Sotheby's and Whatnot are completely different businesses except for the fact that they both sell second-hand goods. Regardless:
Cost of scaling up is the key.
Sotheby's takes possession of the items it sells. That means legacy real estate, employees, insurance, etc. It also has to fulfill its orders. For Sotheby's to expand using its business model requires more capital investment, both physical and human capital.
Whatnot never touches a tangible item. Its marginal cost to add another item to the offerings is essentially nothing.
As a result of the different models, each company has different clientele. Sotheby's has to take a relatively large cut of the gross to keep the lights on and the champagne chilled. It can only handle items that are sufficiently significant to be cost effective. Many potential consignors are unable to meet the necessary valuations so they are shut out, which also necessarily shuts out a large pool of bidders who simply cannot afford to bid on anything they sell. Whatnot takes a far smaller cut of the gross and it allows essentially anyone to be a seller or a buyer.
Now, I'd observe that Whatnot is rife with shill bidding, but Sotheby's has been nailed for tax fraud and price fixing. Neither is squeaky clean.
And to Scott's later point, value is merely perception. The stock 'market' is just the intersection of two conflicting bets on a company. It is delusional to think that there is intrinsic usable value to anything except that which one can hold and consume or wield to force others to turn over their consumables. The current mindset is merely the democratization of the driving force of all investment: money. Pile up the money because it buys security, safety, health and freedom in our Ferengi-lite society. The kids today are perhaps more nakedly crass about it, but they are no different than we are. "I create nothing. I own." Gordon Gekko. That was 38 years ago.
Last edited by Exhibitman; 11-04-2025 at 01:31 PM.
|
11-04-2025, 01:21 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode