Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase «««123

Look Beyond the First Result Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:50 AM
Right there with Babe

Right there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with Babe

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, September 2, 2014 8:37 AM
Points: 751, Visits: 1,917
"In relation to the editorial, the question is whether Orbitz has lost the trust of their potential consumers. Only time will tell. "

"And by doing as you suggest there is a certain risk. Making the assumption that a person will buy higher priced or "nicer" things based on one item such as the suit they wear is silly. Also based on the type of browser, type of machine, or time of day a person comes to the site is not really the brightest light on the block as well. "

Everybody seems to be viewing this as some sort of hard edged failure. If they misjudge the customer, then everything is wrong. Gee wiz, everyone knows that you can't fully predict what a customer wants from external clues. No surprise there. But they used this as a starting point. It affected what items were featured. That's all. This is hardly 'betrayal of trust', it's not fleecing the customer. It's not like there was no alterntative, if the customer wanted the lower priced deal, they could still get it, no problem. If they had quoted a higher price for the same accommodation, that would be betrayal, but from the article it does nto seem to be the case.

[It's certainly not like auto dealers are known to do: try to get certain customers to pay a higher price for the same product through psychological manipulation.]

It was simply a quick and dirty, and probably less than accurate, way of establishing a starting point for the presentation.


...

-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
Post #1424510
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:09 AM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:05 PM
Points: 406, Visits: 1,019
David,

I like your logic. Though I am pretty sure we did not make a profit on GM. AIG though we did well. All I can say is if people were honest and truthful the need for the size of gov't would go down.

John
Post #1424593
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:44 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:03 PM
Points: 1,334, Visits: 3,069
John Hanrahan (2/27/2013)
David,

I like your logic. Though I am pretty sure we did not make a profit on GM. AIG though we did well. All I can say is if people were honest and truthful the need for the size of gov't would go down.

John


Truthfulness and honesty has absolutely nothing to do with that. "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" Do you all know who said that?


"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ..."
Post #1424619
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:06 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:15 PM
Points: 2,342, Visits: 1,403
Gary Varga (2/27/2013)
Miles Neale (2/26/2013)
jay-h (2/26/2013)
DavidBrown-731687 (2/26/2013)
I resent the notion that, just because I may be more affluent than another person, I should be expected to pay more for everything I buy. I purchased a BMW a few years ago, but sold it when it became obvious that every time I took it in for service the charge was higher than I paid for comparable service on other cars I've owned. ...


But that is NOT the situation here. NO ONE was charged more for the same service, they were offered (firstly) more expensive services. A very different situation. This, by the way, is quite different from BMW's habit of charging ridiculous prices for service (and locking down the cars so that independent service is not always possible).

It's more akin to your walking into a store in a quality suit, the salesman will probbably offer the higher quality goods first.


<snip />Statistics tell us that making a conclusion on one assumed fact is dangerous <snip />


Which statistic are you assuming is applicable here?


Gaz,

The statement is in general. And in general, can we make a judgement about a person based on one fact. If they are using a Mac when the come to our site we do things differently. But consider that the user who came to our site may be a homeless person who has a one-time account at the local library that happens to use Mac's, yet because they are using a Mac we try to present them with more elegant options.

I am not saying that to do this is wrong or morally a challenge, only that making a decision based on one fact in evidence is not as reasonable as other alternatives. Another simple thought is that a criminal has to be at the place where the crime happened, and if a person was at the place at the time of the crime then they are guilty. That is making a decision or judgement based on a single fact. But if the true criminal was there along with seven witnesses, does that make them all eight guilty of the crime committed by one? Should we assume that they are all guilty? Or do we need more information to get to the point of knowing what went on.

Orbitz is really doing this. They see one fact, and give the user the options for the next step. That next step may be predicated by the available information along with a number of other paths to alternative decisions.

M.


Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
Post #1424630
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:26 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:12 PM
Points: 5,433, Visits: 3,176
Sorry Miles. I was just being flippant.

Gaz

-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Post #1424642
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:32 AM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:05 PM
Points: 406, Visits: 1,019
TravisDBA (2/27/2013)
John Hanrahan (2/27/2013)
David,

I like your logic. Though I am pretty sure we did not make a profit on GM. AIG though we did well. All I can say is if people were honest and truthful the need for the size of gov't would go down.

John


Truthfulness and honesty has absolutely nothing to do with that. "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" Do you all know who said that?


Some guy who was named Ronald as I recall. He was hollywood actor I think. And if people were truthful they'd just say: "This gov't agency is no longer needed" and we'd close it.
Post #1424645
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:30 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:27 PM
Points: 109, Visits: 957
Boy, some of you are wishin' and hopin' that all the bad in the world will go away just because you think it should be so. The purpose of a business is NOT to hire people, provide a product or service, and be philanthropic. The purpose of a business is to make money. Period. Companies who don't keep that in mind aren't companies for very long. If those other, secondary, aspects are met, then all the better.

Also, the Orbitz customers weren't charged more simply because they used a particular OS. From the editorial: "Instead, if an OSX user was detected, the order of search results was changed to show more expensive options first." The customer most definitely had the opportunity to search and do their due diligence before selecting the option that worked best for them. It's called targeted marketing, and every grocery store in the world does it. There's a reason why the milk (which people rush in to buy a lot) is way in the back to force you past all the other things you think you don't need. There's a reason why children's cereal is always on the lower two shelves. There's a reason why all those gossip magazines are in the checkout aisles. There's a reason most of the cars on a dealer's lot are loaded to the gills with options.

Marketers make assumptions about who is viewing their ads, displays and shelves all the time (performance tire ads on Speed Channel, safe-and-quiet tire ads on A&E) just to make you dig into that wallet on a regular basis. Orbitz isn't doing anything different. Should they be skewered for doing it? Only by people who didn't do their homework, and those should fall on deaf ears.
Post #1424669
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase «««123

Permissions Expand / Collapse