The Fairness Principle
People judge deals by whether they're treated fairly versus others, not by absolute value
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 4
- Confidence
- 85%
Blount and Bazerman's 1996 study offered students $7 for 40 minutes of maths puzzles — 72% agreed. A second group was offered $8 but told earlier participants got $10; agreement dropped to 54%. Classical economics says a higher fee should raise take-up, but people are enraged by others getting a better deal. Two applications follow. Tactically, audit your own funnel: the giant 'enter discount code' box above checkout tells a happy, ready-to-pay customer that others pay less — a fairness transgression that sends them hunting for codes (Shopify mobile and Uber wisely bury the field behind a toggle). Strategically, reframe competitors as unfair — Uber's surge pricing, banks' overdraft fines — to tap a pool of anger that motivates switching. But heed Rawls's publicity principle: if customers would be angry to learn of a tactic, reconsider it.
Origin
Blount and Bazerman's 1996 fee-fairness experiment anchors the principle; Frans de Waal's capuchin-monkey fairness study shows its deep evolutionary roots.
Core principles
- 01People care about relative fairness, not just absolute benefit
- 02Signals that others got a better deal enrage customers
- 03Fairness violations can drive switching — yours or a competitor's
- 04Short-term gains from unfair tactics risk long-term retribution
How to run it
- 1
Audit for transgressions
Walk your own customer journey looking for moments that signal others are getting a better deal.
Watch out A prominent discount-code box above checkout tells happy buyers they're overpaying.
- 2
Gate the unfair signal
Hide or toggle away cues of differential pricing so committed buyers aren't provoked.
Pro tip Bury the promo field behind a drop-down, as Shopify mobile and Uber do; only surface it to code-holders.
- 3
Attack rivals on fairness
Identify competitors' fairness weak spots and reframe their behaviour as unfair to prompt switching.
Pro tip Reach people at moments of maximum grievance — e.g. just after an overdraft fine.
- 4
Apply the publicity test
Ask whether customers would be angry if they knew you were using a tactic; if so, reconsider it.
Watch out Overreaching triggers retribution that outweighs short-term gains.
In the wild
Blount and Bazerman got 72% of students to do maths puzzles for $7. A second group offered $8 — but told others had received $10 — agreed only 54% of the time. A higher absolute fee cut take-up because the relative unfairness enraged people, defying classical economics.
→ A higher pay offer reduced compliance by 25% via perceived unfairness.
A shopper happily adds $100 trainers to their basket, then sees a throbbing 'add your discount code' box at checkout. It signals others pay less, enraging them; many abandon to hunt for a code and never return. Shopify mobile and Uber instead hide the field behind a recessive toggle.
→ Prominent code boxes leak conversions; gating them protects revenue.
Common mistakes
Broadcasting that others pay less
A prominent discount-code field tells ready-to-pay customers they're being overcharged, triggering abandonment.
Pushing unfair tactics too far
Fake pre-sale price hikes or surge pricing can win short-term cash but invite lasting retribution once customers feel manipulated.
Is it for you?
Best for
Ecommerce and service brands, and challengers attacking incumbents on fairness.
Not ideal for
Situations where transparent differential pricing is expected and accepted.
From the transcript
“We're not just interested in a good deal in an absolute sense, we are interested in being treated fairly compared to others.”
“You've told these people who are completely happy to hand over the money that other people are getting a better deal. That will enrage them.”
From the episode
8 Psychology Hacks Behind The World’s Biggest Businesses - Richard Shotton - #626
Richard Shotton