Gabor Grainger: Built to Be Gamable — And That’s the Problem

Gabor-Granger wasn’t designed for the modern world — it was designed for a simpler one.

But the problem isn’t just that it’s old. It’s that it invites manipulation. Here’s how it works:

You show someone a price.
They say yes or no.
Then you move the price up or down and ask again.

It’s like a toddler’s game of “hotter/colder” — except the respondent knows what’s coming.

Why That’s a Problem

Incentives shape behavior.

Once a respondent suspects how the game works, they have every reason to:

• Say no just to see a lower price
• Say yes to avoid getting booted from the survey
• Hedge their answers to land near a preferred price

This isn’t fringe behavior — it’s economically rational. The method rewards dishonesty and punishes truth.

And It’s Easy to Detect

Respondents figure out the pattern. Fast.
Especially in a world where surveys feel like games, and people have been trained to “play” them for rewards or incentives.

Researchers Know — And They Still Recommend It

Why? Because it’s cheap, easy, and fast. Because it sounds rigorous without the work. Because it ticks the “we did pricing” box when budgets are tight.

But checking a box doesn’t make it right.

The Real Risk:

You end up basing your price strategy on data that was never given in good faith.
Which means you’re not just guessing — you’re guessing based on fake signals created by a bad game.