Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #148718 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-21 08:08 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-07-27 07:54 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 73 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-07-21 08:08 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-07-22 01:00 +0000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2015-07-24 13:42 +0100
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Mike Albanese <allegrippus@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:42 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-07-26 20:15 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy jmreno <none@nowhere.com> - 2015-07-27 00:22 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-27 14:08 +0000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-27 10:00 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-07-27 15:08 +0000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-07-27 17:41 +0000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-28 00:21 +0000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-07-27 21:42 -0600
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-27 23:17 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-07-28 03:30 -0300
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-07-28 08:19 -0600
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-28 09:40 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-28 12:09 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-07-28 10:43 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-07-29 10:45 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-30 12:29 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-01 23:05 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-07-29 10:56 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-07-29 02:35 +0200
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-28 20:17 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-28 12:34 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-07-28 13:35 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-07-29 11:18 -0400
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-07-29 11:01 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-07-28 14:24 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-07-28 19:47 +0000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-07-28 13:16 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-07-28 15:57 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-07-30 11:58 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-30 14:36 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-07-30 19:42 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-07-30 22:06 -0600
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-31 12:14 +0000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-07-31 07:10 -0600
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-08-01 12:36 +0000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 05:55 +1000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Tom Dadey <tomdzip1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 13:10 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 09:24 +1000
Re: OT: franchises, was A&P supermarket bankruptcy John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-08-03 00:42 +0000
Re: OT: franchises, was A&P supermarket bankruptcy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 14:54 +1000
Re: OT: franchises, was A&P supermarket bankruptcy hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-03 19:43 -0700
Re: OT: franchises, was A&P supermarket bankruptcy Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-04 13:38 +0000
Re: OT: franchises, was A&P supermarket bankruptcy hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-04 08:10 -0700
Re: OT: franchises, was A&P supermarket bankruptcy JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 18:45 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-01 15:22 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-08-02 09:14 +1000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-08-01 14:24 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-03 13:36 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-08-02 07:59 +1000
toilet paper, was: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-07-30 20:23 +0000
Re: toilet paper, was: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-31 09:14 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-30 14:56 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-07-30 23:18 +0000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-07-31 14:05 +1000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-31 09:48 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-07-31 18:00 +0000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-07-31 17:47 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-07-30 16:20 +1000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 16:31 +1000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-30 11:50 +0000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 06:40 +1000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-07-30 16:57 -0500
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 13:56 +1000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-31 12:13 +0000
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-07-27 23:01 -0400
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2015-07-28 02:27 -0400
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-07-27 07:40 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-07-27 07:45 -0700
Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-07-27 07:54 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Tom Dadey <tomdzip1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-02 13:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <cdfdc0f9-b033-473d-a06c-95dfb42b5e0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #149215 |
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 3:55:41 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote: > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM00051C3F49CFCEDD@aca428c9.ipt.aol.com... > > Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > >> > >>> Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > >>>> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> writes: > >>>>> > >>>>> Now that I have thought some more on it, I recall Subway > >>>>> locations have the standard menu and are allowed to have three local > >>>>> differences. They mention this so the inconsistency problem is > >>>>> ameliorated. > >>>> > >>>> Our local Outback Steakhouse manager was full of apologies that > >>>> Corporate had come down on him and demanded that he no longer make > >>>> green > >>>> chile available to put on steaks. In Las Cruces NM, the home of > >>>> capsaicin addiction.... > >>> > >>> That makes no sense. Did they charge for the sauce? > >> > >> Not sauce, just green chile strips. And yes, it cost extra. > >> I agree, no sense whatever.... > > > Especially if they were making money from it. > > But they have decided that they make more money by having > all their stores identical so you get the same result whatever > store of theirs you choose to use in your travels, knowing that > they have a completely consistent result. Its never as black and > white as you two are claiming. That's a real load of nonsense! Look at what happened to the Howard Johnson restaurant chain. They are all but out of business.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 09:24 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <d27n5mF8nrrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #149268 |
"Tom Dadey" <tomdzip1@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cdfdc0f9-b033-473d-a06c-95dfb42b5e0c@googlegroups.com... > On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 3:55:41 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote: >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM00051C3F49CFCEDD@aca428c9.ipt.aol.com... >> > Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >> >> >> >>> Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> >>>> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> writes: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Now that I have thought some more on it, I recall Subway >> >>>>> locations have the standard menu and are allowed to have three >> >>>>> local >> >>>>> differences. They mention this so the inconsistency problem is >> >>>>> ameliorated. >> >>>> >> >>>> Our local Outback Steakhouse manager was full of apologies that >> >>>> Corporate had come down on him and demanded that he no longer make >> >>>> green >> >>>> chile available to put on steaks. In Las Cruces NM, the home of >> >>>> capsaicin addiction.... >> >>> >> >>> That makes no sense. Did they charge for the sauce? >> >> >> >> Not sauce, just green chile strips. And yes, it cost extra. >> >> I agree, no sense whatever.... >> >> > Especially if they were making money from it. >> >> But they have decided that they make more money by having >> all their stores identical so you get the same result whatever >> store of theirs you choose to use in your travels, knowing that >> they have a completely consistent result. Its never as black and >> white as you two are claiming. > That's a real load of nonsense! Maybe. > Look at what happened to the Howard Johnson > restaurant chain. They are all but out of business. But others that have the same approach are not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 00:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: franchises, was A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <mpmde3$1fht$1@miucha.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #149215 |
>>> Not sauce, just green chile strips. And yes, it cost extra. >>> I agree, no sense whatever.... >But they have decided that they make more money by having >all their stores identical so you get the same result whatever >store of theirs you choose to use in your travels, knowing that >they have a completely consistent result. Its never as black and >white as you two are claiming. That sort of rigidity is a strong indicator of bad management. It's perfectly possible to have strong franchise management and strong brand identity and still made adjustments for regional differences. I have never set foot in an Olive Garden (and have no plans to do so) but I gather the tomato sauce they use varies a lot by locale. In the southeast it's a lot like barbeque sauce. Howard Johnson was a different case. They got myopic and never adjusted to the world of McDonalds and the like, attempted to deal with financial problems by cost cuts that affected product quality, and the customers ditched them. The Friendly restaurant chain, with a similar history (both started from ice cream stands in Massachusetts between WWI and WWII) and similar restaurants is still around despite a period of mismanagement that led to bankruptcy in 2011.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 14:54 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: franchises, was A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <d28ag2Fcrj6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #149273 |
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote >>>> Not sauce, just green chile strips. And yes, it cost extra. >>>> I agree, no sense whatever.... >> But they have decided that they make more money by >> having all their stores identical so you get the same result >> whatever store of theirs you choose to use in your travels, >> knowing that they have a completely consistent result. >> Its never as black and white as you two are claiming. > That sort of rigidity It isn't rigidity, it's just one quite common way of doing business with nationwide or close chains that do rely on having their customers use their stores wherever the customer happens to be at the time. > is a strong indicator of bad management. No it is not in this case. > It's perfectly possible to have strong franchise management and strong > brand identity and still made adjustments for regional differences. Yes, but it's harder to do than all the stores doing it the same way, particularly when the chain has entirely centralised supply systems. > I have never set foot in an Olive Garden (and have no plans to do so) > but I gather the tomato sauce they use varies a lot by locale. In the > southeast it's a lot like barbeque sauce. It's just one way of doing business. Some prefer that they can be sure of getting what they want whichever particular store they use. > Howard Johnson was a different case. They got myopic and never > adjusted to the world of McDonalds and the like, attempted to deal > with financial problems by cost cuts that affected product quality, > and the customers ditched them. The Friendly restaurant chain, with > a similar history (both started from ice cream stands in Massachusetts > between WWI and WWII) and similar restaurants is still around despite > a period of mismanagement that led to bankruptcy in 2011. And plenty of operations that do have all the stores identical have been around for a very long time now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 19:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: franchises, was A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <3b1cb4cf-01dd-4bca-a19d-01e88282380d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #149273 |
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 8:42:27 PM UTC-4, John Levine wrote: > Howard Johnson was a different case. They got myopic and never > adjusted to the world of McDonalds and the like, attempted to deal > with financial problems by cost cuts that affected product quality, > and the customers ditched them. Howard Johnson's, a once proud popular quality chain of family restaurants, was a victim of two factors: 1) Bad management. Stores became dirty and poorly run. I believe it was because the founder died and there was no good succession. 2) Change in consumer eating habits. H/J's served motorists with a pleasant meal, with waitress service, as a nice break on their journey. But motorists became more in a hurry, kids were cranky, and fast food took over that market. Other consumers sought a more upscale experience. For instance, at one time taking a date to H/J's after a movie for a burger was acceptable, but later people sought a nicer 'trendy' restaurant. FWIW, many former H/J's became independent diners. (Some were torn down for the land, some remain abandoned.) H/J may have started out as a restaurant known asa a tea room, not as mere ice cream stand as Friendly's did. Mariott began as a hot dog and root beer stand. > The Friendly restaurant chain, with a > similar history (both started from ice cream stands in Massachusetts > between WWI and WWII) and similar restaurants is still around despite > a period of mismanagement that led to bankruptcy in 2011. Friendly's had a checkered corporate history, including being owned by Hershey for a while.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 13:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: franchises, was A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <1686224653460388272.578776peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #149311 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 8:42:27 PM UTC-4, John Levine wrote: > >> Howard Johnson was a different case. They got myopic and never >> adjusted to the world of McDonalds and the like, attempted to deal >> with financial problems by cost cuts that affected product quality, >> and the customers ditched them. > > Howard Johnson's, a once proud popular quality chain of family > restaurants, was a victim of two factors: > > 1) Bad management. Stores became dirty and poorly run. I believe it was > because the founder died and there was no good succession. > > 2) Change in consumer eating habits. H/J's served motorists with a > pleasant meal, with waitress service, as a nice break on their journey. > But motorists became more in a hurry, kids were cranky, and fast food > took over that market. Other consumers sought a more upscale experience. > For instance, at one time taking a date to H/J's after a movie for a > burger was acceptable, but later people sought a nicer 'trendy' restaurant. > > FWIW, many former H/J's became independent diners. (Some were torn down > for the land, some remain abandoned.) > > H/J may have started out as a restaurant known asa a tea room, not as > mere ice cream stand as Friendly's did. Mariott began as a hot dog and root beer stand. > > >> The Friendly restaurant chain, with a >> similar history (both started from ice cream stands in Massachusetts >> between WWI and WWII) and similar restaurants is still around despite >> a period of mismanagement that led to bankruptcy in 2011. > > Friendly's had a checkered corporate history, including being owned by Hershey for a while. HoJos had the franchise at a lot of service areas in the NYS Thruway, now mostly McDonald's. I remember one trip shortly after the turnover when I stopped to get a meal and found that all I could get was a burger. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 08:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: franchises, was A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <b89035b9-f7b7-4cae-a5e2-35287730ec06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #149313 |
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 9:40:11 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > HoJos had the franchise at a lot of service areas in the NYS Thruway, now > mostly McDonald's. I remember one trip shortly after the turnover when I > stopped to get a meal and found that all I could get was a burger. HoJo's also had the franchises for the NJ and PA turnpike service plazas. When they originally got the franchises, everyone was pleased as H/J had high quality standards. But by the 1970s, the turnpikes and public couldn't wait until the franchise expired so H/J could be thrown out and replaced by someone else. Indeed, the turnpike rest areas reflect the change in travellers' attitudes. Originally sit-down waitress service in a relaxed atmosphere. Most of the rest stops now don't even have a sit-down restaurant, but rather only a food court with various fast food outlets. Motorists have a choice of different vendors, but it's mostly fast food. (I'm not familiar with NY Thruway rest stops).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 18:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT: franchises, was A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <2fj2sa9abn51hgtne03d9teh3286p68ges@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #149311 |
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:43:31 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 8:42:27 PM UTC-4, John Levine wrote: > >> Howard Johnson was a different case. They got myopic and never >> adjusted to the world of McDonalds and the like, attempted to deal >> with financial problems by cost cuts that affected product quality, >> and the customers ditched them. > >Howard Johnson's, a once proud popular quality chain of family restaurants, was a victim of two factors: > >1) Bad management. Stores became dirty and poorly run. I believe it was because the founder died and there was no good succession. > >2) Change in consumer eating habits. H/J's served motorists with a pleasant meal, with waitress service, as a nice break on their journey. But motorists became more in a hurry, kids were cranky, and fast food took over that market. Other consumers sought a more upscale experience. For instance, at one time taking a date to H/J's after a movie for a burger was acceptable, but later people sought a nicer 'trendy' restaurant. > >FWIW, many former H/J's became independent diners. (Some were torn down for the land, some remain abandoned.) > >H/J may have started out as a restaurant known asa a tea room, not as mere ice cream stand as Friendly's did. Mariott began as a hot dog and root beer stand. I felt their prices were way too high. We stopped at one when I was about 10-12 years old. The 'deluxe burger' had some sort of special relish sauce on it, not more meat. It was an extra 85 cents for that burger. Their ice cream was way over priced as well. When I complained about the lack of food on the burger, they did offer me a plate of spaghetti with sauce... the spaghetti was soggy. Must have been left in the water for hours. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-01 15:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <mpj9no$7vq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149144 |
On 30-Jul-15 21:42, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 30-Jul-15 13:58, Gene Wirchenko wrote: >>> While I understand this point, there is the other horn of the >>> dilemma. If the chain has different stocking for different >>> locations, then they are inconsistent. If I buy something from >>> my home store and want to buy more at another location, I will >>> be disappointed. >> >> Fair enough, unless your store started carrying that item at your >> request, which chains are also loathe to do. > > That would still have the inconsistency. The requestor for a > particular product and I might be different people. Good point; I didn't think of that. For most chains, there are two or three different stores that I visit, depending on where else I happen to be going. It would be frustrating if I found something in one store that wasn't stocked in the others. OTOH, one Target consistently has pants in my size but the other two consistently don't, even though they _do_ carry the same things. > Now that I have thought some more on it, I recall Subway locations > have the standard menu and are allowed to have three local > differences. They mention this so the inconsistency problem is > ameliorated. Hmm. I've never noticed that. Several chains do have "Texas" items that aren't available elsewhere, typically ones deemed too spicy for other states' palates. I've never noticed the reverse, though; if the rest of you have it, we probably have it too. >>> The quantity argument, I think, is solid. To make ends meet, I >>> have been doing part-time inventory counting. There are some >>> things that just do not seem to sell much if at all. >> >> And even the most rudimentary supply chain management would tell >> the store that--and how much more they could make (or save) by >> using that space for a better-selling product. > > Quite. > > The particular item that I am thinking of (wine totes) come in boxes > of 60. There are two varieties per box. 60 is probably several > years supply. They have about four to eight boxes worth. (A bit of > guessing here: I have counted stockroom quantities and shelf > quantities, but not both in the same store.) Sheesh. While my CPOE isn't in retail, we have _daily_ reports on inventory turnover for everything in our warehouses. Our goal is to always have an N-week supply of each part number on hand, where N is the lead time to get more from our suppliers. Those reports also help us to decide which products (or variants of products) to discontinue, though there may be business reasons for keeping something around despite low turnover. Not having a $5 cable may block the sale of $50,000 systems to certain customers, so it's worth keeping them around even if we only move a few per year. >> The problem is chains often do this uniformly across stores, so >> what sells well chain-wide may get lots of shelf space in every >> store, even ones where it doesn't sell well. For instance, Coke >> outsells Pepsi by an enormous margin in some places but the >> opposite is true in others, so most chains end up giving them equal >> shelf space at all stores, even though that obviously makes no >> sense anywhere. > > Unfortunately. There is also bundling. Product is shipped with a > As, b Bs, c Cs, and if the local sales proportion is different, too > bad. As noted earlier, that's a common problem with clothing, due to the way vendors assign bar codes. For just about any other product, it's due to poor supply chain management--and some stores are noticeably better at that than others. >> them claim to be the best for different reasons; worse, each brand >> has many variants that seem to be compete with each other more than >> they do with the other brands--and all of those brands are made by >> the same handful of companies anyway. It's choice for the sake of >> choice, not because any one of them is noticeably better (either in >> quality or price) than any of the others. Also, this wastes >> valuable space that could be used for actual food! > > My take is a bit different: "... could be used for ..." more relevant > products. (I do not care somuch about the product being food, but a > more relevant range of products.) I go to the grocery store for groceries. Paper and cleaning products are a reasonable extension since those are consumables people buy on a similar schedule, but every new type of item you add either makes the store bigger or reduces the space available for actual groceries, both of which make it less attractive to customers, so it should be done very carefully. I'll note that Walmart has replaced most of their stores here with _smaller_ ones, while everyone else is doing the opposite; I don't have the data to say who's right, but it's worth noting when an industry leader bucks the trend, especially one with a track record of being a decade or two ahead of its competitors. This may signal the beginning of the end for big-box stores. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-02 09:14 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <d2527nFis3uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #149220 |
"Gene Wirchenko" <genew@telus.net> wrote in message news:8ndqrahjv95vbvdp8pldlt9pamchi2ecl9@4ax.com... > On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 15:22:46 -0500, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> > wrote: > >>On 30-Jul-15 21:42, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > > [snip] > >>For most chains, there are two or three different stores that I visit, >>depending on where else I happen to be going. It would be frustrating >>if I found something in one store that wasn't stocked in the others. >>OTOH, one Target consistently has pants in my size but the other two >>consistently don't, even though they _do_ carry the same things. > > With all of the centralised control, I wonder how this happens. Presumably that's the demographics, the stores all get the same stock but that one doesn't have many other customers that need the same size he does. > [snip] > >>Sheesh. While my CPOE isn't in retail, we have _daily_ reports on >>inventory turnover for everything in our warehouses. Our goal is to >>always have an N-week supply of each part number on hand, where N is the >>lead time to get more from our suppliers. > > And presumably a bit of a margin. > >>Those reports also help us to decide which products (or variants of >>products) to discontinue, though there may be business reasons for >>keeping something around despite low turnover. Not having a $5 cable >>may block the sale of $50,000 systems to certain customers, so it's >>worth keeping them around even if we only move a few per year. > > So if you are going to carry something, establish a minimum > quantity that you will stock. > > Why not have some notes attached to the inventory item? > > I support an in-house client billing system that has this for > clients. When invoicing, client notes appear so that the invoicing > can be adjusted for special requirements. > > [snip] > >>> Unfortunately. There is also bundling. Product is shipped with a >>> As, b Bs, c Cs, and if the local sales proportion is different, too >>> bad. >> >>As noted earlier, that's a common problem with clothing, due to the way >>vendors assign bar codes. For just about any other product, it's due to >>poor supply chain management--and some stores are noticeably better at >>that than others. > > It does not have to be barcodes. It could be that the items are > cheap commodities. I have counted trays of computer accessories (such > as USB connectors and the like). They typically come in 24-36 items > with a standard assortment of colours. If a club wanted 36 all of one > colour to silkscreen on a logo, well, the box is not packed like that. > > [snip] > >>> My take is a bit different: "... could be used for ..." more relevant >>> products. (I do not care somuch about the product being food, but a >>> more relevant range of products.) >> >>I go to the grocery store for groceries. Paper and cleaning products >>are a reasonable extension since those are consumables people buy on a >>similar schedule, but every new type of item you add either makes the >>store bigger or reduces the space available for actual groceries, both >>of which make it less attractive to customers, so it should be done very >>carefully. > > Agreed on the "very carefully". Is it expanding one's coverage > or losing focus? How can you tell, in advance? > >>I'll note that Walmart has replaced most of their stores here with >>_smaller_ ones, while everyone else is doing the opposite; I don't have >>the data to say who's right, but it's worth noting when an industry >>leader bucks the trend, especially one with a track record of being a >>decade or two ahead of its competitors. This may signal the beginning >>of the end for big-box stores. > > How inspirational! > > Sincerely, > > Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-01 14:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <8ndqrahjv95vbvdp8pldlt9pamchi2ecl9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #149220 |
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 15:22:46 -0500, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
wrote:
>On 30-Jul-15 21:42, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
[snip]
>For most chains, there are two or three different stores that I visit,
>depending on where else I happen to be going. It would be frustrating
>if I found something in one store that wasn't stocked in the others.
