Hacker News Reader

Comment by clickok | Hacker News Reader

It sounds like their sudden viral popularity created too many obligations to fulfill, but not enough to scale up sustainably. Truly victims of their own success.

I know that stretch goals are popular but there's something to be said for not overcommitting. I have in mind a few other crowdfunded campaigns that were much more successful than initially envisioned, with the bonus rewards/additional content that they promised apparently causing delays or cost overruns for the creators.

View on HN

I was thinking about what they could have done. (I watched the video.) I first thought, perhaps they could have just made them at their usual rate of work, and simply taken two, three years to deliver. This is the case with world-class restaurants that have year-long waiting lists.

Or, they could have had a higher price.

It was then that I realized why an "artisanal" scissor with a viral independent video about it and real old-world charm might cost $100.

Not because it's "worth" $100. Not because hipsters are idiots who don't know what to do with their cash.

But simply to limit the seller's obligation to fulfill.

I am not saying it is the solution here, just that it gives another perspective on insane artisan pricing.

(I hope my comment is not insensitive to the family and people involved. I have no idea of what is behind the story and express my sympathy to all involved.)

It’s 100 dollars because it costs 100 dollars to make, including enough margin to support the business

I don't know, from the write-up it does seem that their business was pretty sustainable at their usual prices. It seems to me that if they had received 90% fewer orders (not gone as viral) they would still be in business.

Anyway if I had said "$400" my point still applies but I doubt you would say that's what it costs to make, including enough margin to support the business. It's just an alternative way to view a $100 (or $400) price point.

Ultimately their pricing model was wrong, they could have charged more and still reached their kickstarter goal, which would have given bigger margins and would have put way less pressure on the business.

Strictly speaking raising the price isn't necessary to limit order volume; you could just ... limit order volume. There are X widgets available in 2018, and once they're ordered, they're gone.

Granted, raising the price may also be good, because it restricts the market to "people who are willing to pay more" rather than "people who happen to order first", but sometimes that isn't desirable (this is a constant argument around eg PAX tickets).

$100 really isn't a lot of money for hand-made scissors. It's the starting point for high-quality hairdressing scissors, with prices ranging to over $1,000.

https://www.scissorscraft.co.uk/hairdressing-scissors

>It sounds like their sudden viral popularity created too many obligations to fulfill, but not enough to scale up sustainably. Truly victims of their own success.

The slashdot effect (do people use that term anymore? see also the reddit effect) for real life instead of web servers. The web creates very interesting problems in the rapid ability for demand to outstrip supply – websites were just the first examples but as stories like this illustrate, it can also be products – and Facebook, etc. show the social side where we often have too many things vying for our attention or social interaction and even compassion/things to care about. How do we smooth out those peaks and valleys? That's clearly part of what FB has tried to do with how they manage users feeds – and it's a dicey thing because that very thing has led to suspicion (rightly or wrongly)... some days it really does feel like we're at or just past that with which we are able to cope.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com