That typically only works for luxury goods, but yes. A good that inverts the effect of price on demand is called a Veblen Good.
But that strategy probably wouldn’t work for something like rice or shampoo or socks or drywall putty unless people start using those as status symbols.
Makes me wonder if those $80 Monster HDMI cables were lucrative. Might be that the rule applies not just to luxury goods, but for any good where the consumer is too ignorant of the market to have any frame of reference to compare to (e.g. the technologically illiterate).
Imo the price of those was justified solely by fraud. I.e. they lied about picture quality being better, etc. I also don’t know that demand for those was all that high and am even more skeptical that it’d be driven by price.
That typically only works for luxury goods, but yes. A good that inverts the effect of price on demand is called a Veblen Good.
But that strategy probably wouldn’t work for something like rice or shampoo or socks or drywall putty unless people start using those as status symbols.
Makes me wonder if those $80 Monster HDMI cables were lucrative. Might be that the rule applies not just to luxury goods, but for any good where the consumer is too ignorant of the market to have any frame of reference to compare to (e.g. the technologically illiterate).
Imo the price of those was justified solely by fraud. I.e. they lied about picture quality being better, etc. I also don’t know that demand for those was all that high and am even more skeptical that it’d be driven by price.
Insane claims and matching prices is par per course in the world of “high end hi fi”. It gets much, much worst than Monster overpriced digital cables.