Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of theiPhone?

SMS ???? ? wrote:
> There are some good case studies of pricing in the Harvard Business
> Review. The Tagamet versus Zantac is a classic.

Is that on line somewhere? I've always had a suspicion that Tagamet was
the start of the outrageous pricing of drugs we see today. I remember it
was $30 a month as opposed to a typically expensive prescription of $12
or thereabouts. I remember also that they promised the price would drop
like a rock when R&D was paid off, but the price did nothing but go up,
quintupling just before a generic became available.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

---

› See More: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of theiPhone?

clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in news:a9bt35-jjp.ln1
@remote.clifto.com:

> the outrageous pricing of drugs we see today.

http://www.drugstore.com/pharmacy/pr...price.asp?ndc=
55513019001&trx=1Z5006

This is the price of Neulasta, a 0.6ml plastic syringe to "help
REDUCE infections in chemo patients." It doesn't prevent them.

ONE syringe, .6ml costs $3,201.75 at drugstore.com DISCOUNTED!

I brought up some heavy computer hardware and did some arithmetic and
this crap is $US22,198,800 per gallon, making it FAR more valuable
than ANY OTHER LIQUID ON THE PLANET.

We should hang ALL the usurers, not just the lawyers and bankers.
Check out the webpage to get better discounts on Neulasta if you're a
multimillionaire and want more than one injection. It gives new
meaning to "one every four hours".

Larry
--
QUOTE OF THE MONTH:
"I have been to several major Chinese cities and have seen first hand
shops crammed with obviously fake American products." - Jon Dudas,
Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Rights.

How can they be fake? The Chinese make all "American Products" I
use!

clifto wrote:
> SMS ???? ? wrote:
>> There are some good case studies of pricing in the Harvard Business
>> Review. The Tagamet versus Zantac is a classic.
>
> Is that on line somewhere? I've always had a suspicion that Tagamet was
> the start of the outrageous pricing of drugs we see today. I remember it
> was $30 a month as opposed to a typically expensive prescription of $12
> or thereabouts. I remember also that they promised the price would drop
> like a rock when R&D was paid off, but the price did nothing but go up,
> quintupling just before a generic became available.

It's the opposite of what you're thinking. The head of Glaxo was being
pressured to price Zantac at a lower price than Tagamet, and instead he
decided to charge a premium, because Zantac was a better drug for the
same condition.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 20 Dec 2007 14:05:03 -0500 Carl wrote:
>
>> I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You?
>
> How do you think Sam Walton would've answered that? ;-)
>
>
> There's an old business axiom that says "if you sell to the classes,
> you'll eat with the masses. If you sell to the masses, you'll eat
> with the classes."
>
There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also the Warren
Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways. I suppose I prefer the latter for
myself. Different strokes and all.

And along with your axioms you might also add, "and if you sell to the
masses, to survive you must also employ the asses of those masses and then
treat them like ****."

Or how about, "So the common man can fly, you must crowd up the sky. So
lower those fares and gain more near-miss scares." Or something like that.
:-)

Just a little food-for-thought for those of you who think marginal markup,
cut-throat pricing, high volume selling is such a wonderful thing for
people.

clifto wrote:
> SMS ???? ? wrote:
>> There are some good case studies of pricing in the Harvard Business
>> Review. The Tagamet versus Zantac is a classic.
>
> Is that on line somewhere? I've always had a suspicion that Tagamet
> was the start of the outrageous pricing of drugs we see today. I
> remember it was $30 a month as opposed to a typically expensive
> prescription of $12 or thereabouts. I remember also that they
> promised the price would drop like a rock when R&D was paid off, but
> the price did nothing but go up, quintupling just before a generic
> became available.
>
Pharmaceuticals is not a good example to use in this debate. The market
forces of the drug industry are different than other consumer goods. Not to
say that he doesn't have an ax to grind or that a lot of what he has to say
is biased, but you should make a point of seeing Michael Moore's "Sicko".

At 21 Dec 2007 21:23:03 -0500 Carl wrote:

> There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also
> the Warren Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways.

I fail to see the point of that comparison. Berk is a holding company that
controls a variety of companies that catervto the masses- insurance
companies, fast food, mall jewelry stores, etc. Rather than the antithesis
of Sam Walton, Buffet is many Sam Waltons in one convenient package!

> I suppose I prefer the latter for
> myself. Different strokes and all.

