It's not such a bizarre concept, think about it when you've made a comparison on products that you may not be familiar with.
Depending on the task at hand and whether or not you want the product to last - chances are that you do not select the cheapest amongst the options.
Think about clothing and your opinion on the quality of a pair of jeans.
If you're like most people, then the scale will look like this :
$20 / £12 :: nope, they'll self destruct after the first time worn
$50 / £30 :: could be OK, but probably won't fit all that well
$150 / £90 :: yes - this is the pair I'll choose
$350 / £220 :: I'd buy these for a very special occasion
$800 / £500 :: are you serious?
$1,200 / £700 :: now we know your joking
The common perception is the first 2 pairs will be substandard in some way, probably poor construction and certainly low quality material.
The middle 2 pairs will be the best value and will be made from a nicer, longer lasting material and will fit nicely too.
The last 2 could be a practical test to see if you'll actually spend your money on such a thing?
Of course, these 3 price brackets are a random guide and while based on some fact, the numbers could be skewed to reflect a certain position.
The point is that most consumers use price as a guide for quality.
Does the cheapest price always win, or are some people more cautious of what actually goes in to a product?
