David Maynard said:
I see how you get that impression from my colorful, limited, example but,
no, I'm speaking of products in general because, while people are sanguine
about 'sales', 'special offers' and 'rebates', they generally expect price
stability, or feel something's amiss.
My example was just one embodiment but the general effect doesn't need a
purchase. Say someone is 'thinking' about buying a computer but it's one
price this week, higher a month later, and then something else a month
after that. Bouncing prices on something not even bought won't sit any
better than the 'hooked' example and the prospective buyer would be
screaming "well, if it's a 'temporary' price then why the hell didn't you
SAY so?" and it doesn't take much imagination to envision the 'sneaky
motives' consumers would ascribe to the price changes.
A rebate "says so."
That's easy for *you* to say, when you don't have to do it.
That's why accountants for big corps make a good buck....unfortunately the
'idea' guy that came up with the 'rebate' game was an accountant. Besides
its a stroke of the pen that puts all things well in accounting.
No, what gets 'dumped on the consumer' isn't precipitated for 'easy
accounting'. It's to reduce fraud.
ok however its to reduce the companies liability to fraud through the lack
of 'evidence', but how does that change anything? still being dumped on the
consumer.
It goes down as related to 'the rebate' not just arbitrarely lowering
prices. (just in case you were going to cite another case of flip flop)
No offense but you apparently haven't looked at what motivates rebates
because it's seldom just to move some obsolete product.
not 'obsolete' ----phased out--- like a printer model change....540s to
the new and improved 540SD!
Got no idea how you come up with the 'accounting' bit or what it means.
accounting dave robbing peter to pay paul
Hard to imagine how you can so definitively assert that a discount doesn't
serve the consumer's interest.
not the discount david the 'rebate'. the having to jump through their
burning hoops to get the rebate
Of course. But the problem I see with your analysis is a presumption the
two are incompatible, especially when most reputable companies operate on
the theory that the first leads to the second.
never presumed 'incompatability' simply one outweighs the other
Which is routine today, before the rebates.
Living in caves didn't collapse the human race either but that's hardly a
reason to go back to them.
Caves and rebates have nothing to do with each other apples and oranges.
Inflation is another matter entirely.
First you say they don't and then you cite an example of them doing so?
Huh? It was you who said they 'don't' raise it....I said that it 'RARELY'
goes down
