U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 03-10-2019, 08:59 PM
 
17,845 posts, read 6,811,673 times
Reputation: 7606

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I think it's a little more complicated than that. Right now Amazon has the power to force the acquisition of their competition. An example is Diapers.com, a very popular site with great prices on mail order diapers and baby products. Amazon tried to buy them out but the founders of the company declined, so Amazon undercut all of their prices and Diapers.com investors freaked out at the drop in business and forced the acquisition. I don't think that's healthy. Maybe we need to have the ability for a firm like diapers.com to exist along with other competitors rather than being squeezed out by the behemoth of online sales, Amazon. That's not without precedent, when Standard Oil controlled 90% of oil production they were able to set prices and control distribution, as a result they were broken up into 34 companies.
Diapers.com was paid $545 million to be purchased.

Many small businesses start hoping, dreaming for such a buyout.

PS: Wal Mart still sells more diapers than anyone else nationally.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-10-2019, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
29,830 posts, read 12,674,875 times
Reputation: 21155
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
Diapers.com was paid $545 million to be purchased. Many small businesses start hoping, dreaming for such a buyout. PS: Wal Mart still sells more diapers than anyone else nationally.
Unfortunately you missed or chose to ignore the point I was trying to make. But I'm curious as to where you found the information about how many diapers Walmart sells?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2019, 09:17 PM
 
17,845 posts, read 6,811,673 times
Reputation: 7606
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Unfortunately you missed or chose to ignore the point I was trying to make. But I'm curious as to where you found the information about how many diapers Walmart sells?
Various documentaries have been seen by me, plus millions, in the last few decades.

Wal Mart has 140 million shoppers nationally, every week.

As for your point, its nonsense, as quite frankly, few businesses want to operate independently, rather than accept the massive purchase offers they will get, once they start growing quickly.

$545 mill was, no doubt, irresistible to the stockholders, who had to approve the sale.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2019, 04:19 AM
 
668 posts, read 588,787 times
Reputation: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeddy View Post
yawn ... all poorly run businesses, mostly part-timers, they should have no problem finding other store clerk jobs
I don't think LBrands (parent co of Victoria's Secret) is poorly run. They're facing structural problems with lack of mall traffic. It's less their fault, and more retail being a sinking industry.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2019, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
22,431 posts, read 16,553,514 times
Reputation: 26012
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyram View Post
Amazon has the Amazon Pantry so you can even shop there for groceries/perishables, lol. And some grocery stores are offering online shopping and same day delivery to compete. But, you're probably like me in that you want to pick out your own stuff and not have some barely caring stockboy/girl picking random stuff and bagging it for delivery....some people are using it though - I see the marked grocery vans by me making stops and delivering.

The only retail stores I really visit now are Home Depot or Lowes for stuff I need right away (if not I can order that too and have it shipped to me) or lumber/plywood. Other than that, it's usually online for me..and not just Amazon - Walmart, Target and some others have upped their game to remain in competition and have the free/ 2 day shipping thing. 95% of my Xmas shopping was done from my computer at home in my pajamas, sipping a hot beverage and wearing fuzzy slippers ...can't do that at a store...well..maybe Walmart, but....LOL
That depends on your local area.

Prime Pantry is just essentials. A 12 Pack of Pepsi cans is $5.68 this morning on Prime Pantry. I can often find a 12 pack of cans for $3 or less on sale locally. I can always go to Sam's Club and get a 36 pack of Pepsi for about $10. A 12 pack of Nestle water is $2.23. I can get 40 Member's Mark waters for $3.98. A 64 oz. bottle of Ocean Spray "white-cran-peach" juice is $4.37. Those are under $3 at my local grocery store.

The only "food item" that Amazon clearly wins on are nutritional supplements. I like a specific type of multivitamin that is only found locally at a couple of health food stores and Earthfare. It's nearly twice as expensive at Earthfare as it is at Amazon.

There is no Amazon Fresh here. We're not a big enough area to do it. I'm not the type for grocery pick-up. I like very specific things, and if I'm buying meat, I want to look at it first.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2019, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,942 posts, read 13,806,051 times
Reputation: 15075
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
An example is Diapers.com, a very popular site with great prices on mail order diapers and baby products. Amazon tried to buy them out but the founders of the company declined, so Amazon undercut all of their prices and Diapers.com investors freaked out at the drop in business and forced the acquisition.
Then by your own admission, diapers.com was poorly managed.

Anyone who incorporates should understand that hostile take-overs, leveraged buy-outs and forced mergers/acquisitions are part and parcel of the game.

They should also understand that the only way to defend against those is to maintain large cash reserves.

Any corporation that does not have 1/3rd of its assets in cold hard cash is asking to be taken over.

All you have to do is look at a corporation's 10-Q to see how much cash they're holding.

If diapers.com had cash, they could have bought back their own stock, driving the price up and barring Amazon from acquiring them.

So, why didn't they?

Because they were poorly managed.

Krogers historically sits on piles of cash and when KR Kravitz came calling, Krogers took their cash and started buying back their own stock, which drove up the price and KR Kravitz couldn't touch them. Kravitz lost big time, Krogers won.

Contrast that with Zenith or Toys-R-Us.

When South Korean LG Corp started buying Zenith's stock, Zenith couldn't do anything, because they didn't have any cash. LG ended up with controlling interest in Zenith, owning 53% of the stock, ran Zenith into the ground, forced Zenith into bankruptcy, and then bought Zenith for pennies on the dollar and shut them down.

Same for Toys-R-Us. When KR Kravitz and Berkshire Hathaway came calling, Toys-R-Us had no cash. Toys-R-Us got taken over, then used as a vehicle to finance other business operations for Kravitz and Berkshire, got saddled with loads of debt and then went bankrupt.

That's what happens when you make bad decisions and are poorly managed and don't have cash.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I don't think that's healthy.
Getting rid of poorly managed companies is healthy.

If Amazon didn't get them, someone else would have. It's just a matter of time.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2019, 08:17 AM
 
907 posts, read 182,014 times
Reputation: 1539
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I think it's a little more complicated than that. Right now Amazon has the power to force the acquisition of their competition. An example is Diapers.com, a very popular site with great prices on mail order diapers and baby products. Amazon tried to buy them out but the founders of the company declined, so Amazon undercut all of their prices and Diapers.com investors freaked out at the drop in business and forced the acquisition. I don't think that's healthy. Maybe we need to have the ability for a firm like diapers.com to exist along with other competitors rather than being squeezed out by the behemoth of online sales, Amazon. That's not without precedent, when Standard Oil controlled 90% of oil production they were able to set prices and control distribution, as a result they were broken up into 34 companies.
In the diaper example, the real question is: as a result of Amazon existing, what happened to the price of diapers to end consumers and for consumer choice among various diaper brands? What would happen to the price of diapers (and consumer choice among brands) to end consumers if, for example, Amazon were prohibited by a court from selling diapers on line?

When you focus on the effect Amazon has on competitors, that doesn't directly tie to what happens to the price of the product to consumers. Competition law in the USA focuses on the question: are consumers better off or worse off? That is in contrast to Europe, where the European Competition Comission instead focuses on the question: Are competitors better off or worse off?

Other things to look at - assume Amazon does indeed have market power of the type Standard Oil had long ago. How does Amazon exercise that power? For example, does Amazon require that an end consumer purchase, say, a book on baby care in order to be allowed to purchase diapers? Or require that and end customer purchase coffee from Whole Foods in order to buy diapers?

