Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
From | Sandman |
Date | 03/25/2014 22:00 (03/25/2014 22:00) |
Message-ID | <slrnlj3rm4.1pa.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Scott Schuckert |
Followups | Scott Schuckert (17m) > Sandman |
True, but I was mostly in reference to comparable products, not necessarily the same products, but you have a point.Sandman
I'm just not what "position" that's supposed to be, here? I mean, the points he posted above are just basic facts.The first; "competitve doesn't mean below cost" is just a very truthful statement. One can be competitive without undercutting competitors, just look at Apple.Scott Schuckert
Apples and oranges, if I may be so bold. Apple doesn't compete with anyone; no one but Apple (or it's very small number of authorized resellers, who are tightly price-controlled) sells Apple products.
Back to the conversation, did you not understand the part of my prior post - based on many years in the industry - where I explained that selling below cost might not even match the price of some online sellers?What gave you the idea that I didn't "understand" that? I am well aware of it.
With that in mind, I'll ask you the same as I asked the other guy - what's a competitive price? Match it? 5% more? 10%?For most smaller retail stores, the more important question is what's a comparable *service*, not just the price of the product.