4 ms·
You have to remember that there’s a large group of people to whom $300 means little more than $5. That’s the target demographic for these products, and to them,
by IAmGraydon 9y ago
You have to remember that there’s a large group of people to whom $300 means little more than $5. That’s the target demographic for these products, and to them, there is no predicted risk in spending $300 on chocolate. In other words, they have no problem spending the money because there will be no pain if the product disappoints. The money just doesn’t matter.
Knowing that, you just have to figure out how to reach them with the promise of a novel, luxurious experience.
- mirimir 9y agoRight, I've read about places in NYC where people (young trust-fund kids, anyway) spend $10K on brunch ;) Including champagne, admittedly, but still!
- jacquesm 9y agoIf they are spending 10K on brunch it was good foresight of their ancestors to park the loot in a trust fund, otherwise they would likely end up broke.
- mirimir 9y agoSome of them do end up broke. I met this junkie in Amsterdam, who claimed that he'd burned through his trust fund. And then supported his lifestyle as a heroin smuggler, using young trust-fund women as unwitting mules.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dpark 9y agoThat’s actually a really small group and most of the people who buy ultra-luxury consumables are not in that group. Michelin star restaurants aren’t supported primarily by the ultra wealthy. Nor are niche luxuries like chocolate bars that cost hundreds of dollars. There is really no predicted risk for anyone on a $300 chocolate bar. You spend the money and get a chocolate bar. If it’s the best chocolate bar in the world, great. If it’s junk, that sucks. Either way your $300 is gone.
- munificent 9y agoI don't think comparing this to a high-end restaurant is fair. For $300, I can get an incredible several-hours long meal in a fantastic space, with devoted, engaging service. I'll have a great experience, memories forever, and inspiration for my own cooking. My friends will want to hear all about it. It's practically a half-day vacation. It's reasonable for people that aren't super wealthy to save a bit and splurge for an experience like that every now and then. This is a fucking chocolate bar. If I tell me friends I spent $300 on a chocolate bar, they will think I'm a crazy person.
- beingrealistic 9y ago"My friends will want to hear all about it." you sure about that?
- kpil 9y agoEspecially since a 3-star restaurant is a $30 chocolate bar, not a $300 bar. Maybe there are some restaurants for russian oligarchs and other people with bad taste and too much money, but unless you go crazy on the wine (which they keep around for just such guests) all the 2 and 3-star restaurants I've been to have been 10-25 times more expensive than mcDonalds,not 100-250 times. Wine is tricky, the taste is complex,the experience depends so much on what you are or have been eating, temperature, the glass, and I suppose the ambience, and is a rather strong (upper-middle) class marker,so even so-so expensive wines are given much benefit of a doubt.
- dpark 9y agoIt’s a fair comparison because they’re both within equal reach. I think a $300 candy bar is stupid, but it’s objectively got no less utility than a $300 meal. You could eat a meal of rice and beans with a $300 candy bar for dessert and from a health and satiety standpoint you’ve probably equaled the $300 meal. The difference is the subjective experience.
- JetSpiegel 9y ago> Michelin star restaurants aren’t supported primarily by the ultra wealthy. I think the ultra wealthy abhor those restaurants. I would imagine by that amount of money you would have private cooks.