
Web Scraping Finds Price Fluctuation - unsettledtck
https://blog.scrapinghub.com/2016/02/10/which-stores-are-guilty-of-price-inflation/
======
ams6110
I dislike the "guilty of inflating prices" theme here. These stores are guilty
of no crime. Prices fluctuate all the time, sometimes daily, sometimes hourly.

Bottom line, none of these products are essentials to life. The price is
either worth it to you as a buyer, or not. Thinking you lost money because
it's later available for less is the same sort of faulty logic used by people
who think they are "saving" money by buying something on sale (when it's an
item they wouldn't ordinarily buy). I had a friend who used to do that all the
time. We'd be at a store, and he'd see something on sale that he had no
intention of buying before he walked in. He'd buy it, and congratulate himself
on "saving" money. I'd point out "no, you just spent $50 that you hadn't
planned to spend." He just didn't see it that way.

~~~
jpambrun
In Quebec, the CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT adequately protects consumers from such
unfair practices :

225\. No merchant, manufacturer or advertiser may, falsely, by any means
whatever,

(a) invoke a price reduction;

(b) indicate a regular price or another reference price for goods or services;

(c) let it be believed that the price of certain goods or services is
advantageous.

[...]

231\. No merchant, manufacturer or advertiser may, by any means whatever,
advertise goods or services of which he has an insufficient quantity to meet
public demand unless mention is made in his advertisement that only a limited
quantity of the goods or services is available and such quantity is indicated.

The merchant, manufacturer or advertiser who establishes to the satisfaction
of the court that he had reasonable cause to believe that he could meet public
demand or who offered the consumer, for the same price, other goods of the
same nature and of an equal or greater cost price is not guilty of any
infraction of this section.

I feel that the United States are a bit reluctant to protect their citizens.

~~~
notatoad
I believe the US has protections against deceptive pricing like that too, but
i don't think any of these companies or practices described in the article
would be in violation of it.

The law you're referencing is a protection against raising the price before a
sale so you can advertise the sale price as x% off the inflated price instead
of the store's regular price. Most e-shopping sites advertise a discount
relative to MSRP, not relative to any price they've previously charged, which
leaves them free to raise or lower the prices as they want.

~~~
jpambrun
I'm fairly certain that established case law requires the retailer to have
actually offered the item at the listed reference price for a reasonable
amount of time before the sale. Using the (usually inflated) MSRP as reference
is in contravention of art. 225.

------
ISL
Alternative title: "Some stores offer more consistent prices than others. Some
stores have lower average prices than others."

We're not entitled to low nor consistent prices. We should expect pricing to
fluctuate.

Buy at a price where an item is worth as much (or more) to you than the price
you pay, and you'll always get your money's worth. Sometimes this means not
buying the item.

If you want to know which stores practice consistent pricing, or want to know
which stores fluctuated low in last year's known-big sale days, this article
is useful.

~~~
unsettledtck
I like your extremely accurate title pitch. And no, we're not entitled to low
or consistent prices, but the fact that there is inflation on "sale" days is
noteworthy because of the air of false advertising. You're absolutely correct
though, shoppers should buy when they feel comfortable because buyer's remorse
is meaningless when you're happy with the purchase.

------
Gratsby
JC Penney just went through a complete meltdown because the CEO forced out
honest pricing instead of the inflate-prices-and-have-sales that was their SOP
for more than a generation.

Turns out their customer base really liked the sense of saving money, even
though the straight forward pricing was actually saving them more money.

This kind of a thing feels unethical - especially to those with an analytical
mindset like a lot of programmers. But the proof is in the pudding. People (at
least older people in the U.S.) prefer bargain shopping to straightforward
pricing.

Culturally, there are differences like this around the world. In Japan, they
cannot grasp subscription models very well. In many places in the middle east,
negotiation is just a part of shopping. In the U.S. we really like sales. In
Russia, you get in line and then ask the people around you what it is that you
are buying (granted, haven't been there since the 80s).

~~~
unsettledtck
I think the unethical aspect of arbitrary pricing that goes beyond daily
fluctuations really came out in this project. I actually was not aware of the
situation with JC Penny, but really fascinating glimpse into their consumer
mindset. Probably comparable to Sam's Club, since even I expected a ton of
lower prices from them based on membership. I like your cultural analysis!

------
TuringTest
Such price inflation would be illegal in the European Union, as what can be
advertised as a "sale" is regulated by consumer law, and raising prices in the
previous weeks is forbidden.

Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that it won't be done; the appeal of marketing
tricks is too strong for many businesses, because psychology trumps buyer's
rational consideration in the aggregate and thus these practices pay for
themselves against any possible sanction.

(If it didn't work, the art of advertising would look completely different).

