[al_borland]

A significant number of users will spend more if they think they're getting a deal. Without a deal, even a fake one, users will go somewhere else or spend less. Or, if they think they're saving 15% on one thing, they'll justify spending 40% more, to get more out of that 15% discount.

This is what happened when Ron Johnson tried to rebrand JC Penny. JC Penny customers were used to "deals" through coupons. He changed the pricing so the prices were lower, across everything, all the time. The classic JC Penny customer hated this. They ultimately pay the same amount, it would be less work for them, but it wasn't a "deal".

Amazon plays on this too with the crossed out inflated "typical price", and then showing the actual price you'll pay. No one ever pays that crossed out price; it can say anything, but lets them put "-40%" so people get excited and buy.

It's all very manipulative. Honey was just another form of the same concept.

[gruez]

Sounds like your ire should be directed at the retailers who created the coupons in the first place, not Honey for letting people know they exist.

[al_borland]

The coupon aspect is what pushes companies to sign up. Honey had a page on how to sell to companies, and it was around increased sales, and things of that nature... pretty traditional coupon stuff.

Honey gets additional ire, for what they did beyond that. Coupons are manipulative, but Honey was also lying to pretty much everyone involved in the transactions, as well as their advertising partners.

[kin]

What do you feel like the lie was?

[al_borland]

The YouTube video linked in the article goes over them in detail.