Free stuff makes us irrational(thehustle.co)
thehustle.co
Free stuff makes us irrational
https://thehustle.co/why-free-stuff-makes-us-irrational/
157 comments
I bought a pinephone and I've been kind of thinking about the economics of it lately. It's a niche product, you're never going to sell a lot of units, but the customer base is kind of a sweet ride. technical people who will fix their own problems, and in exchange for keeping things open, you don't even have to deal with the software side at all. you just release the hardware and let people figure it out themselves. If you're gonna do low volume, it doesn't seem like the worst market segment to target
It's funny you mention that.
I run two businesses with very different customer bases (one selling USB oscilloscopes, the other used video games) and the differences are exactly as stark as you said.
The contact I get from the oscilloscope business tend to either be genuine requests for technical support, bug reports/feature requests or just simply kind comments (usually from old, retired engineers). It's not that some of the technical-minded guys don't take up time, but at least they're interesting and pleasant to talk to.
I can think of literally two Karens over the course of 6 years since I started the first crowdfunding campaign, and one of the two seemed to genuinely be going through a manic episode, so I just told him he was right (which, to be fair, he was) and moved on.
Compare that to the video games business, where we'll have to deal with people who are demanding, unreasonable, manipulative or just simply wasting our time on a daily basis. Probably 30% of the messages we receive I won't even respond to as it's a bottomless pit of frustration.
And my God, GP hit the nail on the head when it comes to the low-value buyers being the ones that kick up a fuss. Anything to try and get something for free/discount.
I run two businesses with very different customer bases (one selling USB oscilloscopes, the other used video games) and the differences are exactly as stark as you said.
The contact I get from the oscilloscope business tend to either be genuine requests for technical support, bug reports/feature requests or just simply kind comments (usually from old, retired engineers). It's not that some of the technical-minded guys don't take up time, but at least they're interesting and pleasant to talk to.
I can think of literally two Karens over the course of 6 years since I started the first crowdfunding campaign, and one of the two seemed to genuinely be going through a manic episode, so I just told him he was right (which, to be fair, he was) and moved on.
Compare that to the video games business, where we'll have to deal with people who are demanding, unreasonable, manipulative or just simply wasting our time on a daily basis. Probably 30% of the messages we receive I won't even respond to as it's a bottomless pit of frustration.
And my God, GP hit the nail on the head when it comes to the low-value buyers being the ones that kick up a fuss. Anything to try and get something for free/discount.
> People that are bargain hunters tend to be more demanding
I wonder if it is because it is a selection bias for people that just don’t value their own time? Selecting people that tend to waste many hours for the sake of a few cents. The type of person with the time available, and who think wasting time complaining is a useful thing to invest time and effort on?
And a person who is not smart enough to spend their time wisely, is more likely to have nonsensical or silly complaints?
I wonder if it is because it is a selection bias for people that just don’t value their own time? Selecting people that tend to waste many hours for the sake of a few cents. The type of person with the time available, and who think wasting time complaining is a useful thing to invest time and effort on?
And a person who is not smart enough to spend their time wisely, is more likely to have nonsensical or silly complaints?
This is one reason if you want to get rid of a couch or something it’s best to put it on the curb with a “$20” sign rather than one that says “free”.
If someone wants to buy it they’ll value it more and be easier to deal with. Or someone might just “steal” it.
If someone wants to buy it they’ll value it more and be easier to deal with. Or someone might just “steal” it.
IMO it's significantly easier to get rid of something as free than to even sell it for $10 on Craigslist, even if it costs hundreds of dollars originally.
This has not been my experience. I routinely sell stuff on Craigslist and FB Marketplace. My experience is that "free" generates a flood of demanding crazies, but asking a nominal fee (even if you don't really care about the money) attracts much more reasonable people. People who respond to "free" listings are much more likely to be rude, to no-show, to ask dozens of time-consuming questions, to complain, and so on.
The trick is to put it outside and you wont be answering questions, and you'll delete the posting when it's gone. Works well!
It's free afterall, so part of the price is not you spending your time.
It's free afterall, so part of the price is not you spending your time.
Personally I have to disagree. Whenever I tried to sell/give away stuff online I experience way more requests for additional infos for free stuff. Also way more no shows after I already removed the offer from the platforms.
Asking for a low price removed no shows, unnecessary people asking dumb questions already answered in the description and over all just a massive amount of hassle.
Asking for a low price removed no shows, unnecessary people asking dumb questions already answered in the description and over all just a massive amount of hassle.
I'm not sure I follow this one.
When you put something on the street with a "free" sign it either disappears or it doesn't.
When you put something on the street with a "free" sign it either disappears or it doesn't.
For those of us that live on the West coast there is a worse option: transients soiling it.
In my experience putting a value on something makes it more likely someone will steal it—which is the preferable outcome.
In my experience putting a value on something makes it more likely someone will steal it—which is the preferable outcome.
I've been running a free closed beta for a product of mine for... 6 months. The users absolutely love it and claim they can't live without it. But I am having difficulty wrangling them into a price that they don't complain about. I think I'm bumping up against these "free" forces somehow. I also think the closed beta has run too long, and now they're spoiled.
I have a better idea for you, which has worked for several others, e.g. Dropbox.
Let your early adopters earn free service by referring others.
Instead of alienating your biggest fans and supporters and power users, you'll be turning them into promoters and marketers.
Let your early adopters earn free service by referring others.
Instead of alienating your biggest fans and supporters and power users, you'll be turning them into promoters and marketers.
It's a good idea, and one that I've run during the closed beta. A handful of the users have a referral credit for referring other beta users, and once we leave the closed beta, their credit will go into effect. I plan on extending the referral program after the launch as well.
GP has already gotten a lot of value out of them, so if keeping them isn't costing much, I'd say grandfather them in for free.
Why for free? Give, like, a 50% discount. Their "free stuff" would be "50% for free".
Or even 90%. Maybe 75% as a compromise. Heck, being grandfathered into a very low price point will make them much less likely to quit even if they no longer use the product, thanks to FOMO. So you may see long-tail income from those early adopters with little expense.
Or a 5%-15% forever discount per referral that's paid for a year. After 6-20 referrals, you're on us - it's cool.
I bought ifttt pro subscription when they were offering "pay any price". I went for the lowest possible - and whilst I don't use the tool nearly enough to justify the pro at full price, I can't see myself ever cancelling the subscription.
As the other person said, if you offer a grandfather rate - you might have people who are signed up for life!
As the other person said, if you offer a grandfather rate - you might have people who are signed up for life!
I don’t think you’re “bumping against the same “free” forces somehow”, because you seem to have given away the whole pizza for free for 6 months.
I think you need to study companies that transitioned from a free to a paid product rather than compare yourself against businesses that increase their regular sales through free samples.
I think you need to study companies that transitioned from a free to a paid product rather than compare yourself against businesses that increase their regular sales through free samples.
To add some additional context, the closed beta users knew from the beginning that the product would be paid after the closed beta. Some even asked about the price, and I gave them a ballpark figure, and all of the responses to the figure were positive. However, once I made the official price announcement, a few people were pretty angry (ironically, some were people who asked about the price and were ok with it at the time).
So I'm not necessarily moving from a free product to a paid product. It's from a paid product that was subsidized, to a paid product that is not subsidized. But to your point, I think the closed beta ran too long and shifted their psychology about the cost of the product.
So I'm not necessarily moving from a free product to a paid product. It's from a paid product that was subsidized, to a paid product that is not subsidized. But to your point, I think the closed beta ran too long and shifted their psychology about the cost of the product.
What if during the sign up stage, you actually show the current price of the free plan. But then give a 100% discount for a certain period. Afterwards, you would then reduce the discount X percentage until it's fully transitioned into a paid model.
If it's all transparent, maybe that would make it easier for people to know that it's not free for free sake and plan accordingly.
If it's all transparent, maybe that would make it easier for people to know that it's not free for free sake and plan accordingly.
That necessitates actually having a price point nailed down prior to accepting any sign ups. Some people (including possibly OP) get the ball rolling without even having a reasonably narrow ballpark guess settled on.
Grandfather early supporers, not at free but a healthy discount.
Not a bad idea, but I'm just going to ask that they pay the normal price in a few weeks. If my product really is game-changing for them, they'll pay it. If they won't, then a discount is only prolonging the inevitable. My current price is really the most competitive price that I can offer, so it's take it or leave it.
The goodwill of your testers is likely worth far more than the marginal revenue you’d gain from having them pay full price.
I was in a similar position many years back and learned the hard way that people _absolutely loathe_ when you take things away from them.
I was in a similar position many years back and learned the hard way that people _absolutely loathe_ when you take things away from them.