>OTOH, one Target consistently has pants in my size but the other two
>consistently don't, even though they _do_ carry the same things.
With all of the centralised control, I wonder how this happens.
[snip]
>Sheesh. While my CPOE isn't in retail, we have _daily_ reports on
>inventory turnover for everything in our warehouses. Our goal is to
>always have an N-week supply of each part number on hand, where N is the
>lead time to get more from our suppliers.
And presumably a bit of a margin.
>Those reports also help us to decide which products (or variants of
>products) to discontinue, though there may be business reasons for
>keeping something around despite low turnover. Not having a $5 cable
>may block the sale of $50,000 systems to certain customers, so it's
>worth keeping them around even if we only move a few per year.
So if you are going to carry something, establish a minimum
quantity that you will stock.
Why not have some notes attached to the inventory item?
I support an in-house client billing system that has this for
clients. When invoicing, client notes appear so that the invoicing
can be adjusted for special requirements.
[snip]
>> Unfortunately. There is also bundling. Product is shipped with a
>> As, b Bs, c Cs, and if the local sales proportion is different, too
>> bad.
>
>As noted earlier, that's a common problem with clothing, due to the way
>vendors assign bar codes. For just about any other product, it's due to
>poor supply chain management--and some stores are noticeably better at
>that than others.
It does not have to be barcodes. It could be that the items are
cheap commodities. I have counted trays of computer accessories (such
as USB connectors and the like). They typically come in 24-36 items
with a standard assortment of colours. If a club wanted 36 all of one
colour to silkscreen on a logo, well, the box is not packed like that.
[snip]
>> My take is a bit different: "... could be used for ..." more relevant
>> products. (I do not care somuch about the product being food, but a
>> more relevant range of products.)
>
>I go to the grocery store for groceries. Paper and cleaning products
>are a reasonable extension since those are consumables people buy on a
>similar schedule, but every new type of item you add either makes the
>store bigger or reduces the space available for actual groceries, both
>of which make it less attractive to customers, so it should be done very
>carefully.
Agreed on the "very carefully". Is it expanding one's coverage
or losing focus? How can you tell, in advance?
>I'll note that Walmart has replaced most of their stores here with
>_smaller_ ones, while everyone else is doing the opposite; I don't have
>the data to say who's right, but it's worth noting when an industry
>leader bucks the trend, especially one with a track record of being a
>decade or two ahead of its competitors. This may signal the beginning
>of the end for big-box stores.
How inspirational!
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 13:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <mpoc85$u8s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149259 |
On 01-Aug-15 16:24, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> For most chains, there are two or three different stores that I >> visit, depending on where else I happen to be going. It would be >> frustrating if I found something in one store that wasn't stocked >> in the others. OTOH, one Target consistently has pants in my size >> but the other two consistently don't, even though they _do_ carry >> the same things. > > With all of the centralised control, I wonder how this happens. My guess is that they all get one or two pairs of pants in my size per shipment, and there are other guys my size living near those two stores who get to them first, but there's none near my store. Since all sizes get the same barcodes, the chains' central planners have no way of knowing when there are too few (or too many) at a given store, nor probably any way of doing something about it even if they did. >> Sheesh. While my CPOE isn't in retail, we have _daily_ reports on >> inventory turnover for everything in our warehouses. Our goal is >> to always have an N-week supply of each part number on hand, where >> N is the lead time to get more from our suppliers. > > And presumably a bit of a margin. Most of our products require fairly large production runs (e.g. 1,000 or 10,000 units), so it may be better to run slightly low than very high, especially toward quarter end. Also, if we run short and need more urgently, we can pay extra to have a batch sent via air instead of sea, which cuts the lead time by several weeks. We try to avoid that for obvious reasons, but it's better than being unable to ship a bunch of orders at the end of a quarter. >> Those reports also help us to decide which products (or variants >> of products) to discontinue, though there may be business reasons >> for keeping something around despite low turnover. Not having a $5 >> cable may block the sale of $50,000 systems to certain customers, >> so it's worth keeping them around even if we only move a few per >> year. > > So if you are going to carry something, establish a minimum quantity > that you will stock. That's not really the point. If we only sell one or two of something per year, it'd likely get discontinued because the revenue doesn't justify the overhead of having that part number in the systems, in the warehouses, in QA, in support depots, in documentation, etc., even if we did manage to keep appropriate inventory levels at all times. > Why not have some notes attached to the inventory item? There's probably a field for that in some system, but in practice, it's tribal knowledge. In most cases, the human turnover is low on any given product team, but this is the sort of thing that gets lost when entire project teams change at once, but luckily, that doesn't happen often. >>> Unfortunately. There is also bundling. Product is shipped with >>> a As, b Bs, c Cs, and if the local sales proportion is different, >>> too bad. >> >> As noted earlier, that's a common problem with clothing, due to the >> way vendors assign bar codes. For just about any other product, >> it's due to poor supply chain management--and some stores are >> noticeably better at that than others. > > It does not have to be barcodes. It could be that the items are > cheap commodities. I have counted trays of computer accessories > (such as USB connectors and the like). They typically come in 24-36 > items with a standard assortment of colours. If a club wanted 36 all > of one colour to silkscreen