[throwaway13337]

That may be true but we don't know that it is true.

When I started my selling software, I priced with something.99 too. I did this because everyone else did. I was unfamiliar with these sorts of things so I followed on.

I am sure that in some business at some point, there was a big positive in switching to that sort of pricing.

When I switched my software to whole numbers, I did not notice a drop in sales. Things continued to grow. Of course, my business is one data point and a small one.

How much of why we tend to do this is because, historically or normally, that is how we've seen it done?

[ksec]

Because you are selling software and your target audience are either business, enterprise or computer engineers.

The trial of whole number pricing keeps coming up in Consumer and Retail every 10- 15 years and EVERY time the test shows .99 works. Despite how most of us and even my younger self hated it.

[satvikpendem]

Indeed, marketers aren't stupid (but it turns out people in general are stupid, enough to fall for this trick and many others).

[kaba0]

That’s pretty ingenious to call people dumb. This is psychology and these tricks work on you even if you trivially understand that 3.99 is not feasibly cheaper than 4.00 — your brain simply processes information non-stop in the background and you are affected by this. Hell, there was even a study that people who claim they don’t fall for these kind of marketings tricks are more susceptible to fall for this, so, take what you want from it.

Also, even knowingly false propaganda has an effect on you.

[satvikpendem]

Ingenious? Or disingenuous? Regardless, I agree with you, "tricks" and "dumb" was not said derogatorily, I meant basically what you said, that humans are biologically "dumb" in terms of falling for these "tricks," similarly to how optical illusions work. It seems you summarized my point better than I could.

[Nevermark]

When it is so well known, at some point it isn’t a “trick” anymore, right?

It isn’t as if retailers can fight reality.

Or that they can “come clean” by putting fine print under prices explaining why they are ending prices in 9. Which would create a major distraction messing with any sale.

It is just real-world reliable wackiness that both sellers and purchasers should be aware of.

There is no purely objective way to relate to selling and purchasing prices. Short of very simple scenarios where a spreadsheet actually captured all the real criteria.

Many products make people happier if the price is higher. Is that happiness bump a fraud, or the point?

Just remember to ask for $199,999.99 salary in your next interview!

[satvikpendem]

> Or that they can “come clean” by putting fine print under prices explaining why they are ending prices in 9. Which would create a major distraction messing with any sale.

Why would they do that? That might lessen their sales if people knew of the effect, as a nocebo.

[Nevermark]

I agree(d).

> Which would create a major distraction messing with any sale.

[pempem]

As you consider the issue this phrase I think is the best synopsis of your thoughts: When it is so well known, at some point it isn’t a “trick” anymore, right

And yet we fall for the same tricks again and again. The most politically pressing? The number of people - internationally - who believe in a strongman leader.

MLMs also occur to me. We know MLMs so well that we've literally written laws against them. There are movies, articles, conversations. And yet, every single year, tons of people fall for them.

What other very well-known tricks do people fall for HN?

[distalx]

FOMO (invite only), trial periods, and decoy pricing are a few tricks I've fallen for in the past. I try to be vigilant, but sometimes it's just too much.

[theshrike79]

The .99 thing is like the placebo effect.

Both work despite people knowing they exist.

[kevin_thibedeau]

The final answer here gives clear indication of psychological bias toward left digits:

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2359/the-origin...

[elevatedastalt]

what sort of software were you selling? Was it an app that is priced under 10 bucks? That would be very different from some enterprise software costing $500.

[indymike]

> That may be true but we don't know that it is true

I think a walk through a shopping mall might provide some clear evidence.

[qup]

It'll provide evidence that they've studied it internally?

I don't think so.

[kaba0]

Because only software engineers developed the ability of higher-thought, every other field is just a bunch of monkeys/NPCs living life.

/s

[GoblinSlayer]

I usually evade products with such tricks.

[indymike]

> I don't think so.

OK.

[swores]

They were being polite because you were flat out wrong: a walk through a shopping centre gives you absolutely zero information about whether prices chosen have been tested or were picked by throwing darts at a calculator. It just tells you what prices those shops have chosen to sell things for, nothing at all about the reasoning behind those prices.

[satvikpendem]

And the OK response is similarly being nice because if one thinks that the retailers for the past 100 years haven't extensively tested pricing, both in the real world and via simulations, they are naive to a large degree as to how businesses work.

[qup]

I didn't say that's what I thought, though.

[qup]

In fact it seems really bad logic to assume that they would all arrive on the same price, had they actually done any real study.

There would be some outliers or weird niche customer populations.

[jamiek88]

Logic doesn’t explain human actions. And never will.