6 ms·
I think the second-cheapest is usually the best starter product. The cheapest product requires every possible sacrifice to quality, but the second-cheapest only
by jmilloy 6y ago
I think the second-cheapest is usually the best starter product. The cheapest product requires every possible sacrifice to quality, but the second-cheapest only made the tradeoffs that make sense. You can buy the second-cheapest and still get most of the benefits mentioned in the article without having to become a mini-expert evaluating whether the cheapest option is at least safe and functional.
And I think a second-tier product is often the right high-end product to choose. The most expensive product made the highest-quality choice at every step, but the next-tier down just made as many improvements that really make sense. Luckily, once you are deciding to purchase high-end, you are more capable of evaluating the different products.
- paozac 6y agoThe second cheapest is often where the seller makes the most profit. There is a pricing strategy around this idea - people will rarely buy the cheapest or the most expensive item of the list. Their function is to shift up all prices and set the bar
- Spivak 6y agoThat only usually holds within a given brand. Second or third cheapest on the market probably doesn’t suffer the same problem.
- pc86 6y agoYou're saying that as if someone else profiting off of providing you a product you want is a bad thing.
- pinusc 6y agoPaying more for something that you think is higher quality hile beeing just as bad as the cheapest product is a bad thing. Assuming parent comment is right that this is the case.