|
Forum
/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl General >> Vacuum Cleaner Forum >> Retail theft /cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1181830519 Message started by JimB on 06/14/07 at 10:15am |
|
Title: Retail theft Post by JimB on 06/14/07 at 10:15am http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070614/D8POH86O0.html 41.6 billion in retai theft in the US last year. How much do you think ends up on Ebay? |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/14/07 at 10:57am JimB wrote:
Hello again my friend JimB: On a related note and from the archives: Carmine_Difazio wrote:
COSTCO Wholesale Corp has altered its return policy, aiming to alleviate the squeeze put on its profit margins by customers bringing back consumer electronics for full refunds. COSTCO will roll out the revamped policies in its 482 US locations over the next five weeks. The change limits to 90 days the time frame in which customers can return various consumer electronics for a full refund. This is a change from the unlimited grace period to return purchases for a full refund (the only exception has been the six-month deadline for computers). The unlimited time frame still applies to COSTCO merchandise other than consumer electronics. Some say even with the change COSTCO has the best return policy in the retail industry. COSTCO estimates that returns of consumer electronics pared eight cents a share from earnings last year when the company reported earnings of $2.30 per share. COSTCO also introduced an 800 number that customers can call to get answers to technical questions about their purchases. COSTCO Execs forecast that the number of stores in the US will double by 2010. Carmine D. [/quote] Although a sidebar, it is in the same vein as your topic. ;) I recall at least one former Forum poster, a vacuum professional, who consistently bragged about buying, using and even abusing the vacuums and then returning them to a host of different retailers. And wouldn't you know it, some Forum posters, even a pro, sympathized, defended, and condoned the heinous practice. For shame, for shame. What does this do to the costs and prices of the vacuums at the retailers? And I have to wonder how that's working out for him now that all the retailers have stiffer rules and regulations for merchandise returns. Do you think these retailers read this Forum? I'd say it's a pretty safe bet. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by cprohman on 06/14/07 at 3:19pm Carmine_Difazio wrote:
I was critical too of this practice until the former poster clarified that when he tested the vacuums, if the vacuums worked properly, he kept them, and he only returned ones that did not work up to his expectations. Given that, I don't consider his behavior "heinous", so long as he wasn't "abusing" the vacuums. The question remaining, then, was whether his tests, primarily the vacuuming of fine dirt such as Capture, were "abusive". If the tests involved vacuuming up items not recommended by the manufacturer, such as drywall dust, they would be abusive. I'm not sure what vacuum makers say about vacuuming up Capture. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/14/07 at 3:49pm Carl: I recall your responses very well. Not one of your shining moments on the Forum. Why? The so called "test" was to vacuum up hot/warm fireplace, outdoor grill, and furnace ashes. Despite the manufacturer's instructions stating clearly that the maker would not assume any liability and responsibility for the product if this was done. And the person, a professional, knowing these instructions, did it anyway. :( And bragged about doing it and returning it. What's also very interesting is the guilty person did not defend his actions or respond to my criticism of this "heinous" practice. I suspect he knew he was wrong even though others quickly "fawned to him" with words in his defense. Shameful. This "professional" allowed a door-to-door salesman to plug a high priced vacuum into a 220 volt outlet in his home. Then bragged and joked about it on the Forum saying "it fried the vacuum's motor." Do you recall that incident too? Shameful. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by cprohman on 06/14/07 at 11:58pm I recall that in some cases he used fireplace ashes, and on other vacuums he used Capture. The Capture test seems reasonable enough, since an average consumer might use Capture, but I'm not sure about fireplace ashes, which seems like a strange choice to me. I know that many vacuum makers do not recommend the use of their vacuums with drywall dust, so if he tested vacuums on drywall dust that would be inappropriate. I guess I would be surprised if any vacuum makers void the warranty if it is used with Capture. I have no idea about fireplace ashes. As far as allowing a door-to-door salesman to plug a vacuum into a 230 socket, I agree that that was not appropriate. The same could be said for throwing a screwdriver through the rear window of a car. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/15/07 at 6:55am cprohman wrote:
