Fortunately for business decision-makers, fair pricing and optimal pricing are not at odds with each other but can comfortably coexist.  Over the course of the coming weeks my colleagues at Sentrana and I will be approaching the rich topic of fair pricing in a series of exchanges on this blog.

debating the age-old question of fair price

What is a fair price?  This question has perplexed humanity throughout history.  Leading thought output of the ages, from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics to the Summa Theologicae of  Thomas Aquinas, Pierre de Fermat’s probability proofs and Adam Smith’s classsical economics, have all weighed in with considered opinions on the fairness and justness of alternative ways to price economic goods and services, and the debate continues today.  A series of letters exchanged between Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat in 1654 is often regarded as a primal cause of the development of modern probability theory: this exchange was actually an attempt to establish a scientific basis for the notion of fair price.  In his paper “The Unity and Diversity of Probability” Rutgers professor Glenn Shafer shows how these letters created hypothetical games of value that we today can recognize as the application of probability methods to defend a price as ‘fair’ under conditions of uncertainty.

Uncertainty is the 800-pound gorilla in the room when it comes to price-making decisions.  Buyers and sellers operate from positions of considerable uncertainty in approaching transactions with each other: buyers have only partial information about the features of what they are buying such as quality, reliability, service support and the extent to which a given offered price may be reasonable in relation to these features, while sellers have a limited perspective on what demand exists for their products and what combination of levers such as price, assortment and marketing could influence that demand.  Buyers thus face the risk of inequity in their exchange – paying more than the intrinsic worth of the object acquired, while sellers face the risk of their transactions being unprofitable and, if persistently so, driving them out of business.

Having worked for a number of years in the investment industry I offer up a useful model from this corner of the economy for dealing with uncertainty.  In the investment world uncertainty commands a price: investors demand more compensation, in the form of return on investment, for assets that exhibit higher levels of short term volatility.  Participants widely view this as fair: it is not thought ‘unfair’ that an investor in, say, a 5-year U.S. Treasury note earns a dependable return of 5% whereas someone who takes a punt on the shares of a small-cap biotechnology company may potentially earn over 25% in the same time period.  There is more likelihood that the value of the biotech shares will plunge in the wake of unexpected news or that the company will go out of business than there is of the U.S. government failing to honor its legal obligations to bondholders.  A capitalist economy offers the potential for greater rewards to the investor willing to assume greater risk.

what matters is the customers who don't come

How is this concept analogous to the uncertainty faced by businesses that sell in markets for real (i.e. non-financial) goods and services?  I thought about that the other day while dining out at one of my favorite Northern Italian restaurants, located in a trendy urban area chock-full of good eats.  As I looked around the dining room on a late September Tuesday evening it occurred to me that the uncertainty this business experiences on a daily basis is plainly visible: the number of empty seats during peak dining hours.  Restaurant patronage is a notoriously fickle notion to quantify and is subject to considerable fluctuation in real time.  I wondered about the methodology through which this restaurant’s owner translates the uncertainty of empty seats into the revenue model. It seems to me that the real art to the formulation of this model is not based on the tables that have patrons sitting at them, but rather the ones that are empty.  The hard part of revenue calculation is not figuring out what the average occupied table will spend on any given night – it is dealing with the uncertainty of those empty tables.

Now in theory, the owner could simply build an ‘uncertainty factor’ into menu prices as a partial compensation for the prospect of empty tables.  In practice this is unlikely, and the reason why it is unlikely brings us back to the concept of fairness.  Prospective restaurant patrons (including yours truly) are very unlikely to be sympathetic to the notion that they should have to pay a higher price for the verze e luganega because it helps the owner’s revenue model – to us patrons, that is an unfair offloading of the owner’s problem onto us.  We don’t even have to explicitly know the owner’s motivation.  Discerning customers have plenty of access to comparative information – from other restaurants in the area, our social networks, Internet reviews and so forth – to form strong perceptions of the fairness or unfairness of prices at any given spot.  We will wield our verdict of ‘fair or unfair?’ with much self-righteous certitude in making future dining out decisions.

