|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > October 2005 > Rebates
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Tom Klem 2005-10-15, 11:31 pm |
| Perhaps the marketing of Chess membership could benefit from non price
discrimination rebates, which tend to create two classes of consumer. Those
who are willing to pay off the shelf pricing (in this case memberships) and
those who would rater pay less.
It seems to me, that this is an idea which could be very beneficial to the
USCF, especially in the Adult Regular membership department.
For a really excellent paper on the subject and theory of rebates, I
suggest:
http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/kilts/re...ers/rebate1.pdf
When you think about it, and as the article points out, after initially
being attracted to a product by a substantial rebate, many don't bother to
send the coupon in to redeem. This adds directly to the bottom line, and in
coordination with a targeted marketing approach, would have serendipitous
cash flow implications for the Fed.
--
Tom Klem
Keep your eyes on the prize! Solvency!
| |
| Charles Allen 2005-10-15, 11:31 pm |
| Tom Klem:
quote:
> When you think about it, and as the article points out, after initially
> being attracted to a product by a substantial rebate, many don't bother to
> send the coupon in to redeem. This adds directly to the bottom line, and in
> coordination with a targeted marketing approach, would have serendipitous
> cash flow implications for the Fed.
Bleah. I hate rebates, and no longer buy products that use "send
stuff in" rebates. The potential hassle is just not worth it.
Several companies have been indicted for, essentially, "losing" rebate
info, falsely claiming full info wasn't sent in, etc. What those
companies count on is that the consumer won't find it worthwhile to
pursue a $20 rebate check. I note that the paper referenced does not
mention this cost at all in their model. A coupon or
redeem-at-the-register rebate places the risk into the hands of the
retailer, while redeem-via-mail rebates place the risk in the hands of
the consumer.
Amusingly, getting to the "Rational consumer" section on page 7, I
realized that I'm about to finish listening to "When Genius Failed:
The Rise and Fall of Long Term Capital Management". Basically, LTC
assumed "rational investors" to make money via arbitrage, and died a
big time death when irrational things happened.
- Charles Allen
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-10-16, 2:31 am |
| Yes, what you say may be true for you at this moment, but the point is, you
did buy rebated products in the past, yes?
Tom Klem
"Charles Allen" <ca765@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:slrndl3gmr.28uc.ca765@juniper.sweetshade.local...
quote:
> Tom Klem:
to[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
serendipitous[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Bleah. I hate rebates, and no longer buy products that use "send
> stuff in" rebates. The potential hassle is just not worth it.
> Several companies have been indicted for, essentially, "losing" rebate
> info, falsely claiming full info wasn't sent in, etc. What those
> companies count on is that the consumer won't find it worthwhile to
> pursue a $20 rebate check. I note that the paper referenced does not
> mention this cost at all in their model. A coupon or
> redeem-at-the-register rebate places the risk into the hands of the
> retailer, while redeem-via-mail rebates place the risk in the hands of
> the consumer.
>
> Amusingly, getting to the "Rational consumer" section on page 7, I
> realized that I'm about to finish listening to "When Genius Failed:
> The Rise and Fall of Long Term Capital Management". Basically, LTC
> assumed "rational investors" to make money via arbitrage, and died a
> big time death when irrational things happened.
>
> - Charles Allen
|
| |
|
|