[kelliot]

I fail to understand why a projector manufacturer can charge a huge premium for taking the same chassis, adjusting the power supply current a bit and using a 250W instead of a 150W bulb.


An obvious bait-and-switch sales tactic.


Comments?


------------------

Ken Elliott

 

[Man E]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelliot: An obvious bait-and-switch sales tactic.

Isn't bait-and-switch when they advertise one specification and then only offer a higher cost or lower quality item when you attempt to purchase? This would not seem to fit the criteria.


I'm not certain to which manufacturer you refer but am guessing Runco? I remember as a boy learning that the famous importer John Claude Penney was selling the same bikes as was Schwinn (or some such). The Schwinn had better gears, a different paint job, and a few bells and whistles, but it cost a whole lot more. Funny how things change. In those days there is no way that I'd be caught dead on the JC Penney. Fortunately, as poor as we were, my father agreed http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif



------------------

The button is labeled "Play", not "Pay". STOP the MPAA!

Our Silent Angels


[This message has been edited by Man E (edited 04-20-2001).]

 

[Dave W]

The manufacturer CAN charge the premium because we live in a free market economy. You as the consumer, CAN choose whether or not to buy it.


A better question might be WHY does the manufacturer charge large premiums for seemingly minor improvements. It's a time-honored practice to increase margins on higher-end equipment. Intel is a classic example. The price of their fastest processors is always way above that of the slightly slower processors, but the manufacturing cost is almost the same. For that matter, sometimes the product itself is exactly the same! Hence all the overclockers out there.


Manufacturers have to recoup their development costs, and hopefully make some profit. By charging premiums for high-end equipment, where the customer isn't as cost sensitive, they can lower the price of their low-end products, thus increasing market presence.


Just my two cents.


Dave

 

[Chris Carollo]

When I was shopping around for a new 5-disc CD changer a while ago, I was looking at two Sony models, one being $200 more than the other ($400-vs-$600 or so).


They were cosmetically identical, and the specs on them seemed only to have minor differences. My wife ran a quick blind test, and I ended up preferring the cheaper one every time. I asked the salesperson why there was a cost difference, and he admitted that they were for all practial purposes basically identical, but Sony wanted to have all their "price-point" bases covered.


People would come into the store looking for a CD player in the $500-$1000 range, and wouldn't even look at a $400 player, even though it performed as well as the $600 model.


Could be a similar thing is happening in your case.


[This message has been edited by Chris Carollo (edited 04-20-2001).]

 

[rickfritz]

I remember way back when a printer manufacturer called Daisytek make 2 different model printers. One had an 8K buffer and the other a 16K buffer, these were very large for the time. The unit with the 16K buffer sold for $400 more that the 8K unit. I found that the only difference between the 2 units was that the 8K unit had the other 8K disabled by 1 jumber right next to the ram. Move the jumper and double your buffer. Unlawful or unethical, nope. This happens all the time. Remember that a 486sx was a 486 with the mpu disabled and the 486 mpu add on for the SX version originally was the basic 486 chip it disabled the 486sx processor. Or was this the 386 cannot remember. There are countless other examples Ford and Mercury for example. At least with the projectors you are getting a larger lamp, I guess.

 

[Mark Hunter]

I also remember when the news came out that Microsoft NT Server was the *identical* code base to NT Workstation...but with a 500% price penalty!


NT Workstation could be changed into NT Server by just changing 4 Registry keys! NT Workstation, it was discovered, was essentially just a crippled version of Server.


However, Microsoft was smart and built an agent that "watched" those 4 Registry keys and would change them back if anyone mucked with them. How long do you think that it took the collective geek power of the world to figure out how to disable that Agent?


Is this unethical or bad business? Economist Adam Smith would say not. Capitalism is about:


"Charging what the market will bear"


It is a capitalist's right (and indeed, duty) to do this. Corporations were perfectly willing to pay more for NT "Server", and Microsoft established a price point to suit that market.


That doesn't mean we have to like it, though.

 

[Swampfox]

Milori,

Don't you do a similiar thing with Dilard? ;-)


Best Regards,


SM

 

[Mark Hunter]

Hi Swampfox,


Maybe I don't understand what you are referring to, but no, Dilard has only 1 price point.


I can give you a better answer if you let me know what you mean.

 

[Swampfox]

I thought Dilard had price points determined by how many projectors you intended to calibrate?

If so, I think it is smart, but very similiar to paying more for a server than a workstation, or more per seat.

If not, please accept my appology, it truely was meant to be a harmless sm** a** remark. (somewhat of a character flaw of mine)


Best Regards,

SM

 

[dhanson]

Manufacturers are always looking for ways to sell their products for two different prices. The problem they face is that the price that gets them the most overall profit may be quite a bit lower than a significant portion of the market would be willing to pay. They'd love to figure out a way to sell the same product at different prices to different segments of the market, but that's generally illegal.


So they come up with slight differences, put two different labels on the machine, and get around the monolithic pricing requirement that way. Or, they make minor or major improvements to an existing product, and sell it as an upscale version with a different brand name or model number. Onkyo and Integra come to mind.


I don't think there is anything at all wrong with this. As a consumer, you buy an item based on its specifications relative to other competitors in the marketplace. If it's the best product available, does it really matter that the company makes a very similar model under a different name for a lower price?

 

[rlsmith]

Charging a lot more for small improvements in quality is a time-honored tradition.


It also tends to be transitory, as competition forces the small improvements to be included for only smaller prices.


We are simply at any early point in the evolution of HT. It will change.


A good example is word-processing software. You used to pay tens of thousands for good word processing. Now, Microsoft Word can do most of the things people want for a few hundred dollars. Companies like Wang and Interleaf have either gone out of business or found another niche.


The biggest fact about this market today IMHO is that the presentation market is so much bigger than the HT market that the effects of competition are being felt in the presentation market but not yet in the HT market. Hence, we find presentation projectors that are "almost" good enough for HT, but 1/3 the price of their HT variations that contain only a few key differences.


My wife looks at a Seleco and then an Infocus and is totally mystified by the 3-to-1 price difference.


Time is on the side of the wives.