So what is a ‘fair’ way for our poor restauranteur to manage uncertainty toward a more profitable outcome?   Rather than accepting empty tables as a given fact of life the owner can try to figure out intelligent ways to fill them.  Who may be walking by the restaurant in the late afternoon, or working in a nearby office building and considering an after-work dining outing with colleagues?  What combination of factors might entice these and other prospective patrons to choose this establishment over numerous other choices?  Is there a way to figure out attractive deals that would lure certain prospective customers and to surgically target each such customer with a unique offer?  Yes – it is possible through scientific micromarketing techniques that optimize at the granular level of the customer-product interaction.  The next question – if it is possible, is it also fair?

All those centuries of debate on the notion of fairness and justice in economic commerce now come back into this discussion.  Paul Krugman expressed a concern about this in a New York Times op-ed piece titled “What Price Fairness?” all the way back in October 2000, when price optimization methods were in a much, much earlier stage of development.  His remark (related to the notion of dynamic pricing in general) was that while it may be “arguably good for the economy,” dynamic pricing is also “…unfair: some people pay more just because of who they are.”  Sitting in the restaurant, I imagined a hypothetical case where the gnocchi with sweet basil pesto, which I ordered for the menu-listed price of $14.50, was being enjoyed by the gentleman at a nearby table for $11.30 simply because the restaurant’s micromarketing system contacted his iPhone with a targeted discount offer just before he left his office just down the road.

Is that unfair?  I don’t think so.  Who wins and who loses in this scenario?  The gentleman who receives the offer wins – he gets the opportunity to enjoy a dining experience targeted to his personal preferences.  The restauranteur wins by filling a table that would otherwise be empty, reducing uncertainty and improving the nightly profit intake.  I am still enjoying the gnocchi I ordered at full price and am no worse off than I would have been otherwise; having already concluded that $14.50 is a reasonable price for the dish and ordered on that basis.  On a broader social scale the notion of micromarket pricing does not discriminate between the two of us in a way that I would deem unfair.  I have my own set of preferences that may benefit me with a different offer set on a different day.  In fact, were I to be made aware of the circumstances under which the gentleman got his gnocchi for a lower price, I may well be inclined to leave my own contact information with the establishment in anticipation of future benefits.

There is a road ahead before scientific micromarketing becomes a more accepted feature of B2C commerce situations like that of my hypothetical imaginings while dining out (no doubt helped along by the delights of a 2003 Castello di Camigliano Brunello).  And I expect that a vigorous debate about the question of fairness versus optimality will be part and parcel of this journey.  At day’s end, though, I believe the two are fundamentally compatible.

In trying to answer this postulation we must go back to examine the eternal challenge of good modeling: how to create a simplified representation of reality that in ignoring many real-world features still manages to convey an inherently robust facsimile of the real thing.  For example, one of those maps of New England you buy at Exxon gas stations can serve as a good model for getting you from Hartford, CT to Boston, MA even if it ignores most of the streets and alleyways and other real-world detail that exist along the route.  In their book “Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life” John H. Miller and Scott E. Page observe that the “ability to ignore is a crucial component of scientific progress”, using the image of a parent’s being able to respond to the incessant “why” questions of a three year old child by saying “just because”.  The trick, as the authors point out, is knowing when (and perhaps more importantly when not) to say “just because”.

While I wholeheartedly agree with that assertion I don’t think that it quite gets us to an adequate level of comfort in applying foresight to the creation of good models.  In his fascinating book “The Origin of Wealth” Eric D. Beinhocker points out that economic modeling took what many consider to be a wrong turn back in the latter years of the 19th century when leading thinkers of the day like Leon Walras and William Stanley Jevons borrowed heavily from the referential context of physics to create models for explaining economic activity, including such notable concepts as a mathematically representable state of equilibrium that continue to serve as the conceptual foundations of modern economics textbooks.  As Beinhocker elaborates, the problem with these models was that some of their fundamental assumptions – like the perfect, robot-like rationality of human beings in making economic choices – didn’t seem to simplify reality as much as contradict reality.  Thus we find ourselves in the present ruminating over the precise, mathematically elegant language of physics and the complex, evolutionary language of biology and debating whether a choice of the wrong science by the founding fathers of economics back in the 19th century led to the failure of models to adequately explain much of what is going on in the economy today and in particular the string of boom-bust upheavals that have become part and parcel of the last 20-odd years of economic activity.