on a logo, well, the box is not packed > like that. True, there are other examples of the same problem; I was just using clothing as the most common and obvious case. I might buy a blue USB stick even though I really wanted a red one, but I won't buy the wrong size pants just because the store didn't have the right size; they'll find another store. >> I go to the grocery store for groceries. Paper and cleaning >> products are a reasonable extension since those are consumables >> people buy on a similar schedule, but every new type of item you >> add either makes the store bigger or reduces the space available >> for actual groceries, both of which make it less attractive to >> customers, so it should be done very carefully. > > Agreed on the "very carefully". Is it expanding one's coverage or > losing focus? How can you tell, in advance? That's a good question, and big-box stores indicate that retailers generally care more about expanding coverage than losing focus. To me, what's important is whether the same people are buying similar things on a similar schedule, as in the above case of paper and cleaning products in a grocery store, so they're a good fit. OTOH, Kroger's addition of clothing, jewelry, furniture, etc. is a clear case of getting this wrong. Those have completely different shopping patterns from groceries (and each other), so they're a bad fit. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-02 07:59 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <d24tqpFhqmjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #149220 |
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message news:mpj9no$7vq$1@dont-email.me... > On 30-Jul-15 21:42, Gene Wirchenko wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>> On 30-Jul-15 13:58, Gene Wirchenko wrote: >>>> While I understand this point, there is the other horn of the >>>> dilemma. If the chain has different stocking for different >>>> locations, then they are inconsistent. If I buy something from >>>> my home store and want to buy more at another location, I will >>>> be disappointed. >>> >>> Fair enough, unless your store started carrying that item at your >>> request, which chains are also loathe to do. >> >> That would still have the inconsistency. The requestor for a >> particular product and I might be different people. > > Good point; I didn't think of that. > > For most chains, there are two or three different stores that I visit, > depending on where else I happen to be going. It would be frustrating > if I found something in one store that wasn't stocked in the others. > OTOH, one Target consistently has pants in my size but the other two > consistently don't, even though they _do_ carry the same things. > >> Now that I have thought some more on it, I recall Subway locations >> have the standard menu and are allowed to have three local >> differences. They mention this so the inconsistency problem is >> ameliorated. > > Hmm. I've never noticed that. Several chains do have "Texas" items > that aren't available elsewhere, typically ones deemed too spicy for > other states' palates. I've never noticed the reverse, though; if the > rest of you have it, we probably have it too. > >>>> The quantity argument, I think, is solid. To make ends meet, I >>>> have been doing part-time inventory counting. There are some >>>> things that just do not seem to sell much if at all. >>> >>> And even the most rudimentary supply chain management would tell >>> the store that--and how much more they could make (or save) by >>> using that space for a better-selling product. >> >> Quite. >> >> The particular item that I am thinking of (wine totes) come in boxes >> of 60. There are two varieties per box. 60 is probably several >> years supply. They have about four to eight boxes worth. (A bit of >> guessing here: I have counted stockroom quantities and shelf >> quantities, but not both in the same store.) > > Sheesh. While my CPOE isn't in retail, we have _daily_ reports on > inventory turnover for everything in our warehouses. Our goal is to > always have an N-week supply of each part number on hand, where N is the > lead time to get more from our suppliers. > > Those reports also help us to decide which products (or variants of > products) to discontinue, though there may be business reasons for > keeping something around despite low turnover. Not having a $5 cable > may block the sale of $50,000 systems to certain customers, so it's > worth keeping them around even if we only move a few per year. > >>> The problem is chains often do this uniformly across stores, so >>> what sells well chain-wide may get lots of shelf space in every >>> store, even ones where it doesn't sell well. For instance, Coke >>> outsells Pepsi by an enormous margin in some places but the >>> opposite is true in others, so most chains end up giving them equal >>> shelf space at all stores, even though that obviously makes no >>> sense anywhere. >> >> Unfortunately. There is also bundling. Product is shipped with a >> As, b Bs, c Cs, and if the local sales proportion is different, too >> bad. > > As noted earlier, that's a common problem with clothing, due to the way > vendors assign bar codes. For just about any other product, it's due to > poor supply chain management--and some stores are noticeably better at > that than others. > >>> them claim to be the best for different reasons; worse, each brand >>> has many variants that seem to be compete with each other more than >>> they do with the other brands--and all of those brands are made by >>> the same handful of companies anyway. It's choice for the sake of >>> choice, not because any one of them is noticeably better (either in >>> quality or price) than any of the others. Also, this wastes >>> valuable space that could be used for actual food! >> >> My take is a bit different: "... could be used for ..." more relevant >> products. (I do not care somuch about the product being food, but a >> more relevant range of products.) > > I go to the grocery store for groceries. Paper and cleaning products > are a reasonable extension since those are consumables people buy on a > similar schedule, but every new type of item you add either makes the > store bigger or reduces the space available for actual groceries, both > of which make it less attractive to customers, I don’t buy that with bigger stores. so it should be done very > carefully. > > I'll note that Walmart has replaced most of their stores here with > _smaller_ ones, while everyone else is doing the opposite; I don't have > the data to say who's right, but it's worth noting when an industry > leader bucks the trend, especially one with a track record of being a > decade or two ahead of its competitors. This may signal the beginning > of the end for big-box stores. Bet it doesn’t.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-30 20:23 +0000 |
| Subject | toilet paper, was: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <mpe134$r05$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #149101 |
In <vkskral08neko3s4td0rof6tjr75l5dc4m@4ax.com> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> writes: >[snip] >>I'm also pretty sure my grocery store doesn't need an entire aisle of >>nothing but toilet paper, with dozens of varieties in several sizes. > Well, considering how much space toilet paper takes, that might >not be the best example, but there are other things such as the >multitude of sauces. And also.. the turnover in toilet paper is very fast. That whole shelf can be gone in two days, so using anything smaller will mean a whole lot of empty space (which looks baaaaad) very quickly. -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-31 09:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: toilet paper, was: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <mpfvpu$29g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149113 |
On 30-Jul-15 15:23, danny burstein wrote: > Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> writes: >>> I'm also pretty sure my grocery store doesn't need an entire >>> aisle of nothing but toilet paper, with dozens of varieties in >>> several sizes. >> >> Well, considering how much space toilet paper takes, that might not >> be the best example, but there are other things such as the >> multitude of sauces. > > And also.. the turnover in toilet paper is very fast. That whole > shelf can be gone in two days, so using anything smaller will mean a > whole lot of empty space (which looks baaaaad) very quickly. It ain't _that_ fast. We're talking an aisle ~150ft long, with toilet paper stacked ~3ft deep and ~8ft high. If every town resident shopped at that one store (there are at least a dozen stores that carry it) and went through an entire roll every day, the supply would still last _weeks_. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-30 14:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <mpdve1$gpb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149008 |
On 28-Jul-15 11:50, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> This also exposes a big problem with poorly-run chains: they don't >> stock different items in different stores; they stock the exact >> same things everywhere, regardless of what customers actually want. >> One of the perceived advantages of family-run stores is that they >> are better at adapting to keep their specific customers happy, but >> a chain could do the same if they cared to _and_ offer better >> prices. > > In thinking about it, I realized this is nothing new, and it appears > that price wins out. That is, cheap prices resulting from bulk > buying, strict standardization, and limited service win out over > better service. > > Chains have been destroying family businesses ever since chains were > invented. It's an interesting dynamic. Chains have an obvious advantage from economy of scale and professional planning, but they also have enormous management overhead--and often enormous debt to service. > Sometimes a quality family run business hangs on since it is owned by > oldsters who are content with modest profits and take personal > satisfaction in their excellent customer relationships. They own the > business and don't have to answer to any stockholders. But once the > oldsters retire or pass on, the kids inherit it and the game changes. > Usually the kids aren't even interested and sell the business off. For better or worse, many family businesses only "hang on" because the labor (or at least management) is free, making them look profitable when they really aren't. If the owner retires and hires real staff, labor costs eat up all the "profits". I once met a guy who owns several Subway franchises; he said he needs two stores per manager just to break even and three to turn a profit, and when he went from six stores to nine, he had to hire someone to manage all the managers. If he were running things himself, it'd be more "profitable" only because his labor would be off the books. Of 28M small businesses in the US, 22.5M don't employ anyone; they use only "free" labor from the owner and, often, his family. If that free labor were replaced with employees, most would quickly go bankrupt. > We had an extremely popular supermarket chain noted for excellent > quality. But it was sold. The new owners kept the name, but > immediately introduced cost cutting, despite promising otherwise. > The reduction in service quality was immediately noticed and sales > quickly fell off. Of course they promised otherwise; everyone "knows" that's what always happens when new mgmt comes in, which itself results in falling sales even if nothing is changed. But they do change things, and usually for the worse, and sales fall anyways. The problem is that new mgmt doesn't have the experience to know _why_ things are done the way they are, so they don't understand the impact of changing things--even if they're trying to make genuine improvements. The rare "turnaround expert" is successful mostly because they listen to underlings who have that experience but whose good ideas were ignored by prior mgmt, not because the "expert" has any good ideas of their own. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-30 23:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <mpebbi01j7s@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #149107 |
On 2015-07-30, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > On 28-Jul-15 11:50, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> Chains have been destroying family businesses ever since chains were >> invented. > > It's an interesting dynamic. Chains have an obvious advantage from > economy of scale and professional planning, but they also have enormous > management overhead--and often enormous debt to service. Big-box stores - and megacorps in general - justify their existence based on economy of scale. But there many cases where we're reached the point of diminishing returns. In a word: bureaucracy. >> We had an extremely popular supermarket chain noted for excellent >> quality. But it was sold. The new owners kept the name, but >> immediately introduced cost cutting, despite promising otherwise. >> The reduction in service quality was immediately noticed and sales >> quickly fell off. > > Of course they promised otherwise; everyone "knows" that's what always > happens when new mgmt comes in, which itself results in falling sales > even if nothing is changed. But they do change things, and usually for > the worse, and sales fall anyways. > > The problem is that new mgmt doesn't have the experience to know _why_ > things are done the way they are, so they don't understand the impact of > changing things--even if they're trying to make genuine improvements. And the new management believes that they have to change something - anything - just for the sake of change. > The rare "turnaround expert" is successful mostly because they listen to > underlings who have that experience but whose good ideas were ignored by > prior mgmt, not because the "expert" has any good ideas of their own. Amen. But few and far between are the managers who can set aside their own egos long enough to allow this to happen. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-31 14:05 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <d20afqFco9fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #149133 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:mpebbi01j7s@news6.newsguy.com... > On 2015-07-30, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > >> On 28-Jul-15 11:50, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >>> Chains have been destroying family businesses ever since chains were >>> invented. >> >> It's an interesting dynamic. Chains have an obvious advantage from >> economy of scale and professional planning, but they also have enormous >> management overhead--and often enormous debt to service. > > Big-box stores - and megacorps in general - justify their existence based > on economy of scale. And that does work very well with operations like Walmart, tho they don’t necessarily replace the small corner stores completely. > But there many cases where we're reached the point > of diminishing returns. In a word: bureaucracy. Not that many at all really, particularly with online banking with a national bank instead of small corner banks and stuff like that. >>> We had an extremely popular supermarket chain noted for excellent >>> quality. But it was sold. The new owners kept the name, but >>> immediately introduced cost cutting, despite promising otherwise. >>> The reduction in service quality was immediately noticed and sales >>> quickly fell off. >> >> Of course they promised otherwise; everyone "knows" that's what always >> happens when new mgmt comes in, which itself results in falling sales >> even if nothing is changed. But they do change things, and usually for >> the worse, and sales fall anyways. >> >> The problem is that new mgmt doesn't have the experience to know _why_ >> things are done the way they are, so they don't understand the impact of >> changing things--even if they're trying to make genuine improvements. > > And the new management believes that they have to change something - > anything - just for the sake of change. Not always, particularly with very small business. >> The rare "turnaround expert" is successful mostly because they listen to >> underlings who have that experience but whose good ideas were ignored by >> prior mgmt, not because the "expert" has any good ideas of their own. > > Amen. But few and far between are the managers who can set aside > their own egos long enough to allow this to happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-31 09:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <mpg1ps$9rp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149133 |
On 30-Jul-15 18:18, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2015-07-30, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 28-Jul-15 11:50, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> Chains have been destroying family businesses ever since chains >>> were invented. >> >> It's an interesting dynamic. Chains have an obvious advantage >> from economy of scale and professional planning, but they also have >> enormous management overhead--and often enormous debt to service. > > Big-box stores - and megacorps in general - justify their existence > based on economy of scale. But there many cases where we're reached > the point of diminishing returns. In a word: bureaucracy. That would be the management overhead I referred to. >> The problem is that new mgmt doesn't have the experience to know >> _why_ things are done the way they are, so they don't understand >> the impact of changing things--even if they're trying to make >> genuine improvements. > > And the new management believes that they have to change something - > anything - just for the sake of change. I've been around a lot of management types, and I've never seen one try to make changes just for the sake of change. There is always a reason they do what they do, just often not adequately informed because they don't listen to subordinates who know more about the actual business. >> The rare "turnaround expert" is successful mostly because they >> listen to underlings who have that experience but whose good ideas >> were ignored by prior mgmt, not because the "expert" has any good >> ideas of their own. > > Amen. But few and far between are the managers who can set aside > their own egos long enough to allow this to happen. Exactly. After all, if the underlings weren't morons, they would be running things, wouldn't they? Don't pay any attention to those unwritten policies forbidding promotion from within. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-31 18:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: A&P supermarket bankruptcy |
| Message-ID | <mpgd4m2nkd@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #149172 |
On 2015-07-31, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > On 30-Jul-15 18:18, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> And the new management believes that they have to change something - >> anything - just for the sake of change. > > I've been around a lot of management types, and I've never seen one try > to make changes just for the sake of change. There is always a reason > they do what they do, just often not adequately informed because they > don't listen to subordinates who know more about the actual business. That's probably true, although the temptation for a new manager to try to make his mark by changing something before analyzing the situation must sometimes be awfully strong. Or maybe I've just been reading too much Dilbert: http://dilbert.com/strip/1994-09-07 -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web