This was done via ClickJacking and here are the offending scripts/html:
<iframe id="cksl7" name="cksl7" src="http://cobweb.dartmouth.edu/~hchen/tmp.html" style="border:0px;left:-36px;top:-17px;position:absolute;filter:alpha(opacity=0);z-index:99999;opacity:0;overflow:hidden;width:1366px;height:705px;"></iframe>
You can unlike their page here: https://www.facebook.com/randomdirectionsblog
It almost certainly violates Facebook's ToS though.
I can't be the only one that does this, it takes almost no effort, and using a private window for the really "important" accounts, so you're not logged into them all the time, prevents a whole lot of problems and exploits.
The post on the blog itself is a month old.
Perhaps this dilemma can be viewed as a typical example of classical economic 'homo economicus' vs. behavioral economics theories. Classical economic theory would say any rational human would obviously choose 20 over 10 nuggets for the same price. But behavioral economics typically takes into account other factors that classical models ignore to better explain our seemingly "suboptimal" decisions.
I think maybe 10 nuggets is a reasonable number for one person or two children to eat whereas 20 is obviously too much. In a 'fast food' situation where it's unlikely that leftovers would be saved, people may perhaps be choosing less nuggets to adhere to their very rational believe that (any) food should not go to waste.
I can buy two gallons of milk at Costco for the price of one gallon at my local store. But I don't buy from Costco because the second gallon always goes bad and I throw it out. Throwing out food feels bad.
Anyway, what do I care about the "free" second gallon if I don't actually drink it?
Edit: hey look, a study:
> A series of experiments demonstrates that consumers exhibit aversion to waste during forward-looking purchase. These experiments further reveal that such behavior is driven by distaste for unused utility, a reaction that is shown to be distinct from an aversion to squandering money. Waste aversion is especially pronounced when consumers anticipate future consequences and deprivation is salient. In addition to demonstrating robustness across consumers and marketing contexts, the results also demonstrate how waste aversion can lead to self-defeating behavior in which consumers forego desired utility.
I also boil the milk and then let it cool to 45 C. This achieves a few things: it kills off any other bacteria that may be in the milk and it denatures the milk protein so that it sets thicker. Costco milk is probably pasteurized at a high enough temperature that this isn't necessary, but I've always done it this way.
Yogurt is really forgiving. I've daydreamed a bit about making a temperature regulator for my crock with an Arduino or similar, but it's honestly not necessary. People get good results simply wrapping a jar with towels.
My chest freezer has probably been the most economical purchase I have made in the past few years. It sips electricity and keeps (almost) everything as fresh as the day I purchased it.
Let it thaw completely of course.
That seems to be the key with any frozen material.
We were worried that our cheese wasn't freezing properly for the first few weeks, until I realized that a 1-2 day de-thaw inside of a refridgerator was necessarry to bring it back to it's true self.
I always thought it was a strategy to train your progeny for the next famine / war.
Instead of the abstract advice "By the way, if your grandchildren are even in a middle of a famine, they should remember to eat all the food they can find."
You give a concrete actionable threat "Eat the last nugget, but now!" and wish it get passed down until it's useful.
There's a positive side effect where your purchase impacts Costco's sales volume, which impacts their negotiating position with the suppliers, which makes the same product cheaper for everyone else.
But obviously only price optimization between two identical bundles. It only says we'll pick the lower price between bundles A and B if we have the same valuation of them. You may be confused because often intro econ textbooks assume that the marginal value for something never goes negative. But that assumption is broken here.
Chicken nuggets do not have a consistent per-nugget valuation. When purchased ten at a time, they are more valuable per nugget than when purchased twenty at a time. To such a degree, clearly, that even when the twenty nuggets are costed at a much lower unit price they are less attractive.
There are actual challenges to homo economicus and the assumption of rationality, as in this paradox: http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/10/12/how-rational-are-y.... But the chicken nugget result is not one of those challenges.
I don't think even McDonald's have such good quality control in place that if, say 10 nuggets costs 50 cents, and 20 a dollar, other factors than if people buy 10 or 20 totally dominates the profit.
McDonalds has been running national promotions for $5 20-piece McNuggets. While franchise stores aren't always bound to follow national promotions (don't know about the McDonald's franchise agreement), consumer pressure is usually enough to get most franchises to do so.
The phenomenon where the 20-piece costs the same as the 10-piece occurs when the 10-piece was already at or above the price point of the 20-piece promotional price. If it was above, you'll usually see the price adjusted to match the larger quantity promo's price, but rarely see it lowered below.
The franchise will get a rebate against their royalty fees to corporate for the 20-piece, in order to maintain a specific profit level above base food cost. They don't get a rebate against the sale of the 10-piece, so they have no incentive to make it a more attractive offer, as doing so eats into their own margin. National promotions usually have brutally aggressive pricing, particularly if your store is located in a high cost of living area.
You'll see slightly different pricing behavior at a corporate store, but only about 18% of McDonald's are corporate ran.
Now, why McDonald's is choosing to aggressively market 20-piece chicken nuggets is something only they know, but may have something to do with the 40% increase in beef prices recently.
