Have you ever wondered why products in shoppies, such as raspberry jam and badminton racquets, seem to be priced with odd numbers like £1.99 and £9.95?Probably not, as it seems obvious. It must be a marketing ploy, knowing that we see £9.95 as being 'under £10' and are thus likely to buy more 4 way plug adapters (with surge protection) because of the perceived valooooooo.
Also, it takes the brain a smidgen longer to add £7.99, £15.99 and £5.95 than it does £8, £16 and £6. The last thing they want is for you to be put off your spending spree by working out in your head what you’re actually about to charge to your Visa. You can find out the damage near the end of your checkout experience, not in the aisle, when pretty things can still be impulsively placed in your magic trolley.
I was interested to learn that, although this is why the coca-cola multipack is priced in such a fashion today, this was not the original reasoning behind x pounds and ninety nine pence. It actually stems back to the late nineteenth/early twentieth century and the birth of the cash register.
The new invention was originally billed as the 'incorruptible cashier'. To get access to one's float, a purchase had to be made. The drawer would open, accompanied by an audible bell noise. When the transaction had been completed, the float would be locked away again.
Products were priced oddly to greatly increase the odds that change would need to be given. The last thing an employer wanted was the opportunity for the cashier to make a non-recorded transaction.
The register shows the customer what the charge to them is, any deviation between that, and what the cashier asks for, is going to be questioned. Always possible for a determined thief to indulge in funny business, but this new invention made it so much harder.
Genius, nothing can remove all risk of corruption but this greatly reduced the ease of doing so and increased the risk of unscrupulous, light-fingered employees getting caught.
Most people will behave angelically, unless the chance to sin is right under their nose (type 'poker' into Google and look at what the top sponsored link is). By making a crime more difficult to commit, you remove some of the means and a good deal of the opportunity. Silly point, but it also increases awareness as to what is right and what is just downright naughty.
That’s where my wee story ties in with online poker, and can now take the form of a rant.
In this digital day and age, it’s no secret that Internet users rarely read those fancily worded, oftentimes incomprehensible terms and conditions when they’re signing up for this, that and the other. I think it’s high time the major online poker rooms made it a little clearer to all their customers that the following is unacceptable...
Collusion, soft-playing, multi-accounting, software utilizing central databases and the use of poker bots. Terms such as soft playing and bots being clearly defined for the layman, no grey area should be left to hide behind.
How would a site get this message across? Pretty easily I think, they’re quite good at informing players as to what tournaments and promotions are currently being offered. They could use similar methods to spread the message of the law.
In a fictional survey, which I recently manufactured the results for, as many as 37% of players who indulge in the shameful activities listed above (including botting) are unaware they are doing anything wrong. Many more would plead ignorance if and when they eventually get caught.
Many of you are thinking that all this seems overly utopian. All sites seem to prefer to deal with the whole thing with a decidedly more low-key approach. Heaven forbid they publicly acknowledge that such things actually occur.
Call me a nutter, but I think it might be good gimmicky PR if a big site tried my idea out for size. They could make a big deal whenever they catch a crook, and confiscate their funds. A monthly 'honest players' freeroll for the confiscated funds could take place.
What was achieved by the cash register in 1906, can be achieved by XXXX in 2006. What form will XXXX take? Well that’s not my job to invent, I certainly demand it though!
Thomas “thetank” Stott