Question

[sobrique]

[Poll #319680]

Comments

[xarrion.livejournal.com]

Hmm...thinking about it, I'd rather have a £5 knife that cut well for a year before busting, than spend £5000 on a knife that was guaranteed to cut for a century.

I'm sure that there are plenty of counter-examples. It really depends on the product, but in most cases, I reckon I'd rather spend some money on something that did the job than a lot of money on something that did the same job, but looked shinier.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Hence 'primary'.

Would you buy a 5 quid knife that 'did' for a year, or a 50 quid knife that would for 10?

[karen2205]

Umm, AFAICS value includes quality eg. the thing which is the best value isn't usually the cheapest - it's generally mid-range and lasts for longer than average.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Yes, value and quality are linked. Cheapest is usually nastiest.

The question was mostly to see which end of the scale influences thinking - Dyson vacuum cleaners, for example, are really good IMO. But they're £200-300. Which means that you're 'average' vacuum cleaner at £50-80 which does the job, just maybe not as well would be the 'value' choice.

[mrbear.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, Dysons rock the proverbial 'fat one'. And look cool while doing it. ;-)

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, they're rather good.

But the question stands, would you buy a dyson at £250 or a 'standard' at £80?

[the-wood-gnome.livejournal.com]

I _did_ buy a dyson for my mum, although I did get a discount.

I feel that value and value are part of the same thing, it all depends on what you are buying and who/what you are buying it for.

It's not as binary as that :)

[mavnn.livejournal.com]

Well yes, I'd noticed that value and value are part of the same thing too ;-).

Where did the discount come from?

[the-wood-gnome.livejournal.com]

:p you know what I mean, value and the other one...


The discount came because I used to work as a warehouse assistant for a heating and plumbing firm.

don't anymore so no more discount.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

A friend of mine says (or at least used to say) that you should always buy the cheapest or the best. The logic is fairly clear: if you buy the cheapest then you haven't lost so much if it turns out to be inadequate; the best, on the other hand, is unlikely to be inadequate (if it turns out that it is then obviously you didn't do your research right when figuring out which is the best). Obviously this all assumes you'll only buy a thing which does actually at least meet your needs...

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

It's not a bad philosophy.
I steer clear of 'cheapest' because that usually means that it's 'rip off those who can't go for better'.

Car Tyres for example 'budget' tyres on my car lasted 6000 miles. 'midrange' lasted 30000 for 10 quid more (each)