What is Dynamic Pricing?

army judge

Super Moderator
Dynamic pricing is a strategy used by retailers and service providers to automatically raise or lower prices based on current market conditions. Companies who use dynamic pricing rely on technology, including artificial intelligence, to shift prices up or down based on a set of factors that can include availability of the product or service, customer demand and competitor pricing.

For example, prices might increase automatically at a time of high demand and limited supply. This form of dynamic pricing is often called surge pricing. But dynamic pricing can also mean prices go down at a time when demand is low or there's a surplus of the product.

The concept behind dynamic pricing isn't new. Movie tickets are cheaper during the day and restaurants host happy hours before the dinner rush because it gets people in the door during a typical slow period. But advances in technology have made it possible to change prices automatically based on real-time data. That makes dynamic pricing appealing to businesses because it's not only faster, but also more efficient, since algorithms process the information and determine the optimal price.

Where consumers encounter dynamic pricing


Dynamic pricing is increasingly common in a variety of industries and settings. In a recent NerdWallet survey, many consumers reported being resistant to the concept.

Airlines are considered early adopters of dynamic pricing, which they embraced as they overhauled their pricing models in the 1980s when the industry was deregulated. Airlines optimize ticket sales by changing prices based on how far in advance travelers book their seat, demand for the destination, time of departure, seat selection and other factors. The strategy later spread throughout the travel and hospitality industries.

Online retailers also use dynamic pricing technology to adjust the cost of goods as the market for them shifts. Amazon is known for raising or lowering prices multiple times a day based on availability, demand, competition and other factors. Walmart and Target also use dynamic pricing for goods sold online.

Ever-changing online prices are one thing, but the debut of digital price tags at brick-and-mortar stores like Walmart has caused many to worry in-person prices will become unpredictable, as well. So far, the retail giant says it won't use dynamic pricing in its stores.

Fast-food restaurants including McDonald's, Burger King, Starbucks and others are brick-and-mortar examples of dynamic pricing in action. (Wendy's could join their ranks in 2025.) They rely on common low-tech tactics, like offering deals on food and drinks during slow parts of the day. But they're also leveraging consumers' love of online ordering by offering perks (and even lower prices) through their apps.

App-based services like Uber, DoorDash and InstaCart are open about their use of surge pricing, which is a form of dynamic pricing. When demand for service is high at a particular time or in a specific location, customers will see higher-than-usual prices.

Dynamic pricing can be good for consumers


One upside of dynamic pricing is that, to a point, companies can be just as driven to lower prices as they are to raise them, because discounts tend to increase demand and, consequently, sales. This principle has become obvious in recent months as more businesses see consumers pulling back on spending because everything is so expensive. To bring up sales, companies lowered some prices, from grocery stores that marketed summer discounts to fast-food chains that rolled out cheaper menu options, like McDonald's new value meal.

So, as dynamic pricing becomes more ubiquitous, consumers could start finding deals left and right if they're willing to wait for them. With browser extensions like Honey or the Camelizer, which track prices and find coupons, bargain-hunters can be sure they're buying at the lowest price.

At the same time, when companies raise prices during a period of high demand, it can mean people who are willing to pay a premium face less competition for a limited supply of goods. So if you really, really want tickets for a Taylor Swift concert, and you're willing to pay more for them than other people, you can do that.

But it can also be bad


There's a difference between getting priced out of something you want — like tickets to see your favorite pop star — and something you need. That's why companies face criticism (and sometimes legal trouble) when they raise prices on essential goods and services during an emergency.

There also can be a lack of transparency in dynamic pricing. As more and more companies adopt the strategy, they're fluctuating prices for goods and services that consumers expect to be fixed. So, it's not always clear to customers when or why they're paying higher prices and how they could avoid doing so.

And there's another degree of opaqueness that's more worrying. Companies are gathering tons of personal information on their customers every day, which they can leverage to set prices at an individual level. The Federal Trade Commission calls this "surveillance pricing," and has raised concerns about how it could lead to consumers unwittingly paying more.

The FTC has opened an inquiry into how companies use a person's data — such as location, demographics, credit history and browsing or shopping history — to set prices. In July, the commission sent orders to eight companies that offer pricing products and services to businesses, calling for information on what data is collected, how it's used and what impact that could have on prices.

The eight companies include Mastercard, Revionics, Bloomreach, JPMorgan Chase, Task Software, PROS, Accenture, and McKinsey & Co.


 
Awesome we are getting closer to Cuba and Venezuela everyday.

What in the world makes you connect dynamic pricing to Cuba and Venezuela? Dynamic pricing is a innovation of private business — capitalism. Those two countries are anything but capitalist. I thought you didn't like government regulation and favored the free market. If so, why would you be against this trend in the free market?
 
What in the world makes you connect dynamic pricing to Cuba and Venezuela? Dynamic pricing is a innovation of private business — capitalism. Those two countries are anything but capitalist. I thought you didn't like government regulation and favored the free market. If so, why would you be against this trend in the free market?

I do not want to get in to this whole tangent as it is a lot of factors. With that said any time the government gets involved in anything then that price will generally triple. You will see $1000 dollar loaves of bread and soup kitchens. This is a global issue but your relation to this as capitalism is straight off the lunacy wagon.
 
I do not want to get in to this whole tangent as it is a lot of factors. With that said any time the government gets involved in anything then that price will generally triple. You will see $1000 dollar loaves of bread and soup kitchens. This is a global issue but your relation to this as capitalism is straight off the lunacy wagon.

Very interesting. Businesses setting their own pricing without government interference you think is not capitalism? It's the very essence of capitalism. To think otherwise is lunacy. It's when government gets involved in trying to regulate or limit pricing that problems occur. The government regulating the market by setting limits on how prices must be set is a hallmark of socialism. One need only look at Nixon's efforts at containing inflation with wage and price controls to see that it doesn't work. It didn't work well precisely because the government isn't good at determining what prices in the market should be.

The fact that government agencies want to gather information to understand how dynamic pricing works isn't a big deal. Better that they at least are well informed before they decide to act. So far, though, I've not seen any serious proposals made by anyone in Congress to regulate dynamic pricing.
 
governmental price controls, and dynamic pricing---

what is next? what does the government want more control over our lives next for?
 
governmental price controls, and dynamic pricing---

what is next? what does the government want more control over our lives next for?
You really need to calm down and chill out. Dynamic pricing is just a result of supply and demand. It's nothing new. It is one of the cornerstones of capitalism in a free society. When supply is low and/or demand is high, prices rise. And the contrary is also true. When supply is high and/or demand is low, prices drop. That is a very simple dynamic to understand. The infusion of new money into the economy is another factor but let's not complicate the simple principal of supply and demand.

Your next question, what does the government want more control over our lives next for? The answer lies in what administration is in control of the government and what policies and laws get passed. That is why elections are so important and to have the electorate be informed with the truth. That is something that is not happening in this election cycle.

One side (the left) wants everyone to be equal. Let's just forget the individual drive and accomplishment. Let's make everyone on equal footing except that it doesn't apply to ruling elite. That is socialism. You are not entitled to be rewarded for your hard work to build a company, a business, or your personal wealth. So, we, the government, will take from you that which makes you above the rest of the masses until we are all equal. Equity vs. equality is the theory on the left. We will take from those who have more equity and give it to those that have less equity. In other words, take money from those with more equity and give it to those with less until we all have the same.

Do you understand what taxes on unrealized gains are? That is a proposal of the left in this election to tax unrealized gains at %25. Unrealized gains are increases in the value of your investments, year after year even though you never realize the gain through the sale of the asset. In other words, you bought a house 20 years ago for $200K and now it is worth $400K. That is an unrealized gain of $200K even though you did not sell your house. At %25 tax, you would owe the government $50K. Where are you going to get the money if you didn't sell your home? And if the housing market drops, you will still owe the tax. The same is true for your stocks and bonds account, and your brokerage accounts and your retirement accounts.

That is in stark contrast to what the right is proposing. Tax cuts, allowing people to keep more of what the earn, no tax on unrealized gains, no tax on SS payments, no tax on tips. That leads to more money in the economy and more GDP.









A
 
Yes, I understand dynamic pricing which is different from price controls which the left is proposing.

I read however that the unrealized capital gains is on value of over 100M now they could change that put it is still ridiculous. How could you owe tax on something you did not sell? You can not and it is a fraud tax which would be unconstitutional. Surely this idiocy would never get through congress.

and LOL at your 20 years for double the price- try 5 years in 20 years at this rate our house and other properties would be worth 4 times what they are now.
 
I read however that the unrealized capital gains is on value of over 100M now they could change that put it is still ridiculous. How could you owe tax on something you did not sell? You can not and it is a fraud tax which would be unconstitutional. Surely this idiocy would never get through congress.

Right now the tax law is that a taxpayer may elect to be taxed on investments using mark to market, a method in which tax is computed each year on the gain or loss in those investments. So it's not impossible to do as a practical matter as it's already being done. You're right that making it mandatory would be unconstitutional, but not because its a "fraud tax". There is no such thing as a fraudulent tax. It'd be unconstitutional because about a century ago the U.S. Supreme Court held that realization of gains is an inherent part of an income tax. Thus, those who want to tax unrealized gains first have the challenge of amending the Constitution to allow for that. Someday far off in the future we might get a broad consensus that taxing unrealized gains is the right policy, but today it would never get the ⅔ majority needed in Congress to send it to the states, much less get ¾ of the states to ratify it. If those campaigning for that proposal don't yet know that amending the constitution is required to actually achieve it they'll be in for quite a shock.
 
You really need to calm down and chill out. Dynamic pricing is just a result of supply and demand. It's nothing new. It is one of the cornerstones of capitalism in a free society. When supply is low and/or demand is high, prices rise. And the contrary is also true. When supply is high and/or demand is low, prices drop. That is a very simple dynamic to understand. The infusion of new money into the economy is another factor but let's not complicate the simple principal of supply and demand.

Well put.
Do you understand what taxes on unrealized gains are? That is a proposal of the left in this election to tax unrealized gains at %25.

The proposals I've seen would effectively make the mark to market (MTM) system that is now elective mandatory. The MTM system only applies to investment assets that are fairly liquid like stocks, bonds, etc. Personal residences, rental properties, personal property like cars, etc., would not be included.

However, making MTM mandatory would be unconstitutional due to a Supreme Court ruling about a century ago. That means the proponents of this change would have the high hurdle of amending the Constitution in order to do it. While the MTM system is workable, and some investors are willing to deal with extra complications that go with it because for them it produces a better outcome, I can't see broad support for making it mandatory happening anytime soon.

IMO we ought to look at practical ways to simplify the tax code for individuals, not make it even more complex.
 
From your lips to God's ears, I wish it could be so!!!!

I've long wished for that too. When I first started as a tax lawyer I started buying the nice West hard bound version of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). It started with two (rather thick) volumes. As Congress kept adding to the Code it was no longer feasible to keep making those two volumes fatter and they went to three volumes. Those three get a bit bigger every year. It used to be that Congress would completely overhaul the code about every 30 or so to cull out all the deadwood that had accumulated from hundreds (at least) amendments, some of which end up conflicting with each other. Congress seems to have given up even doing that occasional clean up. The current version of the Code was enacted in 1986 and its showing its age. It's time for Congress to go in and clean it up, rip out needless provisions and work with an aim of at least making the individual income tax reasonably simple. Corporations can better fend for themselves; big corporations don't seem to mind so much that the corporation income tax is also very complex.
 
Back
Top