(I am not a competition attorney and I'll readily defer to someone with subject matter expertise.)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2019, 08:26 AM
 
907 posts, read 182,014 times
Reputation: 1539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
Prime Pantry is just essentials. A 12 Pack of Pepsi cans is $5.68 this morning on Prime Pantry. I can often find a 12 pack of cans for $3 or less on sale locally.
Amazon does not want to sell high weight, high bulk, low price items. They refer to them internally as "CRAP" -- "Can't Realize A Profit".
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2019, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
29,830 posts, read 12,674,875 times
Reputation: 21155
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
In the diaper example, the real question is: as a result of Amazon existing, what happened to the price of diapers to end consumers and for consumer choice among various diaper brands? What would happen to the price of diapers (and consumer choice among brands) to end consumers if, for example, Amazon were prohibited by a court from selling diapers on line?

When you focus on the effect Amazon has on competitors, that doesn't directly tie to what happens to the price of the product to consumers. Competition law in the USA focuses on the question: are consumers better off or worse off? That is in contrast to Europe, where the European Competition Comission instead focuses on the question: Are competitors better off or worse off?

Other things to look at - assume Amazon does indeed have market power of the type Standard Oil had long ago. How does Amazon exercise that power? For example, does Amazon require that an end consumer purchase, say, a book on baby care in order to be allowed to purchase diapers? Or require that and end customer purchase coffee from Whole Foods in order to buy diapers?

(I am not a competition attorney and I'll readily defer to someone with subject matter expertise.)
The price of diapers went up at Amazon after they acquired the competition, I thought I'd made that clear. Your statement about does Amazon require them to buy a book is sort of strange. The thing is that diapers were cheaper at diapers.com than they were at Amazon. Amazon drastically cut their prices in order to eliminate diapers.com, after they were able to acquire the company Amazon raised the price they charged for diapers.

I'm sure what they did was legal, the question is how long is a company like Amazon allowed to do this before we say enough is enough? Walmart has done something similar in building far more stores than they needed in order to put competitors out of business, once they accomplish that goal they close some of those stores, knowing that they now own that customer base and that they have no choice but to travel further to a different Walmart store. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...205-story.html I'm sure what they are doing is 100% legal but it clearly is not in the best interest of consumers, particularly those in rural areas who first lost their local retailers to Walmart and are now losing Walmart.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2019, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Southern West Virginia
376 posts, read 110,653 times
Reputation: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBtwinz View Post
I am not quite sure why all this news gets hyped all the time. You snooze you lose.

Sorry to be so direct but these businesses need to learn that technology, innovation and marketing are now the cornerstones of today's business. It is not something to think about at the end of the year. You need a small group of people within these company's that work to see the changing trends and make adjustments.

JC Penney introduced appliances in their line up a few years back........who did not see that mistake that coming.

All those board members sitting around the room at Blockbuster. You can't tell me that not one of those guys or gals was not thinking that this new service called Netflix was a game changer?

Garman and Tom Tom, guess what, your sales are down because of smart phones not because you did anything wrong......if they did not see it coming it is their mistake.

Sony point and shoot cameras, same thing....cell phones have replaced the need to carry a camera.

Today to succeed in business you have to look to the future for the payout, not today.

We Baby Boomers are fading away and so is the demand for Harley Davidsons, American Beer and our penchant brand loyalty. We are the children of parents who shopped at Sears for everything from tough skin jeans to diehard battery's. Now the shift is to online sales.


Last month there was great discussion on Apple phone sales as they were down. Well when the smoke cleared the current market is saturated with android and Apple phones and unless there is some sort of technology that will blow us away sales are going to stabilize.

The ability to mine social data successfully to spot trends is most likely the greatest tool to future business models and their ability to stay relevant.

As far as Tesla goes, they took nearly a half a million deposits on vehicles they had not figured out to manufacture with a profit. Years ago they sold swamp land in Florida as retirement communities
How do you figure that the demand for American beer is fading away? There are far more breweries in America now than 30 years ago. If anything, there has been an American beer revolution, most notably from micro and craft breweries (smaller companies).
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top