I’ve never had that happen, I always have stuff shipped to my home, but I understand your concern.
I absolutely agree. I would add that I will only buy over the internet from a very few companies that I’m very familiar with. The more you spread your information around is the more risk you incur.
That’s an extreme socialist view. On the brink of actually being communist.
Sorry…but the reason Amazon is doing so well is because they are giving people what they want. Sears NEVER EVER should have let Amazon get as big as they are. But Sears was too greedy and sought nothing but higher profits for the sake of customer satisfaction. Customers became secondary. Profit was number one…PERIOD.
Amazon’s first 10+ years in existence they didn’t make any money. Instead they invested back into itself. They spent the time and money building a business that believes in customer satisfaction and loyalty - The way Sears was 30+ years ago.
You’ve been watching too many TV shows.
Unlike companies like Target and Wallmart, Amazon knows Software and how to keep data secure. Unless you’re in the computer industry you probably don’t know that Amazon is one of the leaders in Cloud computing. I’ve used their AWS S3 cloud storage secure systems for years. They use the latest and most sophisticated 256 bit encryption. It would take a super computer over 10 billion years to hack that security. Software/network security is my wheelhouse. It would be extremely difficult if not virtually impossible to hack into Amazon.
I agree that Amazon should be allowed to work within the laws that apply to them, but I don’t agree about Sears stopping them. That implies that Sears had any idea that their market plan would eventually fail. At the time Amazon got started, Sears model wasn’t broken, so why should they have fixed it? We bought stuff from Sears on line at that time when we couldn’t get it in the store, and still do today.
It’s called adapting with the times and new technology. Many companies have failed because of a change in shift in market or technology. Sears model WAS broken. The second they started to loose market share they should have recognized that and adjusted their strategy.
Take a look at LL Bean. Most of their business was Catalog sales. They adapted to the new on-line technology.
Comrad Bing here: I disagree.
LL Bean is also downsizing their storefront business. They had a store at a mall near me and closed it about two years ago. They didn’t have time or inclination to build a network of stores like Sears did. Bean closing storefronts is not nearly the problem it is for Sears. Plus, Sears isn’t just facing internet sales problems. Like all department stores, they have stiff competition from discount stores like Walmart and Target. Actually, they have done much better than many department store chains. Sears is still around and is big, so they get a lot of attention.
Yes they are. Sears owned the mail-order business 40 years. Mail order evolved to phone orders and then internet. Sears didn’t keep up with the latest technology.
Better then who. Even their CEO doubts Sears will be around at the end of the year.
Here is a list of department store that already closed. In some cases assets were sold to Federated, May, and Macy’s. That list is first list. While it appears that they could have been mergers, they often were not. Assets were sold to those companies during liquidation.
In the first part, I said that Sears faced more than Internet sales problems. The implication is that Bean is primarily a catalog (internet) sales organization while Sears is primarily a storefront business. Comparing Bean to Sears ignores the main part of Sears business.
But those stores didn’t have a booming mail-order business like Sears did. Sears mail-order business was HUGE. Much larger then LL Bean ever was. If only comparing market-share they were bigger then Amazon.
They were stupid not to see companies like Amazon taking market-share from them.
What bothers me is that Amazon bought a store front chain to move into the brick and mortar phase and also own a media outlet. As a semi communist, I think this is a little dangerous for one bald headed guy to have this much influence.
Still like I said before, I see little difference in having a printed catalog of your products for order, or having that catalog on line. It’s just a different media of the same thing. In the old days, most people would just call the order into Sears rather than mail it in. Then the next day or even late that same day, you’d go down to the Sears store front and pick the order up. Small, cheap stores, but everywhere. What they did was concentrate on a retail store, eliminate the catalog without having a good internet replacement for the catalog-which they could have easily done. Like I said the Sears career path was store management not business expansion. Interesting though that as Sears is exiting store fronts, Bezos is moving to store fronts. Ever try to order something from Sears in the last 10 years, phone or otherwise? Its an exercise in futility.
I beg to differ. Sears’ model was broken by the time they’d dumped their catalog in 1993. Then Amazon started in 1994 and started digging the grave for Sears to roll into. BTW, I was surprised to find Amazon’s founding was right after Sears published their last catalog. Coincidental? I don’t think so!
There’s a HUGE difference. It’s called ease-of-use. Go to the printed catalog and find all the mens coats for under $100. If the on-line site is designed right it’ll take you all of 2 seconds to display the 30+ coats from the 200 offered. I’ll check back tomorrow when you compile that list from the printed catalog.
That can be said about any large corporation. Amazon grew out of nothing. There are other on-line retailers that are doing quite well also. Amazon just happened to have to have the insight to see the future and grow. I don’t know of you remember, but Amazon started out just selling books.
It’s 94 degrees here. I’m not interested in looking at men’s coats today. All I’m saying is that from a process standpoint, its the same process. Not that one does not have advantages over the other. But products are displayed in both, from which you make your selection, then either mail in, call in, or plug in the information for your order, at which point someone fills the order and sends it to you or a store somehow.
Sure it’s easier to click on an item and order it, but its also easier to page thorough a catalog with color pictures to see a whole bunch of different products at the same time. Also more expensive to print and send out the catalogs. Just like reading a regular book or an E-book. Advantages to both and I do both depending. If I want an autographed copy, it’s hard to get one on an E-book.
But you can page through an on-line catalog also. I don’t know of any advantage for a printed catalog over on-line. Sure you’ll find some on-line stores with lousy flow and makes things difficult to find. But if done right…the experience is magnitudes better then the best printed catalog.
I disagree on the timing. They could not see that their plan was broken in the early 1990s, no one could. Amazon saw an opportunity to sell books on line and eventually took their marketing plan to other goods. Sears didn’t sell books. Nor did they sell computer media, the next area Amazon moved into. Sears should not have perceived an attack until one actually existed, and that was probably in the middle 2000s.
Anti-trust regulations are communist? That sounds like something the John Birch Society would say!
Sears had problems long before Amazon rolled into town. Essentially, they had been “de-contenting” their brand for decades, trading in the (then) trusted reputation of the brand for cold, hard cash. Management was gung-ho for this, and ownership either didn’t notice, or didn’t care about the long-term effect on the brand.
Sears was rotting from within; Amazon was just the windstorm that will topple the rotten giant.
The “mall experience” has become something to avoid for myself and possibly a great many others. But then I was never a fan of malls. Sears and Penneys have been the anchor stores for many malls for several decades and the corporate management refused to see their roofs were caving in starting long ago. Well now it’s SURPRISE-SURPRISE-SURPRISE for those high paid myopic CEOs who thought they could put their labels on Asian slave labor products and sell it for double what Wal-Mart was getting.
LOL, that sounds exactly like the way GM was thinking regarding the automotive market in the '70s… while Japan was invading the market. 
They figured their model wasn’t broken, so why fix it?