Here's a really simplified explanation of economic scarcity:
formatting link
Scarcity doesn't create demand, nor affect price in the way that you're trying to imply. In addition, as a luxury item the GT500 doesn't fall within the pricing model described by the traditional supply-and-demand theory.
Allotments arn't based on how many buyers are waiting for a vehicle, nor by how many are willing to pay above MSRP. Allotments are based on how many vehicles the dealer has historically been able to move (which, in and of itself, is affected by them).
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:46:04 GMT, Mark Henry wrote something wonderfully witty:
Mark, I was going to get into the elasticity of demand as it applies to luxury goods, but I didn't think Brent was going to get it, or even wants to get it. Price elasticity is something that even MBA students even have a hard time grasping so it might be tad over kill getting into it here.
Right now the rubber band of the price is pretty much stretched to its max and may begin to relax as more units hit the dealers floors. The one thing that will definitely see it relax more is increased production which I do not think Ford is going to do. They are trying to help their dealers out with this vehicle. The increased profits are not going into Fords coffers, they are going into the dealers.
Now the one thing that may cause the price to deflate is if those who do buy them, and drive them, begin to complain that they just weren't worth the enormous premium they paid for them or they start showing up on the secondary market quickly. While I doubt that, it could happen.
Ford has always dicked around with a model over & above the GT. We've had Cobra's, Mach I's, etc. The GT500 is just one in a long line of limited production upgraded Mustangs going all the way back to the original Shelbys. There are those who think the current versions are going to be worth the first generations are in a couple of decades. More power to them if they are right.
That's the scope of the thread. You did it with your first post in the thread.
formatting link
"You have to remember that it isn't Ford that is setting the market price, it is the market itself. If that dealer is able to move the one it has at $70k it will try to move the next one it gets at $70k."
Seems you were using broad terms for one specific speciality model.
The only bouncing has been from the constant insertion of irrelevant tangents, which haven't come from me.
You set that precident, sir. That was what you did in the post I entered the thread by responding to. You used the term 'free market' to describe the sale of "one specific product model out of entire product line, a specialty model at that".
never argued it was illegal. 2)
You set that in motion, sir. Why don't you scroll back up through the thread?
Where in the thread did I state that? nowhere. three.
Never said anything of the sort. Four.
Where did I say I didn't like them? Nowhere. Five. (yes, I think they are idiots, but that doesn't mean anything with regard to like or dislike)
Want me to dig it up where you did?
formatting link
"So they have one specific item that they are pretty much able to set their own price on. BFD, horray for the dealers one instance where the consumer doesn't have them over a barrel."
I never said they were doing anything illegal. Six.
You complain about bouncing, but you make up not 1, not 2, but SIX spurrious arguments and assign them to me. This is pretty much how every post has gone. One made up argument after another assigned to me to cloud the issue. Why do you feel the need to do that? Make up these things assign them to me and then knock them down? Your idea of usenet fun? Do you get off on generating responses?
If you actually think that I argued for any of them, all my posts in this thread are in the google archive. Feel free to quote them and include the message ID or URL to the archive for the entire post. However, I remember what I wrote, but I cannot control what you read, nor what tactics you'll use. I notice you block archiving of your posts so google will delete them after a few days.
The subject matter of the thread is not that all inclusive. This is more of a case of getting a product to market and captializing on the initial phase where a manufacturer can get their initial price from the retailers and/or distributors.
I've watched prototypes of products I've worked on go for huge amounts on ebay as people just had to have them first. However, the pressure was on to get the product out the door ASAP in volume to make money while the getting was good. This was true wether the product was high end or low end. I would say it was more important on the high end, because things get 'old' fast in that segment.
I don't think Ford is doing itself any favors with the allotment scheme. It's doing the dealers a favor sure, but itself, no. People are going to buy other cars, they are going to look at other manufacturers. No matter how good your product is you don't want your customers to bother with the competition. There is always the risk you'll lose them. Best I can figure Ford isn't serious about anything in this market segment nor gaining or keeping customers in it or growing their market share of it. If they were, then instant collectable marketing doesn't seem to be the way to go.
