I agree. Great product, great prices, keep up the good work.
A lot of people might help to better understand the situation if they realized that there is a different between PRICE and COST. Flo's prices are low relative to the competition, but given the scarcity and irregular ordering process, the cost to the consumer is considerably higher. The consumer must accept not receiving the product exactly when they want, must accept the uncertainty that they might not get said product, must scour slowtwitch for ordering info, must be at their computer when the time is right, and so on. If your time is valuable, then you might not accept the opportunity cost of being a Flo customer, and instead opt to pay higher prices for greater convenience from Zipp, HED, etc. Conversely, if you value your time less highly, then your opportunity cost is lower, to the effective overall cost of a Flo wheel is lower, so you try to buy Flo.
There are many similar scenarios in other business. For example, recently I wanted to buy a bunch of high-quality ties. Two possible options were to buy a bunch of new ties from known companies that produce quality, durable, attractive ties. Whereas another option was to visit 10 thrift stores in my urban city, hunting out the great finds, accepting that there is uncertainty, that it will take an entire day or more, that the ties may not fit me properly, etc. Option 1 is expensive in price, option 2 is cheap in price, but depending on how you value the opportunity cost of your time, they might be roughly equal. In fact, since I ended up going option 1, assuming I am a rational actor, the sum cost was actually cheaper for option 1.
There is no right of wrong answer for the consumer. If you feel that the cost of Flo is too much for you, pay higher prices for wheels from another company. If it's not, try to buy Flo.
Now what is best for the company is a different matter, and as others have stated that would require way more info, which none of us have.
A lot of people might help to better understand the situation if they realized that there is a different between PRICE and COST. Flo's prices are low relative to the competition, but given the scarcity and irregular ordering process, the cost to the consumer is considerably higher. The consumer must accept not receiving the product exactly when they want, must accept the uncertainty that they might not get said product, must scour slowtwitch for ordering info, must be at their computer when the time is right, and so on. If your time is valuable, then you might not accept the opportunity cost of being a Flo customer, and instead opt to pay higher prices for greater convenience from Zipp, HED, etc. Conversely, if you value your time less highly, then your opportunity cost is lower, to the effective overall cost of a Flo wheel is lower, so you try to buy Flo.
There are many similar scenarios in other business. For example, recently I wanted to buy a bunch of high-quality ties. Two possible options were to buy a bunch of new ties from known companies that produce quality, durable, attractive ties. Whereas another option was to visit 10 thrift stores in my urban city, hunting out the great finds, accepting that there is uncertainty, that it will take an entire day or more, that the ties may not fit me properly, etc. Option 1 is expensive in price, option 2 is cheap in price, but depending on how you value the opportunity cost of your time, they might be roughly equal. In fact, since I ended up going option 1, assuming I am a rational actor, the sum cost was actually cheaper for option 1.
There is no right of wrong answer for the consumer. If you feel that the cost of Flo is too much for you, pay higher prices for wheels from another company. If it's not, try to buy Flo.
Now what is best for the company is a different matter, and as others have stated that would require way more info, which none of us have.
