>
> I disagree with this entirely. First of all, there is no incentive to buy
>low-quality materials. It's obviously nonsensical. What they do try to do is
>buy the highest quality materials they can for the cost they're willing to
>spend. If they could lower the quality and no one would notice, why don't
>they?
>
>
Because they really couldn't get any lower in the quality chain without
seriously impacting their customers in an obvious fashion.
The concept you're referring to is quality versus grade. Burger King
wants the highest quality in the lowest grade possible.
The distinction you're making here is problematic, because you're taking
a general statement and quantifying it to market it's in. The problem
with this is that Low-quality, medium grade meat would still be of a
higher relative quality than high-quality, low grade meat.
The key here is the point "for the cost they're willing to spend" which
is the real factor which dictates what the actual product being sold
is. The low cost of burgers dictates that they can't purchase truly
high-quality meats
Take the Angus Steakburger for instance. I love that burger - don't get
me wrong, I'm not a fast food bigot. However, is the Angus Steakburger
made with the same quality of meat that a gourmet steakhouse would use?
Obviously not.
It's probably the best of brand in the grade that it's in, but the fact
of the matter is that even if it's high-quality low grade steak, it's
still very low quality in reality.
In other words: the distinction is irrelivent because, to the consumer
and in reality, the meat is of a lower overall quality than meat they
would buy elsewhere.
>
>
>>Talk about picking a bad analogy.
>>
>>
>
> Actually, it's really good, just not a good one to pick because most people
>have serious prejudices about the food market, just as they do about the
>medical market. Fast food restaurants provide an excellent product at a very
>low price. Yes, it's not the best possible product, but nobody could produce
>that at the same price point.
>
>
>
Of course not. It's pure economics, and that's why your analogy is wrong.
>
> I disagree with this entirely. First of all, there is no incentive to buy
>low-quality materials. It's obviously nonsensical. What they do try to do is
>buy the highest quality materials they can for the cost they're willing to
>spend. If they could lower the quality and no one would notice, why don't
>they?
>
>
Because they really couldn't get any lower in the quality chain without
seriously impacting their customers in an obvious fashion.
The concept you're referring to is quality versus grade. Burger King
wants the highest quality in the lowest grade possible.
The distinction you're making here is problematic, because you're taking
a general statement and quantifying it to market it's in. The problem
with this is that Low-quality, medium grade meat would still be of a
higher relative quality than high-quality, low grade meat.
The key here is the point "for the cost they're willing to spend" which
is the real factor which dictates what the actual product being sold
is. The low cost of burgers dictates that they can't purchase truly
high-quality meats
Take the Angus Steakburger for instance. I love that burger - don't get
me wrong, I'm not a fast food bigot. However, is the Angus Steakburger
made with the same quality of meat that a gourmet steakhouse would use?
Obviously not.
It's probably the best of brand in the grade that it's in, but the fact
of the matter is that even if it's high-quality low grade steak, it's
still very low quality in reality.
In other words: the distinction is irrelivent because, to the consumer
and in reality, the meat is of a lower overall quality than meat they
would buy elsewhere.
>
>
>>Talk about picking a bad analogy.
>>
>>
>
> Actually, it's really good, just not a good one to pick because most people
>have serious prejudices about the food market, just as they do about the
>medical market. Fast food restaurants provide an excellent product at a very
>low price. Yes, it's not the best possible product, but nobody could produce
>that at the same price point.
>
>
>
Of course not. It's pure economics, and that's why your analogy is wrong.
-Barry
[ reply ]