[Shotimes] Re: (OT) How to avoid the pitfalls of pricing Former Porsche boss: There's no 'right price' for a car

[Donald Mallinson]

Dave,

At some point, I get tired of the constant comments about how overpriced 
the SHO was, how is doesn't compare to todays cars.  etc etc.  Yes, Ron 
does put the SHO down a lot.  I defend the SHO a lot. 

But guess what?  These are lists about the SHO, and FOR the SHO. 

I fully comprehend the cost plus and the point of the other article.  I 
have read whatever Ron put on the list.  If he will post a link to that 
article I will try to see what is in there that causes you to have to 
start with the type of note you are now presenting. 

I think people here know that Ron and I get into some discussions and 
there is a real good understanding of where comments come from.  I will 
though, defend myself from insults and if you feel that makes me 
"defensive and attacked", then so be it, but you used those words first 
not me.

You keep arguing with me (this was between Ron and me, so why is it YOUR 
deal all of a sudden?) and you aren't paying any attention to what I 
have posted.  So why not let it go, I will finish up the discussion with 
Ron if necessary off line.  But, it takes two people to quit an 
argument, I say you can just as easily stop it too.  I won't let you put 
it all on me, when others start this type of argument.

Don Mallinson

Dave Garber wrote:

> I don't think that you DO comprehend very well. If you did, you 
> wouldn't be arguing with me or Ron about the merits of market pricing 
> vs cost plus by 'defending' the SHO. Did you even read the article??
>
> By YOUR definition, the SHO wasn't priced high for what it offered. By 
> 110k other peoples opinion, is wasn't priced high for what it offered. 
> No shit. That wasn't the point of the article and that wasn't the 
> point of our discussion. The point was, "what if the SHO had been 
> priced, INITIALLY, at something closer to the cost of an up-model 
> SHO". What would that have done for the car relative not only to it's 
> ultimate sales number, but for it's longevity overall? It wasn't meant 
> as an argument relative to the SHO's quality, nor was it a shot at the 
> SHO as you asserted in one of your responses to Ron.
>
> You seem to often argue with others, and Ron specifically, just to 
> argue? If you had read the article and THEN read Ron's post, you would 
> have seen that it wasn't a tear down of the SHO, but merely a 
> speculative conversation about cost-plus, market pricing, etc. But 
> instead of offering your speculation about whether this would have 
> helped the SHO's longevity, it's sales numbers, etc, you chose to 
> argue about whether the SHO is "worth the money" they asked for it and 
> then accused Ron of insulting the SHO. And I'm quite sure that you 
> will once again, with this post, make it yet another argument and put 
> just the right twist on it to make yourself come across as 'attacked' 
> and of good grounding for a 'defensive' post.
>
> I guess I should start responding with TSTR from here on out?
>
>
> Dave Garber