I ran into this as well. I had an attempted launch a month ago with a different pricing model, and people were pissed. They loved the product so much that they were angry at the prospect of having to choose to not use it (because they didn't like the price). I've since adjusted the model to fit all of the feedback that I gathered from that experience, and I've sampled the users to get their feedback on the new pricing model, and it seems positive, so hopefully there aren't complaints this time around.
Many of the testers do have free service (from referrals) that they'll get. But after that, they have to pay. I'm feeling pretty strict about it this time around.
Many of the testers do have free service (from referrals) that they'll get. But after that, they have to pay. I'm feeling pretty strict about it this time around.
Yeah I can't fathom why you are doing this.
If the marginal cost is zero (i.e. this is software) they are worth more to you than any kind of incremental fee (i.e. assuming a few dollars a month, not thousands).
It's just one of the most fundamental rules of business that increasing prices is one of the most disastrous things you can do where there are expectations.
It's why there are granfather contracts all over the place.
Make your new customers delighted with your product at 'some price' and your 'alpha/beta' people feel empowered that they get it for free. You can sell them addons later.
If the marginal cost is zero (i.e. this is software) they are worth more to you than any kind of incremental fee (i.e. assuming a few dollars a month, not thousands).
It's just one of the most fundamental rules of business that increasing prices is one of the most disastrous things you can do where there are expectations.
It's why there are granfather contracts all over the place.
Make your new customers delighted with your product at 'some price' and your 'alpha/beta' people feel empowered that they get it for free. You can sell them addons later.
The marginal cost isn't zero unfortunately. Each user is actually expensive, and their cost is unbounded (I send hundreds to thousands of SMS messages per user, per month, on their behalf). They've only gotten more expensive as they've used the service, because they're sending more messages to more people. There's theoretically no limit to how much they could cost me. So I just can't do the grandfather idea.
I'm not willing to spend the effort to build a custom billing system and pricing model just to grandfather these users in.
I'm not willing to spend the effort to build a custom billing system and pricing model just to grandfather these users in.
How much does 1000 SMS messages cost? If it's actually significant I would grandfather them in at a lower rate per X number of messages and offer further discounts for referrals.
Most services I've seen in Europe are around €0.09 so "thousands" would mean upwards of €100. I've seen US providers go as low as $0.005 though.
I think the mistake is to have unlimited messages if messages are such a major cost factor. Most services with "unlimited X" have a soft and hard limit on X if you dig deeper. If you don't want to charge per usage (or for overages), you should do a mixed calculation based on typical and min/max usage per customer and how usage ebbs and flows over time.
For the grandfather plan I'd aim lower than that even if it means losing a little money on high use customers because their usage might decline in the future (at which point they're providing profit while being less likely to cancel because of FOMO) and because the lower price point and legacy will make them good multipliers, not just for direct referrals but also as references or partners for whitepapers.
Basically you can get more out of them than just money so treating them the same as later customers means missing out on that.
I think the mistake is to have unlimited messages if messages are such a major cost factor. Most services with "unlimited X" have a soft and hard limit on X if you dig deeper. If you don't want to charge per usage (or for overages), you should do a mixed calculation based on typical and min/max usage per customer and how usage ebbs and flows over time.
For the grandfather plan I'd aim lower than that even if it means losing a little money on high use customers because their usage might decline in the future (at which point they're providing profit while being less likely to cancel because of FOMO) and because the lower price point and legacy will make them good multipliers, not just for direct referrals but also as references or partners for whitepapers.
Basically you can get more out of them than just money so treating them the same as later customers means missing out on that.
"How to build SaaS that doesn't punish the user for using it"
Can you be more clear what you mean by this? Are you saying I'm punishing my users for requiring that they pay for the service?
Not clear what you are arguing. Early supporters should get a price something like cost+3%, new customers might get cost+30% or more.
I wasn’t, and don’t think other’s were advocating losing money on the originals.
Making them angry when they were on your side and helped you off the ground is a silly policy. The negative word of mouth factor alone could be incalculable and do unbounded harm, all for ~$100 bucks a month?
Treat them right and word of mouth will make much more than that in the long run.
I wasn’t, and don’t think other’s were advocating losing money on the originals.
Making them angry when they were on your side and helped you off the ground is a silly policy. The negative word of mouth factor alone could be incalculable and do unbounded harm, all for ~$100 bucks a month?
Treat them right and word of mouth will make much more than that in the long run.
Oh, in the case where there are material underlying costs, it should be a lot easier to charge. People 'get' that. You can given them a discount and that's that.
Is there just 1 tier? If the only 2 reference points are "free" and $X then $X is going to seem expensive by comparison, but if you add 2 tiers above it, suddenly it's "very affordable".
It's a pay as you go model. There's a small base fee, plus costs that scale as you use it. Originally, I had a 2 tier model, for basic and premium. But the feedback that I got from the beta users was that it wasn't granular enough. People who used it less wanted to pay less than the tiers could offer. So I switched to the pay as you go model.
I have no experience with setting up pricing for stuff, but I feel like it could have helped if you already had pricing information in place before your free beta, even if it was just an estimate. Make it clear it won't stay free forever, you know?
That's one thing I could have done better. They did know that it would eventually be paid, but I only gave the ballpark figure to those who asked, not everyone.
I think it depends on what we're talking about ..... I used to collect free stuff at conferences. I loved getting a bag at the entrance to some conference, GDC, E3, CES, Auto Show, etc. It would be full of fliers and free magazines. Then I'd go around the booths collecting free pens, free buttons, free t-shirts, free stickers, more free magazines, fliers, etc....
At some point I realized all of that was actually not something I wanted. I didn't need branded pens. I was not going to actually wear the t-shirts. I likely didn't have time or care about the magazines.
It switched to collecting nothing. At most if I see something I think I'm interested in instead of taking a flier I'll take a picture and look it up later. I don't take any free swag. There might be some exception but it would have to be pretty exceptional. I might initially feel a desire for the free stuff but then I think "Am I really going to use/wear/look at this?" The answer is pretty much always "no" so I leave it.
At some point I realized all of that was actually not something I wanted. I didn't need branded pens. I was not going to actually wear the t-shirts. I likely didn't have time or care about the magazines.
It switched to collecting nothing. At most if I see something I think I'm interested in instead of taking a flier I'll take a picture and look it up later. I don't take any free swag. There might be some exception but it would have to be pretty exceptional. I might initially feel a desire for the free stuff but then I think "Am I really going to use/wear/look at this?" The answer is pretty much always "no" so I leave it.
My casual clothing consisted of nothing but conference shirts for years in school.
If the VC market is strong tech conferences can be pretty good. I’ve been wearing quality swag from companies like GitHub for years.
But generally speaking you’re right. Conference swag is usually junk and I rarely take the time to even pick it up anymore.
But generally speaking you’re right. Conference swag is usually junk and I rarely take the time to even pick it up anymore.
> I was not going to actually wear the t-shirts.
Why not? It is genuine question, I wore them till they broke basically.
Why not? It is genuine question, I wore them till they broke basically.
Still wearing a Drupalcamp 2011 t-shirt, it has held up quite well, 10/10 would take for free again.
For me
* you could maybe pay me to advertise for you but in general I don't want to wear an ad for your product. There might be exceptions. I'd probably wear a t-shirt of a game or movie that really meant something to me. But generally no.
* I'm not really into t-shirts anymore. At some point I just stopped wearing them. (not a judgement for other people's style, only my own)
* At some point I started caring about how I present myself so just throwing on any random free t-shirt no longer fit my personality. (not a judgement for other people's style, only my own)
* you could maybe pay me to advertise for you but in general I don't want to wear an ad for your product. There might be exceptions. I'd probably wear a t-shirt of a game or movie that really meant something to me. But generally no.
* I'm not really into t-shirts anymore. At some point I just stopped wearing them. (not a judgement for other people's style, only my own)
* At some point I started caring about how I present myself so just throwing on any random free t-shirt no longer fit my personality. (not a judgement for other people's style, only my own)
Some people like to look nice and/or already have too many shirts.
> wore them till they broke basically.
So why get a dozen more?
> wore them till they broke basically.
So why get a dozen more?
I don't get them for free that often. And some are too small, too big, don't fit. My size also changed over years which made some of them bad fit. The remaining make it so that I barely ever need to buy one, but don't have that much excess.
Before I lived with my then girlfriend now wife, I used to go to a pretty large number of meetups each month largely for the free food. I made decent money, was terrible at social interaction and enjoyed very few of the meetups, but free food? Come on, lol.
It’s really a weirdly effective motivator, at least for me.
It’s really a weirdly effective motivator, at least for me.
Prepared foods are usually lower quality than homemade, and I would assume free prepared foods for gatherings I know are not well funded would be on the lower end. Free food would not be a motivator for me.
