|
That was a pretty loaded and one-sided article so I'm not even going to get in the partiuclars of it.
When you allow yourself to become wholly dependent on one account your positioning yourself to just become a subsidary of the store anyway and will inevitably go out of business. The company I work for has had 3 different pricipal manufacturers over the past 5 years, Due to the volume of product we put out, 2 of those companies has let outside business go to in effect solely produce our hardware. When that product didn't meet agreed upon specs, we dropped them without question, and both companies have since gone under.
I work for a "Mom and Pop" company, but we still demand the companies we deal with fulfill their contractual obligations, and will try to get the best possible cost/expenditure ratio possible. Wally world's application of this practice is amplified greatly because of it's size, but what changes should be made to lessen the effect? You can demonize the company and say they suck all you want, but I've yet to read a reasonable suggestion about what should be done. Remember that the actions must be enforced against all the "Mom and Pop" companies like my own as well.
On a side note, who gives a rats ass if Levi's goes under? Do any of their employees fret about my companies financial hard times, when the owner pays us with loans taken against his personal property? Levi's is going under due the fact that jeans purchases have been about being fashionable since the 50's when someone decided that a product designed as workpants, all of a sudden was representative of something. No one pays hundreds of dollars for vintage jeans or retail for designer lables so they can go work in the garden.
When your pricing is based on conspicuous consumption and some of the "cool" leaves the label, you get off your high horse and go cheap, or you go under.
-fibbers
|