On the subject of dynamic pricing and electronic shelf labels, one MNB reader wrote:
While I understand the concern that retailers might use dynamic pricing as a means to “gouge” or raise prices when the environment may be optimal to do so, but I would think that practice would be quickly detected by shoppers and end up causing the retailer more lost sales than the intended enhanced margins.
As you correctly point out, dynamic digital pricing more practically gives the retailer new opportunities to run special sales and promotions during typical slow days or day parts as well as a variety of other new options.
As I have stated before, variable pricing is not new. Most chain stores commonly “zone price” on the basis of being more or less price competitive on certain items depending upon the demographics of the trading area or more commonly, more price competitive overall due to a set of ultra competitive retail competitors. To that point, I don’t think it a coincidence that there are no BJ’s or Costcos within 200 miles of Bentonville Arkansas!!
From another MNB reader:
People worried about retailers using electronic shelf tags to abuse consumers should know that all retail sales data is public information either through syndicated data or from data portals used by suppliers. The first people to raise concerns about unusual price activity would be suppliers monitoring their prices by retailer. Pricing data is available by store, by hour, by day and more, therefore retailers know that any unusual activity will be monitored by suppliers and syndicated data sources that would be subject to information requests from regulators. Electronic shelf tags hopefully would be synchronized with the front end scanners effectively so pricing errors could almost be eliminated and price changes and sale pricing could be implemented and validated online and visible to trading partners in real time.
On another subject, one MNB reader wrote:
The Market Basket saga is a case study in why companies need to invest in succession planning. It does make for entertainment for the gossip columns.
Not just gossip columns. It also is perfectly acceptable and compelling fodder for business news sites and pundits.
I was pretty critical of the new “Superman” movie last week in OffBeat, prompting MNB reader Bob Wheatley to write:
Haven’t seen “Superman” so can’t comment on the movie directly. However, I’m not sure this is an issue of taste. As a writer and reporter I suspect you have appreciation for a great story well-told.
“Superman” faces challenges as a screenplay because it’s been told so many times in so many different ways and formats, it’s likely harder to re-bake as fresh and compelling. That said, when a movie offers a great story that’s executed with skill, emotion and surprise you are probably delighted. The story draws you in and holds your attention. You felt something, maybe care about the main character’s wellbeing or triumph over the odds. Is that a taste thing? Depends on your expectations for why you’re in the theater and what you hope to get out of it.
If you’re not riveted maybe that’s because this isn’t an especially great moment in storytelling. I find most of the super hero movies to be derivative and predictable, maybe even with all the action spectacle it still just doesn’t fully connect. Do I have bad taste? I hope not.
I think you can tell when you’re in the presence of a great story and when you’re not because of the experience that either captivates your imagination and emotions or just doesn’t land.
To be fair, this “Superman” is different from previous iterations. So I give them credit for that. It just didn’t land with me.
I’m also not sure this is about good taste or bad taste. Maybe more about having different tastes. Which is fine.
From another MNB reader:
I am not a huge superhero based on a comic book movie fan. That said, I have on occasion enjoyed watching a movie of this genre with my husband who is a fan. They will never be my first pick nor even something I am willing to go to the theater and buy a ticket to watch unless it is a gift and part of the gift includes me springing for a meal before or after the movie. So, I do suspend my preferences in movies to watch with my husband from the comfort of my favorite chair. I have even enjoyed a couple (the first “Wonder Woman” comes to mind). It is possible but based on historic evidence it is rare.
Interestingly, I think this subject has something in common with another one we’ve discussed here, commented upon by MNB reader Mike Moon:
I’m late to the party, but wanted to comment on the “cut your public in half” comment about Colbert’s demise.
Late night “comedy” has changed, Carson, Letterman, Arsenio, and O’Brien never seemed to take sides with any presidential administration or party: they were equal opportunity comics. The monologue and guests’ jokes were directed at whoever was in office, be it Nixon/Ford/Carter/Reagan/Bush or Clinton. They were all fair game.
Are today’s late night shows that fairly critical? Did they hammer Obama and Biden as hard as they have hammered Trump? (And to be fair, Biden was easy fodder as his age and bumbling became a factor).
You’re right about how late night has changed. But I’m not sure we can entirely blame Colbert’s politics and the focus of his satire for the reduced audience. Carson, Arsenio and even Letterman never had to deal with the fragmented media landscape. (Carson only had to worry about Joey Bishop and Dick Cavett.) And let’s not forget that Conan O’Brien lost his late night gig – which wasn’t entirely his fault.
Some people hold up Jay Leno as an example of how to do late night comedy. But for me, Leno was and is weak sauce – not very funny, with so little attitude that he could be easily ignored, and not even as close to being as talented as Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart or John Oliver.
Today, especially because we are in a fragmented media environment, it is critical for people to have more attitude and greater specificity of perspective. And then people can make their choices. Am I going to watch “South Park,” or not? (Last week, close to six million people watched an episode that, I think it is fair to say, was fairly partisan.)
It is risky, but vanilla just isn’t an option anymore.
In comedy. In superhero movies. In punditry. Or in retailing. At least, IMHO.
The post Your Views: Dynamic Pricing, Market Basket, & “Superman” appeared first on MNB.
View Original Article
