The Moral Economy of a Bargain

The value of an opportunity is shaped by prices, information and everyday decisions. Photograph: Compagnons / Unsplash

Introduction. How much is an opportunity worth?

An offer is not necessarily a bargain. For it to become one, someone has to recognise it as such. A price may seem exceptional until another person produces its history and shows that the product has previously sold for less. A standard tariff may be judged exceptional when compared with the alternatives. And a free application may turn out to be too costly if it consumes time, requires excessive permissions or fails to serve its advertised purpose. Between the advertised figure and the value attributed to it lies an act of interpretation.

On Chollometro, that work becomes visible. Participants find deals, compare terms, share experiences, debate their legitimacy and cast votes that the platform translates into degrees of heat. Yet what happens around those figures extends beyond purchasing. Its forums are also places where people exchange codes, track deliveries, seek recommendations, question promotions, collect reindeer in games and thank others for their help. Some people browse deals for years without registering; others explain that they have decided to join in so that they can give something back to those whose posts have helped them.

The notion of a moral economy, developed by E. P. Thompson and reworked in contemporary anthropology by Didier Fassin, provides a way of examining the criteria of justice, obligation and legitimacy that run through these exchanges. A bargain can be cheap yet seem exploitative; a promotion can be legal yet be regarded as misleading; a contribution can be freely offered yet provoke demands to know who benefits from it. The community does not necessarily share a homogeneous moral code. It develops and contests one in specific situations.

This essay follows three connected movements. First, the recognition of an opportunity as legitimate and worth taking. Second, the circulation of information, favours, entertainment and prestige among participants. Finally, the transformations these practices undergo when the platform records, classifies and links them to commercial and recommendation systems. The anthropological interest lies in their coexistence. A community can learn to shop more effectively, take pleasure in the search, organise reciprocal help and contribute to a commercial infrastructure through the very same gestures.

Fear of missing out — the fear of being excluded from shared experiences — offers little as a general explanation. Commercial opportunities may trigger perceived scarcity, anticipated regret, a desire for recognition, enjoyment or calculations about household spending. These are different experiences. Nor does the available research establish that a high temperature causes impulsive purchases or that saving money on an individual product reduces overall expenditure. Before assigning motivations, we should observe what people actually do with the opportunities they encounter.

The platform and its boundaries

The project that eventually became Chollometro emerged around Telegram channels devoted to sharing discounts in 2015. ReyesDelChollo was subsequently developed, and in 2017 the project became part of the international Pepper network. The corporate combination of Pepper and Global Savings Group, announced in 2022, followed by the adoption of the Atolls brand in 2024, illustrates the growing scale of an activity that began by collecting discoveries and ended up within an international infrastructure of communities, technical systems and commercial relationships. The precise dates of formal corporate transactions should be distinguished from those of public announcements.

This history does not justify imagining a community initially untouched by the market and subsequently corrupted by it. Selecting discounts, enjoying their discovery, helping others and seeking ways to sustain the activity financially may have coexisted from the outset. The more significant transformation concerns the organisation of judgement. Where a handful of people once circulated their discoveries, contributions from many participants are now solicited and ranked, while the company sets the admission rules, indicators, moderation procedures and mechanisms of visibility.

The forum documents show that these boundaries are not invisible to participants. In the introductions section, one person explains that their deals are not being published, despite believing that the product’s price history justifies the offer. Among the reasons they report being given is that the product has remained at that price for too long. In the questions and requests section, participants debate whether the weekly items from Lidl’s catalogue deserve to be treated as bargains, objecting that many are simply routine promotions. Another thread even proposes discussing ‘anti-bargains’: products whose prices have risen rather than representing an opportunity. None of these thread titles, taken alone, reveals the community’s full response. They do, however, document that publishing criteria and the classification of discounts are debated from within.

Chollometro’s rules add a formal dimension to these controversies. Criteria governing repeat posts, discounts and pricing errors define which information may be presented as an opportunity. The market supplies the prices; the platform sets the rules under which they may circulate; participants can accept, challenge or attempt to change those rules. The moral economy thereby acquires a codified form, while remaining open to conflict.

This process also has a broader social history. In Spain, the 2008 financial crisis, debates about responsible consumption and the normalisation of promotional campaigns helped make comparing prices and justifying purchases culturally recognisable practices. Drawing on focus groups conducted during that crisis, Luis Enrique Alonso, Carlos J. Fernández Rodríguez and Rafael Ibáñez Rojo identified a discourse of guilt concerning earlier consumption and a renewed emphasis on responsible consumption. As Sidney Mintz demonstrated in tracing the relationship between sugar, labour and consumption, seemingly minor everyday practices need to be situated within wider economic transformations. The everyday search for discounts invites the same question: what circumstances turn the effort to find exceptional prices into a socially valued skill?

What comes to count as a bargain

In a thread about DIGI’s fibre broadband and mobile tariffs, published in 2025, part of the conversation questions whether the advertised price can qualify as a bargain when it is simply the company’s official tariff. Other contributions compare the offer with the wider market, assess coverage and service quality, and recount experiences of customer service. Two criteria of legitimacy coexist in tension. One requires a demonstrable reduction from a previous price; the other regards a stable price as advantageous when it offers value for money that is hard to find elsewhere. Indirectly, the discussion also touches on what customers regard as fair treatment. A similar criterion appears in the reported experience of a person whose offer was rejected because the product had been at that price for too long, as described in the introduction thread mentioned above.

A post about clothing in Lidl’s corporate colours provides the opposite contrast. It reached almost 13,800 degrees, yet several visible comments responded with irony or rejected the idea of wearing the garments. Two words, ‘Not even for free’, condensed a negative assessment that coexisted with the numerical popularity of the post. The conversation also questioned why someone would pay to wear a company’s advertising on their clothes, while others pointed out that the same behaviour is normalised in sportswear brands. The figure cannot tell us how many purchases took place or why each person voted. The qualitative material does show that an extremely high temperature coexists within the same thread with comments rejecting the purchase. Even the headline price of €3.14 referred to one particular garment rather than the complete outfit.

Temperature therefore organises attention, but in doing so leaves out the reasons behind individual votes. The figure itself cannot distinguish whether a vote expresses enthusiasm about a saving, appreciation for the person who posted the deal or amusement at an oddity; the accompanying comments may suggest something different from the number. The Lidl case shows why temperature cannot be equated with demand, satisfaction or expenditure.

The organisation of the forum offers further variations. One person asks whether to buy a phone now or wait for the next generation to be released. Another has lost their earphones and needs to decide whether to replace them immediately or wait for a discount. Others seek help buying a very basic laptop for studying or replacing a family member’s phone within a restricted budget. These contributions move the opportunity away from an abstract price and towards situated needs, material urgency and the constraints of individual households. What counts as a good bargain changes when a purchase cannot be postponed or when the available budget prevents someone from taking advantage of an apparently exceptional discount.

Comparing prices with their past introduces a more institutionalised form of scrutiny. Since May 2022, Spanish law has required, subject to statutory exceptions, that the previous price used as the reference for a reduction be the lowest price charged during the preceding thirty days. In December 2025, the Spanish consumer organisation OCU reported irregularities in 89% of the crossed-out or reference prices in a sample of nearly 2,500 products examined during Black Friday. That figure describes the particular study, not all offers posted on Chollometro. Its relevance lies in showing why suspicion may be an informed response to the commercial environment.

Community contributions, price histories and legal rules carry out a comparable operation, albeit with different powers: they require an advertised discount to be judged against a record of earlier prices. This does not imply that the law originated in any particular digital practice. It does show that everyday debate about fair prices forms part of a wider social and institutional controversy.

Sharing, recognising, calculating

The Club rewards programme, announced by Chollometro in June 2025, offers a way of observing how the meaning of contribution can change. The scheme awarded points for deals exceeding 180 degrees, for comments deemed useful and for taking part in votes. It also announced periodic prizes. The company presented the programme as recognition that the community sustains much of the platform’s activity.

