how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
3103 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to moonpuppy
Re: Nasty And your business is the model for everyone else? Do you have millions of customers? no... doubt it. Anyway...
When you guys sit here and throw around, loosely I might add, "business screwing over the consumer".. you often forget that it's and objectionable opinion you're speaking of, and like others said, businesses are tired of running to court at every turn because a consumer found the right greedy attorney to drag the company to court over something outright stupid and slap a six digit figure to the complaint over a 3 digit "dispute"...
It's also easy for people to say the consumer is "screwed" yet very rarely do people every say why and give real examples.
Truth be known - the consumer is not always right. Sorry, Marshall Fields... but THAT was a great marketing campaign in the early 90's that only caused major misguided entitlement issues in the world today.
**'The Customer is always right' - What they were attempting to do was to make the customer feel special by inculcating into their staff the disposition to behave as if the customer was right, even when they weren't.**
Want some good truth reading? »positivesharing.com/2006/07/why-···service/
The business sets the terms.. some consumers don't like them - go elsewhere. If you have no other choice, don't call it being screwed, instead, be smart and approach with caution moving forward.
I also operate businesses. While I do my best to take care of the customer, some people will never feel you treat them right no matter what. THERE is your "I'm being screwed" consumer.. at some point, the company just says "forget you" and gets tired of dealing with the customer. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to hopeflicker
Last time I checked, didn't we just discuss companies like Sprint, who is one of the "we're being screwed by" corporations, who just buried a rate hike and then opened themselves up for their customer to break the contract with out penalty?
If you're in a contract, and your rates are raised, it seems you have two choices. 1) Enforce your contract with them which has been done. or 2) Break the contract and move on.
Courts already know this.. and courts also know that rates go up and don't see it as being screwed, unless they violate both 1 and 2 above.  | |
tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL Reviews:
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:A car wash that I go to regularly.. while standing in line I heard a customer bitching out the cashier. Unlimited car washing clubs used to be $44.99 a month and all you got was a basic full service wash. The car wash changed the offer and now the $44.99 club is now based on a 1 year commit but also now includes 4 free hand waxes ever 3 months, a 20% discount on detail, 10% on c-store items AND now gives you a wash package which is a better wash for the same monthly cost as the old plan. BUT, that club requires a 12 month commit at 12 monthly payments based on a credit card. He may be snow bird and not home for 6 months out each year.
I.E. His costs more than double.
| |
 hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greedPremium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1 | reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:said by averagedude:Agree with woody7. The only thing I would add is that 2 year mandatory lock in contracts don't help. Such a long contract makes you feel helpless, especially when customer support is no help. you'd have to be blind to realize that the consumer played a MAJOR part in why those contracts came to play. I disagree. These companies use contracts to avoid competition. If you lock someone into 1-2 contract, then you dont have to worry about them jumping ship to go the a less expensive provider. It is also a method of guarantee revenue of a time period. Furthermore, if these communication companies offered a good service (i.e. show up when they say they will, have a good working billing system, offer decent tech support with English speaking people), then maybe, just maybe people with stick with the company.
When a company grows into a large entity (thousands of customers), this is when service takes a nose dive.
These communication (and other)companies are notorious for sub-par service, and everyone knows that. Maybe they should work on their internal communication system first.
--
Man created God in his image : intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to tkdslr
Snow bird in California?
So, then he should take the other package that is available, or simply not take the car club which is a loyalty program.
The point to this is that he wasn't "screwed" ... he just ran across something that doesn't fit his needs.
Ok.. so then let me ask you this, should he be entitled to all the perks that were priced out for the annual consumer at a 6 month point? No... I don't think so.
How many times do you go into a shoe store, want a pair of Nikes that they have at a good price, only it's not available in your size.. are you being screwed? or, do you just happen to be on the short end of the good luck stick? Some people would say they are being "screwed"...
My point really is that the word "screwed" is very much mis-used these days. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | reply to hopeflicker
You are ABSOLUTELY right! The contract is 'also' used to avoid competition. But, that comes on many levels as well.
On one level, customers were offer shopping one provider over the other and would jump ship every other month because of a sale. There are several factors that play into this.. one was that it costs a lot of money to gain a customer up front. It also takes them about 6 months to start breaking even on them... second, to churn a customer, it costs money that they don't make back... so yes, the contract comes to play.
Do you get a subsidized hand set? Yes.. (and yes there are exceptions) Again.. pay the break out fee and move onwards to the next provider.
If customers continued to go with the hot deal, and we know that mentality is alive and well here on this site alone, then prices would in fact sky rocket for us all. Thus, the contract.
Think about when the contract came.. When it was just the A/B systems, contracts started to come to play, BUT, they were pro-rated contracts. (ie: if you were in a 1 year, were 6 months through, the break out was $100, then you paid $50 to get out) Now that there are several carriers, they did away with that. Too many companies in the field make it even costlier for the carriers. (not making an excuse, just saying it like it is)
So now.. if a contract is what is screwing the customer, then how come people cry foul over cable and all their ill, who has no contract, when phone companies stick a contract on EVERYTHING these days and they, of all people, are the saviors?
But, in large, I do happen to agree a lot with what you say... with that said, there are MANY reasons out there to feel 'screwed'.. however, as I've said before, being "screwed" is objectionable and an opinion - only in which case the opinion *can* be wrong.
p.s. - there is still cell phones with out contracts. | |
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to Jason Levine
True... companies are really into short term (quarterly) profits and results. Its a time vs. money equation.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to rudnicke
It's legal for Corporations to lie, cheat, steal, rob, trick, defraud you, and just generally take your money at will.
However it's 100% illegal for you to try to do any of these things back to them. Neat, eh? | | |
|
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:On one level, customers were offer shopping one provider over the other and would jump ship every other month because of a sale. There are several factors that play into this.. one was that it costs a lot of money to gain a customer up front. It also takes them about 6 months to start breaking even on them... second, to churn a customer, it costs money that they don't make back... so yes, the contract comes to play. Using this argument, I gather you wouldn't find it offensive to walk into any store that has advertised to gain a customer to pay a "contract" to purchase something from them. Who says McDonalds doesn't spend a heaping amount of money to gain/maintain customers? Should they begin charging a minimum term of use? Customers certainly churn regularly depending on mood, food desire, location, ease of access (lines/travel distance). Perhaps we do not have enough competition? None of the competitive business can get that guarantee, can they? 6 months to break even would be a non issue if the service was excellent, or "good enough". It ain't like customers are seeing discounts for multi-year commits, unlike in other businesses.
said by fiberguy:If customers continued to go with the hot deal, and we know that mentality is alive and well here on this site alone, then prices would in fact sky rocket for us all. Thus, the contract. Yeah! This is why Walmart is such a friggin giant, yet doesn't really dominate the overall retail market. They are HUGE but they have yet to monopolize any but the smallest of markets (rural, if you will). Walmart sucks money out of the suburban market and passes on to the rural market, at the same time, sucking more out of the vendors that deal with them. Are there any markets that Walmart has no competition?
Does ANY mass market competitive business, other than cable and telecom, require multi-year contracts? Perhaps the mass market contracts are indicative that this isn't the competitive market it should/could be.
said by fiberguy:Think about when the contract came.. When it was just the A/B systems, contracts started to come to play, BUT, they were pro-rated contracts. (ie: if you were in a 1 year, were 6 months through, the break out was $100, then you paid $50 to get out) Now that there are several carriers, they did away with that. Too many companies in the field make it even costlier for the carriers. (not making an excuse, just saying it like it is) This made sense when the business was new and fairly dominated by the LECs and was priced at a buck a minute.
This also made sense when competition was created and everyone was seeking out market share at any cost.
This only currently makes sense because the carriers themselves will only allow devices they approve on their networks. The rub being, they only approve devices that they control from a sales standpoint. The "subsidy" is driven by the carriers who demand control so they can sell stuff on those devices that they have deemed ok to be on their network.
In simple terms, the business is not competitive. If the ISPs of yore required you to purchase a special modem to dial up, instead of requiring we use a Hayes compatible modem, we'd likely still be in dial up days and purchasing dial up services for 10 cent a minute to have this discussion.
said by fiberguy:So now.. if a contract is what is screwing the customer, then how come people cry foul over cable and all their ill, who has no contract, when phone companies stick a contract on EVERYTHING these days and they, of all people, are the aviors? A good question, but many people are contracted with Cable as well. The only free space from contracts is Telephone at this point, and that may vary from state.