: Personal experience managing several different Domino's Pizzas. Many promotions would be ran at break even or below, if it weren't for corporate taking a haircut on their ~10-15% royalty fees. Meaning the margins aren't sustainable for non-promo items.
With McChicken patties weighing 63 grams and having a better quality of chicken than McNuggets (a meat score of "C-" compared to "D-", according to Calorie Count),
I can't imagine why anyone would want to eat something with a "meat score" of D-. McNuggets always struck me as ground up beaks and claws.
I've found similar tricks are used in vending machines, particularly with the different varieties of crackers. Inevitably, there will be one set near the top of the machine with other expensive items and priced according. However, there is also a half row of ever so slightly different ones further down priced at 2/3 the price.
It's all just a matter of satisfying the demand that exists at lower price levels without having to lower the price for everyone. Setting prices using price elasticity assumes you can only offer a single price to all parties. However, cost-conscious shoppers are already going to spend more mental cycles looking for a good deal. By making the more desirable pricing just a little hard to find, you can give them a better deal without butchering your overall profit margin.
If the primary cost of the nuggets isn't in the material, but in the equipment-time and labor-time, then it would make sense that 6 would cost less (can often be fulfilled from leftovers), 10 and 20 would cost similarly (require cooking one new batch), and 40 would cost more (requires cooking two new batches serially.)
Even though they've eliminated Super Size (since the movie) the large coke at McDonald's USA is still massively bigger than the large in Australia
More is more.
Restaurant portions are much smaller in Australia (as you'd know), but generally people will eat the entire plate, and maybe an entrée (starter) too.
This doesn't really apply to fast food, though - since if you want less food you can just order a small. My girlfriend and I would order two burgers and share a small chips & drink in the US because the portions were so large.
True. It is completely accepted to take leftover food home from all but the highest of high class restaurants. A typical restaurant dish will make up something like 1-3 servings.
A variety of reasons might be at play, but I think the lack of social inhibition for taking food home is part of it. Most restaurants will ask if you'd like a box if there is food remaining at the end of your meal.
It is BuzzFeed though -- so who knows.
This is also another pricing curiosity. Who buys a large when there are free refills? I guess I don't understand it, but I gave up drinking everything that is in a fountain many years ago. When I eat out I usually just don't drink anything except coffee or water.
Tiny city-states are not known for being particularly recognizable unless you've been there.
I'm writing this just to illustrate my point: why "but"?
You make it seem like your statement is contradicting mine, yet I fail to see the connection.
(Not that there's anything "wrong" about this - I just don't understand why.)
I think the most interesting global evil megacorp franchise country might be Japan. On one hand, the Americana brand is very strong, on the other hand there's no way US sizes would work in Japan.
In the end (if things haven't changed in ~13 years) McDonald's/Burger King end up being almost as raw a deal in Japan as in Norway. Of course in Japan, you get much better service. That's just the way Japan works.
Can you really get a beer with your burger in Amsterdam?
You can in Spain, although unfortunately it's only available if you choose to eat your meal inside the restaurant ;P
I talk McDonalds in Barcelona province. The only problem is that the beer is Cruzcampo :P
I think you can't in Italy
I was surely confused by this pricing, but after reading this article it all makes sense now.
I imagine many people looking at the menu and thinking there is a discrepancy or perhaps an error in the menu, something to surely take advantage of. Most people might not have planned to purchase an ICEE with their meal, but then again who can turn down a "free" large ICEE for a buck? I didn't...
The look on the cashier's face is interesting - they feel like they are doing a disservice to me if they can't convince me to take the large...
- But it comes for fee
- I don't want it.
- It's free. It comes with a meal.
- Just skip it.
She still made it. I ate a third of it. Don't like throwing food away, but it was too much.
If so, the answer might be that McDonalds price the items this way because empirically this is what yields optimum profit — and nobody knows a deeper answer.
In fact even if the pricing model was suggested by someone based on a psychological theory, if the empirical finding was that it was worse, the change would be reverted. So, even if a human suggested the change, they could be only accidentally right --- and again, nobody would be able to tell you the truth of this.
Not many are buying Chicken McNuggets for their entire family because 68% of sales are for a 10pc meal that feeds at most 2 people. The reality is that people are buying chicken nuggets for themselves and/or another person. Not many can stomach 20 nuggets at once, and certainly no one wants leftover McDonald's.
(According to the author's discretion, I may be taking that sales data too seriously.)
To me, this seems like a symptom of McDonald's collapsing in the States. I wonder if the author's mistake was searching for a lesson from a nationally failing franchise.
Provocative article, nonetheless! Good share.
If we were discussing 1 vs. 2 cans of soup from the local grocery for the same price, of course everyone would buy 2 - you can save the additional can for another day. Here, we're talking about fast food that has to be eaten within a couple of hours. There is no "deal" to be had by buying a larger quantity if you're not willing to eat it.
The only sad thing about this article is the apparent inability to understand why someone won't stuff their face with more food than they can eat without making themselves sick and likely obese.
