advertisement


HiFi: The pricing structure

Sorry, I think that you have missed the point.
4 pints of milk, cost to manufacture about £1. Sells for £1.09.
Bottle of perfume, cost to manufacture about £2. Sells for £50.
One of these has a 9% markup, the other 2500%

Casio watch, cost to manufacture about £2. Sells for £10. Maybe 5x markup, only made possible by manufacturing and selling millions.
Rolex watch, cost to manufacture £100 (say). Sells for £5000. Maybe 50x markup, sold in expensive boutiques that may only sell one or two items a week.

The reasons are absolutely relevant. If I could sell Rolex milk I would sell a bottle for £50 instead of £1.09. This is "of no concern to the consumer"?

I TOTALLY agree... different product categories, different price structure, and yes... volume makes the world of difference. However, what puzzles me is why does it not bother me (please take this term with a pinch of salt) to pay x100 markup for a pint but a x10 markup on HiFi hurts... it's of course a matter of perception, but some categories feel a rip off and some others dont....

I'd be fun to have this infographic for every item we purchase!

[I tried 10x to embed the infographic that I uploaded to IMGUR but did not work]

https://www.ft.com/content/44bd6a8e-83a5-11e9-9935-ad75bb96c849

EDIT: Seems the link is behind a paywall... anybody kind enough to help me upload an image from IMGUR?
 
This simply isn't true for consumer, pro-audio and the bottom end of home audio. This stuff is substantially more affordable relative to an average wage. Other stuff that an average wage gets spent on has got significantly more expensive in real terms but electrical gizmos is not one of them. .
Absolutely true. I have a Chromecast that cost £30 (I think, maybe only £20) and what it does is just amazing. Likewise an Amazon Fire was £30. The technoilogy in these boxes is space-age. Yet a simple stereo amplifier can cost hundreds.
 
Sorry, I think that you have missed the point.
4 pints of milk, cost to manufacture about £1. Sells for £1.09.
Bottle of perfume, cost to manufacture about £2. Sells for £50.
One of these has a 9% markup, the other 2500%

Casio watch, cost to manufacture about £2. Sells for £10. Maybe 5x markup, only made possible by manufacturing and selling millions.
Rolex watch, cost to manufacture £100 (say). Sells for £5000. Maybe 50x markup, sold in expensive boutiques that may only sell one or two items a week.

The reasons are absolutely relevant. If I could sell Rolex milk I would sell a bottle for £50 instead of £1.09. This is "of no concern to the consumer"?

Yep, they’re all fractions of the retail price.

Clearly milk is not a good example (note: more often than not) as the price of milk is subject to non market forces e.g. subsidies and restrictions, which clearly don’t work. Milk price is a great of example of what happens when you try and muck around with market forces, the results have proven to be the exact opposite of the desired affect.

And no, the consumer doesn’t give two monkeys. Try giving the customer the full run down as to how costs are squeezing your margin and see how you get on. Will he be more inclined to pay the extra for your product? Or, get away from you as quick as he can?

The consumers decision is simple. Is the price worth it to me, end of, and quite often may have no correlation to the manufacturers cost.
A price can be pushed higher for many different reasons: rarity, being in vogue, anticipation of future value, aesthetically pleasing etc. etc.
 
I TOTALLY agree... different product categories, different price structure, and yes... volume makes the world of difference. However, what puzzles me is why does it not bother me (please take this term with a pinch of salt) to pay x100 markup for a pint but a x10 markup on HiFi hurts... it's of course a matter of perception, but some categories feel a rip off and some others dont....

A very good point. Different categories of products can command very different mark ups.
Alcohol being a drug (essentially). Hifi being a luxury.
Ironic that someone who will complain about a 10 times mark up on a piece of hifi that may last a lifetime, will throw half of the value of that piece of equipment down their necks over a weekend on a product that has a 100 times mark up, makes you feel crap and gets thrown down the toilet 30 minutes later ;)
 
Come on, engage brain. Read what I've put.
Yep, they’re all fractions of the retail price.
In the sense that nobody sells at a loss, yes. Every selling price has to be bigger that the cost to make.

