The Used TV Price Is Too Damn High(priceonomics.com)
priceonomics.com
The Used TV Price Is Too Damn High
http://priceonomics.com/televisions/#television-prices
36 comments
Just like mattresses. Each store will have its own mattress model number.
In Canada it's even worse, because we'll get C or CA as suffixes for products, and sometimes even BL for bilingual - making it near impossible to find reviews online.
In Canada it's even worse, because we'll get C or CA as suffixes for products, and sometimes even BL for bilingual - making it near impossible to find reviews online.
The mattress retailers have the best scam going. Nobody carries the same models [edit: or more precisely, each retailer gives each mattress a unique model name], and even the manufacturers websites don't list most of the model names or make them easily identifiable (and the manufacturer's websites certainly don't display prices). This, and the limited number of independently-owned retailers, makes the markups pretty surreal.[1] Let's just say if you're not negotiating 50% off, you're probably getting soaked.
It's similar to the way car buying was 20 or 30 years ago, when nobody really knew what invoice prices were. I see a huge potential to disrupt this market.
[1]I recently went mattress shopping again. During the "Memorial Day Sales Event", sticker prices (even after the "$XXX dollars off!!") were at least 10% over the MSRP displayed in the store's computer. I had no trouble negotiating 50% off the sticker price, plus tons of extras.
It's similar to the way car buying was 20 or 30 years ago, when nobody really knew what invoice prices were. I see a huge potential to disrupt this market.
[1]I recently went mattress shopping again. During the "Memorial Day Sales Event", sticker prices (even after the "$XXX dollars off!!") were at least 10% over the MSRP displayed in the store's computer. I had no trouble negotiating 50% off the sticker price, plus tons of extras.
FWIW, from a comparison shopping perspective, it actually is possible to compare mattresses. Each brand has families that are equivalent in the various stores. The store can admit to the equivalency (which the stores I worked with did) or they can risk losing a sale.
Yep, I had the salesperson do this. But, it required me taking a picture of Store A's display so that the Store B salesperson could compare the specs and figure out which one of their models it matched. Ridiculous.
It would be difficult (but definitely not impossible) to aggregate the specs of each mattress so you could compare models/prices online. Then you might actually get some competitors entering the market. (Here in southern CA, there are essentially two places to try/buy a variety of mattresses: Sears, and several mattress-specific stores, which are all owned by the same owner. You essentially have two choices, though choice B has a few different names.)
It would be difficult (but definitely not impossible) to aggregate the specs of each mattress so you could compare models/prices online. Then you might actually get some competitors entering the market. (Here in southern CA, there are essentially two places to try/buy a variety of mattresses: Sears, and several mattress-specific stores, which are all owned by the same owner. You essentially have two choices, though choice B has a few different names.)
"I see a huge potential to disrupt this market."
Will be tough as the manufacturers are complicit in this way of doing business.
As you said: "and even the manufacturers websites don't list most of the model names or make them easily identifiable"
Will be tough as the manufacturers are complicit in this way of doing business.
As you said: "and even the manufacturers websites don't list most of the model names or make them easily identifiable"
After being frustrated by this we decided to try an IKEA mattress, and it was better than the ones we tried at Sleepy's, and it cost way way less.
The problem is not availability, it's customer education.
The problem is not availability, it's customer education.
I suspect that Sleepy's / 1-800-Mattress are in violation of various consumer protection acts. In Massachusetts, for instance, it's illegal to claim that an item is discounted from an original price unless the store regularly sells the item for that original price. Looking at their ads week after week, it appears that certain mattresses are always on sale, under rotating schemes that bring it to roughly the same discount price each week.
I decided to buy from CostCo instead.
I decided to buy from CostCo instead.
OK so this chart really bugs me:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/pix-media/TV+Categories.png
Why is the bottom line 8%? and why are the y-axis lines ate 8% intervals? No reason I can see.
Is it not obvious that starting at 0 and using intervals of 5 or 10 makes it easier for people to grasp the relevant information clearly?
</rant>
https://s3.amazonaws.com/pix-media/TV+Categories.png
Why is the bottom line 8%? and why are the y-axis lines ate 8% intervals? No reason I can see.
