Anybody else-sebenza dead horse.

[Kohai999]

.

And btw, leave canadians and thier spelling, out of this crap.

Is it STeven or Steven, or just terrorist styled handwriting coming out?


Peace out

WR

If Cleft is going to give Gus an English lesson, I can give him correction on his spelling.

My name is Steven, but when I started posting, oh so many years ago, the "T" got "upper cased" because I did not release the shift key fast enough. I got tired of changing it, so it has become my signature, here only.

The Sebenza is a very cool knife. I wish more people owned them.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Supply and demand are the basis of a price.

For the maker, not the user. Most users tend to care about the performance or worth of the tool, noting something is overpriced because its performance/cost ratio is low is fairly common and it what the term actually means.

As for the supply/demand issue, I am aware of it and have as noted mentioned it before in defence of the Sebenza's price. I am also simply aware that not everyone has that as their viewpoint, and it doesn't make their arguement weak or ignorant or anything else.

You arguement would be that as long as you can sell something in demand it isn't overpriced, this would also extend to snake-oil and conmen. Few people would defend these items as not being overpriced but your defination readily supports it.

As a trivial example, a high end dealer could start selling Scagels, or what were called called Scagels but which were actual quality reproductions, until someone of skill could verify these were not actually as claimed the demand would likely be high, however would they be worth the price?

No because their "worth" doesn't match their price. Simply because you can sell it doesn't make this so.

-Cliff

 

[Thomas Linton]

Gentlebeings, are we not talking about two different concepts here - market value and intrisic value? One is not more valid than the other. They just go about evaluating a knife's "value" on totally different bases.

In fact, lots of space at BF is clearly devoted to discussions of intrinsic value - quality of construction, ability to cut, ability to stand up to hard use. When someone starts the seemingly unavoidable, "Is X better than Y" thread, they are hardly ever wanting to discuss anything BUT intrinsic value.

I respectfully submit that it is just as irrational to attack an opinion on intrinsic value with arguments about market value as would be the reverse. If the opinion is that the knife is not priced to reflect its ability to function as a tool, it is totally irrelevant to observe, however correctly, that the market sets that price. If the observation is that the item has surpassed the "tool" category to become "collectable" or "Art," it is irrelvant TO THAT ARGUMENT to suggest that the item is "overpriced" for its performance as a tool. (Case figured that out some years ago, IMO.)

Cliff has said in this thread that market value is a recognized concept. In fact, he HAS raised that point in previous discussions of Sebs.

To the extent that Cliff wants to talk about function, Bastid's observations about market value do not meet Cliff's argument.

To the extent that Cliff is trying to meet Bastid's argument about market value, observations about function are irrelevant.

Around and around we go, with the odd "STFU" thrown in to establish how "salty" some are.

 

[DaveH]

Edit to say I'm late and what was said above is exactly what I was trying to say below. Gus and Cliff are arguing two different things, and hence can not come to agreement.

I think I can summarize gus' position: Regardless of the reason of perceived worth (features & peformance, or snake oil hype) if they're selling at whatever their price then that's what they are worth.

What Cliff is saying is that the crieteria or worth matters, and that snake oil hype worth is not a valid worth. And since he sees sebenzas as having a certain percentage of snake oil hype worth, they're over priced.

I think I have to side with Gus on this.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

And since he sees sebenzas as having a certain percentage of snake oil hype worth, they're over priced.

No, people selling snake oil tend to promote products knowingly which are fake. I don't think I have read Reeve say anything that is similar. I don't agree with a lot of what he says but that doesn't mean I think he is trying to con anyone.

He made a post that inertial openings are abusive to any knife now this is not true because there are lots of makers which have designed knives to actually use this as the primary opening method (Ralph). However this doesn't mean Reeve is a con man, he could simply not be aware of their knives.

I don't think a Sebenza is worth its price because its performance can be exceeded trivially by less expensive knives and its advantages are not functional to me on a using tool such as the pivot mechanism for example, as I have never had to retire a blade due to that.

I realize that someone else's viewpoint could be differnet, and thus the knife could even be underpriced to them. But simply saying it isn't overpriced because you can sell it ignores all the other factors which make things sell which have nothing to do with worth and includes con men. When arguing for meaning of terms in general you have to look at the implication of their acceptance, not just one specific case.

It works in reverse as well, take someone who has spent his time devoting his craft to making a quality knife but spends no time what so ever on public interaction. His knives would not sell well but be worth a lot of money. To those that appreciate quality they would not be overpriced, to those that buy on popularity they would be as he has no "name".

-Cliff

 

[92degrees]

What Cliff is saying is that the crieteria or worth matters, and that snake oil hype worth is not a valid worth. And since he sees sebenzas as having a certain percentage of snake oil hype worth, they're over priced.

1. Advertising [hype] stimulates the sales of a good product and accelerates the destruction of a bad product. To make a claim which the product does not possess merely increases the frequency with which the consumer observes its absence.

the corollary of this law is:

2. A campaign [hype, word of mouth, forum discussions] that stresses a miniscule difference, which the consumer cannot observe in actual practice, also accelerates the destruction of the product. Such a campaign again increases the frequency with which the consumer observes the absence of the claim.

Rosser Reeves based on the research of Alfred Politz

 

[Thomas Linton]

1. Advertising [hype] stimulates the sales of a good product and accelerates the destruction of a bad product. To make a claim which the product does not possess merely increases the frequency with which the consumer observes its absence.

the corollary of this law is:

2. A campaign [hype, word of mouth, forum discussions] that stresses a miniscule difference, which the consumer cannot observe in actual practice, also accelerates the destruction of the product. Such a campaign again increases the frequency with which the consumer observes the absence of the claim.

Rosser Reeves based on the research of Alfred Politz

> Doncha' love the way "social sciences" try to act like hard sciences? I mean "law"?!!

> Everything I have ever read said Beta was a clearly a better tape format than VHS, but VHS prevailed. (At least with 8-track vs. cassette one had the advantage of being more compact, but Beta was even smaller than VHS.)

> MacDonalds -- the triumph of advertising.

> Given the marketing budgets, why are there still bad products? Must be really, REALLY hard to kill off. How about this "law" from the Book of Knives: "Bad products drive out the good by cheaper prices."

> Marketing sells ideas, not products. The "sexy" car. The "sexy" scent. The "sexy" hair dye. The idea, "Buy our products and you will be one sexy guy/gal." [Read the chapter in Knife Marketing 101 on "tactical."]

> Consumers do not "observe." Check the bidding on eBay on fakes that are so obvious as to be silly, if one were truly observant.

> Ain't it a shame how reality gets in the way of theory?

 

[Dijos]

As some have pointed out, there are 2 different arguments going on here. the law of supply and demand is a basic economic concept. This should, ceteris paribus, determine the price. The other concept we have is the law of diminishing marginal utility. "Utils" are the unit by which items are measured, relative to price. They can be actual utility-Having one knife is better than having no knife, but having 2 knives is only marginally better than having one. The percentage increase diminishes with more units. This can be applied to other things-Performance, for example. A good knife is worth more than a POS, because it contains more utils (as we are measuring performance). You can also include status (The cadillac cimmaron and the chevy cavalier were essentially the same car, but the Caddy was more expensive, as it carried more status) and define utils by that measure. You can also measure any factor that you want to try to quantify (it's a slippery slope, but whatever).
The relation of price and utils is not linear-it is steep increase relative to price in the beginning, then flattenng out, where a small increase in utils will cost disproportionately more.
this thread has sure turned out interesting.

 

[92degrees]

Your examples make little sense. McDonalds (I haven't eaten in one in years) clearly lives up to it's brand promise -- tasty food/fast/inexpensive. Julia Childs was a big fan. If the food was unpalatable or the service found poor by most people, they would go out of business.

Beta was a category, not a brand. Beta was a technology that did not have market penetration. It's a much more complicated issue than marketing.

Inferior products come to market and are successful through marketing and advertising all the time. That doesn't mean that they don't have to live up to their promise to survive. The difference is that the Sebenza (I'm not a fan) has been in the marketplace for 15 years or more. If the brand promise ("The folding knife that has become the yardstick against which others are compared...") were not valid on some level, the marketplace would have set things right by now.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

... the Sebenza (I'm not a fan) has been in the marketplace for 15 years or more. If the brand promise ("The folding knife that has become the yardstick against which others are compared...") were not valid on some level, the marketplace would have set things right by now.

It was very valid for a long time, compare a Sebenza to a FRN AUS lockback and they are not in the same class. However other manufacturers have come a long way, and surpassed it in many respects.

The internet also opens up the matter because it allows for a much quicker determination of hype/performance and the ability to very quickly check up on claims of performance.

This of course is all predicated on the fact that the sole or major reason that people buy knives is based on thier performance and they will aggressively evaluate all claims made by the makers.

-Cliff

 

[Bastid]

Can someone please explain to me how intrinsic value has a logical impact on actual price. (I am talking about the price of an item rather than how much an individual is willing to pay.)

I just do not see the connection.

I'm sorry, as a user and collector I do not have much say as to the price level of the item (other than to add to or to remove from the demand.)

If the demand is there and the supply inventory is not languishing the item is not overpriced. That is a fact.



Again, in a vast majority of cases any item could be called overpriced if the criteria that is used to justify the statement is that a cheaper item can do the same or better. If that is the criteria then just about anything is overpriced.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Your examples make little sense. McDonalds (I haven't eaten in one in years) clearly lives up to it's brand promise -- tasty food/fast/inexpensive.

It may make little sense to your. To me:

Their food costs more for the size of the sandwich than, say Berger King.
They are no faster than other "fast food" stores (results vary by location).
Tasty? I guess it's a matter of taste. I find their burgers relatively tasteless, their fries inferior to BK, and their coffee watery.

I think they primarily sell to children.
The stores are clean and well lighted.
They are masters of site and situation.
They are "everywhere."
They saturate the media with advertising that stresses tie-ins to "hot" hots and movies.

If my opinions make little sense to you, I guess I can live with that. Have another Big Mac. :foot:


Sony marketed the BETA product. It was superior. It didn't get market share - my point exactly. The superior product lost the marketing wars.

Maybe we have different understandings of "marketing."


As for Mr. Reeve's well-made product being a standard, I could ask how a product unknown to the vast, vast majority of those who buy knives can be a "standard." We communicate here in a highly artificial to environment. We very few know about the quality awards Reeve wins year after year after year. Joe Public would ask "What sports team" or think we're talking about a dead actor.

Or you could be defining the relevant market as sellers/buyers of "high-end" production knives. In that case, I agree -- but that's you, me and Bastid. Shall we consult the "Usual Suspects" or the Striderites? (Don't let the Spydies in. They crawl all over the walls. )

 

[Paul Davidson]

For the maker, not the user. Most users tend to care about the performance or worth of the tool, noting something is overpriced because its performance/cost ratio is low is fairly common and it what the term actually means.

As for the supply/demand issue, I am aware of it and have as noted mentioned it before in defence of the Sebenza's price. I am also simply aware that not everyone has that as their viewpoint, and it doesn't make their arguement weak or ignorant or anything else.

You arguement would be that as long as you can sell something in demand it isn't overpriced, this would also extend to snake-oil and conmen. Few people would defend these items as not being overpriced but your defination readily supports it.

As a trivial example, a high end dealer could start selling Scagels, or what were called called Scagels but which were actual quality reproductions, until someone of skill could verify these were not actually as claimed the demand would likely be high, however would they be worth the price?

No because their "worth" doesn't match their price. Simply because you can sell it doesn't make this so.

-Cliff

Actually in supply and demand the users or buyers do set the price. Not as individuals, but as a group. Too expensive for some individuals doesn't mean that a product is overpriced. Mercedes are too expensive for me, but they sell a lot of them. Does it do more than a Ford or Chevy? Not really, but things are rarely priced by their intrinsic value. If items were sold based on their value then we wouldn't be paying the high markups that many items are sold at.

There is no logical cerrelation between a company selling a legitimate product, such as the Sebenza, and a criminal seeking to rip people off (conmen etc.). The Reeves make no promises about the Sebenza that are false. They could probably charge even more for their knives and still sell all they can make, but they have found a price they find fair and at which the product moves easily.

The words that Cliff is leaving out of his argument are "for me" or perhaps "for me and some others." "Sebenzas are overpriced (too expensive for the value I place on them) for me and some other people." As I said before, Mercedes are too expensive for me, but if I had a whole lot more money and a fine car was important to me then I would probably own one (or some other expensive car). If the Sebenza was too expensive in general then nobody would buy them, forcing the company to fold, change the product, lower the price, or any and all of the above.

"Too expensive for me" does not equal "too expensive in general." If a Rolex is no better than any other watch to you, then don't whine about how much people pay for them. If the Rolex is the best watch in your opinion, and you can't afford one, then whining about the price is just sour grapes.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Can someone please explain to me how intrinsic value has a logical impact on actual price. (I am talking about the price of an item rather than how much an individual is willing to pay.)

I just do not see the connection.

I'm sorry, as a user and collector I do not have much say as to the price level of the item (other than to add to or to remove from the demand.)

If the demand is there and the supply inventory is not languishing the item is not overpriced. That is a fact.



Again, in a vast majority of cases any item could be called overpriced if the criteria that is used to justify the statement is that a cheaper item can do the same or better. If that is the criteria then just about anything is overpriced.

OK, this is only a try.

Logically, if the price difference between two items of equal intrinsic value is "too" great, buyers should stop demanding the higher-priced item.

Two problems I have with the logic actually playing out.

One, it's hard to measure intrinsic value, To one it includes "beauty," "art," "uniqueness," while to another it's purely function. I guess Cliff falls into the second category. He's looking at tools, but I think he's very clear on that.

Two, despite equal intrinsic value, marketing may convince buyers that there is a difference that justifies the price margin (in my example that 92 finds senseless, MacDonalds). I think that there is an substantial element of irrationality -- AND simple ignorance of facts -- in real world buying decisions. Certainaly, advertising uses adjectives that I cannot accept or find mainingless when describing knives (e.g. "surgical stainless steel," "genuine steel," and the immortal "rare"). ebay is a world of puffery all its own. Folks pay $1,000's for obvious fakes. Supply and demand at work, but not rationally.


As for your last statement, and assuming you mean fairly "called overpriced," isn't your statement true only IF intrinsic value is equal? If we accept function as one standard of intrinsic worth, would you not agree that some products can do more/better than others? If so, then the inferior product does less to justify its price than the superior product. Looking at it another way, your stement is true only if the cheapest product is functionally equal to a more expensive product.

Tom

 

[92degrees]

Sony marketed the BETA product. It was superior. It didn't get market share - my point exactly. The superior product lost the marketing wars.

I have more time now.

Yes, Sony marketed Beta. In fact, they put huge marketing and advertising behind Beta. Beta promised improved audio quality and image compared to VHS, but in fact the difference was barely noticeable on ordinary home equipment. This example proves "law" number two: a campaign that stresses a miniscule difference, which the consumer cannot observe in actual practice, also accelerates the destruction of the product.

 

[Bastid]

A keyring is a tool to hold keys.

I can buy a metal keyring for under a buck (that is what I use BTW).
I could buy a gold keyring for mega bucks. (If I had mega bucks).

As a tool, the metal keyring will obviously meet or exceed the performance of the gold key ring. It will hold keys just as well and may last longer than the gold one.

The keyring is a tool that accomplishes a task. I can buy a metal one that will last longer and perform just as well as the gold one

Is the gold keyring over priced or under priced ? (Have you accounted for everything to be able to answer the question accurately?)

Is the metal keyring over priced or under priced ?

Is it possible that both are priced correctly ?

Is it accurate for me to say that the gold keyring is over priced becuase the metal keyring will out perform and might have a longer life than the gold one? (Hint - NO).

I would say it depends upon the supply and demand. Cliff says you can ignore supply and demand in determining whether something is over priced and look at price vs performance to determine the answer.

Does the gold keyring have a higher intrinsic value than the metal one?
Only if you feel that the material adds to the intrinsic value and that in this case the material is more important than the measured lifetime of use.

