On 7/9/2017 12:07 PM, Chaya Eve wrote:

OTOH, I drive some weeks 2000 miles. speeds sometimes in triple
digits, on hills in the snow, on highways in the heat. Do you think the
$100 tire is going to perform as well as a Nokian WR3G? It is about
double the price but can keep you safer in severe condition.

I'm never going to be able to give you a degree in economic theory, nor in
marketing, nor even in logic.

If you actually think that price is a reliable indicator of quality, then
I'm never going to change your mind. Never. It's actually great (for
marketing people) that you think that way because you are so easily
manipulated.

There is no lower priced tire that would give me the performance I need.
Easy logical decision. If there was, I'd buy it. The tire was bought
based on performance, not name brand or anything else.



For example, do you ever wonder why the Google Pixel was priced *exactly*
the same as the iPhone it wanted to compete with? Think about the beauty in
that very simple marketing decision, and then contrast that with Google's
previous price strategy.

A favorite expression of one of my professors was:
* Marketing is genius.
* People who fall for it are not.

I know a guy that started a company that made the clear plastic packing
tape we see on most packages. He tried selling it for less than half
the price of the name brands. Could not sell it. He raised the price
to be 5% less and the sales started coming in. After a few yers he sold
the company and retired.


I don't buy on price and minimum specs, I buy on the performance that I
need.

I buy on value.
All I use is logic and effort.

To buy on price only takes the absolute minimum of logic but no effort.
To buy on value takes far more logic and far more effort.

I think we are saying the same thing. I buy on performance I need. No
matter the price, it is not a good value if it does not do the job. A
28 foot ladder is $300. I can get a ladder that will take the same
wight, works just as well and is only $120. Better value? not if it is
20 feet and does not reach my roof.

Take this simple logic, for example:
* You can buy Craftsman screwdrivers individually, or,
* You can buy a whole set of them for a lower unit price.

The price per screwdriver could be twice as much for the individual
screwdriver than for the set. Assuming you need a set (which is a decent
assumption, and adjusting the unit price to remove the couple of crapware
items they include in the numbers), you can easily have a unit cost for the
set to be about half the unit cost individually.

This is called economies of scale (not scope - which was my bad).

At twice the cost per screwdriver, how is buying screwdrivers individually
going to get you a better screwdriver than buying them as a set?

HINT: Commodities are different than specialty items.

Hint: If I only need a #2 Phillips for $5, it is a waste to buy a set
of 10 screwdrivers that will never be used for $10. Unless I can sell
what I won't use.



Since we are talking about screwdrivers, they periodically go on sale
(Father's day is a good one to aim for), and I can schedule gifts easily.

Why do you insist that if I pay double for the screwdriver, I get a better
screwdriver than if I pay half?

Your argument makes no logical sense to me.

You changed the argument. If you are only going to use a screwdriver
one in your life for one screw, it makes no sense to buy a set on sale
at Father's day for gifts. I want to drive that screw today.


Maybe it makes sense to you and to others to pay twice as much for the same
thing, thinking it's "better" somehow, just because you paid twice as much
for it?


Never said that. I buy what I need or buy what I want. Sometimes what
I want does not come in other prices and models. I make the decision,
yes or no based on desire and wallet.