Originally Posted by
Saracen999
I'm certainly not in the "feel sorry for the poor big corporate" group. Hell, no.
I also utterly agree about finding a middle ground. Or rather, trying to.
But that's the point.
There isn't always a middle ground. Again, basic supply and demand. If the company knows, or even just believes, they can sell current stock at £x, why would they accept £x less y% because some consumers either won't or can't pay £x? Or, can and will, but have the hump about it.
If the seller won't drop the price beyond a certain point, and buyer A won't pay it, buyers B through Z will. Buyer A has to decide if they want it enough to pay the seller's price. Or, go without. Or at least, wait for the initial demand to be satisfied. It is wholly unrealistic to expect the seller to drop the price unless they are wrong about sufficient buyers be NG willing to pay it.
However, the only power each consumer has is to decide that he or she isn't willing. As a group, consumers have the power to force corporates to their knees provided they all agree. If that happens, sellers will have to cut prices or not sell their stuff. The problem, when what limited stock there is is selling out is that enough consumers will and are paying the asking price. Which comes right back to "if demand > supply, price goes up". Not down.
I'm selling something right now. As it happens, a house. Well, bungalow. In that area, they're not common and highly sought. Our price is set towards the top of what's achievable, and because several buyers want one item, it's not likely to come down, certainly not by much, just because several other buyers want it, but not at that price. We only need one, able and willing, and there are. One is very keen.
I have no view on other forums "defending" corporates, but all those corporates are doing is what virtually all of us do, on a smaller scale, day in, day out.