cut the arrogant crap like this , its not necessary you can make your points without it and as a member of the site team you of all people should know better than that . If you are in fact incapable of making your points without resorting to that kind of attitude then dont bother making them because in my view it just makes you look and sound like you have run out of arguments . I believe arrogance from seasoned members like that is part of the reason that we have such trouble attracting members who are willing to stick around here
Muz, I'm sorry. You are absolutely correct. It was meant more in the way of a joke than an insult and I see how it is easily perceived as rude. You (seriously) have my apologies.
My point about them contradicting was simply that you stated a $100 purchase is less than $200 worth of smaller purchases. Your logic, the way it was presented, made sense. But in the same logic you exposed the reality of how much more expensive the smaller purchases were. For example:
A $100 purchase is more readily exchanged/returned upon dissatisfaction. This is true, but the funds are already allocated to an expenditure of $100, so the normal consumer will either: A. Spend the same amount, B. Spend more on a product they find more suitable because they're only adding a smaller amount to the original budgeted cost, C. Spend less on a 'value' product which is less likely, or D. Cancel the purchase and reallocate the funds, very improbable and unexpected in a "Consumerism" market by definition.
$2 Purchases are disposable
This says from the start that they are less likely to be returned or exchanged. Therefore the product is either thrown away or kept but no longer used. These smaller purchases cause more financial damage because of that very logic, which was the point I inappropriately was trying to reach. If you don't return the item but no longer use it, you will purchase the same type of item for the same cost or more, therefore doubling the budgeted cost.
Again, I'm sorry dude.
Dude you gettin worked up over opinions.
And by the way when i buy a car i look at style, speed, and can I pay for it. Past experience has showed me that how well it holds up is in proper maintainence and how you drive and where you drive.
I can make a Kia last 10 years(a long life for such a cheap car) or 2 days same with a Corvette, Chevy Truck, or a Peterbuilt with a Cat engine(yeah I know my way around a big rig too lol)
Bottom line advertising is targeted toward the masses to sell, Consumers buy what appeals to them.
If you don't want people's opinion don't post on a forum
I am getting a little worked up, yes. It always saddens me when I present thought provoking information and it is taken out of context.
So, you also just a proved a point I was eluding to. You know your way around cars, and also stated that there are certain criteria when purchasing a car. Very similarly, I purchase most types of PC parts/manufacturers/etc. because I understand what's important. I know when the value of the item justifies the price.
Also, I didn't post in this forum to start a fight or to not read what others had to say. I very much wanted others' opinions, I didn't realize that a die hard Apple PR rep would take my comment about an ad personally and then try to disprove every point I made from there on. Most other comments have been geared towards the type of discussion I was looking for, that of course being more philosophically based and completely void of Product specific rhetoric.
- The other "Need to know" is... If Paul gives Peter $100, what does Paul get in return? Is the service or product that Paul receives in exchange for the surrender of his disposable income worth the total cost of the service or product to Paul?
In most circumstances, yes. The value of an object is subjective, but Paul obviously sees that said object is worth more than $100. This is Economics 101.
In economics 201, you learn why 101 is presented that way. Economic Models are based on certain assumptions. Not everything is going to be tangibly measured in a macro/micro economic system. Therefore, things are assumed, or guessed. Now, the subjectivity of value does nothing to the products actual worth. At the end of the day, I can take any electronic device, whether it's worth $10 or $10,000 retail, and scrap it for the value of the raw materials. Those are typically based on a World price that is only subject to change by country, depending on the availability of said materials. Continuing on; If I take an ASUS Zenbook to a smelter, I'll get about $5 at best. The whole concept behind a name brand is that you can charge more for equal or less input cost. Example: Banana Republic vs. Walmart selling T-Shirts. Walmart probably uses more durable and better material, but Banana Republic has a name worn by popular people, therefore the firm becomes a price maker, not price taker like manufacturers who push product through WalMart. Now, where this is going is that the consumer alone controls the price of any product. Price Elasticity will determine how much a firm can raise price. Elasticity is based on a perceived need. Cigarettes are almost completely inelastic. You raise the price on cigarettes and the demand is only slightly affected. Paul, and anyone else who buys from Peter, could easily stop buying Peters crap, and Peter has to lower cost and reduce profit margin in order to remain in business.
You also very briefly proved another point about Apple, but I'll hold that back because I have nothing against them as I've said many times prior, but you still defend them like I said anything bad about them in the first place.
- I understand the market very well (probably a lot better than you considering my past experience with Apple executives and business proposals, which whether or not you believe that does nothing to its validity).
Doubt this. Just because you have CNBC on your television doesn't mean you're an expert on the markets. I've been doing this for years and I don't consider myself an expert, so I doubt you are as well.
Not one time, anywhere on this site or others, have I called myself an expert at anything. One time, however, I did sit in a room with the Apple COO, CFO, a business manager overseeing their website chat function, and two tech guys and was involved in trying to get them to Outsource their business to my company. This was in October of 2007 following an RFP by Apple looking to weigh the ROI of outsourcing their chat. My company responded and we decorated the site with all kinds of Apple banners/logo's etc. I was involved because at the time I ran the Qwest Customer Care business we housed and did very well at improving quality and sales for Qwest during that time. At one point, if you called 1-800-244-1111 (Qwest Customer line printed on each Qwest bill in the 14 state region where it was the LEC), there was a 15% chance you got someone who worked for me. So, the VP of Sales asked me to put together some numbers and data for the Apple pitch. Although I didn't present anything to them during the meeting, I did get to talk with one of the tech guys afterwards who had a MacBook Air (few months before release). I can say with 99.999% certainty that I knew more about the MacBook Air before you ever saw one in person. In that meeting, I learned a lot about Apple's strategy when you click the little chat button. I know what their old KPI (Key Performance Indicators) and chat handling metrics were projected to be during 2008. I also learned just a tiny bit about their marketing. So, no. I didn't watch CNBC and then claim I knew Steve Jobs, because I don't watch the crap, and never met ol' Steve, he didn't make that meeting (must have been busy?)
- The car thing is a bad analogy.
When purchasing a car, do you go to the dealership and purchase based solely on color? When purchasing a car, do you see the coolest car you can find and then purchase regardless of price/sacrifice/long term impact?
Purchasing a car is a large scale financial decision based on price and opportunity cost. The lower the price, the more likely you are to purchase with less information, even though the opportunity cost of the purchase is rarely considered.
What's wrong with buying a car solely on color? Again, just because people place different values on different aspects of a product does not mean they're ignorant, blundering idiots.
If you place the value of a car on the color of the paint, then yes, You are an ignorant, blundering idiot.
Now, I don't know how much you make dude, but based on my experience here, you're not the kind of guy who lives check to check. Unfortunately, >80% of the rest the population doesn't live like you. So saying that because Kim Retardashian can buy a car based on color doesn't mean that "Joe the plumber" should too.
When a car is greater than x% of yearly income or creates a large enough impact on the disposable income of the consumer, comparisons are made as to the true cost of the vehicle (CostOfCar+Fuel+Maint.+Insurance) You start to ask questions about MPG/Warranty and get quotes for insurance... right?
So you think most people that buy that Apple MacBook Pro think "oh, shiny" and purchase the product based on that merit alone? You know how flawed that argument is?
Holy crap J, GET OFF THE APPLE THING. I'm am not talking about an Apple product in this thread, I never was! I said the advert and the subsequent rave about THE ADVERT was crazy given the ratio of input to output.
The problem here (I'll say it again, but differently) is that our consumerism society has bred a generation of laborers who make poor decisions. The logic is: A purchase of $100 is greater than 100 purchases of $2. That's mathematically incorrect, duh.
No. Consumers have always behaved like this. The difference now is the fact that we rely so heavily on credit - but human instinct remains the same.
Consumers have not "always behaved like this." Not until (Anglo-American societal time-frame) our market became one of huge surplus did the value of earned income become less valuable to the person receiving the income. The introduction of credit is nothing new either, only the ubiquitous availability and widespread misuse. Also, even though this behavior is normal, doesn't by any means make it right.
"That which is not sustainable, is not sustained."