Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized prices
Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses, just as we predicted
Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain in Ohio, has implemented
Customer Specific Pricing (CSP), a practice where different prices are
charged to each group of customers. Now the majority of all discounts
available in the store only go to the identified top 30% of Dorothy Lane
shoppers.

After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated newspaper
advertising and switched to an "in-store ad-sheet". Once they were able to
analyze their program data to determine who their most profitable customers
were they started mailing them exclusive offers while at the same time
reducing the size of the discounts on their ad-sheet making them only
marginally better than the regular prices.

The store even segments the top 30% into three groups, with discounts given
according the customers' stature within that elite grouping.

Of course none of this would be possible without the rich databases stores
are compiling with their "loyalty" programs. While this is the most
complete example of CSP we have found to date, there is evidence that the
practice will soon be widespread. For example, this quote from an NCR
division president explains how wireless shelf tags will soon work:

"A customer would be able to point a key fob at an electronic label and it
would flash back a specific price based on that customer's value to the
store."

It's important to keep in mind that most supermarket discounts are not given
by the store; they are given by the manufacturer. Not only do the stores
profit by denying sale prices to the "bottom tier" of customers, they are
profiting off the manufacturers as well by keeping the difference.

For more information on pricing issues see our "pricing overview" page. For
more information on Dorothy Lane Markets' CSP practices, see Brian Woolfs
new book Loyalty Marketing: The Second Act.

http://www.nocards.org/news/archive1.shtml

Vox Humana > wrote in message
...
> Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized
> prices
> Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses,
> [..] Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain
> in Ohio, has implemented Customer Specific Pricing
> (CSP), a practice where different prices are charged
> to each group of customers. Now the majority of all
> discounts available in the store only go to the identified
> top 30% of Dorothy Lane shoppers.
>
> After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated
> newspaper advertising and switched to an "in-store ad-sheet".
[snip remaining paranoia]

Ah. I understand. Customer loyalty -- beyond price -- is an E-V-I-L
concept and implementing a rewards system for those customers that do
more than shop the sales is wrong. Got it.

As has been said oft enough but ingored before the sentence is
finished, if you don't like the store and it's cards, don't shop
there. There _are_ alternatives in every major city across the world.
Many of these same alternatives offer cheaper prices and a
more-specific set of merchandize to their clientele than any of the
larger chains.

Fer example: I do little shopping at Safeway anymore because of three
basic reasons. 1) The Safeway customer card (for me-and-mine) doesn't
work -- even on a limited basis nowadays; I don't find the items
offered any cheaper than I can get them in bulk at several other
retailers. 2) Corporate goes in [too often] and changes the
merchandize on the aisles. I am a creature of habit; do not muck with
my Habitrail. 3) I have six (that I'm aware) other stores (only one
with a card system) that offer superior pricing on almost everything I
was buying at Safeway. It was minor to adjust my weekly route
accordingly and exclude Safeway. The 4th reason was a bonus; I started
shopping the neighborhood ethnic groceries (an Indian, a Pakistani,
two Mexican, one <I think> Portuguese).

Paranoia has its place but not with this particular marketing
"secret."

The Ranger
--
"Everyone is subject to the laws of Darwinism whether or not they
believe in them, agree with them, or accept them. There is no trial,
no jury, no argument, and no appeal."
-- Anonymous

Vox Humana > wrote in message
...
> Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized
> prices
> Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses,
> [..] Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain
> in Ohio, has implemented Customer Specific Pricing
> (CSP), a practice where different prices are charged
> to each group of customers. Now the majority of all
> discounts available in the store only go to the identified
> top 30% of Dorothy Lane shoppers.
>
> After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated
> newspaper advertising and switched to an "in-store ad-sheet".
[snip remaining paranoia]

Ah. I understand. Customer loyalty -- beyond price -- is an E-V-I-L
concept and implementing a rewards system for those customers that do
more than shop the sales is wrong. Got it.

As has been said oft enough but ingored before the sentence is
finished, if you don't like the store and it's cards, don't shop
there. There _are_ alternatives in every major city across the world.
Many of these same alternatives offer cheaper prices and a
more-specific set of merchandize to their clientele than any of the
larger chains.

Fer example: I do little shopping at Safeway anymore because of three
basic reasons. 1) The Safeway customer card (for me-and-mine) doesn't
work -- even on a limited basis nowadays; I don't find the items
offered any cheaper than I can get them in bulk at several other
retailers. 2) Corporate goes in [too often] and changes the
merchandize on the aisles. I am a creature of habit; do not muck with
my Habitrail. 3) I have six (that I'm aware) other stores (only one
with a card system) that offer superior pricing on almost everything I
was buying at Safeway. It was minor to adjust my weekly route
accordingly and exclude Safeway. The 4th reason was a bonus; I started
shopping the neighborhood ethnic groceries (an Indian, a Pakistani,
two Mexican, one <I think> Portuguese).

Paranoia has its place but not with this particular marketing
"secret."

The Ranger
--
"Everyone is subject to the laws of Darwinism whether or not they
believe in them, agree with them, or accept them. There is no trial,
no jury, no argument, and no appeal."
-- Anonymous

"Vox Humana" > wrote in message
...
> Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized prices
> Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses, just as we predicted
> Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain in Ohio, has implemented
> Customer Specific Pricing (CSP), a practice where different prices are
> charged to each group of customers. Now the majority of all discounts
> available in the store only go to the identified top 30% of Dorothy Lane
> shoppers.
>
> After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated newspaper
> advertising and switched to an "in-store ad-sheet". Once they were able
to
> analyze their program data to determine who their most profitable
customers
> were they started mailing them exclusive offers while at the same time
> reducing the size of the discounts on their ad-sheet making them only
> marginally better than the regular prices.

<snipped>

This goes counter to common sense. Aren't low prices primarily a way to
attract new customers? And if someone is already a loyal customer why would
the store give up profit on them? They already shop at the store regularly.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Vox Humana" > wrote in message
...
> Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized prices
> Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses, just as we predicted
> Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain in Ohio, has implemented
> Customer Specific Pricing (CSP), a practice where different prices are
> charged to each group of customers. Now the majority of all discounts
> available in the store only go to the identified top 30% of Dorothy Lane
> shoppers.
>
> After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated newspaper
> advertising and switched to an "in-store ad-sheet". Once they were able
to
> analyze their program data to determine who their most profitable
customers
> were they started mailing them exclusive offers while at the same time
> reducing the size of the discounts on their ad-sheet making them only
> marginally better than the regular prices.

<snipped>

This goes counter to common sense. Aren't low prices primarily a way to
attract new customers? And if someone is already a loyal customer why would
the store give up profit on them? They already shop at the store regularly.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:39:16 -0500, sd > wrote:
> In article >, The Ranger > wrote:
> > As has been said oft enough but ingored before the sentence
> > is finished, if you don't like the store and it's cards, don't shop
> > there. There _are_ alternatives in every major city across the
> > world. Many of these same alternatives offer cheaper prices
> > and a more-specific set of merchandize to their clientele than
> > any of the larger chains.
> >
> I agree with you for the most part, but I still think there's a fairer
> way to reward loyalty. As a single person, I can't hope to compete
> for"best customer" if all they go by is register ring. I can do _all_
> my shopping at SuperMarket and chat them up big-time with my
> family and friends and all I get for my loyalty is a distant second
> behind someone who shows up most weeks and buys only half
> the groceries for their family of four or five? Now if their data
> mine was smart enough to normalize the ring against household size ....

I would bet this will be done in the future once the "public"
understands that Big Brother (those rilly-nasty insurance pigs, Da
Guv'mint, Black Ops Orgs, and cranky barristers all hand-holding as we
buy E-V-I-L foods and beverages) isn't going to use the data that's
mined.

Personally, I shop all over so I'd never be in that premier level,
either, so it's moot with me.

The Ranger
---
"Grits are akin to Elmer's Paste with less flavor and more sand."

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
.com...
> "Vox Humana" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized prices
> > Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses, just as we predicted
> > Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain in Ohio, has implemented
> > Customer Specific Pricing (CSP), a practice where different prices are
> > charged to each group of customers. Now the majority of all discounts
> > available in the store only go to the identified top 30% of Dorothy Lane
> > shoppers.
> >
> > After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated newspaper
> > advertising and switched to an "in-store ad-sheet". Once they were able
> to
> > analyze their program data to determine who their most profitable
> customers
> > were they started mailing them exclusive offers while at the same time
> > reducing the size of the discounts on their ad-sheet making them only
> > marginally better than the regular prices.
>
> <snipped>
>
> This goes counter to common sense. Aren't low prices primarily a way to
> attract new customers? And if someone is already a loyal customer why
would
> the store give up profit on them? They already shop at the store
regularly.

Maybe they don't want new customer, only bigger proffits. I have shopped at
Dorothy Lane Market. It caters to an elite crowd who buy lots of up-scale
items with big profit margins. If you can convince your loyal base that
they are getting an exclusive deal, but really give them the same price they
would have given the general public before implementing the loyalty card,
then you have lost nothing. That's how the cards work. You jack-up prices.
Then you give a discount to people who have a card. That "discount" still
results in a sales price higher than the everyday price at other stores.
For the very elite customers, you give them a few more cents off. The elite
base thinks they are "special" but in reality they could go to another store
and get the same item as the unwashed masses. What happens is that you
ultimately create a captive customer base. In order to get the same price
you would have received a couple of years ago without a loyalty card, you
will have to not only have a card, but you will have to purchase all your
groceries at one store in order be in the "elite" group. What you save with
the card on a few loss leaders will be more than lost on other items. But,
If you don't buy the gallon jug of Tide for $3.50 more than it costs at
Meijer, your peaches and chicken breasts will cost more because your total
purchases and your worth to the store will be less. So, not only does the
store end up charging you more, but they now have a database detailing all
your purchases and whether you think it is paranoid or not, there is a good
chance that the database will end up being used against you.

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
.com...
> "Vox Humana" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized prices
> > Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses, just as we predicted
> > Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain in Ohio, has implemented
> > Customer Specific Pricing (CSP), a practice where different prices are
> > charged to each group of customers. Now the majority of all discounts
> > available in the store only go to the identified top 30% of Dorothy Lane
> > shoppers.
> >
> > After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated newspaper
> > advertising and switched to an "in-store ad-sheet". Once they were able
> to
> > analyze their program data to determine who their most profitable
> customers
> > were they started mailing them exclusive offers while at the same time
> > reducing the size of the discounts on their ad-sheet making them only
> > marginally better than the regular prices.
>
> <snipped>
>
> This goes counter to common sense. Aren't low prices primarily a way to
> attract new customers? And if someone is already a loyal customer why
would
> the store give up profit on them? They already shop at the store
regularly.

Maybe they don't want new customer, only bigger proffits. I have shopped at
Dorothy Lane Market. It caters to an elite crowd who buy lots of up-scale
items with big profit margins. If you can convince your loyal base that
they are getting an exclusive deal, but really give them the same price they
would have given the general public before implementing the loyalty card,
then you have lost nothing. That's how the cards work. You jack-up prices.
Then you give a discount to people who have a card. That "discount" still
results in a sales price higher than the everyday price at other stores.
For the very elite customers, you give them a few more cents off. The elite
base thinks they are "special" but in reality they could go to another store
and get the same item as the unwashed masses. What happens is that you
ultimately create a captive customer base. In order to get the same price
you would have received a couple of years ago without a loyalty card, you
will have to not only have a card, but you will have to purchase all your
groceries at one store in order be in the "elite" group. What you save with
the card on a few loss leaders will be more than lost on other items. But,
If you don't buy the gallon jug of Tide for $3.50 more than it costs at
Meijer, your peaches and chicken breasts will cost more because your total
purchases and your worth to the store will be less. So, not only does the
store end up charging you more, but they now have a database detailing all
your purchases and whether you think it is paranoid or not, there is a good
chance that the database will end up being used against you.

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> Vox Humana > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized
> > prices
> > Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses,
> > [..] Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain
> > in Ohio, has implemented Customer Specific Pricing
> > (CSP), a practice where different prices are charged
> > to each group of customers. Now the majority of all
> > discounts available in the store only go to the identified
> > top 30% of Dorothy Lane shoppers.
> >
> > After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated
> > newspaper advertising and switched to an "in-store ad-sheet".
> [snip remaining paranoia]
>
> Ah. I understand. Customer loyalty -- beyond price -- is an E-V-I-L
> concept and implementing a rewards system for those customers that do
> more than shop the sales is wrong. Got it.
>
> As has been said oft enough but ingored before the sentence is
> finished, if you don't like the store and it's cards, don't shop
> there. There _are_ alternatives in every major city across the world.
> Many of these same alternatives offer cheaper prices and a
> more-specific set of merchandize to their clientele than any of the
> larger chains.
>
> Fer example: I do little shopping at Safeway anymore because of three
> basic reasons. 1) The Safeway customer card (for me-and-mine) doesn't
> work -- even on a limited basis nowadays; I don't find the items
> offered any cheaper than I can get them in bulk at several other
> retailers. 2) Corporate goes in [too often] and changes the
> merchandize on the aisles. I am a creature of habit; do not muck with
> my Habitrail. 3) I have six (that I'm aware) other stores (only one
> with a card system) that offer superior pricing on almost everything I
> was buying at Safeway. It was minor to adjust my weekly route
> accordingly and exclude Safeway. The 4th reason was a bonus; I started
> shopping the neighborhood ethnic groceries (an Indian, a Pakistani,
> two Mexican, one <I think> Portuguese).
>
> Paranoia has its place but not with this particular marketing
> "secret."

The problem with your approach is that it is destined for extinction. You
will ultimately not be able to find a store without a loyalty card. Once
stores start to segment their customer bases and assign pricing based on the
customer's worth to the store, you will have to either pay far more for an
item because you don't have a card or you flit from one store to another, or
you will buy all your items from one store. Once they have you, you will
ultimately pay more because there will be no incentive for you to switch to
another merchant. I don't see this as being paranoid. It is just reality.
It is being done already. In addition, that database will likely be used
both to increase profit because they will sell the list, and it will also be
likely to be used against you by the government or in civil litigation. The
only party that benefits from the card is the store.

"Vox Humana" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "The Ranger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Vox Humana > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized
> > > prices
> > > Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses,
> > > [..] Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain
> > > in Ohio, has implemented Customer Specific Pricing
> > > (CSP), a practice where different prices are charged
> > > to each group of customers. Now the majority of all
> > > discounts available in the store only go to the identified
> > > top 30% of Dorothy Lane shoppers.
> > >
> > > After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated
> > > newspaper advertising and switched to an "in-store ad-sheet".
> > [snip remaining paranoia]
> >
> > Ah. I understand. Customer loyalty -- beyond price -- is an E-V-I-L
> > concept and implementing a rewards system for those customers that do
> > more than shop the sales is wrong. Got it.
> >
> > As has been said oft enough but ingored before the sentence is
> > finished, if you don't like the store and it's cards, don't shop
> > there. There _are_ alternatives in every major city across the world.
> > Many of these same alternatives offer cheaper prices and a
> > more-specific set of merchandize to their clientele than any of the
> > larger chains.
> >
> > Fer example: I do little shopping at Safeway anymore because of three
> > basic reasons. 1) The Safeway customer card (for me-and-mine) doesn't
> > work -- even on a limited basis nowadays; I don't find the items
> > offered any cheaper than I can get them in bulk at several other
> > retailers. 2) Corporate goes in [too often] and changes the
> > merchandize on the aisles. I am a creature of habit; do not muck with
> > my Habitrail. 3) I have six (that I'm aware) other stores (only one
> > with a card system) that offer superior pricing on almost everything I
> > was buying at Safeway. It was minor to adjust my weekly route
> > accordingly and exclude Safeway. The 4th reason was a bonus; I started
> > shopping the neighborhood ethnic groceries (an Indian, a Pakistani,
> > two Mexican, one <I think> Portuguese).
> >
> > Paranoia has its place but not with this particular marketing
> > "secret."
>
> The problem with your approach is that it is destined for extinction. You
> will ultimately not be able to find a store without a loyalty card. Once
> stores start to segment their customer bases and assign pricing based on
the
> customer's worth to the store, you will have to either pay far more for an
> item because you don't have a card or you flit from one store to another,
or
> you will buy all your items from one store. Once they have you, you will
> ultimately pay more because there will be no incentive for you to switch
to
> another merchant. I don't see this as being paranoid. It is just
reality.
> It is being done already. In addition, that database will likely be used
> both to increase profit because they will sell the list, and it will also
be
> likely to be used against you by the government or in civil litigation.
The
> only party that benefits from the card is the store.
>
>

Your last statement is true in general, but from the persepective of the
individual consumer there is this choice: am I better off shopping at my
favorite market with their card or without it? I choose my store and what I
buy without reference to the card but even so I have saved about $150 this
year. As for your claim that "it will also be likely to be used against you
by the government or in civil litigation" I challenge you to provide any
evidence that this happens in more than a few isolated incidents, or at all
for that matter. This is what I mean by paranoid thinking - just because
something *could* happen does not mean that it will.

Peter Aitken

"Vox Humana" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "The Ranger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Vox Humana > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized
> > > prices
> > > Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses,
> > > [..] Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain
> > > in Ohio, has implemented Customer Specific Pricing
> > > (CSP), a practice where different prices are charged
> > > to each group of customers. Now the majority of all
> > > discounts available in the store only go to the identified
> > > top 30% of Dorothy Lane shoppers.
> > >
> > > After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated
> > > newspaper advertising and switched to an "in-store ad-sheet".
> > [snip remaining paranoia]
> >
> > Ah. I understand. Customer loyalty -- beyond price -- is an E-V-I-L
> > concept and implementing a rewards system for those customers that do
> > more than shop the sales is wrong. Got it.
> >
> > As has been said oft enough but ingored before the sentence is
> > finished, if you don't like the store and it's cards, don't shop
> > there. There _are_ alternatives in every major city across the world.
> > Many of these same alternatives offer cheaper prices and a
> > more-specific set of merchandize to their clientele than any of the
> > larger chains.
> >
> > Fer example: I do little shopping at Safeway anymore because of three
> > basic reasons. 1) The Safeway customer card (for me-and-mine) doesn't
> > work -- even on a limited basis nowadays; I don't find the items
> > offered any cheaper than I can get them in bulk at several other
> > retailers. 2) Corporate goes in [too often] and changes the
> > merchandize on the aisles. I am a creature of habit; do not muck with
> > my Habitrail. 3) I have six (that I'm aware) other stores (only one
> > with a card system) that offer superior pricing on almost everything I
> > was buying at Safeway. It was minor to adjust my weekly route
> > accordingly and exclude Safeway. The 4th reason was a bonus; I started
> > shopping the neighborhood ethnic groceries (an Indian, a Pakistani,
> > two Mexican, one <I think> Portuguese).
> >
> > Paranoia has its place but not with this particular marketing
> > "secret."
>
> The problem with your approach is that it is destined for extinction. You
> will ultimately not be able to find a store without a loyalty card. Once
> stores start to segment their customer bases and assign pricing based on
the
> customer's worth to the store, you will have to either pay far more for an
> item because you don't have a card or you flit from one store to another,
or
> you will buy all your items from one store. Once they have you, you will
> ultimately pay more because there will be no incentive for you to switch
to
> another merchant. I don't see this as being paranoid. It is just
reality.
> It is being done already. In addition, that database will likely be used
> both to increase profit because they will sell the list, and it will also
be
> likely to be used against you by the government or in civil litigation.
The
> only party that benefits from the card is the store.
>
>

Your last statement is true in general, but from the persepective of the
individual consumer there is this choice: am I better off shopping at my
favorite market with their card or without it? I choose my store and what I
buy without reference to the card but even so I have saved about $150 this
year. As for your claim that "it will also be likely to be used against you
by the government or in civil litigation" I challenge you to provide any
evidence that this happens in more than a few isolated incidents, or at all
for that matter. This is what I mean by paranoid thinking - just because
something *could* happen does not mean that it will.

Peter Aitken

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:12:32 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
replied to Peter Aiken's questions:
[snip]
> > This goes counter to common sense. Aren't low prices
> > primarily a way to attract new customers? And if
> > someone is already a loyal customer why would
> > the store give up profit on them? They already
> > shop at the store regularly.
> >
> Maybe they don't want new customer,
[snip]

Right... There isn't a business in the world that can survive on an
existing customer base without having to continually add to it.

> only bigger proffits.

Oh no! There's that most E-V-I-L of raison d'êtres; "PROFIT."

Vox, ya gotta do better than the simple-minded, sophomoric scare
tactics you've been attempting.

The "Card-Using When Necessary" Ranger

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:23:09 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
countered after I > wrote in message
:
> > > Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized
> > > prices
> > > Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses,
> > > [..] Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain
> > > in Ohio, has implemented Customer Specific Pricing
> > > (CSP), a practice where different prices are charged
> > > to each group of customers. Now the majority of all
> > > discounts available in the store only go to the identified
> > > top 30% of Dorothy Lane shoppers.
> > >
> > > After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated
> > > newspaper advertising and switched to an "in-store
> > > ad-sheet".
> > [snip remaining paranoia]
> >
> > Ah. I understand. Customer loyalty -- beyond price -- is an
> > E-V-I-L concept and implementing a rewards system for
> > those customers that do more than shop the sales is wrong.
> > Got it.
> >
> > As has been said oft enough but ingored before the sentence
> > is finished, if you don't like the store and it's cards, don't shop
> > there. There _are_ alternatives in every major city across the
> > world. Many of these same alternatives offer cheaper prices
> > and a more-specific set of merchandize to their clientele than
> > any of the larger chains.
> >
> > Fer example: I do little shopping at Safeway anymore because
> > of three basic reasons. 1) The Safeway customer card (for
> > me-and-mine) doesn't work -- even on a limited basis nowadays;
> > I don't find the items offered any cheaper than I can get them
> > in bulk at several other retailers. 2) Corporate goes in [too
> > often] and changes the merchandize on the aisles. I am a
> > creature of habit; do not muck with my Habitrail. 3) I have
> > six (that I'm aware) other stores (only one with a card system)
> > that offer superior pricing on almost everything I was buying
> > at Safeway. It was minor to adjust my weekly route accordingly
> > and exclude Safeway. The 4th reason was a bonus; I started
> > shopping the neighborhood ethnic groceries (an Indian, a
> > Pakistani, two Mexican, one <I think> Portuguese).
> >
> > Paranoia has its place but not with this particular marketing
> > "secret."
>
> The problem with your approach is that it is destined for extinction.
> You will ultimately not be able to find a store without a loyalty card.
> Once stores start to segment their customer bases and assign
> pricing based on the customer's worth to the store, you will have
> to either pay far more for an item because you don't have a card
> or you flit from one store to another, or you will buy all your items
> from one store. Once they have you, you will ultimately pay more
> because there will be no incentive for you to switch to another
> merchant. I don't see this as being paranoid. It is just reality.
> It is being done already. In addition, that database will likely be
> used both to increase profit because they will sell the list, and
> it will also be likely to be used against you by the government
> or in civil litigation. The only party that benefits from the card
> is the store.
>
Nonsense and poppycock; "destined to extinction." The databases were
there prior to card systems they'll be there long after the next
data-mining trick surfaces. The only differences between when my
Sainted Mother(tm) shopped and my shopping nowadays is the subtlety
that is employed at utilizing that data.

As far as pinning what I purchase to potential litigation... Your
house of cards is built on supposition and prognostication, nothing
more. That is as far from "reality" as you can get.

The Ranger

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:23:09 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
countered after I > wrote in message
:
> > > Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized
> > > prices
> > > Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses,
> > > [..] Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain
> > > in Ohio, has implemented Customer Specific Pricing
> > > (CSP), a practice where different prices are charged
> > > to each group of customers. Now the majority of all
> > > discounts available in the store only go to the identified
> > > top 30% of Dorothy Lane shoppers.
> > >
> > > After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated
> > > newspaper advertising and switched to an "in-store
> > > ad-sheet".
> > [snip remaining paranoia]
> >
> > Ah. I understand. Customer loyalty -- beyond price -- is an
> > E-V-I-L concept and implementing a rewards system for
> > those customers that do more than shop the sales is wrong.
> > Got it.
> >
> > As has been said oft enough but ingored before the sentence
> > is finished, if you don't like the store and it's cards, don't shop
> > there. There _are_ alternatives in every major city across the
> > world. Many of these same alternatives offer cheaper prices
> > and a more-specific set of merchandize to their clientele than
> > any of the larger chains.
> >
> > Fer example: I do little shopping at Safeway anymore because
> > of three basic reasons. 1) The Safeway customer card (for
> > me-and-mine) doesn't work -- even on a limited basis nowadays;
> > I don't find the items offered any cheaper than I can get them
> > in bulk at several other retailers. 2) Corporate goes in [too
> > often] and changes the merchandize on the aisles. I am a
> > creature of habit; do not muck with my Habitrail. 3) I have
> > six (that I'm aware) other stores (only one with a card system)
> > that offer superior pricing on almost everything I was buying
> > at Safeway. It was minor to adjust my weekly route accordingly
> > and exclude Safeway. The 4th reason was a bonus; I started
> > shopping the neighborhood ethnic groceries (an Indian, a
> > Pakistani, two Mexican, one <I think> Portuguese).
> >
> > Paranoia has its place but not with this particular marketing
> > "secret."
>
> The problem with your approach is that it is destined for extinction.
> You will ultimately not be able to find a store without a loyalty card.
> Once stores start to segment their customer bases and assign
> pricing based on the customer's worth to the store, you will have
> to either pay far more for an item because you don't have a card
> or you flit from one store to another, or you will buy all your items
> from one store. Once they have you, you will ultimately pay more
> because there will be no incentive for you to switch to another
> merchant. I don't see this as being paranoid. It is just reality.
> It is being done already. In addition, that database will likely be
> used both to increase profit because they will sell the list, and
> it will also be likely to be used against you by the government
> or in civil litigation. The only party that benefits from the card
> is the store.
>
Nonsense and poppycock; "destined to extinction." The databases were
there prior to card systems they'll be there long after the next
data-mining trick surfaces. The only differences between when my
Sainted Mother(tm) shopped and my shopping nowadays is the subtlety
that is employed at utilizing that data.

As far as pinning what I purchase to potential litigation... Your
house of cards is built on supposition and prognostication, nothing
more. That is as far from "reality" as you can get.

The Ranger

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
.com...
> "Vox Humana" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "The Ranger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Vox Humana > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized
> > > > prices
> > > > Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses,
> > > > [..] Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain
> > > > in Ohio, has implemented Customer Specific Pricing
> > > > (CSP), a practice where different prices are charged
> > > > to each group of customers. Now the majority of all
> > > > discounts available in the store only go to the identified
> > > > top 30% of Dorothy Lane shoppers.
> > > >
> > > > After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated
> > > > newspaper advertising and switched to an "in-store ad-sheet".
> > > [snip remaining paranoia]
> > >
> > > Ah. I understand. Customer loyalty -- beyond price -- is an E-V-I-L
> > > concept and implementing a rewards system for those customers that do
> > > more than shop the sales is wrong. Got it.
> > >
> > > As has been said oft enough but ingored before the sentence is
> > > finished, if you don't like the store and it's cards, don't shop
> > > there. There _are_ alternatives in every major city across the world.
> > > Many of these same alternatives offer cheaper prices and a
> > > more-specific set of merchandize to their clientele than any of the
> > > larger chains.
> > >
> > > Fer example: I do little shopping at Safeway anymore because of three
> > > basic reasons. 1) The Safeway customer card (for me-and-mine) doesn't
> > > work -- even on a limited basis nowadays; I don't find the items
> > > offered any cheaper than I can get them in bulk at several other
> > > retailers. 2) Corporate goes in [too often] and changes the
> > > merchandize on the aisles. I am a creature of habit; do not muck with
> > > my Habitrail. 3) I have six (that I'm aware) other stores (only one
> > > with a card system) that offer superior pricing on almost everything I
> > > was buying at Safeway. It was minor to adjust my weekly route
> > > accordingly and exclude Safeway. The 4th reason was a bonus; I started
> > > shopping the neighborhood ethnic groceries (an Indian, a Pakistani,
> > > two Mexican, one <I think> Portuguese).
> > >
> > > Paranoia has its place but not with this particular marketing
> > > "secret."
> >
> > The problem with your approach is that it is destined for extinction.
You
> > will ultimately not be able to find a store without a loyalty card.
Once
> > stores start to segment their customer bases and assign pricing based on
> the
> > customer's worth to the store, you will have to either pay far more for
an
> > item because you don't have a card or you flit from one store to
another,
> or
> > you will buy all your items from one store. Once they have you, you
will
> > ultimately pay more because there will be no incentive for you to switch
> to
> > another merchant. I don't see this as being paranoid. It is just
> reality.
> > It is being done already. In addition, that database will likely be
used
> > both to increase profit because they will sell the list, and it will
also
> be
> > likely to be used against you by the government or in civil litigation.
> The
> > only party that benefits from the card is the store.
> >
> >
>
> Your last statement is true in general, but from the persepective of the
> individual consumer there is this choice: am I better off shopping at my
> favorite market with their card or without it? I choose my store and what
I
> buy without reference to the card but even so I have saved about $150 this
> year. As for your claim that "it will also be likely to be used against
you
> by the government or in civil litigation" I challenge you to provide any
> evidence that this happens in more than a few isolated incidents, or at
all
> for that matter. This is what I mean by paranoid thinking - just because
> something *could* happen does not mean that it will.
>

I used the word "likely" because that is my opinion. It is an opinion based
both on the realities of past government abuse and an announced intention by
our government to harvest data under a program headed by Admiral Poindexter,
originally called Total Information Awareness. We live in a county that put
people in internment camps due only to their nationality. We had people
black-listed and spied on by our government during the McCarthy era. Ever
hear of J. Edgar Hoover? Our own president had people break into the DNC
offices to gather data. If they will send burglars to get records form the
opposition and steal your psychiatric records to use against you, why
wouldn't it be reasonable to expect them to look at your shopping habits?
The only reason they stopped CAPSII is because people found out about it and
objected. I think that because it *HAS* happened in the past that it *WILL*
happen in the future. Unfortunately under the Patriot Act, they don't even
have to go to a judge for a search warrant. Neither are the people they get
the data from (phone company, ISP, library, cable company, etc.) allowed to
inform you that they turned over the records. Under that arrangement it
would be possible for the government to gather information without your
every knowing. Therefore that no one can provide you with data to prove
this is happening doesn't mean anything except that maybe the Patriot act's
prohibition against disclosure is effective. If you aren't familiar with the
Total Information Awareness program, you might want to look into it. I
think is might be paranoid to say that the government urged companies to
collect data on customers. It isn't paranoid to think that the government
might used existing databases.

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
.com...
> "Vox Humana" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "The Ranger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Vox Humana > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized
> > > > prices
> > > > Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses,
> > > > [..] Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain
> > > > in Ohio, has implemented Customer Specific Pricing
> > > > (CSP), a practice where different prices are charged
> > > > to each group of customers. Now the majority of all
> > > > discounts available in the store only go to the identified
> > > > top 30% of Dorothy Lane shoppers.
> > > >
> > > > After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated
> > > > newspaper advertising and switched to an "in-store ad-sheet".
> > > [snip remaining paranoia]
> > >
> > > Ah. I understand. Customer loyalty -- beyond price -- is an E-V-I-L
> > > concept and implementing a rewards system for those customers that do
> > > more than shop the sales is wrong. Got it.
> > >
> > > As has been said oft enough but ingored before the sentence is
> > > finished, if you don't like the store and it's cards, don't shop
> > > there. There _are_ alternatives in every major city across the world.
> > > Many of these same alternatives offer cheaper prices and a
> > > more-specific set of merchandize to their clientele than any of the
> > > larger chains.
> > >
> > > Fer example: I do little shopping at Safeway anymore because of three
> > > basic reasons. 1) The Safeway customer card (for me-and-mine) doesn't
> > > work -- even on a limited basis nowadays; I don't find the items
> > > offered any cheaper than I can get them in bulk at several other
> > > retailers. 2) Corporate goes in [too often] and changes the
> > > merchandize on the aisles. I am a creature of habit; do not muck with
> > > my Habitrail. 3) I have six (that I'm aware) other stores (only one
> > > with a card system) that offer superior pricing on almost everything I
> > > was buying at Safeway. It was minor to adjust my weekly route
> > > accordingly and exclude Safeway. The 4th reason was a bonus; I started
> > > shopping the neighborhood ethnic groceries (an Indian, a Pakistani,
> > > two Mexican, one <I think> Portuguese).
> > >
> > > Paranoia has its place but not with this particular marketing
> > > "secret."
> >
> > The problem with your approach is that it is destined for extinction.
You
> > will ultimately not be able to find a store without a loyalty card.
Once
> > stores start to segment their customer bases and assign pricing based on
> the
> > customer's worth to the store, you will have to either pay far more for
an
> > item because you don't have a card or you flit from one store to
another,
> or
> > you will buy all your items from one store. Once they have you, you
will
> > ultimately pay more because there will be no incentive for you to switch
> to
> > another merchant. I don't see this as being paranoid. It is just
> reality.
> > It is being done already. In addition, that database will likely be
used
> > both to increase profit because they will sell the list, and it will
also
> be
> > likely to be used against you by the government or in civil litigation.
> The
> > only party that benefits from the card is the store.
> >
> >
>
> Your last statement is true in general, but from the persepective of the
> individual consumer there is this choice: am I better off shopping at my
> favorite market with their card or without it? I choose my store and what
I
> buy without reference to the card but even so I have saved about $150 this
> year. As for your claim that "it will also be likely to be used against
you
> by the government or in civil litigation" I challenge you to provide any
> evidence that this happens in more than a few isolated incidents, or at
all
> for that matter. This is what I mean by paranoid thinking - just because
> something *could* happen does not mean that it will.
>

I used the word "likely" because that is my opinion. It is an opinion based
both on the realities of past government abuse and an announced intention by
our government to harvest data under a program headed by Admiral Poindexter,
originally called Total Information Awareness. We live in a county that put
people in internment camps due only to their nationality. We had people
black-listed and spied on by our government during the McCarthy era. Ever
hear of J. Edgar Hoover? Our own president had people break into the DNC
offices to gather data. If they will send burglars to get records form the
opposition and steal your psychiatric records to use against you, why
wouldn't it be reasonable to expect them to look at your shopping habits?
The only reason they stopped CAPSII is because people found out about it and
objected. I think that because it *HAS* happened in the past that it *WILL*
happen in the future. Unfortunately under the Patriot Act, they don't even
have to go to a judge for a search warrant. Neither are the people they get
the data from (phone company, ISP, library, cable company, etc.) allowed to
inform you that they turned over the records. Under that arrangement it
would be possible for the government to gather information without your
every knowing. Therefore that no one can provide you with data to prove
this is happening doesn't mean anything except that maybe the Patriot act's
prohibition against disclosure is effective. If you aren't familiar with the
Total Information Awareness program, you might want to look into it. I
think is might be paranoid to say that the government urged companies to
collect data on customers. It isn't paranoid to think that the government
might used existing databases.

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:23:09 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
> countered after I > wrote in message
> :
> > > > Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized
> > > > prices
> > > > Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses,
> > > > [..] Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain
> > > > in Ohio, has implemented Customer Specific Pricing
> > > > (CSP), a practice where different prices are charged
> > > > to each group of customers. Now the majority of all
> > > > discounts available in the store only go to the identified
> > > > top 30% of Dorothy Lane shoppers.
> > > >
> > > > After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated
> > > > newspaper advertising and switched to an "in-store
> > > > ad-sheet".
> > > [snip remaining paranoia]
> > >
> > > Ah. I understand. Customer loyalty -- beyond price -- is an
> > > E-V-I-L concept and implementing a rewards system for
> > > those customers that do more than shop the sales is wrong.
> > > Got it.
> > >
> > > As has been said oft enough but ingored before the sentence
> > > is finished, if you don't like the store and it's cards, don't shop
> > > there. There _are_ alternatives in every major city across the
> > > world. Many of these same alternatives offer cheaper prices
> > > and a more-specific set of merchandize to their clientele than
> > > any of the larger chains.
> > >
> > > Fer example: I do little shopping at Safeway anymore because
> > > of three basic reasons. 1) The Safeway customer card (for
> > > me-and-mine) doesn't work -- even on a limited basis nowadays;
> > > I don't find the items offered any cheaper than I can get them
> > > in bulk at several other retailers. 2) Corporate goes in [too
> > > often] and changes the merchandize on the aisles. I am a
> > > creature of habit; do not muck with my Habitrail. 3) I have
> > > six (that I'm aware) other stores (only one with a card system)
> > > that offer superior pricing on almost everything I was buying
> > > at Safeway. It was minor to adjust my weekly route accordingly
> > > and exclude Safeway. The 4th reason was a bonus; I started
> > > shopping the neighborhood ethnic groceries (an Indian, a
> > > Pakistani, two Mexican, one <I think> Portuguese).
> > >
> > > Paranoia has its place but not with this particular marketing
> > > "secret."
> >
> > The problem with your approach is that it is destined for extinction.
> > You will ultimately not be able to find a store without a loyalty card.
> > Once stores start to segment their customer bases and assign
> > pricing based on the customer's worth to the store, you will have
> > to either pay far more for an item because you don't have a card
> > or you flit from one store to another, or you will buy all your items
> > from one store. Once they have you, you will ultimately pay more
> > because there will be no incentive for you to switch to another
> > merchant. I don't see this as being paranoid. It is just reality.
> > It is being done already. In addition, that database will likely be
> > used both to increase profit because they will sell the list, and
> > it will also be likely to be used against you by the government
> > or in civil litigation. The only party that benefits from the card
> > is the store.
> >
> Nonsense and poppycock; "destined to extinction." The databases were
> there prior to card systems they'll be there long after the next
> data-mining trick surfaces. The only differences between when my
> Sainted Mother(tm) shopped and my shopping nowadays is the subtlety
> that is employed at utilizing that data.
>
> As far as pinning what I purchase to potential litigation... Your
> house of cards is built on supposition and prognostication, nothing
> more. That is as far from "reality" as you can get.

I'm sure that's how the Jews felt before they were rounded-up.

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:23:09 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
> countered after I > wrote in message
> :
> > > > Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized
> > > > prices
> > > > Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses,
> > > > [..] Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain
> > > > in Ohio, has implemented Customer Specific Pricing
> > > > (CSP), a practice where different prices are charged
> > > > to each group of customers. Now the majority of all
> > > > discounts available in the store only go to the identified
> > > > top 30% of Dorothy Lane shoppers.
> > > >
> > > > After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated
> > > > newspaper advertising and switched to an "in-store
> > > > ad-sheet".
> > > [snip remaining paranoia]
> > >
> > > Ah. I understand. Customer loyalty -- beyond price -- is an
> > > E-V-I-L concept and implementing a rewards system for
> > > those customers that do more than shop the sales is wrong.
> > > Got it.
> > >
> > > As has been said oft enough but ingored before the sentence
> > > is finished, if you don't like the store and it's cards, don't shop
> > > there. There _are_ alternatives in every major city across the
> > > world. Many of these same alternatives offer cheaper prices
> > > and a more-specific set of merchandize to their clientele than
> > > any of the larger chains.
> > >
> > > Fer example: I do little shopping at Safeway anymore because
> > > of three basic reasons. 1) The Safeway customer card (for
> > > me-and-mine) doesn't work -- even on a limited basis nowadays;
> > > I don't find the items offered any cheaper than I can get them
> > > in bulk at several other retailers. 2) Corporate goes in [too
> > > often] and changes the merchandize on the aisles. I am a
> > > creature of habit; do not muck with my Habitrail. 3) I have
> > > six (that I'm aware) other stores (only one with a card system)
> > > that offer superior pricing on almost everything I was buying
> > > at Safeway. It was minor to adjust my weekly route accordingly
> > > and exclude Safeway. The 4th reason was a bonus; I started
> > > shopping the neighborhood ethnic groceries (an Indian, a
> > > Pakistani, two Mexican, one <I think> Portuguese).
> > >
> > > Paranoia has its place but not with this particular marketing
> > > "secret."
> >
> > The problem with your approach is that it is destined for extinction.
> > You will ultimately not be able to find a store without a loyalty card.
> > Once stores start to segment their customer bases and assign
> > pricing based on the customer's worth to the store, you will have
> > to either pay far more for an item because you don't have a card
> > or you flit from one store to another, or you will buy all your items
> > from one store. Once they have you, you will ultimately pay more
> > because there will be no incentive for you to switch to another
> > merchant. I don't see this as being paranoid. It is just reality.
> > It is being done already. In addition, that database will likely be
> > used both to increase profit because they will sell the list, and
> > it will also be likely to be used against you by the government
> > or in civil litigation. The only party that benefits from the card
> > is the store.
> >
> Nonsense and poppycock; "destined to extinction." The databases were
> there prior to card systems they'll be there long after the next
> data-mining trick surfaces. The only differences between when my
> Sainted Mother(tm) shopped and my shopping nowadays is the subtlety
> that is employed at utilizing that data.
>
> As far as pinning what I purchase to potential litigation... Your
> house of cards is built on supposition and prognostication, nothing
> more. That is as far from "reality" as you can get.

I'm sure that's how the Jews felt before they were rounded-up.

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:23:09 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
> countered after I > wrote in message
> :
> > > > Ohio grocer "segments" shoppers with personalized
> > > > prices
> > > > Shopper card data being put to discriminatory uses,
> > > > [..] Dorothy Lane Market, an upscale grocery chain
> > > > in Ohio, has implemented Customer Specific Pricing
> > > > (CSP), a practice where different prices are charged
> > > > to each group of customers. Now the majority of all
> > > > discounts available in the store only go to the identified
> > > > top 30% of Dorothy Lane shoppers.
> > > >
> > > > After starting their card program, Dorothy Lane eliminated
> > > > newspaper advertising and switched to an "in-store
> > > > ad-sheet".
> > > [snip remaining paranoia]
> > >
> > > Ah. I understand. Customer loyalty -- beyond price -- is an
> > > E-V-I-L concept and implementing a rewards system for
> > > those customers that do more than shop the sales is wrong.
> > > Got it.
> > >
> > > As has been said oft enough but ingored before the sentence
> > > is finished, if you don't like the store and it's cards, don't shop
> > > there. There _are_ alternatives in every major city across the
> > > world. Many of these same alternatives offer cheaper prices
> > > and a more-specific set of merchandize to their clientele than
> > > any of the larger chains.
> > >
> > > Fer example: I do little shopping at Safeway anymore because
> > > of three basic reasons. 1) The Safeway customer card (for
> > > me-and-mine) doesn't work -- even on a limited basis nowadays;
> > > I don't find the items offered any cheaper than I can get them
> > > in bulk at several other retailers. 2) Corporate goes in [too
> > > often] and changes the merchandize on the aisles. I am a
> > > creature of habit; do not muck with my Habitrail. 3) I have
> > > six (that I'm aware) other stores (only one with a card system)
> > > that offer superior pricing on almost everything I was buying
> > > at Safeway. It was minor to adjust my weekly route accordingly
> > > and exclude Safeway. The 4th reason was a bonus; I started
> > > shopping the neighborhood ethnic groceries (an Indian, a
> > > Pakistani, two Mexican, one <I think> Portuguese).
> > >
> > > Paranoia has its place but not with this particular marketing
> > > "secret."
> >
> > The problem with your approach is that it is destined for extinction.
> > You will ultimately not be able to find a store without a loyalty card.
> > Once stores start to segment their customer bases and assign
> > pricing based on the customer's worth to the store, you will have
> > to either pay far more for an item because you don't have a card
> > or you flit from one store to another, or you will buy all your items
> > from one store. Once they have you, you will ultimately pay more
> > because there will be no incentive for you to switch to another
> > merchant. I don't see this as being paranoid. It is just reality.
> > It is being done already. In addition, that database will likely be
> > used both to increase profit because they will sell the list, and
> > it will also be likely to be used against you by the government
> > or in civil litigation. The only party that benefits from the card
> > is the store.
> >
> Nonsense and poppycock; "destined to extinction." The databases were
> there prior to card systems they'll be there long after the next
> data-mining trick surfaces. The only differences between when my
> Sainted Mother(tm) shopped and my shopping nowadays is the subtlety
> that is employed at utilizing that data.
>
> As far as pinning what I purchase to potential litigation... Your
> house of cards is built on supposition and prognostication, nothing
> more. That is as far from "reality" as you can get.

I'm sure that's how the Jews felt before they were rounded-up.

Vox Humana > threw a hissy-fit through message
.. .
[snip ****y one-line response]

Invoking Godwin's Law to close down the discussion on your wild
theories does not bolster your cause nor add substance to your
already flawed ramblings.

"You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you absolutely
have been found wanting. Welcome to the new world. God save you, if
it is right that He should do so."

The Ranger
===
"In what world could you have possibly beat me?"

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> Vox Humana > threw a hissy-fit through message
> .. .
> [snip ****y one-line response]
>
> Invoking Godwin's Law to close down the discussion on your wild
> theories does not bolster your cause nor add substance to your
> already flawed ramblings.
>

Very well, I guess that just because the government said it intended to
collect shopping information about citizens is no reason to think that it
will. I don't know why I didn't come to that conclusion earlier nor do I
know why I though they might collect shopping information from databases of
shopping information.

EGAD !!

Airlines have been doing this forever.

I'm sure that no two passengers pay the same price for tickets.



On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:37:32 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
wrote:
>
>"A customer would be able to point a key fob at an electronic label and it
>would flash back a specific price based on that customer's value to the
>store."
>
>It's important to keep in mind that most supermarket discounts are not given
>by the store; they are given by the manufacturer. Not only do the stores
>profit by denying sale prices to the "bottom tier" of customers, they are
>profiting off the manufacturers as well by keeping the difference.
>
>For more information on pricing issues see our "pricing overview" page. For
>more information on Dorothy Lane Markets' CSP practices, see Brian Woolfs
>new book Loyalty Marketing: The Second Act.
>
>http://www.nocards.org/news/archive1.shtml
>

<rj>

EGAD !!

Airlines have been doing this forever.

I'm sure that no two passengers pay the same price for tickets.



