This is something I've never seen before--a website
advertising a $50 price
increase on a dress. (A dress which--foo!--I myself was hoping to own when it went on sale.) I'm trying to figure out what the advantage is of not merely raising the price, but flashing the price increase in red. "You didn't want it at $175, but what about now we've marked it up?
Maybe they believe in Giffen Goods.
perhaps they're thinking the dress is a Giffen good?
Or maybe they're suggesting that you should buy it now because the price could go up further. Or you should buy their other products before those prices go up as well. We've seen a lot of sales and discounting of clothes recently, which may have led some people to hold off on shopping in the hope that prices would come down further. It makes sense that a price increase could have the opposite effect.
They're saying "Hey look, inflation! Buy now before prices rise higher!"
To discourage people from waiting for things to go on sale, by demonstrating that prices can go up, too.
Isn't it way more likely that the dress is a Veblen good?
Interesting. My standard response to people who reject economics on the ground that people are usually irrational is, "I'll agree with you when I see signs advertising "Higher Prices this Week Only!"" Maybe I need to find a new example.
Couldn't it also just be a mistake - maybe it is supposed to be $125? If not, I should go short the Gap; this is not a winning business strategy.
It's an attempt to make the dress more attractive by making it seem more inaccessible to the general public. In other words, the only people who can buy this are the ones who make enough money to be taken seriously. Basically, it trades on the idea that you want more what people imply that you can't have.
Couldn't it also just be a mistake - maybe it is supposed to be $125? If not, I should go short the Gap; this is not a winning business strategy.
The prices for the regular and petite dress of the same item are at the higher price without the markup shown.
Maybe the tall dress was originally mispriced and was corrected using the sale feature rather than directly adjusting the price.
That is a nice dress Megan. You would look pretty hot in it and no woman ever looks bad in black. Suck it up and spend the extra $50. Someday you will be old and no one will sleep with you on a $1000 bet. Look good while you can.
The prices for the regular and petite dress of the same item are at the higher price without the markup shown.
Maybe the tall dress was originally mispriced and was corrected using the sale feature rather than directly adjusting the price.
I'll almost guarantee this is what happened - incompetence or poor training.
Having worked on e-commerce apps, more than likely the dress has a list price and a sale price. If the sale price is blank or equal to the list price, only that is shown. If they are different, the list is struck out and the sale price is shown.
The project probably never envisioned someone entering a sale price above the list, as it seems non-sensical. When one was entered - this is what you get.
Consumer psychology: it's not supposed to make sense.
And female consumer psychology? Don't even bother.
"Maybe the tall dress was originally mispriced and was corrected using the sale feature rather than directly adjusting the price."
Yep - my guess is also that someone entered a price change in the wrong field of their software.
You didn't know about Banana Republic's annual 30% on sale?
A quick wikipedia check reveals that it is probably not a Giffen good. It may however be a Veblen good. I don't think I buy the deflation fears story. Part of the reason that clothing drops in price is that the real value is not in the materials but in the design. The price of a clothing item is ussually highest when it is introduced because it is new and will make you unique. However once the early adaptors buy the product the price is dropped so that sales can be maintained. My guess is that this is a mistake.
Actually, I think it's to counteract the 30% off sale.
Also, John, no matter who you are, as long as you're a woman, you can always find someone who wants to sleep with you, regardless of age, height, weight, width or physical disfigurements.
It's a clerical error
or
Donald Trump marketing is taking over the world.
Similar situations do seem to convince a lot of people to buy stock.
If people actually fall for this, that might go a long way toward explaining the state of our economy.
Clearly, what this means is that markets are not efficient.
Never, ever buy something at full price at BR. Markdowns at BR are an immutable fact of life, like the sun rising in the east or John McCain getting confused and then pissed off.
Ah, like this old joke:
Pay More!
http://adsoftheworld.com/media/ambient/stella_artois_coupons?size=_original
> as long as you're a woman, you can always find
> someone who wants to sleep with you, regardless
> of age, height, weight, width or physical
> disfigurements
I'm not sure that's exactly a rousing defense of Megan. Even though this blog is titled "Get it while it's hot", I'm guessing that John's best odds lie in biding his time - but even if he waits (hopefully many decades from now) until Megan's buried in a nice black dress, there'll probably still be more necrophiliacs lusting after her than girls interested in him at the BEST time of his life.
If you buy it, you'll post pictures of yourself wearing it, right?
If I didn't read the internet regularly, I would remark on how extraordinarily pointless and cruel some of these comments are.
But this is the internet, so I can't say they're extraordinary. But they're still pointless and cruel.
Jens Fiederer:
I sympathise with your gallantry, and admire your eloquent defense of Ms. Megan. I would like to add:
It is my experience that a woman may very well be attracted to a man who is shorter than she is, or less intelligent, or less good looking, or less well off. Some women may even be attracted to a man with the social skills of a snapping turtle. It is extremely rare that a woman will be attracted to a man with more than one of those failings. John very likely has all five strikes against him.
John is not a gentleman.
This is actually quite funny.
Posted by jacobus :
Ah, like this old joke:
Pay More!
http://adsoftheworld.com/media/ambient/stella_artois_coupons?size=_original
Gallant is a bit overstated.
I'm all in favor of treating our gracious hostess rudely as long as this is done in a manner that is either amusing or salacious. She seems to do OK in her own defense.
Stark unimaginative nastiness, though, spoils the ambiance. (I know, who made ME cop or critic? That's the beauty of this open comment format, though, you can spout off if you're in the mood.)
It is amazing the amount of suck up that goes on here for Megan. I said Megan would look nice and should just buy it and not worry about the price. Yet, I am not a gentleman. You people are pathetic. For the record, I am only slightly shorter than Megan, probably make significantly more money than her, and wouldn't take her over my wife on Megan's best night ever.
John:
I think I overreacted, but the last two sentences of your original post stuck in my craw.
There is a difference between courtesy and sucking up. It is rude to be crude. You were crude. So was Kate. Jens was actually worse, now that I re-read it yet again.
I suppose I was trying to count coup by delivering a putdown without barnyard, bathroom, or burial references.
I am fortunate to be thoroughly married myself, otherwise I would have to add being a creepy old man to my own five strikes. (Pushing 50!) Perhaps I'm showing my age.
It's too easy to get into flame wars. Look at the responses to Ms. Megan's post "Of online debate and hidden agendas", and any of the others that mention the election.
I read this blog because Ms. Megan writes well. I post for all sorts of reasons. I will try to restrain my inner barbarian. It is not enough to count coup.
> I said Megan would look nice and should just
> buy it and not worry about the price.
Actually, that was not the objectionable part.
The
> Someday you will be old and no one will sleep
> with you on a $1000 bet.
just seemed nasty without being funny enough to compensate. Maybe you were going for a bit of a macabre "eat, drink, for tomorrow we die" attitude? If you were really going for a sort of humor that just fell kind of flat, I apologize - everybody has their off day, I suppose, and my necrophilia bit was hardly a knee-slapper, either.
You might want to work a bit harder on the self-promotion bit, though....as it is, despite your tallness and earnings, I wouldn't take you over MY wife on your best night ever, either.
Let me see here. Price is a market clearing device. Price goes up, that's supposed to help clear the market. Price goes up, people buy fewer dresses. If the company had a surplus of dresses before the price hike, they'll have even more of them now. That might not be good for business, methinks. If the company found that dresses were selling like hot cakes, they thought that maybe they could raise the price and still sell all their dresses so they wouldn't have to order 6,000 new ones from China with a six months late delivery. Hmm, but that's suggesting that they had underpriced the dress from the gitgo, right? Maybe they guessed wrong about the demand at the lower price. Yeah, I guess so. Why, this is almost as hard as an Econ 1 quiz. Amazing.
Jens,
No matter how young and attractive Megan may or may not be, she like us all will some day be old and shriveled. Unless she knows something the rest of us don't, she will be old and unattractive someday just like we all will be. Pointing that out is not an insult. It is just the truth about her or anyone else. It is just the reason to live now and buy the dress and not worry about it.
If it wasn't meant as a personal slight, then I definitely apologize.
You omit to take into account that as we age we also grow more tolerant of the odd wrinkle. Right now I can't think of any women older than their sixties that I find sexually attractive (and the ones in their twenties STILL have their attractions), but I would not be terribly surprised to get to know some ninety-year old hotties if I get old enough.
An older woman with a saucy attitude wins over a dull youngster every time.
First, to Megan: you, of all people, should remember that price is a signalling mechanism. Raising the price sends the signal that the good is actually more valuable than had been previously realized, and therefore more desirable. ;-)
John: That is a nice dress Megan. You would look pretty hot in it and no woman ever looks bad in black. Suck it up and spend the extra $50. Someday you will be old and no one will sleep with you on a $1000 bet. Look good while you can.
John: I've met Megan, albeit briefly, and I can attest that she is one of those fortunate women whose beauty is not contingent upon her youth.