So, essentially you want to be one level removed from Walton and not get
your hands dirty? ;-)


> And along with your axioms you might also add, "and if you sell to the
> masses, to survive you must also employ the asses of those masses and
then
> treat them like ****."

Not necessarily- Walmart is the extreme example. Plenty of mass-market
companies are also good corporate citizens.
> Or how about, "So the common man can fly, you must crowd up the sky. So
> lower those fares and gain more near-miss scares." Or something like that.

> :-)


Now you're talking about an entire industry- who is the high-end "luxury"
carrier you'd rather be than, say, United?


> Just a little food-for-thought for those of you who think marginal
markup,
> cut-throat pricing, high volume selling is such a wonderful thing for
> people.


Not necessarily cut-throat- again, it's not all Wal-Mart- pick any
successful mass-mrket retailer, say Macy's, and they've got a more
successful operation than any high-end "boutique" does.

Most, if not all, independent business people that I know that cater to the
"high-end" customer is not as successful as his clients are- that's all
that I'm saying.

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:fkilqb$v6o$1@aioe.org...
> At 21 Dec 2007 21:23:03 -0500 Carl wrote:
>
>> There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also
>> the Warren Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways.
>
> I fail to see the point of that comparison. Berk is a holding company
> that
> controls a variety of companies that catervto the masses- insurance
> companies, fast food, mall jewelry stores, etc. Rather than the
> antithesis
> of Sam Walton, Buffet is many Sam Waltons in one convenient package!
>
>> I suppose I prefer the latter for
>> myself. Different strokes and all.
>
> So, essentially you want to be one level removed from Walton and not get
> your hands dirty? ;-)
>
>
>> And along with your axioms you might also add, "and if you sell to the
>> masses, to survive you must also employ the asses of those masses and
> then
>> treat them like ****."
>
> Not necessarily- Walmart is the extreme example. Plenty of mass-market
> companies are also good corporate citizens.
>> Or how about, "So the common man can fly, you must crowd up the sky. So
>> lower those fares and gain more near-miss scares." Or something like
>> that.
>
>> :-)
>
>
> Now you're talking about an entire industry- who is the high-end "luxury"
> carrier you'd rather be than, say, United?
>
>
>> Just a little food-for-thought for those of you who think marginal
> markup,
>> cut-throat pricing, high volume selling is such a wonderful thing for
>> people.
>
>
> Not necessarily cut-throat- again, it's not all Wal-Mart- pick any
> successful mass-mrket retailer, say Macy's, and they've got a more
> successful operation than any high-end "boutique" does.
>
> Most, if not all, independent business people that I know that cater to
> the
> "high-end" customer is not as successful as his clients are- that's all
> that I'm saying.
>
>
When was the last time you shopped in Macy's? Macy's, to me, is closer to a
high end boutique than a mass-market discounter. They carry mainly
designer-name lines and sell those things at huge prices. They do NOT cater
to the "masses" though they admittedly attract them: poor people spending
huge bucks to have clothing with someone else's name on them. This is NOT a
Walmart or Target, not a GAP or Old Navy, true "masses" stores by your
standard. Btw, I'm a Macy's shopper. I was going to use Macy's as my analogy
but thought it didn't quite make the point because their success at crossing
over a wide range of economic levels is so good. But a "masses" store? No
way.

My Berkshire Hathaway reference was meant to refer primarily to the stock,
which currently sells for something in the neighborhood of $134,000 a SHARE.
Do you think that company is concerned about volume trading? The secondary
point is that Berk doesn't do business at the grass-roots level, but at the
"holding company" level where he deals with few clients who are willing to
pay high prices. It's naive to assume that, at the end, every business
doesn't eventually filter its way down to the "masses" as you put them. If
you do a "family tree" lineage study of any business, it has to end up down
there somewhere. My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on
you.

"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in
news:476d1de7$0$31146$607ed4bc@cv.net:

>
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
> news:fkilqb$v6o$1@aioe.org...
>> At 21 Dec 2007 21:23:03 -0500 Carl wrote:
>>
>>> There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also
>>> the Warren Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways.
>>
>> I fail to see the point of that comparison. Berk is a holding
>> company that
>> controls a variety of companies that catervto the masses- insurance
>> companies, fast food, mall jewelry stores, etc. Rather than the
>> antithesis
>> of Sam Walton, Buffet is many Sam Waltons in one convenient package!
>>
>>> I suppose I prefer the latter for
>>> myself. Different strokes and all.
>>
>> So, essentially you want to be one level removed from Walton and not
>> get your hands dirty? ;-)
>>
>>
>>> And along with your axioms you might also add, "and if you sell to
>>> the masses, to survive you must also employ the asses of those
>>> masses and
>> then
>>> treat them like ****."
>>
>> Not necessarily- Walmart is the extreme example. Plenty of
>> mass-market companies are also good corporate citizens.
>>> Or how about, "So the common man can fly, you must crowd up the sky.
>>> So lower those fares and gain more near-miss scares." Or something
>>> like that.
>>
>>> :-)
>>
>>
>> Now you're talking about an entire industry- who is the high-end
>> "luxury" carrier you'd rather be than, say, United?
>>
>>
>>> Just a little food-for-thought for those of you who think marginal
>> markup,
>>> cut-throat pricing, high volume selling is such a wonderful thing
>>> for people.
>>
>>
>> Not necessarily cut-throat- again, it's not all Wal-Mart- pick any
>> successful mass-mrket retailer, say Macy's, and they've got a more
>> successful operation than any high-end "boutique" does.
>>
>> Most, if not all, independent business people that I know that cater
>> to the
>> "high-end" customer is not as successful as his clients are- that's
>> all that I'm saying.
>>
>>
> When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?


For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed.
Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost. What I
saw was a Target store trying to be classy.

At 22 Dec 2007 09:23:34 -0500 Carl wrote:

> When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?

The last time I was in the closest shopping mall.

> Macy's, to me, is
> closer to a high end boutique than a mass-market discounter. They
> carry mainly designer-name lines and sell those things at huge prices.


Frankly, despite your opinion of them, any retailer that anchors a mall in
Independence, Missouri, is a mass market retailer! ;-)

Again, I used Walton as an extreme example. I could've as easily used Ray
Croc vs. Wolfgang Puck.


> They do NOT cater
> to the "masses" though they admittedly attract them: poor people spending
> huge bucks to have clothing with someone else's name on them. This is NOT
a
> Walmart or Target, not a GAP or Old Navy, true "masses" stores by your
> standard.


"Standard?" I think you're confusing "mass market" with Dickens-era England.
Macy's is mass-market, but they're higher-end "snob appeal" mass market
like Apple Computers- sell a product for higher margin than your
competitors and use marketing and reputation to justify the markup- there's
nothing wrong with that.

If Macy's is what you mean by "high-end," then we're not having an
argument! ;-)

> Btw, I'm a Macy's shopper. I was going to use Macy's as my analogy
> but thought it didn't quite make the point because their success at
crossing
> over a wide range of economic levels is so good. But a "masses" store?
No
> way.

Historically, no, but in the last 10 or so years (since the Federated/May
mergers) they've become a suburban gilt-edged Sears.


> My Berkshire Hathaway reference was meant to refer primarily to the
stock,
> which currently sells for something in the neighborhood of $134,000 a
SHARE.

I'd never have thought of analogizing between a retailer and a stock price!
Market forces control the price of a stock, not a company's markup. B-H
is high because they've never split it, not because ir sells at a high
"profit margin."

> Do you think that company is concerned about volume trading?


No, it's concerned about ownership dilution! Look at the Baby Berk shares-
fractional shares of Berk with 1/5 the voting rights vs. dollar value.
Again, you don't buy stock at retail from the company itself, but at least
I kind of follow where you were going with it.


> The secondary
> point is that Berk doesn't do business at the grass-roots level, but at
the
> "holding company" level where he deals with few clients who are willing
to
> pay high prices.

It's not like Sam Walton was still working the register either after
WalMart opened their 1000th store, either.

>It's naive to assume that, at the end, every business
> doesn't eventually filter its way down to the "masses" as you put them.
If
> you do a "family tree" lineage study of any business, it has to end up
down
> there somewhere.

Butler? Yacht designer? ;-)

> My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you.

If you say so. I've just never pictured Walton and Buffet in the same
industry to draw an analogy between them... I guess I should've went with
Kroc and Puck...

At 22 Dec 2007 10:16:36 -0600 Scott wrote:

> > When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?
>
>
> For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed.
> Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost. What I
> saw was a Target store trying to be classy.

Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared Macy's,
when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears.