Should news organizations round up prices?
In writing about the Netflix price increase last week I was torn between using the cost figures that the company preferred -- $7.99 a month for streaming; $7.99 for one DVD at a time; $15.98 for both -- or the simpler, commonsense figures -- $8, $8 and $16.
Prices that end in .99 aren't technically deceptive -- there's nothing dishonest or misleading about them -- yet they are clearly meant to fool the eye and, equally clearly, they must have proven effective over the years. But should media outlets participate in the advancement of this marketing tactic?
I do not think you should round up the prices in a news piece. If you are going to round up $7.99 to $8. Then do you also round up $7.50?
In a blog entry or opinion piece, I would say it is ok to round up to make point. Just don't compare the price to a cup of coffee.
As a side note, I do not understand why we price gasoline out to 3 digits after the decimal. How did that get started and why do we continue it today? All those extra 10th of a penny do add up.
Posted by: JPC | Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 09:30 AM
If the price is $7.99, why would you say it was $8? News organizations are subject to enough accusations of unintentional inaccuracy; I don't understand why you'd want to intentionally create more.
Posted by: DaveB | Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 09:41 AM
"But should media outlets participate in the advancement of this marketing tactic?" Why not. They have been marketing agent for the White House since 2008.
Posted by: Richard Monahan | Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 10:11 AM
JPC, a lot of gas retailers make extremely small margins, maybe 5 to 10 cents a gallon; some make less. That 0.9 cents isn't going to add up to too much, but it's something.
Posted by: quotidian | Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 10:20 AM
Imagine you're writing about a big storm, and the weather watchers reported that 4.99 inches of rain had fallen. You certainly wouldn't repeat the number "4.99" throughout the article, and might not even report it at all except in a number table in a sidebar. On first mention you'd say "almost exactly 5 inches" or "nearly 5 inches" or "close to 5 inches" or "about 5 inches"; and on subsequent mention it would be "the 5-inch downpour" or "the recent 5 inches" or just "5 inches". You'd do just the same if it were 5.01 (with suitably modified hedges, of course).
I see no problem at all with reporting the Netflix number as $8, and in fact I'd prefer it. (But then, I'm also a fan of the few places that present nice round prices that include tax.)
Posted by: blahedo | Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 11:01 AM
Since we've been living with the .99 thing as long as I can remember, it's a little late for us to worry about this now. I see the new trend is to label how many units you can buy for a certain dollar level, at least where I shop. Like, 2 for $3, 4 for $10, buy 10 for $10 dollars when you buy any ten items listed, and so on. They're going for quantity over price these days. Should Netflix have said "2 services for $15" while keeping either single service at $9.99, would that have come across as more palatable?
Posted by: Wendy C | Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 12:11 PM