Ticket pricing on Broadway

Want to see a big hit such as "Hamilton" or "Hello Dolly" with Bette Midler on Broadway? Be prepared to pay $750 at the box office and well over $1000 in the secondary market.  These prices generate headlines and claims that Broadway is unaffordable for the average NYC visitor.

This NYT piece sheds a light on the economics behind live theatre pricing.  As it turns out, there are many theaters on the Great White Way and bargains can be had.  The average ticket price is just over $100 and, on most nights, you can stand in line at TKTS and score a (not great) seat for under $40.

What has changed in recent years is the adoption of dynamic pricing.  The same tools that airlines pioneered have come to the arts and entertainment world.   Ticket prices ratchet up for the most popular shows to ration demand.   By doing so there also is a clear match between the public's willingness to pay and the reward structure for those producing the shows:

From an economics perspective, “this is simply a rationing problem” ... If you keep prices low, people will buy tickets and resell them on the secondary market. Someone is going to pay a market-clearing price, no matter how high. The only question is who should get the money: the investors and performers and creators, or a speculator who managed to snap up the tickets the moment the box office opened?”

The Times article provides some helpful hints for those seeking the best deals: look for weekday shows and visit at an off-peak time such as January or September.  

United Airlines incident: price controls strike again

Airlines make a choice regarding how many tickets they sell on a flight.   Because airline seats are perishable commodities and the cost of servicing an extra passenger is zero, airlines want each plane to fly with a full passenger load.  Theaters face the same challenge.  Yet when you buy theatre tickets, how often do you find someone else in your seat?  

One reason airlines rely on overbooking is that US Department of Transportation regulations encourage it, as pointed out in this HBR online piece.  The regs allow bumped passengers to be paid 200-400% of the price of their ticket (one-way, I might add) with an overall cap of $1350.  So a passenger who bought a heavily discounted ticket might only receive $400-500 in compensation for being bumped, well below what a true volunteer might demand.  

Airlines could manage passenger loads in different ways, such as penalizing no-shows who do not contact the airline in advance and are not on a connecting flight.  If airlines insist on overbooking, then the most efficient (in the economics sense of the word) compensation mechanism would be an auction where passengers bid for the right to be bumped.  In the case of the infamous Chicago to Louisville flight two weeks ago, the bid price for being bumped would rise until there were four true volunteers.  That would no doubt be quite a bit more than United actually spent, but I bet they sure wished in retrospect that they had paid those four passengers enough to get them to exit the plane without assistance.  

A dirty secret about Black Friday

Some stores will open on Thanksgiving evening this year to get a jump on the traditional Black Friday sales.  (Maybe it's because the number of days between Christmas and Thanksgiving is at a minimum this year?)  Ads lead shoppers to believe that this is the best day of the year to make gift purchases.

The truth?  If you want the real bargains, stay home and rake leaves or watch football on Friday and do your shopping online closer to Christmas.  Yesterday's WSJ reveals the pricing strategy firms use year around to convince shoppers that they are getting a bargain.  It is a simple twist on versioning, a topic we cover each year in my MBA economics class.  Retailers start with an unrealistically high list price, one at which they know only the most dedicated followers of fashion will accept.  The price then comes down as time passes, either through direct markdowns or through sales and coupons.

Most consumers are not well informed about how much prices of close substitutes, so they use the sale or coupon as a signal that they are getting a good deal.  Money quote:

The red cardigan sweater with the ruffled neck on sale for more than 40% off at $39.99 was never meant to sell at its $68 starting price. It was designed with the discount built in.

To be fair, there will be a few items on sale Friday that are priced below cost, but these items serve as bait to get customers in the store.  Customers will make better informed decisions if they comparison shop online.  

Have airline change fees gotten out of hand?

If you run an airline, load management is a key determinant of whether you make money.  Left to their own devices, customers would gladly reserve seats and then decide at the last minute whether to show up or not.  An empty airline sheet is like yesterday's newspaper - no one is going to buy it.  To create an incentive for passengers to book flights that they plan to take, airlines came up with cancellation fees 20 years ago.   In 1991 they generated $51m in revenue; today they generate more than $1b.  (Aside: these fees are not subject to federal air service taxes or local fees for airline use.  Ditto for baggage fees and other incidental charges.  We have seen airlines shift their revenue flow significantly over the last five years to these untaxed revenue sources.)

Airlines now charge between $150 and $200 to change a reservation.  For an international flight, this is a charge that is hard to avoid, especially if you already have completed one leg of your journey.  But for domestic flights, passengers can compare the cost of a one-way ticket home and the cost of changing their reservation.  WP reports that more and more domestic customers are booking their own return flights and, if warranted, pulling no shows at the gate. 

In a nutshell, the change fees may have gotten so high that airlines are now facing a problem with no shows.  Given the choice between paying $200 for changing a reservation and paying $150 for a one-way return, the no show approach makes economic sense.  Better to pay $150 and never engage with the airline that sold the ticket than to spend 30 minutes on the phone and pay more. 

My take is that companies usually think through their pricing structure strategically, but in this case they may need to reconsider.  They may need to think about changing the penalty for changing a booking to a percentage of the cost of the flight. 

Can retailers still outfox savvy shoppers?

Ever since people began bartering, there has been a constant struggle between buyer and seller to get the largest possible share of the value-cost margin.  Shoppers now have access to a cornucopia of pricing information on the web.  If stores do not offer reasonable deals, they lose business to Amazon and the like. 

Today's NYT reports how some major retail chains, including JCP (the store previously known as Penney's), have revised their pricing strategies.  The story contains some juicy tidbits on pricing:

An item that cost Penney’s $10 in 2002 was typically marked up to $28. By 2011, a $10 item had been marked up to $40. But the price the customer actually paid for the $10 item increased only 5 cents during that period — to $15.95, from $15.90.

... the average markup for apparel at a department store began around 65 percent. Over 10 weeks, the stores will go to 25 or 30 percent off, then 50 percent off, 60 percent, and finally 70 percent or more, a discount so deep that the stores sometimes sell below cost.

The game for consumers is to tradeoff availability with savings.  The latest, most popular styles may sell out but patience is rewarded with bigger discounts, a form of what we economists call third degree price discrimination.  JCP claims it has cut its retail prices by 40 percent in a move toward what it calls "fair and square" pricing.  Consumer reaction?  Lukewarm at best so far, the article indicates.  One shopper posted “I really, really miss my coupons" on JCP's Facebook page. 

Why are parking spaces so hard to find?

Obvious answer: the price is too low.  Today's NYT reports an interesting experiment from (of all places) San Francisco (not usually a bastion of free market thinking).  SanFran has applied technology that allows meter prices to vary depending on demand.  The idea is to have one spot open on each block all the time so that drivers do not clog the streets and generate additional CO2 emissions cruising in search of an empty spot.  Prices fall in areas with lots of spots and rise in those with no spots. 

TrueCar vs. "I'll check with the manager"

Automobiles are mass produced by a limited number of sellers, but historically pricing has been far from transparent.  The sticker price is taken as an upper limit (although there are sometimes two stickers: one from the manufacturer and one from the dealer) and it is up to the individual customer to negotiate something lower.  Some people hate to negotiate and thus pay top dollar.  Others relish the process and sometimes can buy at well below dealer cost (once the car is on the lot, the cost to the dealer is sunk so the salesperson will take the best price they think is attainable in the market -- as MBA 505 students all know). I always use it as my first example of first degree price discrimination. 

Recently TrueCar.com has emerged as a useful intermediary.  Potential buyers register at the site and get data on the dealer's true cost along with a guaranteed price from dealers in their area.  Dealers pay $299 to TrueCar for each lead that becomes a sale; customers get multiple bids they can use as leverage before they even enter a showroom.  (I used it recently; the only downside is a continued stream of junk emails from the dealers.)  Of course some dealers are less than delighted with this arrangement, as noted in a story in today's NYT. 

Ultimately one must wonder when a car company will decide to buy out its dealers and revolutionize the retail process.  You would have showrooms with a limited number of demos; after a test drive, customers would order exactly what they want on the web. 

Why airlines now charge for baggage

Simple answer: taxes.  As a Saturday article in the N&O indicates, the U.S. Department of Transportation is concerned that it is losing tax revenue because airlines have started charging fees for checked baggage, in-flight meals and services, or aisle seats.  DOT maintains that ticket prices have held steady or even slightly decreased whereas airline revenue from the ancillary fees has steadily increased.  This has enabled airline revenues to increase while tax revenues have fallen off.  As an airline consumer, these extra fees are often annoying, but if pillows and blankets were taxed at the same  rate as the flight itself, the airline would have no incentive for a la carte pricing. 

This can explain why airline pricing concepts have not been adopted in other industries.  Hotels sometimes charge for internet usage, but not for soap. 

Netflix's new pricing policy

Summer's here and I have been catching up on "The Wire" and Scorsese's Dylan documentary on Netflix.  I also have to decide which new pricing plan I want.

Netflix started with a simple pricing model where the monthly fee depended on how many disks you borrowed at a given time.  As a Harvard case we have used at NC State points out, Netflix's management knew there would be a day when video streaming would replace mailbox delivery.  Netflix rolled out streaming as a free add-on to the DVD-by-mail business model.  The online selection is still somewhat limited; only 8 of the 45 movies in my queue are available via streaming.  (Caveat: my queue is heavy on classic and foreign movies.) 

Last week Netflix announced that the streaming service would now be available separately for $7.99 per month and would no longer be a freebie for those with a mailbox rental plan.  So far newspaper accounts have focused on consumers who are less than pleased.

Yet there are opportunities for joint value creation as well.  The marginal cost of a digitally distributed movie is zero, as opposed to roughly $1-1.50 for mailing and handling of a DVD.  When a household  switches to the 100% streaming option, it will save $2 per month and Netflix will save even more, assuming the household rents three or more DVDs each month by mail. 

Those who wish to stick to 100% mail rental can avoid the price increase by going online before Sept. 1.   That's probably the route I will take until I trade in our current DVD player.

Corporate America fighting obesity by shrinking serving sizes

Well not exactly.  Today's NYT (now a paysite, so there will be fewer links) discusses how food portions in the grocery school are shrinking.  The motivation is not the obesity epidemic; instead it is the rising cost of many raw materials.  Fearful of raising prices and losing market share, companies are reducing the number of saltines in a box, the number of ounces in an orange juice container, and the size of the can for fruits and vegetables. 

But wait, there's more good news -- the smaller packages use less material and thus have a smaller carbon footprint. 

Why is this happening -- I say it is a combination of economics and psychology.  Business school professors weigh in:

“Consumers are generally more sensitive to changes in prices than to changes in quantity,” John T. Gourville, a marketing professor at Harvard Business School, said. “And companies try to do it in such a way that you don’t notice, maybe keeping the height and width the same, but changing the depth so the silhouette of the package on the shelf looks the same. Or sometimes they add more air to the chips bag or a scoop in the bottom of the peanut butter jar so it looks the same size.”

Thomas J. Alexander, a finance professor at Northwood University, said that businesses had little choice these days when faced with increases in the costs of their raw goods. “Companies only have pricing power when wages are also increasing, and we’re not seeing that right now because of the high unemployment,” he said.

 Any link to quantitative easing by the Fed is purely coincidental.   Or is it?

The all-you-can-eat data buffet is now closed

On Wednesday AT&T announced plans to scrap its unlimited data plan and replace it with tiered pricing.  New users will buy a bucket of bytes; most users are likely to select 200 meg for $15/month or 2 gig for $25/month.  Currently everyone pays a flat fee of $30, which means you can watch as many video files and download as many songs as you like -- marginal cost is zero.  With a flat fee, a relatively small number of power users ends up consuming a disproportionally large share of bandwidth capacity.  Under the new payment scheme, users have to decide if the value of the extra bytes offsets the extra cost, providing an incentive to conserve on data usage and thereby allow the existing bandwidth to be more widely available.

Ironically, AT&T has always sold a bucket of free minutes of phone time accompanied by a fairly steep fee for each extra minute.  One has to wonder why they and other carriers did not adopt this approach to data from the offset.  A possible answer is that they wanted to demonstrate the benefits of the device and encourage people to buy the service.  Now that the iPhone and other smartphones have become ubiquitous, the freebies for power users are over.  Most users will save a few bucks each month, as long as they do not get hooked on the YouTube app.