Actor Everett labels Starbucks a 'cancer'

How many stores did Wal-Mart/Starbucks/Dunkin Donuts/Pizz Hut, etc open in their first 3-4 years?

How long will it take before we can say they have a "winning ticket"?

Did it occur to you that some people are perfectly happy running 1 store and don't wish to expand nationally?

Sure. But does that mean they have a "winning ticket"? Until they are outcompeted by another (chain)store?

I don't know. A long time perhaps.

Isn't that the credo of the capitalistic market? Caveat Emptor, which will mean that bad products disappear?

You tell me.

You said there were some. You tell me.

Read anti-Wal-Mart message boards and articles sometime. When you want a laugh.

That's not evidence.
 
How long will it take before we can say they have a "winning ticket"?

6 years, 7 months, 14 days, 11 hours, 55 minutes and 36 seconds.

Sure. But does that mean they have a "winning ticket"? Until they are outcompeted by another (chain)store?

Yes

Isn't that the credo of the capitalistic market? Caveat Emptor, which will mean that bad products disappear?

No

You said there were some. You tell me.

I said there were none. So you tell me.

That's not evidence.

Yes, it is.
 
Link.

Obviously, he doesn't trust the market to decide whether anyone wants Starbucks there or not. If he really hates it so much, and he's so convinced it's a "cancer," why not say nothing when they move in, and let them lose gobs of money when they move into a neighborhood where they're not wanted?

Somehow, I'm betting Starbucks has done a little research and discovered that, contrary to what Everett says, some people would love to be able to buy a 3-euro cup of latte.

This goes to show you how up on "bidness gossip," I am - I thought Everett said that Starbucks Coffee cured colon cancer. :)
 
You would be amazed how many people cannot grasp this simple concept.

This may well be the facts behind WalMart's success but in the UK there have been cases of large companies using their purchasing power (for instance) to prevent certain smaller retailers being able to stock the goods they would choose to stock if they had the choice. So with a cursory view of a particular instance you may conclude "people choose not to go to shop X because they no longer stock Y" however that conclusion is in fact erroneous. What actually happened was that the larger company made the choice for the consumer - neither the smaller store nor the consumer had a choice to make.
 
This may well be the facts behind WalMart's success but in the UK there have been cases of large companies using their purchasing power (for instance) to prevent certain smaller retailers being able to stock the goods they would choose to stock if they had the choice.

Can you site these cases please?
 
This may well be the facts behind WalMart's success but in the UK there have been cases of large companies using their purchasing power (for instance) to prevent certain smaller retailers being able to stock the goods they would choose to stock if they had the choice. So with a cursory view of a particular instance you may conclude "people choose not to go to shop X because they no longer stock Y" however that conclusion is in fact erroneous. What actually happened was that the larger company made the choice for the consumer - neither the smaller store nor the consumer had a choice to make.

There are also manufacturers who choose not to sell their products in Wal-Mart or other big box stores, preferring only to have smaller retailers carry their goods. Stihl chain saws are one example. You cannot buy them at Home Depot.
 
There are also manufacturers who choose not to sell their products in Wal-Mart or other big box stores, preferring only to have smaller retailers carry their goods. Stihl chain saws are one example. You cannot buy them at Home Depot.

Undoubtedly true - just helps to demonstrate that the non-capitalistic and non-free market economies like the USA and the UK are complex and not easy to reduce to the simplistic pictures ideologues like to promote.
 
FOOLMEWUNZ said:
Motives? Money! They don't want to be picketed or boycotted! Is this altruism in its highest form - not nearly, but if it improves the conditions for the workers, then the results are what I care about. Further, the fact that they're even doing this now is purely the result of pressure, so PLEASE don't read this as me feeling contrary to your concerns. (Someone once described my politics as just slightly to the right of Pol Pot - an exaggeration from a conservative, but a cute turn of phrase.) If you want to, PM me with the brands you think are okay. I'm a regular (under "a shipping industry source" type of byline) contributor on these and other less significant issues to a few newsletters.

Thank you for your insight. The 2nd link is admittedly a bit out of date, but I really didn't think that things had changed that much. I am glad to hear that more attention is being paid to this. In fact, I just came across this story, which I found reassuring:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs/2005/0416ethicalrevolution.htm

Having said that, the first link is only from November, 2005, and it specifically described terrible working conditions of Wal-Mart's suppliers. That's why I thought it was relevant (at least to explain why I'm not a fan of the chain). In your work, have you come across evidence to the contrary? If so, I would be relieved. Trust me.

I am providing this link in response to some of the comments about whether Wal-Mart has put other companies out of business. It is three years old. Yes, I know that, but it is an interesting story about how Wal-Mart's practices giveth and taketh away.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

Whether or not this is evidence that Wal-Mart is putting companies out of business, I'm struggling with. Ultimately, I agree with others in this thread that it is the behavior of consumers that has driven Wal-Mart's success and ultimate power over its suppliers. People want stuff more cheaply, so they go there.

I just wonder about the mentality of American shoppers (I won't speculate about other countries). My husband and I needed a new bed, so we saved for months and bought a nice one that we intend to have for a really long time. We didn't want a cheap one that we would have to replace in a couple of years. Somehow I don't think that this is the mentality of Wal-Mart shoppers. Why does this bother me? Because I believe in quality over quantity, and I guess I wish that others did, too. We were willing to do without for a period of time to buy something of high quality rather than go to Wal-Mart and buy a piece of crap.

But ultimately this is my issue, and I can't blame Wal-Mart for the behavior of its customers any more than I can blame McDonald's for the obesity problem in the U.S.
 
the local shops should take a cue from this guy

http://www.panthercitycoffee.com/

If I lived in Texas naerby I sure as hell wouldnt take my business anywhere else!

Put some bands in there..starbucks wont do that!

And DON'T do what the coffee shop did in my college town (Lost Dog, Shepherdstown, WV) and put up a sign above the bar saying "this is not Starbucks, so do not ask for cup sleeves. Save the environment."

I said to myself, f*** you guys, I'm gonna go home and brew my own damn coffee, so I can save the environment, my hand, and some money.
 
What it says. Wal-Mart has never been the cause of a retailer closing.

Y'know...you ask a question politely and you just get the same response that led you to ask the question in the first place. Why wouldn't you just answer the way Rob Lister answered for you ("It has only been the people that select Wal-mart over the previous retailer that causes them to close.")?

Anyway, thanks Rob for clarifying.
 

Back
Top Bottom