"$60 flat rate to the city or by the meter?"
That was my taxi driver's question as I climbed into his car from the airport rank.
Hurry up. Decide.
Should I take the certainty of a $60 off-meter rateβ¦
Or the uncertainty of time + distance on the meter?
I mumbled my answer.
Thankfully, I'd taken this trip before so I knew $60 was unlikely to be cheaper.
I chose the meter.
The final fare? $38.
I saved $22 yet still felt cheated.
Because this wasn't really about $22.
It was about information asymmetry.
When one party knows more than the other, the person with less information feels vulnerable.
By asking that question, the driver shifted the burden of risk onto me.
And when people feel that imbalance, they don't just feel uncertain, they feel manipulated.
Giving customers a choice can be a good thing.
But presenting a choice that exploits gaps in their knowledge isn't a choice. It's a trap.
P.S. I've subsequently found out he was in breach of the law to offer "off meter".
π If you found this interesting, let me know! Buy me a virtual coffee β or forward this email βοΈ to someone who also might like it. Your support means I can keep sharing ideas about behavioural science for free.
πͺ Find out where your team can do better (influencing diagnostic)
π Take your team to the next level of influence (team development)
π§ Learn the science of Influencing Action (online course)
Hey, are we connected yet?
