Posted on 10/05/2005 7:42:38 AM PDT by N3WBI3
Man, the more posts I read of yours the more I"m convinced you're still in elementary school. Where did I say that charging way above the market rate is a great business model?
However, if he also painted the house at the same time or did something a bit different than others than yes that rate may make him a mint. Or if he's in a market where there's not enough $150 powerwashers than yes he can charge $400 and make a nice profit without risking no new sales.
Who said I'm ignoring customer satisfaction; however, as I've stated several times customers do NOT RULE...profits do--it's really not even debatable. What you're arguing is the best way to make profits, so even by your own acknowledgment Profits rule (however, you're too dim to see that you're actually making my point for me).
In regards to shopping around next time...my time is worth money and if I feel I couldn't get a much better job the next time or at a cheaper discount I'll probably use the same guy--at least I know what I'll be getting. If I spend 1 hour researching it...I could spend that time working making more than enough to pay for the guy again (not to mention especially since we're only talking about the savings and not the entire cost). So his business model appears to be working and he's definitely not putting customer's first. I wanted it done on a weekday, but he was only available on the weekend...so much for customers ruling. Now I could have called a bunch more people and got estimates and spent about 10 hours of my time trying to find the best deal that works around my schedule or I can go with what I "heard" was the going rate and been more flexible with my schedule. Guess who won?
But the question is do customers rule or do profits rule in capitalism. One side says customers...I say profits.
You got what you needed at what you considered a fair price according to the current market. That's pleasing the customer. There aren't any who charge even more and don't do a good job? That's because they're out of business because they didn't please the customer.
But you said customers rule in capitalism and have since tried to prove that incorrect statement. I did not RULE. I got what I paid for...I didn't rule. As I stated in capitalism profits rule.
So you can try and go down a million different roads to avoid admitting your statement was wrong...the more you do though the more ridiculous you sound and the harder it will be to just blame it on a poor choice of words.
In capitalism profits rule. As I stated above...I don't see one definition that mentioned customers; however, there are a bunch that mention capitalism. Just admit it...you misspoke and have since tried to avoid admitting your misstep.
I hear what you're saying, but I disagree. I have given scenarios where customers do not "rule"; therefore, it must be understood that customers do not "rule".
BTW: Here's the definition of rule that I'm going by...to be first in importance or prominence.
You ruled. They had to provide you with what you wanted, otherwise you would have gone elsewhere. In your case what you wanted was common so it was easy to get. In the government's case (for example), they want EAL4 for some software. To be able to sell in that area, vendors pay big bucks to get their software certified EAL4. The government (the customer) rules.
This so insanely common sense I'm surp -- well -- I'm actually not surprised you don't get it.
No they didn't. I had to agree to their terms.
You also confuse small, private customers with large ones.
You had to because the local market price for services has been settled, that is the baseline. You don't have enough purchasing power to change what the market (businesses selling customers what they want) has decided. If you were a real estate baron who put out an RFP to do 50 houses a month for the next year, these guys would be bending over backwards to please you.
The government is similar. It is a huge purchaser of goods and services, and it can say what it wants and expect vendors to line up to qualify for the business. If Microsoft doesn't want to, then too bad for them. MA alone won't put much of a dent in their pocketbook, so they can afford to ignore this client on a monetary basis. Other, more flexible vendors will fulfill the requirements. That's capitalism.
But it's the precedent and loss of monopoly that Microsoft is scared of, so they won't do it.
Finally, you admit that in capitalism the customers don't rule,and that it's a complex formula of supply and demand with profits at the core.
Why on earth do you spin and spin trying to prove a non-sensical point? You may actually be getting the best laugh in all this as you are probably just pulling my leg saying stupid things and seeing how long I'll stay on the hook. If that's what you're doing...yeah it's a funny joke. But if you're really that stupid to believe some of the stuff you said, well I guess the jokes on me again as I'm trying to educate someone that clearly can't be. I'm almost afraid to ask which of the 2 is the actual case, but would I be able to believe the answer?
Now that we have this settled (and I see the joke is on me for entertaining your silly comments), I'll be off this thread.
One thought though...I wonder if the others that supported your silly comments were in on the joke or if they too are really that stupid. Hmmmmmm.......
If I want to build a new house, I'll have 10 local contractors vying for my business with various packages. They will all be trying to be the one to best meet my demands. If my desire is for a brick building and one doesn't do those (maybe the owner also owns a lumber yard so has a vested interest in stick houses), then too bad, he just lost my business. Those who can meet my demands (please me) will compete for the contract.
A government entity says it wants office software to support a certain format. It is already available in several packages and is a small addition to any others. And it is a huge customer -- big enough for expending resourses to meet the requirement to make financial sense (not counting long term strategy of keeping the monopoly).
I think the concept as it relates to MA is really to complex for you.
Why on earth do you take a specific case and spin it off into general economic theory that has a gazillion variables? I admit, you were successful in your attempt to get away from your losing point, but it stops now. I'll try to put it in a way that even you can understand:
You want your house painted in a way that takes special, but standardized equipment. You have several vendors who do have that equipment. One vendor doesn't. Do you go with the vendors who do or do you buy that equipment for the one vendor who doesn't so he can paint your house?
This rediculous idea is what you guys propose when you say MA should somehow compensate MS for adding ODF support.
What we have in this instance more specifically (to feed your lust for economic theory) is a buyer's market. The state has a requirement and is a relatively large catch for the vendors. The requirement is easily met, and there are already several vendors that meet it. They will vie for the contracts.
Microsoft is so used to its Office monopoly (something that upsets the regular rules of the free market) that they forgot they have to meet customer requirements (as opposed to stuff they make up) in order to make sales.
Microsoft has become a slow beast in this regard. They refused to update IE for years although customers were clamoring for it. "Customer rules" didn't work because they still had the monopoly mindset.After losing browser marketshare to browsers that did give the customers what they wanted, Microsoft realized that customers do have legs, and they will walk if you don't please them.
Although late, they learned their lesson about pleasing customers with IE. Yet they resist with Office. Dumb, except in a "maintain-the-monopoly" sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.