Clearly milk is not a good example
Why not? See also bread, tins of beans, packets of biscuits.

the price of milk is subject to non market forces e.g. subsidies and restrictions, which clearly don’t work. Milk price is a great of example of what happens when you try and muck around with market forces, the results have proven to be the exact opposite of the desired affect.
No, all wrong. You don't know very much about milk production, clearly.

And no, the consumer doesn’t give two monkeys. Try giving the customer the full run down as to how costs are squeezing your margin and see how you get on. Will he be more inclined to pay the extra for your product? Or, get away from you as quick as he can?
You're going well for "most erroneous post 2019" here. Why then do people pay more for Fairtrade coffee? Why do Asda offer milk at £1.09 and a bottle next door for £1.30 with the promise that the difference goes back to the producer? Go and have a look.

The consumers decision is simple. Is the price worth it to me, end of, and quite often may have no correlation to the manufacturers cost.
A price can be pushed higher for many different reasons: rarity, being in vogue, anticipation of future value, aesthetically pleasing etc. etc.
All statements of the bleeding obvious. Now explain to me why I can't sell Rolex milk at £50 a bottle.
 
A very good point. Different categories of products can command very different mark ups.
Alcohol being a drug (essentially). Hifi being a luxury.
Ironic that someone who will complain about a 10 times mark up on a piece of hifi that may last a lifetime, will throw half of the value of that piece of equipment down their necks over a weekend on a product that has a 100 times mark up, makes you feel crap and gets thrown down the toilet 30 minutes later ;)

Maybe it has to do with disposable income?

But also, at least in my personal case, when I pay, say £2000 for a pair of loudspeakers, I want to feel that a big component of those £2000 (a lot of money for me) went to pay for the R&D and materials to produce that lovely sound, not that it went to pay for middle men margins and overheads. I know this is the nature of the beast and manufacturing and employees cost money, I am (rationally ) aware of that. Again, I am not complaining or shouting ‘rip off!’ I’m just exploring the impact of pricing on consumer perceptions, and also trying to understand emotional responses to the cost of the stuff we love
 
What has also changed is that the number of people able to spend £100k on a hi-fi without a registerable impact on their finances has grown greatly. This is why there is so much expensive hi-fi about. Not because it costs more to design or manufacture, quite the opposite, but because there are far more people able to spend these sorts of sums on hi-fi.

There are some interesting data graphics in Paul Mason's "A Guide to Our Future" that touch on this.

One shows how in the period between 1940 and the mid 1980s the income of the "bottom 99%" of people rose far more than that of the "top 1%". But since the mid 1980s that pattern has changed. The 99% have had almost unchanged income but the top 1% have had their incomes rise by about a factor of 4 or 5. If you look at the percentile distribution it shows the poorest (i.e. in the third world) have gained relatively, whilst the middle (mainly 'developed' world have had static incomes or a drop *except* for the top 1% who have done very well. (All inflation corrected.)

Thus the 'middle income' people haven't done so well as the top 1% have become very wealthy.

This is tied up with the way manufacturing was moved to poor countries and the use of 'financialisation' (i.e. debt) to drive the process.

Hence the growth of ultra-expensive equipment to cater for the 1%.

All that said, I'd add that I suspect one point is AWOL. This is what I call the "0%" percentile. i.e. people who have their income and wealth stashed away via tools like UK LLPs in tax-haven country 'businesses' which don't declare who owns them, etc. How rich they are, maybe only God knows! And they don't buy things, their company does and 'lends' them to the owner.
 
Maybe it has to do with disposable income?

But also, at least in my personal case, when I pay, say £2000 for a pair of loudspeakers, I want to feel that a big component of those £2000 (a lot of money for me) went to pay for the R&D and materials to produce that lovely sound, not that it went to pay for middle men margins and overheads. I know this is the nature of the beast and manufacturing and employees cost money, I am (rationally ) aware of that. Again, I am not complaining or shouting ‘rip off!’ I’m just exploring the impact of pricing on consumer perceptions, and also trying to understand emotional responses to the cost of the stuff we love
It's about your personal justification for what makes it better than a commodity. Milk, sliced bread, tins of beans, are all commodities. So is a £5 watch or a £5 radio. For you to want to pay more it has to have an added value. Clothing is a favourite, I can buy supermarket jeans for £10 or Levi's for £50. If I'd feel £40 better in Levi's, it's worth it. If not, no. It also depends upon your interests. Try to get a 16yo girl to go out with her friends in a £5 T shirt, knowing that they will be in label items at 5x or 10x that. Now try to get me to spend £25 on a T shirt.
 
Try to get a 16yo girl to go out with her friends in a £5 T shirt, knowing that they will be in label items at 5x or 10x that.

I wonder if this will change as younger people get more aware of 'green' issues. Against that, as companies habituate us into 'renting' maybe people will be renting us things/ equipment as well as the music to play on it!...
 
What has also changed is that the number of people able to spend £100k on a hi-fi without a registerable impact on their finances has grown greatly. This is why there is so much expensive hi-fi about. Not because it costs more to design or manufacture, quite the opposite, but because there are far more people able to spend these sorts of sums on hi-fi.

By implication from above, manufacturers are simply pricing their hifi way beyond their perceived value simply because that's where the market is. Whereas I agree that's there's more relative wealth around than yesteryear, this increased affluence is also spread across a wide spectrum.

When I was in my first 25, say, years in hifi, I simply wasn't interested in highly priced esoterica, but it was certainly there at the shows. In my latter generation plus, I've become more interested in what was previously unaffordable.

As I was buying Garrard 401, SME12" arm, Revox amp, tuner and R2Rs etc. as a student in the very early seventies, maybe pricing has indeed escalated beyond normal inflationary increases. However, a successful company must keep improving with new models and these will always be a jump up from predecessors (Naim being a prime example). With the advent of CD as another medium in the early eighties, the number of manufacturers burgeoned, almost creating a new model race.
 
Clearly milk is not a good example (note: more often than not) as the price of milk is subject to non market forces e.g. subsidies and restrictions, which clearly don’t work. Milk price is a great of example of what happens when you try and muck around with market forces, the results have proven to be the exact opposite of the desired affect.
Not true. Desired affect is price stability, which we have, and not depending on bad or good year, season.
 
Come on, engage brain. Read what I've put.

In the sense that nobody sells at a loss, yes. Every selling price has to be bigger that the cost to make.

Why not? See also bread, tins of beans, packets of biscuits.


No, all wrong. You don't know very much about milk production, clearly.

You're going well for "most erroneous post 2019" here. Why then do people pay more for Fairtrade coffee? Why do Asda offer milk at £1.09 and a bottle next door for £1.30 with the promise that the difference goes back to the producer? Go and have a look.

All statements of the bleeding obvious. Now explain to me why I can't sell Rolex milk at £50 a bottle.


Oh jeez this is getting difficult, we're only talking basic economics.

OK milk - firstly NEVER believe a farmer! They're very good at pleading poverty and learned years ago that if if you say you're doing well, you won't get anything.
Show me a farmer that's ever said he's doing well!?? My uncle is a big farmer in Carlisle, works 24/7, doesn't/too tight to employ anyone, never takes a day off and he's mid 70's. He'll die with a cows teat in his hand and I reckon he'll leave c.£20-£30mill behind him when he goes.
Also, the milk prices quoted that are paid to farmers are more often than not, for media purposes only. They'll quote x/p/litre but the truth is there can be up to a 50% variation in this. Lidl, Tesco's etc pay way less than Waitrose and M&S. Then different prices are paid for milk for cheese and yogurt, which constitutes c.50% of the milk market btw.
And, farmers are subsidised, so yes milk is subsidised, directly or indirectly. Also remember, that milk could be considered as a by product of the cow, from which you can sell beef, skin and even their turds. That's why the price of milk bears very little relevance to the hifi industry pricing structure.

Fairtrade coffee - Now I'm really glad you brought this up as this is a great example of the consumers behaviour. Yep, you can get more for a product that isn't necessarily of better quality, but purely due to conscience or a desire to make other lives better, essentially it could be considered as a form of charity (not trying to be condescending).
Now two things: 1. Try selling that to the public 20 years ago. 2. Try to sell that same Fair Trade coffee at £20.30 instead of £1.30. Surely it will be bought in the same quantities because we want to help others and make the world a better place? Err nope. You'll quickly find that there is a precise price point to conscience and the will to improve the lives of others, much above this and it's two fingers to you and pass the Nescaffe :p

Rolex milk at £50 - Brilliant. You could certainly try and if the quality was right I'd DEFINITELY buy the usual 4 bottles a day........;)
 
Not true. Desired affect is price stability, which we have, and not depending on bad or good year, season.
Partly that and partly year round supply, there's a trough that the market has to get through. The big buyers (Arla etc) buy on contract and pay a bit more than the spot market to get farmers on board. It's quite finely balanced. Very much subject to market forces though, unlike others have said, and on an incredibly low margin, which is where I came in.
 
Not true. Desired affect is price stability, which we have, and not depending on bad or good year, season.

Sort of correct, but in a bad year we'd just import it. If the whole world had a bad year....well that's the price of milk that year. The price stability policy - was it introduced for the benefit consumer or the inefficient producer? I'm talking about the farmers who absolutely rely on subsidies to stay afloat - which just isn't real world in a free market economy, I'd love to get chucked £100k a year because I'm not particularly good at running my business :p

And yes we're actually arguing about milk lol. Back to hi-fi....can someone recommend me a creamy sounding amplifier? Ta.
 
Yes, it is for farmers benefit. They need stability. You cannot stop producing milk just because market full and price down. Well, you can, but then big trouble and time to start again. They need some kind of stable income to survive seasonal and market price fluctuations.
 
I think it got another re-branding into "high end" quite some time ago.

I think there is a difference. "HiFi" (as in "High Fidelity") actually aimed at objective criteria for accuracy and transparency (starting with good old DIN 45500), whereas "high end" seems to have abandoned that goal and gone for "exclusivity" instead.
 
There is I think very much a "self fulfilling prophesy" to all this IMHO, in which the consumer is much to blame for the prices of hi fi.

Make an amplifier that sells for say £1000 but is a match for more well known £5000 models and keep your overheads right down by having little or no advertising, selling direct, not appearing at shows where it costs say £20K for a stand for the weekend, £3K in airfares, £3K in hiring dolly birds to hand out glossy brochures that cost a fortune to have printed etc, don't get them reviewed in the mags where you won't get a rave review unless shall we say the wheels of commerce are suitably "greased"... and you will sell virtually nothing!

People need to be TOLD what to buy.. and the people/events/mags/dealers who tell them charge a fortune to do so...They actually want to be bullshitted by smooth talking salesmen and glossy ads in mags etc, it's all part of the process of BRANDING. Unless you spend a £million persuading people how wonderful your products are you won't be taken seriously... and once you have spent all this on branding you then need to charge £5000 to make your money back!

Make a traditional clockwork watch that is actually better than a £30,000 Rolex and try and sell it for say £2000 and see how far you get.... People spend £30,000 on a Rolex watch not because it's a very good and well made watch but simply because it says "Rolex" on it!

Hence certain hi fi brands can get away with putting a transformer costing £35, a rectifier @ 50P and a small circuit board with 50P of components in to a fairly bland case that cost say £30 to them and then sell this most basic of power supplies for £4000!
 
Oh jeez this is getting difficult, we're only talking basic economics.
Yes it is, and that's what I was thinking too.

OK milk - firstly NEVER believe a farmer!
I don't. I worked for 15 years in dairy manufacturing, one of my best mates is in charge of milk movements and supply for a very large player in the dairy industry. I'm still in touch with what happens in dairy.

Also, the milk prices quoted that are paid to farmers are more often than not, for media purposes only. They'll quote x/p/litre but the truth is there can be up to a 50% variation in this.
Don't confuse year round contract price with spot price for surplus. Year round is 30p-35p contract per litre raw whole milk, current prices. Hence my remarks about 4 pints costing 80p at the factory gate, complete with bits of straw and traces of cowshit.

Lidl, Tesco's etc pay way less than Waitrose and M&S.
Not to the farmers they don't. The farmers sell to the manufacturers, the manufacturers sell to the retailers and this is 2 different operations.

Then different prices are paid for milk for cheese and yogurt, which constitutes c.50% of the milk market btw.
Only on spot market prices, which don't apply year round. Manufacturers can't actually make butter and powder year round, there isn't enough milk. They use butter and powder to balance the yield/demand curve.

