Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Feedback
View Statistics
Members
Current visitors
Buy Sell Trade
WTB
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Forums
Articles and News
Latest Technology News
Traders to not supply goods to e-tailers over lesser pricing issue
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="kidrow" data-source="post: 1980885" data-attributes="member: 23452"><p>Yeah well, the adaptability bit might simply mean giving it up altogether for many. Maybe look for a <em>naukri</em> instead. Easier said than done. </p><p>For e.g., someone mentioned clothes having a 40% margin & the Co. taking back the unsold stock. Not every business has those sorts of margins & such willing cos. Remember, we are talking about <u>predatory</u> pricing here.</p><p></p><p>I can understand retailers protesting. & I speak from experience as a retailer. Though I deal with a product category not as seriously affected by e-sellers, I still come across the odd occasion that a customer will state what price it is available for online. & there's just no way I can match it. Heck, even my distributor won't be able to match it. So only imagine what electronics B&M retailers must be facing when electronics e-sellers are so ubiquitous. </p><p>It is already difficult to make ends meet with rising costs & competition. Such practices will kill many businesses.</p><p></p><p>In such a scenario, the buzzword 'adapt' basically means having enough money to pump in, & keep things running for an extended period, despite losses. So yes, essentially it is a typical case of the big fish eating the small fish. </p><p>You might argue that's just business. & maybe you are right. But it just hurts to see people here say that it serves them just right. I agree that there are unscrupulous retailers (as well as e-tailers). & every businessman/retailer will tell you there are unscrupulous clients/customers as well. Doesn't mean everyone's the same.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="kidrow, post: 1980885, member: 23452"] Yeah well, the adaptability bit might simply mean giving it up altogether for many. Maybe look for a [I]naukri[/I] instead. Easier said than done. For e.g., someone mentioned clothes having a 40% margin & the Co. taking back the unsold stock. Not every business has those sorts of margins & such willing cos. Remember, we are talking about [U]predatory[/U] pricing here. I can understand retailers protesting. & I speak from experience as a retailer. Though I deal with a product category not as seriously affected by e-sellers, I still come across the odd occasion that a customer will state what price it is available for online. & there's just no way I can match it. Heck, even my distributor won't be able to match it. So only imagine what electronics B&M retailers must be facing when electronics e-sellers are so ubiquitous. It is already difficult to make ends meet with rising costs & competition. Such practices will kill many businesses. In such a scenario, the buzzword 'adapt' basically means having enough money to pump in, & keep things running for an extended period, despite losses. So yes, essentially it is a typical case of the big fish eating the small fish. You might argue that's just business. & maybe you are right. But it just hurts to see people here say that it serves them just right. I agree that there are unscrupulous retailers (as well as e-tailers). & every businessman/retailer will tell you there are unscrupulous clients/customers as well. Doesn't mean everyone's the same. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Articles and News
Latest Technology News
Traders to not supply goods to e-tailers over lesser pricing issue
Top
Bottom