A psychology of consumption
Our work kitchen "snacks" are nearly gone. Our accountant decided she's done providing us with unlimited quanities of cheap junk food from Sam's club.
I had some fun discussions with a few coworkers. First I asked if there was any price that would discourage consumption. Currently snacks @ $0.40 each. I thought $1 would affect me some, at least no more "5 for $2" thoughts, although I suppose it'd be just as easy at "5 for $5". One coworker said $1 each wouldn't affect him, but $5 each would. Another coworker said we had an "inelastic market", meaning prices would have to go much higher to affect demand.
I suggested a $1 each price along with knowing profits go to charity, wondering if it would affect consumption. Since we already sometimes get employee kid's school fundraisers with $1 chocolate bars, and well supported, shows the idea is acceptable. One coworker suggested such an "imposed" cost would encourage a "free market" to provide cheaper alternatives. Then I reminded him that currently NO ONE wanted to take over the job to our depleting supplies, apparently at any price!
Of course higher prices can encourage "cheats" - with an honor system of paying. Who would pay "extra" knowing nothing is lost if they just pay the "real" price to break even?
One idea mentioned is that our old "snack pack" was a small box of assorted snacks. When Sam's club took over we got huge boxes, each with a different snack. The quantity of snacks themselves encouraged consumption. Alternatively, if our provider kept 90% of it hidden and only put out a little at a time, we agreed a "social effect" takes over, people don't want to be pigs and take too much from small apparent supply.
This last suggestion is perhaps more powerful than the mere "pricing mechanism" to reduce demand. Shortages themselves are better than pricing to encourage conservation, even if the shortages are somewhat illusionary, like inconvenience.
CERTAINLY that's the trick I always use when I go shopping for food. I know I don't eat what I don't buy, so if I do by snacks, better be small, and that works I'm sure!
I think about this perhaps in relation to energy conservation. If I could only buy gas on Tuesday (selected by my last name or something), certainly I'd pay attention more to my driving. Alternately, if I had a gas tank that only held 5 gallons, perhaps I'd also pay attention more. My girlfriend said when she short on cash, would often buy a partial tank of gas. I guess that's more a pricing issue. I'd think its more inconvenient AND dangerous if you're too busy later to buy fuel when you're in a hurry, BUT I guess that's the point.
Anyway, fun thoughts, for candy or energy!
P.S. A parallel thought, seeing the "Powerball" lottery road ads up today. I wondered how participation would go if winners wouldn't get the money, but only got to decide what tax deductible charity(ies) would get the winnings. I figure participation would go way down, but I can't say how much. It wouldn't encourage me to "play" - I'd rather give my money directly, but I can't figure out why anyone would play anyway, besides "wishful thinking". Perhaps wishing to help others can work as many wonders as wishing for one's self?!
I had some fun discussions with a few coworkers. First I asked if there was any price that would discourage consumption. Currently snacks @ $0.40 each. I thought $1 would affect me some, at least no more "5 for $2" thoughts, although I suppose it'd be just as easy at "5 for $5". One coworker said $1 each wouldn't affect him, but $5 each would. Another coworker said we had an "inelastic market", meaning prices would have to go much higher to affect demand.
I suggested a $1 each price along with knowing profits go to charity, wondering if it would affect consumption. Since we already sometimes get employee kid's school fundraisers with $1 chocolate bars, and well supported, shows the idea is acceptable. One coworker suggested such an "imposed" cost would encourage a "free market" to provide cheaper alternatives. Then I reminded him that currently NO ONE wanted to take over the job to our depleting supplies, apparently at any price!
Of course higher prices can encourage "cheats" - with an honor system of paying. Who would pay "extra" knowing nothing is lost if they just pay the "real" price to break even?
One idea mentioned is that our old "snack pack" was a small box of assorted snacks. When Sam's club took over we got huge boxes, each with a different snack. The quantity of snacks themselves encouraged consumption. Alternatively, if our provider kept 90% of it hidden and only put out a little at a time, we agreed a "social effect" takes over, people don't want to be pigs and take too much from small apparent supply.
This last suggestion is perhaps more powerful than the mere "pricing mechanism" to reduce demand. Shortages themselves are better than pricing to encourage conservation, even if the shortages are somewhat illusionary, like inconvenience.
CERTAINLY that's the trick I always use when I go shopping for food. I know I don't eat what I don't buy, so if I do by snacks, better be small, and that works I'm sure!
I think about this perhaps in relation to energy conservation. If I could only buy gas on Tuesday (selected by my last name or something), certainly I'd pay attention more to my driving. Alternately, if I had a gas tank that only held 5 gallons, perhaps I'd also pay attention more. My girlfriend said when she short on cash, would often buy a partial tank of gas. I guess that's more a pricing issue. I'd think its more inconvenient AND dangerous if you're too busy later to buy fuel when you're in a hurry, BUT I guess that's the point.
Anyway, fun thoughts, for candy or energy!
P.S. A parallel thought, seeing the "Powerball" lottery road ads up today. I wondered how participation would go if winners wouldn't get the money, but only got to decide what tax deductible charity(ies) would get the winnings. I figure participation would go way down, but I can't say how much. It wouldn't encourage me to "play" - I'd rather give my money directly, but I can't figure out why anyone would play anyway, besides "wishful thinking". Perhaps wishing to help others can work as many wonders as wishing for one's self?!
posted by Ares Olympus at 2:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home