Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: price

Dynamic Pricing for Tickets Displays the Power of Prices

For $75 you can see all 9 Big Ten Conference basketball games…Maybe.

Here’s the story.

If you buy a Golden Ticket online from the Minnesota Golden Gophers, you can attend up to 9 Big Ten games but only if Minnesota wins every time you attend. If the team loses when you are there, your ticket is deactivated. At $8.33 a game, you could be saving huge money.

What is going on?

The 250 Golden Tickets are being sold in order to build interest in the less competitive matches. As the thinking goes, worried that his ticket will deactivate, a fan will attend at least one or two games at which he expects Minnesota to win. In that way, by changing the incentive, owners can fill seats that otherwise might have been empty.

Called dynamic pricing, algorithms that maximize revenue are being used by ticket sellers. On a plane, the business person probably paid more than the vacationer sitting nearby; online, prices could change from one hour to the next; at certain theaters, based on sales, ticket prices could spike unexpectedly for orchestra seats. The Golden Ticket is a new take on dynamic pricing but it still involves charging different prices for different people.

Our bottom line? I continue thinking about how miraculous a price is. Conveying information and creating incentives, unregulated prices enable us, as buyers and as sellers, to make decisions that suit us individually.

More specifically, last year at econlife, we explained it this way:

Dynamic pricing is all about price elasticity of demand. If price changes a lot and the quantity we buy remains almost the same, as with medication, then our demand is inelastic. By contrast, if price swings have a big impact on buying, then our response is elastic. With Broadway shows and airline seats, certain consumers have an elastic response to higher prices; when price ascends they say, “No.” Others, the inelastic group, will buy no matter what.

Sources and Resources: This article from ESPN tells the basic story about the Golden Ticket while here is more about dynamic prices and algorithms from marketplace.org. And then, looking for more about dynamic pricing I came across this article on Chicago theater tickets that was fascinating. And here is more about dynamic pricing from econlife.

Hat Tip: Cheap Talk

Note: The title was minimally edited after it appeared.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

black_000016714600XSmall

After Hurricane Irene last August, I lost my electricity for 8 days. Then, only weeks later, after a surprise snow storm, all over again, 8 days without power.  Facing a similar plight last week, economist Arnold Kling asked why the lights were out for so long.

His answer? Reliability has no price.

Problem #1: Dr. Kling’s Washington D.C. provider (mine is in NJ), Pepco, is a regulated monopoly. Where then, he asks, is the incentive to improve service? With no competition, unless things get pretty bad, they have the business.

Problem #2: Reliability has no price. As King says, “…when there is no market price for something of value, incentives are bound to be misaligned.” By contrast, Pepco’s preparation for the unknown that might never happen can have a steep price.

Kling suggests reliability insurance. Any customer who wants a guarantee that her power will not be out for longer than 4 hours has a higher monthly bill. And, if the power company does not comply, then it owes the customer a certain amount, like $20 an hour after the fourth blackout hour.

Whether Dr. Kling has a workable solution, I am not sure. However, he has pointed out how crucial prices are. As sources of incentive and information, they shape business and consumer decisions.

Don’t prices give us more power?

A final thought: Remember the pre-breakup, before 1984, AT&T? A regulated monopoly, they were reliable. So too was the Eastern Airlines NY to Washington D.C. shuttle. Was it only the guaranteed profit margins that distinguishes them from “deregulated” electricity markets?

I read about Arnold Kling’s power outage and his response here after seeing a link on marginal revolution.com. In Econ 101 1/2 you can read about the original AT&T and the breakup (pp. 254-264).

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Frittata with spinach and onion

I just finished an omelette with eggs and spinach from a nearby farm. It tasted good, I supported local business and I helped the environment. You could say that I had my cake (but it was spinach) and ate it too.

But, here is the surprise.

If you care about your carbon footprint, then eating local is not the answer. Yes, food miles do create greenhouse gases. But a Carnegie Mellon study has concluded that the environmental impact of transporting food is relatively minimal. Instead, it’s all about dietary shift. For less than one day a week, we just have to switch from meat and dairy to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet to achieve the environmental benefit of buying 100% local.

In addition, economist Steve Landsburg says that even if we wanted to use cost/benefit analysis to prove the total impact of local sourcing, it would be impossible. How can we judge whether land should have been used for tomatoes or grapes, or if local farmers would have been better off transporting their produce elsewhere or even if it was best to buy Chilean grapes because Chile is the most efficient place to grow them? Then also, there are workers, a ripple of energy use, equipment and countless other considerations.

Instead he says just to look at price.

Using a tomato as an example, Landsburg explains that the price conveys all we need to know. Assume, for example, that the local tomato laborers would have been more efficient growing grapes. As a result, the tomato supply curve would shift up and to the left because of lower yielding fields, and the price of tomatoes would increase. You don’t have to ask specifically about cost and benefit because a high or low price provides the answer.

So, did my omelette help the planet more than steak? I am not so sure.

A thanks to the Freakonomics people who suggested that “We Eat What We Are” and reminded me of locavore dilemmas. And here, economist Steven Landsburg disagrees with environmental locavores while this paper and this paper provide more information about the carbon footprint of our diet.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16831_oreo.12.28.11_000016671656XSmall

Next year, we can celebrate Oreo’s 100th birthday.

First sold in 1912, Oreos have been priced at:

  • 1922: 32 cents/lb.
  • 1934: 27 cents/lb.
  • 1960: 45 cents/lb.
  • 1991: $2.39/lb.
  • 2008: $4.29/18oz.
  • 2011: $4.29/16.6oz.

Amazingly, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, 32 cents in 1922 equals $4.31 today.

When Oreo celebrated its 75th anniversary, people liked to say that so many billions were produced that you could stack them to the moon and back 4 times. Humorist Calvin Trillin said it was impossible, though, because, “Those Oreos are eaten up.”

And here, award winning architecture critic Paul Goldberger reviews the Oreo’s design.

The Economic Lesson

The first federally mandated minimum wage, in 1938, was 25 cents an hour.  Looking at the 1934 price of Oreos, you can see that 1 hour of work at minimum wage got you close to 1 pound of Oreos. Now a pound of Oreo cookies is approximately $4.29 and the federal minimum wage is $7.25.

Greater productivity and economic growth enable us to expand our purchasing power.

An economic question: You might want to check historic prices of other items and then go to the BLS inflation calculator to see if the Oreo numbers are typical.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Peanut prices respond to demand and supply

Farmers decided to plant fewer peanuts when cotton prices soared. The result? Now peanut prices are skyrocketing. Here is the story.

Perhaps it all began with higher cotton prices. Responding, peanut farmers switched some acreage to cotton. Combine that decision with an unusually dry growing season in Georgia, the leading peanut producer, and too many scorched nuts and what do you get? A peanut shortage.

What will happen because of the peanut shortage? Peanut butter will cost us 40% more. And, to be sure they have enough of their basic peanut butter products, Smucker, the world’s largest peanut buyer, has temporarily stopped producing its reduced-fat creamy spread.

The NY Times said we had an acreage war between food and clothing. And here, a past econlife post discusses cotton prices.

The Economic Lesson

The peanuts story is a classic economics tale. On a supply and demand graph, the supply curve shifts upward and to the left when producers switch to a more attractive alternative. The result is less supply and a higher price.

An Economic Question: Now that peanuts are so pricey, what might you predict is the next supply curve move?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment