The Ultimate Wal Mart Thread; Is Wal Mart good for America

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]
I understand it's a hard concept for you WalMart haters to understand, but WalMart succeeds because the CONSUMERS buy things there. WalMart couldn't afford to have low pricing if people didn't shop there en-mass.
[ ... ]
But anyway Bow - you seemed to have missed my point. The point of my last post was to show that "sales" are "predatory" by definition - they just seem to be a nicer word, and one you and others seem to think is OK. So the question really becomes - who defines "fair" and "threat"? At what point do "sales" become "predatory" in your mind? Do you think that everyone should charge the same price for same product? If not, then where do you draw the line?

I'll keep this short since this wasn't really my issue to begin with.

First, I didn't say a word about Wal-Mart with respect to predatory pricing. I was just responding to your twisted definition. While it would not surprise me to know Wal-Mart uses predatory pricing at times, I am not prepared to make that claim.

Second, predatory pricing is simply and inarguably not the same thing as sales and loss leaders. Predatory pricing is an intentional, sustained reduction in prices to artificially low levels to drive current competitors out of a market and discourage the entry of new competitors. It relies upon a disparity in financial resources and market position to cushion the loss in revenue until the competitor's resources are exhausted. A typical sale or loss leader simply does NOT meet that definition.

And like I asked - who gets to decide what constitutes "preditory"? Does a competitor have to go out of business? How much profit do they need to lose? Who(what) determines when a sale isn't "preditory"? How long does the sale have to be?
"sales" do meet the definition of "preditory" - but like I said - it seems to be a nicer more accepted term.

CkG

1. The courts decide.
2. No, a sale does NOT meet the definition of predatory.
3. Predatory is spelled with an "a", not an "i".

predatory pricing: The process in which a firm with market control reduces prices below average total cost with the goal of forcing competitors into bankruptcy. This practice is most commonly undertaken by oligopoly firms seeking to expand their market shares and gain greater market control. Predatory price has been outlawed by antitrust laws, but it can be difficult to prove, and is thus likely exists more than most people think.

predatory pricing: A company engages in predatory pricing when it sets the price of its goods very low in order to eliminate its competitors and prevent new companies from entering into the marketplace.

predatory pricing: The practice of selectively pricing a product below that of competition so as to eliminate competition, while pricing the product higher in markets where competition does not exist or is relatively weaker.

Ldir, you can have him back. I don't have the patience to indulge his obstinacy this evening.

1. OK, so what have the courts said?
2. According to Ldir's posted definition they certainly do, and yours don't rule them out either.
3.

4. yep - can't leave without the ad hom

Sales are the purposeful lowing of prices to draw consumers - no?. Now why would someone do such a thing? To keep them from buying the product at their competitor? To make their product more attractive to the consumer? When does this "keeping them from buying from competitors product", or attractiveness become "predatory"? How long? - how low? - How many?
No one has presented anything even close to a real working definition. Ldir tried one - but it was too general and easily included "sales". You tried 3 here - but they again use general terms which leave great leeway in deciding when pricing = predatory. So basically it's opinion - no? If a store constantly keeps a "sale" on an item or group of items - does that constitute predatory?

Go ahead turn tail, call names, and run. I don't feel like having to restate things over and over just because you don't fully read my posts. I've asked many questions and you only seem to answer a few probably thinking you are making a point - but in reality you are missing it. So go ahead - try to find a couple definitions and think you proved something It really was a nice try Bow, but I've already been over them - where do you think I got the other questions from? How long, how much? How many?

CkG

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yeah, we're not going to agree until you understand and accept that in retail - customers ARE the drivers. They power your business and it's your job as an owner/manager to make sure you keep in step with their needs and demands.

Psssst...Cad, I think you're missing the point here. A company doesn't not need customers to be profitable. They just need to sell things with a high profit margin. Just open a store, mark up your products and you'll instantly be profitable and rich. Doesn't that make more sense to you than your silly idea that customers are needed in order to make money?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yeah, we're not going to agree until you understand and accept that in retail - customers ARE the drivers. They power your business and it's your job as an owner/manager to make sure you keep in step with their needs and demands.

Psssst...Cad, I think you're missing the point here. A company doesn't not need customers to be profitable. They just need to sell things with a high profit margin. Just open a store, mark up your products and you'll instantly be profitable and rich. Doesn't that make more sense to you than your silly idea that customers are needed in order to make money?

Silly me - always missing something.

But one thing I think your forgot in your equation was to have cheap labor. $.25/hr wasn't it?
$.25/hr workforce
high profit margin
place to sell items(store)

Do I have it all covered now?


CkG

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yeah, we're not going to agree until you understand and accept that in retail - customers ARE the drivers. They power your business and it's your job as an owner/manager to make sure you keep in step with their needs and demands.

Psssst...Cad, I think you're missing the point here. A company doesn't not need customers to be profitable. They just need to sell things with a high profit margin. Just open a store, mark up your products and you'll instantly be profitable and rich. Doesn't that make more sense to you than your silly idea that customers are needed in order to make money?

Silly me - always missing something.

But one thing I think your forgot in your equation was to have cheap labor. $.25/hr wasn't it?
$.25/hr workforce
high profit margin
place to sell items(store)

Do I have it all covered now?

If you just made them your slaves, you wouldn't have to pay them! But .25/hr is pretty close. You wouldn't need employees because you wouldn't have customers, remember? You don't need customers to be profitable; their wants, needs and demands are irrelevant. Nobody listens to them anyways.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yeah, we're not going to agree until you understand and accept that in retail - customers ARE the drivers. They power your business and it's your job as an owner/manager to make sure you keep in step with their needs and demands.

Psssst...Cad, I think you're missing the point here. A company doesn't not need customers to be profitable. They just need to sell things with a high profit margin. Just open a store, mark up your products and you'll instantly be profitable and rich. Doesn't that make more sense to you than your silly idea that customers are needed in order to make money?

Silly me - always missing something.

But one thing I think your forgot in your equation was to have cheap labor. $.25/hr wasn't it?
$.25/hr workforce
high profit margin
place to sell items(store)

Do I have it all covered now?


CkG

Missed one important point. The $0.25/hr work force can become your customers, creating all the profit you need. Self perpetuation

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]
I understand it's a hard concept for you WalMart haters to understand, but WalMart succeeds because the CONSUMERS buy things there. WalMart couldn't afford to have low pricing if people didn't shop there en-mass.
[ ... ]
But anyway Bow - you seemed to have missed my point. The point of my last post was to show that "sales" are "predatory" by definition - they just seem to be a nicer word, and one you and others seem to think is OK. So the question really becomes - who defines "fair" and "threat"? At what point do "sales" become "predatory" in your mind? Do you think that everyone should charge the same price for same product? If not, then where do you draw the line?

I'll keep this short since this wasn't really my issue to begin with.

First, I didn't say a word about Wal-Mart with respect to predatory pricing. I was just responding to your twisted definition. While it would not surprise me to know Wal-Mart uses predatory pricing at times, I am not prepared to make that claim.

Second, predatory pricing is simply and inarguably not the same thing as sales and loss leaders. Predatory pricing is an intentional, sustained reduction in prices to artificially low levels to drive current competitors out of a market and discourage the entry of new competitors. It relies upon a disparity in financial resources and market position to cushion the loss in revenue until the competitor's resources are exhausted. A typical sale or loss leader simply does NOT meet that definition.

And like I asked - who gets to decide what constitutes "preditory"? Does a competitor have to go out of business? How much profit do they need to lose? Who(what) determines when a sale isn't "preditory"? How long does the sale have to be?
"sales" do meet the definition of "preditory" - but like I said - it seems to be a nicer more accepted term.

CkG

1. The courts decide.
2. No, a sale does NOT meet the definition of predatory.
3. Predatory is spelled with an "a", not an "i".

predatory pricing: The process in which a firm with market control reduces prices below average total cost with the goal of forcing competitors into bankruptcy. This practice is most commonly undertaken by oligopoly firms seeking to expand their market shares and gain greater market control. Predatory price has been outlawed by antitrust laws, but it can be difficult to prove, and is thus likely exists more than most people think.

predatory pricing: A company engages in predatory pricing when it sets the price of its goods very low in order to eliminate its competitors and prevent new companies from entering into the marketplace.

predatory pricing: The practice of selectively pricing a product below that of competition so as to eliminate competition, while pricing the product higher in markets where competition does not exist or is relatively weaker.

Ldir, you can have him back. I don't have the patience to indulge his obstinacy this evening.

No thank you. Life is too short. He is cornered. Everyone knows how CkG gets when cornered.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir
No thank you. Life is too short. He is cornered. Everyone knows how CkG gets when cornered.

That sure is nice and all, do you feel better about yourself now? You both seem to be missing the point - you will someday see...I hope - for your sake.

But anyway - are either of you ready to realize it is the consumer who ultimately empowers WalMart and other retail businesses, it is really worthless to discuss any of this if you don't, like I've said before.

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

No more toys stores in the U.S., only Walmarts:

1-14-2004 KB Toys Files Bankruptcy

NEW YORK - KB Toys Inc. on Wednesday said it filed for bankruptcy protection on the heels of a soft holiday shopping season wrought by harsh competition from big discount retailers, like Wal-Mart Stores.

The bankruptcy filing is the second by a major toy chain in recent weeks. FAO Inc. (Other OTC:FAOOQ - news), parent of the iconic FAO Schwarz, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in December for the second time in a year.

Last week, Toys R Us (NYSE:TOY - news), the No. 2 retailer of toys behind Wal-Mart, posted weak same-store sales for the holiday season and lowered its earnings forecast for the year. The company cited the "intense promotional environment," and said its margins came under considerable pressure.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No more toys stores in the U.S., only Walmarts:

1-14-2004 KB Toys Files Bankruptcy

NEW YORK - KB Toys Inc. on Wednesday said it filed for bankruptcy protection on the heels of a soft holiday shopping season wrought by harsh competition from big discount retailers, like Wal-Mart Stores.

The bankruptcy filing is the second by a major toy chain in recent weeks. FAO Inc. (Other OTC:FAOOQ - news), parent of the iconic FAO Schwarz, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in December for the second time in a year.

Last week, Toys R Us (NYSE:TOY - news), the No. 2 retailer of toys behind Wal-Mart, posted weak same-store sales for the holiday season and lowered its earnings forecast for the year. The company cited the "intense promotional environment," and said its margins came under considerable pressure.

big discount retailers - Note the plural.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

dp

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No more toys stores in the U.S., only Walmarts:

1-14-2004 KB Toys Files Bankruptcy

NEW YORK - KB Toys Inc. on Wednesday said it filed for bankruptcy protection on the heels of a soft holiday shopping season wrought by harsh competition from big discount retailers, like Wal-Mart Stores.

The bankruptcy filing is the second by a major toy chain in recent weeks. FAO Inc. (Other OTC:FAOOQ - news), parent of the iconic FAO Schwarz, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in December for the second time in a year.

Last week, Toys R Us (NYSE:TOY - news), the No. 2 retailer of toys behind Wal-Mart, posted weak same-store sales for the holiday season and lowered its earnings forecast for the year. The company cited the "intense promotional environment," and said its margins came under considerable pressure.

"intense promotional environment," - Hmmm

CkG

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir
No thank you. Life is too short. He is cornered. Everyone knows how CkG gets when cornered.

That sure is nice and all, do you feel better about yourself now? You both seem to be missing the point - you will someday see...I hope - for your sake.

But anyway - are either of you ready to realize it is the consumer who ultimately empowers WalMart and other retail businesses, it is really worthless to discuss any of this if you don't, like I've said before.

CkG

So customers want Walmart to eliminate competitors with predatory pricing. Customers do not want competition. Customers want to pay more. I see your point.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Ldir
So customers want Walmart to eliminate competitors with predatory pricing. Customers do not want competition. Customers want to pay more. I see your point.

Where did it say predatory pricing. If competition lowers prices, that is what the customer wants.

WalMart sells at a price that they feel will sell the product.
KB sells at a price that they feel will sell the product.

KB price was not low enough, consumers decided with their $$$.

WalMart may have the leverage to obtain the product at a lower price point than KB therefore they can sell it for less.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Ldir
So customers want Walmart to eliminate competitors with predatory pricing. Customers do not want competition. Customers want to pay more. I see your point.

Where did it say predatory pricing. If competition lowers prices, that is what the customer wants.

WalMart sells at a price that they feel will sell the product.
KB sells at a price that they feel will sell the product.

KB price was not low enough, consumers decided with their $$$.

WalMart may have the leverage to obtain the product at a lower price point than KB therefore they can sell it for less.

I said predatory pricing. CkG dropped it when he quoted. Follow the chain of messages.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir
So customers want Walmart to eliminate competitors with predatory pricing. Customers do not want competition. Customers want to pay more. I see your point.

No, actually you continue to miss it(IMO purposely). Keep trying - you might someday actually read my posts and understand the concept.

Let's start with this:
What does a retail customer want?

CkG

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Ldir
So customers want Walmart to eliminate competitors with predatory pricing. Customers do not want competition. Customers want to pay more. I see your point.

Where did it say predatory pricing. If competition lowers prices, that is what the customer wants.

WalMart sells at a price that they feel will sell the product.
KB sells at a price that they feel will sell the product.

KB price was not low enough, consumers decided with their $$$.

WalMart may have the leverage to obtain the product at a lower price point than KB therefore they can sell it for less.

I said predatory pricing. CkG dropped it when he quoted. Follow the chain of messages.

Why do you say predatory pricing? Is WalMart setting the price beloew their (WalMart) cost?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Ldir
So customers want Walmart to eliminate competitors with predatory pricing. Customers do not want competition. Customers want to pay more. I see your point.

Where did it say predatory pricing. If competition lowers prices, that is what the customer wants.

WalMart sells at a price that they feel will sell the product.
KB sells at a price that they feel will sell the product.

KB price was not low enough, consumers decided with their $$$.

WalMart may have the leverage to obtain the product at a lower price point than KB therefore they can sell it for less.

I said predatory pricing. CkG dropped it when he quoted. Follow the chain of messages.

Why do you say predatory pricing? Is WalMart setting the price beloew their (WalMart) cost?

Hmmm, let's see, Hot Toy costs Walmart and KB $30. Walmart sells it for $20 , you tell me.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Why do you say predatory pricing? Is WalMart setting the price beloew their (WalMart) cost?

Hmmm, let's see, Hot Toy costs Walmart and KB $30. Walmart sells it for $20 , you tell me.

Scenario Questions:
Does the Hit Toy cost WalMart $30 or do they get is less because they committ to purchase more from the supplier?
Does WalMart have to show a profit on every item they sell or just a general profit overall?

If WalMart sells the Hot Toy at a loss to get customer into the store then it may not be predatory.

If WalMart continues to sell the Hot Toy for $20 - Yes it may be predatory pricing if all the Hot Toy type items are sold below the WalMart cost and the result
removed KB from the picture.

However, if anyone else can sell the Hot Toy below the KB price, then WalMart not the culprit. It would be the way KB handles their company.

 

[Rendition]

You can stop nature Darwinism, and you can't stop financial Darwinism. If you sell the product for cheaper, you win. Simple as that.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Rendition
You can stop nature Darwinism, and you can't stop financial Darwinism. If you sell the product for cheaper, you win. Simple as that.

But it is considered unfair to sell it cheaper the the competition :evil:


According to some people.

 

[djNickb]

The main problem with WalMart is their sheer purchasing power. While this is good in most cases I feel that it has gone too far in WalMart's case. My father works for the state of Michigan in an area that deals with WIC (food stamps and electronic benefits) Anyways through the course of his job he has learned a great deal about some of the large retail chains in the country and told me about a conversation he had with someone in the know about WalMarts business practices.

The story he told me was about pickles, Vlassic I think where basically the dialogue followed kind of like this

WalMart: We want you to sell us your large jars of pickles for this price.
Vlassic: Are you crazy we only make two cents a jar then
WalMart: Either you sell us the pickels for this price or we won't sell any type of Vlassic pickle at WalMart

Vlassic agrees because they will make a profit, albeit a smaller one off of the sheer volume of pickles that are sold through WalMart stores. He also told a similar story about (I think it was Huffy bikes) where they said sell to us for this price or we stop selling your bikes.

The result of this is that smaller companies/outlets that do no where near WalMart's volume don't have the same amount of purchasing power and don't have the power to bully suppliers into the same prices that WalMart gets. The result: higher prices at other stores that just can't compete due to their volume/purchasing power. WalMart clearly has their suppliers by the throat and will keep squeezing until their hands are completely closed.

This is how WalMart manages to swing their everyday low prices

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: djNickb
The main problem with WalMart is their sheer purchasing power. While this is good in most cases I feel that it has gone too far in WalMart's case. My father works for the state of Michigan in an area that deals with WIC (food stamps and electronic benefits) Anyways through the course of his job he has learned a great deal about some of the large retail chains in the country and told me about a conversation he had with someone in the know about WalMarts business practices.

The story he told me was about pickles, Vlassic I think where basically the dialogue followed kind of like this

WalMart: We want you to sell us your large jars of pickles for this price.
Vlassic: Are you crazy we only make two cents a jar then
WalMart: Either you sell us the pickels for this price or we won't sell any type of Vlassic pickle at WalMart

Vlassic agrees because they will make a profit, albeit a smaller one off of the sheer volume of pickles that are sold through WalMart stores. He also told a similar story about (I think it was Huffy bikes) where they said sell to us for this price or we stop selling your bikes.

The result of this is that smaller companies/outlets that do no where near WalMart's volume don't have the same amount of purchasing power and don't have the power to bully suppliers into the same prices that WalMart gets. The result: higher prices at other stores that just can't compete due to their volume/purchasing power. WalMart clearly has their suppliers by the throat and will keep squeezing until their hands are completely closed.

This is how WalMart manages to swing their everyday low prices

Illegal - No.
Smart business practive - Yes

Does the average WalMart consumer care - Hell No - they save $$$

 

[Pojaco]

My uncle sells commercial real estate for Colliers International, and when he sells a building to Wal-Mart he also has to advise the surrounding retailers on how to SURVIVE! He basically ends up telling them to pick up shop and try somewhere else. The Waltons need to learn when enough is enough, no one needs trillions of dollars in sales.

They're under investigation for thousands of labor violations, they assign employees just enough hours so that they don't qualify for certain benefits, they employ minors past hours and during school hours, they knowingly employ illegal immigrants and skimp them on pay, they keep employees from taking their lunch breaks. I could go on forever.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: djNickb
The main problem with WalMart is their sheer purchasing power. While this is good in most cases I feel that it has gone too far in WalMart's case. My father works for the state of Michigan in an area that deals with WIC (food stamps and electronic benefits) Anyways through the course of his job he has learned a great deal about some of the large retail chains in the country and told me about a conversation he had with someone in the know about WalMarts business practices.

The story he told me was about pickles, Vlassic I think where basically the dialogue followed kind of like this

WalMart: We want you to sell us your large jars of pickles for this price.
Vlassic: Are you crazy we only make two cents a jar then
WalMart: Either you sell us the pickels for this price or we won't sell any type of Vlassic pickle at WalMart

Vlassic agrees because they will make a profit, albeit a smaller one off of the sheer volume of pickles that are sold through WalMart stores. He also told a similar story about (I think it was Huffy bikes) where they said sell to us for this price or we stop selling your bikes.

The result of this is that smaller companies/outlets that do no where near WalMart's volume don't have the same amount of purchasing power and don't have the power to bully suppliers into the same prices that WalMart gets. The result: higher prices at other stores that just can't compete due to their volume/purchasing power. WalMart clearly has their suppliers by the throat and will keep squeezing until their hands are completely closed.

This is how WalMart manages to swing their everyday low prices

Illegal - No.
Smart business practive - Yes

Does the average WalMart consumer care - Hell No - they save $$$

Using one's market dominance to eliminate competition can be illegal -- an antitrust violation -- depending on the extent and intent of the company's actions. This is moot under recent Republican administrations, of course.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]
1. OK, so what have the courts said?

Either "guilty" or "not guilty depending on the facts in each case.

2. According to Ldir's posted definition they certainly do, and yours don't rule them out either.

Yes, they do.

3.

A more mature response, demonstrating the "accepting personal responsibility" platitude you throw at others, would have been, "Oops, thanks." That would have required acknowledging you made a mistake, however.