On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:37:32 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
wrote:
>
>"A customer would be able to point a key fob at an electronic label and it
>would flash back a specific price based on that customer's value to the
>store."
>
>It's important to keep in mind that most supermarket discounts are not given
>by the store; they are given by the manufacturer. Not only do the stores
>profit by denying sale prices to the "bottom tier" of customers, they are
>profiting off the manufacturers as well by keeping the difference.
>
>For more information on pricing issues see our "pricing overview" page. For
>more information on Dorothy Lane Markets' CSP practices, see Brian Woolfs
>new book Loyalty Marketing: The Second Act.
>
>http://www.nocards.org/news/archive1.shtml
>

<rj>

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:18:56 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
replied after I > accused him in message
...
> > Vox Humana > threw a hissy-fit through message
> > .. .
> > [snip ****y one-line response]
> >
> > Invoking Godwin's Law to close down the discussion on your wild
> > theories does not bolster your cause nor add substance to your
> > already flawed ramblings.
> >
> I guess [..] I don't know [..]

This sums up exactly what you _do_ know about data mining and how it
will be used.

The Ranger
--
We're decaf drinkers, and most restaurant decaf is like hot water with
a brown crayon dipped in it. This coffee was no different.
Tim Dietz, sdnet.eats, 1140, 6/3/03

"<RJ>" > wrote in message
...
>
> EGAD !!
>
> Airlines have been doing this forever.
>
> I'm sure that no two passengers pay the same price for tickets.

There is a difference. Airlines offer tickets based on a load management
calculation as well as market conditions. You may pay one price at
Travelocity, another on the air website, and still another price on
Priceline. A consolidator may charge still a lower price. All people who
call the carrier's reservation center or book via their website are offered
the same fare. The same goes for people who buy at Travelocity.

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:18:56 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
> replied after I > accused him in message
> ...
> > > Vox Humana > threw a hissy-fit through message
> > > .. .
> > > [snip ****y one-line response]
> > >
> > > Invoking Godwin's Law to close down the discussion on your wild
> > > theories does not bolster your cause nor add substance to your
> > > already flawed ramblings.
> > >
> > I guess [..] I don't know [..]
>
> This sums up exactly what you _do_ know about data mining and how it
> will be used.
>

I do know that when people snip relevant portions of messages and simply
make a snide comment that they can't honestly address the issue.

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:18:56 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
> replied after I > accused him in message
> ...
> > > Vox Humana > threw a hissy-fit through message
> > > .. .
> > > [snip ****y one-line response]
> > >
> > > Invoking Godwin's Law to close down the discussion on your wild
> > > theories does not bolster your cause nor add substance to your
> > > already flawed ramblings.
> > >
> > I guess [..] I don't know [..]
>
> This sums up exactly what you _do_ know about data mining and how it
> will be used.
>

I do know that when people snip relevant portions of messages and simply
make a snide comment that they can't honestly address the issue.

Vox Humana wrote:
> "The Ranger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Vox Humana > threw a hissy-fit through message
>> .. .
>> [snip ****y one-line response]
>>
>> Invoking Godwin's Law to close down the discussion on your wild
>> theories does not bolster your cause nor add substance to your
>> already flawed ramblings.
>>
>
> Very well, I guess that just because the government said it intended to
> collect shopping information about citizens is no reason to think that it
> will. I don't know why I didn't come to that conclusion earlier nor do I
> know why I though they might collect shopping information from databases of
> shopping information.

Just for you:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

" BOB" > wrote in message
...
> Vox Humana wrote:
> > "The Ranger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Vox Humana > threw a hissy-fit through message
> >> .. .
> >> [snip ****y one-line response]
> >>
> >> Invoking Godwin's Law to close down the discussion on your wild
> >> theories does not bolster your cause nor add substance to your
> >> already flawed ramblings.
> >>
> >
> > Very well, I guess that just because the government said it intended to
> > collect shopping information about citizens is no reason to think that
it
> > will. I don't know why I didn't come to that conclusion earlier nor do
I
> > know why I though they might collect shopping information from databases
of
> > shopping information.
>
> Just for you:
> http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

And for you:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0230/baard.php


Your Grocery List Could Spark a Terror Probe
Buying Trouble
by Erik Baard
July 24 - 30, 2002

In Focus: The Attack on Civil Liberties

They thought they were making routine purchases—the innocent, everyday
pickups of charcoal and hummus, bleach and sandwich bags, that keep the
modern household running. Regulars at a national grocery chain, these
thousands and thousands of shoppers used the store's preferred-customer
cards, in the process putting years of their lives on file. Perhaps they
expected their records would be used by marketers trying to better target
consumers. Instead, says the company's privacy consultant, the data was used
by government agents hunting for potential terrorists.

The saga began with a misguided fit of patriotism mere weeks after the World
Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, when a corporate employee handed over the
records—almost literally, the grocery lists—to federal investigators from
three agencies that had never even requested them. In a flash, the most
quotidian of exchanges became fodder for the Patriot Act.

When the company's legal counsel discovered the breach, she turned for
advice to Larry Ponemon, CEO of the consulting firm Privacy Council and a
former business ethics professor at Babson College and SUNY. "I told her
it's better to be transparent," Ponemon recalls. "Send a notice to loyalty
cardholders telling them what happened. She agreed and presented that to the
board but they said, 'No, we don't want to hand a smoking gun to
litigators.' " The attorney, who has since resigned from the grocery chain,
declined through Ponemon to be interviewed or to identify herself or her
former employer. To this day, the customers haven't been informed.

"It wasn't a case of law enforcement being egregiously intrusive or an evil
agency planting a bug or wiretap. It was a marketing person saying, 'Maybe
this will help you catch a bad guy,' " Ponemon says.

As John Ashcroft's Citizens Corps spy program prepares for its debut next
month, it seems scores of American companies have already become willing
snitches. A few months ago, the Privacy Council surveyed executives from 22
companies in the travel industry—not just airlines but hotels, car rental
services, and travel agencies—and found that 64 percent of respondents had
turned over information to investigators and 59 percent had lowered their
resistance to such demands. In that sampling, conducted with The Boston
Globe, half of the businesses said they hadn't decided if they'd inform
customers of the change, and more than a third said outright that they
wouldn't. Only three said they would go public about the level of their
cooperation with law enforcement.

The final destination of all that data scares Ponemon and other civil
libertarians, defenders of the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable
search and seizure. Ponemon, for one, suggests federal authorities are
plugging the information into algorithms, using the complex formulas to
create a picture of general-population trends that can be contrasted with
the lifestyles of known terrorists. If your habits match, expect further
scrutiny at the least.

"I can't reveal my source, but a federal agency involved in espionage
actually did a rating system of almost every citizen in this country,"
Ponemon claims. "It was based on all sorts of information—public sources,
private sources. If people are not opted in"—meaning they haven't chosen to
participate—"one can generally assume that information was gathered through
an illegal system."

After crunching those numbers through the algorithm, he says, its creators
fed in the files of the 9-11 terrorists as a test. "The model showed 89.7
percent accuracy 'predicting' these people from rest of population," Ponemon
reports.

Oddly enough, "one of the factors was if you were a person who frequently
ordered pizza and paid with a credit card," Ponemon says, describing the
buying habits of a nation of college students. "Sometimes data leads to an
empirical inference when you add it to other variables. Whether this one is
relevant or completely spurious remains to be seen, but those kinds of weird
things happen with data."


The thirst for consumer records is bipartisan. In April, Bill Clinton told
the BBC that when it comes to fighting terrorism, "more than 95 percent of
the people that are in the United States at any given time are in the
computers of companies that mail junk mail, and you can look for patterns
there."

Katherine Albrecht, a crusader against grocery loyalty cards and invasive
marketing, notes in a paper to be published in the Denver Law Review,
"Virginia Congressmen Jim Moran (D-VA) and Tom Davis (R-VA) recently
introduced legislation that would require all states' driver's licenses and
ID cards to contain an embedded computer chip capable of accepting 'data or
software written to the license or card by non-governmental devices.' " The
mandatory "smart chips" would carry bank and debit card data so that
citizens could use their ID cards "for a variety of commercial
applications." Even library records, shopping coupons, and health records
could be stored on the chips.

Adding to this vision of technological dystopia, companies are already
developing cameras and other scanners that can seamlessly trace individuals
as they wander through stores, going so far as to zoom in on their faces
should they linger over an item, to provide retailers with ever more data.

The problem is that, as with the link between take-out pizza and terrorism,
statistics don't always prove cause and effect. Mathematician Karen Kafadar
of the University of Colorado at Denver explains that such a finding is "a
proxy. It just happened to have something that correlated. There's actually
something else going on but it's an indicator, like drinking beer and lung
cancer might be. Beer doesn't cause lung cancer, but people drinking a lot
of beer might also be smoking."

Ponemon is more concerned about process than the data itself. "Total privacy
does shelter bad guys, there's no question about that. But transparency is
also good," he argues. "There should be some labeling or notice." In theory,
consumers and investors could punish offending companies by channeling their
money elsewhere. Without honest managers, though, the free market's
self-correcting mechanism never gets a chance to kick in.

Librarians have filled their listservs with e-mails sharing strategies for
resisting law enforcement attempts to grab hold of their users' book lists.
But the corporate world doesn't foster that kind of purist culture. When the
Federal Bureau of Investigation came knocking for the names of scuba divers
this spring, the Professional Association of Diving Instructors forked over
a roll of more than 2 million certified divers without so much as being
served a subpoena.

