🚀 go-pugleaf

At 08 Jul 2009 07:54:52 -0700 John Navas wrote:

> >>You are leaving things out in your analysis!  They could sell you the
> >> can of Coke for less BUT, they provide a glass that must be washed.
> >>Same  thing for the tea cup. 
> >
> >True, another few cents.
> >
> >>They put ice in your soda; they have to pay for 
> >>the ice machine.  
> >
> >Amortized across all of the sodas a restaurant sells, what do you think
> >is the cost here?
> >
> >>They also have to pay the waiter to bring it to you!
> >
> >Few restaurants have dedicated drink staff.  Do you think they could do
> >with one less waiter if they stopped serving drinks at all?
> 
> These are all real costs, and much greater than you seem to think.
> Otherwise price competition among such retail establishments would drive
> prices down.

Not really, because people don't go to restaurants to drink soda, not do
they select a restaurant by the soft drink prices.  It's an add-on to
increase profits that escapes the "radar" of most comparison shoppers,
like $0.20 text messages, $2.50 ringtones, or an $8 "Bloomin' Onion" at
Outback Steakhouse.


>  If you really think it's a lucrative proposition to sell
> Coke for 25¢ per glass then go for it.  Just be prepared to lose your
> donkey.

The point I made originally was while the costs to provide soft drinks
didn't double in the last few years- the retail cost of a beverage in a
casual dining restaurant has doubled, in order to "hide" price increases
in a competitive market, much like texting costs have in cellular.  In
the case of restaurants, there's a consumer psychological barrier you
avoid by keeping items under $10.  Selling a coffee or coke for $2.50
lets you essentially sell a $9.95 entree for $12+ without breaking that
barrier.

In the eight years I've been with T-Mo, textings costs have increased
from "free" (50 per month were included in all rate plans, $0.05 for
additional) to $0.20.  Ironically, T-Mo's own prepaid service still sells
them for $0.10! 

I'm not begrudging them for trying to grab more of their consumers'
money, but it's quite apparent that the retail price of messaging is not
tied to the costs of providing it in any real way, and is simply designed
to inflate the perceived value of texting bundles.  That 300 texts for $5
bundle now represents "incredible value"- that's "$60 worth" of texts for
just $5!

All $0.20 texting has done to me is make it more likely I'll call in for
credit when I receive a barrage of spam texts.  I used to let them slide
at $0.05!  Now I wait until I accumulate $1-2 worth and ask for credit.