4 ms·
Okay, so from my vantage as an electrical manufacturer the point of syncfu is to help me achieve economies of scale. The more people that purchase, the more I c
by gridspy 17y ago
Okay, so from my vantage as an electrical manufacturer the point of syncfu is to help me achieve economies of scale. The more people that purchase, the more I can lower my price.
You don't currently obligate buyers to make an actual purchase, so the price that the other buyers pay might be too heavily discounted. For example, 100 people reserve, but only 20 actually buy - in this case I might not make a profit since the per unit costs for 20 are much higher than for 100.
I'd rather see a similar grouping mechanism that requires full commitment from both buyers and sellers, like ebay does. You'd probably have to do this with accounts, points and validation.
As for the actual purchase you could do this:
The seller creates a graph of price vs size of the production run, as now. They specify how often they would like to do production runs (sales).
Each buyer specifies the maximum amount they would be willing to pay, by clicking on the purchase graph. They specify how long they are willing to wait until it reaches that price. They enter all their credit card and billing details into the system, and have made a promise to purchase at that price or below.
When the sale ends, the system attempts to solve the graph for price. Everyone who "bid" above this price pays the solved price, everyone below is moved to the next run, unless their stated "latest date" would be passed by waiting that long.
You then bill everyone who said that they would pay. You make the lump sum available to the retailer who then satisfies the orders. This way there is no risk to a buyer that they will pay more than they want, and no risk to a seller that you will set the wrong price.
When I say solve for price, what I mean is that
- 1 person chooses the 1 user price (A)
- 2 people chose the 5 user price (B)
you solve, 1 user (A) gets the 1 user price, they get billed, B moves into next round (unless their time limit has expired)
now more people come along
- 5 users choose the 10 user price (C)
- 6 users chose the 12 user price (D)
+ 2 people chose the 5 user price (B)
So now you can manufacture at the 13 user price because that will satisfy everyone.
- dejan 17y agoTo make a reservation (a pledge) of future purchase, the potential buyers are charged small fee. This makes the reservations a bit more reliable, as no one throws money just like that. The seller doesn't consider these as actual purchases yet. It is only a demand aggregation, meaning grouping people that care strongly about the price. After the deadline or max quantity, the item closes. At this point the seller gives real payment instructions, but at a different price. Of course there is the risk that not all will complete the purchases but isn't that already included in the price? The seller can count lets say a 50% completion rate already when making the prices? What you described is awesome and a real hacker's view. I think it is very cool and have to admit I have been thinking similar in this direction at the beginning. But.. I have an obvious problem getting this solution explained to a hacker community (see my comments here). I wonder how I would explain the solver to consumers and sellers. :D I need a solver for a headache later. Thank you for awesome reasoning and comment! For sure will think about it deeper now.
- dejan 17y agoI gave it a bit of a thought. Maybe this can be done post-reservations. The solver would consider how popular the item was, the prices at which people accepted to participate and the lowest achieved price. According to all of this, the solver would calculate the suggested item price. That's cool, I might do that, just for fun. I wouldn't limit the usage to only manufacturing and operations management. I am trying to keep it as a universal tool. Thanks again for valuable thoughts.
- gridspy 17y agoWhat I want is for buyers to make a real committment. The major difference between my system and yours is that buyers can say "I don't want to buy it for $1000, but if it reaches $600, I am in. Here are my credit card details if it does" [Edit] Is this what all your competitors do too? I didn't mean to remove your point of difference, but perhaps this way works better.
- dejan 17y agoAll competitors do as you say - take the credit card info and store it. Only if price reaches the threshold, then they are charged. I believe a different approach should be tested against, as the resistance to making a commitment is lower. The assumption is that if the price gets discounted at all, that becomes the best offer online.