I still don’t think we are there yet in getting closure on the foresight question, but we may be getting closer.  To tie in the strands of thought presented by Miller & Page and Beinhocker, when we get to those basic defining assumptions, when we decide what the model is going to ignore and what it is going to retain, when we say “just because”, that is the point where we have the chance to either build a robust foundation that can withstand the slings and arrows of a continual barrage of economic X-factors or an elegant, commercially viable sandcastle that gets washed away with the next high tide.  If we are going to apply foresight, this is where we have to apply it.

Not that applying foresight is easy, of course, and that is why at Sentrana we are engaged in a continual process of building better models by going back to the basics, asking seemingly simple questions that have complex answers, and trying to ensure that we get it right when we get to that point where it is time to say “just because”.  In our world of Scientific Micromarket Management saying “just because” at the right time can, for example, open up the vista of a complex demand environment to reveal a unique configuration of product mix opportunities at optimal pricing points.  It’s good that we are seeing a heightened level of public discourse about these issues: models may seem to be abstract notions for abstemious minds, but they have real-world economic consequences.  Getting it right has never been more important.

Here’s an example to help you understand the magnitude of the problem your organization is facing: you sell thousands of products to tens of thousands of different customers each and every day, which is equivalent to millions (if not billions) of distinct customer-product interactions every day – impossible for even the most experienced sales managers to analyze individually. Now grab a pen and some paper and write this down: every sale is an interaction whose revenue can be uniquely maximized! Most companies fail to detect the subtle changes in their customers’ preferences over time, leaving significant profits on the table. And hence the reason for the detective work we’re often called to do; companies don’t realize they have all of the necessary data to maximize revenues right under their noses.

The solution here is Scientific Micromarket Management, which makes it possible for organizations to assess how each customer values your product and offer exactly that price every day in every market. Sure, we may be talking pennies and nickels here, but if you multiply these adjustments by the millions of potential customer-product combinations, then multiply these daily adjustments over the course of a year, and you will realize the significant amount of impact this will have on your bottom-line. Capitalizing on these billions of tiny demand shifts with a dynamic pricing system more targeted than human intuition enables companies to finally understand why every single customer buys what they buy from you and what they are willing to pay for it every time. This is far more comprehensive than any pricing strategy; this is a complete revenue optimization solution. Your customers are getting smarter about you, I think its time you got smarter about them.

Restaurants sit at the crossroads of both cost and demand volatility. Much to their detriment, companies such as McDonald’s often buffer both their customers and their upstream suppliers from feeling the financial impact of this volatility. Now McDonald’s is at least hinting that it wants out of this arrangement, and our experiences working with multi-billion dollar partners in the food distribution industry points to this being a wise move. We have long observed significant daily fluctuations in food prices across all categories. Couple this with the effect that a strong dollar can have on McDonald’s overseas business, and it quickly becomes clear that understanding how much a customer is truly willing to pay for a menu item is of huge value for a company so proud of its billions and zillions served.

The real question is why don’t more restaurants (or any number of businesses for that matter) treat their price as the valuable asset that it is? It is not overly difficult for a restaurant to approximate a schedule of demand and create several different menus with prices tailored to different Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) environments. For a restaurant grossing $500,000 in revenues annually, every 1% increase in sales corresponds to a $5,000 improvement to the top line (subtracting the printing costs later). In our experiences in food distribution, a 1-2% increase in the organization’s top line can translate into a bottom line improvement of over 8% – an observation that we have seen replicated in numerous industries. Projecting forward a few years, I would be willing to bet that the majority of companies with the highest valuations among their industry peer groups will also be the ones that are trying to actively shape demand through their pricing strategies.