Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!sarah!cs.albany.edu!crdgw1!uunet!stanford.edu!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!ux.acs.umn.edu!oleary
From: oleary@ux.acs.umn.edu (Doc O'Leary)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: prices
Summary: "Is it the shorts?" "No, Mars"
Message-ID: <3822@ux.acs.umn.edu>
Date: 25 Apr 91 22:51:08 GMT
References: <1991Apr22.055054.7976@hawk.cs.ukans.edu> <110@eclectic.COM> <1991Apr25.174251.4967@colorado.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Minnesota, Academic Computing Services
Lines: 62

In article <1991Apr25.174251.4967@colorado.edu> wilde@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Nick Wilde) writes:
>In article <110@eclectic.COM> kovar@eclectic.COM (David C. Kovar) writes:

>>  If you set your price low, like more than 20% lower than your competition,
>>many people will believe that your product is inferior simply due to the
>>fact that it costs significantly less than other products. "If it's that
>>cheap, there must be something wrong with it." So you'd pick up a few
>>more sales from people who can't afford any product in the price range,
>>but you'd lose a lot more sales from those people who can afford the
>>going prices.

>I'd be really curious, Dave, (or any one else) could give us hard
>numbers/facts that show this to be true. I realize sales numbers are
>something that companies are traditionally tight-lipped about (unless
>you're NeXT - "we sold 8,000 machines, we sold 8,000 machines, Wuppie !"
>But that's off the subject), but a good case-in-point "we sold
>package XXX at yyy, then doubled the price (without fixing bugs, 
>changing packaging, or anything else of course) and sold quadruple the
>number".
>
>Unless someone can actually point to  a product history like this,
>I'm going to relegate this little tid-bit to the category of "oft
>repeated pieces of folk wisdom with little basis in fact that take
>on a life of their own simply by being repeated to many times on the
>net (and anywhere else).

Actually, I think you gave a pretty good example yourself.  Computers
like the NeXT and Amiga are wonderful machines, but the way they are
marketed leaves one to think that they aren't as nice as they really
are.  I've seen the NeXT ads, "15 MIPS only $3,xxx!!!"  I know people
around here that look at that and then look at an SE/30 or IIsi and
say, "Gee, there must be something wrong with the NeXT.  I mean, you
can barely get off the ground in the Mac world with that kind of money."

Myself, I would seriously consider the NeXT if I could afford a IIsi.  When
it comes to neophytes, though, the fact that an Amiga with AMAX will have
more bang-for-the-buck than a comparably priced Mac just doesn't enter their
mind.  I own an SE, so don't flame me for being a NeXTer or an Amiga-head.
I won't go into details on why I prefer the Mac (I'm not a big fan of
flame wars and I hope this doesn't turn into one), let's just say I
like Apple's style.

I'm no marketing whiz, but I think that the best thing NeXT could do for 
itself is to double (at least) its prices.  Of course, they'd probably have
to come out with some "feature" that justifies the increase.  If they had
just *barely* undercut the Mac IIci (which might be pushing it, since it is
a IIfx level machine), I think they would be doing much better than they
are now.  Yeah they'd have a huge profit margin like Apple and their
customers would whine, but at least they'd have customers . . .

As Spike Lee might say, "Money, it's gotta be the suits."  :-)

         ---------   Doc


**********************   Signature Block : Version 2.4  *********************
*                                     |  "Please put litter in its place"   *
* "Was it love, or was it the idea    |           ---McDonald's packaging   *
*  of being in love?" -- PF           |   Wouldn't that be on the ground?   *
*    (BTW, which one *is* Pink?)      |                                     *
*                                     |   --->oleary@ux.acs.umn.edu<---     *
******************   Copyright (c) 1991 by Doc O'Leary   ********************