Is it not obvious that starting at 0 and using intervals of 5 or 10 makes it easier for people to grasp the relevant information clearly?
</rant>
It's still a regular linearly-scaled chart, so I don't think it's too confusing.
Funny enough, I plugged this into Google Docs to see if I could re-scale to give you a comparison of the given chart vs a 0-based, 5-unit-interval chart and it looks like that's actually what they used to generate the chart.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ag2TNlAslc4GdFd...
Apparently the automatic scaling gives you the 8-based scale you see in their post. (And apparently you can't manually re-scale a Google Docs chart.) Using "stack" mode (I don't actually know what this option does for a single-series chart like this) gives you a 0-based, 10-unit-interval chart. (Again, not sure if you can adjust this to any other unit-scale.)
Slightly different scale, but I don't think it's a significant difference (though the "television" portion does appear slightly smaller in the automatic scale).
Charts like these are always susceptible to scale-skew and perception, and even simple charts (like this) can be debated on those subjective measures.
Funny enough, I plugged this into Google Docs to see if I could re-scale to give you a comparison of the given chart vs a 0-based, 5-unit-interval chart and it looks like that's actually what they used to generate the chart.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ag2TNlAslc4GdFd...
Apparently the automatic scaling gives you the 8-based scale you see in their post. (And apparently you can't manually re-scale a Google Docs chart.) Using "stack" mode (I don't actually know what this option does for a single-series chart like this) gives you a 0-based, 10-unit-interval chart. (Again, not sure if you can adjust this to any other unit-scale.)
Slightly different scale, but I don't think it's a significant difference (though the "television" portion does appear slightly smaller in the automatic scale).
Charts like these are always susceptible to scale-skew and perception, and even simple charts (like this) can be debated on those subjective measures.
Because it intentionally overstates their point?
Whenever I see graphs like that, I write the page off as being advertising rather than science.
I'm surprised they didn't also cover PCs. That's another area in classified ads where people can't believe that prices have already dropped for your PC once you have paid for it and put it in the trunk.
Those who are unclear about brand/model names (and I see a lot of those, especially with lesser Android tablets) provide two benefits: 1) It makes it easier for those of us in the know to write detailed ads and sell our stuff, and 2) It acts as a filter when searching for TVs, etc. I'd rather buy a gadget from someone who knows the specs than someone who just posts "TV for sale."
Those who are unclear about brand/model names (and I see a lot of those, especially with lesser Android tablets) provide two benefits: 1) It makes it easier for those of us in the know to write detailed ads and sell our stuff, and 2) It acts as a filter when searching for TVs, etc. I'd rather buy a gadget from someone who knows the specs than someone who just posts "TV for sale."
For the last half a decade I have been buying mac hardware. Even when I run linux on it I know that I can at any time get rid of it on the used market and get an insane price back. Compared to any PC, even when I would hand build them the value drop just to my house was always more than I imagined. Last year I was looking to maybe build a PC, looking on craigslist almost every listing was more expensive than if I bought the parts from newegg brand new.
Irrelevant fun fact : In germany, if you have tv you have to pay yearly ~271$ as a tax ( and it doesn't matter if it's 50000$ super hd 3d or ~30$ old crt )
This very much applies to housing as well. The number of people whose houses are listed for more than 6 months has to be a record high.
This is a function of a few things. Here are a couple reasons that happens:
-Their mortgage is close to underwater. They have to sell at an objectively high price to get out.
-They're trying to short sell under an agreement with their bank. They price it intentionally high to keep it from selling.
-Their mortgage is close to underwater. They have to sell at an objectively high price to get out.
-They're trying to short sell under an agreement with their bank. They price it intentionally high to keep it from selling.
Sure, but there is a third reason: People have a very tough time admitting a loss. And it's not like those prices are going to come back in our lifetimes (if you're on the coast).
I'm not sure if it's unique to my area, but I've found the same issue with computers on CL.
I work with quite a few non-profits and they're always looking for newer computers to replace their aging or outright broken P3 era machines running XP or even 98.
I have a few RSS feeds for about a 35 mile radius and 95% of the listing are some crap machine with a Celeron-D or Sempron. "Top of the line! Bought at Walmart 4 years ago for $800, selling for $500 FIRM. Has blue screen on startup, but it should be a simple fix."
