 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'm just trying to visualise the conversation though: "Yeah, we can sell
>> that wouldn't be laughable.
>
> That's exactly how it works (maybe not as extreme difference in price,
> and the company will print the packaging/label too). The supermarkets
> know that consumers want to buy expensive Kellogs cereal and cheap
> own-brand stuff, it will work out better (=more profit) for the
> supermarkets and the suppliers (Kellogs) if they supply both products,
> given how similar they are.
for the first box again??
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/04/2012 4:25 PM, Invisible wrote:
> for the first box again??
Because high cost equals quality in most peoples mind. Or, it is cheap
therefore it must be inferior.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/04/2012 2:59 PM, Invisible wrote:
>
>>> Similarly, Cadbury, maker of fine chocolates, was recently bought by
>>> Kraft foods, makers of naff cheap crap. How the heck did /that/ happen??
>>
>> They offered a high enough price that was acceptable for the company,
>> much like any other trade.
>
> My question was more "how the hell can they afford that?"
The get loans for the money used to buy the company and when the company
is theirs they asset strip to pay back the loan. I believe that this is
also done with football companies.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> for the first box again??
It's not necessarily the exact same content, just made by the same
company in the same factory (as already pointed out, it might use
cheaper ingredients, not be subject to the same level of quality
control, etc.).
In some cases though it is exactly the same content. Just look at Tesco
20x 500mg paracetamol for 18p or whatever it is today, and some other
branded version for at least 5x that price. Yet it still sells. Even
right next to the Tesco one on the shelf. People are happy to pay extra
purely for the brand, this is nothing surprising or new.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/04/2012 04:32 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 11/04/2012 4:25 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> for the first box again??
>
> Because high cost equals quality in most peoples mind. Or, it is cheap
> therefore it must be inferior.
I was thinking more why the /supermarket/ would pay more for the same
product...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/04/2012 4:49 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 11/04/2012 04:32 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 11/04/2012 4:25 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>> for the first box again??
>>
>> Because high cost equals quality in most peoples mind. Or, it is cheap
>> therefore it must be inferior.
>
> I was thinking more why the /supermarket/ would pay more for the same
> product...
Public demand and brand loyalty. People want the brand of cornflakes
they have always eaten. So the supermarkets buy them in for them.
There are some supermarkets that only stock generic brands but do not
let your neighbours see you going there.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/04/2012 02:43 PM, scott wrote:
>> So... how the hell did Fiat manage to afford Ferrari?
>
> Because there are 2 million Fiats sold each year, yet only 5000
> Ferraris. Which brand would you rather own? Hint: if you choose
> correctly you could buy the other one with about 2 weeks of profit :-)
OK, let's do the math on this...
Fiat sells in the budget market. In that segment, if you have a 3%
profit margin, somebody else will come along and start making the same
thing, but selling it at only 2% profit, and everybody will buy that
instead of yours, so you shut down. And then somebody else will start
selling it at 1% profit, etc. In summary, we can take it as read that
Fiat sells its cars at only fractionally more than the actual
manufacture cost.
Suppose for argument's sake that the cheapest Fiat you can buy is
We've already agreed that Fiat is selling nearly at-cost. In other
manufacturing a car. Now, a Ferarri probably costs slightly more to
might be /priced/ at twice as much as a 1L engine, but it doesn't
actually /cost/ twice as much to machine it. No doubt the Ferarri has
nicer fabric lining the seats and a few other bits and bobs. Let's
over-estimate and pretend that the Ferarri costs 2x to manufacture.
Now, explain to me again, *how* can Fiat afford to buy Ferrari??
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/04/2012 9:34 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Now, explain to me again, *how* can Fiat afford to buy Ferrari??
You are wrong in your assumptions.
Remember what Father Ted said to Father Dougal.
Inside head - Fantasy
Outside head - Reality.
Have you ever thought "this does not add up to my conceptions so I must
be wrong"?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:34:42 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Now, explain to me again, *how* can Fiat afford to buy Ferrari??
As Stephen said, your assumptions are bad.
You've forgotten, for example, to include labour costs in the
manufacturing process. Those who work on Ferraris tend to command higher
salaries than those who work on Fiats because making cars for high
performance driving requires more skill than making cars for uses that
the masses produce.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escreveu:
> (For example, good luck trying to stop Sony from getting any of your
> money.)
hey, Microsoft makes money off of Linux and Android, so what would you
know?... :p
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
