I was recently reading about the likelihood that mattress stores are more clever than their choice of business implies.
Now, I'm far from the first person to complain about this, but hopefully I can spread the idea and expand on it a little.
---
Ever seen a "mismatched mattress sale" advertised by a local mattress store? There's a store in Tucson that does it at least annually. Apparently they end every fiscal year with mattresses of one pattern/color and an equivalent number of box springs of another pattern or color.
The most obvious question is, "How did that happen?"
The most obvious (probably incorrect) answer is that a lot of customers came into the store throughout the year and bought a mattress of one pattern set and a box spring from another set. This leaves the store with mismatched inventory by the end of the year.
However, if customers prefer mismatched sets in the first place, why would there be a sale on them later on? Clearly they don't need to "slash the prices" of mismatched sets if they're the best sellers. Besides, who in the hell chooses separate patterns when the sets are priced appropriately?
A less obvious, but more likely, answer is that the mattress store mixes up the inventory. That's right, they just grab half the mattresses from one side of the store and throw box springs around until everything is sufficiently mismatched. Why would they do this? Well, it's true that they do have inventory purchased at the beginning of the year that should be sold before it gets moldy, but the fact that the sale is on because the sets are "mismatched" covers for the fact that it's just a collection of the least popular brands and styles that were not previously sold.
So you ask the sales clerk,
"Why is this mattress set only $249?"
"Well, because these patterns don't match. You don't care about patterns do you?"
"Of course I don't! They're going to be covered with sheets anyway!"
So you think to yourself, "Wow, I'm getting an awesome deal because everyone else is too picky to have a mismatched mattress set. What a bunch of pretentious fools!"
At least, I'd be thinkin' that after such an awesome deal...
Unfortunately, NOBODY cares what the patterns on their mattress sets are. If this were not obvious enough, some web site has a survey that further dodges the true question...
The real reason that you are getting some sort of a deal - and you are getting a type of a deal - is that these mattresses are terrible, and you could have just gone to any furniture store during any time of the year and bought the same ones for even cheaper. Unfortunately, the mattress store will also throw in current inventory, mismatched into the fray, and charge the normal, higher prices under the similar "you're a clever customer for not caring about matches" heading.
So, as further evidence, pay attention to the next advertisement you see on TV for one of these sales, I guarantee you they'll make some reference to the patterns and the fact that "nobody sees them anyway!" as if every single viewer of the advertisement didn't already know this... They know everyone knows this, but they also know that everyone has no idea what everyone else knows...
They call this "asymmetrical information" in economics, by the way, and it's one of the most important ways for a business to protect its profits and position. Without really getting into it, I think I'd be confident in saying that we should probably ignore all stores' "blowout sales," as they are usually a way for the business to push more of the cost of improper demand measurement on us. I'll elaborate more on this some day...
---
...And if you think you've got a question that will refute this post's assertions, I'll just go ahead and answer it before you ask. The answer is, "That's why they make 'em with patterns." If you just thought of one more, the answer to that one is, "That's why mattress producers hire economists."
ULTIMATE READER CHALLENGE 2007: Think of a question that would refute these assertions that isn't answered by those answers... I know there's got to be one out there somewhere...
Monday, September 3, 2007
BedCon
at 2:27 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
When I was in Montana scouring through Backpacking stores...they had the same type of deal - except for insulated socks. Now with beds, there is a sense of cleanliness, but it occurred to me many times - how can a store be like my weekly laundry - does it just loose socks?
Wow. Americans ARE stupid. France was right all along.
How often do people purchase just a mattress? Or just the wood frame?
No, I am seriously asking. How often does that happen?
"Stupeed Americans buying their their stupeed mismatched mattress sets at full price! ...Now let's go on strike!"
-Half the Population of France
Zane: I was thinking that too - But without the frame, the mattress apparently gets destroyed faster, not to mention the fact that if it were popular to buy just the mattress, sellers would lower the price on the frame until it becomes "unnoticeably marginal," I would assume. I'm guessing it doesn't happen often enough to leave any mattress store "high and dry" with mismatched sets.
And on the same note, I'm also assuming nobody buys just the frames unless they're prone to break faster than the mattress. So, how often have you broken just the frame? Yeah, me neither...
It seems the overwhelmingly popular way to purchase these things is in matching sets. If it weren't, the manufacturers wouldn't put every type of lame pattern imagineable on them to identify them as a set... And if people started to rebel from the pattern system, the manufacturers would lower the price of the frame to make them indifferent, and thus more likely to choose a set based on pattern rather than cost.
---
In answer to your question, though, I have no idea what the real numbers are. I know there are people reading this that have not commented yet - Anybody ever purposely avoid a matching mattress set?
Oh, and I think Fred's point proves it -
Either selling mismatches is a good trick to placate customers *OR* clothes dryers are designed to destroy socks.
I'm inclined to think there's a dryer conspiracy...
Notice how nervous this company seems when defending its dryers, right before actually admitting that dryers really do "eat" socks:
http://www.mgservices.ca/page_dryer.htm#dryer%20eats%20socks
(link wasn't working, so I just posted the copy - Click on "Dryer eating socks.")
"...It may even be inside the machine mechanism..."
Me n' Stacks bought a mattress last year and the store only sold one type (brand, pattern, whatever) of box spring. We had to buy new box springs to go with the mattress because a) one of the old box springs was broken (yes, the frame somehow got broken. Just the frame.) and the old ones weren't the same height anyway (king mattresses use two twin box springs, which are less of a pain in the ass to move around). So...this particular store apparently does not have these 'sets' you speak of.
I am also reminded of a recent purchase of a washer and dryer. Most washers have a matching dryer. The salesperson seemed appalled that I did not want the dryer that matched the washer I had picked out. She was very insistent that I buy the matching set simply because they match. The matching dryer was a bit more expensive and had some unnecessary feature. Anyway, there must be some sort of deep-down desire for folks to have matching sets of things that are sort of related (or perhaps they have just been repeatedly told that they desire matching things) and the mattress stores and countless other retail outfits have decided to exploit this desire.
Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever owned a box spring and mattress with the same pattern. I didn't even realize there was such a thing. I suppose now I will go out of my way to not buy matching sets of things that are sort of related in order to deprive myself of money that I could otherwise spend on beer.
Hey Gretchen!!!!!
I knew you'd come around - and I knew you'd have a mattress story.
I'm proud that you stuck it directly to the man and didn't buy a matching washer and dryer. I really wish someone would do a study to prove this theory: Any time something comes in a bundle, or pair, the odds of one of the items being below-average quality increases much more than in the case of two "competitive" items.
Someone, somewhere, must have stats on this.
...And Gretchen - Yo. How's every little effin' thing?
hey Dave, inbetween economizing and coffee drinking, would you be willing to contribute to Lloyd Zeffler? just music musings and whatnot.
I will edit though. i have a red pen and I am not afraid to use it.
I actually have to print documents on paper and edit them with a red pen. it makes me feel more like a human.
Zane: I sure would - since I'm one of the biggest "music snobs" that most people have ever met, I happen to have a lot of "opinions" on certain "musicians" out there. It would be nice, I think, to have a specific forum to complain about everything music-related...
Heh heh ...
You hear that, Fred? Zane actually wants to experience the hell that is "Dave's opinion on music and musicians."
I'm sure Fred will attest - this is not something people who know me well would actually ask for... However, if you've got a red pen, it just might work out... We'll see...
---
Oh, and before I actually do a post that links to Zane's forum, for anyone who doesn't know already:
http://lloydzeffler.blogspot.com
is the place to be. He's got an MBA and a degree in journalism. If that's not a compelling reason to read his blog, I don't know what is. Except maybe the name of the blog...
And speaking of things to link to, where the poundampersandpercentageasterisk is atooka.net?
Keep it positive, yo.
Lloyd Zeffler is supposed to be about fun and enjoying music. Not jabbing the idiots, even though there are many.
Damn!
I'm so good at jabbing. I'll see if I can find anything positive about anything in the world of music. It'll be hard for me...
Zane - you opened Pandora's box asking Dave to be tasked with that hefty of a responsibility. My guess, you'll get ONE positive review, of one song, from one band out of him! Dave knows the 'silvery' gem of a song.
Dave - the poundampersandpercentageasterisk of a website that you speak of is currently under development - in other words - it is in need of some long over due work and care needed...or me, finding time and getting off of my lazy bum!
Oh dear, sweet lordy lordy, that was effin' funny. You called it pretty well, Fred.
If anyone is curious, for the past four years or so, I've consistently said that the only songs I like are "Three songs off that one Silverchair album."
(Not just one, by the way, Fred - Three)
I really was thinking about doing exactly what Fred predicted...
There has to be other music that you can find some slight glimmer of redeemability in. I have reviewed crap bands for over 3 years and I can always find something positive to say.
Anyone that will dedicate their life to pursue music can't be all that bad, right? I mean really pursue music, not fame.
I'm glad you mentioned the "not fame" part - I agree. In fact, you've just reminded me of the ultimate musical argument (or maybe agreement) that Fred and I had once - About the benefits of removing monetary incentive from the music business... I think I need to restart that debate here pretty soon...
You know, over the past few months, I really have reignited my music-appreciation fire that I lost somewhere around 5 years ago. There are a few really excellent bands that are ticklin' my fancy right now - In fact, it would probably be really good for me to try to objectively discover what it is that I actually appreciate in music these days.
We'll be in touch, Zane...
Every little effin' thing? Not sure I could describe all of them here. Or even remember .2% of them. To summarize--I'm doin' it.
I accidentally sprayed myself with some black paint and now my right arm and neck look like poppyseed buns. How's your Elby?
Also, it's about time you started toying with the musics again. I should follow suit and toy with something that stimulates the old brain and causes coherent sentences to come out of it.
Little Elby's getting better. It turns out that my risk-measurement technique that led to me not visiting the hospital has a 98% chance of paying off - As far as I can tell from my current vantage point.
It could also still get infected or something and have to get amputated. I'm putting 2% on that possibility. It's probably less than that, though...
Ahhh, brain juices. Blogging, it turns out, seems to be brain-juice friendly. I highly recommend updating one's blog... say, more than once per season, maybe...
Laughing Internally... (That's LI in case anyone needs acronyms...)
Speaking of your blog, I apologize for "spying" on your blog for all these years and never letting you know about it [via commenting]. I've just always assumed that my comments weren't "high impact," and weren't suited for the internet... Until now, apparently...
Regardless, thanks for all the steampower.
It's cool; I don't mind the spying. And yes, I've been told many a time by many a folk that I need to update my blog more often. I find my musings highly uninteresting, though. My thoughts aren't high-impact enough to even post on the internets.
Good to hear the Elby is well. If he does get infected there's always Mexico. Seriously, I've bought antibiotics there--much cheaper and no prescription required.
The music business article (argument) would be a fantastically great blog post. I think that would be a much better post than anything Silverchair has done...even though you always talk about the wonder of those THREE songs. 3 songs out all of their entire catalog would still be a horrible review!
You know the irony is, you haven't even blogged Silverchair, and here we are critiquing the idea, let alone an actual work of writing...
"You know the irony is, you haven't even blogged Silverchair, and here we are critiquing the idea, let alone an actual work of writing..."
Isn't that the point of the internet. Everyone has a little nerd rage inside them.
Nice post and this mail helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you for your information.
Post a Comment