Unfortunately people are people. Markets are markets.
Competitive markets provide more equal balances.
Where equals compete to sell and buy, prices tend to stabilize. Do we agree on that at least?
said by fiberguy:p.s. - there is still cell phones with out contracts. p.s. - you have defined the competitive market cell companies fear, it is like the carterphone decision 1.5 (2.0 if you just buy your favorite phone and activate it with your preferred carrier of the day, week, month, year with appropriate pricing incentives for commits). Crazy I know, but when will the first ballsy carrier offer contracts by individual? Scary new world that may never happen...but would in a purely competitive environment.
p.p.s. - if it weren't for government monopoly/franchising,
many in rural america didn't have tv, hence Community Antenna TV. The digital box there is no more necessary than the cellular phone to use the service, other than by carrier design.
Sounds a lot like we are in the same business. I read a lot and often disagree with you, but I respect your thoughts and do acknowledge your point of view (just don't often disagree or agree enough to bother responding).
Final thought...no matter how you cut it, the network is getting less expensive from a capex and opex perspective.
It's short term in the carrier world and long term in wall street world. | |
| reply to en102
You forgot about EBITDA which is often more spoken about on conference calls. That's the real driver in the telco/cableco space these days.
said by en102:Corporations are looking out for: a) bottom line (profits) b) corporate assets (name) c) stock price (upper management's pay is tied to stock) Corporations do not care about people, and in general, even their staff, if it affects any of the above items. That doesn't make sense. Corporate goals vary by their business, their position within it, and their ownership.
Your statement about people doesn't make sense either, to me at least. Best talent recruiting corps will care about people until it is a position where it believes it can get the best for less in return for perceived security, if that corp is willing to emphasize profitability. Stock price valuation on the other hand is way beyond a single post discussion, but I would agree, at times Corps will care less about their people and customers in the proper circumstances (which are generally anti-consumer). Private businesses are no better (think the shady mechanic in a big city...)
said by en102:Don't forget, there's a flip side, where many consumers attempt to take advantage of large corporations as well. Other corp will attempt to erode 'a' and 'c', and activists will attempt to smear 'b'. A consumer taking advantage of a corporation is a david and goliath story. Has a large corporation ever been bankrupted by it's customers? More likely, large corporations have failed due to hubris and incorrect motivations like your C example. Paying the CEO on stock price at any cost is akin to paying the salesperson a commission regardless of the profitability (or loss) of a sale. Sometimes the best laid plans aren't right  In either case, the CEO/Salesperson still comes out ahead in every instance...would it be possible if there wasn't such a high level of nepotism without corresponding government oversight (if the gov themselves could be freed from the same problems?).
Perhaps I'm just an old jaded MF. | |
| reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :
The business environment companies have to deal with is the nasty place, and mandatory arbitration is the only way for businesses (some more than others) can offer a functional business model- without having their legal team being the largest piece in the organization.
I disagree. If your legal team is large or your require a means of "beating your customers at the head", you either have business model that is not viable without a monopolistic niche or a model that feeds off that behavior in the first place.
said by JasonD :
I'm not entirely blaming customers for this, our judicial system makes it far too easy for cases to be brought, and the courts to be abused.
Could there be a reason for this that was brought on by the businesses themselves? (Or trial lawyers that can't get employed willing to gamble?) These risks need to be brought into the cost of service and/or insured against. This is not new to the 21st century. Sounds like you advocate a teenager beat his kid brother because his father beats him...ugh. Poor business model IMO.
said by JasonD :
Without companies having the flexibility to offer mandatory arbitration means the best case would be that your consumer costs would be higher, worst case at least some business services would be non-existent. And as always, companies always spell out dispute resolution terms up front. Don't like it? DON'T BUY IT!
So our costs would be higher and we make more rational economical choices, but you'd lose. So some businesses are non existent, the world won't end. Small print contracts that protect you but leave me open makes no more sense than you accepting a small print contract from me that says no...don't like it? DON'T SELL IT!
