1st off, how does a rebate being in 1 country or worldwide change anything? Places with a rebate get a demand increase and places without a rebate don't. 2nd, Sony is trying to increase appeal and not increase sales?!?!? I think you need to look up the word contradiction. Ppl that buy the system while the sale is going on and mail-in the rebate too late are going to mind.

           Bottom line is, you still haven't explained how, a mail-in rebate is better than store price cut for appeal. If a consumer sees 1 company doing permanent in-store price cuts, and then sees another company just doing a small temporarily mail-in rebate, you don't think that effects the way average consumers value the discount?

          I think I've explained my opinion as clearly as it needs to be explained and  most reasonable ppl are going to get it. I assume, you're either grasping at straws, trying to discredit it, or completely oblivious to the point. I really don't know much more obvious it could be. Either way, I think it's time to move along. It's evidently an old rebate that hasn't effected much of anything.

Could sony be trying a bunch of targeted little promotions because they can't afford a big one?  Trying to maximize effectiveness even if it won't result in large shifts but only minor ones?

If so it's an interesting strategy.

1. Rebate being in one country changes losses.

2. I never said they weren't trying to increase sales. I said they weren't trying to create high demand.

3. I think I have a very good understanding of contradiction so... no thanks.

4. I never said it was better for appeal.

5. You don't think this is targetting certain consumers of a specific product? You think Sony is going for the general audience and not just the people who want a Ps3 but are looking at it's price? I got news for you.

6. I feel the same way

The idea isn't to create high demand like you are making it seem. The idea is to make it seem more appealing. and the rebate will do that. and people will buy more while thinking of the rebate price.

the second idea of this is to loose less money than an official price cut.

And there was no contradiction. It's pretty obvious a 50 dollar rebate (mail in) in one country for a select period of time will lose less money than a new global price point... even if the cut was as little as 5 dollars per console (versus the 50 dollar rebate) they would still lose more.

Why would people mind? It's either pay full price for it now and get money back or pay full price later and get nothing. Rebates are nothing new and people realize they are just a special deal for a limited time and the realize if they want one then no matter what they'll have to pay full price... just if they buy one now they'll get 50 dollars back.

Doublespeak much?  Increased demand leads to increased sales, you can't have one without the other.

Yes you did, see below. 

on topic: Well, it certainly can't hurt PS3 sales, but as noted higher up a true price cut with proper advertising would have a much greater effect.

 You should probablly read what I was responding to next time you try and prove me wrong or else you'll make yourself look silly again.

My response was to an assertion you made that was false (more detail below), regardless of context , and btw, I did read that post. 

I was saying I never said a mail in rebate was more appealing than a new global lower price point. And that is true.

Then we agree on this point now, but in your previous post it sure seemed like you were trying to prove the opposite. especially since you've now done us the favor of highlighting the specific line you were responding to.

as for your other point. You can have increased sales without increased demand. This deal is obviously for the fence sitters that are thinking about buying one anyways. It's suppose to sweeten the deal and tempt people even more into buying one. It will push a few fence sitters over the edge and will increase sales without increasing demand much if at all. (And if you would look at my post HIGH is the key word there)

No, you can't.  If the fence sitter suddenly decides that they want a PS3, then demand for the PS3 has gone up by 1 unit, that's one of the most basic concepts of economics.  High demand is something that's impossible to define absolutely, that's why the only economic arguments that are sensible to make are in terms of relative change, increases and decreases.