Page 52 of 219 FirstFirst ... 242505152535462102152 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 520 of 2182

Thread: Ask a quick question, get an answer

  1. #511
    Super Moderator bjmcgeever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Woodlands, TX
    Posts
    1,707
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Quoted
    259 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gaseousclay View Post
    You clearly didn't understand the context. A customer that goes in to try on clothing with no intention to buy is costing the business money. You're wasting the time of the sales person and you're taking your business elsewhere. Everything has a cost attached to it.
    So is your argument that no customer should ever go into a store without a prior decision to purchase an item?

  2. #512
    Varsity Member JGL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    863
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Quoted
    131 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gaseousclay View Post
    You clearly didn't understand the context.
    I assure you I did. I think you're cost analysis is off.

  3. #513
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    125
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quoted
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JGL View Post
    I assure you I did. I think you're cost analysis is off.
    No, he's actually quite right. What he refers to is called "showrooming". The purpose of a B&M store is to generate sales and revenue for a retailer. They aren't there to act as a showroom for specific items so that a consumer can try them out before going online to find a better deal. It may be a structural problem with how retail is run these days, but that doesn't mean retailers aren't losing money from this happening. YOUR cost analysis is wrong.

  4. #514
    Varsity Member JGL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    863
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Quoted
    131 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by imliuwhoru View Post
    YOUR cost analysis is wrong.
    Incorrect. The act of trying things on doesn't usually cost a B&M retailer anything.

  5. #515
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    125
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quoted
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JGL View Post
    Incorrect. The act of trying things on doesn't usually cost a B&M retailer anything.
    So rent, inventory costs, the shipping costs to get inventory, associates manning a store, and utilities don't cost a B&M retailer anything. LOL GOOD ONE BRO. If you walk into a store and the lights are on, if someone is there to greet you, and the inventory is actually there, there is a very real cost of you walking in and trying things on.

  6. #516
    Varsity Member Vic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    379
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Quoted
    93 Post(s)
    Would it not be the case the those operating costs would still have to be paid regardless of whether a customer walked into a brick and mortar store or not?

    Regards,
    Vic
    "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness, that is life." - Jean-Luc Picard

  7. #517
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    365
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quoted
    107 Post(s)
    What you are describing is called "overhead", something that you as a customer have almost zero impact upon. The only way as customer going into a store and trying on garments within it is going to "cost" a retailer money is if the customer walks out with clothes they didn't pay for.

  8. #518
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    353
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quoted
    114 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron P. View Post
    What you are describing is called "overhead", something that you as a customer have almost zero impact upon. The only way as customer going into a store and trying on garments within it is going to "cost" a retailer money is if the customer walks out with clothes they didn't pay for.
    Completely agreed. Fixed overhead exists and remains constant if the store is a ghost town, if it's crowded an no one buys, if it's crowded and everyone buys, and every other scenario.

  9. #519
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    125
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quoted
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron P. View Post
    What you are describing is called "overhead", something that you as a customer have almost zero impact upon. The only way as customer going into a store and trying on garments within it is going to "cost" a retailer money is if the customer walks out with clothes they didn't pay for.
    Rent and utilities may be considered overhead. Number of employees staffed and inventory costs (shipment costs/upkeep costs/replacement costs of damaged items from customers trying them on) are not overhead and are not fixed costs.

    "Showrooming can be costly to retailers, not only in terms of the loss of the sale, but also due to damage caused to the store's floor samples of a product through constant examination from consumers.

    Showrooming[4] was said to be behind the collapse of UK photography chain Jessops,[5] and Target’s decision to discontinue carrying the Amazon Kindle.[1]"

    I know wikipedia isn't a great source, but I can assure you clothes can be ruined/damaged by people trying them on.

  10. #520
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    353
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quoted
    114 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by imliuwhoru View Post
    Rent and utilities may be considered overhead. Number of employees staffed and inventory costs (shipment costs/upkeep costs/replacement costs of damaged items from customers trying them on) are not overhead and are not fixed costs.

    "Showrooming can be costly to retailers, not only in terms of the loss of the sale, but also due to damage caused to the store's floor samples of a product through constant examination from consumers.

    Showrooming[4] was said to be behind the collapse of UK photography chain Jessops,[5] and Target’s decision to discontinue carrying the Amazon Kindle.[1]"

    I know wikipedia isn't a great source, but I can assure you clothes can be ruined/damaged by people trying them on.
    Just for the sake of argument, labor can be considered fixed. Salary workers (managers in retail) are a fixed expense, as no matter how many hours they work, the expense remains the same. Additionally, if a store is allotted $X in wages per week, that allotment will not be surpassed, resulting in a fixed expense with a potential residual "savings" at year-end. Just like certain inventory can be fixed (i.e. X number jackets sent to a store - once they're out, they're out and customers must go to another location or online). Or a "limited run" is produced to heighten demand and set inventory at a known amount. When it comes to accounting, a lot can be "played with" depending on how the company wants the numbers to be displayed or treated for tax / business purposes. Again, I'm just arguing for the sake of it, noting that neither of us are necessarily wrong.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •