Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tuba Consumerism & Emails


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Rick Denney on February 20, 2004 at 15:07:30:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tuba Consumerism & Emails posted by Joe Baker on February 20, 2004 at 14:09:41:

A sale does not always end on an equal footing. When I pay Amerigas to fill my propane tank, and the rate they charge is twice what I think it ought to be, then I'm hopping mad and would like to seem them drown in their propane. Bit I still paid it, because my house is too cold if I don't. That's an example of a seller's market when applied to non-discretionary purchases.

If I buy a tuba, and later determine that the tuba I bought was priced about $1000 more than it should have been, then the sale did not end on an equal footing. The seller used his seller-market status to take advantage of my ignorance. My response is to say bad things about him at every opportunity.

If an agreement to a sale is made on false pretenses, or because one party is constrained not to make a choice, then there is no equal footing, and one party (at least) will end up in a losing situation.

Most people spend as much money as possible on discretionary items, in many cases to the extent that they can't afford the non-discretionary commodities (that's why they put them on their plastic).

And regarding my own spending practices, it seems to me that there are only a few hundred people in the U.S. who are making a non-discretionary purchase when buying a tuba--those who get paid to play them, or who are pursuing getting paid to play them. I don't need any tuba the way I need to warm my house in the winter. I don't need to play in a community band the way I need to show up for work, or spend time with my wife, or maintain my house. The fellow who scrapes together his pennies for 10 years so he can buy a Weril doesn't need that tuba any more than I needed the B&S that I just bought. Both are discretionary purchases, and the buy-nothing alternative is always readily available. Thus, nearly everyone is buying a tuba because they want a tuba, and are therefore looking for a way to do it that satisfies their desires, not their needs. The size of the budget is immaterial--my current collection of tubas made as big a dent in my discretionary spending now as that cheapie Cerveny stencil did when I bought it in 1984.

Personally, I don't think any tubas are commodity items, any more than cars or houses (and those are non-discretionary). All tubas require individual service.

High-end boutiques often limit supply while increasing demand. This is common practice, and it's based on the different theory that I'm describing. If a chef can only cook so much, then he can only feed so many people. Who should he feed? Those who want to pay diner prices, or those who are willing to pay gourmet prices? Usually, the latter will make a higher profit against that fixed supply. So, if I want to open a restaurant with gourmet prices, how to I attract people willing spend those prices? By making the demand seem greater than the supply, people think it must be worth the price. When they buy dinner, they are not buying a commodity item. They are buying the right to see and be seen, to dress up, to impress their dates, and to taste food that you can't get in the Wendy's drive-thru. Nearly all of that is cachet and all of it is discretionary. We are suckers for it (okay, maybe not Joe S, heh, heh), so much so that I'd bet half the people in line at that hot restaurant will pay using plastic, and won't pay off that balance in full when they get their bill.

That's not an excuse for being unresponsive to emails, and you've already heard me say that they should establish appropriate expectations or respond to emails within a business day. But the notion that I would reject a business because they didn't respond to an email doesn't follow, if that business has something special that I want.

Rick "who thinks limiting supply is a proven strategy to increase profit" Denney


Follow Ups: