ddhr.org | 2012 | 10 (3) about | archives | comments | rss

Premium prices Thu, Oct 25, 2012
From a profile on the founder of Red Bull:
A Red Bull is about two bucks a can, you know, which is four or five times what you pay for a Coca Cola in a grocery store. And I asked him, I said, what gave you the brass to put a premium price on it out of the gate?

And he looked back at me all deadpan and he said, how would people know it was a premium product if it didn't have a premium price?
Reminds me of a profile on the founder of Grey Goose:
Here were all these vodkas, in the $15-to-$17 range, vying to be the premium brand (with Absolut mostly winning). Frank just sidestepped the fray altogether and charged an unheard-of $30 a bottle.
In conclusion, businesses base their prices not on manufacturing costs or some other measure of reality, but simply on what they can convince people to pay.

Alcohol amplification Mon, Oct 22, 2012
For me, alcohol is a secondary element.  I typically don't do things for the primary purpose of drinking, e.g. "I want to have a drink and go do X."  It's more of a "I want to go do X and maybe have a drink." 

I've also noticed that alcohol tends to take a normally typical situation and amplify it.  Social situations, family gatherings, card games?  Meh.  Social situations, family gatherings, card games plus alcohol?  Yay! 

This isn't true for all scenarios.  Hiking is good, but hiking plus alcohol isn't good.  Watching football is good, but watching football and drinking puts me to sleep.

Getting to truth (1) Thu, Oct 04, 2012
I was at my friend's house the other day watching football, and his wife asked a question about when a certain team had a bye week.  He made an interesting point:  "I don't understand why anybody asks questions anymore, when the answer to every question is:  Google it."

That thought crossed my mind as I was watching the presidential debates.  One candidate claimed something like, "I plan to cut taxes by X."  Then the other candidate replied with, "No, you plan to raise taxes by Y."  The first candidate replied with a rebuttal, and this continued for a few volleys, and then some more of the same but with different topics.  I couldn't help but think the following: 
  1. Whatever the truth of the matter is, it certainly exists.
  2. These two dummies likely won't get to it.
  3. I'll just check PolitiFact or FactCheck.
It would've been interesting to see two rational, reasonable, intelligent people come together, write a few things down on a chalkboard or something, and simply identify and communicate the truth.  It's one thing if it's a difference in opinion or policy, such as, "I plan to lower taxes, while he plans to cut spending."  But when it's simply about a fact, let's talk about it like it's a fact.