Meetups at big companies in the bay area usually have their cafeteria made food (more made from scratch than prepared I would say). Meetups at startups will usually be from swanky delivery places too.
I used to go for part technical content, part socializing, and part just to get out there. Decent food helped, but it turns out getting in late isn't as tolerable anymore.
I used to go for part technical content, part socializing, and part just to get out there. Decent food helped, but it turns out getting in late isn't as tolerable anymore.
Authors seem to have misconceptions about how people work:
...participants were asked to choose one of the following:
A free Hershey’s Kiss
A $0.13 Lindt truffle (a superior product in quality that retails for multiples more than a Hershey’s Kiss)
Well obviously, I'm getting a free thing as a no-brainer, and then I also decide whether I want the paid thing or not.
They seem to be oblivious to transaction costs. What if they offered free candy after the e-mail confirmation, but the paid truffle no strings attached?
...participants were asked to choose one of the following:
A free Hershey’s Kiss
A $0.13 Lindt truffle (a superior product in quality that retails for multiples more than a Hershey’s Kiss)
Well obviously, I'm getting a free thing as a no-brainer, and then I also decide whether I want the paid thing or not.
They seem to be oblivious to transaction costs. What if they offered free candy after the e-mail confirmation, but the paid truffle no strings attached?
Also the context is missing for the $0.01 Hershey’s Kiss. I wouldn’t stop for sweets in a supermarket sample offering if I had to pay for it but in a controlled study I would make a decision between the two chocolates.
Also paying a penny for something would be a major inconvenience at this point. I haven't carried coins in ages. If it is adding a penny onto some other bill, no problem. But a separate paying experience of just 1 penny would be quite costly to me.
All I came away with was the suspicion that most people understand the different levels of quality in chocolate.
I won't eat free Hershey's chocolate, it isn't worth the calories.
I won't eat free Hershey's chocolate, it isn't worth the calories.
The journalist may suffer from misconceptions, but the version of the experiment to which these results apply was conducted so that the transaction costs were equal in either case (source:
https://people.duke.edu/~dandan/webfiles/PapersPI/Zero%20as%..., see Experiment 3).
> Well obviously, I'm getting a free thing as a no-brainer, and then I also decide whether I want the paid thing or not.
Not permitted. If you take the "free" chocolate they will not sell you the fancy one at any price. It is not obvious how people behave under that circumstance.
> Well obviously, I'm getting a free thing as a no-brainer, and then I also decide whether I want the paid thing or not.
Not permitted. If you take the "free" chocolate they will not sell you the fancy one at any price. It is not obvious how people behave under that circumstance.
Then the hershi candy is not free neither the paid option costs 13c. There's an opportunity cost already baked in both prices, if taking one option prevents you from the other one. It can be translated into $$
Now I also know they don't understand how trade works. Which puts them either under 5 yo or before 5000 BCE
Now I also know they don't understand how trade works. Which puts them either under 5 yo or before 5000 BCE
[deleted]
So if we take for granted that humans really, actually do seem to like free stuff more than we “should”, then perhaps instead of reacting with “lol, humans irrational”, we should more thoughtfully consider why evolutionary pressures would sculpt a mind that seeks out a “free lunch” over a cheap lunch.
Or, to rephrase, if free-seeking is such a powerful effect, then evolution must’ve intended our brains to work this way. Thus suggesting that, while the effect creates individual decisions that are economically irrational, over the long term it must be a survival benefit.
There’s a lot of ways this could work (and I’m eager to hear HNers speculate) but one that springs to mind is thinking in terms of risk as cost.
Imagine you must choose getting great fruit by climbing a slightly unsafe tree, or eating mediocre fruit on the ground in front of you. Over the long term evolution should favor the creature that eats the no-risk ground fruit over even the very low risk climb. Taking ZERO unnecessary risk would be favored, because even the tiniest risks are survival filters over evolutionary time scales.
Or, to rephrase, if free-seeking is such a powerful effect, then evolution must’ve intended our brains to work this way. Thus suggesting that, while the effect creates individual decisions that are economically irrational, over the long term it must be a survival benefit.
There’s a lot of ways this could work (and I’m eager to hear HNers speculate) but one that springs to mind is thinking in terms of risk as cost.
Imagine you must choose getting great fruit by climbing a slightly unsafe tree, or eating mediocre fruit on the ground in front of you. Over the long term evolution should favor the creature that eats the no-risk ground fruit over even the very low risk climb. Taking ZERO unnecessary risk would be favored, because even the tiniest risks are survival filters over evolutionary time scales.
> ... if free-seeking is such a powerful effect, then evolution must’ve intended our brains to work this way.
Evolution doesn't intend anything, of course. In the same way that evolution didn't intend us to get chubby because sugar is now cheap and abundant. (Actually that one may be more explainable in evolutionary terms.)
The free shipping example given in TFA doesn't reconcile easily with evolutionary pressures. Nor would it explain why two mature & well fed adults elected to risk injury over some surplus (if potentially tasty) kilojoules.
Money (and agriculture) are much too recent in our history -- say 9-12k BP -- for there to be any measurable or significant genetic adjustment.
Evolution doesn't intend anything, of course. In the same way that evolution didn't intend us to get chubby because sugar is now cheap and abundant. (Actually that one may be more explainable in evolutionary terms.)
The free shipping example given in TFA doesn't reconcile easily with evolutionary pressures. Nor would it explain why two mature & well fed adults elected to risk injury over some surplus (if potentially tasty) kilojoules.
Money (and agriculture) are much too recent in our history -- say 9-12k BP -- for there to be any measurable or significant genetic adjustment.
I think we typically engage our Type 2 brains (see Daniel Pink) to make buying decisions. When something we want is perceived as free, our Type 2 brains are totally bypassed because the cost computation is perceived as complete. If something has even a small price, our Type 2 brain is engaged and detects an anomalous result.
Temperament seems to be somewhat genetic: https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/traits/temper...
How much does this have to do with free stuff? Not sure. Socio-economic status might be playing a part too. It's probably just the lizard brain, or maybe bargaining culture.
How much does this have to do with free stuff? Not sure. Socio-economic status might be playing a part too. It's probably just the lizard brain, or maybe bargaining culture.
Didn't read the whole article - but I'll just write this anyway.
For prices this low - it's not about the price - it's about the hassle of paying.
I'd probably buy much more unneeded stuff if I was walking past a stand of products on the street and could just take what I wanted and it would magically get paid for by me without any need of interaction.
For prices this low - it's not about the price - it's about the hassle of paying.
I'd probably buy much more unneeded stuff if I was walking past a stand of products on the street and could just take what I wanted and it would magically get paid for by me without any need of interaction.
> when people see something for free, they don’t see the downside
Which explains why politicians are always promising a free lunch.
Which explains why politicians are always promising a free lunch.
And why the idiots...er, I mean voters, buy it every time.
I should have quit when I saw they thought two examples of fistfights years apart were any evidence for their case, but I persisted.
Science around rational choices often tends to be premised by bizarre theories about what is obviously rational. People take free stuff because it often costs them nothing if it turns out to be a mistake. I can throw a free piece of chocolate in the trash if I don't like it. Throwing a 13¢ piece of chocolate away is like throwing away 13¢. This fake effect would disappear if you were given the choice between a free thing with no resale value and a cheap thing with high resale value, because the cheap thing now becomes profitable to throw away (or in this case sell.)
Also, the specifics about chocolate: I've never had a Lindt chocolate, I've had a Hershey's Kiss (they outsell Lindt in the US by multiple orders of magnitude.) I have no idea whether they're more expensive because they're better, or even because they're more expensive to manufacture or the chocolate is of higher quality grade - they could be more expensive because of the packaging. The fancy thing is often worse ("for a more refined palate") than the cheap thing. The Lindt is a risk that the Hershey's is not.
I'm going to skip free shipping, because, again, out of context it's difficult to evaluate the current value of products one hasn't bought recently. It's far easier to evaluate shipping costs. Also, shipping costs swamp other considerations when buying small, inexpensive things, which are most people's purchases. Also, this is a dumb survey ranking public concerns, and as always being used as a proxy for importance. [edit: just looked closer at the list of concerns they ranked free shipping above. They're all objectively worth less than free shipping to someone not in a hurry.]
The last (and the goal of the article) is the goofy attempt to transfer this badly argued effect to the consumption of online news. I read tons of online news that is awful, and is written by people who are bad, financed by other people who are bad. I wish I could take money away from them. I might be reading it to see what bad people are thinking, or I might even be reading it because I was suckered in by a deceptive or vague headline. While I want to know what bad people are thinking, I don't want to pay them for the privilege. Linkbait headlines steal my time and energy, and I not only don't want to pay them, I wish I could fine them.
Science around rational choices often tends to be premised by bizarre theories about what is obviously rational. People take free stuff because it often costs them nothing if it turns out to be a mistake. I can throw a free piece of chocolate in the trash if I don't like it. Throwing a 13¢ piece of chocolate away is like throwing away 13¢. This fake effect would disappear if you were given the choice between a free thing with no resale value and a cheap thing with high resale value, because the cheap thing now becomes profitable to throw away (or in this case sell.)
Also, the specifics about chocolate: I've never had a Lindt chocolate, I've had a Hershey's Kiss (they outsell Lindt in the US by multiple orders of magnitude.) I have no idea whether they're more expensive because they're better, or even because they're more expensive to manufacture or the chocolate is of higher quality grade - they could be more expensive because of the packaging. The fancy thing is often worse ("for a more refined palate") than the cheap thing. The Lindt is a risk that the Hershey's is not.
I'm going to skip free shipping, because, again, out of context it's difficult to evaluate the current value of products one hasn't bought recently. It's far easier to evaluate shipping costs. Also, shipping costs swamp other considerations when buying small, inexpensive things, which are most people's purchases. Also, this is a dumb survey ranking public concerns, and as always being used as a proxy for importance. [edit: just looked closer at the list of concerns they ranked free shipping above. They're all objectively worth less than free shipping to someone not in a hurry.]
The last (and the goal of the article) is the goofy attempt to transfer this badly argued effect to the consumption of online news. I read tons of online news that is awful, and is written by people who are bad, financed by other people who are bad. I wish I could take money away from them. I might be reading it to see what bad people are thinking, or I might even be reading it because I was suckered in by a deceptive or vague headline. While I want to know what bad people are thinking, I don't want to pay them for the privilege. Linkbait headlines steal my time and energy, and I not only don't want to pay them, I wish I could fine them.
Off topic but here in Europe your chocolate example would be reversed: Lindt is the most pleasing and neutral milk chocolate, while Hersheys is considered an acquired taste
This is correct, Hershey’s contains butyric acid which people that are used to don’t taste: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hersheys-chocolate-tastes-lik...
I'm sure Hershey's is worse. I don't buy it. But I wouldn't choose mystery chocolate over it, and by numbers in the US Lindt would be mystery chocolate to tens if not hundreds of millions, while everyone has had a Hershey's kiss.
Imagine if in Europe Hershey's was marked as a fancy import. You would try it and distinctly taste vomit (butyric acid.) The proprietor at the chocolate store then tells you that's what's good about it.
Imagine if in Europe Hershey's was marked as a fancy import. You would try it and distinctly taste vomit (butyric acid.) The proprietor at the chocolate store then tells you that's what's good about it.
Hersheys is indeed marked as a fancy import in Europe (as are most American snacks). They are sold at a premium
EDIT How many more times are you going to edit your post?
EDIT How many more times are you going to edit your post?
A higher price doesn't mean that most people, or even most of the people who buy it, think Hersheys is objectively "better".
My assumption in this case would be that it's higher price because higher cost because imported, and consequently it's only bought by homesick expats or people who specifically want a famous US brand, not people who are optimising for price/quality.
My assumption in this case would be that it's higher price because higher cost because imported, and consequently it's only bought by homesick expats or people who specifically want a famous US brand, not people who are optimising for price/quality.
I just posted it. Probably half a dozen if it's anything like any of my others.
> Hersheys is indeed marked as a fancy import in Europe (as are most American snacks).
Then you don't have to imagine?
> Hersheys is indeed marked as a fancy import in Europe (as are most American snacks).
Then you don't have to imagine?
I wouldn't say "fancy", more "exotic". It tastes weird and most people wouldn't buy it unless it's at a similar price point and they like trying new things. Anyone buying it expecting "premium" quality would be disappointed though.
Here in Germany Milka is basically the main brand and Lindt is the affordable luxury option. Hershey's is rarely even available.
Here in Germany Milka is basically the main brand and Lindt is the affordable luxury option. Hershey's is rarely even available.
Lmao, Lindt is waaaaaaaay better than Hershey's. Much, much higher quality imo.
What??? I don't think so.
Lindt is cheaper and more commonly eaten than Hersheys in Europe.
[deleted]
Wow. Is it really cheaper? I've been living in the Netherlands for two years, and never noticed it.
Granted, I don't see Hershey's as much... and I've seen some times Lindt for way cheaper than I expected in the street market, but even so I had no idea...
Granted, I don't see Hershey's as much... and I've seen some times Lindt for way cheaper than I expected in the street market, but even so I had no idea...
> I can throw a free piece of chocolate in the trash if I don't like it. Throwing a 13¢ piece of chocolate away is like throwing away 13¢.
This is literally the sunk cost fallacy. There's nothing rational about sticking to an awful candy bar because you paid money for it vs throwing away the free one because you didn't.
Lastly, online news consumption is very much suffering from this problem. Not just at the consumer level: think tanks funded by billionaires trying to affect political policy often provide ready-made "press info" and 24/7 contact details for arranging interviews or video calls whereas citing actual research means having to wade through research papers and trying to get a hold of busy scientists with little media training. In consequence you'll see a lot more media appearances of so-called "experts" doing PR for opaque think tanks than actual researchers qualified to give an "objective" view on an issue.
It's not just that "free" media is bad, it's that it can often afford spending tons of money on refining its content in such a way to further its sponsors' political goals. And it's not an accident that most of these outlets espouse right-wing views rather than left-wing -- as progressive as some billionaires may allegedly be, consumer protection, workers' rights, wealth redistribution and democratizing political power are antithetical to the interests of all billionaires, so aside from some pet issues any actual left-wing politics that go beyond ineffective posturing are off the table if they want to maintain their positions of power and wealth.
I'm not saying this means you should pay for news (or that paid news sources are always more neutral and factual -- arguably neutrality is an impossibility and not even necessarily desirable). I'm saying that asking people to pay for news means only those able and willing to pay for news will get access to them and everybody else will be preyed upon anyone who can afford to provide "news" for free.
This is literally the sunk cost fallacy. There's nothing rational about sticking to an awful candy bar because you paid money for it vs throwing away the free one because you didn't.
Lastly, online news consumption is very much suffering from this problem. Not just at the consumer level: think tanks funded by billionaires trying to affect political policy often provide ready-made "press info" and 24/7 contact details for arranging interviews or video calls whereas citing actual research means having to wade through research papers and trying to get a hold of busy scientists with little media training. In consequence you'll see a lot more media appearances of so-called "experts" doing PR for opaque think tanks than actual researchers qualified to give an "objective" view on an issue.
It's not just that "free" media is bad, it's that it can often afford spending tons of money on refining its content in such a way to further its sponsors' political goals. And it's not an accident that most of these outlets espouse right-wing views rather than left-wing -- as progressive as some billionaires may allegedly be, consumer protection, workers' rights, wealth redistribution and democratizing political power are antithetical to the interests of all billionaires, so aside from some pet issues any actual left-wing politics that go beyond ineffective posturing are off the table if they want to maintain their positions of power and wealth.
I'm not saying this means you should pay for news (or that paid news sources are always more neutral and factual -- arguably neutrality is an impossibility and not even necessarily desirable). I'm saying that asking people to pay for news means only those able and willing to pay for news will get access to them and everybody else will be preyed upon anyone who can afford to provide "news" for free.
The economic frame is entirely the wrong one for this. Economics is primarily about behaviour modification and "free" is one popular strategy for changing beliefs and behaviours.
There are truly altruistic examples of "free", but they're much rarer than people think.
With "free" news the cost is attention and a risk of having beliefs and behaviours influenced. Some people think that's a price worth paying.
But this influence is covert, uncosted, and may even be presented in deliberately deceptive ways. So it's not seen for what it is.
If the exchange value was spelled out there would be far fewer takers.
There are truly altruistic examples of "free", but they're much rarer than people think.
With "free" news the cost is attention and a risk of having beliefs and behaviours influenced. Some people think that's a price worth paying.
But this influence is covert, uncosted, and may even be presented in deliberately deceptive ways. So it's not seen for what it is.
If the exchange value was spelled out there would be far fewer takers.
It's not sunk cost if you refuse to buy the 13c chocolate as PP said.
>Free physical goods in meatspace
Those are made with materials, they're consumed, and they're worn/gone.
