Bad, and in fact that might be illegal. I’d have to go crack a Con Law book to be sure, but I know that (for example) US states cannot charge tarriffs on goods from other US states. IIRC there are also prohibitions on certain kinds of discrimination based on state residency, but other kinds are fine (e.g., you can’t get a CA driver’s license unless you live here; you get cheaper tuition at the UC schools if you live here). I don’t remember off the top of my head exactly what the constitutional command is or how it gets implemented, so I guess I’m officially neutral on your hypo. Maybe it would be illegal to charge someone more if they’re from out of state. I’m not sure.
But it’s an inapt analogy, because it’s not like Dell charges extra money to UK citizens or residents who buy goods here in the United States. Dell simply charges different prices for goods it sells to anyone in the UK (including, for example, US residents who are just in the UK on vacation). IOW, it’s not so much “We discriminate against you because of where you live,” it’s more “We discriminate against you because of where you’re buying this product.” (“Discriminate” in the sense of “We charge more,” not necessarily meaning “with evil intent.”) And that is totally legal and, IMO at least, ethical both in the US and abroad. There are a myriad of reasons why a company might charge more for goods in one location rather than another–taxes, shipping costs, administrative costs, who knows what all. I’m no businessman and can’t say. I realize 77% is a huge premium, but unless Dell is the only supplier of flat-panel monitors in the UK, I have to assume that their prices are competitive. I mean, what’s the alternative theory? That Dell is raping UK customers out of sheer greed and hatred, and UK customers are buying because they’re too stupid to compare two numbers and determine which one is higher?
Edit: I notice, incidentally, that MS compares the cost of Dell monitors in the UK to the cost of Dell monitors in the US. But nobody is comparing the cost of Dell monitors in the UK to the cost of comparable competing monitors in the UK. I’m too lazy to try and figure it out myself, but if someone wants to do it, I’d be curious to know the result.
Well, one alternative is “the UK flat panel market is nowhere near as competitive as that of the US, and they raise prices accordingly.” I really don’t see a input-based difference enough to justify the price differential; there’s got to be some pricing power going on there. Or maybe they just screwed up the price, I dunno.
They make a cost comparision in the second paragraph to a comparable monitor, which they priced at 999 pounds.
I mean, I guess that’s an alternative, I just find it really hard to believe. I’ve never been there, but it just seems weird to think that nobody is selling flat-panels there. Even assuming your worst-case scenario is the true one, I’m still unable to get up in arms about it. Let’s assume nobody sells flat-panels in the UK except for Dell, so Dell is ramping up the price by 75%. It’s still a voluntary decision to buy one, and I assume nobody buys them unless they think they’re worth whatever is being asked. Since it’s a luxury version of a luxury item, my feeling is “Meh.” It’s not like Dell is the only person in the country providing water or something.
True, but “companies can morally sell their product for any price they want” isn’t going to convince a non-libertarian.
They probably fucked up the price, or maybe they’re got a sweet deal going on where they’re specifically screwing a set of companies or governments. Dunno.
Only if your definition of “non-libertarian” is “communist”…
Anyway, several European posters have already mentioned that there are plenty of comparable LCD panels available throughout Europe at much lower prices, both imported and locally produced. So it’s not an outrage, and it’s not because of taxes or tariffs either.
As far as I know, Linoleum is right: Dell doesn’t even try to compete in the low-cost sector here like they do in the US, but instead position themselves as business suppliers where the price of individual items doesn’t really matter since it’s usually wrapped up in a maintenance contract.
The low-cost sector in Germany, at any rate, is in the hands of German companies, surprisingly enough (retail chains stamping their brands on generic equipment). Given Dell’s higher quality standards and perhaps higher shipping costs, they probably couldn’t compete in that sector anyway.
So despite all possible examples of outrageous American capitalistic imperialism in the world, Dell selling overpriced monitors to Europeans is probably not one of them…
Yes, I think this is the biggest reason for the price difference. As I said I bough the Samsung monitor instead, and this monitor actually had a lower price (without tax) than the one I found on pricewatch. But there is a lot more competition among the 19" TFTs so it is actually one of the most expensive (and best) of these monitors. Among 20"+ there is hardly any competition at all (in Sweden), so I was actually surprised that the Dell monitor had such a low price considering that the other 20" screens cost more and are worse in many ways. So despite the higher price (compared to the US) it still has a lower price (compared to similar and possibly inferior monitors). I still think that it’s quite possible that they would make more if they used the US price (I would have bought it), but it’s not much I can do about it except buying other monitors until they figure this out.
Whiskey Tango? I’m saying that media should expose things that are bad for consumers (what I define as wrong), so the consumers can chose to not buy those things. I didn’t make one comment about how evil Dell is for doing it, and I’d appreciate not having everything I’ve seen being interpreted through a lens of “since Anders is practically a socialist, he probably means this”.
But selling something for a high price isn’t bad for consumers. It’s neutral for consumers. This isn’t like Dell is actually sending people who buy the monitor Game Boys. Dell, for whatever reason, has chosen to price it’s products at a given level.
Jason- Should we go arrest every shop-owner in New York because things cost more there than they do in Toledo? Or how about Toyko?
It’s just a profoundly bizarre thing to get angry about, because it sure as fuck is fair, by any reasonable definition of fair.
When it’s stunningly obvious that the price can be significantly cut, then I disagree, it is bad for consumers, since it definitely could be better.
And if consumers learn that, then they, just as Dell can set any price they like, can chose to exercise pressure to lower those prices.
As I pointed out, that’s not a good comparision; mail-order computer businesses don’t have huge overhead.
You are privy to Dell’s internal infrastructure? Maybe they have a central hub in the us and all euro products still have to go through this hub, adding expense.
Your argument here baffles me, between your claiming knowledge of how the company works and profits, to your hints that somehow there should be price fixing in the market? Wow.
The markup amount is irrelevant, because you shouldn’t care. Nobody should care(well, besides those involved). It’s a non-story. Gas stations price their food products way over, say, Walmart does. Do you guy throw a fit over 80 cent candy bars?
Anders- Well, it’s ‘bad’ for consumers in the sense that consumers would be better off if everything was free, but it takes a tremendous leap of ethics to act like it’s an outrage that some people get a better price on something elsewhere.
It’s always stunningly obvious a price could be cut, by the way, so I don’t know what you mean by that. You complain about being pigeon-holed as a socialist and then write stuff like that.
As others have noted, they’re positioning their brand for corporations with service contracts and such, where they’re willing to pay more and probably get additional services and such. Nice profits, if it works.
If consumers don’t feel outraged, then how is the situation ever supposed to change? By the competition? Yeah, right. Shouldn’t consumers demand lower prices when it is feasible? It’s not an outrage that other people pay less, it’s an outrage that we pay more, and the company better lower their prices or suffer the consequences. What do you want, take the consumers out of the whole process?
I wouldn’t always say that it’s stunningly obvious a price can be cut, if it’s obvious they’ll go bankrupt if they do, then they obviously shouldn’t.
When did I suggest a plan economy in this thread? How right-wing are you to see a slight support of consumers exercising power as “socialism”?