*duh* | |
| reply to UncleDirtNap
Links to sources always help arguments? Care to serve some up, or are you talking smack?
said by UncleDirtNap:The question you should be asking is why does Congress allow this to happen? The anti-competitive and unethical business practices that media companies and SOME cable companies are engaged in are already illegal for just about any other company to use, but they get away with it because of regulations put in place during the early days of cable that the current Democrat leadership in Congress is blocking efforts to end. It's greed alright, but to find out who's being greedy and permitting media companies to continuously pile crap and nonsense channels on to your service and charge you for it; head to any one of the web-sites that lists campaign contributions and see who the top contributors to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Carl Levin, Hillary Clinton's campaigns... TimeWarner, Viacom, Comcast etc etc. | |
| reply to fiberguy
Apples and oranges.
The customer, as the wash company could have pointed out kindly, had several options:
Wash your own car
Driveway/Garage
Cost:
Water
Soap
Wax
Materials
Your time
Local Clean your own
Cost:
Time (materials included) +
Water
Soap
Wax
Your time
Pay someone else:
Kid on the street
Personal assistant
Cleaning lady
etc..
plus
Cost:
Water
Soap
Wax
Materials (maybe)
I am guessing that the car wash joint was cheaper than any of the above options or they wouldn't be in business. They are providing a value, all things equal, charging the same as the customers perceived value of their time.
Yes people get upset with price increases..marketing goes a long way to sell the "value". Bottom line, she had no clue about that customer. Telling someone you're getting more means nothing. If I go to the grocer and they tell me I need to begin paying 5 bucks a month because they are giving me more options in store (now they are selling cars, computers, and high end stereo systems) bah. It sounds like your ISP stating you are getting "more web sites" or the Cable company stating you are getting "more channels with 50% advertising". It just isn't more if it isn't more of what I asked for.
Advertise "more" all you want, it isn't more if I am not interested in more than what I initially wanted in the first place (and paid for).
Businesses shouldn't offer coupons if they aren't interested in that type of customer, but they do because the only customer that uses them is that type of customer, generally.
Maybe those customer coupons in the sunday paper should start restricting them to customers willing to only purchase their products for the next year! It's coming
Furthermore, maybe he didn't want to provide a CC for monthly charge because cash was more efficient. Since CC costs the company, why wouldn't they offer a 5 percent discount for cash up front monthly, or more for annual considering discount rates? Are you really portraying the full story?
said by fiberguy:Part of it is in fact greed.. and, part of it is to protect themselves from bottom feeding consumers looking to stick it to the company in return. It's a two-way street. Companies will offer their specials which we all know come with strings and terms. Yet, SOME consumers like to go for the goodies and then run while playing the next one. It's not the major player in why these corporations are so nasty to consumers, BUT, the consumer has also played a part in why the corporations have turned and gotten nasty in return. Don't think for one moment that a consumer won't screw the corp at any turn as well. A real world experience. A car wash that I go to regularly.. while standing in line I heard a customer bitching out the cashier. Unlimited car washing clubs used to be $44.99 a month and all you got was a basic full service wash. The car wash changed the offer and now the $44.99 club is now based on a 1 year commit but also now includes 4 free hand waxes ever 3 months, a 20% discount on detail, 10% on c-store items AND now gives you a wash package which is a better wash for the same monthly cost as the old plan. BUT, that club requires a 12 month commit at 12 monthly payments based on a credit card. They also started a new club at $24.99 a month which is only an EXTERIOR only wash which you can by monthly. You get no extras yet, you can still pay the $3 difference at the counter to upgrade to a full service wash as you chose. (You get no perks with this package) bottom line.. the customer chewed the cashier out saying they were trying to screw the customer. She explained that everything had changed at the first of the year to the new program.. she explained that you get a lot of perks for the same price, and even went to explain that these clubs are "loyalty clubs" for frequent washers and were modified based on customer feedback. She went as far to explain that while you are buying an annual plan over 12 lower payments, you are also getting a TON more stuff in return.. His reply was "why shouldn't I get all that too? but why should I have to do a year? "You're screwing me is all"... she told me later that she's heard that a few times, though most people liked the new program and signed up for it. The other guy was pissed that his plan had been phased out and he was being screwed. Tell me the logic in how he was being screwed? Screwed.. a loosely used word these days. Was he really screwed? No. Was he more disappointed? maybe, but more so, he felt entitled. I think the moral is that the term "screwed" is mis-used WAY to much these days... while some people ARE being screwed, others are misguided in thinking they are screwed. Think of the cellular contract and stuff. (not saying those are perfect) but, about 99% of people get something upfront and are put into a term. When something doesn't go right and they want out, they are told about the 'contract' and feel screwed. How are you screwed? Pay the break out fee and go. The consumer knows up front they have that against them going in.. I just don't agree with many people around here.. while I agree their is room for improvement on the corporation side, I also agree there is much room on the consumer's side as well. and yes, some people are getting the short end of the stick, that I don't disagree with. | |
