Well, Canadian Samarai, I'll give you kudos for a thoughtful response. I always respect an intellectually-based argument.
Regards your appellation, I never said you were actually a Samarai. But you have to admit it does carry a different connotation than say, "Canadian Butterfly". Obviously it would be silly to read too much into the nicknames here. But you'll note the mine is pretty generic, and that was on purpose (it does have meaning to me)
Indeed it is. Andy bears NO responsibility for those that choose to do so. He presents his products as toys, not investments. The only exception might be the "Limited Edition" sets, which are presented as having limited production runs, and thus a (presumed) after sale higher value. Nevertheless, "caveat emptor" still applies.
Im not sure what the point is of this. SMART investors or lenders do not waste money on "dubious investments", no matter how "plenty" of it they may have. The best ways treat every dime as its their only one. (PS: The housing "bubble" was mostly about speculation, not investing. The two concepts are quite different.)
Hmmm, I admire your idealism, I suppose. But have you really thought it through? With small companies, where the CEO is also chief promoter/salesperson, it MAY make sense. Most toy soldier companies are small, relatively speaking. However, do you think the head of Coca-Cola, Ford, Microsoft or GE would benefit from taking thousands of emails, phone calls and letters A DAY from customers? In fact with medium and larger companies, there are whole departments that do this. They are typically referred to as the "marketing department".
They have responsibility for sifting through sales data, customer comments, market research, public opinion, etc. Then, through their prism, the CEO then makes the important decisions. Have you ever worked in the headquarters of a larger-sized company. I have.
I am sure Andy would be delighted to hear this. It is not said enough -- except maybe via the sound of ringing cash registers...
Andy was polite, as ususl. For that I commend him. But neither you nor I KNOW whether he minded. General discussions about pricing in the marketplace is done all the time. But HOW a company determines prices, I dont see many of those, frankly.
Each of us "judges" the worthiness of a good every time we make a purchase via our "utility curve" (Just to throw in my own little economic theory reference). And yes, COLLECTIVELY, the market does drive prices, at least for non-essential items (like toy soldiers). But it was more the tone of the question that drove me to post for the first time. I found it rather accusatory in nature, and as I said, I was frankly a bit tired of hearing the moaning and griping about things that are really none of our business.
Now as to why Andy decided to respond personally, only he knows that. But I would submit it may have been at least PARTLY because of the insinuation in the question that there was something "predatory" or "unfair" in the price points. So he chose to defend himself and his business.
Discussions on this board about pricing are certainly fair game. But raising doubts about the “fairness” or justification for a manufacturer’s prices is, to me, beyond the pale. Ask yourself: Do you ever question your doctor, dentist, accountant, or lawyer as to HOW they determine what they charge. Of course they will all tell you what their hourly rate is, and how much time you require. But not HOW they determined the rate. If you ever did, they would probably respond “based on prevailing market rates, and our position in the market” or something like it. If you challenged them further, I doubt it would enhance the relationship.
There, you see, even you admit it – the original question was “dissenting”! Questioning how K&C prices compare to the competition is fine. Making insinuations about pricing practices, that is over the top -- IMO!
Of course every business has to make customers priority #1. Especially in the “global-ized” economy. Competition now comes from every corner of the world. Only a fool would argue otherwise. But I do not think it means that every business must now subject itself to the whims and comments of their more vocal or outspoken customers, whether or not they chose the internet as their method of communication.
Before the internet, there were letters and phones. So customer feedback is by no means new. What is different, I think, is that it has made the world so much smaller. Now, some feel they have the right to “get into” other people's “business”, kind of like a reality show, or a “live cam” run amuck.
Clearly CS, you see the internet as a tool for allowing the masses/people/customers to virtually “run” companies. I do not. In fact sometimes I think it permits “over-communication”. This is the symptom that I was drawing attention to initially. That, and the practice of making insinuations about a company’s business practices that, are to such a degree, that the company feels compelled to defend itself.
‘nuff said…. ?
