Kirk Tanner, the new CEO and president of Wendy’s, shared with analysts his various plans to increase company profits, including investing in digital menu boards that will have the capacity to display dynamic pricing that fluctuates throughout the day by 2025. Here's what customers need to know.
The Subway near me is often very quiet, but at particular times, predictably every week, they’re absolutely slammed. If they jacked all their prices by $1, then offered “off-hours discounts” of even $2, they’d probably see the same average price per sandwich, but shift customer demand to keep the restaurant more steady. They might even attract new customers who don’t come during rush times because they’re time sensitive, not price sensitive.
In other words, this could be a win-win-win for everybody:
Subway sees higher total revenue
Price-sensitive customers can shift their orders to lull hours and save a bit of money
Time-sensitive customers have lower wait times during lunch/dinner rush.
Subway (and Wendy’s, for that matter) already do this a bit with their coupons; I rarely go to Subway without coupons since I’m price sensitive. Switching from coupons to scheduled price fluctuations isn’t really a big change, and keeps people paying less with coupons from gumming up the dinner rush.
on principle i will never trust any corporation to do good things unless compelled to by a higher power such as the state, and i certainly do not trust them to do good things when the corporate-speak being used to describe those things is “enhanced features like dynamic pricing and daypart offerings along with AI-enabled menu changes and suggestive selling.” reeks of grift
Sure, but nothing I wrote above depends on trust. This seems like it could be an Econ 101 example of the profit motive increasing the total utility in the system. Hence why I said this has the potential to be win-win-win.
I don’t trust companies to pursue anything other than the profit motive but sometimes that can be a good thing.
the premise of a “win-win-win” scenario is necessarily predicated on the belief that a corporation would ever let such an arrangement occur versus just shamelessly exploiting its customers and telling them to love it or leave it, which is a form of trust. in my mind that is trust that is severely unearned by literally any current corporation—and i would firmly assert that even outside of a vacuum the vast majority of corporations will gladly tell (and right now are in the process of telling) their customers the latter
i literally cannot think of a pricing model i want less for a restaurant i might conceivably patronize than this
I don’t know. I can see it.
The Subway near me is often very quiet, but at particular times, predictably every week, they’re absolutely slammed. If they jacked all their prices by $1, then offered “off-hours discounts” of even $2, they’d probably see the same average price per sandwich, but shift customer demand to keep the restaurant more steady. They might even attract new customers who don’t come during rush times because they’re time sensitive, not price sensitive.
In other words, this could be a win-win-win for everybody:
Subway sees higher total revenue
Price-sensitive customers can shift their orders to lull hours and save a bit of money
Time-sensitive customers have lower wait times during lunch/dinner rush.
Subway (and Wendy’s, for that matter) already do this a bit with their coupons; I rarely go to Subway without coupons since I’m price sensitive. Switching from coupons to scheduled price fluctuations isn’t really a big change, and keeps people paying less with coupons from gumming up the dinner rush.
I think this could be good.
on principle i will never trust any corporation to do good things unless compelled to by a higher power such as the state, and i certainly do not trust them to do good things when the corporate-speak being used to describe those things is “enhanced features like dynamic pricing and daypart offerings along with AI-enabled menu changes and suggestive selling.” reeks of grift
Sure, but nothing I wrote above depends on trust. This seems like it could be an Econ 101 example of the profit motive increasing the total utility in the system. Hence why I said this has the potential to be win-win-win.
I don’t trust companies to pursue anything other than the profit motive but sometimes that can be a good thing.
the premise of a “win-win-win” scenario is necessarily predicated on the belief that a corporation would ever let such an arrangement occur versus just shamelessly exploiting its customers and telling them to love it or leave it, which is a form of trust. in my mind that is trust that is severely unearned by literally any current corporation—and i would firmly assert that even outside of a vacuum the vast majority of corporations will gladly tell (and right now are in the process of telling) their customers the latter