"Don Bruder" wrote in message
...

Except in this case, it isn't the marketplace deciding. Wal-mart forces
manufacturers to meet their specs. "We will *ONLY* carry laundry soap
packaged in 410 gram plastic buckets shipped as pallets 4 layers high,
and we will only pay $X.YY per unit for it - No, we don't care that your
cardboard box packaging at 413 grams per unit is more cost-effective or
environmentally freindly. No, we don't care that the customer WANTS the
413 gram box, and that you can give it to us for a third of the cost of
the 410 gram tub. Either do it our way, or we go to your competition,
the XYZ soap company, and shut you out of the market completely."


Is it that you don't have a clue or do you have a personal axe to grind?

Sears in its power days, set detailed standards on merchandise to include
100% house branding. If you didn't want to manufacture to their specs, you
didn't do business with Sears.

It's truly very simple. If the customer wants the 413 gram box, they drive
past Wally World and show up at Loblaw's. WAIT! Hasn't that mega-chain run
Mom and Pop grocers out of business?

--
Dave Thompson

"Dave Thompson" wrote in message
news:nKOxb.8111$ZE1.2358@fed1read04...

It's truly very simple. If the customer wants the 413 gram box, they
drive
past Wally World and show up at Loblaw's. WAIT! Hasn't that mega-chain
run
Mom and Pop grocers out of business?

Uh....yeah. thirty or forty years ago.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Thompson" wrote in message
news:nKOxb.8111$ZE1.2358@fed1read04...

It's truly very simple. If the customer wants the 413 gram box, they
drive
past Wally World and show up at Loblaw's. WAIT! Hasn't that mega-chain
run
Mom and Pop grocers out of business?

Uh....yeah. thirty or forty years ago.

Notice a pattern here?

"RJ" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Thompson" wrote in message
news:nKOxb.8111$ZE1.2358@fed1read04...

It's truly very simple. If the customer wants the 413 gram box, they
drive
past Wally World and show up at Loblaw's. WAIT! Hasn't that
mega-chain
run
Mom and Pop grocers out of business?

Uh....yeah. thirty or forty years ago.

Notice a pattern here?

Maybe a repeat performance, but a pattern would require the same reasons and
those reasons are NOT the same.

1) The mom & pop store of the 1940s wasn't much bigger than the convenience
store of today. Perhaps 3000-4000 square feet. You still find IGA and Red &
White stores that size in small towns, but there's no way they can carry the
variety of large supermarket chains. The newer, larger stores actually
offered something worthwhile to differentiate themselves. A Wal Mart store
does not, unless there was no modern supermarket in the area before they
arrived.

2) For a number of reasons, including but not limited to the acceptance of
immigrant cultures, and increased overseas travel, the American consumer
expects to see a huge assortment of foods which used to be considered ethnic
specialties. Large supermarkets did what mom & pop stores could not, unless
the smaller stores were in neighborhoods where they catered to a certain
group, like Hispanic or Middle Eastern customers. Again, Wal Mart does not
serve the function of the larger supermarkets in this regard. They may snag
the hobby shopper (like my sister in law) who doesn't mind visiting 3 stores
to complete her grocery shopping, but grocery biz data shows that more than
70% of shoppers don't have the time or patience for such nonsense.

If you really think about it, Wal Mart serves NO special function as a
grocery supplier, unless you're still under their advertising spell and you
think your groceries cost less there. They have no more leverage, and often
less than the 20 largest grocery chains & wholesalers.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"RJ" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Thompson" wrote in message
news:nKOxb.8111$ZE1.2358@fed1read04...

It's truly very simple. If the customer wants the 413 gram box, they
drive
past Wally World and show up at Loblaw's. WAIT! Hasn't that
mega-chain
run
Mom and Pop grocers out of business?

Uh....yeah. thirty or forty years ago.

Notice a pattern here?

Maybe a repeat performance, but a pattern would require the same reasons and
those reasons are NOT the same.

Your reasons below are inaccurate because you interpreted my comments as
being only about supermarket competition. My point was that WalMart
grew as big as it is because it satisfied shoppers. When a better or
more interesting concept comes along, it will grow at the expense of
WalMart.

How could you imagine in the 1970s that WalMart could ever hope to grow
to compete with Sears, KMart and the like? Yet they did, and somebody
will supplant them in turn.

1) The mom & pop store of the 1940s wasn't much bigger than the convenience
store of today. Perhaps 3000-4000 square feet. You still find IGA and Red &
White stores that size in small towns, but there's no way they can carry the
variety of large supermarket chains. The newer, larger stores actually
offered something worthwhile to differentiate themselves. A Wal Mart store
does not, unless there was no modern supermarket in the area before they
arrived.

Wal-Mart is blamed for the demise of the 'little stores on Main Street'.

2) For a number of reasons, including but not limited to the acceptance of
immigrant cultures, and increased overseas travel, the American consumer
expects to see a huge assortment of foods which used to be considered ethnic
specialties.

The concept was invented first, and people liked it. Thus they got more
of it.

If you really think about it, Wal Mart serves NO special function as a
grocery supplier, unless you're still under their advertising spell and you
think your groceries cost less there. They have no more leverage, and often
less than the 20 largest grocery chains & wholesalers.

Then they're not a major competitor. What are you worried about?

By the way, I rarely shop at WalMart for anything any more. It used to
be a very well run enterprise but has fallen far since Sam Walton died.

"RJ" wrote in message
. ..

drive
past Wally World and show up at Loblaw's. WAIT! Hasn't that
mega-chain
run
Mom and Pop grocers out of business?

Uh....yeah. thirty or forty years ago.

Notice a pattern here?

Maybe a repeat performance, but a pattern would require the same reasons
and
those reasons are NOT the same.

Your reasons below are inaccurate because you interpreted my comments as
being only about supermarket competition.

I focused on your mention of Loblaw's.

My point was that WalMart
grew as big as it is because it satisfied shoppers. When a better or
more interesting concept comes along, it will grow at the expense of
WalMart.

That's what's so odd: There IS no concept at Wal Mart. :-) If you believe
there is, can you describe or name it?


1) The mom & pop store of the 1940s wasn't much bigger than the
convenience
store of today. Perhaps 3000-4000 square feet. You still find IGA and
Red &
White stores that size in small towns, but there's no way they can carry
the
variety of large supermarket chains. The newer, larger stores actually
offered something worthwhile to differentiate themselves. A Wal Mart
store
does not, unless there was no modern supermarket in the area before they
arrived.

Wal-Mart is blamed for the demise of the 'little stores on Main Street'.

Is many small towns, they WERE the demise of smaller stores. In large
markets, supermarkets did them in, unless they offered something special.
Many still do.


2) For a number of reasons, including but not limited to the acceptance
of
immigrant cultures, and increased overseas travel, the American consumer
expects to see a huge assortment of foods which used to be considered
ethnic
specialties.

The concept was invented first, and people liked it. Thus they got more
of it.

Of course! But Wal Mart makes virtually no contribution, unless you think
the presence of salsa and chips on their shelves has great meaning to your
average Hispanic customer.


If you really think about it, Wal Mart serves NO special function as a
grocery supplier, unless you're still under their advertising spell and
you
think your groceries cost less there. They have no more leverage, and
often
less than the 20 largest grocery chains & wholesalers.

Then they're not a major competitor. What are you worried about?

I don't worry! :-) I'm simply saying that it's amazing how they suck people
in for absolutely no benefit whatsoever, at least in the grocery sector.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"RJ" wrote in message
. ..

drive
past Wally World and show up at Loblaw's. WAIT! Hasn't that
mega-chain
run
Mom and Pop grocers out of business?

Uh....yeah. thirty or forty years ago.

Notice a pattern here?

Maybe a repeat performance, but a pattern would require the same reasons
and
those reasons are NOT the same.

Your reasons below are inaccurate because you interpreted my comments as
being only about supermarket competition.

I focused on your mention of Loblaw's.

I didn't mention Loblaw's. That must have been somebody else.

My point was that WalMart
grew as big as it is because it satisfied shoppers. When a better or
more interesting concept comes along, it will grow at the expense of
WalMart.

That's what's so odd: There IS no concept at Wal Mart. :-) If you believe
there is, can you describe or name it?

A store with most of the mundane things you need day to day to run your
household. One stop to buy a wide variety of things. Open late, as
much as 24/7. How is that not a concept?

1) The mom & pop store of the 1940s wasn't much bigger than the
convenience
store of today. Perhaps 3000-4000 square feet. You still find IGA and
Red &
White stores that size in small towns, but there's no way they can carry
the
variety of large supermarket chains. The newer, larger stores actually
offered something worthwhile to differentiate themselves. A Wal Mart
store
does not, unless there wano modern supermarket in the area before they
arrived.

Wal-Mart is blamed for the demise of the 'little stores on Main Street'.

Is many small towns, they WERE the demise of smaller stores. In large
markets, supermarkets did them in, unless they offered something special.
Many still do.

I grew up in a time and place when the only shopping was the little
stores on Main Street. The predominant characteristics of shopping that
way were (1) limited choices, (2) high prices, (3) no returns (You have
a problem, see the manufacturer.) The discounters that came before
WalMart killed off main street.


2) For a number of reasons, including but not limited to the acceptance
of
immigrant cultures, and increased overseas travel, the American consumer
expects to see a huge assortment of foods which used to be considered
ethnic
specialties.

The concept was invented first, and people liked it. Thus they got more
of it.

Of course! But Wal Mart makes virtually no contribution, unless you think
the presence of salsa and chips on their shelves has great meaning to your
average Hispanic customer.

When a new supermarket chain builds new stores in a city where they
haven't been before, is that a contribution? Do you have to make a
contribution to compete?

If you really think about it, Wal Mart serves NO special function as a
grocery supplier, unless you're still under their advertising spell and
you
think your groceries cost less there. They have no more leverage, and
often
less than the 20 largest grocery chains & wholesalers.

Then they're not a major competitor. What are you worried about?

I don't worry! :-) I'm simply saying that it's amazing how they suck people
in for absolutely no benefit whatsoever, at least in the grocery sector.

You sound worried.