The "Wash my Ferrari" Problem: A Meditation on Risk(theothereight.wordpress.com)
theothereight.wordpress.com
The "Wash my Ferrari" Problem: A Meditation on Risk
http://theothereight.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/the-wash-my-ferrari-problem-a-meditation-on-risk/
15 comments
Not to nitpick but managing supply-chain risk is a lot more complicated than insurance.
In most cases insurance is going to be more expensive than simply eating the cost of breakages, it's really something you have to protect against rare-and-expensive events.
If you are high volume/low cost or low volume/high cost this can be a very different situation than medium volume/medium cost in terms of impact.
In most cases insurance is going to be more expensive than simply eating the cost of breakages, it's really something you have to protect against rare-and-expensive events.
If you are high volume/low cost or low volume/high cost this can be a very different situation than medium volume/medium cost in terms of impact.
> Not to nitpick but managing supply-chain risk is a lot more complicated than insurance.
I agree. I manage an ERP system at a pharma-manufacturer. I added a YMMV precisely because of the different situation - different impact reasons. My main point was:
Sidenote: While in a perfectly competitive market, the sales price should be determined by the intersection of supply and demand curves, instead of being a predetermined markup based on cost, in most contract manufacturing environments, all the costs are known, markups are expected, and thoroughly negotiated.
I agree. I manage an ERP system at a pharma-manufacturer. I added a YMMV precisely because of the different situation - different impact reasons. My main point was:
Incumbent Sales Price SP1 = Cost of (Base + Risk + CYA-buffers) + Predetermined Margin
Incumbent Profits PR1 = SP1 - Total Actual Cost
Startups Sales Price SP2 = Cost of (Base + Risk) + Predetermined Margin
Startups Profits PR2 = SP2 - Total Actual Cost
Sidenote: While in a perfectly competitive market, the sales price should be determined by the intersection of supply and demand curves, instead of being a predetermined markup based on cost, in most contract manufacturing environments, all the costs are known, markups are expected, and thoroughly negotiated.
Another large factor is high overhead industrys is customer acquisition. In a world of CYA people often take multiple detailed bids, but that means you need to charge for not just that bid but all the failed bids. Say a bid is 2% of total costs, and 1/5 bids win now that's an extra 10% overhead.
An interesting discussion on risk. Here's another consideration, you can self-insure to an extent by changing processes to minimize risks. If you must charge $10 to wash a Ferrari because your risk model says that it will cost you $5 in mistakes, use a different process to lower mistakes. Let's say that instead of the standard wash process you use for regular cars, you take extra time on the Ferrari, using your best washers and new materials. Now, the risk goes down from 1 in 2,000, your risk is 1 in 10,000. Now you can charge more for the special, risk-averse treatment and only a $1 risk surcharge on top of that.
Effective risk management doesn't just mean that you protect yourself against "bad things". The ability to manage risks better than your competitors is a competitive advantage. I heard it best described as the brakes on a sports car. Good brakes let you take corners faster.
Effective risk management doesn't just mean that you protect yourself against "bad things". The ability to manage risks better than your competitors is a competitive advantage. I heard it best described as the brakes on a sports car. Good brakes let you take corners faster.
Just a nitpick, 'cause it was on my mind. 5$ might have been that "different process to lower mistakes". I was wondering how it could still just be $5 to manage risk of damaging a ferarri, myself.
I'm having a difficult time parsing your comment. The $5 from the article was the cost of paying out $10,000 1 in 2000 times. If a different process costs $5 to implement, then they might as well accept the risk as is.
I was trying to say: "What if they've already reduced their risk as much as is reasonable, except for special cases that they see one day every three months: that Ferrari."
Wow, great discussion on risk. The only thing I would add to the discussion is that before you try to model risk, you should read 'The Flaw of Averages', by Sam Savage - http://flawofaverages.com/
Put simply, any real risk model should probably avoid being a 'single number', but a range of probabilities. This models the distribution of possibilities much better and helps you make better decisions.
Put simply, any real risk model should probably avoid being a 'single number', but a range of probabilities. This models the distribution of possibilities much better and helps you make better decisions.
I vaguely know somebody through work who is involved in high end legal services.
Around a year ago he hired a webdesigner to redesign his website, apparently the cost paid was around $20,000. Now bare in mind that this was for website design only (logo etc already existed).
The website itself was a relatively bog standard wordpress setup with about 10 pages of copy, a basic WP template and a handful of stock art images, no custom code at all as far as I could tell; I could have done a better job myself over a weekend most likely.
After hearing about this price I was curious as to who had been lucky enough to get hired for such a contract, turns out it was a designer who had been referred to him by others in the legal business.
So the question is, has whoever did this found a goldmine of customers who are willing to pay such huge sums of money just because frankly $20K isn't a lot to these people.
Or was it more to do with the risk of providing services to somebody who specialises in suing the crap out of people?
Around a year ago he hired a webdesigner to redesign his website, apparently the cost paid was around $20,000. Now bare in mind that this was for website design only (logo etc already existed).
The website itself was a relatively bog standard wordpress setup with about 10 pages of copy, a basic WP template and a handful of stock art images, no custom code at all as far as I could tell; I could have done a better job myself over a weekend most likely.
After hearing about this price I was curious as to who had been lucky enough to get hired for such a contract, turns out it was a designer who had been referred to him by others in the legal business.
So the question is, has whoever did this found a goldmine of customers who are willing to pay such huge sums of money just because frankly $20K isn't a lot to these people.
Or was it more to do with the risk of providing services to somebody who specialises in suing the crap out of people?
From what I (think I) know about the web development business, I'm guessing it had more to due with the fact that this developer found a goldmine of customers. Then again, maybe the developer is very concerned about clients from hell so he can quote princely sums to clients he or she isn't sure are worth the hassle. I suppose that's still a measure of risk. Not risk that you will be sued, but risk that a demanding client will require special treatment and hand-holding.
I realize that the post is making an analogy, but it's based on fact. I worked in a car shop for a few months, and we charged a premium for "exotic" cars - something like 2x the cost of normal service. The reason was entirely on the insurance costs for handling those customers' vehicles.
I always figured this was one of the "grey" advantages startups have. For a very short time, a startup has so few assets that an entire class of risks exist that will simply put it out of business. When you're brand new, it doesn't matter if you damage a Honda or a Ferrari, either way, you're done. This gives you a slightly evil and transient advantage that let's you temporarily undercut the established players by just ignoring those risks altogether.
But couldn't knowledge of this fact by your potential customers make them wary of giving you much business, thus canceling out your advantage?
Yes and yes, but not necessarily. Customers do not have perfect information about the market, and especially not about the inner workings of your company.
I've seen this happen first hand. I joined a lean startup full of smart hackers building software in a fast-growing industry. It was great, and we made a load of money. Then problems started happening, and we blamed people: incompetent, tired, one-offs, whatever.
Then our customers started getting serious and regarded these events as unacceptable, just as they became statistically certain, and impossible to manage out. So costs have gone up, processes multiplies, checks increased. And now lean startups are nipping at our heels...
Think medicine.
Then our customers started getting serious and regarded these events as unacceptable, just as they became statistically certain, and impossible to manage out. So costs have gone up, processes multiplies, checks increased. And now lean startups are nipping at our heels...
Think medicine.
Last weekend, I was a little irritated when Southwest Airlines charged me an extra $5 to get a glass jar in my luggage bubble-wrapped when I would have preferred to save the $5 and take the risk of it breaking/leaking. The Southwest agent's explanation boiled down to more or less the same point as this article's. Kudos to her.
When people talk about risk (and return) I always feel like there's something I'm missing, something I don't get. Can never quite put my finger on it.
I guess it's something to do with wilfully gambling vs. relying on your own abilities. They seem like very different things but somehow get classified together.
I guess it's something to do with wilfully gambling vs. relying on your own abilities. They seem like very different things but somehow get classified together.
This was a very good article. I have never thought about or considered looking at potential costs this way. Thanks.
Just curious, how much of this risk can be mitigated by contracts (terms of service) between the buyer and seller?
Agreed. I would be interested to hear thoughts on this as well. As an example, if Coca-Cola uploaded its secret formula to a Dropbox, the damages resulting from a data breach would seem to be immeasurable. But I'm sure Dropbox's TOS limits damages to cost of the service (no extraordinary, consequential, etc.) Is this amount what's at issue here, or is there something I'm missing?
eh, yeah, but you need to set expectations. I mean, people that will lose thousands of dollars every minute you are down have... rather different hosting expectations from people that are making a thousand dollars a month.
I mean, which would you rather have, assuming they were paying you the same money (and using the same capital resources, e.g. both of them use a full low-power dedicated server that costs $1,200 up front in parts and $20/month in power. Both use about as much bandwidth.)
Customer A. who is hosting email, web and ftp for his family, and maybe has a dev setup so she can test out the new webapp she's developing.
or
Customer B. who is running a website with $10,000 per day worth of sales.
Assuming they both have my phone number and can wake me up at 4am and yell at me, I can tell you that I am going to want a lot more money to give customer B the same service as customer A, because first, customer A isn't going to call me at 4am very often, and if I do flub something up, I can give customer A a free month, an apology and an explanation of what happened, and she is going to think I'm okay.
Customer B? man, customer B is going to wake me up every time there is even a little networking blip. And if I screw it up? they are going to have reason to be really angry, and possibly sue me for a bunch of money. a free month is unlikely to mollify them.
(also note, insurance might cover the payout if I get sued, but they certainly won't cover the time and aggravation, even in the best case.)
So yeah, I can see how hosting customer B would be exciting, but I'd want a whole hell of a lot more money to deal with those increased expectations.
If we want to go to the car wash example, when I was driving my maxima with unrepaired body damage? my neighbour caved in the rear passenger door with her land rover. "Don't worry about it," I said, "You did not significantly lower the utility or value of my car." - I mean, the whole thing was probably worth about as much as the bumper on her land rover.
If she had done the same to the new M3 in the next space over? you can bet her insurance would be making it just perfect, for a price that could have bought my jalopy several times over.
That's the thing. Nobody reads the legal bullshit until the knives are fully out and the lawyers are at the table. When you think about it, it doesn't make sense to spend the effort until then. I mean, you're talking about thousands of dollars of effort to understand a contract, and that doesn't make any sense on a contract that is worth two hundred bucks. Setting expectations is an important part of avoiding the situation where the lawyers need to come out and understand the contracts.
(Of course, this is why most contracts are as one sided as legally possible; there is no advantage to giving quarter, as the counterparty won't really read it until the relationship has soured and they are actively hostile.)
I mean, which would you rather have, assuming they were paying you the same money (and using the same capital resources, e.g. both of them use a full low-power dedicated server that costs $1,200 up front in parts and $20/month in power. Both use about as much bandwidth.)
Customer A. who is hosting email, web and ftp for his family, and maybe has a dev setup so she can test out the new webapp she's developing.
or
Customer B. who is running a website with $10,000 per day worth of sales.
Assuming they both have my phone number and can wake me up at 4am and yell at me, I can tell you that I am going to want a lot more money to give customer B the same service as customer A, because first, customer A isn't going to call me at 4am very often, and if I do flub something up, I can give customer A a free month, an apology and an explanation of what happened, and she is going to think I'm okay.
Customer B? man, customer B is going to wake me up every time there is even a little networking blip. And if I screw it up? they are going to have reason to be really angry, and possibly sue me for a bunch of money. a free month is unlikely to mollify them.
(also note, insurance might cover the payout if I get sued, but they certainly won't cover the time and aggravation, even in the best case.)
So yeah, I can see how hosting customer B would be exciting, but I'd want a whole hell of a lot more money to deal with those increased expectations.
If we want to go to the car wash example, when I was driving my maxima with unrepaired body damage? my neighbour caved in the rear passenger door with her land rover. "Don't worry about it," I said, "You did not significantly lower the utility or value of my car." - I mean, the whole thing was probably worth about as much as the bumper on her land rover.
If she had done the same to the new M3 in the next space over? you can bet her insurance would be making it just perfect, for a price that could have bought my jalopy several times over.
That's the thing. Nobody reads the legal bullshit until the knives are fully out and the lawyers are at the table. When you think about it, it doesn't make sense to spend the effort until then. I mean, you're talking about thousands of dollars of effort to understand a contract, and that doesn't make any sense on a contract that is worth two hundred bucks. Setting expectations is an important part of avoiding the situation where the lawyers need to come out and understand the contracts.
(Of course, this is why most contracts are as one sided as legally possible; there is no advantage to giving quarter, as the counterparty won't really read it until the relationship has soured and they are actively hostile.)
The issue in IT doesn't arise around the Coke formula on Dropbox, unless Coke could somehow sue Dropbox for damages. The issue arises around large quantities of sensitive information. What if those Red Box video rental machines could be stolen to get the credit card data inside (they can't, the data aren't in there).
The issue hits hard in medical record IT. Losing control of 500 or more folks' medical records gets your name in lights here, and you're required to try to notify everybody who might be affected. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/breachno...
What kind of insurance could possibly cover a startup against the reputation cost of this? Not insurance that any startup could afford. Plus, the liabilities for misuse of the leaked data (identity theft, employment blacklisting of sick people, you name it) are unlimited.
So, a business that holds medical records for people is inherently a Ferrari car wash, unless the entrepreneurs can somehow persuade their hospital customers to bear the reputation risk. That's very hard.
The issue hits hard in medical record IT. Losing control of 500 or more folks' medical records gets your name in lights here, and you're required to try to notify everybody who might be affected. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/breachno...
What kind of insurance could possibly cover a startup against the reputation cost of this? Not insurance that any startup could afford. Plus, the liabilities for misuse of the leaked data (identity theft, employment blacklisting of sick people, you name it) are unlimited.
So, a business that holds medical records for people is inherently a Ferrari car wash, unless the entrepreneurs can somehow persuade their hospital customers to bear the reputation risk. That's very hard.
To the list of industries where there is a built in x10 on all quotes add Weddings...
But that is for a different reason... it's not increased pricing because of increased risk, it's increased pricing because of increased willingness to pay combined with a sense of "more costly must be more valuable".
I would think that risk could be a part of it (or at least risk mitigation)...
If I were a photagrapher, I would likely want to charge more for a wedding then say the engagement pictures (or other portraits) which have a similiar amount of effort. If I have a problem with a portrait I might need to call them back in to reshoot. If theres a problem with the wedding pictures I'm stuck.
The workaround is better preparation, more people, more equipment, etc. All this costs money.
If I were a photagrapher, I would likely want to charge more for a wedding then say the engagement pictures (or other portraits) which have a similiar amount of effort. If I have a problem with a portrait I might need to call them back in to reshoot. If theres a problem with the wedding pictures I'm stuck.
The workaround is better preparation, more people, more equipment, etc. All this costs money.
I've shot weddings before. You're partially right, wedding parties are willing to pay, and pay well. The flip side of it is that they can be some of the absolute worst clients possible, and you only have one chance to get it right. So a lot of the "wedding markup", at least in regards to photography, comes down to "how much do I have to get to make the headache and stress worth it?"
Mr. car washer.
By your argument, McDonalds should charge twice as much for a big mac to fat people because they are more likely to get health problems and sue McDonalds.
I think this model is just wrong and charging any customers more due to profiling should not be practiced by any company. Assuming that your formula is correct. Don't raise the price because of the probability and risk. You should train your employees and improve your quality of service, so that the probability is low enough, now you charge back the same $5 for a fararri carwash.
