|
|
 Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Fine.
1. increase prices
2. cut costs
3. invest in marketing
4. invest in product
Yeah my point was completely invalidated.
Well it kinda fucks up your decision tree, doesn't it? Doesn't it look like this now?
1) Increase Prices and let the revenue flow to the bottom line. Kids keep learning, investors get dividends, everybody wins.
2) Increase Prices and reinvest the additional income into the school in the hopes of attracting new revenue streams (more students)
2a) Use additional new revenue to invest in marketing
2b) Use additional new revenue to invest in product
3) Cut Costs, i.e. degrade the quality of the product.
It seems that your point is that a for-profit school system would be compelled by the free market forces to prioritize bottom line financial results over the quality of education provided to it's students.
You're saying that when faced with profitability concerns, a school administrator's first move would be to cut costs. The first page of the playbook is to diminish the amount and quality of services provided. Your first post seemed to espouse the idea that only an "idiot" would do anything other than this.
But supposing the administrator IS an idiot, you believe his next move would be to take more money out of a failing business and then use it to gamble on measures that may or may not attract more students.
Also in your scenario, it never occurs to this administrator to invest in the quality of service in order to justify a higher price to his existing students.
Unless I'm mistaken, your premise here is that the privatization of education will result in a system where student's concerns rank last. But in order to prove that, you need to use a decision tree that is devoid of the most obvious and beneficial solutions.
Well played
|
Reply With Quote