Not at all. Competition is a key characteristic of each segmented market, and will play a major part in determining what price points are most profitable in that market.
The US is a large and very competitive market, and it does not surprise me that the margins there are squeezed compared to elsewhere in the world. Since the 33% mark is generally considered pushing the envelope, its quite consistent that this would be the commonly applicable number in a competitive and large market such as the US. Greater competition means the margins are pressured, but the size of the market means the volume is there to allow for viability even at reduced margins.
The UK market is obviously smaller, and the competitive landscape is very different. That Ashdown charge GBP149 in the US for the same piece of gear they charge GBP199 in the UK is testament to this. Clearly, these pricing decisions really have no serious rationalisation in terms of additional costs one way or the other, whether they be shipping costs, component costs, importing costs distributor channel costs, or whatever.
And thats really the only point Im trying to get across in all this. Businesses will charge the customers what they can; they want more, not less money from you on every transaction. The idea that a cost incurred is automatically passed on in the retail price is wrong, as is the converse that a cost saving will be automatically passed on in the retail prices. Its simply a pervasive myth that retail prices are determined primarily by supply chain costs; the costs provide a constraint on the downside (no one can stay in business very long selling at a loss), but they are not a constraint on the upside. Other factors like competition play a much more important part in that role.
-Mark
