The people have spoken, and they don’t like the prospect of companies charging different prices to different customers for the same product.
When Wendy’s announced its plan for "dynamic pricing," which the company said would mean lower prices at times of slack demand, 75% of people sided with Burger King who Tweeted it would mean "charging people more when they are hungry."
Then there is what the FTC calls "surveillance pricing," wherein retailers set price for each customer based on personal data they have about them. The prospect of this scares people even more than "dynamic pricing," with only 6% saying it should be legal.
Neither dynamic pricing nor surveillance pricing are new. Early-bird specials have been around since the advent of restaurants, as have salesmen who make note if you drove up in a Porsche or a Honda.
Variant pricing, of which dynamic pricing and surveillance pricing are each a form, does work to the benefit of corporations, that’s why they do it. But it also works to the benefit of those on the lower side of the income scale — companies are not in the habit of pricing goods so that people can’t afford them.
To cite two examples, drug makers reduce prices to Americans who can't afford standard prices, and Microsoft famously turned a blind eye to pirating of their software in China until locals could afford to buy it.
If you’re less well off than most, variable pricing works to your advantage in that you’ll pay lower prices than others. If you’re better off than most, you’ll pay higher prices, but that’s not so bad — as the saying goes “you can afford it.” That's the goal of variant pricing.
