Your Choice magazine price hike!

[Bill Malone]

I used to gaze lovingly at the Your Choice magazine collection, noticing the prices were around ?10, some as low as ?5. Now it seems the minimum is a whopping ?13 each. They're still ?5 each in Soho, what's the reasoning behind the sudden increase? I thought you should respond here rather than a personal email as this will effect other forumites.

[Bill Malone]

Just me this effects then is it?

I know they're sponsors of this site and everything and the price increase was beyond their control (unlikely, the stock is the same, not a load of newer stuff) and yet most mags are now nearly three times the price they were a few months ago. See above post.

[Officer Dibble]

It's quite simple Bill. When fewer punters buy a product line (the magazine) the punters that remain have to pay more to make it worth the retailer's while - organizing, advertising, and stocking that line.

Look at it this way. If a serious producer financed, shot, edited and DVD'd a modest shag movie with four scenes and no frills and knew he was only going to sell one copy he would have to charge the punter ?4,000 - ?5,000 quid for it - to cover the cost, his expertise and his valuable time. However, if he knew he had, say, 250 firm orders, he could charge a more reasonable ?20.00 per unit and it would still be a viable proposition.


Officer Dibble - BA Honours - Cordon Bleu School Of Accountancy

[jj]

That's sheer sophistry: if the Law of Supply and Demand operated, as you so often claim, fewer punters would mean LOWER prices (i.e. less demand), not higher.
You can't have it both ways.............
Organizing? Already been done.
Advertising? Already done, but don't spend any more on it- let the punters come looking for it. Leave them in the stock-room, or if you need the room/
don't wanna pay the rent, sell 'em off cheap to clear.
Stocking? Oh.... already taken of............

[Bill Malone]

I'd like to hear from Jay at Your Choice if he's listening. Just to make clear the company's reasons behind the price increase.

[Officer Dibble]

Maybe he doesn?t want to discuss the sordid subject of coin with customers? He's had ample time to respond. Being in retail myself I know that such exchanges can be unseemly, in which case, if you want the merchandise you just have to accept that the terms offered by the vendor. There are no doubt unavoidable financial reasons behind it. But it's not for the vendor to justify himself or herself. After all, you are not forced to buy if you find their terms unacceptable.

Officer Dibble

[Officer Dibble]

"fewer punters would mean LOWER prices (i.e. less demand), not higher."

On the contrary. If there are fewer punters each one has to pay more to cover the retailers investment of time and money in distributing that product if it is going to remain a viable proposition. Maybe you are confusing that with the idea that the lower the price the more people will want to buy it? But sex is not like baked beans. You do not 'pile it high and sell it cheap,? because you would soon find your customers sated, with little appetite left for seconds. And sex, as a commodity, is not price sensitive. If you want it, you gotta have it. Cost is a secondary consideration. Also, sex customers are conservative with a small c. They feel comfortable buying from the company they have dealt with for years. That comfort and confidence is worth money to the vendor as even though their prices may be more than the brash, upstart, flash-in-the pan company?s down the virtual road, the customer will feel it money well spent going with the firm he can trust. The known quantity.

Officer Dibble - Porn retailing consultant

[jj]

That investment has already been made (and lost), so where are the 'costs to recover'? If the stock is selling low (and the market is as you correctly say, finite), you can either sell it even cheaper or destroy it, cutting your losses, or put the prices UP- and be left with a load of impossible-to-shift gear. You seem to think that the punter ought to make good any losses incurred by a company's bad judgment- tough cheddar, then. You take a risk, you take yer knocks. That's life.
Sex, as a commodity, IS like any other- it IS price-sensitive, as you'd know if you'd ever bargained with a Tom, or shopped around for vids. I can either buy an averagely-duped VHS from a variety of companies, or I can buy a mint copy of the DVD for 1/2- 2/3 of the price- consumer choice.

[jj]

Err....not for the vendor to justify themselves?
Dream on, old son...........this is known as Customer Feedback- strangely, if you pay heed, it can even help you to improve your business-methods and profit-margin. Telling punters to 'like it or lump it' often results in a swift trip to the Dole-queue. Why else do companies spend vast sums doing Market Research? For charity?

Nothing worse than Dibsy when he's in DelBoy mode.

[Jacco]

Jay is quite busy, so I'll try to answer a bit.
First, which magazines do you mean? We have magazines ranging from less than 6 quid to near 20. Some pricechanges just reflect the changing pound/euro rates. Some magazines raised their prices recently.

But we don't change the prices of them after we put them on sale (except for the mentioned exchange rates), look at the Triple X magazines f.i. you will see that the more recent ones are more expensive than the older ones, we don't raise the prices on the older ones as long as we have them in stock.