When you see a price tag these days, it's quite likely it ends in 99 so as to give the appearance the product or service isn't quite as expensive as it might actually be. Whether it's a sandwich and fries for $8.99, a pair of shoes for $99 or a new car for $19,999, the idea of pushing the price to that next jump, but not quite going over, is pervasive in the marketplace.
I suspect there's got to be something at play in our subconscious, that even though we fully recognize a bottle of shampoo that costs $5.99 is in essence six bucks, the fact the first number in the price is a five somehow factors not only into our thought process but also our buying habits.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the practice - it's a savvy marketing approach used the world over - but at its core it's really just a game to get potential buyers to believe the product is a little cheaper.
You wouldn't think your local government would adopt such an approach - it's not like swimming pool admissions are $3.99 - but I see once again the property tax increase is proposed to be 2.99 per cent, which I'm guessing municipal hall doesn't want homeowners to confuse with a much larger three per cent hike.
Forgive me for being a cynic, but it's hard to believe those over at the hall crunched the budget numbers and the end result just happened to come out at 2.99, particularly given the connotation that comes with a figure ending in that way. Just like retailers around the globe, this has the look of a deliberate attempt to make people think they're paying less.
I expect that when I go to a store, but it's not terribly reassuring when my local government is trying to pull the same trick. Perhaps I'm being naïve to expect the spin cycle not to be applied to something as political as a tax bill, but it's disconcerting nonetheless.
Ironically, I think a property tax increase that's not a round number could actually work in municipal hall's favour if it was played correctly. If the proposed tax hike was, say, 2.93 or 3.06 per cent, it might get people thinking civic officials waged battle with the budget and this was the absolute lowest they could go and still maintain necessary services.
It might not be an entirely accurate representation of the situation, but the randomness of the number could well suggest every effort was made to keep costs in check.
The 2.99 figure, however, sends a completely different message to taxpayers.
