Why is CHEAPEST so important to Sheffielders?

[Jeffrey Shaw]

On so many threads on here, people are asking where is the CHEAPEST this or other, or, they are complaining about things being EXPENSIVE.

 

I don't see the word "VALUE" used very much at all.

 

People don't seem to be interested in what is the best VALUE for money, only what is CHEAPEST.

 

In my experience, the CHEAPEST is often not the best VALUE and may even turn out to be more EXPENSIVE. BUY CHEAP - BUY TWICE as my grandmother, the Duchess of Kent used to say.

 

So, what is this fascination with finding the CHEAPEST of anything available rather than the best QUALITY or best VALUE?

 

Could anyone entertain the thought that cheapest is not best maybe?

Let me tell you about a marketing seminar that I attended a few years ago.

The lecturer drew a triangle and marked its vertices 'good'/'quick'/'cheap'.

He explained that no client or customer can have all 3 at once- max. of 2.

 

My version of that explanation is: who cares if goods or services are just quick or just cheap? If they're no good, who'd want 'em at all? Conclusion: 'good' [quality] is the first and main factor. If that's safe, only then pick one of 'quick' or 'cheap'.

[juniee]

so if i go shopping and see a mini chopper for example the same make,style and brand and size in three different shops the cheapest one is inferior to the other two?

[DerbyTup]

so if i go shopping and see a mini chopper for example the same make,style and brand and size in three different shops the cheapest one is inferior to the other two?

 

no. Because it's exactly the same thing and you'd be wise to buy the one at the lowest price.

 

But you've missed the point.

 

If you are definitely comparing like with like then of course it makes sense to buy the one with the lowest price (providing there are no hidden things that you've missed). But people aren't comparing like with like at all in some cases.

 

If "cheap" is the most important thing to you, it will cost you more, unless you really know what you are buying and are able to compare like with like.

[DerbyTup]

Nothing wrong in being frugal.

 

Agree. But buying the cheapest isn't necessarily being frugal, in fact, it's often the opposite.

[DerbyTup]

Maybe the economy has something to do with it. When people are short on money it is more difficult to consider the value you will get for something. Foresight becomes clouded and people go for the cheapest things they can regardless of how long they will last. If you only have £10 in you bank, then you can only spend £10 regardless of how false the economy is on the item you are purchasing

 

That's a very good point Barry. The amount available does dictate your choice and that may make you go for something that you know isn't as good in terms of quality as something else, but it serves a purpose for something, the only alternative to which is going without.

 

Suitability for purpose is an important factor when making purchasing choices. The problem arises when people assume something is equally suitable for purpose when it isn't.

 

Like the guys on here thinking they have got a bargain buying sausages with only 60% meat in them.

[andygardener]

no. Because it's exactly the same thing and you'd be wise to buy the one at the lowest price.

 

But you've missed the point.

 

If you are definitely comparing like with like then of course it makes sense to buy the one with the lowest price (providing there are no hidden things that you've missed). But people aren't comparing like with like at all in some cases.

 

If "cheap" is the most important thing to you, it will cost you more, unless you really know what you are buying and are able to compare like with like.

 

Surely one way to asscertain if a lower priced product or service was equal or better to a higher priced one would be to ask others on a forum such as this for their experiences?

 

As an example a shop may have overstocked a certain item and need to shift it to make room for other lines and thus offer it "cheap" for a period of time. Ot a service may be offered by a new business seeking to gain market share which is "cheap" compared to the established providers but equal or higher quality.

[The Manager]

we are yorkshire men and we are tight

 

Yep agree on that , Always count the pence in your pocket "it all adds up as my old nan used to say":hihi:

[0114owl1867]

On so many threads on here, people are asking where is the CHEAPEST this or other, or, they are complaining about things being EXPENSIVE.

 

I don't see the word "VALUE" used very much at all.

 

People don't seem to be interested in what is the best VALUE for money, only what is CHEAPEST.

 

In my experience, the CHEAPEST is often not the best VALUE and may even turn out to be more EXPENSIVE. BUY CHEAP - BUY TWICE as my grandmother, the Duchess of Kent used to say.

 

So, what is this fascination with finding the CHEAPEST of anything available rather than the best QUALITY or best VALUE?

 

Could anyone entertain the thought that cheapest is not best maybe?

 

cus we're all cheapskates - ps found 2 pence today reeesult !!

[choogling]

On so many threads on here, people are asking where is the CHEAPEST this or other, or, they are complaining about things being EXPENSIVE.

 

I don't see the word "VALUE" used very much at all.

 

People don't seem to be interested in what is the best VALUE for money, only what is CHEAPEST.

 

In my experience, the CHEAPEST is often not the best VALUE and may even turn out to be more EXPENSIVE. BUY CHEAP - BUY TWICE as my grandmother, the Duchess of Kent used to say.

 

So, what is this fascination with finding the CHEAPEST of anything available rather than the best QUALITY or best VALUE?

 

Could anyone entertain the thought that cheapest is not best maybe?

 

No one would ever ask for a cheap parachute except on here.

[DerbyTup]

Surely one way to asscertain if a lower priced product or service was equal or better to a higher priced one would be to ask others on a forum such as this for their experiences?

 

As an example a shop may have overstocked a certain item and need to shift it to make room for other lines and thus offer it "cheap" for a period of time. Ot a service may be offered by a new business seeking to gain market share which is "cheap" compared to the established providers but equal or higher quality.

 

you are right, to a point Andy, but the problem is the contributors to forum such as these come from vastly different reference points. These forum are not reliable because they are very subjective. Over a period of time it may be possible to be able to identify with other forum contributors and get value from their opinions. So, for example, there's one or two contributors on here who's opinions I value when it comes to places to eat, but there are others who I don't value at all. There are also a fair few "plants" on here - like the ones telling us how wonderful Harvey's Bar and their burgers are. You have to be very careful who to believe.

 

I used to work in retail. Shops rarely "overstock" - especially these days with computer ordering systems - human error is taken out of it and it is based on very accurate forecasts monitored by computer. You do get "sales" of course, especially when seasons change, like with clothing, or after a busy period, like Christmas, or in a very quiet period, like summer hols. The lines that they reduce are still being sold at a profit of course, immensely so. But of course you can get a bargain - providing you have taken other things like quality into account.

 

The other example you give is of a "loss-leader" where a company deliberately sells below normal price in order to undercut a competitor and gain market share. These are indeed potential bargains to the consumer - but again you can't ignore taking quality into account when making that assessment.