Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skahtboi
...I would disagree with you on the mega giants of commerce "merely offering the consumer what they believe the consumer wants,"...After prohibition (during the depression may I remind you), AB made the decision to change the recipe to using rice in the process, as rice was, and still is, a much cheaper alternative than using all malted barley. They felt that Americans would simply be glad to be able to legally have a beer...They were, and are correct....Need I go on?
|
No, and thanks for making my point. If AB had continued to make their expensive recipe, not only would fewer Americans been able to afford the beer, AB would not have prospered either. Fact is, at that time, people WERE wanting a cheaper beer. Now, with a more prosperous economy, people are willing to pay twice as much for a local brew than for the 7-11 can of Bud, and are willing to pay $2 for a 12 oz Starbucks rather than the 7-11 89¢ 24 oz cup.
Unlike some, I don't see any deep dark conspiracy here. Only hitting consumer demand dead-on.
Same with the hated eeeevvvviiiilllll Wal-Mart. Their primary go-to-market strategy is price - offer consumers products they want to buy at a lower price. Many small local businesses have figured out how to complete with Wal-Mart by hitting them where they aren't (service, product selection off Wal-Mart's radar, etc.). Many more try to compete against them on price and merely fail. But whose fault is that?
We no longer buy groceries at the corner store, either - we go to the H-E-B, Cub, or whatever your mega-chain supermarket name is. Is that bad? Food is certainly cheaper as a result. Commerce marches on.
I guess we are now on our third or fourth subject for this thread...