🚀 go-pugleaf

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
P.Lucas@MAIL.NERC-SWINDON.AC.UK writes:
> Mitchell Langbert <langberm@maillink.dowling.edu> observes:-
>
> >I have a fundamental quality question, based on one of the exam
> >questions discussed earlier.  Why hasn't an entrepreneur addressed the
> >high variability of quality in the used car market?  For example, if
> >an expert mechanic only sold high quality used cars, trained others to
> >reduce variability in used cars that are sold, wouldn't there be a
> >viable business because the chief problem with used cars is low
> >quality (high variability)?
>
> Its a classic case of the perceived-benefit trap. Most used-car purchases are
> price-sensitive rather than quality-sensitive. A vendor selling high-quality
> used vehicles at higher prices will in most cases be driven out of business
> by the guy down the street selling superficially-identical [but in reality
> lower quality] vehicles at lower prices. The customer will always argue
> 'well i have seen the same car for $2500 less on the lot down the street'
>
The flaw in your argument is that you assume that the quality vendor
will charge higher prices. If the vendor takes a TQ approach to his
enterprise, he should be able to save money. He should also be able to
build a better reputation than "the guy down the street" and thus will,
in the long term, have the more profitable business.

In answer to the original question, isn't this the idea behind "Network
Q"?