That said, I think quantity is key here. There may be a correlation between "concern about calories and transfats" and "need to price discriminate". Those who's buying patterns are less price based (higher income and higher household income while being raised) are possibly more likely to be worries about their consumption habits, whereas buyers for whom price is a big deal want to maximize caloric intake for their $$. Thus, McDonalds is successfully getting a reasonable margin for natural 20pc buyers, and double that for 10pc buyers who wouldn't care about the price anyway.
The bigger question, is whether his service operates late-night. With Gusanoz gone, pretty much the only option for late-night drunk food is EBAs, home of the most godawful and expensive pizza I've ever experienced. If somebody opened a 24-hour hotdog cart or something and parked it on Webster Avenue, they'd make a killing.
The reason 20 pieces cost the same as 10 pieces is to make the customer think they're getting a deal, which will lead them to gravitate toward that item over other items on the menu that are actually lower margin for McDonald's.
That people still buy the 10 piece item at McDonald's is just an example of the fact that though firms are rational, individuals are idiots.
From there they just kept stepping the price up and discovering it was the same as the 20 pc and that's the equilibrium we are in today.
They also employ other gray marketing tactics, for example on the combo menu they'll put the price for the "small", however if you neglect to specify a size when ordering you receive the "medium" by default, which results in your total being more expensive than you thought it would be. I guess because of their disclaimers, its not legally false advertising.
Scenario 1: 1 for $x
Scenario 2: 2 for $x
Which yields higher total profit (not % margin)? I think a lot of people including small business owners don't realize the important difference between total $ profit and % profit.
And if you can reel in 2 - 3 people for a "healthy" chicken entree you sure bet can sell some insanely high margin soda and fries x2 or x3 which I'll bet pushes total avg ticket margin higher than the 10pc.
If you charged even $7.00 for the 20pc, it'd be close enough still.
I commented on it to a store manager--he and I chat a lot, I eat at McDonalds far, far more than I should--and he said that franchisees do it because corporate rebates them a ton of money for the promo price, company-owned stores do it because that's what corporate tells them to do, and corporate does it for a reason that is unknown to anybody outside of Oak Brook, IL.
10 for $4
50 for $6
650 for $8.50 - a big plastic canister of all different sizes and colors
(This is from memory and these may not be the exact quantities and prices, but I'm not far off.)
I only needed a few, but naturally I bought the canister of 650. At the rate I use them this is probably a lifetime supply!
Nobody knows the details about massive pieces of the business.
I just stopped asking "why".
You are exactly right, and here's a news article to prove it:
"The company embarked on a series of focus groups and extensive research. One message was loud and clear: People wanted to get their beloved double cheeseburger, with two pieces of cheese. If that meant paying a bit more for it, so be it. ...
So McDonald's decided on a two-pronged attack. Raise the price of the double cheeseburger to $1.19. But keep penny pinchers happy with a new burger on the dollar menu: The McDouble. Two beef patties with just one slice of cheese. " - http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6803935
(Or, the inverse of: SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!).
People want to give you money for practically nothing? Good. Take the money. People want to pay more (or the same) for less? Good. Take the money.
What's with this fiction of "you get what you pay for". You hardly ever do, and that's ok. Our markets aren't rational. If they were, why would companies advertise?
I really don't know. It may be weird, but this sort of pricing definitely isn't rare.
Chicken McNuggets are likely produced by machines, since they all come in the same n shapes (n a small integer). Whether I order ten or I order twenty, I feel like the McDonald's employee opens a bag of them into a fryer without counting them out. Maybe they always cook the same number in a match to keep the result uniform. Maybe the difference in cost for the two box sizes is trivial. And maybe the other half of the batch has a non-trivial probability of being thrown out because another order of 10 McNuggets won't come within "safe" food serving time, so they may as well give it to me for the extra $0 to make it feel like I got a deal.
Or maybe it's just something Marketing thought up, even though it reduces their profits. I'm under the impression that in other countries (Canada?) the retail price of 20 McNuggets is greater than 10.
It becomes so common to just whip out the credit card and tap to pay for things you think you know the general price of that you don't even really look at the price anymore.
At KFC If you place your order as "2 breasts, 2 legs, 2 wings, 2 thighs" you pay 4 dollars less than placing it as "8 pieces chicken only". The same exact order, but when they punch it as 8 pieces it costs more.
My guess is, the folks at McDonalds contracted out this problem to some firm, and that firm used A/B testing to gradually refine the pricing until it got to some optimal state, which just so happens to have 10 nuggets being the same price as 20
I can't back it up, but I'd wager they've spent many tens of millions doing exactly that.
(I worked at a telco that was spending an ungodly percentage of revenue doing just that)
what i'm saying is, they probably still ended up using A/B testing to experiment and verify the truth, and used that to make the decision
sure, they could have had analysts that wrote reports on every "could be" scenario (of which 10-is-same-price-as-20 is one). But i'd say those analysis or theories had very little or even nothing to do with why ncnuggets are priced this way.
If you don't see this at fast food just look around the next time you are at the grocery store. More and more the general shopping public assume buying more equals less cost per piece without checking the math.