[colinshark]

No, because there is no single ideal price for anything. The ideal price varies between customers.

Real world: Customer A thinks the $14 pizza is overpriced. No sale. Customer B thinks the $14 pizza is delicious and worth it. Would pay up to $20 if forced. Pays $14 and enjoys $6 in surplus value.

Ideal world: Customer A thinks the $14 pizza is worth about $6. Buys it for $6 (Arriving at the deal is the tricky part). Customer B thinks the $20 pizza is worth about $20. Buys it for $20 (Arriving at the deal is the tricky part).

Now both customers are happy with their pizzas, and the pizza maker made $26 in revenue instead of $14.

There is no "true" price for anything. It's not morally wrong for the cheap customer to pay $1 in a PWYW deal, and it's not morally wrong for the seller to enjoy it when someone pays $100 in the same deal.

[egypturnash]

The pizza maker made $26 minus whatever it costs to produce the pizza in time and materials. If the pizza cost $7 to make then the pizza maker makes $14 in profit versus $7. Also they lost a buck on that $6 pizza.

Further complexities: maybe it's a slow day and those employees were idle, and the raw materials were going to go bad without being used anyway - so if the $6 customer is buying it as cost the pizza maker may still be winning. Especially if they sold some fountain drinks to that customer, which are almost pure profit.

If you want a sustainable business, you need to cover your materials cost. Arguably paying less than the materials/shipping cost for something is morally wrong, especially if you know damn well this thing costs more than that to make and ship.