Quote:
Originally Posted by FurnaceFace
I'm sure a real economist could say this better but my view is it's about utility. I'm willing to pay x to get a perceived benefit (or enjoyment). At some point the price is too high and the utility too low in comparison and demand drops. Since the Flames have raised ticket prices yearly they haven't reached a significant tipping point where the utility drives down the demand enough.
I think what Cali is saying is if as consumers we know there is a ticket tax, and we either perceive we will get more utility (benefit), assuming there is a tax before the new building is built, or directly see there is more utility when we are in a new building with better amenities, then our max price point changes.
Perhaps to use the airline example if I fly to Vancouver and I have to fly a prop plane or have a stopover the enjoyment or utility of the flight is lower therefore I'm willing to pay less than if it were a direct flight. If it is $199 and I have to fly a dash 8 or stop in Kelowna vs paying $225 to go direct on a 737, I'm paying the extra $25.
|
I think you're describing a small group of wealthier fans that really break down why they're giving their spending dollar and to what, because it matters to them.
The average citizen will not go through this, they'll look at a price and decide whether they can afford to pay it for the product they want. You could tell them 20% is an air tax and they'll just say, "whatever, you want $100, right", and then they'll decide if that price is palatable.