“They are completely different formulations,” said one spokesperson of two antiperspirants with the exact same percentages of the exact same ingredients.”—The ‘Woman Tax’: How Gendered Pricing Costs Women Almost $1,400 a Year | Forbes
Pricing carbon from ground to consumer: U.S. study
Currently, putting a price on climate-warming carbon dioxide generated by oil, coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels typically takes place where the fuel is burned.However, this may not be the most effective way to calculate carbon emissions’ cost, the researchers wrote in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.Carbon dioxide generated by human activities such as coal-fired power plants and factories and petroleum-powered vehicles contributes to the heat-trapping greenhouse effect that spurs climate change. To counter this effect, some policy makers advocate putting a price on carbon emissions to curb consumption.Without advocating any method of pricing carbon, the scientists suggest that as a practical matter, it could be most efficient to administer any so-called “carbon tax” at the point of extraction.”We’ve moved beyond trying to place blame, because that’s just an argument that will never be won,” said co-author Steven Davis of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. “The only way it’s ever going to get sorted out is if we can come up with anything resembling a consistent, unavoidable price on carbon that applies globally and then the chips will fall as they may.”The scientists analyzed fossil fuel extraction, combustion and consumption in 112 countries and 58 industry sectors. They learned that 51 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions from human activities stemmed from fossil fuels or goods that were sent across borders to get to consumers.INCENTIVE FOR BIG DRILLERS AND MINERSThey found that 67 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions would be covered if regulation of fossil fuels was done at the point of extraction in China, the United States, the Middle East, Russia, Canada, Australia and India.Those countries that did not participate would miss out on revenue from carbon-linked tariffs down the supply chain, the authors discovered.To give an incentive to big fossil fuel extractors, like Saudi Arabia, to put a tax on oil aimed at reducing demand for oil, it would have to be clear that a tax would have to be imposed somewhere along the line, Davis said by telephone from Washington state.”If that oil was going to be taxed when it was burned somewhere else, like the United States, then the Saudi Arabians would prefer to actually administer the tax and collect revenue that they could use at home rather than allow the revenue to be collected in the U.S.,” Davis said.Putting a carbon tax at the point of extraction would be efficient since there are far fewer coal mines and oil wells than there are factories and power plants, and this could avoid the relocation of industries that might occur if regulation occurred where the fuel was burned, the authors wrote.They also found that most of the world’s exported fossil fuel ends up in developed countries, which also import a lot of goods dependent on fossil fuel. China is the exception to this trend.More information and graphics, including a country-by-country accounting of emissions from extraction, production and consumption, are online at supplychainCO2.stanford.edu/ .
Mailjet's new pricing: even more cheap!
You may have heard a few rumours on Twitter but it’s now official: Mailjet is releasing a brand new pricing! As you’re going to realise, we might be offering the best value on the emailing market…
A new pricing to change the ESP game!
We have worked a lot on this strategy and we believe it will be a decisive move. Along with all the competitive advantages that our product already has, being cheaper is something that will allow us to get a lot of people switching to our solution.They will actually have to realize that on the mid and long term, staying where they are won’t benefit them.
Delivering great performance and being cheaper at the same time? Yes sir!
There are 3 reasons that allow us to be better and cheaper at the same time:
1- Our whole system is built to fully leverage the cloud power. Mailjet’s model allows us to maximize the efficiency of the power we need to buy. We can therefore obtain the same results with less money.
2- Our model doesn’t integrate the need of big sales teams: we work on partnerships and word of mouth. This saves us a lot of time and money. All this can then be invested in our R&D. Our main battlefield is the technology, not the market place.
3- We’re a start-up: all our team never stops striving for efficiency and our work organization allows us to have a really impressive productivity. We’re caught in the course of action and when something needs to be done… it gets done very quickly. No bureaucracy, no lost energy, etc. That’s a lot of money saved and that’s a lot of money you don’t have to spend.
Even more to come…
Having the best rates is not enough for us: we’re already working on how we’re going to offer you more flexibility. A new statistics module also is on its way: as our prices go down, our product gets more sophisticated!
As you can see, we’re really trying to design the product you could have dreamed of! Stay tuned, subscribe to our RSS and follow us on Twitter @Mailjet
Prospects Of Iron Ore Pricing Mechanism ! http://newish.info/126464-prospects-of-iron-ore-pricing-mechanism
What I’ve Learnt About Pricing and Value from Selling eProducts
If there’s one thing I’ve learnt from selling information products, it’s that customers can be a pretty irrational bunch when it comes to interpreting value and price.
Image Credit: Santos
Three of the most profound things that i’ve learnt about value over the years are:
1. People are crap at differentiating value from price.
2. The more time or money a customer invests in a product, the more value they’ll get out of it.
3. Value is 100% psychological – it’s a feeling, not a thing.How Selling £50 Contracts at £0.99 Taught Me That People Can’t Differentiate Value from Price.
Generally speaking, we assume that the more expensive a product is relative to other similar products, the more quality or value we are buying. In most instances this is a safe assumption (as the old adage goes ‘you get what you pay for’), but it also means that sometimes we’re tricked into buying overpriced products because we believe that they are better than the cheaper alternatives, when they’re not.
My first exposure to this was several years ago when I met a company who wanted a new content management system for their website, I recommended a free option explaining how it met their requirements, but they barely took me seriously after hearing the word ‘free’. They ended up wasting thousands on a significantly inferior system.
But it wasn’t until I started offering contracts on my website for one fiftieth of the standard market price that I truly realised how irrational consumers can be.
Here’s a little bit of background: professional music lawyers are not cheap and everyone in the market of selling contracts sells them for £50-£100, putting them out of budget for most curious young musicians who just want to know what a record contract looks like.
My goal was to help as many musicians as possible by providing them with the best information, so I decided to price my contracts at the ludicrously low price of £0.99, in the hope that it would make the information more accessible to musicians who don’t want to fork out a lot of money.
I received very few sales in the first four months, despite a considerable amount of targeted traffic from search engines. I honestly couldn’t figure out what on Earth was going on.
One day I received a phone call from a musician asking “are you sure your contracts are legitimate? Everyone else sells them for way more”. I then realised that by charging so little and thinking I was doing musicians a favour, I was actually causing them concerns and driving them away.
Sometimes being the cheapest is not the best for your customers if it means they’re associating low value with your low price tag.Higher Price Tags Earn More Emotional Investment
If someone sent you a free eBook about how to grow your business, chances are you wouldn’t be in any rush to read it – you might not even read it at all. Whereas if you had paid £100 for a book on the same topic, you’d likely start reading straight away, or at least make it a priority to try and apply some of the techniques recommended in the book.
This is because we like to return our investments, and so if you spend £100 on a product you will have an urge to get at least £100 of value out of that product, which requires more effort. Whereas, if you received a product for free, you can do nothing and it hasn’t had any negative impact.
I noticed this when I was looking for reviews of my book. I noticed that people who had paid for the book were more inclined to write a review of it, and were also more inclined to finish the book sooner compared to those who received free copies.
From an author’s perspective, I can’t help but feel that the people who paid for the book will probably benefit more so than those who received free copies, and because I believe the information to be so potentially life changing for the right people, I really want readers to emotionally involve themselves with the content and really apply the techniques outlined in the book. Encouraging people to make a higher financial investment in receiving a product is an effective way to earn a higher emotional investment from them as a customer.Value is 100% Psychological, and 100% Unique.
If you believe that the designer handbag you paid £500 for is good value, then it’s good value. Simple. The concept of value is 100% psychological and we all have varying yardsticks as to what we consider good and bad value.
You’ve probably known someone who’s spent £1000′s on a top-of-the-range mountain bike, DIY tool, or musical instrument and wondered “what on Earth are they thinking?!” Whereas to them, they probably think they’ve got a great deal. This is because how we determine value is based around our personal values and beliefs – people who spend ridiculous amounts on designer handbags value the appearance of being affluent and glamorous, whereas the people who think they’re silly don’t.Final Thoughts
When it comes to value and pricing, there are a number of things to consider besides the usual accessibility and competitive considerations – what value are you implying to your potential customers? And does your product exceed that implication?
I’d be really interested in hearing anyone else’s experiences on this topic, so if you have anything you’d like to share please leave a comment below!
A Collaborative Approach to Pricing; Let the Client Raise (or lower) the Price and Discredit your Competitors
Yesterday’s PSF Journal contained a Colin Jasper and Libby Maynard article with a very interesting analysis of the pricing dilemma for lawyers and law firms. After reading their article, you’re likely to recognize one unfortunate reality — lawyers do not think in terms of understanding the cost of a unit of production. Without that understanding, reliance on the hybrid pricing models the authors suggest still creates situations where too much of the pricing risk inappropriately rests with the outside lawyer.
There is a solution, however. Lawyers can introduce a collaborative pricing process that eliminates almost all of the risk for both sides. In a nutshell, the lawyer works with the client to:
* Clearly identify the logical components of recurring projects (e.g. deposition, discovery, opponent’s financial position, etc.)
* Use these components to create a cost spectrum, with the smoothest, most seamless case or transaction at one end, and the worst nightmare case or transaction ever on the opposite end
* Decide where this case or transaction falls along that spectrum – today.
* Agree to adjust the cost incrementally, up or down, when components of the project slide from the current position on the spectrum towards either end (e.g. five days of depositions turns into ten days)
This approach is easy to learn, but it’s also very subtle. There’s a precise order to the questioning process that almost guarantees a successful collaboration. To get a sneak peek of this system, view:
A Collaborative Approach to Pricing; Let the Client Raise the Price and Discredit your Competitors
Our clients describe this process as a “career-lifesaver.” I hope it’s as successful for you as it is for them.
P.S. To learn the rest of this time-tested pricing model , RainmakerVT subscribers can go to this lesson:
Toolbox — 8. Pricing
Non-subscribers can gain access to every RainmakerVT course, including this one, by taking advantage of our limited trial offer, featuring a 90-day, 100% money-back guarantee.
The Scarlet Logic Take 2
This has been discussed to death but I felt I should throw in a quick note that I hope gets across to most potential Scarlet buyers and for those arguing that the Scarlet is over priced. The Scarlet was NEVER made to be an upgrade from a 5D. That was NEVER RED’s target market. If you believe it was then clearly your thinking is a bit off. Why? Well the RED One was targeted at profesional cinema, aiming to take on Arri and the like whilst providing also an alternative to film or a digital version of film essentially. The EPIC was RED Ones next logical step that it couldn’t take because of the limitations such a form factor presented. So the target market is still the same. Now come Scarlet, people are thinking this is a ‘pro-sumer’ camera. This is how i’d see the 5D, the FS100 and the like. The C300 I’d say is potentially pro-sumer but more than like it’s just general a profesional camera.
How do you define the difference? Well, I’d assume the first step is features but that logical step also comes with pricing. The C300 is meant to be the step after the 5D according to Canon. The Scarlet is the profesional version of the 5D. In the sense that you start at the 5D and you move upwards. If your looking to jump from 5D to Scarlet, you’d need to have been making money off your 5D. Which if people are good at their job, they will probably be making money as a camera assist or whatever. You jump on the Scarlet and you purchase the required bits and pieces, lets say 8-12 redvolts and 4 x 128GB/64GB cards. Along side the rest of the stuff. The purpose of getting a Scarlet is to make money. If anyone is saying ‘90% won’t see their money back’ which clearly is being said here, then you need to re-evaluate the way you look at Scarlet. People can rent the Scarlet or rent themselves along with the Scarlet, clients will happily pay to rent the Scarlet if that means you get the services of an awesome DoP/DIT or Cameraman. This is the thing, your selling yourself or the camera, either one or both. This is the same you’d have done with the 5D or you’d do with the EPIC or Arri or any other camera. The method is no different.