3 ms·
Technically not a monopoly but colloquially I disagree. They account for 30% of the global market. They own key brands, license key premium names, and control
by bix6 1y ago
Technically not a monopoly but colloquially I disagree.
They account for 30% of the global market. They own key brands, license key premium names, and control key distributors like sunglass hut and LensCrafters.
Their cost to manufacture vs sale price shows a clear ability to price like a monopoly. As does their ability to box out competitors.
The $10 look alikes are not identical. They generally are cheaper materials, not polarized or coated, etc.
- SoftTalker 1y agoTrue for the $10 ones. But you can get very nice sunglasses with coating and polarizing lenses for way less than RayBan. RayBans are nice glasses too but you are mostly paying for the name.
- paxys 1y ago> Their cost to manufacture vs sale price shows a clear ability to price like a monopoly Again, you are getting confused by branding vs monopoly. They sell luxury goods and can mark them at wild premiums, same as Hermès and Ferrari. None of them are monopolies. Very far from it.
- bix6 1y agoNo I’m not. Hermes and Ferrari are one off brands not massive conglomerations of multiple brands. LVMH is also monopoly-like. Ferrari is not even close to 1% of global auto sales, they aren’t moving the market the way Luxottica can. Sure Ferrari has luxury pricing but it’s not boxing you out at Sephora.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago>Their cost to manufacture vs sale price shows a clear ability to price like a monopoly. No, it doesn't. It shows there exists demand for their products at that price point. >As does their ability to box out competitors. They have none. Anyone can go to various websites and order cheaper sunglasses that work just as well, or go to Costco and buy them for $25.