The visible responses were ambivalent. Some people welcomed the rewards; others feared that the incentives would encourage irrelevant content. One contribution questioned whether the site should simply be described as a forum when participants’ activity contributed to a private company’s business. That disagreement does not in itself prove exploitation, but it reveals a dispute within the community over what it means to post. For some, it is help; for others, a hobby, a source of recognition or a contribution whose economic value ought to be acknowledged differently.

Marcel Mauss helps us understand the exchange of information as a relationship combining utility, pleasure, prestige and reciprocity. Studies of digital labour, from Tiziana Terranova to Luis Reygadas, show how these motivations can coexist with inequalities in the control of resources. A person need not stop enjoying the act of sharing a deal for their participation also to produce value that a company can use.

A compilation of fuel discounts illustrates how much work can lie behind a single post. Determining whether a promotion is genuinely useful requires interpreting cards, contracts, cashback, limits and additional costs. A discount that benefits someone with particular utility contracts or sufficiently high fuel consumption may be of little use to someone else. A guide to AWS credits for artificial intelligence presents a different difficulty. Taking advantage of the offer requires familiarity with technical concepts, sign-up conditions and procedures that not everyone knows. The questions and answers become part of the opportunity itself.

The forum also contains requests for help verifying student discounts, obtaining codes for services reserved for specific groups and comparing regional subscription prices. Artificial intelligence forms part of this repertoire, with threads about free months of ChatGPT Plus for students in the United States or promotional access to other models. Here knowledge circulates alongside boundaries of eligibility. Sharing a credential or explaining how to obtain an offer may provoke different moral judgements depending on the legitimacy of that access and the service’s terms. Some practices described by participants could breach those terms. There is no need to reconstruct the procedures in order to understand the moral conflict.

Bourdieu helps us introduce a crucial inequality. Obtaining information is not the same as being able to turn it into savings. Doing so requires money available at the right moment, technical knowledge to assess conditions, time to monitor alerts and, sometimes, a support network to resolve doubts. Care responsibilities and the everyday work of household provisioning also distribute that available time unequally. Accessible interfaces present a further set of barriers. When a benefit depends on acting quickly, speed becomes a socially unequally distributed resource.

There is also a form of reciprocity that begins before someone makes their first post. In the introductions section, some people explain that they have benefited from deals for a long time without contributing and now want to give something back for the help they have received. This move from observing to contributing could be read as a felt moral obligation, although such brief messages do not allow us to reconstruct every motivation. Another feature of the section is revealing: it contains questions about deliveries, products, customer service and moderation that go beyond the ritual of introducing oneself. The platform’s categories guide activity, but do not contain all of it.

Information can be shared; the capacity to turn it into savings is not necessarily shared equally. Nor is the ability to produce knowledge that is recognised as valuable.

The forum and opportunities that are not bought

Examining the five forum listings changes the image of Chollometro as a space devoted exclusively to discussing discounts. In the October 2026 captures, alongside purchasing advice and complaints, there are exchange threads, games and competitions with extraordinarily large comment counts. The counters on the forum’s front page, visible on the same day, give an indication of scale. The forum contained 36,371 threads, while the official announcements category accounted for 645,470 comments across just 247 threads — approximately six in every ten comments recorded in the seven visible categories. Two official reindeer-exchange threads, opened in 2019 and at Christmas 2020, displayed 62,183 and 52,630 accumulated comments respectively. Their volume is striking, but it is not a measure of current activity, unique participants or the quality of discussion. The captures contain listings and excerpts rather than the complete messages in those threads.

The reindeer constitute opportunities manufactured by the game’s own rules. They appear while people browse, can be collected and exchanged, and under certain conditions offer a chance to win prizes. In the listings, participants ask whether golden reindeer really exist, whether they appear at night, whether it is possible to complete several collections, how long one must stay online and what happens when someone changes screens just before capturing one. There are also accounts of small prizes received and suspicions about how rewards are allocated. Those suspicions express distrust, not proof of wrongdoing.

Here scarcity is instituted by game design, without any retailer’s stock or discounted price. The time spent paying attention, the possibility of missing a fleeting appearance and the circulation of duplicates produce an economy of opportunities that can exist without a prior purchase. Rewards can nevertheless have monetary value, while participation carries costs in time. The game makes visible a tension that commercial deals can conceal: the opportunity may be a desirable activity in itself while also encouraging continued browsing.

Referral exchanges present a related but different scene. The competitions listings contain old AliExpress help chains with thousands of comments, as well as discussions of Shein reward games requiring invitations, clicks or help from other people to make progress. One excerpt explains that obtaining the prize is difficult without cooperation. Reciprocity circulates among participants, but the conditions under which it takes place have been designed by retailers. The shop may benefit from publicity, those cooperating may earn rewards, and the platform hosts the network through which they meet. These three benefits cannot be equated or treated as a single extraction of value.

The material also reveals a quieter form of cooperation. People asking whether a shop is trustworthy, sharing delivery updates, warning of fraudulent impersonations of brands or seeking advice about charges differing from those advertised engage in collective scrutiny of risk. A thread tracking phones purchased from one retailer had accumulated hundreds of comments. Among the company’s own announcements was a warning about a website impersonating the Chollometro brand. In this way, the forum builds a memory of commercial experiences that can scarcely be captured by a single temperature reading.

The questions and requests section also contains attempts to withdraw from commercial attention. Some people ask how to disable alerts, stop receiving emails or remove notifications about recommended deals. These are modest but important indications. Alongside the figure of the person who monitors opportunities, we must recognise the person trying to regain control over when and how much attention those opportunities demand. This material makes it possible to investigate temporal autonomy as a dimension of digital consumption in its own right.

The forum’s institutional form also deserves attention. The section entitled ‘Official Announcements’ brings together posts by the team, competitions and changes to the interface, but it also contains some posts written by participants. A category’s name does not, by itself, determine who authored every item. Its listings show changes to the display of deals, navigation, comments, reminders and indicators measuring the impact of contributions. One is Deal Stats, introduced in July 2023 for this purpose. Rather than merely hosting a pre-existing community, the company changes the technical conditions under which that community recognises itself and acts.

The forum, then, broadens the original hypothesis. Chollometro produces and classifies judgements about prices, but it also hosts relationships of belonging, play, help and scrutiny that need not be expressed as degrees. Not all community value passes through temperature, and not all potentially monetisable participation requires a purchase. We should therefore distinguish between the quantified valuation represented by degrees and unquantified social value, such as a warning about a fraudulent retailer, help with a delivery or the exchange of a duplicate reindeer. Both may be economically useful through different mechanisms: the former through classification and visibility, the latter through continued participation and the attention the site retains. This distinction prevents the analysis from reproducing the reductionism of the metric it examines.

How a judgement becomes data

When someone judges a tariff to be good, questions an apparent discount or comments ironically on an extravagant garment, they express a situated judgement. The platform translates some of these responses into a temperature measure that allows unlike offers to be compared. Wendy Nelson Espeland and Mitchell Stevens used the term commensuration to describe the process of making heterogeneous realities comparable through a shared metric; Espeland and Michael Sauder subsequently showed that public rankings can change the behaviour of those who know about them.

In Chollometro’s case, the platform’s frequently asked questions, consulted on 13 October 2026, explain that votes do not all carry the same weight, because the voter’s reputation and activity play a part. They also state that temperature is hidden for the first few minutes and that the threshold for an offer to be considered popular can vary around a particular level. The precise formula and the duration of the hidden period are not public. It is important not to confuse this stated design with causal proof of herding. Experimental research by Muchnik and colleagues identifies that mechanism in a different digital environment and cannot quantify it here.

Degrees can subsequently become part of new rules. The Club awards points when a specific temperature threshold is crossed. Deal Stats also gives people who publish deals a measure of their contributions’ impact, in line with the reactivity described by Espeland and Sauder. Reputation influences the authority of a vote, according to the platform’s official explanation, while certain rankings shape the attention a post receives. The result is a measure governed by rules, hierarchies and design decisions.

The judgement’s circulation continues into the commercial sphere. Pepper Business’s terms and conditions, updated in November 2025, include Chollometro among the platforms in its network and distinguish community deals, editorial deals and discussion threads. Depending on the applicable contract, they provide for billing based on outgoing clicks or transactions attributable to those forms of content. They also distinguish organic impressions from paid advertising placements. This documents a mechanism through which information produced or discussed collectively can give rise to billable commercial activity. It does not demonstrate that every vote, thread or comment generates revenue.

The distribution of permissions is significant. Community rules restrict the posting of personal affiliate links in deals, while individual referrals are channelled through designated spaces under specific conditions. The platform can commercially exploit some of the traffic generated by accepted posts. This asymmetry does not mean participants receive no benefits: they gain information, recognition, enjoyment and, through the Club, the possibility of rewards. But the power to determine which links are allowed and which commercial uses are contracted is not distributed equally.

A corporate case study by Recombee on the Pepper network adds an algorithmic layer. It describes personalised recommendations combining collaborative filtering, popularity models and machine learning. The supplier reports increases of 21% in clicks to affiliate links from the website and 6% from apps. These are figures reported by the supplier for the network, not an independent audit of purchases, revenue or behaviour on Chollometro Spain. Their relevance lies in the indicator chosen: part of the recommender’s performance is measured by its ability to direct traffic to retailers.

Igor Kopytoff proposed writing the cultural biography of things in the volume on their social life edited by Arjun Appadurai. Following that idea, we can reconstruct the social biography of a judgement. A comment or vote expresses an experience; temperature makes it partially comparable; the interface distributes visibility; the recommender selects content; certain clicks and transactions may acquire contractual value. This sequence describes possible translations between different regimes of value, which do not necessarily occur with every deal. Each translation increases the possibilities for circulation and may strip away some of the original context.

The coexistence of an extremely high temperature with ironic comments on the Lidl tracksuit thread illustrates the extent of that loss. A visible number may be useful for ordering content without telling us whether those who vote want to buy, laugh, express gratitude or challenge something. Precisely because the signal simplifies, it can be useful to technical systems that need to classify content at scale.

The art of not buying

A promotion offering permanent free access to the Pumped workout app exceeded 15,000 degrees. Some people thanked the person who shared it; others compared the product with free alternatives and questioned its quality. One contribution described activating the promotion and then uninstalling the app because it was of little use. That sequence separates the apparent achievement of securing an advantage from the experience of obtaining actual value.

Free access eliminates an initial payment, but not the costs of learning, attention or managing an unnecessary service. Nor does it constitute an effective saving against the crossed-out price if the purchase would never otherwise have taken place. This scene allows us to distinguish three practices that the idea of not buying tends to merge. The first is rejecting an offer after considering its conditions, one’s needs and available alternatives; for this we reserve the term competent abstention. The second is activating a promotion without ever using it. The third is abandoning a product after trying it, an instance of informed abandonment such as the testimony about Pumped documents. Comments comparing the app with free alternatives point towards the first practice, although they do not reveal how many people decided against activating it. Ethnographic observation should look for all three in less visible cases as well, without treating them as validated psychological traits or as behaviours demonstrated across the whole community.

Questions about whether to buy now or wait, threads challenging routine discounts and requests to disable alerts reveal different ways of controlling the pace of consumption. Consulting price histories provides another tool. In the community discussion of PrecioReal, and in references to other tools such as Keepa, expectations of protection against false discounts coexist with concerns about browser-extension permissions. Price histories can cool the urge to buy, but alerts can also keep a product persistently in a person’s everyday attention. Price memory also serves commercial actors analysing markets; it does not belong exclusively to people waiting to purchase.

Social psychology offers a secondary vocabulary here. Perceived scarcity, social comparison and anticipated regret may help explain certain decisions, while Bardhi and Arnould remind us, through their ethnography of second-hand shopping, that finding a bargain can also be enjoyable. The same person may enjoy searching, take pride in their knowledge and ultimately reject a purchase. The presence of a reward or an alert does not justify inferring impulsivity.

Material inequality prevents us from treating the decision not to buy as a universal virtue. Someone who waits because they have alternatives and time is not in the same position as someone who forgoes a purchase because they lack sufficient funds. Nor can someone who needs to replace an essential device immediately necessarily afford the patience recommended by others. Research into saving must therefore follow budgets, needs and entire decision-making processes, rather than temperature readings and clicks alone.