~~~
unsettledtck
If I'm not mistaken (which I might be), there are only specific and regulated
periods of the year where sales are actually approved. So it might be an
interesting follow up project to track EU retailers. My qualm with the
practices of certain US retailers that we tracked was that they offered the
inflated prices on the same days as the sales, so that it wasn't even a matter
of raising prices in the weeks leading up.

------
swalsh
This would be far more interesting if it had items that weren't electronics.
So many products are sold with what is called a "Minimum Advertised Pricing
Policy" that it makes it risky to sell less than the competition (which is
probably selling at the absolute lowest price the market will allow).

Apple for one has one of the most aggressive policies. I'm sure Target is
counting on their size, and the fact that its a one day thing when they
offered their discounts.

~~~
unsettledtck
Well, the Toys category had non-electronic items and it was the category that
was the most examples of inflated pricing (not such a shocker). However, all
of the stores offered discounts on electronics at one point. You just had to
be lucky in going to the right store on the right day.

------
tyingq
Scrapinghub changed not only their pricing, but their pricing model! Guilty!
:)

[http://scrapinghub.com/pricing](http://scrapinghub.com/pricing)

[https://web.archive.org/web/20150302014145/http://scrapinghu...](https://web.archive.org/web/20150302014145/http://scrapinghub.com/pricing)

Edit: Joke was easier to get before they changed the HN title for this
submission.

~~~
unsettledtck
haha, I would say touche except for the fact that we never advertised a sale
and then elevated our prices.

~~~
tyingq
If you say so. Consider the following, less nefarious theory.

\- Company puts an item on sale,

\- After the sale, they follow of pattern of starting cautiously, but
increasing the price on a regular basis until they see either a drop off in
sales, or competitive pressure

\- The next sale happens whenever it's scheduled to, based on calendar events,
excess inventory, etc.

------
smokey_the_bear
I have the camelcamelcamel chrome extension which shows me a price graph over
time for any item on Amazon, and you can set alerts for when prices drop to a
certain level. It's very useful, and because of it I already knew that the
vast majority of amazon deals are not discounted at all.

Amazon items fluctuate a lot, maybe especially for baby items. But I got 30%+
discounts on car seats and strollers by setting a price alert and waiting a
few months.

------
vinceguidry
For me, the convenience of Amazon outweighs any "deals". I don't consider $10
off of a $50 item a deal. It needs to be 40%+ for the price reduction to
really make a difference in my calculus.

Amazon has my sister's address information already saved, I can just click it
from the list when I'm buying presents for my nephews.

Brands still have value when properly managed, don't let anyone tell you they
don't.

~~~
greeneggs
There's a positive externality that arises from price-sensitive shopping. It
promotes competition, which leads to lower prices for everyone.

If everyone behaved like you, requiring a 40% discount before moving away from
Amazon, then Amazon would just set its prices 1/.6 = 66% higher than the other
stores. Fortunately, not everyone is like you, so Amazon's prices are often
competitive.

To some degree, I suppose this is like buying index funds versus buying
individual stocks. I only buy index funds. But the reason I can get away with
it is that there are at least a few people out there searching for value. I
can't compete with them. But I can price-compare online, or at gas stations,
etc. I see shopping for low prices as part of my duty as a capitalist. :)

~~~
pdonis
_> There's a positive externality that arises from price-sensitive shopping._

The term "price sensitive" is a bit misleading. A better term would be "value
sensitive". Your duty as a free market participant (I prefer that term because
"free market" is not necessarily the same as "capitalism") is to get the best
value you can for your money. But that is value _to you_ , and will be
different for different people. Also, that value has to include the cost of
the time and effort you spend searching for value, which is also different for
different people.

------
spdustin
I found it extremely misleading to call out Amazon.com when, in fact, most of
the Amazon products listed are specified as being sold by "an Amazon seller",
not by Amazon.com.

This needs to be made MUCH clearer on the site. I'd be curious about the
changes for those products _sold and fulfilled by Amazon.com_ versus _sold by
a third party (on the web site|and fulfilled by) Amazon.com_.

