Xbox 2007 or bust?

[scooby_dooby]

if the product is considered in high regard by the would-be-buyer, $10 or $20 is going to have virtually no impact.

It seems to me, this sort of thing would primarily impact buyers who do NOT hold the product in especially high regard.

Aka: impulse buyers.

Many console gamers I know, do not especially like playing video games, they just bought the system on a whim, and it mainly collects dust. It's these sort of people who would most be impacted by different psychological pricepoints like "$149" or "199" which trigger impulse buys.

People who really value the console, will not be influenced by a difference of a few dollars. They will easily justify it to themselves since they were already planning on purchasing it.

 

[Vic]

It seems to me, this sort of thing would primarily impact buyers who do NOT hold the product in especially high regard.

Aka: impulse buyers.

Many console gamers I know, do not especially like playing video games, they just bought the system on a whim, and it mainly collects dust. It's these sort of people who would most be impacted by different psychological pricepoints like "$149" or "199".

People who really value the console, will not be influenced by a difference of a few dollars, they will easily justify it to themselves.

Agreed, $50 will bother casual gamers. But many people I know are gamers by tradition. They've owned N64's, PSone's, Mega Drive's and SNES's in years gone by. Games like Pro Evo and FIFA are massive amongst casual gamers in Europe, so I think many are willing to buy a console as-and-when they want it, with little regard for potential 'small' price-cuts.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

This example doesn't prove the theory of small price changes affecting buying practice though. Price is not the only factor affecting whether a person chooses a car or not. Other factors like working practises, public transport, demographics, etc. can all affect that result

This is all swell and cute but doesn't apply to this, all factors would suggest cars should be less popular (better public transportation, more working from home, etc etc).

Thus if this is a study used to prove a 1-2% drop in price increases demand some 4%, and a $200 console will sell better than a $210 console, I say it's no good.

You questioned price elasticity in your first post, you questioned whether its been proven or not. Want me to retype the cell phone example from the book? Or bread? Or milk? Or oat? YOU questioned if this was proven at all. It has been about a gazillion times, its all the base of ALL pricing research for companies.

Price elasticity is allways there, the smaller movement of price, the smaller the difference, this comes without saying. That 10$ will impact someone. The value of the pack may be percieved as less money, etc etc etc. all that phycological crap you talk about, thats price elasticity aswell.

I have read scientific reports that have drawn conclusions, and then when you read the report, you find glowing mistakes in the research that show the conclusions can't be valid.

okay, lets just dismiss all science then.

Well, if it's rude to question someone or something just because everyone else accepts it, I'll continue being rude!.

The rude part here shifty, is that you make a one sentenced statement, brush off any theorem attacking it, by saying you don't believe experts, they might be wrong. If you had worded yourself properly the first time, made a proper argument it would be all good. But it comes of ass rude in my view, if all you do is dismiss theories by saying that lots of theories have been "unproven" later.

I find it hard to accept that out of all human history, and the millions of wrong ideas and false theories adhered to, it's now that we're 100% right in everything.

All ideas that can be proven, and not disproven, are facts as far as we know. Unless you cant accept that, how can you define reality???

That's not what I've said at all. Of course pricing has an impact on demand! I never said otherwise, and how on earth could you think I had? What I don't accept is that small price differences can have an affect, such that a $200 console will sell more than a $210 console.

You did say it, YOU implied that price elasticity is unproven bla bla bla. This means, you dismiss that demand is related to price (amongst other things).

At the human behaviour level, these can be explained as influential amounts, as can a $199.95 price improving sales versus a $200 (though that's something I'd be interested to see evidence of, other than just theory)

This again is price elasticity, proven many many years ago, by some owner a chain of shops, who sold his products at the "illuision" prices at half his stores, and the other half at normal prices. He also switched the prices between the shops at some point, to disprove location factors.

I can't myself see a behaviour modifying factor between $200 and $210 for a console though. How is that small price difference rationalized into a change in purchasing decision by the would-be shopper? What wannabe XB360 owners out there now waiting for it at $200 would not buy it if it dropped to $210 instead?

This can be impulse buyers, people not having that $10 on them, people might see something else as a better deal, because of the higher price, whatever, it doesn't matter, point is it will happend. There will be less sales, by how much, we don't know. (because we dont have enough data, i could however predict a reasonable price elasticity formula for the PS2 rather easy that would be accurate enough)

Even if no-one knows why the small price difference would put people off, do we have examples where this is shown?

Yes, i got examples of 10% price changes in food (cheap food, bread etc, pocketchange money) that show drastic differences in sales in the same store.