Hacker News Reader

Comment by ashmaurya | Hacker News Reader

I'd disagree and say with wine you'd have to explain a lot more (as you did). We know from the existing bottled water market (in the U.S.) that a viable market exists at both $0.50 and $2.00. $2 might be a ripoff to you but it's what some customers always purchase which leads to Principle 2.

View on HN

I live in Arizona. I don't know of anyone buying $2-$3 water because of the quality, mostly we buy it due to convenience. In short, because it's 116 F and they want water right now.

Sure, maybe there's Evian or whatever, but at least for me, it's well outside of my normal experience. Most of the expensive water we buy is pure convenience, because we'll buy from the guy with $2 water instead of $3 without thinking, given the chance and all the common brands are blurred together (Evian is really the only one that sticks out).

So... yeah. I'll agree that it's a proper example, it's just not something where quality is a major consideration, at least in these parts. YMMV.

I live in Arizona also, and I know people who would swear on a stack bibles that <insert brand> tastes better. Despite repeatedly explaining to them that it is filtered tap water, and showing it to them on the label where it says "filtered tap water" , they insist. In any convenience store there are multiple brands of water at multiple price points, each with their own fans. weird.

Discount Tire also uses the good-better-best philosophy, with the middle choice being most popular.

I guess we just have very different experiences.

I'm used to all water being exactly the same price in a given location and to only noticing when they jack up the price for captive audiences.

No joke, I've seen a guy buy a $50 bottle of water in Vancouver, BC (yaletown).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com