This pricing theory does not put pricing at the will of the most ignorant consumer. It puts pricing at a point where profits are maximized. If the price is lowered, then more people buy, but at a reduced overall profit. If prices are raised, a higher profit is made per unit, but the reduced number of buyers yields a lower overall profit.
Another benefit of pricing with this method rather than pure costing is that cost efficiencies are a reward to the seller, not the buyer.
I guess the litmus test would be for the manufacturer to ask himself:
"Would I pay this much for this product?" If not, then they have placed
themselves in an adversarial position with the consumer.
And when I say 'the most ignorant consumer' I mean uninformed.
There
are people who will pay unrealistic prices for products. Those people are
part of the market, and if they will pay an unrealistic price, then this is
what the market will bear. Ergo, the pricing (what the market will bear)
is at the will (actions) of the most ignorant (uninformed) consumer.
Cost efficiencies SHOULD be a reward to the seller (manfacturer) but
first we need to define 'efficiencies'. Are we talking about finding better
ways of containing costs? Great. Streamlining the manufacturing process?
Wonderful. But if we're talking about lowering the quality of the product
and keeping the price the same (or more likely, raising it anyway) then
this is where the consumer is likely to talk with their wallet. It is one of
the reasons companies are losing what used to be known as 'brand
loyalty' .. and archaic term, now. And the business climate has changed
so drastically in the last several decades that many companies do not
consider the customer .. only the consumer. There is a much greater
remove than there used to be.. so much so that when a company really
DOES take care of their customers, it stands out as being unusual.
And often these kinds of 'efficiency' decisions are made my people who
know it's a bad move, but they'll make their quarterly numbers, get their
bonus and move onto the next company before anyone catches on .. but
that's a whole different discussion..