>Free digital goods in cyberspace
We've entered a different world. Our old model breaks down. Here, things are copied, pasted, transmitted, and stored for negligible cost. When they're consumed, they remain. For software, there's an extra dimension of totalitarianism: a burger in meatspace (for now) doesn't scan your saliva and send the data back to the restaurant or receive an OTA update and transform into a hotdog mid-chew or dictate how and when you eat it. Here, the economic dynamics and tyrannies of meatspace (scarcity, wear-and-tear, cost of materials) can only be implemented with hacks (DRM, perpetual renting, etc., none of which ultimately work to fully simulate meatspace's mechanics of "when you eat a burger, you can't eat it again").
Free digital content has downsides, sure, but good luck making it not free. In cyberspace, it's information, and information wants to be free.
Those are made with materials, they're consumed, and they're worn/gone.
>Free digital goods in cyberspace
We've entered a different world. Our old model breaks down. Here, things are copied, pasted, transmitted, and stored for negligible cost. When they're consumed, they remain. For software, there's an extra dimension of totalitarianism: a burger in meatspace (for now) doesn't scan your saliva and send the data back to the restaurant or receive an OTA update and transform into a hotdog mid-chew or dictate how and when you eat it. Here, the economic dynamics and tyrannies of meatspace (scarcity, wear-and-tear, cost of materials) can only be implemented with hacks (DRM, perpetual renting, etc., none of which ultimately work to fully simulate meatspace's mechanics of "when you eat a burger, you can't eat it again").
Free digital content has downsides, sure, but good luck making it not free. In cyberspace, it's information, and information wants to be free.
transportation and storage costs of digital goods might be very cheap (although not entirely free) but the biggest cost for digital goods is the same it often is for physical goods and services, which is human labour.
Meatspace doesn't inherently differ from digital space. things in meatspace, like say land, didn't always have prices on them. That's a legal invention, the enclosure of the commons, and whether that was a good thing or a bad thing is up for debate but it certainly wasn't a fact of nature.
The process of transferring something to private ownership used to be as foreign to physical things as it was to early digital things. Not because physical or digital goods have some spirit and agenda of wanting to be free, but because nobody had laid claim to it and turned it into a commodity and passed laws that governed their ownership.
When land was enclosed in ~1200 that wasn't because it was so scarce, but because it was 'economically wasted' and 'operated inefficiently'. That's also the reason why digital spaces are being claimed, regardless of whether they're scarce or not.
Meatspace doesn't inherently differ from digital space. things in meatspace, like say land, didn't always have prices on them. That's a legal invention, the enclosure of the commons, and whether that was a good thing or a bad thing is up for debate but it certainly wasn't a fact of nature.
The process of transferring something to private ownership used to be as foreign to physical things as it was to early digital things. Not because physical or digital goods have some spirit and agenda of wanting to be free, but because nobody had laid claim to it and turned it into a commodity and passed laws that governed their ownership.
When land was enclosed in ~1200 that wasn't because it was so scarce, but because it was 'economically wasted' and 'operated inefficiently'. That's also the reason why digital spaces are being claimed, regardless of whether they're scarce or not.
This is Ben Thompson’s Aggregation Theory in a nutshell
https://stratechery.com/aggregation-theory/
https://stratechery.com/aggregation-theory/
Big "one study says" energy in most of the points here. I also think it would be more honest to write the percentage of people who chose neither of the chocolates in the same size as the other numbers.
Yep, the chocolate part almost made me stop reading the whole article. I mean, I'm happy they note the number of "not interested" at all, but they don't loose a word about it, that's a bit narrow in focus.
Also, a bit more context about the setup would be nice. Paying 13 or 14 cent is a (comparably) huge overhead when you are just walking along a walkway, with getting your purse out, seek card or coins etc. - or just take the one that is free for grabs.
On a more general note, I don't think that free stuff makes us irrational. It's just something we don't learn to deal with. When you are used to free stuff, dealing with it is pretty rational, as in looking for hidden costs, moral obligations, is it a data grab, etc. For example, when 62% of ppl refuse to take free choc because they sense they will get stupid questions in return or asked for their name and adress.
Also, a bit more context about the setup would be nice. Paying 13 or 14 cent is a (comparably) huge overhead when you are just walking along a walkway, with getting your purse out, seek card or coins etc. - or just take the one that is free for grabs.
On a more general note, I don't think that free stuff makes us irrational. It's just something we don't learn to deal with. When you are used to free stuff, dealing with it is pretty rational, as in looking for hidden costs, moral obligations, is it a data grab, etc. For example, when 62% of ppl refuse to take free choc because they sense they will get stupid questions in return or asked for their name and adress.
I wonder how much of this effect comes down to 0 effort, rather than the actual cost - If I'm stopped to sample a chocolate, the free one doesn't require me to take out my wallet or find change. As soon as both cost money, the 13c example is such a minimal amount more expensive I'd be way more open to trying it out.
They controlled for this (in the version of the experiment for which the results are reported in the article): they offered it as part of a campus cafeteria meal (and integrated it into the cafeteria billing), so the subjects were already paying for something whether they bought a chocolate or not.
Source: http://people.duke.edu/~dandan/webfiles/PapersPI/Zero%20as%2... (see Experiment 3)
Source: http://people.duke.edu/~dandan/webfiles/PapersPI/Zero%20as%2... (see Experiment 3)
This sounds like the likely explanation. It's not the one cent, it's the hassle of taking out one's wallet and finding the right change.
There's a nuance here about the definition of "irrational".
"Rational" often describes higher-level decision making. Here it is used to in reference simply to outcomes.
If my underlying emotional circuitry rewards me with more units of pleasure for doing x and "experiencing pleasure" is a core motivation then it's a rational decision to do x.
Now - the outcome might be "irrational" when viewed as a whole but it doesn't make sense that way unless there's another external goal. Eating chocolates doesn't have any goal other than pleasure so the Lindt/Hersheys example is rational either way.
It's quite common to use these kind of analyses to imply people are stupid or irrational or both in terms of many kinds of choices but it doesn't hold water unless you own up to the implied external goal you are covertly slipping in to the discussion.
"Rational" often describes higher-level decision making. Here it is used to in reference simply to outcomes.
If my underlying emotional circuitry rewards me with more units of pleasure for doing x and "experiencing pleasure" is a core motivation then it's a rational decision to do x.
Now - the outcome might be "irrational" when viewed as a whole but it doesn't make sense that way unless there's another external goal. Eating chocolates doesn't have any goal other than pleasure so the Lindt/Hersheys example is rational either way.
It's quite common to use these kind of analyses to imply people are stupid or irrational or both in terms of many kinds of choices but it doesn't hold water unless you own up to the implied external goal you are covertly slipping in to the discussion.
The goal seems important, and in a larger picture, should drugs be regulated? I think so.
I worked for a multinational finance company. in the summer, they would give out free ice lollies. Despite being about 0.70p each, the rush and frenzy was too much. They stopped the I've lollies to the disappointment of the rational employees.
There’s something about marginally screwing over your employer people at large companies seem to love.
There’s also a downside of free. Anyone who has posted on Craigslist free knows. You almost always want to put an absurdly low price on it not free. That screens the “free tattoo at a party” people out. You don’t need that behavior in your day.
Maybe I'm just lucky or maybe being rural has something to do with it but I've given away a few different items locally on FB marketplace and have only found people who showed up and were really happy to receive them. I'll probably stop doing that if I get a dreadful entitled person, but so far so good.
I gave away some broken tools on Craigslist once and had a similar experience. 2 people showed up really happy, one was entitled. Didn’t really scare me off though.
Agreed. Another way of looking at it is that people trawling craigslist free value their own time very low, and thus are unlikely to respect your time much either.
Or they don't value the product because it's free. Every time I've posted something free on craigslist, the person is much more likely to no-show or keep rescheduling pick up times, so much so that I won't do it anymore.
[deleted]
You'd think that someone who valued their own time less would value your time more in comparison.
Well I'm sure if my goal was to perversely waste their time, I could repeatedly cancel, no show, and make them jump through other hoops that would take a lot of their time but much less of mine (sending the emails). And thus they would indeed be valuing my time more than theirs, as I played some kind of sadistic power game. But since my goal is simply to get rid of an item to a good home, then the more time I spend sending emails, waiting around for someone to no show etc, is pure loss.
The other solution to this is something like Buy Nothing which limits the pool of recipients to people within your neighborhood.
It's interesting to note that the effect of some good being free holds its power if we know that the good is not usually free.
It would be interesting if the article had more research on what the emotions of users when they come across a paywall. For example, I get irrationally upset when I see a paywall, even though I logically know that content writers deserve to be paid.
The fact that less than 20% of Americans will pay for news almost certainly makes the subscriptions more expensive for the percentage of users who will actually pay. Does the price affect how upset someone gets? I know for me, I don't even look at the price, I never intended on paying since I've been conditioned to expect articles to be free.
