We came across an interesting concept on Hacker News today: the art of paying too much.
Yes, Allen Tucker took it upon himself to go against conventional wisdom. His argument states that "paying more means you can actually buy more." Still not making sense? Here's the crux of his argument:
When we change your mindset from getting the best deal to getting the best quality, it changes the emphasis from shopping to deciding what's important. Because we only buy quality, we are forced to wait until we can afford what we really want. That wait time leads to better decisions, and it forces us to make do with what we have. Often making due or improvising means we can avoid buying things we don't need, thereby saving money.
Traditionally, people tend to look for the best deal and overlook quality. In the heat of the moment, it's easy to get caught up in the euphoria of a sale and buy plenty of extraneous, low-quality stuff at a discount. But Allen says this is a mistake - and that getting the best quality stuff means that we enable ourselves to make better investments in the long term.
The various areas he covers are expansive. Here's a summary of the points:
- Gear: High-end gear lasts longer than basic, lower-quality gear.
- Appreciation: The most expensive stuff appreciates in value (guitars, for example).
- Employees: Top pay attracts the best talent.
- Services and Tipping: Generous tips generally result in better and faster service.
People generally look for low-cost investments that can deliver immense short-term value in return (the "Moneyball" effect), but often times, these investments fail - and as they accumulate, we end up paying more in the long-term. It's an interesting argument.
In terms of ZURB products, we price our apps by the features, not by the users - which ensures that a user will be able to pick the feature tier best suited to their needs. The product quality remains high and due to layered complexity, all of our products are accessible and usable to a wide range of people.
Do you think that Allen is wrong, or do you think he may be on to something? Let us know in the comments.