Every 5-6 months or so something worthwhile like a P4 w/ HT or a C2D with a dead HD will show up for $30-50.
I work with quite a few non-profits and they're always looking for newer computers to replace their aging or outright broken P3 era machines running XP or even 98.
I have a few RSS feeds for about a 35 mile radius and 95% of the listing are some crap machine with a Celeron-D or Sempron. "Top of the line! Bought at Walmart 4 years ago for $800, selling for $500 FIRM. Has blue screen on startup, but it should be a simple fix."
Every 5-6 months or so something worthwhile like a P4 w/ HT or a C2D with a dead HD will show up for $30-50.
I'd love to see priceonomics tackle the Apple resale effect. I love it because it makes upgrading more affordable, but it seems a bit screwy at times.
Isn't this the equivalent of buying an expensive frame for a cheap painting?
We buy expensive TVs to look at because the stuff on the TV channel is just rubbish.
"of course Simon Cowell's insights into modern pop industry are worth watching Pop Idols got American Talent for - I mean I paid more for that TV than my car..."
We buy expensive TVs to look at because the stuff on the TV channel is just rubbish.
"of course Simon Cowell's insights into modern pop industry are worth watching Pop Idols got American Talent for - I mean I paid more for that TV than my car..."
Used refrigerator and washing machine prices are quite high as well.
It's amazing how much cheaper new TVs are getting, it's one tiny indicator of how much the quality of our lives (or at least or technology) is improving.
Also amazing how the value of our possessions is plummeting. There is very little one can buy which will hold value to any meaningful degree, much less appreciate in value.
The good news is that the product's ability to provide value is no longer explicitly tied to its ability to hold value.
Most consumer items are not investment, they are expenses. So one shouldn't have any hopes of holding or appreciating in value. Why you expect your TV be an investment that raises in value? Do you expect the same from your shoes?
This has almost always been true; the few consumerish things that sometimes (but not very often) hold value or appreciate include:
- Artwork, folk art, decorative items
- Handmade furniture
- Musical instruments
- Firearms
- Limited-production autos
Physical manufactured goods tend to be depreciating assets. Cars, electronics, houses less taxes and maintenance, all come to mind.
Really? Outside of tech, I don't see items dropping in value any more than they would have a hundred years ago. Sure, used silverware commands a very low price, but I'm pretty sure that has been the case ever since we stopped making it out of silver.
Have the things people buy most ever been the things that appreciate in value? Antiques derive their value from rarity, implying that most examples weren't good enough to survive. It's the "Old buildings were all well-made" fallacy.
That's part of it, but people also used to make a lot less stuff. The half life of a dresser made in 1850 might be ~50 years, but they did not make a lot of them.
PS: It's hard to know, but I have heard it suggested that something like 10% of all dressers made in 1850 are probably still around somewhere.
PS: It's hard to know, but I have heard it suggested that something like 10% of all dressers made in 1850 are probably still around somewhere.
I charged about the same as the "new" price for my TV (which was about half what I paid for it), because it was better. The old one supports more video formats, has better color and nicer speakers than the model that was supposed to replace it.
For a post openly inviting HN comments, https://s3.amazonaws.com/pix-media/TV+Categories.png is an astoundingly bad chart.
For a comment in a community that encourages discussion, information sharing and constructive criticism, yours is an astoundingly bad comment. Why is it bad? How would they make it better? "X sucks" comments are not useful, and you can't expect everyone to know what you're thinking of.
Maybe "astoundingly bad" is a bit strong, but I was about to post about it too.
It tricks you into believing that the discount on TVs is about 25% of the discount on headphones, when it is actually 14/32 = 44%...
It tricks you into believing that the discount on TVs is about 25% of the discount on headphones, when it is actually 14/32 = 44%...
Yup, great free lesson starter for a charts and statistics lesson tomorrow, thanks to original author.
PS: laptops seem slightly more sane in uk. Lenovos 3+ years old go for around 10% of original purchase cost. Why computers realistic and other consumer electronics not? More informed market?
