PM Pick

Confusion pricing

One of my main excuses for not having a cell phone is the byzantine way the service is priced -- it seems designed to generate maximum confusion and get people to pay different amounts for exactly the same thing, depending on how gullible they are. I don't want to be gullible, and I am somewhat risk averse, so I steer clear of this market. I'm not adequately compensated for the price of feeling stupid by having the privilege to chitchat with people when I'm walking to the subway.

But don't cell phone companies eventually want to sign people like me up? Why the opaque pricing?

Tim Harford theory is that confusion pricing is a simply another way companies shop for customers and categorize them in terms of how careful they are about their money. Some customers -- let's call them the stupid ones, the ones who need branded luxury goods to feel significant -- allow companies to operate with high margins, others squeeze companies by being better informed, forcing companies to earn their money. By throwing out a bunch of confusing plans, cell-phone companies are filling the waters with chum, luring the idiot customers who'll eagerly pay more without thinking or understanding what they are really paying for. The rest of us, if we choose to have a cell phone, are forced to look past the illusion of customer service presented in these plans and log some unpaid time on a customer-service hotline waiting to be told the real facts. Of course the burden is always on the consumer to make sure he's not getting ripped off, but any industry that makes its business practices purposely opaque seems a good one to avoid. The perpetuation of confusion pricing suggests to me that there hasn't really been enough competition yet in that particular sector, which suggests that whatever is being sold isn't truly necessary. (Cell phones are luxury items for people with the time to burn figuring out what they cost.)

Harford seems all too trusting, it seems to me, that these reps will give you the straight deal and won't try to bamboozle you more -- he assumes that they'll conclude you're too smart for that just by virtue of having called demanding an explanation. I prefer not to do business with companies that force me to jump through hoops before they will treat me with respect. So I may be without a cell phone for a very long time.

The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.