While it may have been tinned (put in the can) months ago, I doubt Asda had it in their stock that long.
They almost certainly place tentative orders with suppliers who make curry ( and other things) for a number of shops. The suppliers may well not label things until just before shipping.
On my desktop manage its utterly trivial
On my desktop manage its utterly trivial
Yes, but in practice that means it's fixed. No-one is going to buy from anyone who exceeds that price for the identical item. They might these days - the words of the ad-men seem to be taken as gospel by the snowflakes.
I can't see what you're getting at there. If Apple set a price for a product and the other manufacturers set a much lower price for an equivalent model it's as plain as the noon your face that the Apple is overpriced. Well, they always have been so far - and whilst they can get away with it they won't change.
In the words of Mandy Rice-Davis (nearly) - they would, wouldn't they.
Caveat Emptor. If the folk who know nothing about what they are buying are talked into paying way over the top by Apple's ad-men for stuff that is often not as good as others, then tough luck - the nanny state can't hold their hand all the time - not even today's snowflake generation(s).
That takes me back some. When they first appeared at the computer fairs many, many years ago they might well have been able to claim to be best at drawing pictures - they looked it anyway. Like you, I was never tempted.
That just was not what happened.
So it is on macOS. But not on Mint. You have to hand-craft a .desktop file and put that in the right place.
As you have pointed out, the removal of RPM resulted in many small businesses going bust because others undercut the price they were charging. If others could sell cheaper once RPM was removed it shows that the goods were artificially overpriced in the first place.
So he sells another one that *is* sufficiently profitable. I used to make a point of trying not to sell things which didn't make money - you don't have to be a financial genius to spot that one. :-)
It didn't happen that way. The bigger businesses were quite happy to make the same profit per item as the little chap.
No. They were all paying the same price that had not been artificially cut - different thing altogether. The system worked just fine from time immemorial until the abolition of RPM - that, and Sunday trading, killed the little chap. Thousands went under after abolition and many tens (hundreds?) of thousands of ordinary folk lost their jobs.
No - it means being sufficiently capitalised to be able to be flexible and to cope.
Not so. -- Bob, Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England
Experience - a lesson from life discovered just after you most needed it.
No, it showed that huge firms could undercut with loss leaders until all the competition was gone. Now you are seeing the results of this where they are pushing prices sky-high with all the competition gone. have a look at supermarket petrol prices - daylight robbery at outrageous margins.
The only time it worked that way was during the war, when the government set fixed prices on things like food.
It is probably less likely today, as it is so easy to compare prices online. When we bought a TV set for The Queen's Coronation, we had to make a half hour trip to find a television retailer. That is not conducive to shopping around for the best price.
The difficulty there would be deciding what was an equivalent and what was simply a cheaper, but inferior, product. That is not necessarily clear, even with different products from the same company.
Well, they always have been so far - and whilst they can get
That was central to the pricing policy of many companies when RPM was in force. Setting a higher price than competitors implied a better product and it was usually a successful strategy.
It was the reason that RPM was banned in the UK.
Providers of capital require a return, and that means making a profit.
So, an idealised business, rather than the model most have to manage with.
I am quoting from an article about RPM, but you need access to JStor to read it. However, this extract shows the figures for the percentage of goods subject to RPM and mentions its collapse on grocery products:
It was banned by lobbying from the big companies. Sunday trading was similar. I dare say a great deal of cash was involved.
Apple kit is in fact one of the few examples of RTP that still happens.
BULLSHIT.
Not with the smallest who use family members as staff and not necessarily with supermarkets either given that the smaller ones will normally be paying much lower rental fees or capital costs for the building.
Nope.
It was banned as it was unfair to consumers. This blog from the Competition and Markets Authority gives the government view:
The big companies are the most restricted by the current Sunday trading laws. The provisions of the Shops Act 1950 had long been seen as overly restrictive and repealing them had been the subject of many Private Members' Bills, as well as one of Margaret Thatcher's rare defeats in Parliament. The 1994 Act was the 27th attempt to change them and it fell short of the recommendations of the Auld Committee to repeal them entirely as unworkable.
I dare say a great deal of cash was involved.
You can only cut a price and still have a profit if the price was too high in the first place.
And would have failed when in the EEC and you could order you goods cheaper from Europe!
- that, and Sunday trading, killed
Trading on Sunday was an advance in customer service. Shops open when customers wanted to shop rather than being dictated to by small shopkeepers. In a family where both adults working full time going shopping 9 to 5 during the week was somewhat impractical.
That's not a great example. The supermarkets in my part of the world are cheaper than the oil giants, often by a large amount. And the cheapest petrol I know of is several miles from me, so I don't go there often. It's at Costco, which makes supermarkets look like small fry.
All, I would expect, loss leaders.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.