5 ms·
Agreed, their supply chain management and component agreements were disruptive to the industry. However, that didn't stop them using behavioral nudges to make b
by charlieirish 14y ago
Agreed, their supply chain management and component agreements were disruptive to the industry. However, that didn't stop them using behavioral nudges to make buyers also think the price was cheap.
The use of the price anchor was great because a) it was regularly published in the press so it couldn't be seen as being too 'salesy' and b) it was significantly higher than the actual price thus the manufacturing price was disruptive and the perceived value (via the price) was disruptive.
Further Reading: Dan Ariely: http://danariely.com/the-books/excerpted-from-chapter-1-%E2%80%93-the-truth-about-relativity/ http://danariely.com/the-books/excerpted-from-chapter-1-%E2%...
- cube13 14y ago>Agreed, their supply chain management and component agreements were disruptive to the industry. However, that didn't stop them using behavioral nudges to make buyers also think the price was cheap. Apple's competitors also played completely into their hands. Apple's perception in general was that they made relatively expensive hardware that was of good quality and excellent design. They had a reputation of producing premium products at a premium price. The pricing of the competing tablets played exactly into that perception, and I think that's part of what made the iPad so desirable compared to the more powerful hardware of the Motorola Xoom and others.