Post History
#4: Post edited
by
Chgg Clou
·
2023-03-22T00:20:06Z (over 1 year ago)
- #### I can prove [the Rule of 100](https://www.nickkolenda.com/psychological-pricing-strategies/) algebraically, below. But my school kids are hankering after intuition, and a plainer explanation.
- >
- >
- > ## Follow the Rule of 100
- >
- > Should discounts be **percentages** or **absolutes**?
- >
> Consider a \$150 blender. Should you offer 20% off? Or an equivalent \$30 off?- >
- > Answer:
- >
> - **Over \$100?** Give absolutes (e.g., \$30)> - **Under \$100?** Give percents (e.g., 20%)- >
> In both cases, you show the higher numeral. For a \$50 blender, 20% off is the same as \$10 off — yet 20% is more persuasive because it’s a higher numeral. For a \$150 blender, the absolute discount (\$30 off) is a higher numeral (González, Esteva, Roggeveen, & Grewal, 2016).- >
- > #### References
- >
- > González, E. M., Esteva, E., Roggeveen, A. L., & Grewal, D. (2016). Amount off versus percentage off—when does it matter?. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1022-1027.
- Let d = discount, p = price. Then $d, p > 0$ because [there is no free lunch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch) and [the quotation](https://www.nickkolenda.com/psychological-pricing-strategies/) is expatiating on discounts. Then
\$ off vs. % off $\iff p - d \quad \text{ vs } \quad p - (d/100)p \iff -d \quad \text{ vs } \quad -dp/100 \iff 1 \quad \text{ vs } \quad p/100 \iff p \quad \text{ vs } \quad 100. $
- #### I can prove [the Rule of 100](https://www.nickkolenda.com/psychological-pricing-strategies/) algebraically, below. But my school kids are hankering after intuition, and a plainer explanation.
- >
- >
- > ## Follow the Rule of 100
- >
- > Should discounts be **percentages** or **absolutes**?
- >
- > Consider a \\$150 blender. Should you offer 20% off? Or an equivalent \$30 off?
- >
- > Answer:
- >
- > - **Over \\$100?** Give absolutes (e.g., \$30)
- > - **Under \\$100?** Give percents (e.g., 20%)
- >
- > In both cases, you show the higher numeral. For a \\$50 blender, 20% off is the same as \\$10 off — yet 20% is more persuasive because it’s a higher numeral. For a \\$150 blender, the absolute discount (\\$30 off) is a higher numeral (González, Esteva, Roggeveen, & Grewal, 2016).
- >
- > #### References
- >
- > González, E. M., Esteva, E., Roggeveen, A. L., & Grewal, D. (2016). Amount off versus percentage off—when does it matter?. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1022-1027.
- Let d = discount, p = price. Then $d, p > 0$ because [there is no free lunch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch) and [the quotation](https://www.nickkolenda.com/psychological-pricing-strategies/) is expatiating on discounts. Then
- \\$ off vs. % off $\iff p - d \quad \text{ vs } \quad p - (d/100)p \iff -d \quad \text{ vs } \quad -dp/100 \iff 1 \quad \text{ vs } \quad p/100 \iff p \quad \text{ vs } \quad 100. $
#3: Post edited
by
Chgg Clou
·
2023-03-22T00:18:14Z (over 1 year ago)
#2: Post edited
by
Chgg Clou
·
2023-03-22T00:17:19Z (over 1 year ago)
- #### I can prove [the Rule of 100](https://www.nickkolenda.com/psychological-pricing-strategies/) algebraically, below. But my school kids are hankering after intuition, and a plainer explanation.
>- >
- > ## Follow the Rule of 100
- >
- > Should discounts be **percentages** or **absolutes**?
- >
- > Consider a \$150 blender. Should you offer 20% off? Or an equivalent \$30 off?
- >
- > Answer:
- >
- > - **Over \$100?** Give absolutes (e.g., \$30)
- > - **Under \$100?** Give percents (e.g., 20%)
- >
- > In both cases, you show the higher numeral. For a \$50 blender, 20% off is the same as \$10 off — yet 20% is more persuasive because it’s a higher numeral. For a \$150 blender, the absolute discount (\$30 off) is a higher numeral (González, Esteva, Roggeveen, & Grewal, 2016).
- >
- > #### References
- >
- > González, E. M., Esteva, E., Roggeveen, A. L., & Grewal, D. (2016). Amount off versus percentage off—when does it matter?. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1022-1027.
- Let d = discount, p = price. Then $d, p > 0$ because [there is no free lunch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch) and [the quotation](https://www.nickkolenda.com/psychological-pricing-strategies/) is expatiating on discounts. Then
- \$ off vs. % off $\iff p - d \quad \text{ vs } \quad p - (d/100)p \iff -d \quad \text{ vs } \quad -dp/100 \iff 1 \quad \text{ vs } \quad p/100 \iff p \quad \text{ vs } \quad 100. $
- #### I can prove [the Rule of 100](https://www.nickkolenda.com/psychological-pricing-strategies/) algebraically, below. But my school kids are hankering after intuition, and a plainer explanation.
- >
- >
- > ## Follow the Rule of 100
- >
- > Should discounts be **percentages** or **absolutes**?
- >
- > Consider a \$150 blender. Should you offer 20% off? Or an equivalent \$30 off?
- >
- > Answer:
- >
- > - **Over \$100?** Give absolutes (e.g., \$30)
- > - **Under \$100?** Give percents (e.g., 20%)
- >
- > In both cases, you show the higher numeral. For a \$50 blender, 20% off is the same as \$10 off — yet 20% is more persuasive because it’s a higher numeral. For a \$150 blender, the absolute discount (\$30 off) is a higher numeral (González, Esteva, Roggeveen, & Grewal, 2016).
- >
- > #### References
- >
- > González, E. M., Esteva, E., Roggeveen, A. L., & Grewal, D. (2016). Amount off versus percentage off—when does it matter?. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1022-1027.
- Let d = discount, p = price. Then $d, p > 0$ because [there is no free lunch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch) and [the quotation](https://www.nickkolenda.com/psychological-pricing-strategies/) is expatiating on discounts. Then
- \$ off vs. % off $\iff p - d \quad \text{ vs } \quad p - (d/100)p \iff -d \quad \text{ vs } \quad -dp/100 \iff 1 \quad \text{ vs } \quad p/100 \iff p \quad \text{ vs } \quad 100. $
#1: Initial revision
by
Chgg Clou
·
2023-03-22T00:13:24Z (over 1 year ago)
How can school children intuit why over 100, D is larger? But under 100, D% is larger?
#### I can prove [the Rule of 100](https://www.nickkolenda.com/psychological-pricing-strategies/) algebraically, below. But my school kids are hankering after intuition, and a plainer explanation.
>
>
> ## Follow the Rule of 100
>
> Should discounts be **percentages** or **absolutes**?
>
> Consider a \$150 blender. Should you offer 20% off? Or an equivalent \$30 off?
>
> Answer:
>
> - **Over \$100?** Give absolutes (e.g., \$30)
> - **Under \$100?** Give percents (e.g., 20%)
>
> In both cases, you show the higher numeral. For a \$50 blender, 20% off is the same as \$10 off — yet 20% is more persuasive because it’s a higher numeral. For a \$150 blender, the absolute discount (\$30 off) is a higher numeral (González, Esteva, Roggeveen, & Grewal, 2016).
>
> #### References
>
> González, E. M., Esteva, E., Roggeveen, A. L., & Grewal, D. (2016). Amount off versus percentage off—when does it matter?. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1022-1027.
Let d = discount, p = price. Then $d, p > 0$ because [there is no free lunch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch) and [the quotation](https://www.nickkolenda.com/psychological-pricing-strategies/) is expatiating on discounts. Then
\$ off vs. % off $\iff p - d \quad \text{ vs } \quad p - (d/100)p \iff -d \quad \text{ vs } \quad -dp/100 \iff 1 \quad \text{ vs } \quad p/100 \iff p \quad \text{ vs } \quad 100. $