Saving money on an item does not, moreover, establish that total spending has fallen. Buying something already planned at a lower price may free up household resources; buying something unnecessary simply because it has been discounted may have the opposite effect. This difference could only be studied through sustained observation, voluntary diaries or careful reconstructions of decisions, including those in which nothing is bought.

A price of zero is not enough to produce value. Nor does a decision not to buy mean the same thing in every circumstance.

Conclusion. What the community does with opportunities

Chollometro allows us to observe how commercial opportunities come to be recognised as legitimate, advantageous or worth rejecting through collective knowledge and judgement. Temperature condenses part of that process, but its ability to rank offers derives precisely from simplifying heterogeneous responses. It can bring technical arguments, economic approval, humour and social recognition together under a single number.

Reading the forums broadens the picture. Besides assessing prices, the community creates rituals, exchanges favours, pursues prizes, shares risks, debates eligibility and negotiates its own sense of belonging. Sometimes these practices help address concrete problems of consumption; at other times, the point lies in participating. Games and referral networks show that the value of cooperation may be used by retailers and by the infrastructure that organises encounters, even as cooperation retains its own meaning for those involved.

That value is unevenly distributed. Information may circulate widely while the ability to convert it into savings depends on available money, time, knowledge and accessibility. The platform provides organisation and reach, but it also administers the rules, metrics and certain commercial contracts. The algorithmic layer transforms some collective activity into signals for recommendation systems operating according to technical and economic criteria that differ from those expressed in individual conversations.

The moral economy of the bargain operates within the market. It scrutinises, interprets and questions some of the market’s practices; at the same time, it can feed the circuits through which that market is organised. Understanding Chollometro requires holding these functions together, neither casting participation as pure resistance nor automatically reducing it to exploited labour.

Future automated shopping tools will make this issue more visible still. If systems learn to select opportunities from histories, votes and behaviour, we will need to ask what happens to the reasons that gave those judgements their meaning, and who gets to decide how they are used. The community knows, plays, compares, doubts and abstains. The infrastructure records some of these activities and leaves others outside its measurements.

What makes Chollometro distinctive is that the judgement of a crowd becomes part of what something is worth, while the infrastructure that organises that judgement also derives value from it.

Methodological and ethical note

This proposal draws on nine deal posts preserved as PDF captures on 15 October 2026, five PDF files containing forum listings captured on 19 October 2026, and academic, legal and corporate documentation assembled previously. The five forum files comprise 277 printed pages from Other Topics (62), Questions and Requests (60), Official Announcements (39), Competitions and Promotions (59) and Introduce Yourself (57). These pages contain titles, excerpts and comment counts rather than the full content of each thread. Some excerpts are truncated, and the pages also include navigation elements, recommendations and posts split across page boundaries.

A cleaned count identifies 1,408 ‘Published’ or ‘Updated’ markers in the five PDFs, corresponding to 1,389 distinct entries after joining cards split across pages and removing repetitions. Four categories contribute 300 entries each, while Official Announcements contributes 189. The procedure is retained in a script that can be rerun on the same files. This is a technical count of the captured listings, not a statistical sample of forum activity. Accordingly, the essay does not calculate percentages from those listings or present them as a comprehensive representation of all activity. Category figures come from the counters displayed on the forum’s front page on 19 October 2026. The two large reindeer threads showed 62,183 and 52,630 comments respectively at the time of capture; these are historical thread totals, not comments read directly or unique participants.

The deal threads were deliberately selected for their high temperatures; they therefore allow the identification of repertoires and negative cases, but not the estimation of how frequently opinions or decisions occur. Individual contributions are paraphrased, and account names are not reproduced. The brief expression ‘Ni gratis’ (‘Not even for free’) is retained for its interpretive significance; its potential traceability must be borne in mind. No individual consent, public research notice or institutional authorisation has been presumed where none was obtained. Any subsequent academic publication would require a review of ethical criteria in accordance with the guidelines of the Association of Internet Researchers.

Documentary sources and corpus

Forum front page, 19 October 2026. Screenshot showing thread and comment counts for the seven visible categories.

Forum captures, 19 October 2026. Other Topics (62 pp.; ‘Anti-bargains’, p. 10); Questions and Requests (60 pp.; Lidl catalogue debate, p. 8; alerts, p. 10; recommended-deal notifications, p. 12); Official Announcements (39 pp.; interface redesigns, pp. 1–4, and Deal Stats, p. 10; reindeer-exchange threads from 2019 and 2020, approximately pp. 31–32); Competitions and Promotions (59 pp.; Shein games and suspicions about reindeer prizes, p. 3; referral chains, p. 34; accounts and questions about reindeer, pp. 9–11); Introduce Yourself (57 pp.; conflicts over publication and the desire to reciprocate, p. 3).

Deal threads, captured on 15 October 2026. DIGI, Amazon Prime Student, Chollometro Club, fuel-discount compilation, AWS credits, Lidl tracksuit, Pumped, PrecioReal, and a Google AI promotion for students, whose URL has yet to be added. The comment captures are partial and sorted by usefulness.

Platform documentation. Chollometro, frequently asked questions, accessed 13 October 2026, source for the weighting of votes by activity and reputation, the initial concealment of temperature and the threshold for a popular deal; posting rules, updated 2 February 2025 and accessed 13 October 2026; community rules, accessed 13 October 2026, source for restrictions on personal affiliate links; Chollometro’s history, accessed 13 October 2026, source for its origins on Telegram in 2015. These pages do not display revision dates and should be archived with a date before publication.

Corporate sources. Pepper, press release on the launch of chollometro.com, December 2017; Pepper and Global Savings Group, announcement of the merger, December 2022; Atolls, rebranding announcement, September 2024, accessed 16 October 2026; Pepper Business, Terms & Conditions, updated 7 November 2025 and accessed 16 October 2026; Recombee, Increasing Click-Outs by 21% for Pepper, undated case study, accessed 16 October 2026.

Legal and consumer sources. Spanish Law 7/1996, Article 20, as amended by Royal Decree-Law 24/2021, Article 85, in force from 28 May 2022; OCU, complaint concerning misleading Black Friday discounts in 2025, 3 December 2025.

References

Alonso, L. E., Fernández Rodríguez, C. J., & Ibáñez Rojo, R. (2011). Del consumismo a la culpabilidad: En torno a los efectos disciplinarios de la crisis económica. Política y Sociedad, 48(2), 353–379. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_POSO.2011.v48.n2.8

Appadurai, A. (Ed.). (1986). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge University Press.

Bardhi, F., & Arnould, E. J. (2005). Thrift shopping: Combining utilitarian thrift and hedonic treat benefits. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(4), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.12

Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction: Critique sociale du jugement. Les Éditions de Minuit.

Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1086/517897

Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313–343. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.313

Fassin, D. (2009). Les économies morales revisitées. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 64(6), 1235–1266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0395264900027499

franzke, a. s., Bechmann, A., Zimmer, M., Ess, C., & Association of Internet Researchers. (2020). Internet research: Ethical guidelines 3.0. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf

Kopytoff, I. (1986). The cultural biography of things: Commoditization as process. In A. Appadurai (Ed.), The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective (pp. 64–91). Cambridge University Press.

Mauss, M. (1925). Essai sur le don: Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques. L’Année sociologique (nouvelle série), 1, 30–186.

Mintz, S. W. (1985). Sweetness and power: The place of sugar in modern history. Viking.

Muchnik, L., Aral, S., & Taylor, S. J. (2013). Social influence bias: A randomized experiment. Science, 341(6146), 647–651. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240466

Reygadas, L. (2011). ¿Capitalismo 2.0? Etnografía de una empresa del mundo digital. Maguaré, 25(1), 165–202. https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/maguare/article/view/26766

Terranova, T. (2000). Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy. Social Text, 18(2), 33–58. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/31873

Thompson, E. P. (1971). The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century. Past & Present, 50(1), 76–136. https://doi.org/10.1093/past/50.1.76