~~~
unsettledtck
There is a distinction made by those sold and fulfilled by Amazon.com vs
sellers on Amazon. Both have inflated prices.

------
maratd
Stores aren't "guilty" of anything. Prices fluctuate based on demand. That's
normal. If you don't think that's normal, break out a basic economics textbook
and do a bit of reading.

~~~
unsettledtck
Fair enough and consumers are rewarded for carefully researched shopping.
However, many of the days we compared were specifically billed as major "sale"
days and so I, at least, found the price inflation disconcerting.

~~~
jharger
It's only a reward if you consider your time spent researching worth less than
the discount you actually receive.

~~~
JoshTriplett
That's one of the reasons stores offer sales, coupons, and similar: they allow
stores to effectively offer different prices to different people, extracting
more total revenue than if they had to charge everyone the same price. A store
could never get away with directly saying "we charge more if you have more
money". But they _can_ offer coupons and sales, which have the same effect:
those who take the time to clip coupons and watch for sales pay a lower price
(and thus buy anyway), while those who don't pay a higher price.

------
BrianEatWorld
I find it odd that the baseline used is after the holiday sales period, in the
doldrums of retail.Couldn't the lower price after the holiday season be
explained by excess stocks due to insufficient demand relative to forecasts
during the holiday season?

I think the fact that toys, a product highly prone to fads and trends, are the
main culprit would reinforce such an explanation. It would be nice if they had
a baseline both before and after or an even average of multiple non-shopping
holiday points, rather than one day.

------
cookiecaper
I'm assuming that scrapinghub.com is invested in web scraping, so it'd be wise
not to flaunt the actually illegal act going on here, which is the violation
of the CFAA and various intellectual property laws that scraping almost always
constitutes under conventional interpretation.

------
deelowe
Guilty? Price inflation? Since when is it a crime to charge more than everyone
else for something?

This just in, major exchanges are guilty of stock inflation!

~~~
unsettledtck
I stick by the title. No, it's not a crime, but there's definitely a
disingenuous aspect to overcharging for a product.

~~~
pdonis
"Overcharging" compared to what? If you mean, compared to other stores selling
the same product at the same time, consumers have access to the same
information that this study did. If it's worth it to them to seek out a better
deal, they have the information to do so. If they decide it's not worth it to
them, how is that the store's fault?

What you are calling "overcharging" is actually just the free market at work.
Stores vary prices in order to find out what the best price for them to charge
is--"best" meaning the price that maximizes their profit. Customers evaluate
prices in order to find out what the best price for them to pay is--"best"
meaning the price that maximizes their benefit from the purchase--the value of
the item to them minus the cost. But "cost" includeds the time and effort
spent price searching, and different people place different values on their
time and effort relative to other things.

So in a free market, you should _expect_ to see different prices for the same
product at the same time at different stores, because they are selling to
different customers with different relative priorities. It would be a lot
_more_ suspicious to see the same item sold for exactly the same price at
every store--that would mean the market is not a free market any more.

~~~
unsettledtck
By overcharging, I mean that we compared prices to a baseline day in January
(the 13th, to be exact) and then showed those prices against what was on offer
from other retailers. Consumers do have access to this information and their
buying decisions are their own. And that's true, this study reinforces the
free market system we have. There is something to be said for the shadiness of
certain retailers elevating their prices on days that are being touted as
"sale" days.

~~~
pdonis
In other words, you're using "overcharging" to mean "the price went up". That
doesn't seem like a very good use of language; there are lots of valid reasons
why the price might have gone up.

As for retailers using the word "sale" to mean "we raised the price a week ago
and now we're dropping it back to where it was before, in the hope that you'll
think it's a great deal", that could certainly be described as "shadiness",
yes, but since you appear to agree with the market being free, the free market
should sort that out just fine. If such practices hurt consumers, on net, then
consumers can respond by not buying from such retailers.

------
eplanit
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor)

