Enough whingeing about price gouging
‘The latest advice is that there is no need to queue at forecourts or “top up your tank” as there will not be a strike over Easter. The [energy] department is also urging motorists to stick to speed limits to conserve fuel. ’
Financial Times, April 2
Good morning. How are you?
I’m distraught. No Easter egg for me last Sunday.
You’re joking.
It’s true. My wife went to a fancy patisserie to buy one, only to discover that they’d sold out. A cheap one would have done, to be honest.
They’re all cheap now.
They are. It’s puzzling, though. If it’s fine to cut the price of eggs when demand falls, why not raise the price when demand is high? Why didn’t the patisserie put up the price of their last few eggs, rather than sell out on Maundy Thursday?
I don’t think that would have gone down well. Price gouging, don’t you know.
I’d rather think of it as dynamic pricing. I realise people use pejorative terms to describe it, but we’d all be better off if certain products varied in price a bit more.
Example?
Well, last week we discussed water and proper metering and seasonal pricing as a rational alternative to hosepipe bans. Or petrol. Remember the petrol panic a couple of weeks back, when everybody rushed out to fill up their tanks, causing queues and shortages?
You think petrol stations should have whacked an extra 20p on the price?
Of course. Think about it. There was a sudden demand for petrol because of the fear of a strike and shortages.
It was a government-engineered panic.
It was, although the point is, the demand was purely precautionary. The actual need to drive around didn’t change. Some people whose cars were empty had to queue for hours, or even go without. Those who needed petrol would have been able to get 10 litres quickly and easily at the cost of an extra couple of pounds. Meanwhile, the people who late last month were topping up their tanks because – well, why not? – would have waited for prices to fall again. The petrol stations would have provided a valuable social service by charging more, as well as making money into the bargain.
The petrol stations that did raise prices were vilified.
They were, which shows that some people don’t know what’s good for them. The idea of the “just price” has a long history but very little economic basis. There are some theoretically sophisticated stories one can tell explaining why prices tend to stick, but the truth is that in most cases we’d be better off if they moved more. The latest toys wouldn’t all sell out at Christmas, there’d be fewer hosepipe bans, you wouldn’t need a lottery to allocate Olympic event tickets and I’d have been chowing down on an Easter egg last weekend.
Life doesn’t always respect your fancy economic models.
Indeed not, and thank goodness – although the laws of supply and demand are hardly fancy. But the fuss about price gouging really does make us worse off. There are two problems with prices that don’t rise quickly enough in the face of fixed supply and high demand. First, the goods may not reach the people who want them most. Second, even the lucky customers who get the cheap product may lose out because of the non-monetary costs of getting it.
Such as?
Such as queueing for hours to get the latest iPhone or a day pass to Wimbledon, for example. Many, surely, would happily pay a little extra to sidestep these wholly avoidable costs.
If this is such a brilliant idea, why don’t we see more of it?
The simple answer is because people hate it and call it price gouging. Why people hate it is another question and one to which there is no straightforward answer. The riddle deepens because some products are routinely sold using dynamic pricing and nobody complains – for example, seats on an aircraft.
It’s not true that nobody complains. You complain about Ryanair all the time.
Yes, but that’s because of the opaque drip-pricing, the unassigned seating and the lack of customer service. It’s not about the same type of seats at different prices. I have no problem with that idea and, curiously, I’ve never heard anyone else complain about it either. But if you tried to price Wimbledon tickets like that, there would be a riot in SW19.
Why, what’s the difference?
I have no idea. But at least I was able to feast on cut-price chocolate eggs all week.
Also published at ft.com.





16 Comments
Dom Camus says:
Only half the issue is being discussed here, surely?
Dynamic pricing is better if you’re rich (because you are protected from things running out and being forced to queue) and worse if you’re poor (because instead of having the option to queue you are instead priced out of the market).
If I have to choose between improving things for the rich and improving them for the poor I choose the latter. Accordingly, I shall make a point of complaining about “price gouging” as much as possible.
14th of April, 2012publican sam says:
I for one advocate Dynamic Pricing in pubs … not for beer per se, but for food offerings when different consumer segments have varying demand criteria (such as being time-poor at lunchtimes and therefore create a consumer surplus) … not gouging just putting a premium on super-fast service when the consumer demands it.
14th of April, 2012tim says:
If you charge the rich more, you can sell more cheaply to the poor – at marginal cost. You need a way to prevent the rich pretending to be poor, though….
14th of April, 2012Daniel Earwicker says:
@Dom Camus – your argument applies equally well to static pricing: if something always costs £100, no variation according to demand, then it will still be too expensive for the poor but peanuts for the rich. You’re actually arguing against money!
