deleted by creator
Some marketing strategies are pseudoscience, but this one isn’t.
Does anyone in the thread have actual info to back this up?
You should be able to find various tests and studies of this phenomenon on Google
So, it’s a “no” than?
It’s a yes but find it yourself
This doesn’t meet the bar you want, but my marketing professor called the .99 idea the single greatest thing to come out of marketing in a century.
Sounds about right.
Marketing hasn’t done anything positive for humanity. It is all just to manipulate people into buying shit they don’t need. It is the main driver for the overconsumption.
JC Penny kinda showed that no. It isn’t pseudocience
deleted by creator
The CEO decided that clients were smart intelligent people and treated people as adults. Aka, no discounts, no 99 pricing, it just costs what it costs, as low as we can make it, plus our margin.
JC Penny was already not too well, this helped sink them
deleted by creator
“Why would I pay $25 for these pair of pants at full price when I could pay $24.99 for those [identical] pants that are half off?! Clearly, that’s the better deal!”
Hell, could probably even make it $29.99 for the identical pants and people will still go with that because they think they’re paying five more bucks and getting a $60 pair of pants
It was less about the .99 pricing and more about “Sale” pricing and ‘coupons’. Retailers will put a pair of pants on “Sale” for 50% off 51 weeks out of the year and people think they’re getting a great deal whereas when it’s not half off, they just don’t buy.
I was watching a PBS documentary about the first humans in the Americas. All the scientists are super cool until you get to the American anthropologist who starts using phrenology to explain why Native American tribes shouldn’t be given repatriation rights, only for a Danish geneticist to say “yeah, this is absolutely a Native American and i am willing to testify to that in any court of law”
Pseudoscience is still all the rage if it can be used to push a political agenda.
