Evans 2-man manual

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty;618911. That's my educated [B

guess[/B], not an expert opinion.

Something we can agree upon.

[Kevin Finnerty]

But it's a well-educated guess, unlike yours: "As most marketing execs understand, lower pricing does not always result in a sufficient increase in sales to counter the reduction."

Oh, they do?? Well, look around you!

Now, in this case, one of us is wrong about whether Evans's book would enjoy greater sales and greater impact if it were priced reasonably. Why don't you take a guess who that is.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Now, in this case, one of us is wrong about whether Evans's book would enjoy greater sales and greater impact if it were priced reasonably. Why don't you take a guess who that is.

You guys are arguing different things. You are arguing "sales and impact," he is arguing "profit."

No one (I don't think) disputes that sales increase as the price decreases.

There's also the matter of the value words "priced reasonably." Some might think that $120 is "reasonable" for the product. Other's might think that $120 is high, but $80 is reasonable. You think that $80 is high, but $40 (or some such number) is reasonable. I think it would be reasonable for him to pay me $80 to read it.

It's not really any different from the discussion about the titanium masks. For you "spending a game check" to get the mask was worth it -- the price (or in this instance the price difference) was reasonable. For others it wasn't -- but you seemed to have a hard time understanding that (or at least that's how I interpreted / remember your posts). Now you seem to have a hard time understanding (again, my reading of your posts) how someone can view this purchase at this price as reasonable.

To be clear, I understand how / why you came to those conclusions for you and for your values. But, I also understand how others might come to a different conclusion on one or both items, for their values (and for where they are in their umpire career).

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's not really any different from the discussion about the titanium masks. For you "spending a game check" to get the mask was worth it

Bob, where can I sign up for these games where one game check will pay for my titanium mask? I'll do 3 a day 7 days a week.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

But it's a well-educated guess, unlike yours: "As most marketing execs understand, lower pricing does not always result in a sufficient increase in sales to counter the reduction."

Oh, they do?? Well, look around you!

Now, in this case, one of us is wrong about whether Evans's book would enjoy greater sales and greater impact if it were priced reasonably. Why don't you take a guess who that is.

Oh, I know who that is.

The key word to those of us who ARE marketing executives is "always."

Often, a 50% reduction in price does not result in the doubling of sales, which would be required for revenue to stay the same. If this is to hard for you to understand, I have some reasonably priced basic marketing texts I could give you.

Again, unlike your opinion, these matters were studied and decisions were made based on facts.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by Ump153

Oh, I know who that is.

The key word to those of us who ARE marketing executives is "always."

Often, a 50% reduction in price does not result in the doubling of sales, which would be required for revenue to stay the same. If this is to hard for you to understand, I have some reasonably priced basic marketing texts I could give you.

Again, unlike your opinion, these matters were studied and decisions were made based on facts.

That's great. They guessed that pricing it at $70.00 was effective. You guess that you agree. As most marketing executives know, it's guesswork.

My guess is that they priced out more of the segment than they should have, and they are going to sell significantly fewer copies, and make significantly less money, strategically limiting sales. Look around you. Have you noticed how that same what-the-market-will-bear strategy has been working in other industries? I have.

It's okay; Evans doesn't need to sell very many books. And he won't

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

That's great. They guessed that pricing it at $70.00 was effective. You guess that you agree. As most marketing executives know, it's guesswork.

My guess is that they priced out more of the segment than they should have, and they are going to sell significantly fewer copies, and make significantly less money, strategically limiting sales. Look around you. Have you noticed how that same what-the-market-will-bear strategy has been working in other industries? I have.

Either you can't read, or simply refuse to accept the fact there are others who know more than you do. No one is guessing but you.

Your knowledge of pricing is apparently based on what you see in commercials. Be sure to order now and get the paring knife for no extra charge.

No one said anything about "what the market would bear." A price study is far more than that and takes expenses, including production, promotion, distribution and other factors such as size of the target population and their demonstrated willingness to choose product over money into account. It is more than, "Gee, I bet if we lower the price thousands more would buy the product."

Umpires who visit sites such as this are not the norm in amateur umpiring. The majority of amateur umpires do not go to clinics, do not purchase study materials and do not post at umpire sites.

Lowering the price does not lower expenses and most, yes, most, products do not realize the significant increase in sales you estimate when prices are lowered.

When lowering a price by 50%, expense are not lowered and sales must double to avoid a drop in revenue. This manual is in its first and most expensive run. It is totally illogical and unreasonable to expect a deep discount of any publication in its first run.

I have been involved in marketing in the entertainment and industrial fields for over 20 years. I have my MBA. I am not guessing.

But I have to admit, I am entertained by your willingness to go on and on and continue to demonstrate that you are clueless at the same time. So, please, feel free to go on and on some more.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Ump153

But I have to admit, I am entertained by your willingness to go on and on and continue to demonstrate that you are clueless at the same time. So, please, feel free to go on and on some more.

Please don't encourage him.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Ump153

When lowering a price by 50%, expense are not lowered and sales must double to avoid a drop in revenue.

I have been involved in marketing in the entertainment and industrial fields for over 20 years. I have my MBA. I am not guessing.

I don't have an MBA but I have a calculator. Let's say the book costs $20 to produce and sells for $70. If 1000 are sold the "profit" is $50,000. Revenue is $70,000, but revenue is not the goal, profit is the goal.

Let's say we cut the price in half, the book still costs $20 to produce and if twice as many people buy it due to half off price the Revenue is $70,000 and profit is $30,000. Sales would have to more than triple (3.3333 to be exact) to get the same profit for a price cut in half.

I also expect that the more books are produced the production costs are lowered, but production costs would have to be cut in half for half price reduction in purchase cost and corresponding doubling of purchases to result in same profit.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by DG

I don't have an MBA but I have a calculator. Let's say the book costs $20 to produce and sells for $70. If 1000 are sold the "profit" is $50,000. Revenue is $70,000, but revenue is not the goal, profit is the goal.

Let's say we cut the price in half, the book still costs $20 to produce and if twice as many people buy it due to half off price the Revenue is $70,000 and profit is $30,000. Sales would have to more than triple (3.3333 to be exact) to get the same profit for a price cut in half.

I also expect that the more books are produced the production costs are lowered, but production costs would have to be cut in half for half price reduction in purchase cost and corresponding doubling of purchases to result in same profit.

I fully understand your standpoint, because it's mine. But have you seen this book? The production was somewhat cut-rate. It did NOT cost $20.00 to produce. Not close, really. That's the initial reasoning behind my contending that it should be sold at a lower price---it's not a very high quality (or costly) publication.

I guess we should all be glad it's cheaply made or we'd all be paying $120.00 or so.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by Ump153

Either you can't read, or simply refuse to accept the fact there are others who know more than you do. No one is guessing but you.

Your knowledge of pricing is apparently based on what you see in commercials. Be sure to order now and get the paring knife for no extra charge.

No one said anything about "what the market would bear." A price study is far more than that and takes expenses, including production, promotion, distribution and other factors such as size of the target population and their demonstrated willingness to choose product over money into account. It is more than, "Gee, I bet if we lower the price thousands more would buy the product."

Umpires who visit sites such as this are not the norm in amateur umpiring. The majority of amateur umpires do not go to clinics, do not purchase study materials and do not post at umpire sites.

Lowering the price does not lower expenses and most, yes, most, products do not realize the significant increase in sales you estimate when prices are lowered.

When lowering a price by 50%, expense are not lowered and sales must double to avoid a drop in revenue. This manual is in its first and most expensive run. It is totally illogical and unreasonable to expect a deep discount of any publication in its first run.

I have been involved in marketing in the entertainment and industrial fields for over 20 years. I have my MBA. I am not guessing.

But I have to admit, I am entertained by your willingness to go on and on and continue to demonstrate that you are clueless at the same time. So, please, feel free to go on and on some more.

All these lessons in business and publishing ... why thank you! Now I know a lot!

... You often result to projecting and crude name-calling. This is no exception. Clueless? Me? Really?

Have you even seen this book? Can you honestly claim that it's a costly production? The stock; the printing; the editing; the illustrating? Really?

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

... You often result to projecting and crude name-calling. This is no exception. Clueless? Me? Really?

Clueless = crude name calling?


And on and on and on he goes, when he stops, nobody knows.