Terrible grammar aside, I don't get it. Perhaps due to the lack of context and purposeful obfuscation for the blog post. If you've already evaluated both offe

Terrible grammar aside, I don't get it. Perhaps due to the lack of context and purposeful obfuscation for the blog post. If you've already evaluated both offerings and found Acme's to be significantly better independently then this sort of works as a justification for the higher price, but I don't see the part where it shows it is any better than FooCorp's thing. Yeah, sure, a bad transaction will cost you money... how do I know FooCorp's thing is more or less likely to generate a bad transaction? Out of context it reads like "if brand X fails you'll be in deep shit, and we're not brand X, so buy our thing which costs more than brand X's thing". Who says brand X fails more often than brand Y? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but the logic train bumped off the rails a bit in the middle for me.