Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Extreme sustained profit margins are usually a signal that something fishy is going on.



A lot of brands have extreme profit margins on what they sell, but this is not considered illegal. Hell, a lot of brands are just reselling the same cheap goods as everyone else and charging more simply for having their name on it, but this is considered a perfectly valid business model.


>reselling the same cheap goods as everyone else and charging more simply for having their name on it

I've always seen this as slightly shady even if it is considered a valid business model.

It's often unclear if consumers are fooled about the true quality of goods, whether they are Veblen goods.

If it's a Veblen good or if they genuinely do value the brand name alone then I guess it's fine but it's not too exactly ethical to fool consumers about the quality of your products or what the brand actually represents (which is what consumers always say they value about brands - not the name itself).

I'm likewise not very sympathetic to the idea that these brands deserve government protection from knock offs. If consumers genuinely aren't bothered about whether their Nike shirt is "real" why does the government need to be?


I think it is the Extreme "Net Profits Margin" that is fishy.

Extreme Gross profits margin is entirely what enables marketing and funding for luxury brands.


> … profit margins …

… are completely dependent on what expenses are attributed to the revenue by the cost accountant. Is producing WWDC an App Store cost?


It's certainly accounted as a cost by Apple when it calculates its 37.8% gross profit margin.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: