First off, it should be
obvious that in a completely free market it makes no sense to price something
at a level that no potential customers can afford, or even at a level that no
one would be willing to pay. In fact, pricing strategy to a large extent deals
with how many additional purchases we can generate for each increment by which
we lower the price; the point at which we can’t increase revenue by lowering
the price any further being the price point. If price is the only factor
driving the transaction then we probably can allow the “Invisible Hand”
professed by Adam Smith and beloved of conservative pundits to sort things out.
Unfortunately, conditions in the real world are rarely that simple…
In any situation where the purchase
decision is more complex than simply buying the product or not having one
additional levels of complexity come into play. One can choose not to pay for a
luxury item, but one cannot chose not to pay for food, clothing, shelter, or
medical care, just to take the obvious examples. In any situation where
different customers have different resources available the situation becomes
more complex again, as in cases where some people can afford to purchase food,
or pay for medical care, while others in the same society can’t. And when we
introduce issues like social stratification, racial discrimination, gender
discrimination, transportation, logistics, government regulation, crime,
spoilage, and cultural importance of specific goods and services (just to name
a few) the entire situation can become baffling complex…
At the same time, we should
probably acknowledge that none of the large-scale experiments with command
economies, whether partly or fully socialist, appear to have ended up as
anything other than complete (and usually repressive) failures. The
post-scarcity economies so beloved of utopian philosophers might conceivably be
different, but for the moment no such system appears to be technically
possible, and thus far in history no system that requires people to sell
products or services for what the government says they must (as opposed to what
people are willing to pay) appears to have worked. So long as people remain
motivated more by personal gain than they are by the greater good, it does not
appear than any of these conditions are going to change…
As business people, we know
that we would like to make as much profit as possible while at the same time
creating the best possible society in which to live and the healthiest world in
which to live – not because business people make any claim to being saints or
angels (we’re not) but because healthy, prosperous, long-lived customers have
more money to spend and more years in which to spend it. And as much as we
might like to make a 60,000% profit we don’t want to do so in such a way that
we get sued, regulated, mocked by thousands of scruffy bloggers, used as
evidence in favor of nationalizing our industry, or that involves having our factory
burned to the ground around us. So I have to ask the question:
At what point does our
responsibility to our society, our nation or our world supersede our
responsibility to our employees, vendors, creditors, customers, and
stockholders to earn the highest possible profit on a given transaction?
It’s worth thinking about…
No comments:
Post a Comment