Also remember, that milk could be considered as a by product of the cow, from which you can sell beef, skin and even their turds.
It could be considered so but this would be false. Milk cows are milk cows, not meat animals.

That's why the price of milk bears very little relevance to the hifi industry pricing structure.
No it isn't, the price of milk bears no resemblance to hifi because it's a commodity item that is consumed on a daily basis in vast quantities, while hifi is a consumer durable/brown goods subject to a totally different market. You're the one who said that this was basic economics.

Fairtrade coffee - Now I'm really glad you brought this up as this is a great example of the consumers behaviour. Yep, you can get more for a product that isn't necessarily of better quality, but purely due to conscience or a desire to make other lives better, essentially it could be considered as a form of charity (not trying to be condescending).
Now two things: 1. Try selling that to the public 20 years ago.
It's been around for longer than that.

2. Try to sell that same Fair Trade coffee at £20.30 instead of £1.30. Surely it will be bought in the same quantities because we want to help others and make the world a better place?
Obviously not, because there is as with all things a limit to how much anyone will pay to help others. I'll put a few quid in a charity box but I won't give them my house.

Err nope. You'll quickly find that there is a precise price point to conscience and the will to improve the lives of others, much above this and it's two fingers to you and pass the Nescaffe :p
Of course, this is a statement of the obvious.

Rolex milk at £50 - Brilliant. You could certainly try
That's what I'm getting at! The market forces around Rolex, Chanel, Lancome and so on are a law unto themselves. The OP hinted at this, you seem to think it's "basic economics" and some of it may be but there are nevertheless some very tough degree courses covering this kind of "basic economics" and a lot of people employed to sell goods according to these principles.
 
By implication from above, manufacturers are simply pricing their hifi way beyond their perceived value simply because that's where the market is. Whereas I agree that's there's more relative wealth around than yesteryear, this increased affluence is also spread across a wide spectrum.

From the stats I mentioned earlier I think we'd need to be careful about the last statement above. The 'increased affluence' seems mainly to be in two categories.

1) Those who were quite poor (3rd world mainly) a couple of decades ago have advanced by a fair factor.

2) The top 1 percentile - i.e. the very wealthy - have done very well.

Whereas 'ordinary working folk' in Europe and the USA haven't done anything like as well as the above two categories. Category (1) may still not be wealthy, but they aren't as poor relative to Europeans/Americans as they were.

Hence Rolex, and 'high end' have a good customer base, but 'ordinary working folk' may be more numerious, but not able to affort high cost items. Divided market with a 'hole in the middle'. The implication is that you either price modestly for a mass market or go 'sky's the limit' to ensure exclusivity for the 1st percentile.

In Hi-Fi of course, the other factor these days is that many people just use their phone or similar without real thought for dedicated hi-fi.

Note this is world stats.
 
There is I think very much a "self fulfilling prophesy" to all this IMHO, in which the consumer is much to blame for the prices of hi fi.

Make an amplifier that sells for say £1000 but is a match for more well known £5000 models and keep your overheads right down by having little or no advertising, selling direct, not appearing at shows where it costs say £20K for a stand for the weekend, £3K in airfares, £3K in hiring dolly birds to hand out glossy brochures that cost a fortune to have printed etc, don't get them reviewed in the mags where you won't get a rave review unless shall we say the wheels of commerce are suitably "greased"... and you will sell virtually nothing!

People need to be TOLD what to buy.. and the people/events/mags/dealers who tell them charge a fortune to do so...They actually want to be bullshitted by smooth talking salesmen and glossy ads in mags etc, it's all part of the process of BRANDING. Unless you spend a £million persuading people how wonderful your products are you won't be taken seriously... and once you have spent all this on branding you then need to charge £5000 to make your money back!

Make a traditional clockwork watch that is actually better than a £30,000 Rolex and try and sell it for say £2000 and see how far you get.... People spend £30,000 on a Rolex watch not because it's a very good and well made watch but simply because it says "Rolex" on it!

Hence certain hi fi brands can get away with putting a transformer costing £35, a rectifier @ 50P and a small circuit board with 50P of components in to a fairly bland case that cost say £30 to them and then sell this most basic of power supplies for £4000!

Brutal!

S.
 


advertisement


Back
Top