Compendium of Christian Theology on Community Pricing

RonaldQuick said:

Just wanted to let people know there is a new resource on Community Pricing.

Already on it!  Hope it moves.

I bid $20

I'm bidding for this too, but I don't really understand the logic of placing a higher bid rather than a lower bid. For example, right now, $10, $12 and $14 are pretty much even so why bid for $20 (or even $14) rather than $10?

Joe Miller said:

I hope more folks will also bid on the Charles Finney collection.

I'm not seeing that on the Community Pricing page... ?

Hi John

   It is my understanding that a bid of 20 dollars would increase the graph from 1 dollar to 20 dollars.  If I am correct?

You've misunderstood my point. I guess it's more of a question. Is Logos averaging the bids or are they keeping them separate. For example, say there is an item that will cost $100 to produce. Three people bid $25 and one person bids $50. Does this mean that Logos would send the item into production at $43.75? Or does this mean that you either need one more person to bid $25 or one more person to bid $50?

If it isn't averaged then I'm not doing anyone any favors by bidding $50, in fact I'm hurting the bidding pool. If it is averaged, then I'm still not necessarily helping those who only wanted to bid $25. So it seems smart to just bid lower and see how other bids start coming in (if the item is new or doesn't have a lot of bids) or to bid on whichever price has the most support. If there are a lot of bids at $10 and none at $50, why would I bid $50?

JackCaviness said:

John Bowling said:

For example, say there is an item that will cost $100 to produce. Three people bid $25 and one person bids $50. Does this mean that Logos would send the item into production at $43.75? Or does this mean that you either need one more person to bid $25 or one more person to bid $50?

The latter is true. If you bid $50, then it is logical to assume that you would also be willing to pay any price up to and including $50. Thus, in your example, you have placed one bid for $50 or one bid for $25, or one bid for $30, etc. To continue your example, if 10 people each bid $50, the product would the move to Pre-Pub with your order for the product at $10.

To continue the example farther, if you only bid $10 and Jack and I bid $30 and three people bid $20 the book would go into production for $20. 5 bids of $20 or more equal $100. Unless you raise your bid during that last week or four more people bid $10 or more, you will not get the book at the community pricing discount.

This means you should always bid the MAXIMUM you are willing to pay on your very first bid. There is no risk to you missing the lowest price, because regardless of how high your bid you are alway guaranteed the lowest price. However, if you are biding less than you are willing to pay you are risking not getting the resource and your are also not helping the resource get into production as quickly as it might.

What has historically happened is many people during that last week raise ridiculously low bids. If only these people had bid at a more realistic level in the first place the resource might have gone into production sooner. I am afraid this is what has happened with Barnes Notes.

If what I've said is correct (and neither of you have denied that it is), then this is inaccurate.

Think about how bidding is conducted in an auction. Do people bid the maximum they are willing to pay on their very first bid? No, that would be absurd. No one gets as good a deal as they could if they go all out on every item. 

I realize, Keith, that what you're saying is in line with the Logos blog on "A Bidding Strategy for Community Pricing," but I think it's mistaken or bad advise.

P. Keith Larson said:

Unless you raise your bid during that last week or four more people bid $10 or more, you will not get the book at the community pricing discount.

Exactly, so the person should watch the item closely and move it up if he needs to.

P. Keith Larson said:

This means you should always bid the MAXIMUM you are willing to pay on your very first bid.

I strongly disagree that this is the conclusion to draw from your scenario. The smart conclusion, I think, is that you should keep a close eye on the Community Pricing board (they also send out emails). If everyone bids the maximum they are willing to pay then you are guaranteed to pay the highest MARKET price for any item! Is that a good deal? No. 

So no one is doing themselves or the other bidders any favors by bidding the maximum price they are willing to pay. If everyone worked under the same logic then the very point of the Community Pricing board is, well... pointless (assuming Logos publishes all their resources roughly at the highest market value).

P. Keith Larson said: There is no risk to you missing the lowest price, because regardless of how high your bid you are alway guaranteed the lowest price.

This statement is deceiving (though not intentionally) because "lowest price" in your scenario is actually the highest market price since everyone bid the maximum value. When people think of "lowest price" when they are shopping for a bargain they usually think below the market value or, at the very least, below the highest market value. So in any other scenario I think we would correctly say that your statement is false, and it seems to be false in this scenario too.

P. Keith Larson said:

However, if you are biding less than you are willing to pay you are risking not getting the resource and your are also not helping the resource get into production as quickly as it might.

That's how auctions work. In fact, that's how all of capitalism works. Investments and transactions are risky. If I go to Best Buy (the electronic store) and see a T.V. for $500 it would be risky for me to go home and check around to see if I could get a better deal. By the time I find out, the sale may be over or the item may be sold out. But to just assume that $500 is the "lowest price" is entirely unreasonable. On the Logos Community Pricing board that risk is reduced because they notify you of when your bid is too low or you can simply check yourself. So it's not a great risk, unless you plan on ignoring an item that you bid on for over a week. The other option you are promoting puts everyone at risk of paying the highest market price for an item, in fact it guarantees it. 

As far as "into production as quickly as it might," I'm willing to wait an extra few months to pay $7 for an item rather than $20. That's over 50% "discount."  I think most people are willing to do the same (as evidenced by Black Friday).

Maybe I'm thinking about the whole thing wrong, if so I would like to know. That's why I asked the question. But it still seems to me that the "Bidding Strategy for Community Pricing" blog (that apparently many people have adopted) is wrong and needs to be changed. Of course, that assumes that your bidding strategy is to pay the lowest possible price (which could never be achieved by bid your maximum!). 

[Edit: In fact maybe I should go post this as a comment under that blog so more people don't get misled]

Ted Hans said:

John Bowling said:

P. Keith Larson said:

Unless you raise your bid during that last week or four more people bid $10 or more, you will not get the book at the community pricing discount.

 

Exactly, so the person should watch the item closely and move it up if he needs to.

That is what i do. After a while one can safely predict what a product on community pricing will end up costing. One just has to watch the graph and adjust ones bid.

This can work for adjusting one's bid downward, too. Sometimes it helps to get momentum going if you bid a bit higher than you'd ultimately hope to pay (even though you might be willing). More people tend to come on board once something reaches 80% because they fear if they don't hurry up they might miss the deal altogether.

Kevin Becker said:

My understanding of Community Pricing is that it covers the costs to produce a title. period. Logos only makes a profit on sales after Community Pricing produces a title

I was taking this into account (cf. my earlier post).

Kevin Becker said:

So, if everyone bids $40 it doesn't necessarily mean that the book will cost $40. Say it takes $1000 dollars to cover production costs of a title. If 100 people bid $40 dollars the final price should be $10 dollars.

If this is the case it may be better (or more accurate?) if Logos gave us an estimate of the production costs and a graph that represents the number of people willing to participate rather than (or in addition to) the amount of money they are willing to bid (since that would turn out to be virtually irrelevant in such scenarios). Let's say 49 people bid $20 dollars on the current layout and then 50 other people see that there is a lot of support for $20, but aren't willing to pay that. If they knew that their contribution would actually mean they only have to pay $10 then they would probably participate. 

John Bowling said:

If this is the case it may be better (or more accurate?) if Logos gave us an estimate of the production costs and a graph that represents the number of people willing to participate rather than (or in addition to) the amount of money they are willing to bid (since that would turn out to be virtually irrelevant in such scenarios). Let's say 49 people bid $20 dollars on the current layout and then 50 other people see that there is a lot of support for $20, but aren't willing to pay that. If they knew that their contribution would actually mean they only have to pay $10 then they would probably participate. 

I'd further point out that I think low bidding is still a good idea in this scenario. Assuming an item costs $100 to produce, what if two people almost immediately bid $50 because they are so crazy about the product? Then the "bidding" will be closed quickly (maybe within a week or two) and, if no one else notices the item, then they pay $50 whereas if they had bid lower and allowed the item to gather more interest and come to more people's attention they could have paid less.

So even from this angle it seems better to initially bid lower rather than higher.