I didn't read it that way at all. I read it as another slant on the pricing-on-value-not-cost debate.
The point of the article as I read it is not that £2 is cheap - hell I come from a generation where the idea of charging £2 for a cup of bloody coffee seems insanely expensive - but that you're not spending the £2 because it's cheap. You're spending it because it brings you significant value.
Selling yourself on cost, especially comparative cost to a different product/service, is not - in my experience anyway - a terribly effective technique outside of commodities. For just the reason outlined in this article. Sell on value instead.
No, you're spending the 2 pounds because you think it's worth it.
So that STILL makes his argument nothing more than "I don't think your product is worth the 2 pounds" argument, which still makes the logic of his post absolutely missing the mark.
The point of the article as I read it is not that £2 is cheap - hell I come from a generation where the idea of charging £2 for a cup of bloody coffee seems insanely expensive - but that you're not spending the £2 because it's cheap. You're spending it because it brings you significant value.
Selling yourself on cost, especially comparative cost to a different product/service, is not - in my experience anyway - a terribly effective technique outside of commodities. For just the reason outlined in this article. Sell on value instead.