[staticfish]

> you have to pick your approach and commit to it.

I somewhat agree with this, especially when we are talking about higher brand companies appeasing cheaper consumables.

However, the other way around, it can be done effectively. Take for IKEA instance. They made inroads into Europe and American homes, and did it by offering cheaper, well-designed and modern alternatives made of particle board. After seeing some customers wanted higher-quality products with the same design aesthetic, they introduced a sliding scale of products from cheap-and-cheerful, to better constructed, yet still flatpacked materials.

Customers could then choose the desired range and quality on a sliding scale for each product. This model seems to have worked well for them.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

That's sort of what Mercedes does, with their C-class cars. I understand that European cabs are yet another class, that is not available, on this side of the pond.

The other day, I was stopped behind a brand new Tesla Model S. Looked like about a $90,000 USD trim package.

The trunk was out of square.

Not that much, but noticeable.

I don't think the cheapest Mercedes would ever go out the door, with that kind of flaw. It's a matter of a couple of tweaks with an Allen wrench, to fix.

[sanderjd]

Yeah good call. My statement was definitely not nuanced enough. I think it's more like: The base case is that it works best to pick an approach and stick with it. But sometimes there is a strategic opportunity to change approaches, which can be high reward, but also carries high risk.

I think it's also rare to successfully go the opposite direction, taking a high value brand mass market. I mean, I think it's a common "successful" cash grab strategy, but not a success in the sense of improving the long term fundamentals of the business.