It's one thing to make a good deal. But IMHO it's another thing to behave like a parasite.
I don't think this behavior is at all like those shenanigans though. Companies that offer frequent flyer miles spend plenty of time trying to offer the maximum apparent benefit while limiting the ways they actually pay out. It's a game where they're often trying to screw you. Screwing them in return (without violating the law or even their own terms) seems fine.
If they had a simple system with decent (or even bad but predictable) rewards, like x miles per dollar spent, none of this would even be an issue. But they see an angle from a more complicated system. Sometimes it works for them, sometimes they pay more than they expected.
Sounds simple? Well it isn't, and it has already been tried. The exploiters will spend a lot of money - on buying money. They will buy gift cards and other such things which can easily be converted back to cash.
These kinds of marketing exploits happen everywhere. I remember a nice local event where a mobile carrier offered pre-paid SIM cards at a great discount. People hoarded all these discounted SIMs immediately. Used them to transfer money to some web services (some services offer pay-by-mobile, where the charge is added to your mobile bill). Then proceeded to withdraw the money to their bank accounts. A pretty nifty way to make money.
Is the name calling/vilifying really helpful?
Also companies remind us all the time that they're amoral, but when people treat companies in an amoral fashion suddenly everyone gets upset about it.
The ironic thing is that Avis as a company has TONS of complaints. Just google "Avis is a scam" and read all the stories about hidden charges, misleading headline figures, and so on. Pages and pages of them... Because they're amoral and only care about the bottom line.
Why is it wrong for people to only care about the bottom line?
If it's wrong for Avis to be an amoral, predatory agent that focuses only on what they get without regard to the costs, then it is equally bad for this person to do the same. In one way it's worse: he knows he's being exploitative, where a lot of large-organization negative externality is due to clueless systems, not conscious individual choice.
Approving of it because you don't like Avis and identify with this guy makes the problem worse. Because now you've helped normalize exploitation as a behavior, and people inside Avis will feel just as justified in their bad behavior because they can see themselves as responding to "those awful scamming customers".
When applied to a specific individual, it is name calling. As in this case.
> What he did is very precisely parasitical.
Nope:
> par·a·site; an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
Nothing precise about it. More like a slang insult for behaviour you disapprove of.
> If it's wrong for Avis to be an amoral, predatory agent that focuses only on what they get without regard to the costs, then it is equally bad for this person to do the same.
But when companies do it everyone ignores it, or screams "buyer beware." When an individual does it people start name calling, villifying, or using moralist arguments. It is a double standard. When Avis does it it is Avis' customer's fault, when a customer does it to Avis, it is still the customer's fault.
> In one way it's worse: he knows he's being exploitative, where a lot of large-organization negative externality is due to clueless systems, not conscious individual choice.
You're now literally playing the "Avis is amoral so it is ok" card. Why is it inherently wrong for individuals to act amoral towards an entity which also acts amoral?
> Approving of it because you don't like Avis and identify with this guy makes the problem worse.
For the record, I approve of it because Avis would do exactly the same thing in his place, and does to their customers all of the time. I think Avis should be treated the way they treat others. It isn't because I dislike Avis, it is because I like to see equal treatment, and if Avis is treating people badly then they too deserve to be treated just as well (or not).
If companies are flexible or show loyalty, I genuinely believe customers return that in kind. Look at Costco. This is not one of those companies.
> Because now you've helped normalize exploitation as a behavior, and people inside Avis will feel just as justified in their bad behavior because they can see themselves as responding to "those awful scamming customers".
Companies have already normalised the behaviour. So much so that we don't even talk about it anymore. In fact we teach kids that companies will try and exploit them if allowed, or take advantage of them, and then teach them a bunch of tricks to look out for when booking or buying (e.g. resort fees, baggage fees, location fees, un-included taxes, et al).
It is laughable to suggest that this guy treating Avis just once like Avis treats their customers daily and for many years, has somehow caused Avis to act this way. You're clearly applying one set of standards to companies and a completely different set to individuals (i.e. effectively companies are beyond repute in your mental model, but individuals deserve your disdain for being as bad as companies even if occasionally).
I see, fair enough. It was clearly wrong to assume you viewed his actions as either moral or immoral.
> Avis [is] an amoral, predatory agent
> Approving of it [...] makes the problem worse.
