4 ms·

Is there a word for people who are extremely skeptical of expensive things? Maybe I'm just cheap, but my attitude is simple - unless you can show me an objectiv

Is there a word for people who are extremely skeptical of expensive things? Maybe I'm just cheap, but my attitude is simple - unless you can show me an objective benefit, I ain't paying for it. When I see a "story" driving a product like the article mentions, I often react in total disbelief or outright disgust, it's something that quickly sends me to a competing product. The audio industry is particularly bad with this kind of thing, only a few people actually looking at numbers and doing blind ABX tests.

brenschluss 9y ago
I wonder if there’s a rule of thumb for pricing the ideal item. Like: double the cost of the cheapest equivalent and you have a good quality pair of boots. For example: you can get cheap boots for $80, that will fall apart in a year. Double the cost: $160, and that might yield an okay pair of boots that would at least last 5 years. Etc.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- travisjungroth 9y ago
  I'd guess 4x. When I think of a few examples (chocolate, mattress, jeans, knife, computer) that's about the multiple between the cheapest version and the one I'd be happy with. A similar good thing to know is the price floor of goods. You can't really make a good bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon in the US for under $20. If you're under that, it's almost certainly not good. If you're way over that, you're probably beyond the point where you're paying for quality.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    I was reading about jeans recently, it seems there are two grades of material used in most jeans so as long as you avoid the bottom end of the market you are OK, everything else is just branding.
- nradov 9y ago
  I don't think boots are a good example because the most important quality is how well they fit, not how long they last. If the $80 boots fit perfectly and don't give you blisters then buy them even if you have to replace them every year. Since everyone's feet are different there's no real correlation between price and fit.
  - lox 9y ago
    I think you can probably assume “fitting ok” is a functional requirement from either the cheap ones or the expensive ones.
rebuilder 9y ago
"Cheapskate"? ;)
- jacquesm 9y ago
  More like smart.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

brenschluss 9y ago

I wonder if there’s a rule of thumb for pricing the ideal item. Like: double the cost of the cheapest equivalent and you have a good quality pair of boots. For example: you can get cheap boots for $80, that will fall apart in a year. Double the cost: $160, and that might yield an okay pair of boots that would at least last 5 years. Etc.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
travisjungroth 9y ago
I'd guess 4x. When I think of a few examples (chocolate, mattress, jeans, knife, computer) that's about the multiple between the cheapest version and the one I'd be happy with. A similar good thing to know is the price floor of goods. You can't really make a good bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon in the US for under $20. If you're under that, it's almost certainly not good. If you're way over that, you're probably beyond the point where you're paying for quality.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  I was reading about jeans recently, it seems there are two grades of material used in most jeans so as long as you avoid the bottom end of the market you are OK, everything else is just branding.
nradov 9y ago
I don't think boots are a good example because the most important quality is how well they fit, not how long they last. If the $80 boots fit perfectly and don't give you blisters then buy them even if you have to replace them every year. Since everyone's feet are different there's no real correlation between price and fit.
- lox 9y ago
  I think you can probably assume “fitting ok” is a functional requirement from either the cheap ones or the expensive ones.

rebuilder 9y ago

"Cheapskate"? ;)

jacquesm 9y ago
More like smart.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]