Also differences in monetary wealth is only one type of inequality – what about spare time? Static pricing means the rewards go to those with the ability to stand in a queue for a long time, thus penalising young single mothers for example.
It never ceases to amaze me how intense are the complaints against ticket scalpers who buy up lots of £50 tickets and sell them for £200… why on earth was £50 supposed to be a “fair” or “just” price?! Many more poorer people would be excluded from events costing half that amount.
If allocation of resources isn’t based on anything, it becomes random. Some seem to favour lottery-based allocation, but personally I’m baffled as to why it can be considered fair – especially for things like school places, a one-shot gamble with a child’s educational future.
14th of April, 2012Alec Cawley says:
What annoys about dynamic pricing of commodities which we buy regularly is unpredictability. We plan to fill the tank at a certain price, and are upset when it suddenly costs more than we expected, and look for someone to blame for the hole in our planned spending. If it costs less, we are mildly pleased but regard it as good luck rather than looking for somebody to thank.
This does not apply to airline tickes because they are not regular purchases from our weekly budget. Being exceptional purchases, they don’t come with a price expectation. We are therefore far more ready to accept the spirit of the market, to hunt for a bargain or to pay a premium for a popular time.
14th of April, 2012Chris says:
@daniel the rich can pay someone to stand in line for them so no advantage to the poor there. Also ticket scalpers often have an inside track to get the best tickets so didn’t get tickets through “fair” means.
14th of April, 2012David says:
Couldn’t agree more, apart the unassigned seating on Ryanair and EasyJet. Isn’t that the same thing – turn up early and pick a seat, turn up late and take pot luck. Other huge advantage is you get to pick who you sit next too – avoid the fat people!
14th of April, 2012Gerard McGlew says:
The trouble with dynamic pricing, and using petrol stations as an example, is that they move prices anyway, based on the oil price. Tim described them here (http://timharford.com/2011/01/outside-edge-of-turtle-doves-and-inflation-hawks/) as having “rocket and feather” pricing. In short, petrol prices hike at the first sign of trouble, and only come down slowly.
Stable pricing on regularly consumed items, such as petrol or bread is needed. For less regularly used, such as airline tickets, why not have dynamic prices – depending on loading, etc.
The major difference is that I book the airline ticket an advance, and know what I am getting. If the supermarket changes bread or petrol prices, I only know when I am already there. Imagine wanting to board the aeroplane and being told that due to demand on the day, your hand-luggage will cost £100 extra to have with you. The rich can afford to take their hand luggage on board. Sound fair?
15th of April, 2012Jo says:
“people hate it and call it price gouging. Why people hate it is another question”
I would suggest an explanation might be found in E P Thompson’s 1971 essay, “The moral economy of the English crowd in the C18th”. It relates to the price of flour/bread (see previous poster’s point, coincidentally!), but one could argue petrol is a similarly essential good nowadays.
The essay describes the existence of a social understanding among the public of what constituted ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’ behaviour by sellers – a common notion of economic justice.
(Seriously obscure but really quite interesting…)
15th of April, 2012Daniel Earwicker says:
@Chris: “the rich can pay someone to stand in line for them so no advantage to the poor there…”
@Gerard McGlew: “The rich can afford to take their hand luggage on board. Sound fair?”
These are not arguments against dynamic pricing, but the against existence of “the rich”. The “unfairness” you complain of will still exist if prices were static. If something has a price – *any* price – then some people will not be able to afford it, and we can readily construct a resentful narrative around it on their behalf.
The peculiar thing about complaints against dynamic pricing is that they specifically arise from people suddenly rudely awakened to the unwelcome and unusual sensation of not being able to afford something, apparently for the first time in their lives.
Meanwhile there are those so poor that they can’t afford to fly at all, let alone take as many bags on as they wish. Apparently they don’t matter though! What is important is that no one is better off than me. The fact that others are worse off than me is of no importance at all.
It seems that our level of concern for social justice is also “dynamic”: when we feel ourselves poor, we identify with the oppressed. When our material needs are satisfied, we lose interest in the plight of the poor. Why else be specifically upset by dynamic pricing, and yet not by static pricing?
16th of April, 2012joanna says:
San Francisco have introduced dynamic pricing for street parking and it seems to be working very well. The idea is that for certain peak times or car bays around special events such as sports, the people that are willing to pay very high prices will park and accept they are paying for the privilege. You can see how the project works at sfpark.org
17th of April, 2012David White says:
This article, for me, misses two important points. Firstly that queues themselves are an inherent cost. Second, that purveyors of goods and services value customer relations over a short term profit.
I didn’t need petrol, so didn’t queue, but had I needed the petrol I would have queued, despite despising it. The queue, to me, was the added cost of a rise in demand for petrol.
Although there may not have been a queue at the chocolate shop, customers who learn this year will make sure they buy eggs early next year – that is a cost, making sure you get to the shop on time.
Damaging customer relations in order to curb demand seems very inefficient. You may pay the higher price today, but in future why support a business that ripped you off (or so it felt) in the past? Better to keep prices the same, and relish in all the sold stock. If demand was a long term issue, rather than a ‘shock’, then price your goods accordingly.
A customer is for life, not just for crises.
17th of April, 2012John Halstead says:
@Daniel Earwicker
Lotteries are a fair way to allocate scarce indivisible goods. If two people have equally strong claims to a kidney, then it is fair to have a lottery. Even if it might be in the long-run more efficient to let richer people buy kidneys, you ought to recognise that it is not fair.
You call a lottery “a one-shot gamble with a child’s educational future.” The poorer child gets no chance whatsoever of getting the place if it is priced and they can’t afford it. The rich child gets a 100% chance. There is no ‘gamble’ involved, but that is only because one person has been given no chance of getting the good altogether.
18th of April, 2012John Halstead says:
@Daniel Earwicker
“It never ceases to amaze me how intense are the complaints against ticket scalpers who buy up lots of £50 tickets and sell them for £200… why on earth was £50 supposed to be a “fair” or “just” price?! Many more poorer people would be excluded from events costing half that amount.”
This is a common position among economists, but I don’t know why you find it so difficult to see the problem with touting. Economists recognise equity considerations in determining the value of different outcomes/states of affairs. Why would you not recognise it in this case? You recognise that equity is a concern in countries like Russia, where the wealth is inequitably distributed. What’s the difference with the market? If you assume the market is just, that is begging the question. You could probably sell tickets at Old Trafford for £200 a pop. But that would mean that lots of people who support the team cannot go. You must at least be able to recognise that the club ought not to do this, even if you think they should not be stopped from doing it by the government. (you might do this for libertarian reasons, but these do not have much to do with economics).
Suppose a club could maximise revenue by selling just a few hundred tickets at £1m each. this would attract a few disinterested oligarchs, but nor ordinary fans. In the article, Tim says variable pricing means that “the goods will go to the people who want them most”. This is not true according to the ordinary sense of “want them most”. The most keen football fans would not get to go Tim is using the economists sense of “want them most”. That is not the ordinary sense. It mean who are willing and able to pay. That is not the same as want satisfaction, which is supposed to be the concern of economists and of utilitarians generally. Surely it cannot be said that the oligarchs want the tickets more than everybody else. That is equivocation.
Would this even by efficient? By Tim’s criteria, this would be an improvement as the tickets would be going to those who “want them more” and the cost of calling for the tickets would be drastically reduced. But by utilitarian standards, which is what economists profess to being concerned with, overall utility would be surely be lower. the profits of the club might slightly increase. The oligarchs get the mild enjoyment of watching the match. But the ordinary fans do not get the satisfaction of watching the game. Would this not be a reduction in overall utility?
18th of April, 2012Gerard McGlew says:
@Daniel Earwicker
@Gerard McGlew: “The rich can afford to take their hand luggage on board. Sound fair?”
“These are not arguments against dynamic pricing, but the against existence of “the rich”.”
Actually, if you are flying off on holiday, you could probably afford it. You would probably just not want to, whatever your financial status. I hesitated to write “… afford it, and take their business elsewhere next time.” Maybe the whole sentence was just a distraction.
It *is* the airline equivalent of supermarkets changing prices based on supply – you are already there, and it is too late to do anything about the higher price. To me, that is a key problem with the dynamic pricing discussed.
18th of April, 2012Vivek Beniwal says:
I don’t have a problem with “price gouging” but I have a serious problem with opaque pricing. I don’t mind if my local grocery store wants to price the same orange juice at different prices at different points in time. When it is less than my willingness to pay, I will go and buy it. What really bugs me is that I have no way of knowing what it will cost ahead of time, because the local paper only advertizes how much cheaper it is this week – via a coupon – but not what the final price is. Similarly, I have no way of knowing what my entire basket of good will cost (thanks to all the Hi-Lo pricing policies in place). Of course, new technology is reducing the price of finding this information out… but then who is say that I should not buy when the prices fall as far as possible, so that I can keep all the surplus? After all, that is the surest way to be happy!
20th of April, 2012