The feds were acting on no specific threat, just a hunch that someone might
attack that way. And again, these data dumps are just attempts to do good.
Would Attorney General John Ashcroft's new TIPS campaign—the Terrorism
Information and Prevention System—encourage people like the mole at the
grocery store chain to spill info into the tanks of unethical investigators?

The Department of Justice, which seeks informants in utility, cable, and
other such industries operating in communities, denies that it will
cultivate sources placed in data-mining operations. "This makes TIPS sound
so much more sophisticated than it's going to be," says spokesperson Charles
Miller. "This is still in development but it's nothing more than something
to make people more aware of what's going on around them, and most people do
that now anyway."

Likewise, both the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Central
Intelligence Agency denied roles in any sweeping algorithm to measure
citizens' potential terrorist leanings. If anything, the FBI has recently
been taken to task for being a tin-cans-and-string Luddite organization. But
the FBI is a client of the consumer data aggregator ChoicePoint. And a U.S.
official tells the Voice, "Can I categorically deny anybody in government is
doing it? No."

An admission that the government is combing through purchase records
certainly would help explain why, according to the Naples Daily News,
federal agents reviewed the shopper-card transactions of hijacker Mohammed
Atta's crew to create a profile of ethnic tastes and terrorist
supermarket-shopping preferences.


Algorithms are already used to search for things as diverse as credit card
fraud and ideal college applicants. Since 1998, airline ticket buyers have
been sifted at the reservations desk by the Computer Assisted Passenger
Prescreening System, or CAPPS, a net championed by Al Gore and set to expand
dramatically. The group overseeing the algorithm, the Transportation
Security Administration, won't comment on what new data might be added to
create CAPPS 2.

"At a conceptual level, the work that these algorithms do is not much
different than the work that a detective undertakes in assessing whether an
individual is a suspect in a crime," explains Christy Joiner-Congleton, CEO
of Stone Analytics, a leading developer of such programs. "Good algorithms
sort through mountains of outcomes and possible contributing factors and
identify relationships for very rare events, like terrorism. The more exotic
the outcome, the more data is needed to discover it, and the more
sophisticated the algorithm must be to discover it."

Academic mathematicians and statisticians who design algorithms have also
called for broader databases. Among them are Kafadar and Max D. Morris of
Iowa State University, co-authors of a new paper titled "Data-Based
Detection of Potential Terrorist Attacks on Airplanes." They note that
"[a]fter the fact, some common elements of the suspected terrorists are
obvious: None were U.S. citizens, all had lived in the U.S. for some period
of time, all had connections to a particular foreign country, all had
purchased one-way tickets at the gate with cash. The statistical odds that
five out of 80 revenue passengers (in the case of one of the four hijacked
flights on September 11) fit this profile might, by itself, be unusual
enough to warrant concern."

Racial profiling finds quasi-acceptance in the hunt for terrorists, as it
does in the drug war or the pursuit of serial killers, who tend to be
middle-aged white men. But Kafadar and Morris argue that the "historical
data must be relevant to a specific flight. For example, a United flight
leaving San Francisco for Seoul, Korea, could be expected to carry a much
larger fraction of Asian passengers than one might see on a flight from,
say, Des Moines to Denver," the authors write. A trip like Atta's, Kafadar
tells the Voice, "wasn't a flight coming from Saudi Arabia. There were a
disproportionately high number of Arabic names given about 80 people to
choose from."

But the algorithm method didn't fail on 9-11—the human response did. When
the screening program spotted something unusual about at least one of the
flights, the people in charge elected only to reinspect the luggage.
According to The Wall Street Journal, CAPPS tagged hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi
and Khalid Al-Midhar because they'd reserved their tickets by credit card,
but paid in cash. The right-wing National Review slammed CAPPS for failing
to include race, religion, and national origin in its calculations or to tie
the system into manual searches of passengers, and not just baggage.

MIT mathematician David R. Karger says harassing individuals is foolhardy,
but so is refusing to consider sensitive demographics. "This is just making
your predictive capability worse," he writes in an e-mail interview. "Much
more appropriate is to use the best data you've got, but to remember that
probability doesn't mean certainty."

Joiner-Congleton writes, "Fundamentally, the algorithms themselves (if
created in a technically correct fashion) are not the thing to fear. Rather,
as in life, the things to fear are the conclusions drawn and the subsequent
actions taken. Nevertheless, drawing conclusions from data is a necessary
thing in life. People must do this to survive. Imagine the havoc that would
be wreaked on the roads of America if we ignored the sounding of a horn on
the freeway. Horn-blowing is usually associated with a dangerous event. We
ignore it at our peril."

She even conceives of developing algorithms so advanced that society might
intervene, to get people liable to be recruited into cells back on track
before they can be seduced by elements like Al Qaeda. "There is a
possibility that with sufficient information about known terrorists we could
evolve to the point where we could spot terrorists in the making," she
argues. "We believe that individuals can be at risk of becoming drug
addicts, or joining gangs, or having affairs, or any number of things at
certain times and under certain conditions in their lives. . . . Thorough
and continued algorithmic investigation of terrorist behavior is very likely
to shed light on their origins, and possibly lead to proactive efforts."

But there's a truly slippery slope here. We live in a nation that for months
has held at least 700 people—and possibly hundreds more—incommunicado, with
no more solid connection to terrorism than that they were born in Middle
Eastern countries.

Privacy may seem like a luxury in a nation at war, but that moral concept
lies at the heart of constitutionally guaranteed liberties. That's why so
many people are willing to fight for it. A lawsuit filed by John Gilmore, an
early employee of Sun Microsystems, aims to restore the anonymity central to
the freedom to travel in America. He names Ashcroft, FBI director Robert
Mueller, and security czar Tom Ridge as defendants, among other officials,
along with two airlines. Gilmore wants to prevent security at airports from
demanding identification from him, or subjecting him to arduous and invasive
searches when he refuses to provide a photo ID. The emphasis, he says,
should be on strengthening cockpits and developing "fly by wire" systems to
automatically land planes under threat. But our terrorism fears extend well
past airlines to water-tainting, dirty bombs, suicide bombers, conventional
bombing, or even simply opening fire with an assault weapon in Grand Central
Station—the kinds of attacks that are difficult to prevent in an open
society.

For now, we rely on tools like algorithms, and algorithms make mistakes.
Albrecht notes that in a three-month test period, the Department of Defense
investigated 345 employees after a program falsely fingered them for abusing
shopping privileges. In another case, an elderly woman was repeatedly
stopped and questioned in airports because her name matched that of a young
man already in prison for murder—a glitch that may indicate CAPPS or another
algorithm is using data illegally, for basic criminal investigation and not
anti-terrorism. Further, supermarket records have been seized by Drug
Enforcement Agency investigators looking for purchases of small plastic
baggies, often used in the drug trade, Albrecht observes.

"I am not a number!" shouted Patrick McGoohan, star of the British TV show
The Prisoner, when he rejected life in an idyllic village where he was held
and constantly monitored. "I am a free man." Now that this nation is at war
with terror, perhaps you'll remain free as long as your "Potential Terrorist
Quotient" remains low enough.

walk-up
standby
2-week advance purchase
1-way
travel agency

????

How many other price tiers are there ?




On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 02:25:35 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
wrote:

>
>"<RJ>" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> EGAD !!
>>
>> Airlines have been doing this forever.
>>
>> I'm sure that no two passengers pay the same price for tickets.
>
>There is a difference. Airlines offer tickets based on a load management
>calculation as well as market conditions. You may pay one price at
>Travelocity, another on the air website, and still another price on
>Priceline. A consolidator may charge still a lower price. All people who
>call the carrier's reservation center or book via their website are offered
>the same fare. The same goes for people who buy at Travelocity.
>

<rj>

Vox Humana wrote:
> " BOB" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Vox Humana wrote:
>>> "The Ranger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Vox Humana > threw a hissy-fit through message
>>>> .. .
>>>> [snip ****y one-line response]
>>>>
>>>> Invoking Godwin's Law to close down the discussion on your wild
>>>> theories does not bolster your cause nor add substance to your
>>>> already flawed ramblings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Very well, I guess that just because the government said it intended to
>>> collect shopping information about citizens is no reason to think that it
>>> will. I don't know why I didn't come to that conclusion earlier nor do I
>>> know why I though they might collect shopping information from databases of
>>> shopping information.
>>
>> Just for you:
>> http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
>
> And for you:
>
> http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0230/baard.php
>
>
No, the post that I recommended is more appropriate. It also does not have
numerous pop-up ads and add tracking cookies to your system (unlike the one you
provided).

LOL, you're worried about someone tracking you, but a site that you recommend
puts spy-ware on computers. Oh the irony.

BOB

"<RJ>" > wrote in message
...
>
> walk-up
> standby
> 2-week advance purchase
> 1-way
> travel agency
>
> ????
>
> How many other price tiers are there ?
>

But everyone who buys a 2-week advance purchase ticket on the airline's
website gets it for the same advertised price. They don't offer it to the
top 30% of their elite clients at one price, to people with a shopper card
at another price, and to people with no card at another price. In fact,
business customers who are likely to be the life blood of their business are
more likely to pay full fare because they don't qualify for walk-up,
standby, 2 week advance purchase, or one-way fares. The cut-rate fares also
carry a laundry list of restriction, making them a different product than
full price, unrestricted fares. The price tiers reflect a difference in
value from one fare category to another. I don't have to fly Delta
exclusively to get a good fare from their website. At the Dorothy Lane
Market, you not only have to have the card, but you have to be a big spender
to get a "discount." Price surveys shows that the "discounted" prices at
stores with shopper cards are often still more expensive than the everyday
price at stores without a card.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 02:26:47 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
wrote:
> I do know that when people snip relevant portions of
> messages and simply make a snide comment that they
> can't honestly address the issue.

You keep telling yourself this, Vox. Just keep telling yourself this.
Eventually you'll believe that lie too.

The Ranger
---
Tell a lie often enough and it'll become a truth. Tell it to enough
people and it'll become part of their psyche.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 02:26:47 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
wrote:
> I do know that when people snip relevant portions of
> messages and simply make a snide comment that they
> can't honestly address the issue.

You keep telling yourself this, Vox. Just keep telling yourself this.
Eventually you'll believe that lie too.

The Ranger
---
Tell a lie often enough and it'll become a truth. Tell it to enough
people and it'll become part of their psyche.

Vox Humana > wrote in message
.. .
> Price surveys shows that the "discounted" prices at
> stores with shopper cards are often still more expensive
> than the everyday price at stores without a card.

Citation? (Qualifier: A site other than nocards.org. Bonus: A site
with actual data not just huff-n-puff numbers.)

The Ranger

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:07:32 -0700, "The Ranger"
> wrote:

>Vox Humana > wrote in message
. ..
>> Price surveys shows that the "discounted" prices at
>> stores with shopper cards are often still more expensive
>> than the everyday price at stores without a card.
>
>Citation? (Qualifier: A site other than nocards.org. Bonus: A site
>with actual data not just huff-n-puff numbers.)
>
>The Ranger
>

When I walk through my local ( FRYS ) store,
it seems most of the posted prices are prices I wouldn't pay.

I get the impression they overprice many items,
then "discount" them to regular price for card-holders.

I'd take my business elsewhere, but the choices are limited.

<rj>

"Vox Humana" > wrote in message
news
>
> "Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
> .com...

<snipped>
> >
> > Your last statement is true in general, but from the persepective of the
> > individual consumer there is this choice: am I better off shopping at my
> > favorite market with their card or without it? I choose my store and
what
> I
> > buy without reference to the card but even so I have saved about $150
this
> > year. As for your claim that "it will also be likely to be used against
> you
> > by the government or in civil litigation" I challenge you to provide any
> > evidence that this happens in more than a few isolated incidents, or at
> all
> > for that matter. This is what I mean by paranoid thinking - just because
> > something *could* happen does not mean that it will.
> >
>
> I used the word "likely" because that is my opinion. It is an opinion
based
> both on the realities of past government abuse and an announced intention
by
> our government to harvest data under a program headed by Admiral
Poindexter,
> originally called Total Information Awareness. We live in a county that
put
> people in internment camps due only to their nationality. We had people
> black-listed and spied on by our government during the McCarthy era. Ever
> hear of J. Edgar Hoover? Our own president had people break into the DNC
> offices to gather data. If they will send burglars to get records form
the
> opposition and steal your psychiatric records to use against you, why
> wouldn't it be reasonable to expect them to look at your shopping habits?
> The only reason they stopped CAPSII is because people found out about it
and
> objected. I think that because it *HAS* happened in the past that it
*WILL*
> happen in the future. Unfortunately under the Patriot Act, they don't
even
> have to go to a judge for a search warrant. Neither are the people they
get
> the data from (phone company, ISP, library, cable company, etc.) allowed
to
> inform you that they turned over the records. Under that arrangement it
> would be possible for the government to gather information without your
> every knowing. Therefore that no one can provide you with data to prove
> this is happening doesn't mean anything except that maybe the Patriot
act's
> prohibition against disclosure is effective. If you aren't familiar with
the
> Total Information Awareness program, you might want to look into it. I
> think is might be paranoid to say that the government urged companies to
> collect data on customers. It isn't paranoid to think that the government
> might used existing databases.
>
>

I'm sorry but I can't go on. One line in your post says it all:

> Therefore that no one can provide you with data to prove
> this is happening doesn't mean anything

Translation:

"The fact that there is no evidence to support my position is in itself
support for my position"

This is really classic paranoid twaddle.There *are* reasons to be concerned
with privacy and government intrusion, but when people like you run about
wringing your hands and issuing dire warnings about non-threats such as
grocery databases, it only hurts the privacy cause because the other side
can point at you and say "See - they're a bunch of loonies."

Peter Aitken

Peter Aitken > wrote:

> I'm sorry but I can't go on. One line in your post says it all:

>> Therefore that no one can provide you with data to prove
>> this is happening doesn't mean anything

> Translation:

> "The fact that there is no evidence to support my position is in itself
> support for my position"

> This is really classic paranoid twaddle.There *are* reasons to be concerned
> with privacy and government intrusion, but when people like you run about
> wringing your hands and issuing dire warnings about non-threats such as
> grocery databases, it only hurts the privacy cause because the other side
> can point at you and say "See - they're a bunch of loonies."

I couldn't agree more! Although store loyalty cards are relatively new,
many businesses have been offering their goods and services to preferred
customers for a long, long time.

For example, many coffee shops have a buy ten, get one free deal. Any
merchant who is fond of making a profit gives preference of his limitted
time and resources to his best customers. This is true for grocery stores,
but also for lots of other different businesses.

For example, before my dad retired, he was a carpenter contractor.
Believe me, my dad knew quite well who his most loyal customers were,
and he made sure my sister, mom, and I knew too (for when they called
my dad at home). If a new customer called my dad to have a closet built,
my dad would almost always schedule an appointment within two weeks. If
the customer was someone who my dad viewed as a preferred customer, my
dad would frequently be at that customer's work site within two days
to provide an estimate.

In my work as a Unix systems manager here at Temple, I can tell easily
which vendors view me as a preferred customer and which do not. As I
write this, I am expecting a hardware shipment with a value will into
the six figures. The sales guy from reseller who is supplying this hardware
knows full well the value of my loyalty as a customer and I can call him
and others at the reseller at home, pretty much any time.

For those resellers where I only send them a moderate or little
business each year, I generally expect to have less attentive
service when I call to make requests such as getting a price quote
for some item.

Look at airlines. I think 99% of the airlines in business in the
United States offer a frequent flyer program. Is it fair that a
guy who has to fly for business twice a week gets better treatment
than someone like me who only travels on that airline two or three
times a year? Perhaps not, but life is not fair.

Peter Aitken > wrote:

> I'm sorry but I can't go on. One line in your post says it all:

>> Therefore that no one can provide you with data to prove
>> this is happening doesn't mean anything

> Translation:

> "The fact that there is no evidence to support my position is in itself
> support for my position"

> This is really classic paranoid twaddle.There *are* reasons to be concerned
> with privacy and government intrusion, but when people like you run about
> wringing your hands and issuing dire warnings about non-threats such as
> grocery databases, it only hurts the privacy cause because the other side
> can point at you and say "See - they're a bunch of loonies."

I couldn't agree more! Although store loyalty cards are relatively new,
many businesses have been offering their goods and services to preferred
customers for a long, long time.

For example, many coffee shops have a buy ten, get one free deal. Any
merchant who is fond of making a profit gives preference of his limitted
time and resources to his best customers. This is true for grocery stores,
but also for lots of other different businesses.

For example, before my dad retired, he was a carpenter contractor.
Believe me, my dad knew quite well who his most loyal customers were,
and he made sure my sister, mom, and I knew too (for when they called
my dad at home). If a new customer called my dad to have a closet built,
my dad would almost always schedule an appointment within two weeks. If
the customer was someone who my dad viewed as a preferred customer, my
dad would frequently be at that customer's work site within two days
to provide an estimate.

In my work as a Unix systems manager here at Temple, I can tell easily
which vendors view me as a preferred customer and which do not. As I
write this, I am expecting a hardware shipment with a value will into
the six figures. The sales guy from reseller who is supplying this hardware
knows full well the value of my loyalty as a customer and I can call him
and others at the reseller at home, pretty much any time.

For those resellers where I only send them a moderate or little
business each year, I generally expect to have less attentive
service when I call to make requests such as getting a price quote
for some item.

Look at airlines. I think 99% of the airlines in business in the
United States offer a frequent flyer program. Is it fair that a
guy who has to fly for business twice a week gets better treatment
than someone like me who only travels on that airline two or three
times a year? Perhaps not, but life is not fair.

<RJ> > posted in message
after I
asked on Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:07:32 -0700 Vox
Humana > in message
:
> > > Price surveys shows that the "discounted" prices at
> > > stores with shopper cards are often still more expensive
> > > than the everyday price at stores without a card.
> > >
> > Citation? (Qualifier: A site other than nocards.org. Bonus:
> > A site with actual data not just huff-n-puff numbers.)
> >
> When I walk through my local ( FRYS ) store, it seems most
> of the posted prices are prices I wouldn't pay.

Then why are you still shopping there? This boggles me when people that
are price-conscious don't actually vote with their wallets!

> I get the impression they overprice many items, then
> "discount" them to regular price for card-holders.

And a smart shopper /can/ find some awesome buys using a loyalty card --
but it requires discipline for watching the ads and a willingness to
knowingly participate in them.

> I'd take my business elsewhere, but the choices are limited.

I counter that the choices are only limited by you, not by the store.
With online shopping taking off (again), it's going to bring _only_
those merchants you wish to deal with.

The Ranger