Haggling over price is generally a strange experience for an Australian. We don't tend to haggle. True, if one happened to be buying a big television, one might enquire about a possible difference in price if cash or credit were used, and there's usually room for movement on the sticker price of car, but as a general rule, we accept what the price tag says.
In fact, trying to haggle in, say, a supermarket would likely produce little more than a look of bewildered contempt from the poor checkout attendant you encountered. Odds are, the $2.99 price for the laundry detergent you desire will not move down to $2.50, no matter how artfully or insistently you attempt to bargain.
This is a bit of a shame, really, as there is something quite sociable in a debate over price. An opening gambit. A smirk, and a counter offer. A look of woundedf protest, and another bid. A look of mock-worry, a gesture to family members nearby, a shake of the head an another offer. At so it goes, until a price is reached, and money, goods and smiles exchanged.
I'd like to see it become mandatory, and I think that such compulsory negotiations will kill off the consumer attrocity that is the supermarket as we now know it. I mean, can you imagine the queues if you had to go toe-to-toe with the staff at Woolies for the thirty or so items in your trolley? Having to stand there whilst the bloke in front of you tried to negotiate his six pack of bog rolls down a few dollars. And then his bag of apples. And his half-kilo of mince. You'd give up. Hopefully the local store would make a most welcome comeback.
But truth be told, that's not really why I favour haggling. In fact, haggling isn't precisely what I want. I want price-tags to be outlawed entirely.
I like beer. I drink it often. I'm not particularly fussy, but you've got a better chance of getting me to inhale a can of Brut than drink a can of Victoria Bitter. Why? Because in my opinion, Victoria Bitter is shite. There is no price for it could be offered for which I'd buy it.
Why am I telling you this? Well, you can learn a lot about how the free market works in Australia from looking at beer. It is an absolute truth that in Australia, you can over-price your product out of the beer market, but it is equally true that you can under-price yourself out of the market, too. We seem to equate price with quality all too readily, and as such, snobbery prevents us from accessing that we might otherwise really enjoy. There are some great beers on the market for about $32 a carton, which many will never try, due to their belief that quality beer needs must cost at least $40 even when on special. Given that all beer costs about the same to make, the price difference ought surely come down to more tangible than brand recognition.
But it doesn't. I'd love it if people were able to determine for themselves a sense of quality, and determine a price in conjunction with the retailer. That the price would then vary from store to store is as it should be. If one man's ideal price for quality is $60 whilst another's is $30, what on earth is wrong with that?
Quality surely ought to be perceived by the purchaser before the product is purchased, rather than simpy purchased (in the form of assumed quality) along with the product itself. But we have become terribly lazy in this regard, and our ignorance ought not reside within us quite so blissfully. I'd have to possess a great deal more skill than I do presently to go into a jewellery store and assess by sight the actual quality of a diamond or a gold ring. I can't tell silver from stainless steel, much less 9 carat gold from eighteen. But likely as not, if I were making a purchase, I'd buy what I thought was quality. I'd probably argue that I don't have time to work out the difference for myself. But if I don't, then why am I paying for a difference in quality I cannot appreciate nor understand? It is, quite simply, illogical. But it is what we do.
Shirts are another good example. A Ralph Lauren polo shirt costs about $80, I think. I can pick them up in Thailand for about $15. $10 if I haggle. Ok, they're not authentic, but when it comes to a shirt, what does that really mean? Can I really tell the difference? Will one last so very much longer? Does the horse and rider logo seem more authentic on one than the other? The real question is; what will that extra $70 buy me, other than the chance to say (or simply know) that I paid eighty bloody dollars for a shirt? It is a strange world in which we live. And when you consider that people (including myself, it must be said) are more likely to buy something when it's marked as thirty or forty percent off - when the original price is so utterly arbitrary - it becomes even stranger still.
To that end, price tags are out, and a genuine, personal apprecation of quality is in. This will surely make the market place a great deal more "free" than it is right now, and it will oblige people to learn a bit about what they're buying. We live in a fast-paced world than emphasises the need to consume, but it leaves precious little time to appreciate that which we consume. The days of saying "this must be good because it cost x-hundred dollars" really ought to become a thing of the past as soon as possible.
Everything has a price. It's just that price should equate to value. Given that value is a very subjective thing, perhaps we ought to work that out for ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment