Talk:Loss leader

The following sentence in the article makes no sense:

In these situations, it can be harder for dealers who use "fruitshop"-style trading methods of purchasing to negotiate buying larger quantities of consumables at cheaper cost price in order to sell them off cheaper.

Games consoles are listed as Loss Leaders AND low margin products. Which is it? --Irrevenant 12:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

depends on the console. indeed, some consoles may start as loss leaders, then become low margin, or switch between the 2. they have a lot of 3rd parties involved in their manufacture so it varies.--80.169.130.30 14:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prohibits voiding a warranty for using generic parts. Most auto parts stores couldn't exist without something like that, which leads me to believe that there are similar laws in other countries, anyone know anything else so I can make an intelligent edit? 24.24.40.70 15:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nintendo was able to profit on the sales of its Gamecube console for a short time before selling it at a loss. "

As far as I know, Nintendo never sold a console at a loss and was always profitable (except for one quarter in about 100 years). Besides, how in the world can the article say that the Gamecube was sold at a profit and then, as time went on, started to lose money? Electronic parts almost always decrease in cost - plus they had a redesign that eliminated some video components. I'm deleting that sentence.

Oh please. “Nintendo never sold a console at a loss”? So you're saying the all their consoles actually cost under $200 to build on launch? I find that impossible to believe without mountains of evidence.76.126.134.152 (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the iTunes example is quite right here. Although the margins on songs purchased through iTunes is small, Apple relies on the fact that they sell many many of them, and they actually do make profit on those songs. The costs to Apple of digital storage, maintenance, support, etc. are amortized across the huge volume of individual songs that are sold. iPods are indeed related products (that Apple makes profit on, as well), but one can buy an iPod without purchasing songs through iTunes, and vice versa.

Please sign your posts. Whether or not you think the iTMS is a loss leader is irrelevant Steve Jobs himself says it is. 76.126.134.152 (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this line: "Items offered as loss leaders are often bulky or perishable, making it difficult for the customer to buy in bulk so as to encourage repeat visits to the shop." is easily interpreted the wrong way around: it can be interpreted as if the shop wants to avoid the repeat visits. this happened to me. Bewareircd 18:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a general clean-up and I tried to take all the existing comments here into account and clarified to the best of my ability. Canadiana 18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a minor style cleanup to improve the article, trying to make it sound more like an article and less like a blog or editorial. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 02:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm British, and had never heard this phrase before. A quick Google suggests that it's very uncommon. "Loss leader" is vastly more commonly used in everyday speech. We need a reference for KVI, and not just the extremely basic one at NationMaster. 81.158.1.156 (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]