Really? Do you know the facts of the case before you pass judgment? I've gone over the facts before on this and other Forums. Here they are again, 50 years later. I take full responsibility for my actions. I was in my store of business with a male customer who was torn between a rebuilt HOOVER 29 for $39 and a HOOVER Convertible for $70. The Saltez brothers, both older than me, one a HOOVER branch manager and another a new HOOVER rep (replacing my HOOVER guy Richard Wolin who was fired by the HOOVER branch manager Richard Saltez to give the job to his brother), were there too. They almost cost me the HOOVER sale trying to push the new HOOVER Convertible over the H-29 although the customer didn't want to go the price. When the customer left with the rebuilt HOOVER, the 2 Saltez brothers and I had words about meddling in my store business. 2 against 1. Richard Saltez, the branch manager was bullying me to impress his brother. He pushed and I pushed back. I took them both on. My store, my business. I literally threw Richard out of my store by the seat of his pants and Ernie ran out before I could grab him too. As they got into the car to drive away, I took the only thing I had, a large screwdriver on my desk (work bench) and hurled it through the rear window. I would do the same thing again for the same reasons. I took the bull by the horns. The judge agreed with me. Threw the case out. ;) HOOVER stayed out of my store until Lou Ludivico, a new HOOVER rep, came by several years later and made amends (after calling first to ask if he could drop by). The sense at the time and after was I was right despite my actions and the Saltez brothers were absolutely wrong. Lou ultmately rose in the ranks of HOOVER management and we had a long business relationship that spanned several decades. Wolin went to Westinghouse as a rep shortly after this incident in my store. I took the entire new Westinghouse line into my store. Thank you Carl for the opportunity to defend myself and my actions rather than having someone else do it. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/15/07 at 7:27am Hello again Carl: Probably the biggest kicker in this scenario, is that I too bought a new vacuum, a dyson DC07 pink. It did not work on my rugs. Real life situation cleaning. Not made up tests that violate the manufacturer's safeguards, and designed to beat and abuse the vacuum. And after several calls to the dyson HELPLINE, and emails, I was told repeatedly to return it to the retailer for full refund. Why? It just won't work on my wool rugs is what I was told by dyson tech support reps. When I mentioned on this Forum that I planned to take dyson's advice and return the dyson, guess what happened? The same Forum posters who defended the other "professional" for his heinous practice criticized me in a flurry of posts. And they questioned my professional integrity and ethics. Not his! Mine. Isn't that irony? I ended up gifting the DC07 away. Now, 9 months later and the dyson donee has new carpets (new house). Guess what? The dyson is again not working just like the dyson tech reps said it couldn't. Gawdawful ratcheting noises. Can't push it. Falls into the carpet, stopping the brush bar. Won't do the rug cleaning job. BTW, clearly written on the side of the dyson carton, it says "picks up excellently on ALL surfaces including carpets." Just like "Never clogs and Never loses suction. ;) Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by JimB on 06/15/07 at 10:02am Interesting you defend violence by saying "my store, my business". Yet when someone follows the rules of a stores liberal return policy (their store, their business) when not satisfied with a product you think it an act so heinous it even stains those who don't condemn it. I agreed with some of the tests, disagreed with some but each consumer has the right to set their bar of expectations wherever they choose. If you want to start a thread on big box stores liberal return policies please do, but a consumer using those return policies because of argueable expectations is not the same as retail theft. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/15/07 at 12:32pm Hello My Good Friend JimB: As the saying goes, where you stand depends on where you sit. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by cprohman on 06/15/07 at 1:06pm Carmine_Difazio wrote:
That was your choice, but had you chosen to return it, I think you would have been fully justified. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/15/07 at 1:20pm cprohman wrote:
That was your choice, but had you chosen to return it, I think you would have been fully justified. [/quote] Hey Carl: Very true. But I hold myself as an industry professional for over 50 years to a higher standard than the average consumer. I also said that I felt (based on pevious experience with dyson DC07 All Floors) that the DC07 pink would not work on my carpets [before I bought and used it]. I was right. And I also said on the Forum that in a group meeting (September 20, 2006 after I bought the DC07 pink and had my experience using it) provided by representatives of the builder and sub contractors on the care of the floor coverings that several others beside my dear Wife commented on the ineffectiveness of the dyson vacuums on the carpets. And a local big box retailers' staff in the area did too. All [builder, subcontractor, and retailer] recommended HOOVER uprights. The HOOVER Tempo and HOOVER WT to be exact. Both of which I also have and used on my carpets. As I said, I plan to buy and use the DC18 dyson-lite. To see if after 5 years in the USA, dyson is finally able to get it right. I think the lighter brush roll head may be more effective. Time will tell. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/15/07 at 6:58pm JimB wrote:
The judge who threw out the case said: "If a man's home is his castle, then his place of business his kingdom. Before you enter and interfere, make darn well sure you ask. If not, you have no business being in his business." I guess that was just another way to say to them: Next time: "Mind your own business." Needless to say, I liked that judge. And he became a regular vacuum customer of mine. See, when your place of business borders the cities of Newark, Belleville, Bloomfield, and East Orange, New Jersey unfortunately violence and violent people are inevitable. I guess that's why they have police, prisons and judges. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by HARDSELL on 06/15/07 at 7:54pm Carmine_Difazio wrote:
Needless to say, I liked that judge. And he became a regular vacuum customer of mine. See, when your place of business borders the cities of Newark, Belleville, Bloomfield, and East Orange, New Jersey unfortunately violence and violent people are inevitable. I guess that's why they have police, prisons and judges. Carmine D. [/quote] And this forum has at least 1 hypocrite. Either of those brothers likely could have stomped your a$$, however being professionals and gentlemen they chose to turn the other cheek. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/15/07 at 8:58pm HARDSELL wrote:
Hello HARDSELL: Fortunately for the Forum, the hypocrite was banned awhile back. Not just from this Forum but others too. All in the same week, ironically. And believe it or not, it is the same person who is the subject of my posts. How very insightful of you. Not on their best day with both my hands tied behind my back. They were neither professionals nor gentlemen before they encountered me that day. But I understand they strived to be so after. ;) Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by HARDSELL on 06/15/07 at 9:48pm Carmine_Difazio wrote:
Hello HARDSELL: Fortunately for the Forum, the hypocrite was banned awhile back. Not just from this Forum but others too. All in the same week, ironically. And believe it or not, it is the same person who is the subject of my posts. How very insightful of you. Not on their best day with both my hands tied behind my back. They were neither professionals nor gentlemen before they encountered me that day. But I understand they strived to be so after. ;) Carmine D. [/quote] I sad 'has' and not 'had'. Just buggin you about the brothers. A man has the right to protect his domain. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/15/07 at 10:11pm HARDSELL wrote:
Hello HARDSELL: Yes, you're right, you did say "has." I agree. It goes even further. As a business man, I have to make my customers feel welcome and comfortable to do business in my store. The way to do that is not to force a product on them that they don't like, want and/or can't afford. I give people choices and let them ask questions. I answer their questions and let them decide what's the best to purchase for them. When I realized the customer did not want the new HOOVER Convertible for $70, but did want the rebuilt HOOVER 29 for $39, I was ready to close the deal. Only to have the Saltezes intercede and knock the HOOVER 29. Their company's product. Now the customer is conflicted and feels uncomfortable. He doesn't know who's running the show. Me or the Saltezes. I'm at risk of losing not only the sale but my customer. What do I do? What any good business man does. And that's whatever it takes not to lose the customer. I killed the HOOVER Convertible. How? Simple. I explained that the HOOVER Convertible was prone to have the dirt fall back down into the bag filler tube and clog. Not so with the H-29 which I had equipped with a replacement zipper unit that uses a Style F & G bag. Bottom fill. And I guaranteed the HOOVER 29 for one full year just like a new HOOVER Convertible. And told him that should his Wife prefer the new HOOVER, come back in a few days, and I'll take the HOOVER 29 back and sell him the HOOVER Convertible for the difference in price. That sealed the deal. He bought and kept the HOOVER 29. When he left, Saltez the HOOVER Branch manager and I went at it. I was polite at first. When he threatened to cut me off as a HOOVER sales dealer (I was not an authorized service dealer at the time) I lost my composure. Now he's threatened me in my store, and my place of business. I told him to get out. Not once, twice, but three times. The fourth time, I took him by his shirt collar and the seat of his pants and ran him to the front door and threw him out and down 2 cement steps onto the sidewalk. BTW, it was a hot summer day. Old building. No air conditioning. The front door was open. When I turned back into the store to escort his brother out, he beat me to it. He ran out. Eyeing the huge screwdriver I kept on my desk/bench, I grapped it, ran out of the store and hurled it at their car as it was speeding away. Bullseye. It was 3 years later before I was back on the HOOVER rolls as an authorized HOOVER sales dealer. Thanks to Lou Ludivico. I became an authorized HOOVER service dealer too and then a HOOVER warranty dealer. Check the old HOOVER User Instruction Books and the service store location cards that were packed in the new HOOVER vacuum boxes. You'll find Grove Vacuum listed for Bloomfield NJ. That's me. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by just-passing-throu on 06/20/07 at 11:42am Carmine, With your explination, I stand behind you 100%. It was your business and you have every right to run it as you saw fit. Many moons ago the family I worked for as a manager, owned several video stores. Not just a video store but the first one in the state of Kansas, and the seventh franchise of this company. The parent company sold in 1990, and a rep. from the new company came into our store telling my owners what they would do, how they would do it, and the deadlines to have it done. My boss, the owner, told this rep. "I think you got this wrong fella." "I happen to own this store." "I own the building, the roof, the floor and everyting in between." "The only thing you own is the logo on the sign, and I can remove that." He did a few months later. My point is: As an independent business owner, you may have to abide by certain standards for a franchise, but it ultimately comes down to it's your business, and your LARGE investment. Until the franchise starts paying your rent, electric and taxes it is still your business. The only thing I have to add is I hope you got your screwdriver back. You never know when you might need it again. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/20/07 at 4:47pm just-passing-throu wrote:
Funny you should mention it. The Saltezes filed a police report and gave the screwdriver to the police as evidence. The Slatezes' lawyer presented the screwdriver in the court case proceedings. After the judge dismissed the case, ruling very much as you opined, the judge ordered the screwdriver be returned to me for safekeeping. It always remained a permanent fixture atop my desk/counter. I had it right up until 1992 when I sold the business and all the contents of my store to the new and current owner. :) Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Dyson INVENTS BIG on 06/20/07 at 10:20pm http://www.massmostwanted.org/images/casePhotos/woburn3.JPG Stolen Dyson’s on eBay and/or pawn shops (pawn shops sell on eBay too)... 1. Story with video clip (http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6559511) 2. Story only (http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/NEWS/706030340) 3. Thief’s mug shot and description (http://www.nps.gov/uspp/ftheft.htm) More Dyson theft or otherwise... 1. Woman getting herself a five finger discount. Dyson shoplifter w/child caught on tape (http://www.massmostwanted.org/index.cfm?ac=casedetails&CaseID=20070077) 2. Story here (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06298/732855-28.stm) Such a deal... Pawn shop sells a barely used Dyson Slim for $300 plus ship on eBay. (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140127216321&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ebay.com%3A80%2Fsearch%2Fsearch.dll%3Ffrom%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm37%26satitle%3D140127216321%26category0%3D%26fvi%3D1) ...Pawn shops seem to get a hold of brand new Dyson's as well (eBay lingo - NIB). Wow, how do they do it? But certainly eBay is doing all it can to stop thieves from using eBay as a point of sale or "just in time theft." Dyson I N V E N T S BIG |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by guess_who on 06/21/07 at 1:58pm Hi, I would think one way to deal with this problem would be for eBay to require the mandatory conspicous listing of a new item's serial number, where possible, in the auction post. It would be there for all to see, buyers and/or parties tracking stolen goods. This should well be a requirement for current but used items such as appliances and electronic goods too. As far as I am concerned, Dyson and a number of other vacuum brands' pricing is a bit silly for what you get and if I were to opt to buy any one in particular I'd certainly go for the best price I could get. However, I would only want to do this legally. We are constantly being brainwashed about what we "must have" to be in step with the times and even worthy. So much so that many of us have turned just plain greedy. Meaning that the end justifies the means -- as long as we get what we want OR are told we should want. Bottom line is -- if I knowingly buy from thieves then I am no better they. Venson |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Dyson INVENTS BIG on 06/21/07 at 4:56pm guess_who wrote:
Venson, I like the serial number idea. Ebay has the deepest pockets and perhaps some of the brightest computer minds in the world. But when the eBay president was asked (I think it was 20/20 t.v. interview about 1-1/2 yrs. ago) why is theft going on and her reply was eBay was a somewhat new company and called it "an adolescent" and so "it takes time" to get the theft problem resolved. Nothing stands in eBay’s way of collecting their monies and growing their business and protecting their technologies. But the common lowlife can profit big using eBay as a hiding place all the while their stolen goods go to the highest bidder in the US and/or Worldwide. Not a bad days work for the common lowlife. Dyson pricing and its weight have always been its biggest issues. But since it is James Dyson’s company and not anyone else’s, then the guy can do as he pleases. He can grow it or drive it into the ground - because it is his. RE: eBay theft. Not just expensive Dyson’s are being pinched and sold on eBay but cosmetics, pet medications, etc. I even saw an eBay buyer buys his hypodermic needles (sold as pet medical supplies) and likewise off of eBay. - His prior purchases were mostly drug related. To bad eBay allows these activities. But if theft was removed then I’m sure eBay’s profits would decline. Dyson I N V E N T S BIG |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/21/07 at 5:24pm Dyson INVENTS BIG wrote:
There is a logical explanation for this with an illogical twist: The insulin and syringes used to treat pets with diabetes is exactly the same as humans with one significant difference. For humans, the expense is a medical deduction. For pets, its not. Same same but different. ;) Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Dyson INVENTS BIG on 06/22/07 at 3:52am Carmine_Difazio wrote:
There is a logical explanation for this with an illogical twist: The insulin and syringes used to treat pets with diabetes is exactly the same as humans with one significant difference. For humans, the expense is a medical deduction. For pets, its not. Same same but different. ;) Carmine D.[/quote] Poppies... http://stores.ebay.com/The-Poppy-Pod-Depot_W0QQcolZ2QQdirZQ2d1QQfsubZ0QQftidZ2QQpZ4QQtZkm http://www.newsreview.com/reno/Content?oid=24306 Dyson I N V E N T S BIG |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by guess_who on 06/22/07 at 6:29am Thanks D I B, When I think of all the poppy seed rolls I've eaten and never felt a thing . . . This is has got to be the most fantastic story I've ever read BUT it goes to show that, yes, where there's a will there's a way. This reminds of way back in the early '60s when they snatched airplaine glue. I thought it was the greatest stuff for putting model cars together but apparently somebody's kid made other discoveries to its powers and it was history. I can only wonder if some genius found a way to zonked off Elmer's Glue too. People who are really bent on getting "looped" will manage to do it one way or another. It is of course most unfortunate that eBay, an online venue that has not only afforded me good buys but a lot of fun too, is abused in this fashion but assume there will always be someone looking to dodge and weave his or her way to some actually profitless goal AND nitwits like me will remain none the wiser. I'm sure more stories like this will be told. (Hopefully, none like the awful story of the fertilizer used ion the Oklahoma bombing.) I am also sure that not much can be done. To outlaw every little thing that has a potential to be abused or to be potentially dangerous would bring about a great deal of squacking. It's too much to stay on top of. Wish the President was more involved in making the downhill slide with poppy seed tea than with his politics. I'd probably like him better half-lit. Venson |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/25/07 at 9:32am Dyson INVENTS BIG wrote:
Some of us remember Crazy Eddie Antar and his "insane prices." Former founder and Chief Executive of the now-defunct Crazy Eddie chain of electronics stores. In business for 22 years. Broke the fair trade laws in consumer electronics that banned retailers from selling products below suggested retail. Also broke a number of other laws which cost him $100 MILLION DOLLARS [the government took it away from him] and 7 years in federal prison for fraud, stealing, cheating, skimming, money laundering, inflating inventory and on and on. Some of the consequences for doing whatever he and his cousin Sam please. Did I mention cousin Sam 'ratted him out' as the parlance goes. Details on CNBC Wednesday night at 10 pm June 27. All happened over 20 years. Cousins back together to talk about it. Check local TV listings for details. Now 59 Eddie spends most of his free time babysitting his grand children in Brooklyn where he lives. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by guess_who on 06/25/07 at 1:33pm Dyson I N V E N T S BIG [/quote] Broke the fair trade laws in consumer electronics that banned retailers from selling products below suggested retail. Carmine D. [/quote] Hi Carmine, Thanks for the info. There really was such a law? Ugh! It seems to contradict the line of thinking that "de-monopolized" big company's like Ma Bell by hindering competition. Not that that legal gesture really helped by the look of things as they stand in present time. Anyway . . . A manufacturer has to get paid what it requires no matter what or there is nothing to put on store shelves. In turn, vendors are obviously not going to sell something without making a profit for themselves too. The unhindered process might well lead to what we could call reasonable pricing, a win for everyone. The fact that business is allowed to ultimately put a ring in the nose of the buying public is not good news. Consumer protection laws are good to have in place regarding the allowance of "think time" after a purchase and a window of opportunity to return goods but we have a right to opt and choose pricing individually satisfactory to ourselves and our government should whole-heartedly support us in that as well. Regards, Venson |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by guess_who on 06/25/07 at 6:00pm Me again . . . I ran my feeling per my last post by my employer this afternoon and -- maybe because he's a business owner-- he feels its perfectly okay for manufacturers to dictate to vendors as regards the prices their products are sold for. His bottom line on this is that the consumer ultimately does have the choice to buy the product in mind from another maker elsewhere. Would that it were that an approach this generic worked for appliance buying as well as it does on occasion for buying perscription drugs. It won't be much of a surprise to me if someone posts an, "Oh grow up," but the more I think about it the more I advocate digging around for the most reasonable price possible for the brand/model you want. And I do mean reasonable, as in "fair", NOT dirt cheap. I don't expect to buy a quality item for a for little or nothing but at least within a range where the actual wholesale price and vendor mark-up balance out nicely to make a purchase a valuable one to the buyer and not a loss to the seller. Venson |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by guess_who on 06/28/07 at 2:26pm Well gang, Just when I was about to forget the whole thing . . . http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-ex-prices28jun29,1,7706061.story The link leads to an article regarding the Supreme Court's decision to allow price fixing by manufacturers. Another day, another dollar Venson |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/28/07 at 2:49pm Good news for the independent vacuum cleaner stores. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by guess_who on 06/29/07 at 3:50am Hi Carmine, Per the NY Times Online, dissenting Justice Stephen Breyer put forth an estimate that retail price fixing agreements translated to a higher annual average bill for a family of four of about $750 to $1,000. Quoting Justice Breyer -- “The upshot is, as many economists suggest, sometimes resale price maintenance can prove harmful, sometimes it can bring benefits. But before concluding that courts should consequently apply a rule of reason, I would ask such questions as, how often are harms or benefits likely to occur? How easy is it to separate the beneficial sheep from the antitrust goats?” “My own answer,” he concluded, “is not very easily.” I'm all for purveyors of goods prospering but would like to feel more assured that the people who buy what they sell get more out of the deal than just higher prices. Regards, Venson |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/29/07 at 9:37am Hello Venson: The Court's decision is bad for internet retailers. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 06/29/07 at 11:19am Venson: I believe high end merchandise sold through big box retailers will be hardest hit by the Supreme Court ruling. The low to middle range priced items are just fine. Why? Makers of everyday consumer goods could find it very diffcult to flex their new pricing muscle with powerful retailers like Wal*Mart or Target for fear of losing business. Just as Wal*Mart bargains hard for what it pays for merchandise, it will be able to bargain with manufacturers to keep its discounts. If the minimum "floor" amounts on the expensive brands don't get buyers to buy their products (which is the case in point before the Supreme Court--expensive brand name women's leather goods) and sales stall, what do retailers do to sell? Traditionally, retailers lower prices and increase profits through volume sales. If the retailers can't lower the prices below the minimum floor amounts, even in times when the sales of high-end goods are lackluster and inventories are building up and unsold, what options do the retailers have? Discontinue the high-end merchandise and/or sell competitors' items which are less expensive. What does this do for brand makers of the high-end merchandise that doesn't sell? It forces these brand makers to lower the minimum "floor" amounts with retailers if they want to compete with the other brands. A good thing for consumers. [Economics and Macroeconomics 101: Supply, demand and price theory.] Ironically, the ruling came the same day that the Commerce Department reported much lower durable goods spending (capital spending for big ticket items that last 7-10 years) for May 2007 and the 2nd quarter. No doubt a result in part of the subprime mortgage lending debacle and the housing market decline. Judge Breyer is a brilliant Justice and often has sided with business interests. But he dissented along with Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg. I think they got this one wrong even though I hate to go along with the conservatives on the court. If the retail prices do go up in the short term [as Justice Breyer predicts they will], it will be very short-lived. Why? Market equilibrium prevails in the long run especially for prices of autos, electronics, books, toiletries and towels. Buyers and sellers are the ultimate determination of reasonable market prices for goods [and sevices]. You have to have a willing buyer and a willing seller. And the way it's done is through competitive pricing. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by guess_who on 07/06/07 at 9:01pm Back to retail theft . . . I've just seen a first -- at least for me. An eBay seller has placed an auction post for a Simplicity Synergy upright AND has listed its serial number in big bold print. Venson |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 07/06/07 at 10:31pm The August 2007 Consumer Reports features an article on eBay scams, do's and don't hints, and a couple of Web Sites to report unethical eBay practices. Carmine D. |
|
Title: Re: Retail theft Post by Carmine_Difazio on 07/14/07 at 1:00pm Wal*Mart revised and instituted new rules and regulations for catching and prosecuting persons caught stealing store merchandise (shoplifters). The policies went into effect Monday July 9. In general, I understand it lowered the age limit for prosecution from 18 years to 16 and the amount is no longer $25 or above. But any dollar amount regardless. Why? To clamp down on young thieves who may get an impulse and opportunity to steal a DVD and/or compact disk. New store policies allow Wal*Mart employees not just to detain "thieves" and "shoplifters" but to "deter" and apprehend them. Even before they go through the cashier line and leave the store. Even if they appear to be 12 years old and younger with items less than $25. Wal*Mart has reduced the time allowed for parents to respond to telephone calls about their children if they are caught stealing. If parents do not appear at the store in 60 minutes after being called, Wal*Mart calls the police and prosecutes, even first time offenders. Formerly the policy was 90 minutes. Interesting. Why? Wal*Mart is not just targeting gangs and thugs who may want to steal [organized theft rings]. But also the lone teenage shoplifter who sees and opportunity for shoplifting and acts on impulse (i.e. makes a bad choice0. Wal*Mart says "shrinkage" (the retail term for shoplifting and fraud cost retailers $41.6 BILLION in 2006 according to Joseph LaRocca VP of loss prevention at the National Retail Federation) is "bleeding its profits" and reducd profit margins during its first quarter. Wal*Mart reported June retail sales for same stores open one year or more of 2.4 percent. A healthy gain and exceeding street expectations predicting a luckluster ONE percent. Wal*Mart attributes the good profit news to lowering and cutting prices [it's old Roll Back marketing strategy]. And says it will continue to do more. Carmine D. |
|
Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.1! YaBB © 2000-2005. All Rights Reserved. |