It would be interesting if the article had more research on what the emotions of users when they come across a paywall. For example, I get irrationally upset when I see a paywall, even though I logically know that content writers deserve to be paid.
The fact that less than 20% of Americans will pay for news almost certainly makes the subscriptions more expensive for the percentage of users who will actually pay. Does the price affect how upset someone gets? I know for me, I don't even look at the price, I never intended on paying since I've been conditioned to expect articles to be free.
I think it's because we're exposed to something that's unavailable, for the sole purpose of saying "hey, look at this cool thing, you can't have this, unless you pay me".
They do similar stuff with cable. Instead of only showing me the channels I paid for, the receiver software shows all the channels, but shows a "you are not subscribed to this channel" message when I attempt to open a channel I didn't pay for. It's irritating and wastes my time.
They do similar stuff with cable. Instead of only showing me the channels I paid for, the receiver software shows all the channels, but shows a "you are not subscribed to this channel" message when I attempt to open a channel I didn't pay for. It's irritating and wastes my time.
I mean, or you could pay for it? I often pay for it, because I am happy someone is offering to solve my problem and/or give me the information I want. Like, I clearly wanted that information, and without it I am going to waste time -- time that is worth good money -- flailing around without it... this impulse to refuse to pay for things that are cheap is just weird.
I know someone who made an iOS app back a decade ago (or even a bit longer... wow, time flies ;P) that was some kind of contact manager for sales that let you track follow ups... I dunno, I don't use it. But I remember he got reviews that were like "this app has changed how I do business: I use it every single day, and I recommend it to all of my friends... but $5 for an app?! come on, who are we kidding here?".
I know someone who made an iOS app back a decade ago (or even a bit longer... wow, time flies ;P) that was some kind of contact manager for sales that let you track follow ups... I dunno, I don't use it. But I remember he got reviews that were like "this app has changed how I do business: I use it every single day, and I recommend it to all of my friends... but $5 for an app?! come on, who are we kidding here?".
> I mean, or you could pay for it?
Yeah, I could pay for everything anyone asks of me on the internet. Then I'd be broke.
Yeah, I could pay for everything anyone asks of me on the internet. Then I'd be broke.
Part of that, at least for me, is that it is a subscription instead of a la carte. I don't want to have to sign up for a monthly subscription to access a bunch of content, most of which I don't care about, in order to read this one article that interests me.
You are irrationally opposed to getting the other 0-marginal-cost articles for free with purchase of one article.
I might want to read a WP or NYT article from time to time to see what angle the upper-middle class of America is getting fed on some issue. But I don’t intend to pay for that privilege.
Those outlets by the way where mostly supported by ad revenue back in the no-Web days.
Those outlets by the way where mostly supported by ad revenue back in the no-Web days.
> It's interesting to note that the effect of some good being free holds its power if we know that the good is not usually free.
I seriously doubt that. People don't take care of things they get for free, for example, compared with things that cost them significant money.
For example, students who have (and need) a job to meet expenses in college are much less apt to party their way through college.
For another, ever heard the phrase "what the heck, it's a rental!" when people abuse a car?
I seriously doubt that. People don't take care of things they get for free, for example, compared with things that cost them significant money.
For example, students who have (and need) a job to meet expenses in college are much less apt to party their way through college.
For another, ever heard the phrase "what the heck, it's a rental!" when people abuse a car?
You know that experiment with the grapes and the chimpanzees? They gave chimpanzees 2 grapes a day for a long time, then gave them 3 grapes (for a week). Then they went back to 2 grapes and the chimps started throwing feces at the researchers.
When I was growing up, (nearly all?) online news was free and wasn't paywalled. It's only in the last decade or so that they started paywalling it, even for content from the "before time".
What was once free now costs money, and it feels like I'm getting ripped off, even though I might rationally appreciate that ad profits have gone down, or whatever the reason is.
When I was growing up, (nearly all?) online news was free and wasn't paywalled. It's only in the last decade or so that they started paywalling it, even for content from the "before time".
What was once free now costs money, and it feels like I'm getting ripped off, even though I might rationally appreciate that ad profits have gone down, or whatever the reason is.
> You know that experiment with the grapes and the chimpanzees? They gave chimpanzees 2 grapes a day for a long time, then gave them 3 grapes (for a week). Then they went back to 2 grapes and the chimps started throwing feces at the researchers.
Yes, humans are creatures of habit, and our mechanism of deciding whether a change is good or bad fundamentally depends on whether the change is better or worse than the current state of affairs.
In other news, water is wet.
Yes, humans are creatures of habit, and our mechanism of deciding whether a change is good or bad fundamentally depends on whether the change is better or worse than the current state of affairs.
In other news, water is wet.
Citation desperately needed.
NYT was never free, from the day it launched
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/20/business/times-to-announc...
NYT was never free, from the day it launched
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/20/business/times-to-announc...
> In 2007, he co-authored a study titled “Zero as a Special Price: The True Value of Free Products” in which participants were asked to choose one of the following:
> - A free Hershey’s Kiss
I would never take the Hershey's Kiss because of the foul vomity taste/smell.
I can't eat regular Hershey chocolate unless it's mixed with something else to mask the smell and acidity.
I would happily take 10 Lindt truffles for $1.30. Though I really just like the various bars.
I would never take the Hershey's Kiss because of the foul vomity taste/smell.
I can't eat regular Hershey chocolate unless it's mixed with something else to mask the smell and acidity.
I would happily take 10 Lindt truffles for $1.30. Though I really just like the various bars.
You know what the gotchas are.
Yup, even for Google related service. Look at people who scream bloody murder:
* When Youtube charges for a premium service to remove ads
* At the of having to pay for gmail
* Paying for any other of Google's free services (translate, lens, etc).
Even just for lens, imagine telling someone in the 90s that we'd get a free app that lets you take a picture, whooshes it off to some server and uses AI to tell you "what that thing is" along with providing instant access to Google's knowledge related to that "thing". For free!
People are so self-entitled. Yes, companies sometimes make bad decisions around free products, but for many of Google's offerings (and other free service from other companies) _they're the only ones offering it, it wouldn't exist otherwise_
Even just for lens, imagine telling someone in the 90s that we'd get a free app that lets you take a picture, whooshes it off to some server and uses AI to tell you "what that thing is" along with providing instant access to Google's knowledge related to that "thing". For free!
People are so self-entitled. Yes, companies sometimes make bad decisions around free products, but for many of Google's offerings (and other free service from other companies) _they're the only ones offering it, it wouldn't exist otherwise_
Interesting they mentioned the stat that only 20% of people actually pay for news.
I looked at newspaper circulation data from the 00s in Melbourne[1], and it seems the same was true back then. Looking at 2005, for example, The Herald Sun and The Age (which for all intents and purposes were 100% of the newspaper market) sold a combined 700k issues each weekday, out of a population of 3.5m.
Perhaps the phenomenon here is more about 80% of people getting their news through friends, family, co-workers and other social connections rather than subscribing to a professionally edited news source.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Australi...
I looked at newspaper circulation data from the 00s in Melbourne[1], and it seems the same was true back then. Looking at 2005, for example, The Herald Sun and The Age (which for all intents and purposes were 100% of the newspaper market) sold a combined 700k issues each weekday, out of a population of 3.5m.
Perhaps the phenomenon here is more about 80% of people getting their news through friends, family, co-workers and other social connections rather than subscribing to a professionally edited news source.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Australi...
Do you know the number of households in the same market and time?
I'm not sure if you meant to include this in "through friends, family, ...", but I would think it strange for members of a household to have multiple subscriptions to the same periodicals.
I'm not sure if you meant to include this in "through friends, family, ...", but I would think it strange for members of a household to have multiple subscriptions to the same periodicals.
I worked at a small casino that was owned by the "state lottery" (it was in Canada and operated by the federal government but via partner provinces).
An old lottery name was changed from Super 7 to Lottomax and old promotional supplies had to be trashed. There were piles of cheap thin pens that had big 7 as part of the pen at the top.
We casually gave them out at the casino but them it happened. People freaked out and wanted a dozen. "Can I get two more for my grandchildren" and "Can we have more than one!". It was nuts.
That jogged my memory I recall now we also had free pens at the player's counter where people could sign up for a loyalty card. So it wasn't like free pens were unusual. Maybe the loyalty program registered as a cost in people's minds.
An old lottery name was changed from Super 7 to Lottomax and old promotional supplies had to be trashed. There were piles of cheap thin pens that had big 7 as part of the pen at the top.
We casually gave them out at the casino but them it happened. People freaked out and wanted a dozen. "Can I get two more for my grandchildren" and "Can we have more than one!". It was nuts.
That jogged my memory I recall now we also had free pens at the player's counter where people could sign up for a loyalty card. So it wasn't like free pens were unusual. Maybe the loyalty program registered as a cost in people's minds.
People are brainwashed to use their privacy as a currency for "free" stuff.
> use their privacy as a currency for "free" stuff
There are other currencies. Some of these get mixed up with privacy.
Time is a common currency. Flat pack furniture is subsidised by passing the assembly costs to the end user - mostly as time.
Reputation, image or likeness is a way to pay. Remember the hairdresser with a window full of free modelling service photographs of smiling clients with great hair?
Endorsement is another way to pay with "freelance marketing". Cosmetic and kitchen products (tupperware) often had elaborate endorsement chains or pyramid schemes.
Knowledge has long been a "hidden" currency in Free software like Linux. You need to know what you're doing.
In all cases some friction arises when the customer doesn't know in advance that payment in one or more "hidden" currencies is required. The vendors mistake is to try hiding it in order to advertise a product as "free". Announcing it up front is actually better, otherwise the customer reacts by seeing the sale as a scam of some kind.
Loss of privacy is a just one particularly egregious type of hidden currency scam. It's high time it should be treated by customers and regulators exactly the same as other explicit extractions.
There are other currencies. Some of these get mixed up with privacy.
Time is a common currency. Flat pack furniture is subsidised by passing the assembly costs to the end user - mostly as time.
Reputation, image or likeness is a way to pay. Remember the hairdresser with a window full of free modelling service photographs of smiling clients with great hair?
Endorsement is another way to pay with "freelance marketing". Cosmetic and kitchen products (tupperware) often had elaborate endorsement chains or pyramid schemes.
Knowledge has long been a "hidden" currency in Free software like Linux. You need to know what you're doing.
In all cases some friction arises when the customer doesn't know in advance that payment in one or more "hidden" currencies is required. The vendors mistake is to try hiding it in order to advertise a product as "free". Announcing it up front is actually better, otherwise the customer reacts by seeing the sale as a scam of some kind.
Loss of privacy is a just one particularly egregious type of hidden currency scam. It's high time it should be treated by customers and regulators exactly the same as other explicit extractions.
I really enjoy assembling flat pack furniture. Me and my SO put Lego kits together for our first few dates and both of us bond well building Ikea furniture because of that I think.
Cliche HN sentimnents aside, it’s not that simple.
- Early stage social network: It’s gratis so what’s the harm? They are not big enough to leverage Big Data behavorial analysis or whatever, anyway
- Late stage social network: Hey Frank, we’re gonna use a FB group to plan the school and community activities. Oh, you’re not on FB? Why not?
- Early stage social network: It’s gratis so what’s the harm? They are not big enough to leverage Big Data behavorial analysis or whatever, anyway
- Late stage social network: Hey Frank, we’re gonna use a FB group to plan the school and community activities. Oh, you’re not on FB? Why not?
In my experience, the vast majority isn't even remotely aware they're paying with their personal information. They just assume some things are free because they have always* been free.
* You have to remember that most people joined the internet fairly recently. Like the last decade.
* You have to remember that most people joined the internet fairly recently. Like the last decade.
It's still free, and most people really don't care that Facebook or Google is using their 'behaviour' to show them ads. It's really just not that important to most people.
> people really don't care
I won't say you are wrong, as such.
In fact 'they' absolutely do care, but just don't understand. I've done tons of research on this, personally and reading all the latest papers and evidence for about 9 years (back to 2013).
People _really_ care.
However, not to pick on you specifically but here's is a reason I am replying in order to challenge not you but the dangerous idea - the meme/mythology that "people don't care" is pernicious and naturally spread within the social networks that stand to benefit most from it.
It even has it's own entire subculture of self-denigration and celebration of surrendering dignity as a badge of honour.
You're not wrong, because you've been strongly influenced, and the psychological reasons we parrot the the "people don't care" line are complex and involve each of our own relations to personal boundaries.
I won't say you are wrong, as such.
In fact 'they' absolutely do care, but just don't understand. I've done tons of research on this, personally and reading all the latest papers and evidence for about 9 years (back to 2013).
People _really_ care.
However, not to pick on you specifically but here's is a reason I am replying in order to challenge not you but the dangerous idea - the meme/mythology that "people don't care" is pernicious and naturally spread within the social networks that stand to benefit most from it.
It even has it's own entire subculture of self-denigration and celebration of surrendering dignity as a badge of honour.
You're not wrong, because you've been strongly influenced, and the psychological reasons we parrot the the "people don't care" line are complex and involve each of our own relations to personal boundaries.
They are not. Companies are abusing data. The services should still be free.
It should be illegal to only offer this type of payment method.
Absolutely free things make people behave irrationally! Given the right prompting a free t-shirt and a "50% off your next coffee" voucher would be sufficient to hire an international team of assassins.
Try giving away free stuff on Craigslist. The litany of contacts from people is mind blowing. Some are "Can you hold it for me?" and "Can you deliver it to me for free?"
This is exactly what I noticed when getting rid of stuff on my company’s “for-sale” mailing list. It doesn’t matter what it was, there was a HUGE difference in responses between $0.01 and free. It could have been a brand new in the box $50 item and if I asked for $0.01 for it the responses would be like: “Hmm, I don’t know. Can you throw something else in to make the deal better for me”. But say it was free? Man, I would get like a hundred responses within a minute.
[deleted]
I was an early internet evangelist 30+ years ago but now I miss the old newspapers. If you have to PAY for what you read you are far more discriminating. Concerning “free” (there’s no such thing you know) services like gmail, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc., I’m persuaded that a small reasonable fee would eliminate 99+ percent of spambots and trolls.
This seems like a completely backward explanation to me. (But entirely in keeping with the biases of The Hustle, based on their headlines.)
Markets for everything and everything for a price - those things are probably driving the irrational behavior.
We just don't see that pressure because we're in that system. We're acclimated.
Markets for everything and everything for a price - those things are probably driving the irrational behavior.
We just don't see that pressure because we're in that system. We're acclimated.
I tried to sell a cheap manual treadmill a few years ago. I kept lowering the price with no interest.
Finally I set it to free and my Neightbor scooped it up instantly.
The crazy thing is he was so excited about it and got so much use out of it,
I always wondered why didn’t he just buy it for $10.
Finally I set it to free and my Neightbor scooped it up instantly.
The crazy thing is he was so excited about it and got so much use out of it,
I always wondered why didn’t he just buy it for $10.
Just my experience, but I think it's that Free engages a senses of entitlement because in many people's minds, Free means it's rightfully theirs and that any action that inhibits their ability to get what is theirs is an offense of a high degree.
While I don't work with any of our branding team/activities much, our generalist support team was moved under my purview and all issues related to giveaways or brand events come through the support team (their main duties are related to stuff like account management, issues with the public site, licensing management, etc).
The absolutely awful statements and behaviors from persons who didn't get stuff like a free T-Shirt for participating in an event is astounding, and it's a truly global phenomenon, as users from probably 30+ countries have needed management level intervention to tell them basically "knock that shit off you're an adult and this is about a T-Shirt" fairly frequently. They are very openly offensive towards my generalist staff when the staff try to explain stuff like "the distributor is based in N country, moving it to Y country is still heavily delayed due to the world situation right now" (e.g., COVID, war, etc).
But the common response is "I don't care, this is _MY_ t-shirt and you owe it to me", and they spam and harass multiple times a week for weeks on end. It's really difficult to deal with because I've not been clever enough to figure out how to appeal to any sense of patience and most of the times just issue an ultimatum email of "Stop spamming or I'll cancel the order entirely." This is after they're given items like tracking numbers so they themselves can see that the stuff is just caught up in the system or being told that we are waiting for the next batch of swag to be branded and shipped to us.
Overwhelmingly though, the idea presented is that "It's mine, I'm _legally_ entitled to it, you are doing something illegal by not giving it to me right now", and so far I've not been able to come up with a way that shakes this mentality and stops the abhorrent behavior. (Truly, some of the things they say are absolutely outrageous and offensive towards my generalist staff)
With our free product, we get a lot of the same behavior too, but at least this one I understand because it's either:
1. Company found out our free edition works great for their setup so no need to buy a paid license, but since free has no support guarantee, if there is an issue they're out of luck unless we happen to have spare bandwidth on the Support side, which since COVID began has been rare. (I'm 200% for don't pay if you don't need to and I'm glad the product is so good the limited free edition works for them! I don't want to sell anything cause I'm not a sales person)
2. Small MSPs/Providers get pissed when they sell the Free edition (against our EULA very explicitly) and then realize that if something happens in their client environment, we won't support it
For these cases at least the motivation feels a bit stronger to me. (one is just feeling trapped without support, the latter is having to face the reality they're breaking EULA and they built their business on a not-legal premise and might have to admit to their clients they've been charging them for a free product) I absolutely get _where_ the frustration comes from and where the entitlement is based on since there's a bit more at stake. But compared to "where's my sticker collection you promised!?", I even feel sympathy towards the free-edition users because probably it is pretty stressful and scary.
Ultimately Free does give a sense of entitlement; people think they should get exactly what they imagine in their mind and by that point it's not something they might get, it's their property that you're denying. It's honestly extremely depressing to deal with such issues and explain to persons with tons of accolades and technical acumen that "you can't treat people like shit just because you didn't get a T-Shirt" and that it really isn't theirs until its in their hands.
Addendum edit: The less said about Twitter/reddit facilitating such complaints the better. Absolutely awful media, and while sometimes there are some voices of reason in the mob, the majority bandwagon and just exacerbate the issue, which gets the social media team in a tizzy as they also aren't equipped to explain such situations or crowd-control the threads.
While I don't work with any of our branding team/activities much, our generalist support team was moved under my purview and all issues related to giveaways or brand events come through the support team (their main duties are related to stuff like account management, issues with the public site, licensing management, etc).
The absolutely awful statements and behaviors from persons who didn't get stuff like a free T-Shirt for participating in an event is astounding, and it's a truly global phenomenon, as users from probably 30+ countries have needed management level intervention to tell them basically "knock that shit off you're an adult and this is about a T-Shirt" fairly frequently. They are very openly offensive towards my generalist staff when the staff try to explain stuff like "the distributor is based in N country, moving it to Y country is still heavily delayed due to the world situation right now" (e.g., COVID, war, etc).
But the common response is "I don't care, this is _MY_ t-shirt and you owe it to me", and they spam and harass multiple times a week for weeks on end. It's really difficult to deal with because I've not been clever enough to figure out how to appeal to any sense of patience and most of the times just issue an ultimatum email of "Stop spamming or I'll cancel the order entirely." This is after they're given items like tracking numbers so they themselves can see that the stuff is just caught up in the system or being told that we are waiting for the next batch of swag to be branded and shipped to us.
Overwhelmingly though, the idea presented is that "It's mine, I'm _legally_ entitled to it, you are doing something illegal by not giving it to me right now", and so far I've not been able to come up with a way that shakes this mentality and stops the abhorrent behavior. (Truly, some of the things they say are absolutely outrageous and offensive towards my generalist staff)
With our free product, we get a lot of the same behavior too, but at least this one I understand because it's either:
1. Company found out our free edition works great for their setup so no need to buy a paid license, but since free has no support guarantee, if there is an issue they're out of luck unless we happen to have spare bandwidth on the Support side, which since COVID began has been rare. (I'm 200% for don't pay if you don't need to and I'm glad the product is so good the limited free edition works for them! I don't want to sell anything cause I'm not a sales person)
2. Small MSPs/Providers get pissed when they sell the Free edition (against our EULA very explicitly) and then realize that if something happens in their client environment, we won't support it
For these cases at least the motivation feels a bit stronger to me. (one is just feeling trapped without support, the latter is having to face the reality they're breaking EULA and they built their business on a not-legal premise and might have to admit to their clients they've been charging them for a free product) I absolutely get _where_ the frustration comes from and where the entitlement is based on since there's a bit more at stake. But compared to "where's my sticker collection you promised!?", I even feel sympathy towards the free-edition users because probably it is pretty stressful and scary.
Ultimately Free does give a sense of entitlement; people think they should get exactly what they imagine in their mind and by that point it's not something they might get, it's their property that you're denying. It's honestly extremely depressing to deal with such issues and explain to persons with tons of accolades and technical acumen that "you can't treat people like shit just because you didn't get a T-Shirt" and that it really isn't theirs until its in their hands.
Addendum edit: The less said about Twitter/reddit facilitating such complaints the better. Absolutely awful media, and while sometimes there are some voices of reason in the mob, the majority bandwagon and just exacerbate the issue, which gets the social media team in a tizzy as they also aren't equipped to explain such situations or crowd-control the threads.
You didn't have to post a novel. It ends here: "Free means it's rightfully theirs".
The replies you're getting, wow. Can't imagine a better way to prove your point.
I appreciate your statement (edit: and thank you!), and I must admit I feel like I'm at work de-escalating cases on a Sunday :)
To give as much good faith as I can, perhaps my post was overly focused on my frustration and didn't acknowledge that I can understand frustration on the situation.
What I cannot understand is abusive and vicious harassment of my employees. We always try diplomacy, sharing as much information as we can and explaining exactly what the situation is. Some simply choose to react abusively regardless and think they can take it out on my team, which is never acceptable. It does not matter how emotionally strong it feels for the people, lashing out at people trying to help is not appropriate.
To give as much good faith as I can, perhaps my post was overly focused on my frustration and didn't acknowledge that I can understand frustration on the situation.
What I cannot understand is abusive and vicious harassment of my employees. We always try diplomacy, sharing as much information as we can and explaining exactly what the situation is. Some simply choose to react abusively regardless and think they can take it out on my team, which is never acceptable. It does not matter how emotionally strong it feels for the people, lashing out at people trying to help is not appropriate.
> Free means it's rightfully theirs and that any action that inhibits their ability to get what is theirs is an offense of a high degree.
No, free means that you're getting your benefit from something other than being paid by the customer. So if you rugpull the free thing after getting what you wanted, you're taking advantage of people. For some reason, free to you means that you're not obligated to follow through on your promises.
Instead of complaining about people complaining, just stop offering free t-shirts that you have difficulty delivering.
No, free means that you're getting your benefit from something other than being paid by the customer. So if you rugpull the free thing after getting what you wanted, you're taking advantage of people. For some reason, free to you means that you're not obligated to follow through on your promises.
Instead of complaining about people complaining, just stop offering free t-shirts that you have difficulty delivering.
Er, perhaps you misread. The shirt was on its way but shipping was slow due to world issues.
No one is doing a bait and switch, the reality was that it just wasnt on the timeline they wanted and they did not accept this.
No one is doing a bait and switch, the reality was that it just wasnt on the timeline they wanted and they did not accept this.
> Ultimately Free does give a sense of entitlement; people think they should get exactly what they imagine in their mind and by that point it's not something they might get, it's their property that you're denying.
You can hide the bag of treats after showing it to your dogs, but good luck making 'em forget about it.
You can hide the bag of treats after showing it to your dogs, but good luck making 'em forget about it.
I think they are right to be very angry at you for not giving them the free T-shirt
No one said we didn't ;)
Please reread it, the issue was that due to world conditions it took longer than expected, which was explained but not accepted
Please reread it, the issue was that due to world conditions it took longer than expected, which was explained but not accepted
Yes I’m saying I think they are right to get angry about the delay
Can you explain why? It's not something under most people's control except for customs and the shipping. At a certain point it's not something the shipper can influence.
What would be the appropriate action to such a situation in your opinion if it's on its way but delayed by uncontrollable factors (like let's say, a war)
Edit: also delay is a bit different than not giving.
Again it's not like we weren't apologetic, but somtimes there are things we cannot control
What would be the appropriate action to such a situation in your opinion if it's on its way but delayed by uncontrollable factors (like let's say, a war)
Edit: also delay is a bit different than not giving.
Again it's not like we weren't apologetic, but somtimes there are things we cannot control
You should not advertise that you can send them if you cannot. Are you telling new customers clearly that there is likely to be a huge delay?
As written several times, the delays appeared unexpected due to COVID and later the war in Ukraine. Again, what exactly should be done in such a situation?
Also, what about such a situation makes verbally abusing support personnel reasonable?
This isn't about being expressing they're disappointed or angry, it's about abusive people lashing out over factors no one can control
Also, what about such a situation makes verbally abusing support personnel reasonable?
This isn't about being expressing they're disappointed or angry, it's about abusive people lashing out over factors no one can control
Can we get a venn diagram of people who write for thehustle and people who regularly snort cocaine?
Free shipping from larger companies started to change the mentality of many buyers. It was now expected that you too could / should offer free shipping, while maintaining low prices. Of course, small sellers like me don't have the economy of scale to offer such things, without jacking the price considerably.
My second observation was that dealing with the "free" demographics was such a hassle, it is almost never worth it. People that are bargain hunters tend to be more demanding, and for some reason have higher expectations. The only disputes I EVER had, were with those kind of buyers - on extremely cheap items (think under $5). I even got into disputes with people over freebies - i.e. I sent them some free stuff, and they didn't like those.
So on quitting this all together, I figured out that if you're gonna be a small-volume seller, you're better off focusing on the premium / quality segment. It's extremely difficult to compete against amazon on price and shipping.