 Pricing Process of Kimono Fabric: the Case of Naraya (the Sugimoto Family)Atsuko Suzuki ()
No 15-29, Discussion Papers in Economics and Business from Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics Abstract: Naraya-Sugimoto family who was kimono fabrics dealer in Kyoto established two branch stores in Kanto region in the Edo period. Focusing on the statement of the settlement of accounts of Naraya, this paper examines the pricing process of Naraya, referring the instances of Daikokuya (the Tomiyama family) and Echigoya (the Mitsui family). I pointed out two important matters in this paper: first the markup pricing method of kimono, and second the convention of changing price in price tag. There were two kinds of markup pricing method of kimono retailers in the Edo period, namely [1] "uchi-mashi" and [2] "soto-mashi". [1] "uchi-mashi" : Cost / (1 - Markup) Selling price [2] "soto-mashi" : Cost * (1 + Markup) Selling price Assuming that the cost of kimono purchased is 100(Monme) and the markup rate is 20%, the calculation formulas are as follows; [1] 100 / (1 - 0.2) 125 [2] 100 * (1 + 0.2) 120 Naraya traded in "Kudari-mono"(kimonos produced in Kyoto) and "Kanto-mono" (kimonos produced in Kanto region), and priced "Kudari-mono" at "uchi-mashi" price, while "Kanto-mono" at "soto-mashi" price. To be exact, Naraya classified kimonos and applied a set percentage for each kimono category. (To be more precise, using the markup pricing as a standard, Naraya priced each kimono respectively according to quality, the mode, etc.) For instance, "Kanto-mono" were classified into 3 categories from c. 1793. "Kanto-mono" category 1 ---> markup rate 25% "Kanto-mono" category 2 ---> markup rate 20% "Kanto-mono" category 3 ---> markup rate 17% The main store of Naraya in Kyoto purchased kimonos ("Kudari-mono") and put price tags on them and then sent them to the branch stores in Kanto region. However, the price on the tag was not the selling price. The main store priced "Kudari-mono" double the selling price, neverthless the branch stores sold them correctly at the selling price. That is to say that the pricing on the tag in Kyoto was a conventional style. The convention was seen only in "Kudari-mono" between Kyoto and Kanto region and lasted until 1842. ex. 200 (Monme) on the tag in Kyoto ----> sell it at 100 (Monme) in Kanto region Keywords: pricing policy; price tag; markup rate; kimono-fabric; long-distance trade (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:osk:wpaper:1529 Access Statistics for this paper More papers in Discussion Papers in Economics and Business from Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics Contact information at EDIRC. |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.