On the power of the retailer...
I stopped into a T-Mobile store today to ask the salesman about some of the phones they had - primarily b/c Lon bought the hottest new phone on the market, the SonyEricsson P800, which only works with T-Mobile right now. T-Mobile happens to have the best selection of phones available in the US (a selection which is substantially worse than any country with mobile service).
Anyway, so I walked out of the store rather upset, because the guy at the store didn't have any of the phones I was interested in looking at (similar to the P800). His answer was that they're not that popular, so he doesn't stock them.
What pissed me off is what occurred to me a few minutes later. It occurred to me that at first glance, its OK that this retailer doesn't carry a certain set of phones, b/c that is the market speaking. He should know from experience and expertise what the market wants and doesn't want. As such, he only carries the stuff that the market will buy, b/c as a retailer, his margins aren't that high, and every time he tries to make a sale, he needs to score, and make the highest profit. I'm cool with that - I love capitalism, and think it works well.
But then I started thinking... this guy was like every other mobile phone salesman in the city - who doesn't work at the phone-company stores like a Verizon Wireless or Sprint store. This guy is a recent immigrant who doesn't speak much English, clearly is working very hard, and I commend him for appearing to be a productive member of society. But my problem is that there is no way that he knows the market that well, b/c he barely knew anything about the phones he had in stock, no less about the phones I was interested in that he didn't have in stock. As such, I was bothered by the fact that in general (barring the Internet) its up to people like this guy to determine how to stock their shelves, and as such the average person who walks in will buy whatever is on the shelf. Most people aren't crazy like me, who would be willing to wait 2 weeks for a specific mobile phone to come in, because I want that one. Most people, when they decide to buy a phone, want to walk in today, and buy it. Furthermore, people want the phone that looks cool, most of them don't do hours of research, like Lon.
So what I'm getting to is that not only isn't this guy a good person to be making decisions about how to properly stock his shelves, his decisions on how to stock the shelves are based on what he believes the market will buy. But if you look further, the market will buy whatever he can sell them. So essentially, the products that get put on the shelf are the products which retailers can most easily sell. And considering that most retailers do less research on the products they sell than the diligent consumers (such as Lon and myself), we're fucked from day 1!
Yet another reason progress is impeded every day!
This entry was posted
on Apr 16, 2003 at 4/16/2003 01:42:00 AM.
There are . If you want, you can leave your own response by clicking here.
You may also send this post to a friend of yours via email, or bookmark it for yourself by using icons below;
This evening I was IMing w/Donna and I came up with a cool analogy on a not so cool topic (the predicament my parents have found themselves in). Tomorrow my parents will be going to work at their restaurant, Pickles, for the last time. They will close the doors tomorrow and on Thursday go to the closing, where the store will officially be closed.
DonnAbraham: Are they excited?
skalifowitz: excited is a "strong" word
skalifowitz: I think exhausted is a little more appropriate
DonnAbraham: Why? This is it!
DonnAbraham: Well, it'll sink it after awhile
skalifowitz: yeah, but someone who thought they entered a sprint race, and found out half way that they were in a long distance race
skalifowitz: doesn't get excited about crossing the finish line
DonnAbraham: I guess relieved would be the more appropriate term
skalifowitz: yeah
skalifowitz: that will come Thursday after they get the $
This entry was posted
on at 4/16/2003 01:19:00 AM.
There are . If you want, you can leave your own response by clicking here.
You may also send this post to a friend of yours via email, or bookmark it for yourself by using icons below;
Today on the Sundance Channel there was a documentary, ""The Trials of Henry Kissinger". Without knowing much about the details regarding Kissinger's life, I don't feel I can judge how good or bad the film. I simply don't know how much of the film was fact, or opinion. That said, it did raise a lot of questions in my mind on America's role in the world, decisions our politicians have made, the decisions they're making today, and how can we move forward.
I find it rather ironic that I read in the NYTimes today an article entitled, "Viewing the War as a Lesson to the World" By David E. Sanger, where he wrote:
"Washington, April 5 — Shortly after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld issued a stark warning to Iran and Syria last week, declaring that any "hostile acts" they committed on behalf of Iraq might prompt severe consequences, one of President Bush's closest aides stepped into the Oval Office to warn him that his unpredictable defense secretary had just raised the specter of a broader confrontation. Mr. Bush smiled a moment at the latest example of Mr. Rumsfeld's brazenness, recalled the aide. Then he said one word — "Good" — and went back to work."
It is even more ironic how fitting this week's episode of "Law & Order" is to this stream of consciousness. Essentially, the issue that this episode dealt with is, should our justice system weigh the relative value of citizens, when judging them for crimes committed, and the sentencing them. A brilliant writer killed a man for no reason, and asked for the death sentence. His defense attorney was fighting the death sentence on the grounds that killing this man would devoid society of amazing works of literature – based on what this guy could ‘potentially’ write while in prison. One quote from the episode, “If Einstein had killed the Count of Monte Christo, should he be put in jail?”
Regarding the excerpt from the NYTimes article, I find it interesting because of the claims made in the film. In a nut shell, the film claims that Henry Kissinger should be put on trial for crimes against humanity.
The film, based on a book, “The Trial of Henry Kissinger by Christopher Hitchens claims that while Kissinger was the National Security Advisor & Secretary of State, 1973 – 1977, he was responsible for the murder of millions of people in Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh, East Timor, & Chile. Furthermore, he was responsible for the installment or at least the rise to power of Pinochet, Pol Pot & the Khmere Rouge, who went on to kill hundreds of thousands.
I’ll continue this later… gotta run.
This entry was posted
on Apr 5, 2003 at 4/05/2003 06:47:00 PM.
There are . If you want, you can leave your own response by clicking here.
You may also send this post to a friend of yours via email, or bookmark it for yourself by using icons below;
Stumble
Leave your response