> you've helped normalize exploitation as a behavior
On second thought, I'm pretty sure "name calling" was spot-on.
OP bought a good for the lowest price he could find. If you want to call that exploitation, more power to you, but please don't try to pass off your moral opinions as objective truths. It's slimy.
I think you meant to say "That it is parasitic is factual if I make a bunch of assumptions about AVIS' profit margin and intent, as well as OP's past and future business dealings with AVIS. That hypothetical parasitism is immoral is my opinion."
As you get more practice making distinctions between what's true and what's opinion, I think you'll find it easier to interact with different viewpoints from your own :)
Think of it like asking a Christian to say "X is what I believe" rather than "you're going to hell"... it's more respectful to other viewpoints :)
I responded to this by asserting that you were making those claims by making large assumptions about AVIS, OP's mental state / situation, and OP's past and future dealings with AVIS.
I simply don't see how you can know the things your claiming to know without access to that information. For example, you'd need to have an answer to: did AVIS make a profit on all this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10215662 would seem to imply AVIS did make a profit, and OP is overvaluing airline miles in an economic sense. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10221662 calls it into question from a different perspective.
If I was wrong in assuming you don't have that information, please correct me and post it! I will happily read through it and perhaps join you in judging OP. If you don't have the information, but feel there that the information is not necessary, please describe how and I'll read it and respond. If neither of these is true, please consider adding caveats to your statements in future. It will help others understand you, and make debates more fruitful (#include the replies to your other comments on this thread)
I don't normally engage with people making schoolyard-type statements, but did so in this case because it felt like my civic duty -- it matters to me that HackerNews remain a place for intelligent discussions. As you are probably aware, my intent with the ":)"s were not to be mean but rather to let you know I didn't have a problem with you as a person, only with your specific behavior. It's hard to call out behavior civilly, but I tried (and think I succeeded) in this case. That you then proceeded to call me snotty, smug, and a superior dick is only serving to prove my point: you're assuming, and mistaking those assumptions for reality.
To see this guy as acting parasitically, all you need do is take him at his word. He has a calculated economic value for the miles that is far larger than what he paid for them. He himself believes that Avis values them and would see him as a scammer, which is why he carefully limited the size of his grift and energetically persuaded employees to do things that they realized made no sense. I don't see anything wrong with assuming that he's right.
To double-check, though, there are plenty of reasonable estimates on what air miles actually cost out on the web, and the guy's estimate of the economic value is in line with those. And Avis's promotion looks like a pretty typical customer acquisition thing where you pay some sort of initial acquisition cost and hope to make your money back over time. They did not acquire 37 customers here, or even 1, so the guy is entirely reasonable in thinking that Avis would stop him if he did this at scale.
So the balance of the evidence is that 37rentals is, as he himself thinks, scamming Avis out of a lot of miles. Is this CERN-level proof? No, but I don't think it's necessary here. We're on a forum, discussing another forum post. My assumptions are reasonable and are based on my many years in business. If you have evidence for other assumptions you'd like to make, godspeed. But for a guy wrongly in a lather about supposed no-evidence assertions, you are making a lot of no-evidence assertions yourself. Anonymously, of course.
For my part, I think that if OP agreed with you he wouldn't have done it. This whole thing reminds me of a discussion I once had about doctors who perform abortions... Some people find it very hard to understand the other side doesn't agree that life begins at conception, and wrongly conclude abortion doctors must believe they're committing murder.
It's always easier to brush other positions off as too verbose, or too anonymous, or too whatever. It's much harder (but much more valuable) to consider the problem and data at length, and come to a new truth. This is what differentiates science from the tinkering which proceeded it.
> Is this CERN-level proof? No, but I don't think it's necessary here. We're on a forum, discussing another forum post.
This is what I was talking about when I said "it matters to me that HackerNews remain a place for intelligent discussion" above -- to me HN isn't just some online forum; the standards we should hold ourselves to are much higher. We're here to learn and relate. If you'd acted this way on reddit I wouldn't have taken issue... but on HN it pains me to see this kind of behavior. The other side of your holy war is not inherently immoral.
However, rental cars have a strong desire to completely disregard their customers. (Theres no sense of loyality, and they'll "find" damages that don't belong to you) The hilarious thing is that they're allowed to operate on airport property. (They have no flexibility in the way they operate to account for irrops or delays in travel for consumers)