(Another programming note: I've decided to put the new blog on ice until Rails 3 goes final. When that will be is anybody's guess.)

I've been a member of the "exclusive" online shopping site Gilt for a number of years. (If you care to help me fill my closet with button down shirts, join the site here, buy something, and I'll receive a $25 credit.) The concept is quite genius from a marketing perspective. Gilt peddles high-end designer clothing and accessories at huge discounts, but in extremely limited quantities and in sales that last just a few days. Pretentious luxury goods companies love this low-key channel as a way to unload excess inventory or to prime the market by selling to "trendsetters" at cut-rate prices, but without the risk of tarnishing their brands' exclusive reputations.

The site likes to bill itself as, "exclusive" and "members-only," which no doubt gives it consumer appeal in the same way the exclusivity of owning a Range Rover appeals to consumers. (Though that's pretty much the only reason I can think that anyone buys what is truly a terrible, unreliable and overpriced vehicle.) No doubt the folks supplying Gilt with their merchandise also like that, even if they have to sell their wares at huge discounts, at least they're doing it to an "exclusive" group of people.

In reality, however, the site is anything but exclusive: anyone who wants to join can do so by clicking a standard signup link on their splash page.

But it wasn't always so. Back when I joined the site, becoming a member required cunning and skill. That is, finding another member and persuading that existing member to parcel out one of his or her invitations to the site. It reminded me of Gmail in its early days. On the one hand, this exclusivity was snobbish and frustrating. On the other hand, though, Gilt was a much better place to shop when the competition for goods was less intense.

This morning, for instance, Gilt had Seven for All Mankind jeans on sale at about half of retail prices. Seduced by the prospect, I made a point to be at my computer at 8:59 AM on the dot, just as the sale kicked off at 9:00. This, I reasoned, would give me a good shot at snagging a pair of jeans at a great price. It was, however, not to be. For even at 9:01 — I had to spend a few seconds scanning the goods on offer — the site had completely sold out of "Sevens" in sizes better suited for hominids than members of the elephant family.

Not that this ought to surprise anyone. The quantity demanded of — otherwise known as the number of people willing to pay for — Seven for All Mankind jeans is much higher when they're priced at $100 per pair, as opposed to when they're priced at $200 per pair. At the same time, Gilt severely limits the quantity of goods it can supply. Combined, these two ingredients make a shortage, which tends to make people, like myself, angry.

If I had my way, the site would revert back to its genuinely exclusive state. But those are the words on an incumbent with every reason to exclude others. The situation has many parallels with rent ceilings, a classic example from intro economics. At the prices imposed on rents through a ceiling, far more people want apartments than there are landlords willing to supply apartments at the mandated price. Those people who manage to snag an apartment at the imposed price are pretty happy — and would probably support rent controls going forward — whereas people willing to pay more than the imposed price wind up quite unhappy.

But I doubt Gilt will raise prices. That they have huge discounts is the principal reason they exist. Nor do I imagine they will kick members out to help sort out the shortage. (Technically speaking, if people don't have access to the market, then they don't contribute to demand. This can be done through prices — it's why I don't influence the market for Ferraris — or through mechanisms like membership.) It would be a PR nightmare.

Given those two conditions, I feel the most equitable solution to this annoyance is some kind of lottery. Say for the first 10 minutes of a given sale, users could add any items they might want to purchase to their shopping carts. Then, after the first ten minutes of the sale some users would randomly be given another 10 minutes to buy items. It's not the best solution in absolute terms, but, given the context, it would remove one (albeit very minor) frustration from my life.