And just so certain people don't get their panties in a bunch, it's ford's right to do it the way they are doing it. Never stated otherwise. No, I don't feel they should be forced to do it 'my way', either. If you think of some other clever twist, no, not that either.
I didn't state scarcity created demand, but that one could create scarcity through distribution schemes (so long as some demand existed).
Of course, been told it was though.
Which doesn't change my point, it's only that this allotment scheme is attempting to be in some way accurate based on past data which may or may not hold true for the present. However if you read how allotment is done, you'll note that some of these GT500 will be alloted to low volume dealers in the middle of nowhere that were not SVT dealers and moved zero of the previous cobra mustang.
Your point is irrelevant because we aren't dealing with a market (specialty vehicles) that was EVER intended to be "free". You want "free market" then go argue over the price of a rental fleet Taurus. Otherwise you are living in a dream world that just doesn't, and never did, exist.
My god you are dense. No one is trying to "justify" it. You can't justify paying $70,000 for any vehicle that's mainly used to transport someone around for kicks even if it were purchased in some elusive free market with balanced supply and demand. It's still a ludicrous price to pay for TRANSPORTATION. But we aren't dealing with transportation, the commodity, we are dealing with something that's no different from a $10K watch. Only people with more money then needs speeds that much for a car or watch. You have left the realm where free market has any meaning of significance.
Besides that, the part of the market that is relatively "free" is encumbered with all sorts of regulations, tax laws, import restrictions and on and on that render it less then "free" in the classic sense. Do you think there is a free market for milk or sugar?? There isn't. Gvt price controls easily double or triple the cost of milk and sugar. Same for oranges. If you are going to get worked up, do it about something where it makes sense.
Obviously not since early in the thread part of the bitch was that there were plenty around IF you were willing to pay the asking price. The fact is, if you are willing to pay the price you could probably go buy a dozen of them this week. And if you did no one in the general population of car buyers were even notice the down blip in the supply.
So far everyone, including yourself has agreed with me that GT500s are not sold in anything like a free market supply and demand. The only problem is the introduction of irrelevant tangents via assigning me viewpoints I never stated.
You just agreed with my view a few posts ago. So has everyone else, in the narrow view sooner or later.
Of course that's lost in the sea of argument assignment...
I challenge anyone to show claims of 'ford had no right' or any of the others were ever posted by me in this thread.... hell any other for that manner. You'll quickly find they weren't and are but a fabrication or the result of poor reading comprehension or someone skimming and making up everything else as they read.
Someone should tell those folks to invest that $25,000.00 "market adjustment". They'll be way ahead of the game 35 years down the road, and there would be a blown 5.4L in my driveway by now. :)
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:37:40 -0600, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote something wonderfully witty:
Look if your going to complain about insulting while being the first to start it, you really don't have a leg to stand on in yet another argument. Unless of course you just like starting arguments.
If I was a Ford dealer with some Shelbys in the inventory, I would be selling them to maximize my profit and riding the "gotta have one NOW" craze... It's not like they are making a ton of money pushing Focus' through the lot... :-)
Comes down to this.. The Shelby is NOT what you would call a Grocery-Getter or a commuter vehicle.. It IS a non-essential luxury item... (Although I DID try, unsuccessfully, to convince the wife it WAS essential.. :-) )
If the car isn't worth more than sicker to you, do not buy it.. simple... If you want the car badly enough, and cannot wait for the hysteria to die down, then you will pay the asking price..
The Dealers are doing nothing that is unethical, immoral, or illegal..
This whole thread appeared to be one guy frustrated that the car wasn't priced to his satisfaction at a particular dealer and he need to vent about it...
If you look hard enough, you WILL find them priced at or near sticker.. Just gotta look.. At least, it held true for a friend that bought one in Hamburg, PA... (Lucky Bastard.. )
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:19:09 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote something wonderfully witty:
Jezz don't push his button about winning & losing or he'll go Ape shit. I think he is expecting a Trophy in the mail or something if he gets anyone to agree with his point. He's already strutting around claiming himself victor on an internet discussion which is usually a clear cut sign that a person has lost an internet debate.
The whole issue is moot since most people who weighed in on this were only trying to show him the folly of his argument as opposed to winning anything. ICANN quit handing out prizes years ago.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.