If Consumers Won't 'Pay Up' For Quality, Whose Fault Is It?
from the concept-of-value dept
A post over at News.com is decrying the news that Pioneer is pulling out of the TV market as “sad news”, because it means “TV buyers won’t pay a premium price for a better display.” The post comes from a blog about high-end audio, so presumably, the author is a person who sees the value in paying high prices for certain pieces of electronic gear. But if a firm can’t profitably serve a small slice of the market — people for whom normal audio and video gear isn’t good enough — and decides to stop trying, why is that necessarily a problem for the firm or the market? “The market’s demands for lower and lower prices eventually take high-quality manufacturers out of the game.” That’s simply not true: it will eventually take high-quality manufacturers who can’t compete out of the game. The assumption here seems to be that high quality has to come with a high price tag, but the “race to the bottom” the writer decries helps, or at least should help, at the high end of the market as well as the low end. Companies that make gear for any segment of the market have to offer value. If Pioneer’s high-end, high-priced TVs couldn’t offer sufficient value to attract enough high- or low-end buyers to succeed, that’s not an issue with the market, it’s a problem with the company and its products.
Filed Under: quality