Wal-Mart Threatens Studios Over iTunes Sales 415
Y-Crate writes "It seems Wal-Mart is threatening retaliation against studios who decide to offer movies on iTunes. The Bentonville, AR retailer seems a bit miffed that someone would dare to undercut their prices. This wouldn't be the first time they've turned on a supplier for dealing with Apple." From the article: "Last year when Disney announced it would begin offering episodes of the hit shows 'Lost' and 'Desperate Housewives' on Apple's iTunes, the reaction of the world's largest retailer sent shockwaves through the entertainment industry. Wal-Mart, worried that offering the shows for viewing on iPods would cut into DVD sales at its stores, sent 'cases and cases' of DVDs back to Disney, according to a source familiar with the matter."
Re:What about Amazon? (Score:3, Informative)
Which is very odd because Amazon and Target are partners. This press release is from 2001 - http://news.com.com/2110-1017-275199.html [com.com]
Re:Good move for walmart (Score:2, Informative)
A food company's subsidiary (that rhymes with "bestlee") in Germany capitulated to Wal-Mart on pricing for one of their premium product lines a few years ago, meaning Wal-Mart's prices were FAR lower than every grocery store's prices across the country. Eventually the smaller retailers did what they had to do...stop selling that product line, or demand the same prices...which of course would only mean Wal-Mart would ask for even lower prices.
This subsidiary was the company's worst performing subsidiary across the world...despite operating in what is historically a large and strong food market. The only saving grace for the company was that Wal-Mart pulled out of Germany entirely saying they couldn't make a profit! The company likely tried very hard to prevent that happening anywhere else on the planet as far as Wal-Mart is concerned.
Don't be mistaken - Wal-Mart tries to controls their suppliers with an iron fist. The food company mentioned above is always in a battle to maintain price and profit levels against Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart will and can destroy any smaller target it deems it must destroy in order to control pricing. It happens and if you work in marketing for ANY supplier that is a fortune 500 company you know what I mean.
JB
Yeah, but it's the NY Post (Score:5, Informative)
Comment count on the front page? (Score:4, Informative)
That's odd, all the stories after Microsoft Vista User Interface Guidelines Published don't show the comment count...
Funny, I just finished reading a book..... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.amazon.com/Wal-Mart-Effect-Powerful-Tr
Basically, the author looks at Wal-Mart's tactics in terms of squeezing it's suppliers to get the absolute lowest price and figures that while consumers benefit from this (even if they don't shop there), it doesn't exactly make Wal-Mart "evil." But there are troubling aspects to their behaviour that gives one cause to pause so to speak (like how they treat offshore workers for example).
Having said that, I think they'll find that Apple may be a different sort of challenge. I don't think studios will cave the same way that Wal-Mart's suppliers usually do.
Re:What about Amazon? (Score:3, Informative)
Except they say they aren't... (Score:3, Informative)
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?ty
Re:Let Wal-Mart Go (Score:3, Informative)
Boycott Sam's Club!
I will boycott neither Wal-Mart nor Sam's Club. In fact looking forward to Sam's club coming to our city to kick some stupid price gouging by the local business.
What convinced me is I had to get a set of tires fast from Sam's in the US. Later we had a flat, took it into a local Canadian Walmart and when they fixed it free! This was the only tire purchase I ever had go right. I purchased from a Canadian company years earlier and it took me two years, 4 wheel alignments and tire replacements later to get it settled. On top of that it cost me more.
Judge a company on its quality, price, service and how many people it employs, not on local political BS as local rich get upset that they can no longer charge 3-4 times the price. In part why Sam's/Walmart is successful. BTW, they sell the same stuff as everyone else.
Better news links (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sorry... but this article is drivel. I mean, this is bad for slashdot. It's a month old story, from a joke of a newspaper source.
This is a bit of an old story... CNN.com allready has a story about how Wal-Mart is looking into opening its own movie downloads [cnn.com]. It makes sense, seeing as they allready have a working music download service.
The article posted is a bit... Let's just say that the Businesweek article covering this [businessweek.com] has a much less "Wal-Mart is EEEEVIL" ring to it. I know it feels good to pat yourself on the back with the Coorporate hate feelings, but this NY Post article has a pretty blatant and nasty slant that shouldn't have make it to the slashdot front page.
Re:Whoa whoa whoa... (Score:2, Informative)
Is the Vitriol added? (Score:3, Informative)
If I was a retailer and I saw 'supply' magically expanded at a HUGE rate while demand stayed mostly the same, I would want to get rid of some of my inventory quick. If I had the option of giving it back to someone else I'd do that. I might be a little angry at the lost revenue, but it doesn't mean I'm using dirty tactics or, 'trying to send a message.' I'm just evaluating the market and adjusting supplies.
Saying "Selling movies online will cut into DVD sales" is like saying, "If you open another McDonalds across the street, the existing McDonalds won't have as much business." That's not a threat.
They could have put a little heat on it. "Excuse me, we had a deal, you sent me this amount of product under false pretenses." That still seems complete reasonable, rational, and not in the least bit 'monopolistic' or 'threatening.'
After reading the article, I'm even more sure that Wal-mart wasn't trying to force them into anything. It was just letting them know that demand for DVD's would drop if they started selling music online. It sounds like Wal-Mart is thinking clearly, and Hollywood is wanting their cake and to eat it to.
Re:Whoa whoa whoa... (Score:2, Informative)
"Made with pride" was a joke (Score:5, Informative)
Wal-Mart's made with pride campaign meant that if your product was the exact same price or cheaper than the Chinese or Mexican product, it would be carried. One penny more and it was out.
Wal-Mart was forced to discontinue the campaign after a slew of state AG's sued them for misleading advertising.
Re:Whoa whoa whoa... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Egads!! (Score:3, Informative)
The custom of employers providing health insurance is not because someone, in a vacuum, said "hey, what a great idea this would be!". Not by any means.
During World War II, the USA federal government froze wages. This meant that if you were an employer, you could no longer decide for yourself how much you will pay your employees. If you wanted to attract the best talent, you had to find other ways to make them want to work for you. In order to get around this restriction, companies began to provide benefits for free that the employee would otherwise have to pay for, as a method other than wage that could be considered a part of that employee's compensation.
This, like the federal income tax, was a "temporary" wartime measure (like the Patriot Act of today). The result has been that now you have no buying power as an individual; the companies who go to health insurance providers and say "I have 50,000 employees, let's discuss price" are able to obtain decent group rates but the single individual is not. If you are in the USA, try shopping around for individual health insurance sometime -- it's ridiculously expensive. This is a form of inertia that has made employer-provided health insurance difficult to reverse. This also means that your employer has more leverage over you, and is part of why companies are not nearly as worried about losing employees as employees are worried about getting fired (which to me is one of the flaws in how business is done; unions are a horrible hack that take on agendas of their own and usually fail to address this).
It does, however, serve as a great reminder for those of you who think that the government's definition of "temporary" means anything less than "until the Sun starts running out of nuclear fuel."
Re:Rubbermaid (Score:3, Informative)
Here is a bit more detail:
http://www.sprawl-busters.com/search.php?readstor
Newell tried to keep the company afloat, but walmart continued to turn the screws on them, forcing more factory closings, more layoffs, and like you mentioned, manufacturing outsourcing.