Law of diminishing marginal utility

In Economics, there is one fundamental law called as Law of diminishing marginal utility.

Before we go further lets set the premises. Marginal means small change. According to Austrian school of economics, Utility could be defined as the satisfaction of needs. [Wiki says, the contemporary mainstream economic theory defers this metaphysical notions and even quantify utility]

To sum up the law of diminishing marginal utility, more you consume a commodity, the marginal utility of the commodity decreases.

To use the food analogy, when you are hungry and eat your first idly, it tastes good, even it is awful and you value that idly way too much. When you are at tenth idly, you are no more hungry. The eleventh idly adds no value or serves no purpose. May be some more calories! This is law of diminishing marginal utility.

There are many places which i feel the most that this law of diminishing marginal utility doesn't holds good.
First, Money. Of course, the first million is always the difficult and hard to get by. Rest is easy. The point is do you stop making millions. Wouldn't you think a billion or two is cool after making few millions.
Oh yeah my most favourite one, sleep. No matter how long you sleep, don't you value the last five minutes of your morning sleep to be more valuable than the long sound sleep? Here the last unit is much more valuable precious than the first unit or all the other previous units combined!

Well there are other places where this law of diminishing marginal utility does not holds good? But I will leave it to your wild imagination ;)
N.B
It was a reference to books and knowledge. More the books you read more the knowledge you get not otherwise right. what were you thinking about? ;)

For Whom the Bell Tolls

Why should not this experience economics be called as nothing but a marketing gimmick?

Possible examples includes Disneyland and of course Starbucks!

I do not know anything about Disneyland but I do know something about Starbucks.

Yeah, Starbucks does provide good experience and Starbucks is Starbucks.

Didn't the Starbucks suffer during recession? Didn't they try to behave like Mcdonalds by selling starbucks in Subway?

Doesn't the decline in the growth during recession convey the success and sustenance of the experience economy depend on the disposable income of the individuals?

Recession or no recession, werent there other players in other segments who were relatively successful?

More over, doesn't the soceity will always contain the rich and the poor masses? How much of the population can really afford starbucks?

What percentage of the population can really afford to pay for the experience?

If only a relatively small percentage of population can indulge or afford in experience goods, then why should it be so relevant?

p.s
This post is not just due to craving for a good coffee or my inability to afford Starbucks right now. [Having a Starbucks right across the college doesn't helps]

p.p.s
If you had the patience to read about Experience economy and what i have written why not check out is Information economy reaching its overload as well as say hello to Feedback economy