January 11, 2008 at 1:30 am
Bob Abernethy (1/10/2008)
The other major difference is the type of "products" you are talking about. With physical products the Wal-Mart model has its advantages of scale and lower prices.
You'd like to hope so, wouldn't you. Unfortunately, the words "oligopoly" and "collusion" have a nasty habit of giving the lie to it in practice. Another reason why I don't want to get all my in one place.
Not looking too good for the consolidation strategy now, is it?
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
January 11, 2008 at 2:33 pm
majorbloodnock (1/11/2008)
Bob Abernethy (1/10/2008)
The other major difference is the type of "products" you are talking about. With physical products the Wal-Mart model has its advantages of scale and lower prices.You'd like to hope so, wouldn't you. Unfortunately, the words "oligopoly" and "collusion" have a nasty habit of giving the lie to it in practice. Another reason why I don't want to get all my in one place.
Not looking too good for the consolidation strategy now, is it?
Since you highlighted the words "lower prices", let's talk about that.
It has nothing to do with what I or anyone else would "hope" for. It happens to be reality that the Wal-Mart model gives them (and others who successfully use that model) the advantage of lower prices. If you disagree with that, then tell us which of their competitors has lower prices, and why Wal-Mart has been so successful if it isn't primarily because of lower prices.
As far as it "not looking too good for the consolidation strategy now", (referring to the physical "Wal-Mart" world as opposed to online consolidation) you're certainly entitled to that opinion but with the enormous growth of Wal-Mart, the consolidation strategy seems to be working quite well for them. Others may not like that strategy for various reasons, but for them it was clearly a successful strategy to pursue.
Granted, any company (including Wal-Mart) that pursues a strategy of large scale and lower prices may or may not be guilty of any number of other unrelated questionable or even illegal business practices, or may simply be judged guilty of being "too successful" (as determined by where consumers freely choose to spend their money) and therefore be the target (no pun intended) of various competitors and others.
Fortunately we are all free to have our own opinions about all these things and to shop where we want. My guess is that most of us, like Steve, shop at both the 'big box' stores and the smaller stores. Variety is a good thing, both online and in the physical world.
January 12, 2008 at 8:46 am
I tend to agree with Bob that lower prices works and it gives them an advantage, though I'm not sure it's good overall for the world.
I think in the US, especially, we're slightly more seduced by the lower prices than we should be. While they're lower, I'm not sure it's all that significant for many people. The savings diminishes rapidly as your income goes up.
I do try to vary my habits, especially as I prefer other stores to Wal-Mart, but their advantage when I'm pressed for time is I can get many things at one stop. If the Target that was closer hadn't closed, I'd use them more.
January 14, 2008 at 1:23 am
Bob Abernethy (1/11/2008)
majorbloodnock (1/11/2008)
Bob Abernethy (1/10/2008)
The other major difference is the type of "products" you are talking about. With physical products the Wal-Mart model has its advantages of scale and lower prices.You'd like to hope so, wouldn't you. Unfortunately, the words "oligopoly" and "collusion" have a nasty habit of giving the lie to it in practice. Another reason why I don't want to get all my in one place.
Not looking too good for the consolidation strategy now, is it?
Since you highlighted the words "lower prices", let's talk about that.
It has nothing to do with what I or anyone else would "hope" for. It happens to be reality that the Wal-Mart model gives them (and others who successfully use that model) the advantage of lower prices. If you disagree with that, then tell us which of their competitors has lower prices, and why Wal-Mart has been so successful if it isn't primarily because of lower prices.
As far as it "not looking too good for the consolidation strategy now", (referring to the physical "Wal-Mart" world as opposed to online consolidation) you're certainly entitled to that opinion but with the enormous growth of Wal-Mart, the consolidation strategy seems to be working quite well for them. Others may not like that strategy for various reasons, but for them it was clearly a successful strategy to pursue.
Granted, any company (including Wal-Mart) that pursues a strategy of large scale and lower prices may or may not be guilty of any number of other unrelated questionable or even illegal business practices, or may simply be judged guilty of being "too successful" (as determined by where consumers freely choose to spend their money) and therefore be the target (no pun intended) of various competitors and others.
Fortunately we are all free to have our own opinions about all these things and to shop where we want. My guess is that most of us, like Steve, shop at both the 'big box' stores and the smaller stores. Variety is a good thing, both online and in the physical world.
You're right, of course. I was being flippant and got caught out.
However, at least in the UK, the lower prices in the supermarkets tend to be just for certain key items - the products that consumers tend to keep an eye on. In other areas, prices can often be demonstrably higher than in small independents. Presumably that's where they make the majority of their profit, although that's just an assumption on my part.
It's also the case that there have been a number of high profile cases recently in the UK that have highlighted dubious practices by the supermarkets (most recently proof of price fixing milk). Certainly, the supermarkets have carved themselves the advantage of lower landed costs, but that advantage is not always passed on to the consumer any more than is commercially essential.
However, that doesn't detract from the fact that you're right in your central point that variety is the key, along with the consumer's ability to choose consolidation when they want it and diversity when that's more appropriate.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
January 16, 2008 at 9:45 am
Steve Jones - Editor (1/12/2008)
I tend to agree with Bob that lower prices works and it gives them an advantage, though I'm not sure it's good overall for the world.I think in the US, especially, we're slightly more seduced by the lower prices than we should be. While they're lower, I'm not sure it's all that significant for many people. The savings diminishes rapidly as your income goes up.
I do try to vary my habits, especially as I prefer other stores to Wal-Mart, but their advantage when I'm pressed for time is I can get many things at one stop. If the Target that was closer hadn't closed, I'd use them more.
I agree with lower prices, however a big reason I try not to go to my Wal-Mart is ease of use. Which in Wal-Mart's case it refers to the customer to cashier ratio and the overall customer service. Usually it will take me less time to drive 3-4 miles further to get an item at a different store.
Ease of use definitely applies to websites as well. Sure, a site could have all the information you would ever need. However, if it not easy to navigate through or there is so much information it is hard to find what you want, people are not going to use it. I get discouraged when I search for something and get a bunch of non-relevant links.
Ian.
"If you are going through hell, keep going."
-- Winston Churchill
Viewing 5 posts - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply