Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
So the garment center imploded on it's own as did Rubbermaid. NY historically had effective and efficient garment workers, union and non union.
Companies want profitability, public or private.
If people wanted rubbermaid products they could have easily bought them ELSEWHERE. People chose to not. It's quite simple. If I want a particular brand where I care about brand, that's what I look for.
Personally I don't like the Sterilite, I find it inferior in quality for my long term storage solutions which have the most finite space. But simple organizational boxes, the Sterilite is sufficient. At Target I see both products on the shelves and I buy what is my needs which is mostly about cost. When I've needed to replace the rubbermaid product I will replace it as such (I've had to do so already once for some reason which I don't remember.)
But again, I'm going to defer to the consumer and market forces.
Whole Foods has shut down cheaper markets around Union Square. Trader Joe's opened up not too far away and it may jeopardize another couple markets where the CHEAPER goods are located.
People vote with their wallets. Plain and simple.
|
How were the people voting with their wallets??????? Rubbermaid was still outselling Sterilite. The people voted and Rubbermaid was winning.
Wal*Mart simply said "fuck what the market price is, WE'LL set the market price."
Wal*Mart, owning Sterilite could easily have set the price on Sterilite so low that people would have chosen Sterilite and then Rubbermaid would have had to lower their price...... but that didn't work. People still bought Rubbermaid.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
This is good for the next time I fail in a business venture - Blame my biggest customer.
What I find hard to believe is that the failed management at Rubber Maid has people actually believing that they failed because of Walmart. that is amazing PR, don't you agree?
|
No, it's not amazing PR, it's the truth. And yes, when your biggest customer owns your competitor, sets your prices so that you lose money and pulls your product off the shelves because even at a higher price people are voting and showing the price for the product is reasonable and still buying it and leaving the product you own the manufacturing to, on the shelves.
And of course once that company loses it's biggest customer they have to raise the price everywhere else and they still sold..... but not what they were selling, because you effectively priced them out of the market through your own manipulations.
You then created your own market for your own product. Now your competitors are selling a product you own because they have to compete with you.
So not onlky did Wal*Mart pull Rubbermaid (thus forcing Rubbermaid to raise prices everywhere else) but you now created a market for their competition that is owned by you. So now even your competitors are buying your product to sell.
Hey Zeus Freaking Crisp........ keep trying to defend this, you are showing nothing but a defense in how to manipulate the market, not allow the market to expand and move forward but to tighten up and become monopolized... thus you can still control the price.
Coming into a market offering cheaper goods and letting the market decide is one thing..... having to lower the price of something to a loss for the manufacturer (while owning the competition) then pulling the product off the shelves so that only your product is there is manipulation of the market.
For people so defensive about how great capitalism is and how the market needs to set the price..... you sure do defend manipulation well.
This kind of manipulation leads to monopolies, less choices on the market, lower wages, less competiton and and the need to find and exploit cheaper labor.