> as if the concept of "old prices" has any reality in the world going forward
So.. you're saying that the answer to my second questions is "no"? If loyalty programs routinely distort pricing that much, then the opt-out I suggested doesn't exist.
> Prices will continue to change and the idea of what they would have been becomes nothing more than a counter-factual speculation.
Still, I don't think we have to speculate. When loyalty cards first came out, there were some chains that slow to implement or, for whatever reason, decided their implementation needed cancelling and ended up trumpeting their failure in their ads as a feature to consumers "no card needed for discount!". How'd the pricing work out then?
> You didn't consider for a tiny second that my complaint was about the way the system works
That's a pretty huge counter-factual speculation (to use your words), considering I was merely asking questions. In point of fact, I did consider it.
> affects people overall
OK. So, if I understand correctly, you're worried about WF jumping on the loyalty bandwagon because of the implications for society/other-people, not for yourself. In that case, no opt-out strategy would be good enough, be it paying the non-discounted price or some version of 867-5309. That's fair.
Thanks for the reasonable reply, and sorry for assuming things in your initial question.
I definitely see everything in a much more social context. I rarely make any decision thinking merely about the immediate short-term individual costs and gains. I can only technically but not sympathetically grasp how people can have self-centered, myopic mindsets, but obviously enough people do. I frequently fund myself having to bring up the idea that pro-social thinking is even a concept to consider.
Understanding that everything I personally experience is colored by my pro-social mindset, I feel really differently (positively) about places like Trader Joe's that refuse not only to have loyalty cards but even to have loss-leader discount sales and other such bull crap. The relationship between Trader Joe's and their customers is fundamentally more respectful and honest than these other stores.
Incidentally, I don't mind the sale discounts at places like Grocery Outlet because they are actually based on overstock and so actually pricing to supply-and-demand as opposed to playing some game with prices. Their highlighting of how much you "saved" over "other stores' prices" is annoying though.
Finally, I happen to know that many of the discount sales at other stores are actually forced upon them by outside brands. Brands are pushing their names and provide product at a discount to the store with the requirement that they promote a sale, all to drive the brand recognition etc. and that's part of why Trader Joe's is free from that crap (by not emphasizing outside brand names).
So.. you're saying that the answer to my second questions is "no"? If loyalty programs routinely distort pricing that much, then the opt-out I suggested doesn't exist.
> Prices will continue to change and the idea of what they would have been becomes nothing more than a counter-factual speculation.
Still, I don't think we have to speculate. When loyalty cards first came out, there were some chains that slow to implement or, for whatever reason, decided their implementation needed cancelling and ended up trumpeting their failure in their ads as a feature to consumers "no card needed for discount!". How'd the pricing work out then?
> You didn't consider for a tiny second that my complaint was about the way the system works
That's a pretty huge counter-factual speculation (to use your words), considering I was merely asking questions. In point of fact, I did consider it.
> affects people overall
OK. So, if I understand correctly, you're worried about WF jumping on the loyalty bandwagon because of the implications for society/other-people, not for yourself. In that case, no opt-out strategy would be good enough, be it paying the non-discounted price or some version of 867-5309. That's fair.