Coto De Caza, CA
Quoted from flynnibus:'changed' in the specs were tweaked.. but it's still the same platform and has not gone through a major model revision. For 2007 to 2010 its main specs were virtually identical. It's received two engine bumps in it's current cycle (now to be replaced in 2017) but the car was virtually unchanged (relative to the auto industry). The pricing and editions released were to boost the ASP of the vehicle and make up for under valuing the car initially.
The saga of it's price point has been well covered..You've never met a guy who told you he got the best deal ever? Even if he did get a car for that amount... please refer to 'corner case'. And ultimately it isn't relevant to the discussion anyway... Nissan still raised their prices SIGNIFICANTLY (nearly 15% in less than 2 years, and nearly 30% in under 4) on essentially the same car because they realized the car was under priced for the market. That's the point that matters - pricing strategies include the potential outcomes that your products are under valued and you can raise prices without even really justifying it with new value.
I'm not going to support some argument you made up by failing to follow my post. The post was in response to your idea that the prices shouldn't change simply because there was signs of excess demand (even if you wanted to limit it to short time window) when its the same product. I gave you a real world example of how pricing strategies evolve not only based on YOUR product, but how your product fits within others and the shifting demands.
If you are under priced - most businesses will raise their prices... even without adding value to justify it. It has nothing to do with me 'justifying' the price/value.. but everything to do with pricing strategies.
Do people actually think Louie vuitton bags actually justify their price differences vs gucci or prada, etc? Or how about Universal Studios Pricing vs Disney? These are examples of segments where people price RELATIVE to each other more than pricing in vacuum.Nope, the latter is exactly what they did with the GTR... and other companies do all the time.. even without artificial scarcity. Products aren't priced in a vacuum.
The difference between a 2009 and a 2013+ GT-R premium is very significant. A 2009 GT-R has 65 horsepower less, is slower, less reliable, and the interior wasn't nearly as nice.
The 2009 GT-R was $70K. If you are comparing to a 2014 model, factoring in 1.59% inflation per year, that 2009 GT-R was really $78K
If you subtract the $96K (2013 GT-R) from the inflation adjusted price of the 2009 GT-R, it is only an $18,000 difference for what many would consider significant performance and reliability upgrades, and a better quality interior and infotainment system. That is about a 23% rise in cost, mostly due to a better built car and the fact it was a first model year and Nissan likely took losses on their 2009-2010 models just to get them on the road.
Please, show me where Stern pinball machines have risen in value, features, and build quality over the period of 2009 -> 2016. Then I will agree that Stern pinball machines deserve to have risen 30%+ during that same period- while not offering any additional hardware and value. They have simply been raising prices this whole time while lower their cost of the machine in order to profit more- not offer any additional value to the customer.. that is.. unless you put a significant value on the limited numbered nameplate on the machine itself, which Stern is clearly aiming for here.
between titles to evaluate the impact of your pricing strategy. Additionally, previous releases are still competing with new releases, making it tough to evaluate price increases on re-runs.
Toronto, ON
