|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Loss leader article.|
- 1 "Fruitshop-style"
- 2 Freebe is not same as Loss leader
- 3 Games consoles listed as Loss Leaders AND low margin products?
- 4 Generic cartridges voiding warranties
- 5 Nintendo at a loss?
- 6 Apple iTunes
- 7 avoid repeat visits to shop
- 8 Style edit completed
- 9 Key value item?
- 10 Playstation 2 failed to make any money?
- 11 Confused wording
- 12 Alcohol
- 13 Why does the Wii Matter if it's not a loss leader
- 14 References broken
- 15 Loss Leaders and price wars
- 16 Legality
- 17 Video games consoles, printer cartridges.
- 18 Printer ink and human blood
- 19 Perishable Food?
The following sentence in the article makes no sense:
- In these situations, it can be harder for dealers who use "fruitshop"-style trading methods of purchasing to negotiate buying larger quantities of consumables at cheaper cost price in order to sell them off cheaper.
Freebe is not same as Loss leader
Freebe is part one of the product, which is sold at loss to attract customer & keep the competition at bay, where one exercises consumer choice, but for the part two the customer is locked in to buy to keep the part one in service. Loss leader is a product sold at loss to attract the customer into the store hoping that he or she will buy other products which will contribute to the profit. It is akin to when one wants to trap a bird he puts an inverted basket elevated on a stick with a along thread & a row of seeds (the loss leader) put in to attract the bird under the basket when one can pull the string to move the stick so the falling basket can entrap the bird (ie. impulsive buying).
Games consoles listed as Loss Leaders AND low margin products?
Games consoles are listed as Loss Leaders AND low margin products. Which is it? --Irrevenant 12:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- depends on the console. indeed, some consoles may start as loss leaders, then become low margin, or switch between the 2. they have a lot of 3rd parties involved in their manufacture so it varies.--184.108.40.206 14:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Generic cartridges voiding warranties
In the US, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prohibits voiding a warranty for using generic parts. Most auto parts stores couldn't exist without something like that, which leads me to believe that there are similar laws in other countries, anyone know anything else so I can make an intelligent edit? 220.127.116.11 15:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Nintendo at a loss?
"Nintendo was able to profit on the sales of its Gamecube console for a short time before selling it at a loss. "
As far as I know, Nintendo never sold a console at a loss and was always profitable (except for one quarter in about 100 years). Besides, how in the world can the article say that the Gamecube was sold at a profit and then, as time went on, started to lose money? Electronic parts almost always decrease in cost - plus they had a redesign that eliminated some video components. I'm deleting that sentence.
- Oh please. “Nintendo never sold a console at a loss”? So you're saying the all their consoles actually cost under $200 to build on launch? I find that impossible to believe without mountains of evidence.18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, if you compare the relative hardware specs of the Wii and other hardware from the same generation, it's not all that difficult to believe. (Read: the Wii's graphics suck.) It just so happens they figured out "fun" consists of more than watching pretty pictures onscreen. J.M. Archer (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the Wii. It was hilariously outdated on launch, made largely from parts Nintendo was already buying for the gamecube, and thus less like a new console than a cost-saving redesign of the gamecube (I.E.: NES 2, IQue Player, PSOne, etc…) in many ways. I'm complaining about the claim that Nintendo has never sold other consoles at a loss, a ludicrous claim to swallow since all of their previous systems were leading edge. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the iTunes example is quite right here. Although the margins on songs purchased through iTunes is small, Apple relies on the fact that they sell many many of them, and they actually do make profit on those songs. The costs to Apple of digital storage, maintenance, support, etc. are amortized across the huge volume of individual songs that are sold. iPods are indeed related products (that Apple makes profit on, as well), but one can buy an iPod without purchasing songs through iTunes, and vice versa.
- Please sign your posts. Whether or not you think the iTMS is a loss leader is irrelevant Steve Jobs himself says it is. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
avoid repeat visits to shop
this line: "Items offered as loss leaders are often bulky or perishable, making it difficult for the customer to buy in bulk so as to encourage repeat visits to the shop." is easily interpreted the wrong way around: it can be interpreted as if the shop wants to avoid the repeat visits. this happened to me. Bewareircd 18:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC) it must have been a very difficult time for you. if you wish to talk about it, im always available as a shoulder to cry on. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Style edit completed
I have done a general clean-up and I tried to take all the existing comments here into account and clarified to the best of my ability. Canadiana 18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I also did a minor style cleanup to improve the article, trying to make it sound more like an article and less like a blog or editorial. --t c s 02:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Key value item?
I'm British, and had never heard this phrase before. A quick Google suggests that it's very uncommon. "Loss leader" is vastly more commonly used in everyday speech. We need a reference for KVI, and not just the extremely basic one at NationMaster. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Me either, I have not worked in retail myself but my dad was at HQ at Tescos and loved the jargon, all my family have done work in stores, I have never heard this. Am going to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 07:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Playstation 2 failed to make any money?
“(It should be noted however that the Xbox, Xbox360, Playstation 2 and 3 all failed to make money so far.)”
Firstly, is this statement referring to the physical consoles/hardware themselves or does it include revenue generated by third parties, game mark-ups, etc? Either way, the Playstation 2 definitely needs to be taken away – it’s the most successful console ever made, and was up to a point helping Sony cover the huge losses it’s now making on the PS3. Evidence is here (first paragraph), and here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- That entire section is nothing but blatant pro-Nintendo FUD. The Wii is an abberation, as basically all other consoles, past and future, Nintendo or otherwise, launch as loss leaders and stay that way for most of their time on the market. The statement also entirely misses the point of loss leader pricing, since consoles are NOT supposed to be profitable, but merely act as bait to snare customers for accessories (software, hardware, services) which have a tax hidden in their price through licensing deals. I'm pulling the whole thing. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes leader is now used as a synonym for loss leader and means any popular article, in other words one sold at a normal price.
Does the writer mean:
1. The word "leader" is often used to refer to popular items, but at the normal price.
2. The word "leader" is a shorthand for "loss leader". So "leader" is used to refer to popular items, at a heavy discount.
It is just not clear.
I would have started the sentence with "Sometimes leader is used ...".
Here in the UK, Alcohol is generally refered to as a 'loss-leader' for our big Supermarkets.. (24 cans of beer for £10 say) just to get people to shop in the store. It's suprising there is zero mention of this here, and I'm considering adding it.. Especially seeing as it's faced heavy criticism for binge drinking, and killing pub-culture. Any thoughts? Dvmedis (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Personally I have no objecton to doing so, adding references to some news sources (suggest BBC and The Grocer magazine). But I wonder then if we are on a slippery slope where we add every product ever sold as a leader. SimonTrew (talk)
Why does the Wii Matter if it's not a loss leader
In the final paragraph in specific examples of loss leaders, the Wii is cited as not being a loss leader. Why does this matter? How is this relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Loss Leaders and price wars
Worth mentioning how sometimes one retailer advertising a loss-leader can lead to other retailers copying them and to a price war. An example from about 15 years back now is when UK supermarkets were selling value-range baked beans for as low as 3 pence a tin: http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/articles.aspx?page=articles&ID=23844 M0ffx (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to have a section about the legality of selling below cost? I haven't done much research, but in Ireland between 1987 and 2005, it was illegal to sell certain groceries below cost. I wonder are there other examples in other jurisdictions. Quasihuman | Talk 11:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Video games consoles, printer cartridges.
I removed those sections because they have no reference or source. And as far as i can tell there is none for these products as we have no insight into there business. Unless a company makes a public statement it is selling at a loss or a financial institution that has insight there is no way off knowing. So please keep that in mind when you make these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstster (talk • contribs) 17:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Printer ink and human blood
I moved a sentence from the section on inkjet printers here. It is verifiable, but not necessarily notable, and it seems to imply some very disreputable things about printer manufacturers that may not be warranted. See below:
In fact, the ink is sometimes sold for more than human blood.
I cannot speak for the price of blood (it cost's nothing here in the UK). But printer ink is certainly a huge cost. Just grabbing a couple of cartridges from stock, 19 ml of ink costs 19.99. That is £1052.10 per litre (or £3982.63 ($6629.81) per US gallon for our colonial friends). This does not include the cartridge itself because the ink quantity and price given is the difference between the regular and XL versions of the cartridge. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Question is:is the price you quote the price of ink or the price of the cartridge plus ink? Here in the states at least, one can buy generic refill kits and there are systems to replace cartridges with external "tanks" to supply ink to the print head, allowing you to buy ink in bulk. There are also various outfits offering generic brand cartridges for many brand name printers at discount prices. Your comparison of the price for a cartridge is kind of like me saying it cost me $25,000 for a tank of gas (the price of the new car I bought recently which included a full tank of gas). It probably would have cost me about $30-40 to fill it up at the then current price. And by the way, that would be petrol for you guys on the other side of the pond.126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Sugar does not strike me as perishable food. Is there any evidence for sugar being priced under cost? And it's not clear that milk is placed in the back to get people to buy things.  Snakesonaplane1988 (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)