Advertisement
Advertisement
β‘ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
0% Positive
Analyzed from 310 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#user#amp#before#site#different#pricing#ignore#charging#existed#entirely
Discussion Sentiment
Analyzed from 310 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
Discussion (5 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
(Though if you aren't one of Today's 10K - ignoring laws and ethics have been SOP at U&L for how many years now?)
If a bunch of banks were robbed by a guy wearing lime-green shoelaces - how much attention should either banks or law enforcement pay to shoelaces? Either that perp, or copy-cats, could wear some other color at whim.
Most simplistic example:
1. User arrives on site; we believe we haven't seen them before (their cookie is new and based on our ID graph, they may very well be) and they're behavior on site (e.g., how they navigate it; what they click on; how they scroll) is indicative of an entirely new user. For this user, we give a discount to try and capture the sale and keep them coming back with nurture activities (e-mail or retargeting).
2. User arrive on site; we KNOW they are a returning user (e.g., we have their cookie tied up to pre-existing rows in the ID graph; they came in from a retargeting ad; and/or their on-site behavior is indicative of a returning user). For this user, they get the 'normal pricing'.
---
The only difference here is that the article claims they use AI and AI is scary.
It doesn't always work but I don't trust Uber or Lyft with my data at all.