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."
Egads!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa whoa whoa... (Score:3, Insightful)
Good move for walmart (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's a good move for Walmart (but not for us) because everyone knows that Walmart is "evil" (read: more able to use power in a negative fashion than most companies, which are relative lightweights) and most people don't give a damn because that's how they afford all their stuff. I doubt there will be serious backlash, come monday everyone will still be going to fill up their big boxes at Walmart.
What I'd like to know (Score:3, Insightful)
The article assumes that Wal-Mart sent DVDs back to Disney out of spite, but what if Wal-Mart merely made an accurate assessment of the situation? Did Wal-Mart sell out of the whatever titles they returned? Were there customer complaints about lack of these titles? Or was Wal-Mart correct in its assessment that the demand would be lower?
I don't know if it's right or wrong, but from what I've read Wal-Mart requires its vendors to agree that they'll take back overstock if demand is less than expected. If Wal-Mart can send back "cases and cases" of DVDs and still keep the titles on the shelves than they're simply behaving sensibly.
If they can't keep the titles on the shelves then this seems to be a classic case of "cut off your nose to spite your face". We're talking purchase here, right? Not rental? If you're renting a DVD and they don't have the one you want you might rent a different one. If you're shopping to buy a specific DVD, I can't imagine that you'd simply buy something else if the store doesn't have the one you're looking for.
We're not talking about interchangeable products here. If you want "Lost" on DVD and Wal-Mart doesn't have it you'll go elsewhere. Personally I find deepdiscountdvd.com to be a great source, but there are countless others. What percentage of the US is really so cut off from civilization that if Wal-Mart doesn't carry "Lost" they can't get it some other way?
will go downhill... (Score:1, Insightful)
Walmart is evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, i realize that until they are declared a monopoly that they have a right to choose who they do business with, but it doesnt make it right.
Re:Whoa whoa whoa... (Score:2, Insightful)
Uhhh, no. Happily.
What is it with you litigious anti-Walmart goons?
It's NOT a monopoly, as you stated. Plenty of other big stores in the same business, competing on selection and price and service and all those other B-School 101 points. When Martha Stewart made her exclusivity deal with K-Mart, I'm sure she knew that Walmart would be pushing all her cookbooks to the back shelves and start promoting Rachel Ray's. She makes her deals, she takes her chances. As do the studios. Risk, Reward, Business. How do they do it on your planet?
What, because iTunes delivers movies tek-no-log-ee-cully ("oooh, shiny!"), all the brick-and-mortar operations that have pumped truckloads of money into the studios' pockets over the years are supposed to just roll over and cave?
"Gosh, dern, there, Mister Studio Boss, shucks, we're just a simple uber-ultra-mega-chain from Arkansas, don't know nothing 'bout birthin' no downloads. Shure, we brung ya to the dance, bought ya dinner, drinks, and flowers, but it's OK if ya want to leave with that there Miss Apple. We understand, she shore is purty!"
Are you naive, blindly hate Walmart cuz you're some too-cool-for-the-country urban Goth, or do you just like litigation? (It's OK, you can check off more than one.)
Oh, wait, I know! It's unfair because Walmart uses under-age Chinese vagrants to put the DVD's on the shelves. Is that it? Would you feel better knowing that these were the same under-age Chinese vagrants that Apple uses to build its iPods? Would that make it all better?
Re:Whoa whoa whoa... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, there are antitrust laws that this certainly seems in the realm of. Not that they're enforced, but there are laws...
Re:Egads!! (Score:4, Insightful)
My point is that Walmart's value added *IS* their distribution channel. They don't make anything - they distribute products. That's what they do, and iTunes electronic distribution of movies threatens (one aspect) of that. So, since Walmart's business model is basically a distribution channel, that has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Re:I'm going to have to disagree with you now.,.,. (Score:3, Insightful)
Walmart can't make the same money when the distribution model isn't physical, at least not yet.
Walmart uses their selling power to get what they want from manufacturers. If your DVD doesn't get sold in Walmart, you automatically lose something like 15% of potential sales. Disney needs Walmart. Amazon doesn't.
Walmart wants something else (Score:3, Insightful)
My bet is someone at Walmart asked to talk with the Board of directors at Disney, and the board snubbed them. So Walmart punched them in the arm with this little stunt like a petulant child and is demanding attention. The real life answer to this is to ignore it, but I'm sure they'll have a meeting now and work something out.
Personally I hope they eat each other alive but whatever, that won't happen.
Wal-Mart has no leverage (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't imagine studios would lose money if Wal-mart didn't carry their albums, especially if they replace physical sales revenue with digital. Of course the studios would like to keep physical and digital revenue flowing, but steady revenues are better than declining revenues.
If the studios did cave to this threat they are short sighted and craven.
I say let them do as they wish (Score:1, Insightful)
Sure you can say such expensives aren't really translated to entertainment or electronics. I mean, when you're poor and shoping for house hold items, medicine etc that brand new DVD isn't a top priority. But some people can't really afford to boycott it. Not all towns/cities have other discount stores that are cheaper or equal to Walmart, and those that do often aren't as cheap as Walmart for some items.
For example, a family doctor recommended some over the counter vitamins and supplements for my grandparents. At a pharmacy they cost around $10 a bottle. At a grocery store it's slightly less. And then at places like Target, K-Mart, it's again slightly less than the pharmacy. Now Walmart? That same $10 bottle of vitamins is now like $2.50 or $3.00 at most. Name brand. They end up saving like 2/3 the cost. That's just medicine that's not crucial for day to day living too. Imagine how much you save on every day stuff like pet food, paper towels, etc
People on fixed incomes, low income jobs, and people living pay check to pay check depend on Walmart. People think it's silly that you buy groceries at Walmart/Super Walmart but hey, when it's cheaper on bread, eggs, soda etc at Walmart than it is at a grocery store, you buy there.
Re:Egads!! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Now, at the price I'm selling to you today, I'm not making any money on it. And if we do what you want next year, I'll lose money. I could do that and not go out of business. But we have this independent-dealer channel. And 80% of our business is over here with them. And I can't put them at a competitive disadvantage. If I do that, I lose everything. So this just isn't a compatible fit."
Re:I say let them do as they wish (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, they way that they can afford such low prices is by squeezing the suppliers and producers. How's the farming industry in the US right now? Most farmers can barely afford to make ends meet, and it's not because they're buying premium goods at premium stores, it's because they're being told "we'll pay you 70% of fair market value, and you have no choice since we're the biggest buyer in the nation."
Consider how well they've benefited Vlassic, as laid out in this article:
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/77/walmart.html [fastcompany.com]
Walmart isn't about savings--it's about false savings, and short-term cash in pocket driving long-term economic ruin.
Re:Egads!! (Score:5, Insightful)
While I have issues with Wally World, this is not one of them. Wal-Mart performs a valuable service: they stock thousands of items on their shelves that I really don't want to have to buy straight from the manufacturer. They handle some of their own shipping and distributing, i.e. moving stuff around. Sure, I could drive to another state to buy something from the manufacturer directly. I could also pay a shipping company such as UPS to deliver it for me. Or, I could go to a store that stocks it on their shelves (e.g. Wal-Mart) and have the convenience of a short drive from my house 24 hours a day to buy it.
Middlemen definitely have advantages in a supply chain. True, too many will drive up prices and down quality in some cases (e.g. food items that spend too much time shuffling around and have a short shelf life by the time you purchase them). However, do you really want the inconvience of having to pursue the hundreds of items you need on a weekly basis yourself? Personally, I prefer to use stores.
Re:Always low prices... (Score:3, Insightful)
Christ almighty, get out of the big box stores, and go shop around at conventional grocery stores and little vegetable shops.
Maybe it's all stuff I learned from my father, but you save MORE money by shopping at a series of "normal" stores, buying a few items you need at the places that tend to offer the best prices (and I'm not talking about cherry-picking the specials each week, but just heading to the stores that tend to offer the best boneless chicken breat prices, or the best tomatoe prices). Not to mention you get the warm fuzzy of voting with your dollar, and supporting the little guy.
There's no reason to purchase a huge cart of stuff at one particular store, and especially not at a Super Walmart or a Costco.
Re:Studios Testicularly Challenged? (Score:3, Insightful)
The MPAA is the movie's industry cartel. They are SUPPOSED to strength the industries negotitating power when it comes to disputes like this. As a group, if the MPAA stood up to Walmart, not to say, "Fuck You", but instead to say, "Wally, we can't do that", it would change the market.
Unfortunately, I truly believe that the MPAA spends all of its time pursuing piracy and the like, and couldn't be bothered to support innovative technologies.
Re:I say let them do as they wish (Score:5, Insightful)
I prefer Target. I've found them to be cheaper for soap, paper towels, etc. The stores are clean and the clerks are friendly. Unlike wal-Mart. Hell, even 40 year old K-Mart stores look cleaner than Wal-Mart.
admission of monopolistic practices (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good move for walmart (Score:3, Insightful)
Apropos Germany, Wal-Mart has given up for good its attempts to penetrate the cutthroat market there. They had the whole "American interloper" going against them, strong worker protection laws that hamstrung them and a niche that was already filled with homegrown discount chains. As I understand it, there are other EU countries where they haven't had the success they wanted.
I think the defeat they suffered in Germany has made them paranoid, thus the preemptive attack on Apple. Amazon's Unbox system isn't as easy to slam due to the more draconic terms in Amazon's DRM and the fact that Amazon is partnered with Target. Attacking Amazon would be attacking a rival who would all too eagerly sell those titles that Wal-Mart drops.
Re:Egads!! (Score:5, Insightful)
This has to be a joke. Wal-Mart is the antithesis of "too many middlemen" as they have crunched out so much inefficiency. They have built a distribution and logistics structure that would shame most armies. You might even say that Wal-Mart is Wal-Mart's product, and if it's not original, it sure is highly evolved.
The battle has started for Middle Earth (Score:3, Insightful)
To the music business that keeps wanting to raise prices because they feel they are not getting "enough" money.. (dispite the fact that they actually save money from the elimination of the distribution/packaging/shipping/retail costs.. but oh well, sure, they need another solid gold toilet)
To the movie business (ditto above, except its a solid gold dildo)
And now walmart is scared because someone might out-price them. Forgetting the simple fact that a sizable chunk of the people that shop in walmart are not heavy on-line purchasers (for other goods and services) so they loose a little money in one department but make it up in another. (it would be better for them to partner with apple, like they do now with the itunes credits) and clip a little off the top for those impulse purchases, than whine that we are not making enough money because the big bad apple (funny huh?) is taking our lunch money.
Give me a break wal-mart, so you lost a little ground in a particular market because of a different distribution channel. Big Whoop.
Its been that way all throughout history. (the milkman lost his job because of the grocery store, the news paper boy lost his job because of mailing lists, the indie bands lost their money because of the RIAA, etc...)
Re:Egads!! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand the bizarre obsession with the concept that an employer should not maintain the integrity and functionality of their greatest capital asset. If the cash register goes to ailing, rest assured major efforts will be made promptly to bring it back into functionality. If the inventory computer craps out watch the dollars fly to fix the mess. Let the man running it get sick watch the "capitalists" bitch moan and complain that they cannot simply dump that person in the ditch and get another functional unit. Capitalism preserves its capital assets and a decent company realizes that its human beings are its highest from of capital.
I love the standard slashdot responses running around that we in the USA are running some sort of capitalist economy and it is some how "the best." Honestly there are many things we do in the USA that are great and right. Our "capitalism" isn't one of them. Right now investors can chuck their money into stocks but there is little or no hope that they will be paid back in return as the company makes money. Here is the Walmart Example following
Walmart braggs about its associates being stock holders. They pay a dividend far lower than may be returned on Government Bonds or from even a simple CD at the bank. All of this would appear to be a company with marginal earnings. Actually Walmart finances its stores through the various Industrial Development Boards. They don't own the stores or even pay for them. Walmart then demands tax free status to open up in a town. As such they don't even pay to educate the next generation of kids to work in their stores or be their customers. They factor their inventory on a 60 day delayed after sale payment schema. All of this said you can do your earnings calculations on a company that has no investment or risk and is making markup on all sales. The company then has an inventory turn rate of about 90 times a year with a net (after all those stinking worthless employees -- for effect) markup on each sale of nearly 40%. Doing the simple math here they are a company earning about 90 * 40% a year on an cost basis against an investment that is not theirs and is so low that ROI is impossible to do anything but estimate. This means that the company is earning about 3600% against 100% of the entire investment of all parties in the store. They against their part which may be even less than 10% of that are earning at least 36,000%.
The upshot of this is that they build massive devices in the supply chain to scrape off this profit and avoid stockholders, tax entities and other factors that the are obligated to pay.
To be blunt capitalism is where investors get paid for earnings. That is what Walmart will never do. They are structured to defraud their stockholders.
Re:Egads!! (Score:3, Insightful)
This pisses off a whole consortium of 'gimmie' operators in the middle, and the scale of their operation terrifies the Union Bosses who want to be the main 'big guys' and maintain their industry-wide labor cartel.
Welcome to the First Battle... (Score:4, Insightful)
Today, I can download a perfect image of a DVD. I can burn it to a blank DVD that will work in my DVD player, just like the storebought version.
I can also take that DVD, and, if I have the right printer, print a full color "label" right onto it, just like the storebought version.
I can also download the keepcase cover insert and print that as well, so that the keepcase from the stack of empty AOL CD keepcases in my closet will look just like the storebought version.
Tomorrow, I will be able to legally download the DVD, the DVD "Label" and the DVD case cover insert and make my own DVD with case, with the blessings of the movie studio. (They're taking the halting baby steps already, via iTunes. They'll eventually see that there's money to be made by letting the consumer do all the work of making the DVD.)
Essentially, I have a replicator that takes data and makes a product in my home at my demand. A DVD in a keepcase.
While I don't think I'll live to see a "Transmetropolitan"-esque 'maker' in every home, it IS coming. I regret that I won't be around to hear the howls of outrage from WalMart over that leap of technology.
I won't regret, however, the societal upheaval that will occur when anyone can have anything, as long as they pay the power bill and can keep the source matter bin full.
Oh, and the lawsuits over cracking the DRM for the makers will be hysterically entertaining. I'll miss following them, as well.
Seriously, though. Who neds Gap, Old Navy, Victoria's Secret, Bananna Republic or Levi as a physical place to go and buy something, when you can download the maker source code for a fee, tweak that code for yourself for size and color, and push a button to have that garment drop down the chute 30 minutes later?
Go to Apple.com, pay a fee, get the source for the new iPod, and there it is the next day, courtesy of your home maker.
What need have you for the Apple Store? And what need has Apple for factories in China?
Yeah, the world economy is going to get very sporty for a while once the maker is perfected.
And if it can make anything, why, I can have ALL THE HEROIN AND POT AND E that I want!
I can have all the prescription medicines I want!
I can have all the Coca-Cola I want!
Imagine THAT table full of lawyers. The PRC, The Taliban and Colombian govts (Opium and Cocaine), EVERY pharm hypercorps, and Coca-Cola, INC.
All trying to maintain their monopolies over atoms and molecules that have been stitched together in a particular manner and that, by tradition, belong to them and them alone.
Good luck, guys. You'll need it.
Re:"shopping your way out of a job" (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? Companies were moving production overseas decades before Wal-Mart became popular. They would keep doing that even if Wal-Mart died overnight. Blaming off-shoring of manufacturing on Wal-Mart is like blaming off-shoring of technical jobs on Fry's. It's quite possibly the silliest logic I've ever heard.
Wal-Mart started really being able to apply price pressure by the 1980s. By that time, Japanese automobiles were more popular than American, every toy I bought by then was made in China/Taiwan/Singapore, etc., and this had been true for a couple of decades. The big push towards manufacturing of products overseas began shortly after WWII in the 1950s and 1960s. Wal-Mart didn't even open its first store until 1962.
I'm not saying Wal-Mart hasn't encouraged some companies to do this, but the fact remains that they would have done so eventually anyway to make a greater profit. Expecting them to do otherwise is like believing in the tooth fairy.
As to the filing of complaints, some local governments have found they have a way to fight back-just not allowing them to build stores with zoning regs. Granted, not a perfect solution, but it's something that can be done. Say some area does it, some of the people local will still travel to the next town over. But if THAT town does the same, eventually the distance travelled means the consumers will stay put locally and use the smaller stores.
It's a terrible idea. Most of those local stores are already thoroughly screwed by availability of products on the internet. So now in ten years when they find themselves unable to survive (Ace Hardware and K-Mart in Santa Cruz, anyone?) even without Wal-Mart, those towns will find themselves without any way to buy the things they need to survive and will have to drive large distances to buy basic products.
Further, lower prices are better for everyone in the long term. All the knee-jerkers say "Oh, look at all the stores that will close" and forget that Wal-Mart brings consolidated shopping, which causes stores to be able to survive that otherwise could not. It brings down prices of groceries and gasoline dramatically. It brings down the overall cost of living dramatically.
And small stores can survive and even thrive with Wal-Mart because of the proximity effect. Stores physically close to Wal-Mart actually get more business after Wal-Mart moves in. Stores do, however, have to specialize and carry the stuff that Wal-Mart doesn't. Wal-Mart has to cater to general audiences, so it can only provide the most common basic needs in any category. A hardware store does just fine with Wal-Mart next door because it carries lots of stuff that Wal-Mart doesn't and can't---screws and fasteners, higher quality tools, possibly building materials, etc. A clothing store does just fine because teenagers want brand names. And so on.
The most important thing, though, is that the store owners have to do exactly the opposite of what they usually do. Most of them try moving away from Wal-Mart thinking that they can be closer to the population and thus people will go there instead. Doesn't work that way. People will drive 20 minutes to a Wal-Mart store. That means that the best place for any store to be is within a block or two of Wal-Mart. That's why zoning laws to block Wal-Mart don't work. The end result is that the vast majority of people drive there anyway, then bitch about how much fuel costs.
It's a shame to see the fraction of a percent of people who are so anti-Wal-Mart spoil it for the rest of us. *Sigh* I guess the loudest voice really is the only one heard... but it shouldn't be.
Re:Egads!! (Score:3, Insightful)
For your edification you might want to review some relevant facts. The single largest stockholder in Disney is Steve Jobs. In a related fact Steve Jobs is on the Board of Directors of Disney. So you expect Steve Jobs to tell Apple to jump off a bridge?
In any case Disney is a huge company that doesn't need Walmart to be successful. These strong arm tactics are probably very threatening to smaller companies but Disney is not a mom and pop operation.
Walmart, I have one word for you: (Score:3, Insightful)
You got where you are by competing and undercutting everyone else, even going to extents such as forcing your suppliers to fire Americans and offshore manufacturing, forcing them in cases to decrease product quality and/or create "budget" models to meet your pricing strategy, and you've pretty much driven other big-box discount stores out of business.
Now you get miffed when not only are you getting undercut, but you're being undercut by an honest player who isn't bullying the suppliers to the extent that you do?
Competition. You got where you are through competition, and now that Apple is beating you at the movie game and Target is rabidly nipping at your heels by offering similar pricing and better quality, you're crying wolf? WTF?
Competition. Sucks for you, but it's good for us.
Re:Whoa whoa whoa... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Egads!! (Score:3, Insightful)
With our current economic system in the US, employers paying for health insurance is the encouraged societal route for health care. Employers can write off the cost of the benefit, not so to the same degree for an individual employee. Employers have better clout to negotiate with armies of health insurer beauracrats and lawyers. Again, its not as balanced for an individual employee. I would far prefer to select my own health insurance if there wasn't a tax penalty for me to do so, and if consumer protections for individual health consumers vs the insurance industry were stronger.
The other items you mention are bought and sold on markets where the balance between buyer and seller are much more balanced.
Re:I say let them do as they wish (Score:1, Insightful)
The idea that Wal-Mart drives wages down is insane, too. Have you ever worked in retail? How about at an independent retailer? When I worked retail at Walgreens (another big evil chain) I got as much money as when I worked at an independent place. And the big evil chain had a lot more room for promotion. Look up how much the Target workers or grocery store workers make and you will start to see that Wal-Mart does not harm wages.
Wal-Mart creates the lower class? They've been around for a lot longer than Wal-Mart! Wal-Mart gives them a chance to buy decent products at dirt cheap products and you think they do a disservice to all those poor people? If shopping at Wal-Mart is so bad for them, how come in my area (St. Louis) people drive for miles to go to the Wal-Mart, bypassing Sears and Target and independent stores on the way? They do it because Wal-Mart has better prices.
Re:Egads!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Grandparent goes a bit too far, while some original production is of course necessary, middlemen and distribution can also add value, depending on circumstances, exactly as you describe:
... however, this makes sense for products which are physical and tangible - it's not clear that it makes sense any more for intangible products which can be distributed at effectively zero cost. That's pretty much there now, for music/mp3's, even videos and films, software, and pretty much anything reduced to digital form. There's no reason to ever remove anything from the catalog, all you need is a slick interface and decent search engine.
Thus there's no longer any value-add to being a middleman for a wholly intangible product - maybe for a version of that intangible with a nice pressed disk, a nice case and professionally produced insert, but then those tangibles are what you're really paying for, not the digital bits on the disk. Sure, it's disruptive technology, and there are established players whose business model is being wiped out - but that's normal, to find that the normal state of the world is to be changing, and it's counterproductive (and, in the longer run, pointless) to try and freeze everything like a fly in amber and imagine it will always be the same
Re:Egads!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Until they've destroyed all their competition. Do you think they cut their prices because they're really nice people? As soon as there is no one left to undercut, what do you think will happen to their prices?
nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
You make money by manufacturing wealth, and having it be good quality and fair priced, not over priced ridiculous stupid crap or the cheapest possibly falling apart crap. Wealth is grown, mined, manufactured or a combination of that, everything else is wealth re arrangement or wealth service.
We have swapped making wealth to trying to just manage it and service it. Nuts! Insanity! It will not work for the long run. It can for the short run,then you'll see it starting to crumble in the medium run (now, today) and it will eventually collapse in the long run. They can run their printing presses all they want, it won't matter. It's been tried before, it doesn't matter.
We have forgotten the middle ground, the middle ground which at one time had the strongest middle class with real wealth ownership in the world, now we have the largest class of debtors ever. Only took one generation to pull that off. BUT, we sure do have a lot more billionaires now! Damn funny how that worked out....
Yep, you can show a ton of paper profit by being a tradesman and selling off your tools friday night,and getting a loan on your work truck and handing over the keys and parking it at the lot, but come monday morning you are going to be hurting. Sure, you'll seem "rich" over the weekend,you can go out and buy all sortsa stuff with that flush cash, but it won't last.
That's all we have been doing for a long time now and they are running out of options, and I don't care how much the goons at the Fed try to tweak things, eventually we won't have a dang thing that other folks want and then they'll even stop buying up your grandkids debt. Aren't you just a teeny bit ashamed that little babies not even born yet will be born into debt? Just a little?
And walmartization is a big part of it. When they first started, and I remember it clearly as well, it was buy american there, keep you and your neighbor working, and it was fine. then..well, he passed on and now it is FU america, we are gonna milk this baby out and retire multibillionaires and go pound sand. sure, they got cheap crap now, and people with some money to buy it, but it won't last. It just can't
so many ERRORS, so little bandwidth... (Score:5, Insightful)
-1, reading comprehension problem.
No one was blaming the off-shoring of manufacturing on Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is blamed for grossly accelerating it. There's a major difference there.
-1, worst example EVER
Wait, people are going to pay shipping and wait x days to purchase a drill & batteries online (which they may need today) instead of going to Ace Hardware/Home Depot/Lowe's? Exactly what planet is this version of Santa Cruz located on?
-1, tunnel vision
It also brings down the wages, too. And cheaper gasoline & groceries mean nothing when you're out of a job because your store closed down. Also, Mom & Pop music stores had employees who knew their product; ever asked a Wal Mart employee where the industrial rock/pop/hip hop/country/etc. section is, or who's the new up&coming artist in that genre? Try it sometime.
Also, consolidated shopping is even more fun for superior products that Wal Mart decides they don't want to carry. So instead of you getting your favorite brand that you want, now you're railroaded into buying whatever Wal Mart dictates is okay to sell, because no one else is around to compete and sell other brands. So much for consumer choice there.
Also, so much for employee choice. The old adage, "if you don't like the working conditions here, QUIT!!! and find another job" doesn't work as well in a city with a Wal Mart store. By the time they're done, there's not many other places to work, except Burger King.
Oh, and Wal Mart stores are also known to close down from time to time; leaving an entire town without a department store at all. You want to talk about driving times?
And another thing: Wal Mart is also known for refusing to sell some artists' music because it's "objectionable". Where do you go to get those artists, then? Cue this article. Now, Wal Mart wants to cut out your online alternatives to preserve their outdated business model. And the consumer gets hurt if Wally World gets their way.
-1, Theory conflicts with reality
Yes, but few stores can survive just on selling the things that Wal Mart doesn't. Wal Mart's strategy is to sell the lowest common denominator products at the lowest common denominator prices, to maximize foot traffic (and sales). There simply isn't enough profit to sell other products to uphold a store.
Yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking... if there isn't enough profit to uphold a store selling product B, C and D, then product B, C and D don't deserve to exist. That's the worst lo
Re:Egads!! (Score:2, Insightful)
After all the other stores have been run out of business?
Nobody forces people to work at Wal-Mart.
After all the other stores have been run out of business?
Nobody forces people to shop at Wal-Mart.
After all the other stores have been run out of business?
Don't do business with Wal-Mart
After all the other stores have been run out of business?
If you made a product that you wanted everyone to have, you'd be salivating if Wal-Mart wanted to distribute your product.
After all the other stores have been run out of business.
At least to get to the negotiating phase.
After all the other stores have been run out of business?
Re:I say let them do as they wish (Score:3, Insightful)
If the US government did not subsidise farming, then the US domestic prices of farmed goods would rise, and US farmers would be less competitive against imports. Subsidies distort the market, and they don't save you money -- you end up paying for the subsidies through your taxes.
Our (New Zealand's) farmers are not subsidised, and we seem to survive.