMW's habit of charging ridiculous prices for service (and locking down the cars so that independent service is not always possible).
It's more akin to your walking into a store in a quality suit, the salesman will probbably offer the higher quality goods first.
<snip />Statistics tell us that making a conclusion on one assumed fact is dangerous <snip />
Which statistic are you assuming is applicable here? 😉
Gaz,
The statement is in general. And in general, can we make a judgement about a person based on one fact. If they are using a Mac when the come to our site we do things differently. But consider that the user who came to our site may be a homeless person who has a one-time account at the local library that happens to use Mac's, yet because they are using a Mac we try to present them with more elegant options.
I am not saying that to do this is wrong or morally a challenge, only that making a decision based on one fact in evidence is not as reasonable as other alternatives. Another simple thought is that a criminal has to be at the place where the crime happened, and if a person was at the place at the time of the crime then they are guilty. That is making a decision or judgement based on a single fact. But if the true criminal was there along with seven witnesses, does that make them all eight guilty of the crime committed by one? Should we assume that they are all guilty? Or do we need more information to get to the point of knowing what went on.
Orbitz is really doing this. They see one fact, and give the user the options for the next step. That next step may be predicated by the available information along with a number of other paths to alternative decisions.
M.
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
February 27, 2013 at 10:26 am
Sorry Miles. I was just being flippant.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
February 27, 2013 at 10:32 am
TravisDBA (2/27/2013)
John Hanrahan (2/27/2013)
David,I like your logic. Though I am pretty sure we did not make a profit on GM. AIG though we did well. All I can say is if people were honest and truthful the need for the size of gov't would go down.
John
Truthfulness and honesty has absolutely nothing to do with that. "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" Do you all know who said that?:-D
Some guy who was named Ronald as I recall. He was hollywood actor I think. And if people were truthful they'd just say: "This gov't agency is no longer needed" and we'd close it. 😉
February 27, 2013 at 11:30 am
Boy, some of you are wishin' and hopin' that all the bad in the world will go away just because you think it should be so. The purpose of a business is NOT to hire people, provide a product or service, and be philanthropic. The purpose of a business is to make money. Period. Companies who don't keep that in mind aren't companies for very long. If those other, secondary, aspects are met, then all the better.
Also, the Orbitz customers weren't charged more simply because they used a particular OS. From the editorial: "Instead, if an OSX user was detected, the order of search results was changed to show more expensive options first." The customer most definitely had the opportunity to search and do their due diligence before selecting the option that worked best for them. It's called targeted marketing, and every grocery store in the world does it. There's a reason why the milk (which people rush in to buy a lot) is way in the back to force you past all the other things you think you don't need. There's a reason why children's cereal is always on the lower two shelves. There's a reason why all those gossip magazines are in the checkout aisles. There's a reason most of the cars on a dealer's lot are loaded to the gills with options.
Marketers make assumptions about who is viewing their ads, displays and shelves all the time (performance tire ads on Speed Channel, safe-and-quiet tire ads on A&E) just to make you dig into that wallet on a regular basis. Orbitz isn't doing anything different. Should they be skewered for doing it? Only by people who didn't do their homework, and those should fall on deaf ears.
Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 26 (of 26 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply