Price Gouging on New Twins Jerseys

[Vanimal46]

Extremely disappointing to see this. 

[Squirrel]

Setting a price on a luxury item, which a jersey is, is not price gouging. High priced? Certainly. So don't buy it. I won't. But that's not what price gouging is. Now, charging exorbitant prices on necessity items, like insulin, that's gouging.

[TopGunn#22]

Yeah, but you've got to admit, pricing it higher than an AUTOGRAPHED jersey of the top player from our Football, Hockey and Basketball teams does make one pause and say "HUH???"  

[Richie the Rally Goat]

7 hours ago, Squirrel said:

Setting a price on a luxury item, which a jersey is, is not price gouging. High priced? Certainly. So don't buy it. I won't. But that's not what price gouging is. Now, charging exorbitant prices on necessity items, like insulin, that's gouging.

Good perspective 

[Doctor Gast]

Are they for sale at Dior? ?

[Squirrel]

1 hour ago, TopGunn#22 said:

Yeah, but you've got to admit, pricing it higher than an AUTOGRAPHED jersey of the top player from our Football, Hockey and Basketball teams does make one pause and say "HUH???"  

Oh, it’s high priced, yes. I said that. And I won’t be buying one at that price. Curious enough, I went to the Twins site, they seem to only have limited quantities of the new jerseys and they say almost sold out. But the old jerseys are heavily discounted. I wonder if the price will come down next spring?

Frankly, I find simple tshirts way over priced for most sports and don’t buy those, either. I have a few hats. They are old, but still do just fine.

[DJL44]

This is the price the first day they came out. If you want one next summer they will probably cost less.

[wsnydes]

While I tend to agree with @Squirrel about the price gouging point, it's certainly taking advantage of people.  A pretty poor practice for a team that's struggling to get itself on TV and fill seats in the ballpark.

[Irishman]

I will never buy any MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL and other sports merchandise.   Those players make too much money.    Those players, owners and agents are greedy.   

[Squirrel]

1 minute ago, wsnydes said:

While I tend to agree with @Squirrel about the price gouging point, it's certainly taking advantage of people.  A pretty poor practice for a team that's struggling to get itself on TV and fill seats in the ballpark.

There’s a larger discussion in there somewhere that correlates to the decline in sports, in general, and luxury vs affordability. And then another on economics and supply and demand. And yet another with the adage, you have to spend money to make money. You want people to buy tickets and spend money on merchandise, put a winning team on the field. Not to complicate the discussion and take it down an unintended path with all of this, but back to the jersey … people have bought them and paid that price … I won’t participate in that. Until money is spent on a winning team, my spending will be at a very minimum on the team.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm a grown-ass man who can afford $400 for a jersey but would feel incredibly foolish doing so.

That's an absurd price. I have a Ducati-branded leather motorcycle jacket from a premiere Italian gear maker that cost me $450 ten-ish years ago. And the Twins want a similar price for literally a piece of cloth? LOL okay.

[wsnydes]

7 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

There’s a larger discussion in there somewhere that correlates to the decline in sports, in general, and luxury vs affordability. And then another on economics and supply and demand. And yet another with the adage, you have to spend money to make money. You want people to buy tickets and spend money on merchandise, put a winning team on the field. Not to complicate the discussion and take it down an unintended path with all of this, but back to the jersey … people have bought them and paid that price … I won’t participate in that. Until money is spent on a winning team, my spending will be at a very minimum on the team.

Oh, I agree.  And people do it to themselves, willingly.  That's on them.  But I think charging big prices for a blank jersey that exceed those for an autographed authentic jersey just because it's new and shiny is taking advantage of people.

I'm with you.  My spending has been cut back big time.  That's been that way for a number of years now.

[Linus]

Who cares?  Don’t buy them - problem solved. 

[Squirrel]

15 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I'm a grown-ass man who can afford $400 for a jersey but would feel incredibly foolish doing so.

That's an absurd price. I have a Ducati-branded leather motorcycle jacket from a premiere Italian gear maker that cost me $450 ten-ish years ago. And the Twins want a similar price for literally a piece of cloth? LOL okay.

The thing is, they will get that. I mean, some people lineup to get a new iPhone when it comes out just to have the new one first. At the Twins store online it clearly said, ‘limited supply’ and ‘almost sold out’. So they made some of the new ones, set a high price, then discounted all the old jerseys. I think it’s more a ploy to sell the old to make room for the new than anything else. People will think the other jerseys are a bargain by comparison, Those few who have to have it will buy it, and the rest will look at the much lower prices on the previous stuff, and buy it. It’s a sales tactic … and I bet it works. To me it’s hardly gouging as I stated above. Stupidly high priced? Yes, if your goal is to sell as many of the new as possible. But I think the goal is to sell as much of the old merchandise as possible. 

[Squirrel]

15 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

Oh, I agree.  And people do it to themselves, willingly.  That's on them.  But I think charging big prices for a blank jersey that exceed those for an autographed authentic jersey just because it's new and shiny is taking advantage of people.

I'm with you.  My spending has been cut back big time.  That's been that way for a number of years now.

As I just said to Brock, I think it’s more about selling out the old merchandise than anything. But what do I know other than … I won’t be buy either new or old.

And, again, I don’t considerate it gouging, but that’s also my opinion. And the price isn’t the sole reason, or the main reason, I won’t buy one.

[wsnydes]

2 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

As I just said to Brock, I think it’s more about selling out the old merchandise than anything. But what do I know other than … I won’t be buy either new or old.

And, again, I don’t considerate it gouging, but that’s also my opinion. And the price isn’t the sole reason, or the main reason, I won’t buy one.

That's a valid point, but they could still discount the old stuff while selling the new stuff at a "reasonable" price like they likely will by next season.  They've essentially doubled the price of the new jerseys and made a blank one cost more than a player specific jersey has been.  To me, that's taking advantage of those that need to have the new shiny thing.

[Linus]

2 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

That's a valid point, but they could still discount the old stuff while selling the new stuff at a "reasonable" price like they likely will by next season.  They've essentially doubled the price of the new jerseys and made a blank one cost more than a player specific jersey has been.  To me, that's taking advantage of those that need to have the new shiny thing.

Then that’s on the people that “need” to have the shiny new thing. Sheesh it’s a Jersey not insulin. 

[Squirrel]

3 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

That's a valid point, but they could still discount the old stuff while selling the new stuff at a "reasonable" price like they likely will by next season.  They've essentially doubled the price of the new jerseys and made a blank one cost more than a player specific jersey has been.  To me, that's taking advantage of those that need to have the new shiny thing.

I hardly call it taking advantage when one can afford to spend that on a shirt. Seriously. And I’ll be way off topic if I expound on that further, so I’ll leave it at that. ?

[wsnydes]

3 minutes ago, Linus said:

Then that’s on the people that “need” to have the shiny new thing. Sheesh it’s a Jersey not insulin. 

I'm not arguing that it is.  I've not said that it is in any of my posts.  I've even said that the people that buy them are doing it willingly and that that's one them.  That doesn't mean that they aren't being taken advantage of.  They're simply complicit in it.

I'm agreeing that it's not price gouging.  I'm saying that it's taking advantage of people.  That's not the same thing to me.  Those are two different things in my opinion.

[wsnydes]

7 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

I hardly call it taking advantage when one can afford to spend that on a shirt. Seriously. And I’ll be way off topic if I expound on that further, so I’ll leave it at that. ?

My take is being conflated into something it is not.  As I mentioned in my reply to Linus, in my mind price gouging and taking advantage of people are two different things.  At least in this instance.  The people that buy these jerseys are doing it willingly, but that doesn't mean that the team isn't taking advantage of them.  Those people are simply complicit in it.  They don't need to buy the jersey, people need to their insulin.  That's price gouging because it is needed.  Nobody needs a jersey, they just want it because "shiny" and will pay whatever price for it.  That's taking advantage.

[DJL44]

20 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

To me, that's taking advantage of those that need to have the new shiny thing.

1) That's capitalism

2) People who will pay anything to have the new shiny thing deserve to be taken advantage of.

[Brock Beauchamp]

55 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

The thing is, they will get that. I mean, some people lineup to get a new iPhone when it comes out just to have the new one first. At the Twins store online it clearly said, ‘limited supply’ and ‘almost sold out’. So they made some of the new ones, set a high price, then discounted all the old jerseys. I think it’s more a ploy to sell the old to make room for the new than anything else. People will think the other jerseys are a bargain by comparison, Those few who have to have it will buy it, and the rest will look at the much lower prices on the previous stuff, and buy it. It’s a sales tactic … and I bet it works. To me it’s hardly gouging as I stated above. Stupidly high priced? Yes, if your goal is to sell as many of the new as possible. But I think the goal is to sell as much of the old merchandise as possible. 

I mean, they'll get it in some cases but there comes a point where prices are just foolish. People are clamoring for the hot newness but that will wear off in a hurry. I'm not a big jersey guy but have considered buying a Twin Cities jersey. No way in hell is that going to happen at these price points.

As I mentioned, if prices for jerseys start overlapping with premium Italian leather I've purchased in the not-so-long-ago past, things are wildly out of hand. I've spent a lot on motorcycle gear over the years. If a Twins jersey is 75% of the price of the new top-shelf carbon fibre helmet I bought just last year, the Twins are being absolutely foolish with these prices.

Hell, my wife has quite nice motorcycle gear and a lot of it. I'm not sure any single piece of it cost $380, including her very nice name-brand helmet. And we're talking about state-of-the-art gear with multiple layers, triple-stitching, exotic materials, padding. etc. These prices are asinine.

[wsnydes]

30 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

1) That's capitalism

2) People who will pay anything to have the new shiny thing deserve to be taken advantage of.

Agreed.  Those people do pretty much ask to be taken advantage of, but that doesn't disprove my point that they are, in fact, being taken advantage of.  That was my point.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

Value is a relative word in capitalism.  The true value of something is what someone is willing to pay.

If enough people think these prices are too high, they won't buy them.  Enough don't buy and prices come down.

The owners are rich for a reason.  Any of you in their position would do the exact same thing.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[Linus]

12 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

Agreed.  Those people do pretty much ask to be taken advantage of, but that doesn't disprove my point that they are, in fact, being taken advantage of.  That was my point.

It’s a voluntary transaction. Nobody is taking advantage of anybody. It’s called supply and demand. 

[Squirrel]

24 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I mean, they'll get it in some cases but there comes a point where prices are just foolish. People are clamoring for the hot newness but that will wear off in a hurry. I'm not a big jersey guy but have considered buying a Twin Cities jersey. No way in hell is that going to happen at these price points.

As I mentioned, if prices for jerseys start overlapping with premium Italian leather I've purchased in the not-so-long-ago past, things are wildly out of hand. I've spent a lot on motorcycle gear over the years. If a Twins jersey is 75% of the price of the new top-shelf carbon fibre helmet I bought just last year, the Twins are being absolutely foolish with these prices.

Hell, my wife has quite nice motorcycle gear and a lot of it. I'm not sure any single piece of it cost $380, including her very nice name-brand helmet. And we're talking about state-of-the-art gear with multiple layers, triple-stitching, exotic materials, padding. etc. These prices are asinine.

I don't think we actually disagree. My whole initial point was that I wouldn't call it price gouging. Over priced? Certainly. And I won't buy it. And that some will, well, that's on them. I typically won't even buy a jersey at a 'normal' price because that's too high for me. But I would be curious to see if that price then 'incentivizes' people to buy the now reduced-priced jerseys of the 'old' stuff.

[wsnydes]

1 hour ago, Linus said:

It’s a voluntary transaction. Nobody is taking advantage of anybody. It’s called supply and demand. 

Supply and demand principles apply to both scenarios.  They apply very differently, but they do apply.  And one transaction just has consequences.

Edited November 23, 2022 by wsnydes
Clarification of point.

[DJL44]

I'm sure you'll be able to find counterfeit knock-offs in time for the holidays.

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

The owners are rich for a reason.  Any of you in their position would do the exact same thing.

And this is a problem because it’s untrue. I’m here to earn a living, not rake everyone over the coals and then bleed them dry.

Assuming everyone is eager to be crappy only glosses over and emboldens the people who actually ARE doing crappy things. 

[Fire Dan Gladden]

1 minute ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

And this is a problem because it’s untrue. I’m here to earn a living, not rake everyone over the coals and then bleed them dry.

Assuming everyone is eager to be crappy only glosses over and emboldens the people who actually ARE doing crappy things. 

Where is line between making money and raking over the coals?  It is subjective.

Brock. if you could earn 10% more than you do knowing it would not change your customer base, you would.  If you say you wouldn't, you are not being honest.  At what point does it become gouging?  20%?  50%?

I come to TD, there is a paywall to access certain information.  Sure, it may be "relatively" inexpensive... Now.  TD grows and the price goes up.  Is this crappy?

I am not talking about basic necessities.  Not medicine.  Most of these items are regulated by the government, or self-regulated by competition.  This is a luxury item, you don't need it to survive.