How often have you bought something you felt was not worth the money?
What if you could set the price?
What factors would influence your number?
For years, behavioral scientists have studied such questions.
They often look at a model called PWYW (Pay what you want, that is.) The idea may seem like a consumer’s giddiest fantasy. However, a real-life extreme version of the experiment unfolding at a restaurant in Montclair, New Jersey, is affirming the researchers’ predictions. It has been prompting a panoply of reactions — including anxiety, delight, incredulity, guilt and, yes, rampant opportunism.
Zod Arifai, a local chef, is offering customers a menu with no prices this month, encouraging them to order as many dishes as they would like at his two side-by-side restaurants.
When diners signal for the check, servers ask: “How much would you like to pay?”
With no price guidelines — such as a museum’s “suggested donation” — the offer compels diners to gaze inward and develop ad hoc criteria, to look a fresh-faced server in the eye and announce the meal’s value.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONFLICT
Ayelet Gneezy, an associate professor of behavioral sciences and marketing at the University of California, San Diego, who has studied the model, said it could set off psychological conflict: People like to see themselves as “fair” and even generous, but also want others to see them as “prudent and not a sucker.”
“I know I’m going to overpay,” Morgan Torres said the other night as he perused the menu. “I don’t want them to think of me as ‘that cheap guy at Table 5.’”
At the next table, Sid Dvorkin was having no such crisis of conscience. He would simply base his amount on what he had paid before.
“The concept of overpaying is not something I gravitate toward,” he said.
Given the PWYW opportunity, consumers easily rationalize their decision, Gneezy said.
Barbara Rowe and Richard Katz made up their own rationale: palate power. They paid US$12 for each of five dishes they loved, and US$8 for one they did not.
A decade ago when Arifai, 52, opened his first restaurant, Blu, in Montclair, a diverse suburb of New York City, the New York Times rated it “excellent.” Then he opened the more casual and also warmly praised Next Door, next door. Blu’s skate with cauliflower, wild mushrooms and truffle broth used to be US$26; Next Door’s meatloaf with chipotle glaze on soft polenta was US$14.
Now, with his lease ending, Arifai has decided to move on, and eventually open a restaurant in Manhattan.
A former rock guitarist with ungovernable hair, Arifai wanted to thank the community with a month of pay-what-you-want dining — despite the entreaties of family and friends who pronounced the concept “insane.”
In the spirit of equality, he is serving the same menu at both restaurants. However, at the upscale Blu, with its sleek stemware and soft sconce lighting, diners are paying about US$3 more per dish than those at Next Door, with its bright, basic decor. (Alcohol is not included; the restaurants are BYOB.)
TAKING ADVANTAGE
Overall, Arifai said, diners seem to be paying slightly less than half the old menu prices, though a direct comparison is difficult because the portions are somewhat smaller.
“The majority of people want to take advantage of the offer, but also recognize that it feels weird,” said Kathleen Vohs, a professor of marketing at the University of Minnesota who writes about the psychology of money. “So they limit what they order, do a good job of valuing it, and then walk back from what it’s worth.”
At least once a night, the staff gets a bad taste — such as from the “young, smug” table of five that ordered 25 dishes, paid US$15 and left a US$5 tip.
Indeed, at one end of the bell curve, customers will have an “economically rational” attitude, Vohs said: “‘I’ll take everything I can and leave no money, because the restaurant’s letting me do it.’”
One family ordered eight dishes and sneaked out, leaving a handful of dollar bills.
“My daughter told me: ‘You gave people the option,’” Arifai said. “Maybe they’re poor and a night out means eating at McDonald’s. So that’s what they left. But you gave them a good meal.’”
However, another family left a thank-you note with their modest amount: “The food and service was worth way more than we were able to leave. As a kid in college and a mother doing inconsistent freelance, without the deal we wouldn’t have gotten the chance to come.”
Vohs said that what might compensate for those who underpay are the angst-ridden outliers squirming at the other end of the bell curve “who feel they have to make up for what they see as others’ misdeeds.”
SUCCESSFUL ENDEAVOR
The other night, Lesley Jarbe was in a swivet as she anticipated that post-dessert moment of truth. She had heard stories about the shortchangers.
“I want to show the chef that I love his food and I appreciate what he’s doing,” she said. “And I worry about the kitchen staff. The waiters. I’m so anxious.”
Then there was the customer who somehow covered both ends of the bell curve: He took advantage of Arifai’s generosity, even as he expressed concern about the server’s pending unemployment. The solution? He left US$5 for the food and a US$50 tip.
Profit aside — and it certainly will be — Arifai considers the endeavor a success.
“I’ve learned that humanity is not as bad as we think,” he said. “Yes, 20 percent are paying less than a dollar a dish, but 80 percent are not.”
The other night as Andrew Manno, a waiter, was collecting money from a couple, their six-year-old daughter asked: “Aren’t we supposed to pay what we want for our food?”
Yes, Manno replied.
“I want to pay for my ice cream,” the child said.
Then she reached in her bag and handed him a candy bar.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS