#Scraping Intelligence

[retailgators]

How Innovative Brands Maximize Profits With Price Skimming Strategy?

What Is Price Skimming?

Price skimming is a pricing strategy where companies initially charge the highest price that customers are willing to pay for a new product or service. Then, over time, they gradually lower the price.

Phases Of Price Skimming Strategy

Check out the top 4 phases of price skimming strategies:

Product Launch Pricing Phase

The product is first launched at a high price in this phase. Early buyers who don't mind the high cost and want the newest things will be ready to buy.

High Initial Pricing Phase

After the first group of buyers has bought the product, the company gradually reduces the price. This aims to pull in a different group of shoppers who are more careful with their money.

Regular Pricing Phase

The price is then dropped further to catch the attention of shoppers who are very careful with their money. By this point, there can be many of the same products around, and other companies might also start competing.

End-of-Life Pricing Phase

The final phase comes when there's less demand for the product, and the company may choose to stop selling the product or develop a new pricing plan.

Remember that these work phases can change depending on the product and how the market behaves.

Features Of Price Skimming Strategy

The key features of the price-skimming strategy include

High Initial Pricing

One prominent feature of the premium pricing model strategy, like price skimming, is setting a high introductory price for a new item.

Gradual Price Reduction

Once the most eager buyers have their items, the price is gradually reduced to attract more customers.

Focusing on Demand

The premium pricing model also works based on the highest demand and willingness to pay. The highest-paying customers are served first, and the price is gradually lowered to bring in others looking for better deals.

Short-Term Strategy

Remember that a premium pricing model strategy is generally not a lasting plan. This is because other businesses typically join in and start competing, leading to lower prices.

Scenario Specific

Tech giants often use a premium pricing model, especially when they launch unique products without any market competition.

Cons Of Price Skimming Strategy

As much as this pricing strategy is advantageous, it does have some noteworthy disadvantages that one should consider.

Short-term Strategy

Price skimming usually isn't a good plan for the long run. This is because other businesses may start selling the same product for a lesser price.

Customer Relations

Starting with high prices can hurt your relationship with customers in the long run. Customers who bought the item when the price was high may feel disregarded when they see it decrease later.

Brand Reputation

If people think the starting price is too high and unfair, it could hurt the company's image or reputation.

Market Share

The high price could limit the volume of early sales, resulting in a smaller market share.

Attracting Competition

Keeping prices high might accidentally attract other businesses to enter the market. These businesses see a chance to sell similar products at a lower cost.

Examples Of Price Skimming Strategy

Sony is a well-known tech giant that adopts price skimming and a high initial pricing strategy, especially with PlayStation consoles. Whenever Sony releases a new Playstation console, they initially set high prices. Being innovative and highly anticipated products, these gaming consoles attract many dedicated gamers willing to pay this premium at launch. As the product matures in the market, Sony gradually reduces the price to appeal to more price-sensitive consumers.

Conclusion

If your business is based on innovative products, price skimming can be an excellent way to make the most money. It allows you to keep your brand looking exclusive while getting as much value as you can from all segments of customers. Knowing about price skimming can help you choose the best pricing method for your business, whether you decide to use it or not. Retailgators is a web scraping service provider that helps you price products with the finest margins, and retailers can consistently achieve success.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Penguin Random House, AI, and writers’ rights

NEXT WEDNESDAY (October 23) at 7PM, I'll be in DECATUR, GEORGIA, presenting my novel THE BEZZLE at EAGLE EYE BOOKS.

My friend Teresa Nielsen Hayden is a wellspring of wise sayings, like "you're not responsible for what you do in other people's dreams," and my all time favorite, from the Napster era: "Just because you're on their side, it doesn't mean they're on your side."

The record labels hated Napster, and so did many musicians, and when those musicians sided with their labels in the legal and public relations campaigns against file-sharing, they lent both legal and public legitimacy to the labels' cause, which ultimately prevailed.

But the labels weren't on musicians' side. The demise of Napster and with it, the idea of a blanket-license system for internet music distribution (similar to the systems for radio, live performance, and canned music at venues and shops) firmly established that new services must obtain permission from the labels in order to operate.

