And a chrome plate for hollandaise sauce
I'm speaking here about buying higher quality inputs. We've all seen (and used) the pricing that goes like this:
- Widgets: 500 + 10q
Upgrading to poverty - is that quality worth the money?
Moderator: moderators
-
Guest
Upgrading to poverty - is that quality worth the money?
This is kind of a short one, but it stems from a mistake I've been seeing a lot.
And a chrome plate for hollandaise sauce
I'm speaking here about buying higher quality inputs. We've all seen (and used) the pricing that goes like this:
And a chrome plate for hollandaise sauce
I'm speaking here about buying higher quality inputs. We've all seen (and used) the pricing that goes like this:
-
Guest
Wonderful post. I just ran through this process a bit ago myself. So this is very welcome information. I was astounded to learn how little high quality plastic helped me making TVs, as opposed to a computer manufacturer. That's why I prefer lower quality plastic.
The quality system took a lot of getting used to, but is the defining structure that determines whether products will have good, better or the best profits.
The quality system took a lot of getting used to, but is the defining structure that determines whether products will have good, better or the best profits.
-
Guest
-
Guest
At the beginning I want to say all calculations are right and the post is very insightful.
As a proud producer of wardrobes I tend to buy wood and steel in the +1*Q scheme and +3*Q scheme respectively.
+3*Q for steel is pretty obvious: one needs 5 steel per wardrobe, so 20 units of steel x quality to push wardrobes by 1 level. 75/20 = 3,75, so 3 multiplier is a fair trade.
+1*Q for wood: I know I pay too much for higher grades. But it attracts suppliers and the excess price of 0.06c per wood per level is not as devastating as potential shortage of wood and the cost of buying it from market. Under normal conditions I would buy using the +0.75*q scheme. By the way: market for wood is heavily influenced by the biggies producing wardrobes for their own furniture stores and the optimal retail price of wardrobes follows at the moment a ca. +100*q scheme.
As a proud producer of wardrobes I tend to buy wood and steel in the +1*Q scheme and +3*Q scheme respectively.
+3*Q for steel is pretty obvious: one needs 5 steel per wardrobe, so 20 units of steel x quality to push wardrobes by 1 level. 75/20 = 3,75, so 3 multiplier is a fair trade.
+1*Q for wood: I know I pay too much for higher grades. But it attracts suppliers and the excess price of 0.06c per wood per level is not as devastating as potential shortage of wood and the cost of buying it from market. Under normal conditions I would buy using the +0.75*q scheme. By the way: market for wood is heavily influenced by the biggies producing wardrobes for their own furniture stores and the optimal retail price of wardrobes follows at the moment a ca. +100*q scheme.
-
Guest
Yes indeed, 0.06 is a small enough difference, and there is some intangible value to keeping suppliers happy, that it likely is worthwhile. As usual, I'm more interested in pointing out the methods than making a particular comment on any product.
That said when I look at the market for many products, including wood, they seem to jump way up with the higher quality. So I believe even if the buyers with standing orders aren't going too far overboard, clearly market buyers are. (Which makes sense since they are probably less experienced.)
That said when I look at the market for many products, including wood, they seem to jump way up with the higher quality. So I believe even if the buyers with standing orders aren't going too far overboard, clearly market buyers are. (Which makes sense since they are probably less experienced.)