Yes, and I suspect that a portion of the height gap might also be explaining a portion of the gender gap. But I avoided that sensitive topic because I'm only speculating, and I didn't want to make it seem like there isn't a gender bias. Height would only explain a portion; there ARE factors specifically related to gender too.
I know it's a wimpy answer, but it really depends on the site.
Ideally, you should run some usability tests to figure out the bumps within your website. The tests don't need to be fancy. Just ask someone with fresh eyes to complete certain tasks (and ask them to verbalize their thoughts as they work toward that goal). Along the way, jot down any bumps or confusion that those users experience.
Afterward, you can use that guide to find specific tactics to overcome those bumps.
Thanks for the kind words. And I hear ya about the cultural aspect. When I started writing the article, I planned to incorporate an in-depth look into the cultural differences. But it was way too overwhelming.
Thanks for the feedback. I don't mind the criticisms - I think a healthy debate is good. :) However, I just want to clarify something.
> "You should avoid charging different prices based on past behavior, demographics, or any other factor besides natural supply and demand."
That quote is taken out of context. Obviously you should determine prices based on those factors. That quote was referring to dynamic pricing and how you shouldn't charge different customers different prices based on those factors (e.g., I'll charge $200 to Customer X, but I'll charge $150 to Customer Y because I don't think he'd buy at $200).
1. I remember reading about that concept in Ariely's book. And I actually considered adding it to the list, but I wasn't sure where to incorporate it.
2. I think everything boils down to your ability to communicate the value of your offering. People will pay any amount, as long as they perceive to be getting more value from it.
3. And I can't believe I didn't mention Kahneman anywhere! His research was a large foundation behind a good portion of those techniques.
Tactic X: "Give away free product or usage of your service" (talk about Ariely's theory of social norms vs market norms)
Tactic Y: "Up-sell free users into a more compelling value proposition" (distinguish between the free product/service and use it as a framing exercise to get your users to pay)
I see where you're coming from. Hopefully I can defend some some of the researchers in that field :)
Although most applications of that research are often applied to business and marketing, the underlying research has broader implications. For example, some of those studies progressed our understanding of cognition in general (the researchers merely used numbers in their study - which was then adapted for pricing applications). But we now understand more about our brain's processes than we did before.
And ,with a better understanding of cognition, we can help pave the way toward other, more benevolent applications (e.g., curing psychological ailments).
So even though that research may not produce benevolent results directly, I would argue that it helps indirectly (among many other benefits too).
And, with a better understanding of cognition, we can help pave the way toward other, more benevolent applications (e.g., curing psychological ailments).
An example of progress would be equally intensive research on how consumers could tip the balance back in our favor. I'm skeptical that it will happen for a couple of reasons:
1. Research supporting business and marketing probably has infinitely more generous funding. We are hopelessly out-gunned.
2. Research into how people respond to abuse (manipulation) doesn't necessarily translate into benevolent applications.
I agree with you, but the benefits of this kind of research have to be balanced with the harms as well. Rampant consumerism has driven environmental and economic damage, and while it's hard to weigh these kinds of benefits against these kinds of harms, my intuition is that if even a small percentage of the consumerism was caused by this research, the upsides far outweigh the downsides. Of course that's entirely subjective.
That's a good question. I think it depends on the pricing technique.
For example, research shows that anchoring effects occur even when people are explicitly warned about anchoring before they make their estimate.
On the other hand, if people are aware of other pricing techniques, then those techniques could backfire in a negative direction. For example, researchers have found a "reverse priming effect." In other words, if people detect some persuasive intent behind the marketer, then those people are more likely to resist that persuasion attempt. So it could make things worse.
So it might have negative effect on some people (who feel it as insult on their intelligence), but if twice as many people don't notice it and are positively affected, it's still a net gain.