I think this model is just wrong and charging any customers more due to profiling should not be practiced by any company. Assuming that your formula is correct. Don't raise the price because of the probability and risk. You should train your employees and improve your quality of service, so that the probability is low enough, now you charge back the same $5 for a fararri carwash.
>> Mr. car washer. By your argument, McDonalds should charge twice as much for a big mac to fat people because they are more likely to get health problems and sue McDonalds.
No, The consequences of faulty equipment or service are fairly acute–i.e. someone dies or something is damaged right away. I think long-term consumer risks like obesity and lung cancer are different than what the author is referring to.
Also, most class actions suits against McDonalds have been thrown out [1]. Malpractice lawsuits and the like are very numerous, on the other hand.
* >> I think this model is just wrong and charging any customers more due to profiling should not be practiced by any company*
That's absurd. The entire insurance industry is based on this. As is any financial product that takes your credit score into account.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-27/mcdonald-s-obesity-...
No, The consequences of faulty equipment or service are fairly acute–i.e. someone dies or something is damaged right away. I think long-term consumer risks like obesity and lung cancer are different than what the author is referring to.
Also, most class actions suits against McDonalds have been thrown out [1]. Malpractice lawsuits and the like are very numerous, on the other hand.
* >> I think this model is just wrong and charging any customers more due to profiling should not be practiced by any company*
That's absurd. The entire insurance industry is based on this. As is any financial product that takes your credit score into account.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-27/mcdonald-s-obesity-...
The McDonalds was just an example. Your points about lawsuits to being thrown away against McDonald, is irrelevant.
Whether people successfully sue McDs or not, is not the point, McDs should not charge more to certain people. Do you agree?
Yes, the insurance industry do charge more depending on the person. But my point still remain, The model is Bad.
Besides if you have a SET price, you should not change it because of probability or risk per person.
McDonalds can certainly refuse to sell to groups like lawyers if they have a persistent high cost from such a self-selecting group. I have no problem with this.
the idea that discriminating against a riskier class of people is morally wrong is responsible for much of our financial woes.
garbage article
Garbage comment; garbage account.
The best thing you can do for comments like that (esp. when they're made by "green" accounts) is to just downvote and ignore. They'll be downvoted to grey, then deleted. The accounts will be hellbanned in time (comments autmotically deleted, posts only visible to poster). Replying only clutters the discussion.
For some users, you can click on the permalink to the comment to see a "flag" option.
"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did." - http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did." - http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Never heard of hellbanning, but I'll keep that in mind. Cheers
Hellbanning is precisely why I have showdead on. There have been some notable users (creators of products and various websites) whom they were hellbanned for no apparent reason. Having showdead on shows even them, however you still cannot comment to them directly.
I think I've only seen 2 or 3 spam posts on dead. And a few 'special people' whom are hellbanned. In a nutshell, the S/N does not get noticeably worse with showdead on.
I think I've only seen 2 or 3 spam posts on dead. And a few 'special people' whom are hellbanned. In a nutshell, the S/N does not get noticeably worse with showdead on.
[deleted]
The price of a car wash should take into account the aggregate probability for any car to get damaged. The idea that one would price discriminate via the exact make and model is absurd and when I stopped reading...
brandon, you are right. This article is just flawed.
Why am I getting downvoted for this? I am not making any commentary on price discrimination but instead, saying that the artificially created scenario could at least be more approachable for readers.
Because you said the article was 'wrong' and that you stopped reading, without actually doing anything to counter the point in the article.
That's a bad way to contribute to a discussion.
I didn't even realize your point was solely about the example. I thought you were objecting to the entire argument. Bad examples are more common than termites in a snowstorm and you should focus on the meat of the article.
That's a bad way to contribute to a discussion.
I didn't even realize your point was solely about the example. I thought you were objecting to the entire argument. Bad examples are more common than termites in a snowstorm and you should focus on the meat of the article.
I somewhat misspoke. I lost interest after when I read enough to deem the article too artificial an example and lost interest. I wanted to give honest feedback and see if other people perhaps thought the example was I contrived as I did - not berate the article or the author. If I was writing myself, I would want the same sort of feedback. Do you think I'm being unfair by giving that sort of criticism?
To me not finishing something is a measure of persistent captivation. It's not the first time I fell below my minimum. After I wrote the the comment, I figured people would harass me about not finishing and that perhaps I was being unfair to the author if I missed something redeeming at the end. I finished it, wished to change the comment appropriately, but it had already been downvoted. I should have known that it's very easy to look antagonistic when you're not saying something positive but I did say explicitly what I objected to. I really was just hoping to help by nature of sharing my opinion and was totally open - hopeful even - that someone would change my mind rather than just being looked upon as some asshole who just wanted to be holistically critical.
To me not finishing something is a measure of persistent captivation. It's not the first time I fell below my minimum. After I wrote the the comment, I figured people would harass me about not finishing and that perhaps I was being unfair to the author if I missed something redeeming at the end. I finished it, wished to change the comment appropriately, but it had already been downvoted. I should have known that it's very easy to look antagonistic when you're not saying something positive but I did say explicitly what I objected to. I really was just hoping to help by nature of sharing my opinion and was totally open - hopeful even - that someone would change my mind rather than just being looked upon as some asshole who just wanted to be holistically critical.
Well they can't change your mind if they don't know what it is. You never commented on the meat of the article, so someone downvoted because of that. It's easy to think of better examples, and the way to debate for learning as opposed to winning is to either ignore non-critical flaws in arguments or even fix them for your opponent.
Brandon, a couple of technical questions. First, you talk about the "probability" of any car getting damaged. But surely a car wash is not qualified to act as an actuary (if it was it should immediately shut down all operations and do acturial consulting work instead). So a car wash company isn't faced with a "probability" of a car being damaged - it's faced with a "price" for being insured.
Clearly if the amount of the coverage (again, in this artificial scenario) is less than you can "fix" a Ferrari for, then perhaps they should turn Ferrari's away if they are very risk-averse. (again, all this is in the artificial model.)
But if the insurance-company says, "We can increase your coverage to (cost of fixing the ferrari) for a difference of (difference)" then the only way they can possibly pay that difference is by lowering their margins on every car wash, or by discriminating and factoring that difference only into the appropriate washes.
all this is more correct than your claim, isn't it? (again, in the proposed model.)
incidentally, I consider the proposed model to be extremely braindead. A car wash is not actually going to pay for any damage, and if it did it certainly would never actually pay for a museum-quality paint job, and if it DID then the price would not be ten bucks per car wash, a shop that can afford these kinds of lavish customer catering and appeasement would be starting at fifty dollars or something.
What actually happens is there is a sign saying they disclaim all responsibility for any damage. What also actually happens is normal price discrimination.
so I think a clever answer to "Why are you charging me more just because I have a ferrari" is "only ferrari owners would care about a small scratch from a CAR WASH, and we don't get many of you, so we have to charge you more to pay for that there sign there (point to large disclaimer sign.) Ten bucks please."
Clearly if the amount of the coverage (again, in this artificial scenario) is less than you can "fix" a Ferrari for, then perhaps they should turn Ferrari's away if they are very risk-averse. (again, all this is in the artificial model.)
But if the insurance-company says, "We can increase your coverage to (cost of fixing the ferrari) for a difference of (difference)" then the only way they can possibly pay that difference is by lowering their margins on every car wash, or by discriminating and factoring that difference only into the appropriate washes.
all this is more correct than your claim, isn't it? (again, in the proposed model.)
incidentally, I consider the proposed model to be extremely braindead. A car wash is not actually going to pay for any damage, and if it did it certainly would never actually pay for a museum-quality paint job, and if it DID then the price would not be ten bucks per car wash, a shop that can afford these kinds of lavish customer catering and appeasement would be starting at fifty dollars or something.
What actually happens is there is a sign saying they disclaim all responsibility for any damage. What also actually happens is normal price discrimination.
so I think a clever answer to "Why are you charging me more just because I have a ferrari" is "only ferrari owners would care about a small scratch from a CAR WASH, and we don't get many of you, so we have to charge you more to pay for that there sign there (point to large disclaimer sign.) Ten bucks please."
This was an good explanation and it made me consider some things that hadn't occurred to me so thanks :)
I figured the probability isn't handled by the car wash itself but instead essential to derive the price of the quote. Surely they must give an insurer the volume of cars coming through, yes? What seemed unlikely to me is that the car wash must also show the types of cars getting washed. This would be something handled by the insurance company after making certain assumptions that factor into the risk.
Assuming that each car wash did pay damages (which as you mentioned they don't), do you think they would charge premiums for washing all luxury cars? The price to insure against damages seems like it should be fixed per car (even if based off volume). One month might be oversaturated with $30,000 cars and another month might have more $20,000 cars. Will the cost to insure the car wash against potential damages these months not be the same even when a higher saturation of more expensive cars incurs more risk for the insurer?
My answer to this forms my basis of why I didn't like the example, even artificially, which is that the price to insure every car is the same based on the likelihood of all cars getting damaged and the price to fix them (monthly insurance cost/amount of cars). The insurance cost has no respect to which cars go through the wash - probably because it's too much of a hassle for the insurer to police which cars are actually visiting and making a more accurate calculation of risk. Instead, they assume every wash has a certain amount of luxury cars - even if they don't. Obviously this wouldn't hurt margins if they accepted the cars that are covered but it doesn't stop them from raising margins, which they still might do.
I figured the probability isn't handled by the car wash itself but instead essential to derive the price of the quote. Surely they must give an insurer the volume of cars coming through, yes? What seemed unlikely to me is that the car wash must also show the types of cars getting washed. This would be something handled by the insurance company after making certain assumptions that factor into the risk.
Assuming that each car wash did pay damages (which as you mentioned they don't), do you think they would charge premiums for washing all luxury cars? The price to insure against damages seems like it should be fixed per car (even if based off volume). One month might be oversaturated with $30,000 cars and another month might have more $20,000 cars. Will the cost to insure the car wash against potential damages these months not be the same even when a higher saturation of more expensive cars incurs more risk for the insurer?
My answer to this forms my basis of why I didn't like the example, even artificially, which is that the price to insure every car is the same based on the likelihood of all cars getting damaged and the price to fix them (monthly insurance cost/amount of cars). The insurance cost has no respect to which cars go through the wash - probably because it's too much of a hassle for the insurer to police which cars are actually visiting and making a more accurate calculation of risk. Instead, they assume every wash has a certain amount of luxury cars - even if they don't. Obviously this wouldn't hurt margins if they accepted the cars that are covered but it doesn't stop them from raising margins, which they still might do.
The other risk factor is pure CYA. Nobody wants to prepare a costing worksheet for a customer quote where your cost is too low because you didn't factor in the various overheads. Only after the annual financial statements are made will you find out if you lost money on the product or not. Do you want to be the guy who buys at $10 and sells for $20 only to find out before bonus-time that overhead was $90 per unit? So you factor in the cost of capital, inventory hold charges, shipping delays, warehouse pallet transfer cost, foreign exchange currency buffer, and tons of other charges. This makes it appear that your cost is high and so it is only natural to charge more for the product. Boeing isn't going to sell an Arduino + LED light for $100. It will be $500 because of risk of breakage and be $5000 by the time all the CYA risks have been tacked on by six levels of middle-managers.
The wonderful thing about CYA risk factors is that they help justify your high prices and if you are able to be lean, they give you a terrific margin. THIS is what you want to disrupt. You can charge less than the incumbents because they are playing it way too safe as nobody wants to lose their neck for selling a product at a loss. But don't charge so low that risk of breakage ends your business. The good thing is that the risk of breakage is not as large as the CYA risks in most every costing sheet that I have seen. YMMV depending on the industry/product.