PS: laptops seem slightly more sane in uk. Lenovos 3+ years old go for around 10% of original purchase cost. Why computers realistic and other consumer electronics not? More informed market?
Aside from starting at 8% instead of 0, what else is wrong with it?
Okay, so the starting point is the biggest issue, making a value that should be 43.75% of another look like 25%. I would also question use of a bar chart with labelling such that only one of the three values can be read out easily. Perhaps astounding is a bit strong but between the misrepresentation and having to read two of the three values from the text following it doesn't add a whole lot.
"astoundingly"? Come on.
I imagine the same would be true for laptops then, but it doesn't appear to be. I guess people are just more used to the falling prices of computers than they are for TVs.
I think its due to the perception that TVs work for a long time without failure, and hence hold their value since they can still be used for many years to come.
Actually, Goodwill sells used TVs for about $50 or less. Seriously. Go try shopping where poor people do.
Flat panel HDTVs? I've seen plenty of good-as-new CRT TVs there -- right beside the perfectly good VCRs, record players, tape decks, and non-surround receivers.
Is a flat panel HDTV worth $300 more than an "old" TV? Sensible people can answer "no" to that.
That's a nonsensical question. Some sensible people will say no, but some sensible people will say yes. If your free time revolves around television and you make too much money, what's wrong with dropping an extra $300?
And the market says "yes".
In a third-floor walk-up it is.
If it saves $5 a month in electricity, that extra $300 pays for itself in 5 years, meaning all the other benefits (widescreen, being able to carry a 42" alone, less space consumed) come free.
It seems to depend on where you live; I am used to Goodwills that sell most everything for a few dollars. I moved, and I went to the nearby Goodwill for a lamp. I couldn't find one for less than $20, and they were mostly broken too.
Goodwill was the first thing I thought of when I saw the headline. They have _horrendous_ prices on TVs. Before my current flatscreen, I picked up 2 decently sized CRTs over the past 2 years for free. GW charges $50+; I don't see why anyone would take that deal.
I've never seen an LCD at Goodwill, but they do have plenty of CRTs, especially after XMas.
EWWW people buy used headphones?
That huge price difference could be because people _don't_ buy used headphones. Less demand means cheaper product.
This is my experience with pretty much all used goods in general. Every day I see some post like, "I bought a bike computer last year and lost all the parts. It cost $250 so I'm going to sell it for $249 because of the missing parts. Any takers?"
Nope. I'd take it for $30, though, if you really want to get rid of it.
Nope. I'd take it for $30, though, if you really want to get rid of it.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when Apple's TV is released. I suspect the resale value of all other televisions will crater as everyone tries to sell their old TV (and potential used purchasers instead purchase new Apple TVs).
Very interesting article
And they finish up saying "The used TV market is broken"
But actually I would say: "the TV market is broken"
One could say the price reductions are due to less demand (computers, internet, etc), or maybe because of improving technology
But really something that falls in value so fast has of course a value for the user (watching TV) but not a "market value"
Tvs are (more or less) fungible, there's basically no incentive of getting the latest model and if it breaks you just get another one.
So it's actually worse than the car market in some ways
And they finish up saying "The used TV market is broken"
But actually I would say: "the TV market is broken"
One could say the price reductions are due to less demand (computers, internet, etc), or maybe because of improving technology
But really something that falls in value so fast has of course a value for the user (watching TV) but not a "market value"
Tvs are (more or less) fungible, there's basically no incentive of getting the latest model and if it breaks you just get another one.
So it's actually worse than the car market in some ways
As someone who lives outside of the US (I live in Israel), I would very much like to buy a new 32" LCD TV for $200. Too bad it's about $400 here.
Wait one or two more years :) .
Here in Uruguay no-brand LCD TVs are getting to U$ 300, they were U$ 600 last year (LED TVs pushed them downwards). Branded ones are still U$ 500 and upwards.
It's still surprising how expensive they are to you (I always thought Uruguay was the most expensive country on earth, with our 100% import tax and 22% VAT).
Here in Uruguay no-brand LCD TVs are getting to U$ 300, they were U$ 600 last year (LED TVs pushed them downwards). Branded ones are still U$ 500 and upwards.
It's still surprising how expensive they are to you (I always thought Uruguay was the most expensive country on earth, with our 100% import tax and 22% VAT).
American tax dollars benefit Israel so I suppose it evens out. (meant as a joke and not flamebait)
The problem is that people will buy the overpriced used TV. Honestly, I sold my 4 year old 720p for $300 last fall and went out and bought a brand new 1080p for $350! I couldn't believe it. But if people will buy, the price isn't going to change.
Same here. I was able to sell a 5 year-old, 42" LCD TV with no table stand (only good for wall mounting) along with its wall bracket for $350 earlier this year. Given that there's no fee for listing on Craigslist, I just put the highest price I could think of on it and kept posting it until I had a buyer (it only took two weeks.) Granted, it was $1500 when I bought it, but 1080 LCD TVs were at a huge premium back in 2007 and this thing was just taking up space in a crate in my apartment, depreciating.
My only explanation for why someone would buy that price was that they 1.) appreciated the quality of that model versus lower-priced generic new units and 2.) they would have to pay another 10% in state sales tax if they went to a store, which increases the effective discount for buying used from a private party.
My only explanation for why someone would buy that price was that they 1.) appreciated the quality of that model versus lower-priced generic new units and 2.) they would have to pay another 10% in state sales tax if they went to a store, which increases the effective discount for buying used from a private party.
The second reason sounds much more compelling.
To me, the first reason sounds more compelling. Honestly, I'd rather use a core2 era macbook pro that was top of the line then than a $350 corei3 dell laptop that is bottom of the line now.
Yeah... it's worth noting that just because you can buy _some_ 42" TV for $400 or less right now, doesn't mean that TV is comparable to a TV that was $1500 and arguably the best on the market when it came out. To get comparable features in a new set you might still have to pay $600 or more.
Yes.
I've just ordered a T60 C2D Thinkpad with 4:3 1400x1050 screen for 300 USD. When it was new it costed 2000-2500 USD.
It's not possible to buy a similar laptop today even with 1000-2000 USD. They are all 1360x768 Core i5.
I've just ordered a T60 C2D Thinkpad with 4:3 1400x1050 screen for 300 USD. When it was new it costed 2000-2500 USD.
It's not possible to buy a similar laptop today even with 1000-2000 USD. They are all 1360x768 Core i5.
You cannot compare Apple products to commodity TVs.
No that was his point.
A 1080p TV from 2007 was probably a Sony class product, I would rather buy that for $300 than a 'new' no-name 1080p TV for $350.
Similarly I would buy a 2007 Macbook for $500 rather than a new $500 Walmart laptop.
Similarly I would buy a 2007 Macbook for $500 rather than a new $500 Walmart laptop.
If that was his point, it was poorly made. My point was that Apple products are in a class by themselves and not a useful comparable in this discussion. Not even Sony TVs are in that class (not that they were mentioned).
I think the illustration of the idea is spot on and you're simply wrong.
The peson was trying to compare a tv comparison to an Apple/non-Apple comparison. I stand firmly by my contention that that is not a good comparison because Apple products are in a class essentially by themselves (not even approached by Sony TVs). The illustration is weak at best.
The illustration is even more non-sensical since it specifies a top-of-the-line Mac with a bottom of the line no-name.
Spot-on, huh?
The illustration is even more non-sensical since it specifies a top-of-the-line Mac with a bottom of the line no-name.
Spot-on, huh?
I still maintain it works perfectly. You're getting too hung-up on where you rank each brand.
No, there's apple and everyone else. Favoring an old Mac makes sense. Favoring an old Sony tv does not.
Wow. You're either being intentionally obtuse or you have no hope of understanding this. But we'll go through it one more time.
A second-hand Sony television is often higher quality than a brand-new generic manufacturer's TV. In the same vein, a second-hand Macintosh is often higher quality than a brand-new generic manufacturer's computer.
Nobody cares how highly you rank Apple. Their specific quality is irrelevant to the comparison.
A second-hand Sony television is often higher quality than a brand-new generic manufacturer's TV. In the same vein, a second-hand Macintosh is often higher quality than a brand-new generic manufacturer's computer.
Nobody cares how highly you rank Apple. Their specific quality is irrelevant to the comparison.