That era is very good for the labels. The three-label cartel – Universal, Warner and Sony – was in a position to dictate terms like Spotify, who handed over billions of dollars worth of stock, and let the Big Three co-design the royalty scheme that Spotify would operate under.

If you know anything about Spotify payments, it's probably this: they are extremely unfavorable to artists. This is true – but that doesn't mean it's unfavorable to the Big Three labels. The Big Three get guaranteed monthly payments (much of which is booked as "unattributable royalties" that the labels can disperse or keep as they see fit), along with free inclusion on key playlists and other valuable services. What's more, the ultra-low payouts to artists increase the value of the labels' stock in Spotify, since the less Spotify has to pay for music, the better it looks to investors.

The Big Three – who own 70% of all music ever recorded, thanks to an orgy of mergers – make up the shortfall from these low per-stream rates with guaranteed payments and promo.

But the indy labels and musicians that account for the remaining 30% are out in the cold. They are locked into the same fractional-penny-per-stream royalty scheme as the Big Three, but they don't get gigantic monthly cash guarantees, and they have to pay the playlist placement the Big Three get for free.

Just because you're on their side, it doesn't mean they're on your side:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/12/streaming-doesnt-pay/#stunt-publishing

In a very important, material sense, creative workers – writers, filmmakers, photographers, illustrators, painters and musicians – are not on the same side as the labels, agencies, studios and publishers that bring our work to market. Those companies are not charities; they are driven to maximize profits and an important way to do that is to reduce costs, including and especially the cost of paying us for our work.

It's easy to miss this fact because the workers at these giant entertainment companies are our class allies. The same impulse to constrain payments to writers is in play when entertainment companies think about how much they pay editors, assistants, publicists, and the mail-room staff. These are the people that creative workers deal with on a day to day basis, and they are on our side, by and large, and it's easy to conflate these people with their employers.

This class war need not be the central fact of creative workers' relationship with our publishers, labels, studios, etc. When there are lots of these entertainment companies, they compete with one another for our work (and for the labor of the workers who bring that work to market), which increases our share of the profit our work produces.

But we live in an era of extreme market concentration in every sector, including entertainment, where we deal with five publishers, four studios, three labels, two ad-tech companies and a single company that controls all the ebooks and audiobooks. That concentration makes it much harder for artists to bargain effectively with entertainments companies, and that means that it's possible -likely, even – for entertainment companies to gain market advantages that aren't shared with creative workers. In other words, when your field is dominated by a cartel, you may be on on their side, but they're almost certainly not on your side.

This week, Penguin Random House, the largest publisher in the history of the human race, made headlines when it changed the copyright notice in its books to ban AI training:

https://www.thebookseller.com/news/penguin-random-house-underscores-copyright-protection-in-ai-rebuff

The copyright page now includes this phrase:

No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner for the purpose of training artificial intelligence technologies or systems.

Many writers are celebrating this move as a victory for creative workers' rights over AI companies, who have raised hundreds of billions of dollars in part by promising our bosses that they can fire us and replace us with algorithms.

But these writers are assuming that just because they're on Penguin Random House's side, PRH is on their side. They're assuming that if PRH fights against AI companies training bots on their work for free, that this means PRH won't allow bots to be trained on their work at all.

This is a pretty naive take. What's far more likely is that PRH will use whatever legal rights it has to insist that AI companies pay it for the right to train chatbots on the books we write. It is vanishingly unlikely that PRH will share that license money with the writers whose books are then shoveled into the bot's training-hopper. It's also extremely likely that PRH will try to use the output of chatbots to erode our wages, or fire us altogether and replace our work with AI slop.

This is speculation on my part, but it's informed speculation. Note that PRH did not announce that it would allow authors to assert the contractual right to block their work from being used to train a chatbot, or that it was offering authors a share of any training license fees, or a share of the income from anything produced by bots that are trained on our work.

Indeed, as publishing boiled itself down from the thirty-some mid-sized publishers that flourished when I was a baby writer into the Big Five that dominate the field today, their contracts have gotten notably, materially worse for writers:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/19/reasonable-agreement/

This is completely unsurprising. In any auction, the more serious bidders there are, the higher the final price will be. When there were thirty potential bidders for our work, we got a better deal on average than we do now, when there are at most five bidders.

Though this is self-evident, Penguin Random House insists that it's not true. Back when PRH was trying to buy Simon & Schuster (thereby reducing the Big Five publishers to the Big Four), they insisted that they would continue to bid against themselves, with editors at Simon & Schuster (a division of PRH) bidding against editors at Penguin (a division of PRH) and Random House (a division of PRH).

This is obvious nonsense, as Stephen King said when he testified against the merger (which was subsequently blocked by the court): "You might as well say you’re going to have a husband and wife bidding against each other for the same house. It would be sort of very gentlemanly and sort of, 'After you' and 'After you'":

https://apnews.com/article/stephen-king-government-and-politics-b3ab31d8d8369e7feed7ce454153a03c

Penguin Random House didn't become the largest publisher in history by publishing better books or doing better marketing. They attained their scale by buying out their rivals. The company is actually a kind of colony organism made up of dozens of once-independent publishers. Every one of those acquisitions reduced the bargaining power of writers, even writers who don't write for PRH, because the disappearance of a credible bidder for our work into the PRH corporate portfolio reduces the potential bidders for our work no matter who we're selling it to.

I predict that PRH will not allow its writers to add a clause to their contracts forbidding PRH from using their work to train an AI. That prediction is based on my direct experience with two of the other Big Five publishers, where I know for a fact that they point-blank refused to do this, and told the writer that any insistence on including this contract would lead to the offer being rescinded.

The Big Five have remarkably similar contracting terms. Or rather, unremarkably similar contracts, since concentrated industries tend to converge in their operational behavior. The Big Five are similar enough that it's generally understood that a writer who sues one of the Big Five publishers will likely find themselves blackballed at the rest.

My own agent gave me this advice when one of the Big Five stole more than $10,000 from me – canceled a project that I was part of because another person involved with it pulled out, and then took five figures out of the killfee specified in my contract, just because they could. My agent told me that even though I would certainly win that lawsuit, it would come at the cost of my career, since it would put me in bad odor with all of the Big Five.

The writers who are cheering on Penguin Random House's new copyright notice are operating under the mistaken belief that this will make it less likely that our bosses will buy an AI in hopes of replacing us with it:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/09/ai-monkeys-paw/#bullied-schoolkids

That's not true. Giving Penguin Random House the right to demand license fees for AI training will do nothing to reduce the likelihood that Penguin Random House will choose to buy an AI in hopes of eroding our wages or firing us.

But something else will! The US Copyright Office has issued a series of rulings, upheld by the courts, asserting that nothing made by an AI can be copyrighted. By statute and international treaty, copyright is a right reserved for works of human creativity (that's why the "monkey selfie" can't be copyrighted):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/20/everything-made-by-an-ai-is-in-the-public-domain/

All other things being equal, entertainment companies would prefer to pay creative workers as little as possible (or nothing at all) for our work. But as strong as their preference for reducing payments to artists is, they are far more committed to being able to control who can copy, sell and distribute the works they release.

In other words, when confronted with a choice of "We don't have to pay artists anymore" and "Anyone can sell or give away our products and we won't get a dime from it," entertainment companies will pay artists all day long.

Remember that dope everyone laughed at because he scammed his way into winning an art contest with some AI slop then got angry because people were copying "his" picture? That guy's insistence that his slop should be entitled to copyright is far more dangerous than the original scam of pretending that he painted the slop in the first place:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/artist-appeals-copyright-denial-for-prize-winning-ai-generated-work/

If PRH was intervening in these Copyright Office AI copyrightability cases to say AI works can't be copyrighted, that would be an instance where we were on their side and they were on our side. The day they submit an amicus brief or rulemaking comment supporting no-copyright-for-AI, I'll sing their praises to the heavens.