Does the metal keyring have a higher intrinsic value than the gold one?
Maybe if you only value function and if finish/materials are not important to you.

Intrinsic value is based on individual preference. I do not have a clue how it can be measured, but I do see how marketing can have an effect on collective intrinsic value affecting demand which in turn can affect price.

I'll leave it to each individual to determine which criteria to use when making a determination on something being overpriced.

I will also say that it is more than obvious to me which criteria are based in reality and actual logic and things which can be actually measured and have held up over a long period of time.

 

[Thomas Linton]

I have more time now.

Yes, Sony marketed Beta. In fact, they put huge marketing and advertising behind Beta. Beta promised improved audio quality and image compared to VHS, but in fact the difference was barely noticeable on ordinary home equipment. This example proves "law" number two: a campaign that stresses a miniscule difference, which the consumer cannot observe in actual practice, also accelerates the destruction of the product.

Well, that's a new one for me.

I read that, at least for the U.S. market, it was the 1-hour Beta tapes that did them in -- couldn't record a movie on one tape. Still, VHS won in Europe against equal-capacity improved Beta tapes.

I read that it was the 40 companies making VHS vs. 12 for Beta (not just Sony, of course)(As in the business school expression "to Betamax" - to defeat a proprietary technology by using miltiple, competing manufactures. As in, "Apple Betamaxed ITSELF out of the PC market.")

I read -- mant times -- that it was the relatively absence of porn in the VHS format.

Now I learn it was the application of another of those iron laws of economics.

How's this for an economics expression? No sale.

 

[Smegmalicious]

Bastid, Clif is using overpriced in a completely different way, semantically, than you are. Your arguments are spot on, and people that don't understand basic economics make my head hurt, but you guys are arguing completely different things.

When he says 'overpriced' he means 'price not commensurate with features'
When you say 'overpriced' you mean 'a price greater than the market can sustain'

This whole argument is a question of misunderstood semantics. Cliff needs to stop trying to apply his definition of 'overpriced' (in this context) to economics and you need to stop trying to do the reverse.

As for my $.02 on the Sebenza, I think it's worth the money in both ways, but I spent nothing but disposable income on it, and haven't been happier with a knife purchase ever.

My question is: if the industry is actually catching up to the Sebenza finally, what do you all think the next great leap forward will be?

 

[Megalobyte]

Thanks Keith.

It has become more than obvious that basic supply and demand is not something easily grasped by some.

My focus is basic economics, we are talking business when simple and basic Supply and Demand tells us that the statement that Sebenzas are overpriced is illogical and goes agains any basic economics that is taught in high school. Businesses exist to maximize profit. (Obviously some people feel that a busness exists to provide them a service or implement at a cheap cost, but they are not being realistic or logical.)

The price is quite in line with the market and a logical business person strives to stay at that equilibrium.

Anyone who says differently does not understand basic economics, logic or business.

Saying that, I can fully understand the logic that a cheaper knife can accomplish the same tasks equally or better than an expensive knife, but that does not mean the expensive knife is overpriced.

Something is overpriced when the supply exceeds the demand.

If the supply of Sebenzas exceeded the demand then I would agree that they are overpriced otherwise the argument is non existant except in the minds of people who do not grasp pricing and economics.





It is illogical to refute those basic economic facts.

What Cliff is saying, repeatedly, is that they are overpriced to him, because he can exceed the raw performance of a Sebenza with cheaper knives, and since sheer performance is all he is concerned with, in other words, he could care less about some of the non-performance related, so called intangibles that the Sebenza offers that his cheaper knives do not, then for him, and his value system, they are overpriced, not from the point of view of basic business or economic models.

See, I know this because Cliff has said it over and over, and, over and over, and, wait, I'm not done, over and over, wait...

 

[fdd19]

you pay for a level of fit that is pretty much pointless. There are a ton of other knives of the same steel, titanium, lock, profile, size, weight, etc. I don't know that anyone expects a Sebbie to last any longer, as there's nothing in the construction to do that.

Can you give some examples, I'd like to see the alternatives.