Chicago's sales tax rate is the worst (literally). For big ticket items like Tvs, computers, etc... it actually pays to drive into Indiana or Wisconsin and bring it back. On a $1100 TV you save $107
A month or so ago, I shopped on Craigslist for a used 42"-ish TV. As the article states, people wanted way too much for them and didn't state specific model numbers. I ended up buying a low-end new TV with some stacked-up promotions as suggested by a Slickdeals.net commenter.
It amazes me how many people will list something for sale on Craigslist without publishing obvious facts like model numbers. There's an upside if you a buyer who compares your price for the used item with the price for a new-but-superior item. However, the downside risk of wasting your time with people who walk away once learning the details of the item seems to outweigh this benefit.
Perhaps the greatest downside is that people like me will determine that the person selling the item is an idiot and apply a discount factor for the risk of even dealing with them.
Perhaps the greatest downside is that people like me will determine that the person selling the item is an idiot and apply a discount factor for the risk of even dealing with them.
This might hint at one reason CraigsList still exists as it does. There is powerful signaling built into how people make their listing. It conveys a lot about who the seller is and how the transaction will work.
Some friends who are using OkCupid say that their potential date's use of proper grammar is one of the best predictors of compatibility and that this signal is surprisingly hard to fake, especially in mail exchanges (vs. profiles which could be wordsmithed by a friend).
I'd never thought about the idea that a "better" designed for-sale site where users would be lead toward creating a proper listing would actually provide worse subjective predictors.
I'd never thought about the idea that a "better" designed for-sale site where users would be lead toward creating a proper listing would actually provide worse subjective predictors.
It is definitely possible to buy poorly listed items on Craigslist and relist them at a markup. IMHO, simply adding a picture probably adds 20%.
But then of course you would have to deal with all those deals that look sketchy because they actually are sketchy.
But then of course you would have to deal with all those deals that look sketchy because they actually are sketchy.
"It amazes me how many people will list something for sale on Craigslist without publishing obvious facts like model numbers."
Doesn't surprise me really.
It's not hard to be a solid seller on Craiglist because everyone else mostly does a terrible job at it.
Even something like photos for a rental are beyond some peoples capabilities.
Doesn't surprise me really.
It's not hard to be a solid seller on Craiglist because everyone else mostly does a terrible job at it.
Even something like photos for a rental are beyond some peoples capabilities.
Doesn't Amazon already have a marketplace for used items? I've used it in fact, works pretty great.
Would bulk be a factor here?
As the size of the consumable increases so does it's shipping cost and difficulty. Which in turn might imply that fewer people would buy a TV online, than say a piece of clothing or a DVD. This is turn would force consumers to overpay for their TVs, not many high street shops can compete on price. This inflated price is in turn passed on to the 2nd hand buyer when the original purcahser experiences regret for the high price they paid.
Then again, I could be completely wrong.
As the size of the consumable increases so does it's shipping cost and difficulty. Which in turn might imply that fewer people would buy a TV online, than say a piece of clothing or a DVD. This is turn would force consumers to overpay for their TVs, not many high street shops can compete on price. This inflated price is in turn passed on to the 2nd hand buyer when the original purcahser experiences regret for the high price they paid.
Then again, I could be completely wrong.
"The Human Mind Cannot Comprehend How Quickly Prices Fall"
heh, i thought this immediately after reading the intro.
the problem stems from the fact that the LCD market is still not at an equilibrium despite the apparent proliferation of large, flat displays. once it becomes a commodity, the prices will level off for each screen size and there will be much less variance and fluctuation in prices over time and much more predictable depreciation rates.
heh, i thought this immediately after reading the intro.
the problem stems from the fact that the LCD market is still not at an equilibrium despite the apparent proliferation of large, flat displays. once it becomes a commodity, the prices will level off for each screen size and there will be much less variance and fluctuation in prices over time and much more predictable depreciation rates.
Anyone know of a graph of the LCD price / sq inch over time? How fast is it falling?
It's interesting - on the Dutch eBay site (Marktplaats, has a craiglist type model), there actually really is a price point /alternate economy for most types of goods. The great deals are when people don't know what they're selling, but most sellers will either have a idea of what they think it's worth (too high) or will look at other listings and come to a similar price. It especially works on items like phones which have a relatively high supply.
Taken in the aggregate, the findings are probably true. However, some particular models can command a high resale value because they have particularly unique features. My Samsung TV, for example, is one of the few models made that has an antiglare screen.
To my knowledge Samsung no longer manufactures flat-panel HD sets with antiglare screens, so I would expect to sell it at a premium.
To my knowledge Samsung no longer manufactures flat-panel HD sets with antiglare screens, so I would expect to sell it at a premium.
Why does Priceonomics posts always make it to the front page of Hacker News? The stories are interesting, but not THAT interesting. Seems like there's some gaming going on here.
I suspect it is because a lot of HN readers are arm chair economists. Economics is a fascinating system to study and analyze as that system is driven by people who are modeled as 'rational actors' but rarely act rationally on an individual basis. The Priceonomics guys bring data analysis to the mix and that pings the other thing HN readers like, facts and data.
A kink in this story, is that about 6 months ago, some TV prices were discounted between $150 and $200, and 'new' prices are higher now.
The mundane television set has changed. No longer is it a thing to watch some movie in it.It is now a gadget that either adds or substracts to your social standing. Just like Apple did with the i-line of gadgets. TV makers are doing it as well.
Your TV doesn't have those little side-lights to add "ambiance"? You are behind. Buy a better one. It doesn't have that Symphony remote control with the little color LCD at the top? Ditto. Wait, you mean your TV is not 3D? Or that it doesn't have internet access to watch Netflix? Ditto, Ditto.
That is why the TV prices are so high. They are now a status symbol. The same way people trade-up their cell new cell phones for the newest model, people trade up their new TVs.
The price problem is a direct effect of this.Most people need to re-coup the cost of buying the high-end TV to buy another one.So they don't budge on the selling price. They keep it high to lower the amount of money needed to buy the other TV.As a result they create a niche market with its own social standing phenomenon.You see people bragging about paying high prices for an used TV, They might say "But its the XCVFRHTH-1234-TV with a digital remote, and dual LED Ambiance lights".
So, in summary, its not that the TV prices are high. Is that people cannot afford the latest gadget, and need to re-coup their money in some way. There is a a sub market of people who cant dream of buying the TV new, but can scrounge up the money to buy it used. And so, the circle of TVs keeps on going.
It does not happen to phones, because everything looks like an i-phone these days. But you can't confuse an Sony high end TV with one made my Emerson.
Same with cars, tools, bycicles...
Your TV doesn't have those little side-lights to add "ambiance"? You are behind. Buy a better one. It doesn't have that Symphony remote control with the little color LCD at the top? Ditto. Wait, you mean your TV is not 3D? Or that it doesn't have internet access to watch Netflix? Ditto, Ditto.
That is why the TV prices are so high. They are now a status symbol. The same way people trade-up their cell new cell phones for the newest model, people trade up their new TVs.
The price problem is a direct effect of this.Most people need to re-coup the cost of buying the high-end TV to buy another one.So they don't budge on the selling price. They keep it high to lower the amount of money needed to buy the other TV.As a result they create a niche market with its own social standing phenomenon.You see people bragging about paying high prices for an used TV, They might say "But its the XCVFRHTH-1234-TV with a digital remote, and dual LED Ambiance lights".
So, in summary, its not that the TV prices are high. Is that people cannot afford the latest gadget, and need to re-coup their money in some way. There is a a sub market of people who cant dream of buying the TV new, but can scrounge up the money to buy it used. And so, the circle of TVs keeps on going.
It does not happen to phones, because everything looks like an i-phone these days. But you can't confuse an Sony high end TV with one made my Emerson.
Same with cars, tools, bycicles...
"That is why the TV prices are so high. They are now a status symbol."
The main point is that TV prices are so CHEAP, not high.
I could buy a plasma TV for $300 when it used to cost $3000 not so much time ago. Or a flat LCD for less, this is amazing for something that was impossible to manufacture(big HD TVs) just 5 years ago.
You don't need to buy 3D, or ambiance or whatever, you are free to buy them if you want. How is that bad?
The main point is that TV prices are so CHEAP, not high.
I could buy a plasma TV for $300 when it used to cost $3000 not so much time ago. Or a flat LCD for less, this is amazing for something that was impossible to manufacture(big HD TVs) just 5 years ago.
You don't need to buy 3D, or ambiance or whatever, you are free to buy them if you want. How is that bad?
The low end TVs are cheap. But the big ones that most people want to produly display on their living rooms are expensive. That is the root of the problem. Keeping up with the TV Johnesses.
Well, that is certainly the story that the TV manufacturers are telling, but I don't really see it getting traction with most people. I don't know many people who have upgraded their TVs lately, besides replacing CRTs.
Also seems like size is the primary motivation for people to buy a new TV, because their room is larger or they can now afford the size they really wanted to buy originally.
Also seems like size is the primary motivation for people to buy a new TV, because their room is larger or they can now afford the size they really wanted to buy originally.
What a relief that I haven't even noticed this status symbol pressure and that I'm perfectly happy to roll with my ancient TV from 4 years ago.
Don't fret. Your status symbol is having an ancient TV. That's why you posted about it on a public forum...
Well played. Although my real status symbol is going without cable for the last 12 years.
The only TV I have is about 12 years old.
I don't have a TV.
Are you this guy?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mention...
You should get one from Craig's list.
What the hell is this 'TV' thing all you corporate drones are always talking about?
And I though my Sony Trinitron CRT was going to be the oldest, good work.
I remember from childhood that a 'big screen TV' was one of the stereotypical status symbols. Same with nice cars. But back then, TVs didn't innovate that much, so people treated their TVs like they did cars. They kept them on decade long schedules and repaired them instead of replaced them.
I thought not having a TV at all was the new status symbol. Mine isn't plugged into an aerial (just an HTPC) so I guess I'm half-hipster.
I've certainly noticed this myself. I always assumed it was because people overpaid originally. Paying sales tax, not buying on a deep sale, etc. Then I come along and use deal shopping tools which pick out TVs on websites that skirt local taxes.
I love priceonomics detailed analysis!
So, this is really a symptom of a much more interesting effect. What happens when established markets suddenly experience dramatic change? A good example is the used car market. Post 2008 meltdown leasing and buying new dropped dramatically. The recession also convinced people to buy used rather than new. Given the normal 3 year lease by 2011 there was a dearth of used cars yet due to the recession still a strong demand for used cars. Many people began grossly overpaying for used cars relative to new cars. It's one of the factors highlighted in the rebound of this years new auto sales - buyers began connecting the dots.
TV's are less of a supply and more of a price issue but it's still the same thing. A dramatic external shock hasn't flowed through the market yet. BTW, TV's make for horrible landfill so either way use that TV as long as you can.
TV's are less of a supply and more of a price issue but it's still the same thing. A dramatic external shock hasn't flowed through the market yet. BTW, TV's make for horrible landfill so either way use that TV as long as you can.
Sorry guys, but I smell a need for an editor. You could have explained your whole post in one paragraph.
And now for downvotes...
And now for downvotes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect - things seem more valuable when they're yours.
Regarding the two examples given (https://s3.amazonaws.com/pix-media/TV+Categories.png): used headphones are icky and cellphones are distorted by cell phone plans that hide their real cost.
Regarding the two examples given (https://s3.amazonaws.com/pix-media/TV+Categories.png): used headphones are icky and cellphones are distorted by cell phone plans that hide their real cost.
It really depends. A good pair of headphones can be had for big discounts used. For in ear headphones, you can usually buy replacement ear pads and for over ear, you can often replace the foam that goes over your ear. I would never buy a lower quality pair, but I've bought a few different high end headphones that I scored on.
I have a model number that ends in "-1" which I bought from a warehouse store, and this model was only ever sold to a particular chain of warehouse stores. The original model (which you'll find if you look up reviews on the web, or on Amazon) has the same number but ending in "-0", and the only difference is that they traded its second component input for another HDMI input -- something which 99% of people, myself included, will never care about.
The reason, they say, is so the big chains can advertise "Guaranteed lowest price!". Nobody else can stock exactly the same model number, so it's technically true, even though it's not uncommon for the almost-identical model to be cheaper elsewhere.