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.

And to get within that $20 at the local grocer, I have to use my "reward
card" and let them link my purchase to my name, address and phone number.

The grocers all claim that they are keeping this information confidential....
but for how long? Why would they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year
collecting it if it doesn't have some commercial value? The weak explanation
that often gets trotted out is that it allows stores to know what sort of
merchandise is turning fastest. Bullshirt. You can easily measure how fast
merchandise is turning without knowing the identities of the individuals who
bought it.

As it is right now, I surely believe that the FBI could get access to the
information without a subpeona under the Patriot Act.
That's the first breach in the dam.

Ten years from now, some poor slob will be dieing from coronary artery disease
and need an open heart operation. The US Insurance company (owned by WAlMART
and the only insurance company left) will
turn down the claim. Why? "Sorry, Mr. Missinbeats. Your condition is self
inflicted, and therefore not covered under your policy. We have examined your
grocery receipts for the last 15 years, and
you purchased 40% more butter and ice cream than the national average. Have a
nice (last) day."

Arrogant Worms have a sketch about a Mountie getting accosted by US tourists:

"Where do you keep all those guns?"
"In our tank."
"You have a tank??"
"We didn't WALK here!"
"Where did you get a tank?"
"Wal-Mart"

("The Mountie Song" from Live Bait)

Lloyd Sumpter

Oh oh. There's a career killer for Arrogant Worms. Sheryl Crow CD's were
banished from WalMart for a time due to a similar, one-line reference to the
chain.

Wal Mart admits to ordering record companies to rejacket CD's that they feel
feature graphic elements not consistent with "approved American values" (where
*is* Skipper these days, anyway?). Won't be long until they insist on the right
to censor content, too.

Actually, my previous statement is not quite correct. All they do is inform the
record companies why they feel they need to protect their customers from this
CD cover or that, and suggest how if the cover were changed they would be happy
to order 3-million copies for WalMart stores.
They can't really demand a change, just economically force one.

Gould 0738 wrote:

Arrogant Worms have a sketch about a Mountie getting accosted by US tourists:

"Where do you keep all those guns?"
"In our tank."
"You have a tank??"
"We didn't WALK here!"
"Where did you get a tank?"
"Wal-Mart"

("The Mountie Song" from Live Bait)

Lloyd Sumpter

Oh oh. There's a career killer for Arrogant Worms. Sheryl Crow CD's were
banished from WalMart for a time due to a similar, one-line reference to the
chain.

Wal Mart admits to ordering record companies to rejacket CD's that they feel
feature graphic elements not consistent with "approved American values" (where
*is* Skipper these days, anyway?). Won't be long until they insist on the right
to censor content, too.

Actually, my previous statement is not quite correct. All they do is inform the
record companies why they feel they need to protect their customers from this
CD cover or that, and suggest how if the cover were changed they would be happy
to order 3-million copies for WalMart stores.
They can't really demand a change, just economically force one.

I'm waiting for an interesting expose on Wal-Mart's pharmacies.



--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


I'm waiting for an interesting expose on Wal-Mart's pharmacies.


A guess: They're dealing through Canada. :-)

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:59:48 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:

Arrogant Worms have a sketch about a Mountie getting accosted by US tourists:

"Where do you keep all those guns?"
"In our tank."
"You have a tank??"
"We didn't WALK here!"
"Where did you get a tank?"
"Wal-Mart"

("The Mountie Song" from Live Bait)

Lloyd Sumpter

Oh oh. There's a career killer for Arrogant Worms. Sheryl Crow CD's were
banished from WalMart for a time due to a similar, one-line reference to the
chain.


He He...First, it's funny to see "career" and "Arrogant Worms" in the same
sentence. But more seriously, WalMart doesn't have the impact here in Canada
that is does in the US. A news story saying WalMart is refusing to carry an
Arrogant Worms CD would probably be a major boost in their "career".

Now, of Sams, or A&B Sound, or even Superstore or Costco refused, that would be
a different story...

Lloyd - (just bought 3 DVDs at Superstore)

I wonder if there would be any interest nationally in boycotting those
companies that are exporting American jobs to places like India.


None. People substitute their wallets for their brains as it is, no hope that
they'll avoid making the same substitution (in large numbers) for their social
consciences.

I learned an interesting thing about human nature several years ago. Seattle is
a pretty liberal place, with a lot of greenies.
Back in the early 90's I offered electric cars for sale on my used car lot. A
local co-op built "kit cars" and installed electric motors and batteries. They
releid on me to sell them. I used to drive one back and forth to work, and on
company errands. Great little vehicles for 20-30 mile, round-town runners.
"There will be a lot of interest in these," I thought. I was right!

I must have had 600 greenies on the lot in just a few months. Every time I
showed the electric cars, the conversation when something like this.

"Wow, dude! This is way cool that you've decided to offer these electric cars.
We got that hole in the ozone, all this pollution, people getting sick on fumes
everywhere, and we're going to run out petroleum some day. This is just
bitchin!
Everybody ought to buy one!"

When we 'd get around to asking for the order, the conversation always went
from
"everybody ought to buy one" to "everybody except me ought to buy one. I've got
some special personal reason why I'm forced to continue to drive my gasoline
car- but the rest of the world? They ought to get with the program and go
electric!"

Sigh.

We all have a long list of social goals we'd like to see accomplished, if only
*everybody else* will make the sacrifices we're unwilling to make ourselves.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:54:02 -0500, (RJ) wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:
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?

Yes! I shop Walmart mostly after midnight. It is the only place open when
I am able to shop during the busy season which has nearly all the things
I need, at prices much lower than other 24 hour stores.

Last time I was there, I bought groceries, some work shirts, and a stand
fan for my welding shop. The latter (same Chinese made fan) was $199 in
the MSC catalog, $99 in the Harbor Freight sale catalog, and $69 off the
shelf at the local Walmart. I can't ignore that sort of price difference, or
the immediacy and convenience of getting it when I need it.

Walmart doesn't sell everything I need, and it doesn't always have the
best price, but it has many of the things I need, the prices are always
reasonable (sometimes exceptional, see fan), and it is *open* when I
have time to shop. The latter is one of the most important factors to me.

I stopped shopping at the downtown stores about 25 years ago. They
were never open when it was convenient for me to shop, parking was
always a hassle, and their prices were always high. Mail order, and
Walmart, have been the solution to all of those issues.

As far as what Walmart pays its employees, Walmart isn't holding a
gun to their heads and forcing them to work at Walmart. Last I looked,
this is still a free country. If people don't think Walmart pays them a
fair wage, they don't have to work there. We're always begging for
farm labor, and there's a chronic shortage of construction laborers.
It isn't light work in a clean air conditioned box store, but no one is
guaranteed a high paying job as a box store clerk.

Gary