|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Worse and worse mousetraps?
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I’ve been puzzling for a long time about the phenomenon of “competition,” especially as it relates to business. AIUI, “competition” is supposed to improve products and services and reduce prices for consumers, along the “better mousetrap” model.
Is this true, though? Regardless of how many makers of how many sorts of, oh, incandescent light bulbs there are, when I go to store A for a 60-watt one, they vary so little in price from each other the difference is insignificant to the consumer -- a penny or two. Further, one store’s prices vary from another store’s equally trivially.
Then there’s things like medical equipment, bought by hospitals but paid for by patient-consumers. I live in an area where there are several large hospitals within a 50-mile radius. Depending on where my doc has privileges, I could go to any one of these hospitals for tests, surgeries, or out-patient treatments.
If all these hospitals, competing with one another (as they do in the US), all buy the same state-of-the-art mammogram machine, prices at all these hospitals will go up, not down, to pay for the machines. Further, each hospital will feel the need to “advertise” more aggressively to attract more patients to pay these higher costs, while more machines will have more “down” time. This might be OK if patients once kept waiting for long periods got prompter services or treatment, but a waste if this just results in more down time for the machine.
I’m not sure medicine is a special case, either. My older sister remembers flat-top waxed-cardboard milk cartons, with a sort of circular waxed cardboard plug in the top. She remembers them working perfectly well. By the time I came along, there were tent-top milk containers. You were supposed to be able to fold one “tent-side” out to form a spout, but this feature often failed. Then they started inserting a plastic screw-top spout in the top, but this made the cartons more expensive. Meanwhile, the flat-top container company folded (our father worked for it) , despite the fact that it was cheaper, took up less room when packed in bulk, and worked better in the first place. Bottom line: the more expensive, less effective, more space-consuming product prevailed.
And don’t get me started on Microsoft Word . . .
Is the “competition-improves-things” meme just a myth?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Not a myth so much as an imperfect model of reality. The model assumes rational behaviour and perfect information, among other things, and neither of these actually happen in practice. I think you can reasonably say that competition improves things like cars, where it is going to cost a lot regardless and the trick is trying to get good value for money, and where people are likely to do extensive research before purchasing.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
Competition - in ideal conditions - should tend to optimize things toward giving people what they want at the cheapest price it's possible to make it and make a profit.
So the reason all the light-bulbs cost the same is that the production of light-bulbs is already optimized - given current technology AND the suppliers need to match price to stay competitive. If a store dropped their price, for the same light-bulb, many people would switch and so the others would follow.
For competition to produce a better lightbulb - someone would need to invent one (long-lasting say) and be able to produce it for less and/or sell it for more. A lightbulb that lasts a thousand years might be "better" than one we have now, but if it cost $1,000,000 would you buy it? So no-one's going to compete to make/sell that bulb at that price.
So with your milk carton example - a worse product can be "better" if the right combination of cost/demand is hit. You can make money by cutting costs and not pissing off your customers too much. I was listening to a podcast the other day about how budget airlines do this - everyone complains about how the experience is rubbish and you have to pay for literally everything other than a place on the flight - but not enough that they stop flying with them, or not enough people stop in enough numbers.
So no, competition doesn't always make products better, but it will tend to either make them better or cheaper.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Microsoft is probably one of the better examples of how cornering the market with a more expensive and less good product works. There's nothing that MS makes that can't be done either more cheaply or for no actual product cost. But their monopoly made it possible.
The other factor is advertising and promotion. You can create a market for essentially worthless products. Like empty water bottles.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
everyone complains about how the experience is rubbish and you have to pay for literally everything other than a place on the flight - but not enough that they stop flying with them, or not enough people stop in enough numbers.
Yes, this. Everyone complains about the cheap-n-nasty, whether that be budget airlines with no facilities but we'll sell you a bag of peanuts for $10, washing machines that fall apart in five years, the fact that nobody repairs vacuum cleaners any more, and so on.
And then those same people go out and buy the cheap washing machine, cheap airline ticket or whatever else.
People say that they care about quality, but talk is cheap. They act like they care about price.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Competition is only one part of the market. In a free market area, competition will produce the result most generally wanted - the producers make some money, the consumers get a product that fits what they want. If they - as a group - push for lower price, that is what they will get, if they want better quality, that is what they will achieve.
The problem is that the requirements will be the most common ones. If most people want cheaper, that will be the driver, to the detriment of those who actually want better.
But there is more - because producers push for monopolies, which means that they no longer have to cut costs, because people buy whatever. What is more, they can cut costs (both to them, and to the customer) because they can produce knowing the demand that there is.
The other aspect is the customer aspirational drives. People buy Nike, because it has a certain cachet. They pay more for new or expensive items because they want them, despite the fact that the cost or quality might make the price vastly too high.
So competition is only one factor, and that is complex. The market is very complex. And your personal wants or requirements are not necessarily catered for well.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Competition can help drive costs down and quality up but there are many other factors.
For example, Hospitals are highly regulated in complex ways that lead to mass stampeded through loopholes. In general, most people who pay are using insurance that negotiates prices with the hospitals and only covers certain things. Hospitals are also required to treat people who show up at emergency rooms even if they can't pay.
Finally the current U.S. reimbursement is such that hospitals can bill more money than private practice doctors for the same procedures. The result is Hospitals are busy buying out Doctor's practices.
There are reasons for all of this mess, but to call it an paean to competition requires a very blinkered vision. It's a mess that comes from wanting what governmental regulation can give you while maintain the profit of private organizations that can establish monopolies. I firmly would like to see all non-narcotic drugs be over the counter without a pharmacist. I haven't had a pharmacy in years that I would trust to consult on drugs.
Light bulbs are another example of pseudo competition; the basic process was highly industrialized and optimized a long time ago. Some of the global vendors were set up as cost independent manufacturing in Eastern Europe that wiped out a lot of second tier private competition in the United States. Also the government made laws in the last few years saying that incandescent bulbs can't be sold for household use to save electricity.
We're actually in a period of transition now, where a variety of small and large companies are trying to come up with good non-incandescent bulbs using l.e.d. technologies. None of the solutions are perfect but they're improving. In this case the government has set them to improving energy efficiency and only secondarily cost of manufacture. In my city, the cost of non-incandescent bulbs in stores has a subsidy from my (City owned) electrical company. It's cheaper for them to get people to use lower energy lightbulbs than build additional electrical generator capacity.
If you want to look at where competition has worked, it's in computers and smart phones. The current technology is orders of magnitude more powerful, and less expensive than what could be bought a decade or two ago.
Finally, competition when it's not smothered by regulation gets people what they want. A few airlines like Jet Blue tried to do a quality experience at a reasonable price. They've been outcompeted by airlines that offer the lowest price and add fees for things like checking a bag. Jet Blue recently caved on this.. the market wouldn't support a moderate price pleasant experience.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And then those same people go out and buy the cheap washing machine, cheap airline ticket or whatever else.
People say that they care about quality, but talk is cheap. They act like they care about price.
The ability to buy the more expensive, better product depends at least on one's ability to save, or to make lots and lots of money. Lots of people with perfectly valid opinions on the quality of the product can't afford to buy the better competitor.
Indeed, that's one reason why people are angry about seemingly wilful failings in cheap products: those are the products that they depend on, and it feels like they could be better for a small marginal expense, rather than the much larger gap that separates them from products at the next higher price point.
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Competition is only one part of the market. In a free market area, competition will produce the result most generally wanted - the producers make some money, the consumers get a product that fits what they want. If they - as a group - push for lower price, that is what they will get, if they want better quality, that is what they will achieve.
