Discussion
The Washington Post Is Using Reader Data to Set Subscription Prices. How Does That Work?
redgridtactical: This is just dynamic pricing with extra steps. Airlines have done this for decades but at least they're transparent about it. The difference here is that readers don't know the person next to them is paying a different price for the same article. Once you start using behavioral data to set prices, the incentive flips from "make content worth paying for" to "figure out who's desperate enough to pay more." Not a great look for a newspaper that positions itself as a public service.
1123581321: Do these models try to factor the target’s knowledge of what things cost, or maybe even their knowledge of dynamic pricing or discounting practices? That seems like it would not necessarily inversely correlate with wealth.To use an extreme example, you’d have wanted your model to have offered Warren Buffet the base price, or even a deal.
rimbo789: Well this should be banned. Or at least watpo should be required to be transparent about this whenever you subscribe
throwworhtthrow: Another situation where bad actors benefit. From the article:> What really interests Cian, who has published research[1] exploring how audiences tend to have less trust in media outlets that are transparent about their AI use, is the fact that the Post disclosed its use of algorithmic pricing at all. “If you ask people [whether they] want transparency on what’s behind your pricing strategy, people say ‘yes,'” he says. “But what we found in my research is a paradox, in the sense that people think that they want to know, but once they know, the reaction is worse than not knowing.”> [1] https://ideas.darden.virginia.edu/AI-disclosure-dilemma
like_any_other: > “This price was set by an algorithm using your personal data.”How's that "I have nothing to hide" working out?
monkaiju: Correlates with WaPos massive decline in quality, just another rag
beloch: It shouldn't be surprising that a company who might be using a scummy pricing strategy gets less blow-back than one who comes right out and brazenly says they are using a scummy pricing strategy. When the action is bad, admitting to it and continuing to do it shows contempt.It's as though you caught a thief rifling through your pockets and they just looked you in the eye and said, "You caught me. I'm not stopping. What are you going to do about it chump?"
like_any_other: > But what we found in my research is a paradox, in the sense that people think that they want to know, but once they know, the reaction is worse than not knowing."People said they wanted to know if companies were putting feces into chocolate, but once they know, they stop buying that 'chocolate'. The reaction is worse than not knowing! What a paradox! The revealed preference is that consumers want companies to secretly include feces. I am a professor."
