Taking window shopping to the next level online

When a consumer consumes a good or service, they receive utility (satisfaction, or happiness) from that consumption. That is part of the standard theory underlying consumer behaviour in neoclassical economics. Behavioural economists like the Nobel Prize winner Richard Thaler, in contrast, may distinguish between two types of utility that a consumer receives when they buy a good or service. First, there is acquisition utility, which is the net benefit from acquiring the good or service relative to what the consumer gives up to get it. This is essentially the neoclassical utility from the good or service, after allowing for the cost of purchasing it. Second, there is transaction utility, which is the utility received from how good or bad the deal itself feels to the consumer, compared to what they expected to pay for the good or service.

Transaction utility arises when consumers feel like they are 'getting a good deal'. The better the deal, the greater the transaction utility. One problem is that transaction utility is largely temporary. While acquisition utility essentially lasts as long as the good or service that is purchased, transaction utility may last only as long as the transaction. For that reason, transaction utility may explain the phenomenon of 'buyer's remorse'. The purchase seems like a great idea at the time of purchase, but later, once the transaction utility has dissipated, the purchase doesn't seem like such a great idea at all.

Ordinarily, acquisition utility and transaction utility come as a bundle. When you buy a good or service, you get both. That is, until now. An article in Rest of World reported last month:

This week, I placed orders for a $44,860 Patek Philippe hand-engraved watch, a $12,500 Hermès handbag, a $9,800 Tiffany diamond ring, and a $7,350 Cartier Love bracelet in yellow gold.

I don’t need any of them. I certainly can’t afford them. Thankfully, they’ll never arrive.

Instead of Amazon, I spent the past week browsing a new breed of websites known as “dopamine sites,” a trend that emerged in South Korea. These websites — like Dopamine Shop and FoodNeverComes — recreate the entire ritual of online shopping: You search for products, compare reviews, add items to your cart, enter a shipping address, place an order, and even track your delivery. 

Then … nothing happens. No money changes hands. No package arrives...

Purchasing and shopping are not necessarily the same act. The former is about acquiring and the latter is more of a ritual. The pleasure from dopamine websites comes from the ritual.

In some ways, this is just a high-tech version of window shopping. People have always been able to get some enjoyment from browsing goods that they have no intention of buying. But these websites go a step further by recreating the transaction itself, right through to placing the order and tracking its delivery, while removing the actual receipt of the good or service that was 'purchased'.

The article argues that the pleasure comes from ritual. However, at least some of the pleasure may be transaction utility. There is no acquisition utility here. The consumer knows from the outset that they will never receive the watch or handbag. But the 'consumer' still receives some value from the 'transaction'. These websites may come about as close as possible to offering transaction utility on its own. And since consumers are never charged for their purchase, this is a low-cost way for consumers to receive that transaction utility. All it costs is the opportunity cost of their time spent browsing the website.

It is interesting to consider what the business model of Dopamine Shop or FoodNeverComes might be. The Rest of World article is silent on this point. One possibility is advertising or affiliate links to real products and retailers. After all, retailers might value the attention of people who are shopping without buying, in the hope that some of that activity eventually spills over into 'real' purchasing behaviour.

Whatever the business model, these websites provide an interesting example that demonstrates just how much utility consumers may get from the process of buying, even if they don't actually buy anything.

[HT: Marginal Revolution]

Opportunity cost makes the news

Opportunity cost is one of the most underappreciated concepts in economics, and yet it is fundamental to good decision-making. Whenever we choose to use our resources for one thing, we give up what we could have done with them instead. The opportunity cost of something is the cost of foregoing the opportunity of using the resources for something else. More specifically, the opportunity cost is measured as the value of the next best alternative that is foregone.

Despite its importance, it is surprisingly rare to see opportunity cost mentioned in the media, even in business or economics stories. So, it was a delight to see this recent article in the New Zealand Herald:

Financial adviser Niran Iswar says almost every rental property he’s ever owned has lost money – and he thinks more people are coming around to the idea that it’s not always a surefire way to make money.

Iswar, who is head of accounting, wealth and advisory at Float, said once he counted the rates, insurance, maintenance and the opportunity cost of money tied up in rental properties, every rental he had held had gone backwards, except one that worked because it was bought at the right time “which is luck dressed up as skill”.

When making a decision about how to invest their savings, an investor has many alternatives to choose from. Each alternative comes with an opportunity cost - the return they could have earned from the best of the other alternative investments. The economic cost of an alternative includes all of the explicit costs, as well as the opportunity cost. In the case of rental properties, Iswar notes the rates, insurance, and maintenance, as well as the opportunity cost of the savings tied up in the investment.

Iswar is essentially saying that, once you take the opportunity cost into account, the cost of investing in rental properties (including the opportunity cost) exceeds the benefits. That is what he means when he says that the rental properties "have gone backwards". The savings would have been better off invested in some other alternative. As an example, an investor might be attracted to a rental property investment that offers an annual net return of six percent, but fail to consider that an alternative investment of comparable risk offers eight percent. The opportunity cost of the rental property investment is eight percent return foregone from the other investment. So although the rental property earns a positive net return of six percent, relative to the next-best alternative it actually generates an economic loss of two percent. By investing in the rental property, the investor would give up an eight-percent return in order to earn six percent.

Now, there is one important caution to note. In the context of financial investments, a straight comparison of returns ignores the role of risk. Different investments come with different risks, and different investors will have different appetites for risk. So, where investments differ substantially in risk, it is their expected returns adjusted for risk that should be compared. Only where the alternatives have broadly similar risks is a more straightforward comparison of returns appropriate.

Finally, while opportunity cost is not often mentioned explicitly, I imagine that many investors are implicitly taking it into account. Anyone who weighs up alternative uses of their savings and chooses the alternative that offers the best risk-adjusted return is already thinking in terms of opportunity cost. But making the opportunity cost explicit is useful, because it reminds us that simply earning a positive net return doesn't necessarily mean that an investment is a good one. We need to consider what else could have been done with the savings instead. That is why it was refreshing to see opportunity cost brought to the fore in the New Zealand Herald story.

Supermarket structural separation stupidity

This week, the National Party proposed that, if re-elected, it would pursue structural separation of the supermarkets (as reported in the NBR, One News, and the New Zealand Herald). This was interesting timing. My ECONS102 class has just covered firms with market power and monopolies, and one of the regulatory options available to government is structural separation. If this news had broken a week earlier, this would have made a great example for an assessment question. Instead, I'll have to console myself with a blog post.

In short, the proposed structural separation is nonsensical. Foodstuffs is currently comprised of two cooperatives - Foodstuffs North Island, and Foodstuffs South Island. The two cooperatives run three brands of supermarkets: Pak'n'Save, New World, and Four Square. The National Party is proposing to separate the business into two, with Pak'n'Save as one business and New World and Four Square as another.

There are several elements of the proposal that are plain dumb. The first problem with the proposal is that it would require a substantial reorganisation of the two existing geographically-based cooperatives into two nationwide businesses. This proposed reorganisation is somewhat ironic, given that the Commerce Commission declined a Foodstuffs merger into a nationwide business in 2024. Both of the two new supermarket chains would then have to create their own warehousing, logistics, and other backend systems, separate from the other new chain. And the two pre-existing warehousing and logistics (and other systems), which are geographically separated at present, would need to be split up in order to do this. In its own house, the government is busy trying to reduce back-office functions to increase efficiency. And yet, it seems quite happy to generate inefficiency in a private sector business?

Moreover, the cost-benefit analysis that Sense Partners completed for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment demonstrates how sensitive the case is to assumptions about supply-chain costs. The preferred analysis assumes supply-chain costs rise by one percent, generating an estimated net benefit of $2.9 billion over 20 years. However, if supply-chain costs rise by two percent, the estimated benefit falls to around $920 million, and if supply-chain costs rise by more than two percent, the costs outweigh the benefits. That doesn't leave much margin for the proposal to go wrong before society is worse off overall.

The second problem is that this proposal leaves the other major player in the supermarket sector, Woolworths, structurally unchanged. While the proposal would reorganise Foodstuffs into two separate nationwide supermarket groups, Woolworths would be free to continue its current operations, which also includes three brands: Woolworths, FreshChoice, and SuperValue. Admittedly, the two businesses are not structured in exactly the same way. Woolworths operates its Woolworths supermarkets directly, while FreshChoice and SuperValue are locally owned stores franchised through a Woolworths subsidiary. So, there may be good reasons why the same form of structural separation would not be appropriate for Woolworths. But the obvious question then is, if structural separation is the answer to weak competition in the supermarket sector, why is restructuring only one of the two big market players the right approach?

The third problem is that this proposal ignores another, arguably more obvious, form of structural separation that could be enacted, which could be applied symmetrically to both of the large supermarket players. This is to structurally separate wholesale and distribution from supermarket retail. Currently, both Foodstuffs cooperatives and Woolworths benefit from substantial economies of scale in purchasing, wholesale, and distribution. Those economies of scale may themselves create a barrier to entry, because a new supermarket chain that cannot obtain groceries on similarly competitive terms faces higher costs and will struggle to compete effectively.

Structurally separating wholesale and distribution from retail could potentially address that problem by allowing existing and new retailers to access the scale economies of the established distribution networks on fair and non-discriminatory terms, without having to build their own nationwide wholesale and distribution systems. This isn't a new idea (for example, see here and here). Wholesale ownership separation was explicitly considered in a government-commissioned study in 2022, although that analysis raised significant concerns about whether an independent wholesaler would remain viable after structural separation. Despite those concerns, this remains an alternative worth considering, and the Labour Party announced a policy along these lines earlier today. Its proposal would require Foodstuffs and Woolworths to run their wholesale businesses independently from their retail businesses, although it would not require the wholesale businesses to be separately owned.

As I note in my ECONS102 class, structural separation can be an effective way of regulating a monopoly. Typically, it is used with natural monopolies, where increasing competition across the entirety of a sector is not straightforward. For example, in New Zealand we structurally separated the telecommunications backbone (now run by Chorus) from the retail. We also separated electricity lines businesses from generation and retail, although generation and retail were allowed to remain integrated in the so-called 'gentailers'.

Now, supermarket retail itself isn't obviously a natural monopoly, but wholesale and distribution may contain some of the characteristics that we associate with natural monopolies, including high fixed costs and large economies of scale. Regardless, it is clear that to date government's various measures have been largely ineffective in increasing competition in the supermarket sector. So, structural separation may be more effective than what has been tried so far. However, what is being proposed by the National Party is only one possible form of structural separation. The more important question is where in the supply chain separation would do the most to reduce barriers to entry while preserving the economies of scale that keep costs down.

This week in research #144

Here's what caught my eye in research over the past week:

• Tompsett (open access) finds that the opening of new bridges over major rivers increase per capita economic activity

Also new from the Waikato working papers series:

• Luengo et al. investigate the causal impact of AI advice on price discovery in a controlled asset-market experiment, and find that access to AI advice significantly reduces mispricing relative to the baseline, regardless of whether the AI advice was aligned with long-term fundamentals, or myopic and based on current prices