| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Sirius/XM
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 01:22:18 -0400,
wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 01:03:22 -0400, wrote: That's not always the case Greg. Advertising can simply be to increase market share ... or simply compete for business in the first place. The idea that all business costs are "passed on" to the customer is simply not true. Who pays them? If you are not covering your expenses with your revenue you are on the fast track to bankruptcy court. (or you are the government) === Generally production efficiency goes up with higher production volumes (economy of scale). So if you can grow your top line faster than the bottom, profits increase as does the possibility of decreasing prices. === Just re-read that and it's worded incorrectly. Should be: So if you can grow your top line faster than the cost of production, profits increase, and raises the possibility of decreasing prices. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sirius/XM
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 01:22:18 -0400,
wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 01:03:22 -0400, wrote: That's not always the case Greg. Advertising can simply be to increase market share ... or simply compete for business in the first place. The idea that all business costs are "passed on" to the customer is simply not true. Who pays them? If you are not covering your expenses with your revenue you are on the fast track to bankruptcy court. (or you are the government) === Generally production efficiency goes up with higher production volumes (economy of scale). So if you can grow your top line faster than the bottom, profits increase as does the possibility of decreasing prices. That assumes the ads generate enough more volume to bring on the extra volume and that economy of scale but you are still passing on that cost to the customer. The ad fairy is not leaving the extra money under your pillow. In an attempt to drag this back on point, how many times do I need to see/hear this ad before it stops being informative and just becomes a pain in the ass? I wasn't going to buy a magic pillow the first time I saw the ad and I am even less likely to buy one the 100th time I see it. (I feel the same way about politicians who call me on the phone or interrupt my TV show). If ads were so valuable to customers, why is there such a market for "ad free" services like satellite radio, HBO and the various media products like DVDs, streams and MP3s? I am sure Harry could see most of the movies he stores on his server on "free" ad based TV but he chooses to watch them without ads. Maybe that is how he got a legal copy that he could copy freely. He recorded it from broadcast TV with the ads. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sirius/XM
On 8/17/2017 11:03 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 01:22:18 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 01:03:22 -0400, wrote: That's not always the case Greg. Advertising can simply be to increase market share ... or simply compete for business in the first place. The idea that all business costs are "passed on" to the customer is simply not true. Who pays them? If you are not covering your expenses with your revenue you are on the fast track to bankruptcy court. (or you are the government) === Generally production efficiency goes up with higher production volumes (economy of scale). So if you can grow your top line faster than the bottom, profits increase as does the possibility of decreasing prices. That assumes the ads generate enough more volume to bring on the extra volume and that economy of scale but you are still passing on that cost to the customer. The ad fairy is not leaving the extra money under your pillow. In an attempt to drag this back on point, how many times do I need to see/hear this ad before it stops being informative and just becomes a pain in the ass? I wasn't going to buy a magic pillow the first time I saw the ad and I am even less likely to buy one the 100th time I see it. (I feel the same way about politicians who call me on the phone or interrupt my TV show). If ads were so valuable to customers, why is there such a market for "ad free" services like satellite radio, HBO and the various media products like DVDs, streams and MP3s? I am sure Harry could see most of the movies he stores on his server on "free" ad based TV but he chooses to watch them without ads. Maybe that is how he got a legal copy that he could copy freely. He recorded it from broadcast TV with the ads. Those "magic pillows" are pretty good. I bought one to try out at Bed, Bath and Beyond. I like it. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sirius/XM
On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 1:22:23 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 01:03:22 -0400, wrote: That's not always the case Greg. Advertising can simply be to increase market share ... or simply compete for business in the first place. The idea that all business costs are "passed on" to the customer is simply not true. Who pays them? If you are not covering your expenses with your revenue you are on the fast track to bankruptcy court. (or you are the government) === Generally production efficiency goes up with higher production volumes (economy of scale). So if you can grow your top line faster than the bottom, profits increase as does the possibility of decreasing prices. While I certainly understand your point, I believe there are few examples of the price of an in-demand product's price being reduced. If a company creates a product and it takes off in the market (higher production volumes), that means it's selling well at the current price point and there would be no reason to reduce price (profit). About the only thing that would drive that would be a competitor who takes market share away from you based on lower price or better quality/value. |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sirius/XM
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:29:54 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote: On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 1:22:23 AM UTC-4, wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 01:03:22 -0400, wrote: That's not always the case Greg. Advertising can simply be to increase market share ... or simply compete for business in the first place. The idea that all business costs are "passed on" to the customer is simply not true. Who pays them? If you are not covering your expenses with your revenue you are on the fast track to bankruptcy court. (or you are the government) === Generally production efficiency goes up with higher production volumes (economy of scale). So if you can grow your top line faster than the bottom, profits increase as does the possibility of decreasing prices. While I certainly understand your point, I believe there are few examples of the price of an in-demand product's price being reduced. If a company creates a product and it takes off in the market (higher production volumes), that means it's selling well at the current price point and there would be no reason to reduce price (profit). About the only thing that would drive that would be a competitor who takes market share away from you based on lower price or better quality/value. There is no better example of that than the highly advertised drugs. The only time the price goes down is after patents expire and there is a generic ... that is not advertised at all. They still continue with the ads and those branded drugs continue to be priced much higher than the generic, even though they are chemically identical. Now let's see Harry defend the drug companies ;-) |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| SIRIUS I | Tall Ship Photos | |||
| Bow Sirius | Tall Ship Photos | |||
| BE - Sirius | Tall Ship Photos | |||
| MarineWX on Sirius... | General | |||
| 22' Sirius info? | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
