4 ms·
I don't agree with that at all. It's up to him to set the price for his improved product, whether it's 10% more or 100% or 1000%. It's unfair though when an old
by canttestthis 10y ago
I don't agree with that at all. It's up to him to set the price for his improved product, whether it's 10% more or 100% or 1000%. It's unfair though when an old version of his product is presented at an old price point using present tense verbs on TV. Of course viewers are going to think it's a bait and switch when they try to buy it. It harms his business.
- helthanatos 10y agoIf his product improved enough to price it so much greater, he should have versioned his product. If his "improvements" were just a farce and he just wanted to increase the price, then it is a bait and switch. Either way, this boils down to him being bad at business. But with reruns, they should include a disclaimer that says the original date and that prices may have changed.
- canttestthis 10y agoNo, he shouldn't be forced to version his product. Being taken advantage of by a large media house != being bad at business.
- helthanatos 10y agoHe changed his product. That was his choice. It was also his choice to appear on Shark Tank. Two times.
- Jtsummers 10y agoSo if someone runs across an old Craftsman add for a $2.00 philips head screwdriver that's $5.00 today, even though it hasn't changed (if anything it's probably cheaper to produce), they're dishonest?
- notahacker 10y agoDoes Shark Tank not follow the example of the UK show Dragon's Den that inspired it in discussing costs of manufacture and wholesale prices? Can't see how anyone can reasonably consider it a "bait and switch" if, after watching a programme in which someone has discussed making a product for $5, selling it wholesale for $15 and expecting it to retail at $30, they then find a different price again for the current version. Getting more revenue out of consumers is literally the point of a show about entrepreneurship.