“Bait and switch” can describe a
range of commercial behaviors common in the everyday marketplace, but virtually
ignored in the academic literature. The
traditional definition of unlawful bait and switch applies to insincere offers
to sell one item in order to induce the buyer to purchase another. Certain sellers have historically employed
bait-and-switch tactics, including urban retailers, aluminum siding companies,
and supermarkets.
Colloquially, this definition can
also cover lawful or other borderline sales tactics, including the use of
teaser rates or low introductory pricing, or even “free offers.” Even common lawful tactics, like the
deliberate routing of customers past other retail displays on their way to
purchase high-volume or featured items,
could be described as involving “bait” to induce other purchases.
Why are some of these behaviors
lawful and others unlawful? In this
Article, I examine several different flavors of bait-and-switch tactics,
exploring the underlying behaviors behind the tactics and the welfare
implications of regulating them. Looking
to the literature on commercial custom and norms, I find a pattern showing that bait-and-switch
practices that align with custom and norms
tend to be lawful, and those that do not, tend to be unlawful. Welfare advancement seemingly plays a distant
secondary role in explaining bait-and-switch regulation.
My finding should compel regulators
to consider whether the goal of elevating the market atmosphere by banning
offensive behavior should trump
welfare concerns. Further, my
conclusion can also help
advocates shape more effective arguments for adjusting trade practice
regulation.
I was particularly interested by the discussion of Gregory
T. Gundlach, Carl F. Mela & William L. Wilkie, Does “Bait and Switch”
Really Benefit Consumers?, 17 Marketing Sci. 273 (1998), which fits into
Friedman’s moral/economic discussion by making the point that deliberate bait
and switch tactics correlate with other abusive and fraudulent practices: in
other words, contempt for one’s consumers spills over into further deception
and mistreatment, providing a reason to ban deliberate bait and switch even if,
in a world in which both buyers and sellers were all rational robots, the
tactic would be fine. Whether this means
that morality is efficient or that efficiency alone can’t make sense of human
behavior, it’s a useful point to keep in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment