You get what you pay for

Over the last few years, I have photographed 4 weddings. The main reason that they chose me for their special day was of course, they couldn't afford a professional. I am actually not so bad but I really don't like the stress of shooting weddings because regardless of what the couple say, they all care about the results and despite paying a quarter of the cost, assume that they will be on par.

You get what you pay for.

I of course do my best and spend a massive amount of time taking too many photos and editing about 10 times as many as they would get from a professional. So far they at least seem happy enough and, they are the ones who have either recommended me on or, people have seen the results and asked if I would do theirs.

What happens if you don't pay anything for a photographer? What if instead of paying anything, after the wedding you asked people to send whatever photos they did take and they would be used as the wedding photos? Would you be happy with the results. The photos would likely be interesting but would you be happy putting them on your bedside table for the next 50 years?

While there are plenty of things one can do for free, some things do require purchase and in general, there is some kind of correlation between price paid and product received. Of course this doesn't apply to a lot of consumables, but what about services? Especially of the kind that are on display, are used, reviewed and spread through word of mouth. Is a good lawyer a cheap lawyer, a good restaurant the one no one recommends?

These things aren't necessarily about price, but social confirmation - a web of trust to some degree. A lawyer has a track record and is unlikely to be getting paid if continually losing or screwing up. A restaurant has patrons who pay for the privilege and therefore are under no obligation to give a favorable review, unless they get some reason for doing so - like "give us a good review on XYZsite and get a 20% discount". Incentivized to lie? Call in the lawyer.

These days I often think about the price of things and the value they are going to bring me. Some things are necessary like food so the value is life, other things are want and preference based and are therefore less valuable, but often come with the higher price tag. While people in Finland complain about the price of food, a large number of people have no problem with spending their income on beer or cigarettes and most people own the latest phones, TVs and the like.

A few months ago my niece was visiting me and asked, "how old is your TV?". 13 years. "Ancient!! Does it work?" Yes.

For my wife and I, a TV isn't high on the agenda of things we need or use. We don't really have time for much and when we do we stream it meaning that while the TV isn't smart, it does have a chromecast attached to it. It is smart enough and likely still tracks every move we make in the house because you know - Google does no evil.

But value is an interesting concept because what one finds valuable, another might find utterly useless. We all likely have an internal hierarchy of what we value in this life and if we thought about it, we could probably create a list, but it will only be through our actions that the list order would actually be discovered and then, only cross-referenced with the conditions at the time. A hungry person values food more than a person who has just eaten.

Timing is a pretty important aspect of value also, as it is one of the conditions that alter the value proposition. That steak dinner isn't very valuable to a person who starved to death 10 minutes ago - and getting the lottery numbers the day after the draw isn't very useful.

While everyone values different things, there are also pretty good predictors toward ending up in certain positions. If someone spends all of their income on consumables, it is unlikely they will ever have financial security of any kind. If someone only buys heroin, the outcome is likely going to be predictable. If someone invests some of their income into things that are likely to increase in value, that too is relatively predictable. There are of course various ranges of risk involved, but even the risk models are models alone - the true risk is an unknown as there are always factors that can't be calculated that will positively and negatively impact on the outcomes.

For example on Steem people may see it as a risky investment , but if there was a killer app built on Steem, that entire risk model would change completely and in hindsight, what seemed risky might actually look quite obvious. This is the risk of investing into the future of course, and one that many don't take. But again, it comes down to value and what people's hierarchy.

For me, I figure my wife and daughter are going to outlive me and I want to be able to provide something for them, if only economic opportunity to have a larger range of possibilities to choose from without as much worry. That requires investing into the future and, that always comes with risk. If I buy a new television the risk model is known, as is the eventual value of it because it is near certain that it will not only depreciate, it will depreciate to zero.

But, people like certainty, they like knowing what they are getting and you get what you pay for. Many people pay for the certainty that what they buy is going to be worthless, some prefer to pay for the uncertainty that what they buy might be more valuable than the purchase price. It is all part of the choices we make daily in our lives and, what we value in our lives.

My wife and I eloped, she wore a 40€ dress that I altered by hand to fit and have selfies as wedding photos.
They do sit on our bedside table.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]