I see the dynamic differently. Producers shape the market. Often offering what they wish to and attempting to convince the buyers this is what they want. Either by lower prices or attractive marketing.
The producers drive the market far more than the buyers.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
everyone complains about how the experience is rubbish and you have to pay for literally everything other than a place on the flight - but not enough that they stop flying with them, or not enough people stop in enough numbers.
Yes, this. Everyone complains about the cheap-n-nasty, whether that be budget airlines with no facilities but we'll sell you a bag of peanuts for $10, washing machines that fall apart in five years, the fact that nobody repairs vacuum cleaners any more, and so on.
And then those same people go out and buy the cheap washing machine, cheap airline ticket or whatever else.
People say that they care about quality, but talk is cheap. They act like they care about price.
As well as Teufelchen's marks in response, it's worth pointing out that the flow of information is not equal.
The person selling the cheap product is going to emphasise its cheapness, and not go out of their way to discuss with you whether in fact it's going to work as well as the more expensive product or whether there are extra costs down the line.
The person trying to sell you the expensive product is going to talk about all its marvellous qualities and not focus on the price.
It's quite clear that giving people extra information or making them conscious of additional considerations changes their buying behaviour. I've seen more than one food show which has shown people what goes into their cheap food/how it's made, and then asked "now that you know, would you be prepared to pay a bit more for a product that didn't have that issue" and the answer is almost always yes.
Here, we now have laws that require clear labelling eggs as either cage eggs or free range eggs. The largest supermarket chain has boosted its supply of free range eggs and cut its supply of cage eggs, because people are now buying way more free range eggs. When that piece of information is front and centre, it influences people to pay slightly more for the product they perceive is better.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
What people say and what they do are different things. People respond to the lectures for light healthy food in dining out but order the rich food anyhow.
From my own life, I think what's happening in the United States is that the hollowing out of the middle class is gutting the mid-range appliance product lines. There's the cheap stuff manufactured to fail and the ultra expensive appliances for the luxury trade. I've seen this in looking for a replacement refrigerator.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Finally, competition when it's not smothered by regulation gets people what they want.
Government regulation is not the only, nor even the major, impediment to free competition. The matter is often framed as if it were, but it is not.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
It's worth remembering the point of the mousetrap - Corporations exist to make as much money as possible for their shareholders, not to make more efficient products. Giving you excellent products at a good price could be a part of a strategy to do that, but it's not the only possible strategy. Maybe some corporations are finding that other strategies for making money work better.
When people complain about waste in the public sector, I often think - there's massive waste in the private sector but it looks very different. The stereotypical public sector waste involves lazy overpaid people sitting at desks doing very little. Private sector waste consists of people working really hard to develop a great product, only for the competition to launch a brilliant product that takes all the sales or the company to have some funding crisis and have to can the whole thing. I guess if you believe in the protestant work ethic, private sector waste is infinitely preferable.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
It's worth remembering the point of the mousetrap - Corporations exist to make as much money as possible for their shareholders,
That was a novel concept when it was introduced to economic discourse, and was widely criticized as being nonsensical. That it has become "common knowledge" is due in large part to good propaganda and the success (for the rich) of supply-side economics.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
As does the idea that markets are always in furious competition.
There is a reasonable amount of scholarly work that supports the idea many markets are subject to collusion by oligopolies who - even when they are banned from outright price fixing - are able to use prices to signal to each other what an 'acceptable' set of prices may be.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Private sector waste consists of people working really hard to develop a great product, only for the competition to launch a brilliant product that takes all the sales or the company to have some funding crisis and have to can the whole thing.
Possibly the biggest waste is the number of people developing things that no one actually needs. Then to have another load of people developing ways to convince us that that something we don't need is essential.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
As does the idea that markets are always in furious competition.
There is a reasonable amount of scholarly work that supports the idea many markets are subject to collusion by oligopolies who - even when they are banned from outright price fixing - are able to use prices to signal to each other what an 'acceptable' set of prices may be.
Just walk through any street market. You'll see the same thing happening - perhaps only half-consciously- among the fruit and veg stalls, taking account not only of things like the wholesale cost of the produce but of location within the market (stalls nearer the entrance to the market can charge more because they're more likely to attract people in a hurry who just want to buy and go: stalls nearer the middle charge less because their customers are more likely to take the time to maake comparisons: but in each area, all the stalls charge much the same prices).
[ 13. March 2015, 11:04: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
When people complain about waste in the public sector, I often think - there's massive waste in the private sector but it looks very different. The stereotypical public sector waste involves lazy overpaid people sitting at desks doing very little.
From some experience I would suggest that a good deal of public sector waste consists of talented and diligent public sector workers doing statutorily mandated work that is not necessarily useful. A good deal of this comes into being because the body politic insist that "something must be done" in response to a news story. The cause is adopted by the government or an MP and in time an Act is passed, an agency or possibly an entire department of state created, buildings acquired, a minister and staff appointed and IT systems and other equipment procured. A lot of that expenditure will go in contracts to the private sector.
To refer to another thread in Purgatory, I would not be the least bit surprised if additional surveillance was introduced for young people travelling to <insert states of choice>.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
From some experience I would suggest that a good deal of public sector waste consists of talented and diligent public sector workers doing statutorily mandated work that is not necessarily useful. A good deal of this comes into being because the body politic insist that "something must be done" in response to a news story.
From my experience, a good deal of the waste in the private sector comes down to much the same thing.
Except in that case it's usually the case of a single executive making a management edict (probably because he read something in a business magazine) which then has to be translated into some kind of wasteful reality (an example from the industry I worked in would be the frequent calls to merge to completely different product lines - with the inevitable cost overruns, drop in market share and functionality - the 'cost savings' by 'rationalising' were up front though - which meant the exec could be promoted).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Competition is only one part of the market. In a free market area, competition will produce the result most generally wanted - the producers make some money, the consumers get a product that fits what they want. If they - as a group - push for lower price, that is what they will get, if they want better quality, that is what they will achieve.
I see the dynamic differently. Producers shape the market. Often offering what they wish to and attempting to convince the buyers this is what they want. Either by lower prices or attractive marketing.
The producers drive the market far more than the buyers.
This was the "ideal free market" where both sides play a part. In reality, you are correct, because of the Nike effect - the producers tell us what we want, and we listen to them.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
The thing is, though, that with medical machines and milk cartons, the end user isn't actually buying the machine or the carton; someone else makes those decisions. For the life of me, I can't figure out how it's in the interests of a packager of milk to purchase cartons which take up more space, are harder to use, and more expensive. The consumer gets no say in the matter, unless s/he wants to switch to a brand with different packaging.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The thing is, though, that with medical machines and milk cartons, the end user isn't actually buying the machine or the carton; someone else makes those decisions. For the life of me, I can't figure out how it's in the interests of a packager of milk to purchase cartons which take up more space, are harder to use, and more expensive. The consumer gets no say in the matter, unless s/he wants to switch to a brand with different packaging.
What is your reason for thinking that the replacement carton was more expensive than the previous one?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The thing is, though, that with medical machines and milk cartons, the end user isn't actually buying the machine or the carton; someone else makes those decisions. For the life of me, I can't figure out how it's in the interests of a packager of milk to purchase cartons which take up more space, are harder to use, and more expensive. The consumer gets no say in the matter, unless s/he wants to switch to a brand with different packaging.
What is your reason for thinking that the replacement carton was more expensive than the previous one?
If you own a business that produces milk cartons and have choice between a generic product and $x per hundred or a NEW proprietory, patented item at $2x per hundred, which item will you produce?
Expensive new products drive out cheap old ones, even if the new one is no better.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Competition is only one part of the market. In a free market area, competition will produce the result most generally wanted - the producers make some money, the consumers get a product that fits what they want.
Let me think about what is right in that sentence...
...nope, couldn't find it.
The reason can be explained best by considering the fashion industry. The term "Next season's fashionable colour" is a joke. And a lie.
Let's say, for example that the industry says next season's colour is blue. They produce blue and flood the stores with blue not because anyone has asked for blue, but because it is cheaper to produce in a reduced range of colours, even if your producer is a third world sweat shop.
But if the people want to wear green, tough because this season they are not making nything in green.
If clothes were produced in a full range of colours then market forces would say what was fashionable, it could be that most people bought blue that season, But it might also be pink or orange or green or white. If they did that the shops would be left with stock in the colours people decide not to buy. So they maximise their profits by producing in a small range, before market forces have had a chance to influence decisions.
It is not just the fashion industry. Thoughout the whole of stores in all levels there is an element of "you will buy what we tell you to buy" and you get Windows 8 installed on new computers without touch screens - surely no consumer ever asked for that. (And I like Windows 8, it works well on my touch screen laptop.)
So when the industry tell you it is market forces dictating, don't believe them. It is just an excuse to make as much money from the consumer with as little outlay as possible. There's nothing wrong with that except the dishonesty.
If the fashion industry were honest they'd admit that clothes are designed to last for a number of years and that they cycle though colours to keep production costs. If you like green, be patient, it will be round in a year or so, then you can wear green for the next few years after that. The problem with this honesty is it does not drive people into the shops like moronic sheep.
[code]
[ 14. March 2015, 10:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
But the fashion industry doesn't operate in this ideal free market. It operates as a cartel, which is different - and which produces the situation you see.
As I said from the start, free market competition is not the only player. In fact, in most areas, the free market that is so heralded by the right wing does not exist - because business can make more money from monopoly or cartel positions.
Take the train services, for example. These were heralded as introducing competition into the market, but the truth is that a particular operator has a monopoly on a particular route. This means that they can do what they want. That is not competition - if there was competition, then all sorts of companies could run trains, and customers could choose the services they wanted. Of course, that would be chaos.
Running trains is better as a monopoly. But it should be a monopoly run for the purpose of providing better services, not, as currently, for profit.
The point I was trying to make is that pure competition as a basis for an economy does produce the positive results (as per Ayn Rand). The problem is that real-world economics never has this purity of approach, and there are all sorts of other factors involved.
The competition model also requires the producers to be broadly altruistic. In truth, so many are looking at the short term profit, and not the long-term needs. There are all sorts of reasons for this, but it does distort the model.
Of course, as a socialist-leaning green, I think the model of free-market capitalism is broken anyway, partly because we never get that as such, we get the mess we currently have. It doesn't produce better mousetraps, it produces mousetraps that satisfy the shareholders.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
As I said from the start, free market competition is not the only player. In fact, in most areas, the free market that is so heralded by the right wing does not exist - because business can make more money from monopoly or cartel positions.
My point exactly quote:
The point I was trying to make is that pure competition as a basis for an economy does produce the positive results (as per Ayn Rand).
Positive for who? quote:
Of course, as a socialist-leaning green, I think the model of free-market capitalism is broken anyway, partly because we never get that as such, we get the mess we currently have.
Has it ever worked except to benefit the very few, and they are not the consumers. As a slightly left leaning non green there's a lot to agree on. (On the other hand it means my Liberal vote last time means I voted for the present lot. Somebody take me out and shoot me please.)
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The thing is, though, that with medical machines and milk cartons, the end user isn't actually buying the machine or the carton; someone else makes those decisions. For the life of me, I can't figure out how it's in the interests of a packager of milk to purchase cartons which take up more space, are harder to use, and more expensive. The consumer gets no say in the matter, unless s/he wants to switch to a brand with different packaging.
What is your reason for thinking that the replacement carton was more expensive than the previous one?
If you own a business that produces milk cartons and have choice between a generic product and $x per hundred or a NEW proprietory, patented item at $2x per hundred, which item will you produce?
Expensive new products drive out cheap old ones, even if the new one is no better.
If the milk carton company has competition, it doesn't make any sense for them to simply raise their prices by a factor of 2 without producing a better product, because all their customers will just switch to the other milk carton manufacturers that produce the cheaper generic version.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
(i) If - and that's a big if (ii) unless they can persuade the customers that their product is in some way preferable.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
Sure - but how is that mechanism supposed to work in the milk carton example? What false benefit can a manufacturer of milk cartons invoke to convince a purchaser of milk cartons to pay more (or even the same amount) for what is, in fact, an inferior product?
This seems to require one kind of business (carton manufacturers) to be inherently more clever and devious than another kind of business (milk processors), but I don't see any particular reason why this should be so. How easy can it be for a carton producer to fool a milk processor about the true qualities of something like a milk carton?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I'm speculating, but I would say the benefit has to be in a different area to originally identified (which, was for the consumer - the newer cartons were harder to open). If, despite the added difficulty opening the cartons there's another benefit to the milk supplier then they may well switch to a product that is worse for the end consumer. That could be the new cartons could be filled more quickly, or they could be sterilised and closed more securely increasingly shelf-life , simplifying supply chains and having less product thrown away.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
That makes sense to me, Alan, but Porridge's original description seemed to imply that the milk producers were somehow being fooled into buying what would be (for them) a worse product that cost more.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
May I introduce as exhibit A for retailers creating a "need" where none before existed, the success of Starbucks in turning a watered-down (well, milked-down) version of a somewhat obscure Italian coffee drink into a worldwide demand?
The demand is strongest in the Seattle area (where Starbucks arose), in parts of which you can't go a mile on certain suburban arterials without passing half a dozen or more independent and franchised drive-up latte stands. Clearly there is now a demand.
But there was no demand for drive-up latte stands 30 years ago. They didn't pop up like mushrooms because a demand wasn't being met, but because a demand was created out of thin air (and the general love of caffeine).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
That makes sense to me, Alan, but Porridge's original description seemed to imply that the milk producers were somehow being fooled into buying what would be (for them) a worse product that cost more.
That said, however, I wonder if the fact that the tent-top stands taller than the old plug-top kind is a factor.
Possibly the milk packagers noticed that a consumer, faced with a larger package, subconsciously prefers it in the mistaken belief that the tent-top quart contains more milk than the plug-top quart.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Balaam - we are, I think, largely in agreement.
The pure competition is positive for everyone - as Rand explores in Atlas Shrugged (and yes, I have read it). The problem is that it only works in an idealised environment, not in the real world, because in the real world people are broken in all sorts of ways.
Has it ever worked - no, because the environment in which it can work doesn't exist.
The point is that the Rand ideal - which is behind a lot of the ideas and policies of the West, and so is important to appreciate - only works in a small, wealthy, altruistic community. The ideals (which are closer to communism than anything else, of course) can never work in a world where people are greedy, where people want to make money for doing nothing. It can never work in a world where some people cannot work, and need others to look after them. It can never work in a world populated by people, rather than idealised entities.
I understand the ideal, which is what the OP was referring to. I can see how the ideal can be argued as a working system, which is what Rand does. But it is an ideal - applying it into a world that is not ideal is madness - in Atlas, 95% of the people were left to rot. If that is what it takes in reality, it is indefensible.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
(i) If - and that's a big if (ii) unless they can persuade the customers that their product is in some way preferable.
All that is necessary is for the producers of the new, improved carton to be able to persuade their customers (dairies, supermarket chains etc) that they in will be able to turn a greater profit. A marginal advantage can usually be found, even if it is a work of fiction.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
That makes sense to me, Alan, but Porridge's original description seemed to imply that the milk producers were somehow being fooled into buying what would be (for them) a worse product that cost more.
That said, however, I wonder if the fact that the tent-top stands taller than the old plug-top kind is a factor.
Possibly the milk packagers noticed that a consumer, faced with a larger package, subconsciously prefers it in the mistaken belief that the tent-top quart contains more milk than the plug-top quart.
Perhaps. I've heard stories about companies changing the shapes of food packages to disguise a change in the amount contained.
But since milk is sold in such rigidly standardized volumes (where I live, at least), and consumers seem to pay a lot of attention to the unit cost of milk, I think milk producers would need extremely compelling evidence of such an effect to convince them to switch to a more expensive package.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I’m not sure medicine is a special case, either. My older sister remembers flat-top waxed-cardboard milk cartons, with a sort of circular waxed cardboard plug in the top. She remembers them working perfectly well. By the time I came along, there were tent-top milk containers. You were supposed to be able to fold one “tent-side” out to form a spout, but this feature often failed. Then they started inserting a plastic screw-top spout in the top, but this made the cartons more expensive. Meanwhile, the flat-top container company folded (our father worked for it) , despite the fact that it was cheaper, took up less room when packed in bulk, and worked better in the first place. Bottom line: the more expensive, less effective, more space-consuming product prevailed.
As a child with a mild milk allergy I didn't get a lot of hands on experience with Tetra-Pak. The company designed the packages for aseptic packages. The liquid content could be pasteurized and then poured into containers that could be sealed with out contaminating the sterilized contents. This makes the contents have a longer shelf life and carried to its extreme means the milk can be kept without refrigerator. That's not caught on too much in the U.S. The downside is that it's a cooked product.
As a consumer, you only see the inconvenience/difference of the lid compared to the old one. The merchant sees advantages for inventory and shipping lifetime.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
AIUI, “competition” is supposed to improve products and services and reduce prices for consumers, along the “better mousetrap” model.
That should be its purpose. Arguably on a metaphysical level that probably is part of its teleological purpose. Alas, a lot of the time it seems to be used mainly for greed, not so much to make life better for everyone. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:
Is the “competition-improves-things” meme just a myth?
I think it still probably has some good effects, but I don't think it's intrinsic, and I believe that cooperation for mutual benefit needs to be emphasized more just on basic moral principles.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I should mention this book where the better mousetrap is one that operates in all realities*.
Actually, this is where the capitalise ideal fails - it only works in a perfect reality, not in real ones.
*If you like the Tom Holt style, you will like this. It is not for everyone, of course.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
This makes the contents have a longer shelf life and carried to its extreme means the milk can be kept without refrigerator. That's not caught on too much in the U.S. The downside is that it's a cooked product.
Most of the organic milk sold in the US is UHT treated (or "ultra-pasteurized" as it's described here). It's still sold from refrigerated cabinets - probably because that's where people expect the milk to be.
Oh, and it's foul. UHT milk tastes horrible.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
My understanding is that in Europe they stack the milk in the aisles without refrigeration. The German owned chain Trader Joes here sells UHT cream. I agree it's pretty foul; a small step up from canned condensed milk.
Unfortunately the tendency is toward more of the processing. Every year or two I make a classic eggnog from the Julia Child recipe; cream, milk, eggs, sugar, booze and nutmeg. It doesn't hide the ingredients, so I try to find really good cream to make it. It's gotten harder over the years to get milk and cream that hasn't been ruined with additives. (Store bought eggnog is a seaweed, gum. corn syrup and milk travesty.
The better mousetrap people have been trying for years to replace homogenized pasteurized, stabilized milk with milk that has been placed under radiation to kill the microbes. They claim it will taste more like raw milk.
That's the irony of the better mousetraps. After they get rid of the old way; like lids on milk cartons, they then try to sell a new and more expensive way to give back the same functionality that was eliminated in the name of progress; e.g. tetra pack lids.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