But this change to PRH's copyright notice won't improve writers' bank-balances. Giving writers the ability to control AI training isn't going to stop PRH and other giant entertainment companies from training AIs with our work. They'll just say, "If you don't sign away the right to train an AI with your work, we won't publish you."

The biggest predictor of how much money an artist sees from the exploitation of their work isn't how many exclusive rights we have, it's how much bargaining power we have. When you bargain against five publishers, four studios or three labels, any new rights you get from Congress or the courts is simply transferred to them the next time you negotiate a contract.

As Rebecca Giblin and I write in our 2022 book Chokepoint Capitalism:

Giving a creative worker more copyright is like giving your bullied schoolkid more lunch money. No matter how much you give them, the bullies will take it all. Give your kid enough lunch money and the bullies will be able to bribe the principle to look the other way. Keep giving that kid lunch money and the bullies will be able to launch a global appeal demanding more lunch money for hungry kids!

https://chokepointcapitalism.com/

As creative workers' fortunes have declined through the neoliberal era of mergers and consolidation, we've allowed ourselves to be distracted with campaigns to get us more copyright, rather than more bargaining power.

There are copyright policies that get us more bargaining power. Banning AI works from getting copyright gives us more bargaining power. After all, just because AI can't do our job, it doesn't follow that AI salesmen can't convince our bosses to fire us and replace us with incompetent AI:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/11/robots-stole-my-jerb/#computer-says-no

Then there's "copyright termination." Under the 1976 Copyright Act, creative workers can take back the copyright to their works after 35 years, even if they sign a contract giving up the copyright for its full term:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/09/26/take-it-back/

Creative workers from George Clinton to Stephen King to Stan Lee have converted this right to money – unlike, say, longer terms of copyright, which are simply transferred to entertainment companies through non-negotiable contractual clauses. Rather than joining our publishers in fighting for longer terms of copyright, we could be demanding shorter terms for copyright termination, say, the right to take back a popular book or song or movie or illustration after 14 years (as was the case in the original US copyright system), and resell it for more money as a risk-free, proven success.

Until then, remember, just because you're on their side, it doesn't mean they're on your side. They don't want to prevent AI slop from reducing your wages, they just want to make sure it's their AI slop puts you on the breadline.

Tor Books as just published two new, free LITTLE BROTHER stories: VIGILANT, about creepy surveillance in distance education; and SPILL, about oil pipelines and indigenous landback.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/19/gander-sauce/#just-because-youre-on-their-side-it-doesnt-mean-theyre-on-your-side

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[probablyasocialecologist]

There has been a real backlash to AI’s companies’ mass scraping of the internet to train their tools that can be measured by the number of website owners specifically blocking AI company scraper bots, according to a new analysis by researchers at the Data Provenance Initiative, a group of academics from MIT and universities around the world.  The analysis, published Friday, is called “Consent in Crisis: The Rapid Decline of the AI Data Commons,” and has found that, in the last year, “there has been a rapid crescendo of data restrictions from web sources” restricting web scraper bots (sometimes called “user agents”) from training on their websites. Specifically, about 5 percent of the 14,000 websites analyzed had modified their robots.txt file to block AI scrapers. That may not seem like a lot, but 28 percent of the “most actively maintained, critical sources,” meaning websites that are regularly updated and are not dormant, have restricted AI scraping in the last year. An analysis of these sites’ terms of service found that, in addition to robots.txt restrictions, many sites also have added AI scraping restrictions to their terms of service documents in the last year.

[...]

The study, led by Shayne Longpre of MIT and done in conjunction with a few dozen researchers at the Data Provenance Initiative, called this change an “emerging crisis” not just for commercial AI companies like OpenAI and Perplexity, but for researchers hoping to train AI for academic purposes. The New York Times said this shows that the data used to train AI is “disappearing fast.”

23 July 2024

[chawmpie-n-freindz]

Chawmpie has a gift for you!

It's ArtShield! Are you an artist that wants to protect your art from AI on social media, but can't use Nightshade or Glaze? Well, ArtShield has you covered!

ArtShield creates an invisible watermark on your art that stops AI from stealing it. It's quick, easy, and can be used on mobile!

Click here to check it out!

(this art is satire and is bad on purpose so AI scrapes dog ass art. For my real art go to frostbitedoesart)

[desertbled]

i have question.

what are y’all’s favorite facts/abilities/quirks about ur muse(s)?

[melyzard]

Time for a new edition of my ongoing vendetta against Google fuckery!

Hey friends, did you know that Google is now using Google docs to train it's AI, whether you like it or not? (link goes to: zdnet.com, July 5, 2023). Oh and on Monday, Google updated it's privacy policy to say that it can train it's two AI (Bard and Cloud AI) on any data it scrapes from it's users, period. (link goes to: The Verge, 5 July 2023). Here is Digital Trends also mentioning this new policy change (link goes to: Digital Trends, 5 July 2023). There are a lot more, these are just the most succinct articles that might explain what's happening.

FURTHER REASONS GOOGLE AND GOOGLE CHROME SUCK TODAY:

Stop using Google Analytics, warns Sweden’s privacy watchdog, as it issues over $1M in fines (link goes to: TechCrunch, 3 July 2023) [TLDR: google got caught exporting european users' data to the US to be 'processed' by 'US government surveillance,' which is HELLA ILLEGAL. I'm not going into the Five Eyes, Fourteen Eyes, etc agreements, but you should read up on those to understand why the 'US government surveillance' people might ask Google to do this for countries that are not apart of the various Eyes agreements - and before anyone jumps in with "the US sucks!" YES but they are 100% not the only government buying foreign citizens' data, this is just the one the Swedes caught. Today.]

PwC Australia ties Google to tax leak scandal (link goes to: Reuters, 5 July 2023). [TLDR: a Russian accounting firm slipped Google "confidential information about the start date of a new tax law leaked from Australian government tax briefings." Gosh, why would Google want to spy on governments about tax laws? Can't think of any reason they would want to be able to clean house/change policy/update their user agreement to get around new restrictions before those restrictions or fines hit. Can you?

SO - here is a very detailed list of browsers, updated on 28 June, 2023 on slant.com, that are NOT based on Google Chrome (note: any browser that says 'Chromium-based' is just Google wearing a party mask. It means that Google AND that other party has access to all your data). This is an excellent list that shows pros and cons for each browser, including who the creator is and what kinds of policies they have (for example, one con for Pale Moon is that the creator doesn't like and thinks all websites should be hostile to Tor).

[khepiari]

Block This AI-Tool Account On Fanfiction Dot Net ASAP

If you are still using FFnet like I am, block this AI Tool Account That Pretends to be a Fic Writer who randomly leaves reviews in a very ominous way that bothers me. I got a barrage of emails informing of sudden reviews and follows. Each review is a copypasta, and I felt like my fics were being branded. SO BLOCK IT IS!

Log in, choose the account option, find the block users option like in the screengrab below, then add this FFId: 16123984 into the slot and select save.

I honestly don't know if this app can data scrape or not, since we don't have an option to lock or private our FFnet accounts, keep blocking anything that you think is suspicious.

Here is the Link to the account. They have one AI-Generated so-called Naruto Fic, which literally has nothing to do with Naruto.

Account ID: 16123984

Account Link:

Share, reblog, amplify!

[dailykugisaki]

Day 132 | id in alt

Dolls for everyone! Of everyone.

[selkies-world]

Want to learn how to spot Ai art & images, in order to avoid falling for them???

Click here to find out more!

[First classes: 29th April, 1st May, 2nd May. All 3 will focus on character design]

[loz-tearsofahomo]

This is a reminder to change your settings to hide your blog from AI!

[solarpunkpresentspodcast]

Ariel considers the issue of data-scraping by companies like OpenAI - specifically in light of the recent news of Automattic being “in talks” to sell user content for LLM models to train on. She muses on the internet as an inherently (un)ethical enterprise, her own experience of social media and data scraping, and thinks a bit about what solarpunk internet use might look like.

[nando161mando]

Social networks in 2024 are giving the public every reason not to use them

[cuteniaarts]

First posted piece of 2024 featuring Ghazan’s older sister Haya, take 2!!

[empty-blog-for-lurking]

hiii uh. dunno if this will make any sense, im kinda just throwing my thoughts at you

OKAY. so. been thinking about kuron(again) and the thing im just realising how ALONE he is, at least at the beggining. the people he thought of as his family fucking KILLED him, stole his body, and then basically forgot about him for YEARS. and after being ressurected- like, in the first few days, weeks, months- did kuron had ANY support? anyone to lean on?? to help him adjust to being alive again?

i know he starts to meet new people and make friends, and thats great! but. at the beggining....... lance was in a coma 'n shit, team voltron propably wasnt too enthusistic about helping kuron, and it just hit me that, at least the way i understand it(i might be wrong), he had to figure EVERYTHING out by himself

thats FUCKED dude

Oh god yes!!! To be honest i dont really have like a detailed idea for this part of the story like at best i have this one idea where Veronica is the first one to find him. Like in my head Veronica has been trying to track down Lance cause he ran away/didnt give the address once he moved out, isnt picking up his goddamn phone and literally dropped from the face of the earth and she cant find a trace of him. That was until apparently Lance?? 'Attacked' Shiro?? Like Shiro's fine just fainted and on bedrest and according to Curtis, Lance was saying something about "he is still in there" before apparently using Magic?? Somehow?? And taking something? From Shiro?? Yeah Veronica has no fucking clue. But a lead is a lead and she was able to track down Lance's new home only to find 1) a guy butt fuck naked coming out of a quintessence filled tub like the girl from Shining and who looks a bit like her boss. 2) her brother unconscious. She instinctly about to pull a gun on him except Kuron just slips and hits the floor, so now Veronica has two men she needs to drag to a hospital. Joy.

So like yeah Kuron's first stranger-to-acquintance-to-friend is Veronica. She neither has the history of All That™ the others have with Kuron, knows a bit about the clone situation to not be weirded out by it, but also doesnt really care about the whole Evil Clone thing™, cause i am so sorry but she has seen this man fall on his face first 5 times and counting, cry over a fridge ad that had kittens in it, and try to name himself Frank Shelley, even if he somehow becomes Evil~ Veronica is sure she can just Take him down easily, and like what is she supposed to do? Just leave him? He clearly has even less of an idea what is going on and she cant in good conscience leave him like this.

And thing is that Veronica does want to support Kuron, because he deserves that! It's the right thing to do and he deserves that! But at the start he really is a stranger to her and Lance is more of a priority to her than he is, and he is like one of the only leads that explains what is going on with Lance. And while she wont admit this but Kuron can tell and like logically He Gets That™!! He Gets That™!!! And he wants to help Lance too!! But he's also someone who is used and thrown away by everyone around him and this shit hurts like hell. Like this is a recipe of disaester for both of them and will result in a shouting match but right now Kuron is too high on pain meds and pain of being alive again to truly get into it so.

So like physically he isnt really alone in figuring this out, Veronica is trying to help him as much as she can help him, and the hospital staff she dragged him to are really nice to him as well. Emotionally......well there is effort. Vero is trying! Heck she even defended him when Shiro suggested they should lock him up cause he was a danger to everyone and is evil. She is trying but she also has her own trauma, whatever is going on with Lance, her family having separation anxiety, her job, etc etc and she can only do so much, and like Kuron is also trying but he is also dealing with so much and pushing it into the back burner and my guy is just not having great time at all. So like yeah he did had to figure out so much himself

[bylertruther]

sorry for being that guy but absolving a character of any and all flaws or accountability and ignoring the parts of canon that are proof that this character is (thankfully) complex and human aka capable of making mistakes and doing good and being smart in some ways and dumb in others and so on and so forth is just like. sorry but i always imagined that to be the most boring way to enjoy a character and yet.........................

[whalleyrulz]

death to content scraping ai and intense pain to those who build, support, buy, and sell it