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:said by averagedude:Agree with woody7. The only thing I would add is that 2 year mandatory lock in contracts don't help. Such a long contract makes you feel helpless, especially when customer support is no help. Then buy it out.. You got a break up front going in to that contract.. you want out? Fork over the $100 to $200 break out and be on your way. I don't agree or like the contracts either, but, you'd have to be blind to realize that the consumer played a MAJOR part in why those contracts came to play. And again, you also have something really wrong here. You don't HAVE to take the 2 year contract.. there are month to month services and pay as you go. The difference? They don't give you all those nice things that you get when you go into an agreement. What you're also saying is that you want all the goodies and offers but with out any strings or giving anything in return. So.. if you don't like contracts and don't want to be locked in, take a go-phone, or a virgin phone. There are choices to be made.. In all fairness, why buy out the contract? Just use the service to it's fullest potential and they might cancel you.
If you can't use the service to it's potential, a letter to the better business bureau might help. Complaints to local public service commissions might help. FCC? Small claims court? Local papers and/or news stations? Blogs? BBR? There are routes to resolve a non-functioning phone service.
Maybe the original poster didn't really have horrendous customer service issues? | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | reply to xsiddalx
Ok... You're talking about a retail environment and we're talking about a service industry (communications) which is totally different. The two don't argue the same way.
Also.. I'm curious where all these cable TV contracts are coming from? Cable is well known for now requiring contracts. | |
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:Snow bird in California? So, then he should take the other package that is available, or simply not take the car club which is a loyalty program. The point to this is that he wasn't "screwed" ... he just ran across something that doesn't fit his needs. Ok.. so then let me ask you this, should he be entitled to all the perks that were priced out for the annual consumer at a 6 month point? No... I don't think so. How many times do you go into a shoe store, want a pair of Nikes that they have at a good price, only it's not available in your size.. are you being screwed? or, do you just happen to be on the short end of the good luck stick? Some people would say they are being "screwed"... My point really is that the word "screwed" is very much mis-used these days. Not screwed, but you can tell them that you want that pair of shoes at the same sales price advertised (which is the only time it matters). If it weren't for the sales price, we might never have bothered to visit the store in the first place.
Haven't looked into raincheck laws in awhile, but recall those have always been a scam as well, but have always received those prices when stock came in. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | You assumed a lot there. I didn't say a "sale"... I said "a good price"... And, you assumed a size out of stock.. it could have also meant a size 14 which is often not in stock as many places go up to 13 as the common top size.
The moral is that if you try that hard to find a reason, then you're looking too far into something that isn't really there. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | reply to xsiddalx
Here we are again.
Why is/was it the job of the cashier to tell the consumer about washing their own car, or getting someone else to wash it for you?
The point of that story remains clear.. the customer had an expectation of "I want to get it my way".. well, in the end, if I were the cashier, I would have used an alternative option of "this isn't Burger King and you can't have it your way"..
If you read closer, it wasn't a price increase. The price stayed the same, the wash did away with the previous package. They kept the same price, gave a better wash, added perks, BUT, instead of it being month to month, made it an annual plan (which many washes have) and chose to sell it as a loyalty program.
Look, the wash in the package was an $18.95 wash. Wash twice in a month and you've just about made your money back as a customer. This plan isn't designed to be month to month. It's designed for the loyal customer who will be around. The customer that wanted the plan was upset because he wanted an UBER deal. The wash chose to make a package designed for the long term loyal customer. He had choices.. he could get the month to month plan at $29.99 a month but he didn't want it. he wanted all the goodies that came with the new plan, but, didn't want to give ANYTHING in return to get them. It was an entitlement issue. The wash has NO obligation to give what the customer wants just because they want it.
What the idiot didn't realize that for his washing pattern, he was better off to take the $29.99 plan, and pay the $2 upgrade at each visit since he was only coming 4 times a month. With that route, he'd have only paid $37.99 a month, not the 44.95 and got the same thing. He didn't care.. he didn't want to hear it.. as he was TOO BUSY being "screwed"..
People need to stop thinking that they can get what ever they want because they are the customer. There is a point where the business world reacts and they WILL react as a whole. Those new upstarts who love coming in and "taking care of the customer where others won't" soon learn WHY business, in general, won't give in anymore as they start to lose their ass.
You try to work out a scenario of the cost of a drive way wash.. that's also missing the mark. No matter what, driveway washing is always more expensive than car wash washing..
(By the way - don't try to compete with me on washes.. I own a car wash)
edit:
By the way.. the same plan that is offered on a month to month basis is also offered on a "pay for the annual in advance." The automatic credit card billing is a courtesy way to allow people to pay for that plan on a monthly basis over 12 months at smaller payments.
What you're not getting is that on the annual plans, those that are designed for those who are going to commit to washing at your place for a year. (It sounds like you don't use car washes that often or you'd get this) It's the PERKS he wanted.. The perks were thrown in for someone willing to pay. He wanted all the toys and not give anything in return. While other washes in that are charge $59 a month for unlimited washing and give nothing, this was was doing it at $44.99 a month with the perks and a better wash. No.. nothing here that you haven't heard.. you're more focused on the part where the consumer is "getting screwed" to make your point. | |
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:Ok... You're talking about a retail environment and we're talking about a service industry (communications) which is totally different. The two don't argue the same way. Are you suggesting that we individuals are wholesale customers and can opt into individual contracts?
Communications is a retail business, predominantly.
Telephony, Cable, Satellite, Cellular, ISP....they are all retail.
They all have wholesale arms are well.
It is simple.
Examples:
Telephone companies sell wholesale to LD and CLECs.
Cable sells wholesale to religious channels and shopping.
Sat....follows cable
Cellular sells wholesale to SMS providers (american idol?)
ISP (often all of the above now) have similar deals.
said by fiberguy:Also.. I'm curious where all these cable TV contracts are coming from? Cable is well known for now requiring contracts. I don't understand. Your question answers itself.
If your asking about cable companies, they were started on the same monopolistic guarantees as telephone companies. They are still requesting deregulated pricing offered under the telecom act of 96 for basic service. Cable franchises and prices were originally offered at at a given rate of return for a set of basic services. The TA96 gave them freedom of return based pricing for basic services once competition hit a certain level.
Just in case I misinterpreted, cable contracts are certainly a minimum of 6 months of more depending on the market and digital upgrades are required with a modem rental, which amount to the equivalent of renting a telephone. Any box would be cheaper sold at walmart if it met cable specs. Any phone would be cheaper if sold at walmart if it met cell company specs.
For the record, I have only shopped at walmart mart 6 or 7 times in my life.
I don't think I understand your differentiation. Service are sold by barbers, goods are sold by grocers. Neither of the two require contracts as the norm, nor do the contracts necessarily equate per customer. | |
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:You assumed a lot there. I didn't say a "sale"... I said "a good price"... And, you assumed a size out of stock.. it could have also meant a size 14 which is often not in stock as many places go up to 13 as the common top size. The moral is that if you try that hard to find a reason, then you're looking too far into something that isn't really there. Not really dude. If there was a a good price of NIKEs that weren't available, I'd go back. I don't fully disagree with you, nor do i fully agree. However, I enjoy these types of discussions and you are the only one that posts
If you think you have found a moral in one of my posts, you are in trouble.
Sounds like you are wanting to play in word manipulation.
Good price vs Sale
Assumptions aren't generally built on deep thought until challenged.
I do agree that I misread what you wrote *blush* apologies
I would still ascertain, there are a number of other stores that sell what I want at a price I'm willing (stubbornly) to pay. We are still talking about physical goods vs bits.
I agree that those of us at the extremes of a given market will pay. However, I would also argue that we are not in the ideal world, but should be striving for it, a truly competitive market would be contracted entity by entity. | |
|
