On my way into work last week I heard a Consumer Reports radio spot. It was one of those interstitial infomercials during the commercial break of another radio show.
They were talking about digital cameras. They recommended a few models. Then they recommended a few comparison pricing sites to find the best prices. It all sounded like good advice until I heard them say something like:
“Here’s a great tip: Make sure that you check out the cameras in person at a local store before you buy it online. This is a great way to get the best price and be sure you’re happy with what you’re buying.”
I’m paraphrasing, but that was the spirit of it. I find that advice unfortunate and disappointing. I’m surprised to hear it from Consumer Reports.
They are basically suggesting that you should take advantage of your local stores. Not take advantage as in taking advantage of buying locally and supporting your local economy, but as in taking advantage of them in a malicious way.
Local stores have to incur the costs of allowing you to enter their safe retail environment, see the product you want to buy, play with it, take a few shots with it, feel it, and, perhaps, ask a salesperson questions about it.
Providing an accessible and safe store also provides tremendous value to you, the customer. Consumer Reports values this value which is why they recommend you visit one of these stores before you purchase something online.
The right thing to do is to pay for that value by buying the item from the physical retailer. If you are going to use the retailer to “close the sale” then you should also make the sale there. If enough people continue to close the deal at the store, but make the deal elsewhere, the physical locations will dry up and that significant in-person value will go away.
I hope that Consumer Reports would reconsider their advice and instead suggest the right thing: If you go to a store to test out a product then buy the product from that store. Sure, it may be a little more money, but you’re also getting a little more value. That’s worth something.
George
on 26 Oct 06At best, if you check out a product at a store, buy it from their online website, right?
JF
on 26 Oct 06At best, if you check out a product at a store, buy it from their online website, right?
Totally. That is fair and reasonable.
But using the resources of your local store to make your final purchasing decision and then firing up your browser to buy it from the lowest bidder 2000 miles away instead just doesn’t seem decent or fair.
joshi
on 26 Oct 06I think this is pretty commonplace for books too. People browse in the shops then buy on Amazon because it’s cheaper. The thing is, because they’re just a big warehouse they can afford to be cheaper than little mum and dad shops.
Also, ages ago Amazon in Japan introduced on-the-spot price checks by using camera phones as barcode scanners too which is quite anti-competitive. Not sure how popular it was though.
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/cellphones/amazon-japan-cell-phone-fancypants-service-026198.php
Brandon
on 26 Oct 06I know people that do this. I’ve thought about it, but never done it. I don’t mind paying for service so, when buying my last digital camera, it was better for me to go to the local store and ask lots of questions and get what I wanted/needed. I probably paid $100 more than buying from some of the bargain basement sites. The questions I was able to ask probably saved me a few hundred because I didn’t buy something only to find out a few months later it didn’t quite do what I needed.
The Man
on 26 Oct 06Oh, yeah, Circuit City, Best Buy, and Wal-Mart provide real local value. Oh, how I’d miss those shops. They are such victims! I would cry for days if one closed.
JF
on 26 Oct 06Oh, yeah, Circuit City, Best Buy, and Wal-Mart provide real local value.
Sure they do. They provide a space where you can walk in, see the product you want to buy, feel it, touch it, use it, hold it, press some buttons, open it, whatever it.
If you’ve ever done any of this to make a buying decision then you are deriving real value from CC, BB, Target, Wal-Mart, the Apple Store, your local mom and pop, whatever.
You may not like the stores, you may not like the management, you may not like what they represent, but they still provide real value if you want to see, feel, touch, hold, interact with a product before you buy it.
RS
on 26 Oct 06I would be unhappy if Circuit City or Best Buy closed. My last TV purchase would have been far more difficult. Few places allow you to view as many different screens at one time and choose the best picture at your price point.
I’m not so happy about the parking lots, but that’s up to the districts and citizens as much as it is the big boxes.
ClayJohnson
on 26 Oct 06Somehow I think a community going into a walmart and checking out a video camera is far less of a crime than walmart coming into a community, bankrupting local businesses and locking up wage slaves in their stores every night.
Somehow I don’t think that the CEO if Best Buy, who made 3.2 Million dollars last year, and the Waltons, who comprise #s 17-21 of the world’s wealthiest people are really sweating it.
If there were any local consumer electronic stores on, say, the planet, then I’d feel bad. Of course we want to keep our local communities in business. But somehow when you have 5 people with a combined net worth of over 100 Billion dollars not providing affordable healthcare to their employees, and when they happen to be the #1 employer in the country—I don’t feel so bad. Because they’re taking advantage of me as a taxpayer for having to pay for their employees’ healthcare.
Dan Boland
on 26 Oct 06I disagree here, on a number of points.
First, Consumer Reports is merely offering advice on the best way to save money. I don’t think it’s their role to determine the ethics of perfectly legal advice that clearly their customers are asking for.
Second, just as the store spend the money to offer the product on the sales floor with an employee who can offer answers, the consumers spends money (and time) to make the trip to the store in the first place. For the store, it’s a fixed cost; already spent. Granted, the store isn’t getting any of the money the consumer spends to get there, but it isn’t as though the consumer is getting something for nothing.
Third, the stores do offer something the online retailers will never be able to — instant gratification, and that’s the crux of my disagreement.
It’s not that I think your logic is flawed — on its face, I can agree with it — I just think it’s overly pessimistic. The fact of the matter is that while the price may be lower online, the opportunity cost for most folks to go to all the trouble to find low prices online for multiple products, then go to a store (or two or more) and test multiple products, then go back to their computers and order it is too high and not worth the trouble.
M.Bischoff
on 26 Oct 06Jason, you are absolutely right. Many people do this anyway and most sales persons know that when they hear “I have to think about it” that this person will never return to buy in at that particular shop but rather online.
Nowadays it all about the struggle to get the “best” price. In the end, you always get what you pay for. If you pay extremely cheap, that’s also about the service you get. However, now that most tech companies build such complicated devices that cannot be serviced locally, one of the main arguments for buying local fades more and more.
Plus, when the price difference is up to 40% (for a high cost gadget), I am not willing to buy it at the local store because I don’t have that much change to spare. But I’m also not one of those people who check something out in a retail store to buy it online to begin with.
If I want service, I buy local and premium. If I know exactly what I’m doing, I buy discounted.
Justin
on 26 Oct 06I say take advantage of box stores as much as possible. We’re not talking about local mom and pop stores here, as the chance of such a store having a website where you could buy online (as George said) is a million to one.
If you’re walking into a locally owned and operated camera store, taking their time and checking out their stuff, then you walk out and buy online from eBay, then shame on you. If you’re doing this at WalMart, more power to ya, down with WalMart.
Dave!
on 26 Oct 06I completely disagree.
I think CR is talking about Best Buy/Circuit City/Walmart… and there is a good chance you might see it at their local store and buy from their website. But even if they aren’t…
How is that any different than going from one local store to the next and comparison shopping? The local store has every opportunity to lower their price to compete with the store 2000 miles away as they do the store across the street. Besides, you might be in the store, and feel the price is fair and purchase it there for insant gratification.
I support local business, but if you’re saying that we should artificially support local business or not use them as a resource, I think that’s way off base. If local business wants to compete, they need to adapt.
If the local store is doing things right (offering a fair price and a better customer experience) then they stand a good chance of gaining a sale, maybe right then, or maybe later when you remember what they had to offer and “want it now”. If anything, CR is getting people into the local stores when they might not otherwise. And once they are in the store, it’s up to the store to differentiate themselves in a way that appeals to the customer.
I’m just very surprised to see this reaction on 37Signals…
John
on 26 Oct 06A big Right On from the amen corner! Stores go away if you don’t buy from them, so if you like the store, use it once in a while.
Anthony
on 26 Oct 06This scenario doesn’t charm me….
... but no matter, I think it is expected and reasonable behavior from consumers. They 1) get to test a product riskfree (store), and 2) get the lowest price (online, same retailer or not).
I see this as a challenge to the retailer, not the consumer.
Consumer Reports is about quality and price, not ethics.
Given all this, I would criticize my friends for behaving this way – it’s rude.
Nate
on 26 Oct 06You know, Jason, there are huge advantages to stores when people come in to check out their stuff before buying it online. The classic example is the person who goes and fits a pair of shoes before purchasing on Zappos, but then while in the store buys a hat or jersey. also, what electronics store can you go to anymore that keeps money in the local economy? maybe in san fran or here in New York ( we have B&H and J&Rs) but in Ohio, it’s all Best Buy my friend, and then you’re better off buying online and feeding a smaller fish’s children.
Bill
on 26 Oct 06I think what many fail to realize is that most retailers spend a huge amount per person to get visitors into their stores, simply because they know that a huge percentage of purchase decisions are actually made on the sales floor (a POPAI study from a few years back found that about 70% of brand decisions are made in-store). Thus, while Consumer Reports may have suggested that buyers do their shopping in one place and their purchasing elsewhere, in reality what’s likely to happen is that those who would normally buy online will continue to do so, but some percentage of people who go to the store “just to shop” will wind up purchasing there as well.
Joe Ruby
on 26 Oct 06I also read Consumer Reports at the library, so I don’t have to buy their magazine either! :P
Scott Meade
on 26 Oct 06Another reason people visit physical stores is for the face-to-face discussions with experts. You get recommendations and information from discussions with real-life photographers that you will not get from a website or a call-center across the ocean taking your order.
Mike’s Camera (family owned in the Denver area and online) has expert photographers (e.g. not blue-shirted, khaki wearing teenagers who jump between cell phones, tvs, laptops, and cameras) on staff. Like many physical stores, Mike’s realizes people will use their staff expertise to choose and then buy from somewhere else. To encourage you not to do so they stick with you after the sale by offering complementary photography and camera workshops as part of your purchase.
The best stores will give you reasons to close the deal with them and work to make sure you are satisfied so you keep coming back. To use a old, tired, worn out – but in this case – appropriate, phrase: it’s not just about the sale but the ongoing relationship with customers.
Andy Kant
on 26 Oct 06This reminds me of when I worked at CompUSA. We were the only electronics store in the Milwaukee metro area that had salespeople that actually knew what they were talking about so many people came to our store to hear our opinions and then bought the computer at Best Buy, Circuit City, or the Apple Store (we had our own Apple Store with an Apple employed rep within our store) instead of buying it at our store.
What most people don’t understand is that many retail personnel operate on commission and there are added benefits beyond the cost. I think one of the Apple reps that was at CompUSA while I was there had the best look on this: “When people tell me they are going to buy the computer elsewhere when I spent an hour of my time helping them, I tell them what they are losing: Me to support them.” Many of the workers at these stores are willing to provide free future advice as an added hidden value that most customers forget. Whenever that Apple rep told the customer that they would be losing him as their personal reference (he even gave his customers his work cellphone number for whenever they had questions), they always purchased directly from our store.
Andy
on 26 Oct 06Who cares if the big electronics shops dry up? It would simply mean that their business model is outdated. If there were some small local shops I might feel sorry for them, but I know of none.
If the shops actually dry up, it doesn’t actually mean that you can’t see the products in person. Apple already understands the way people shop in this age, so they have shops everywhere which are simply there to let you experience their products. They probably wouldn’t care if the stores sold no products at all, since they are meant as product showcases. I’ve recently read that even Dell is considering doing this.
People and economies aren’t static. If you’re unable to adapt to new shopping behaviors, you should be gone when a new shake out occurs.
Jason
on 26 Oct 06I agree with Dan. While your argument may make more sense when considering smaller specialty stores, not so much the larger franchises. When you’re dealing with a local Mom ‘n Pop store business, you’re likely getting more value anyways. Those stores usually don’t have (can’t afford) the larger, hands-on displays of the Wal-Marts and Best Buys, so the value you’re getting is from the one-on-one with the salesperson, who can usually answer questions more competently than a generally-trained Best Buy employee and cares more about the sale. In a case like that, I fully agree that you do a disservice by NOT making a local sale.
For large businesses, however, this is hardly a loss. The losses incurred from the try-then-buy-online set is without a doubt significantly less than the gains from attracting the average buyer. Besides, those stores more than make up for the loss by taking advantage of your physical presence in their store; they almost always place the expensive items (electronics, etc.) in the furthest corner of the store, forcing the consumer to navigate aisles upon aisles of possible impulse buys. Whereas you can log of an online store at any time, you have to walk back through the entire rest of the store to exit. And like Dan mentioned, it costs you to go; you’re more likely to make an impulse buy to justify your trip to the store than you are online.
It’s all in the spirit of competition. While internet businesses profit from the free hands-on experience of walk-in stores, the instant gratification factor is a significant feature they lack. And it is significant; while online businesses do feature last-minute purchase options up to the moment of checkout, there’s the kind of visceral need triggered by actually being able to reach out and grab something right before checkout that will never be achieved by a 100×100 jpeg.
Jason2
on 26 Oct 06Oops. Didn’t realize Jason was posting. the above post is not the author, btw.
Anonymous Coward
on 26 Oct 06what electronics store can you go to anymore that keeps money in the local economy?
Let’s see… Unless they are trucking in their workers from 100 miles away, their employees’ take home pay is kept in the local community. They use this money to go buy groceries, food, supplies, whatever else they buy locally. That money goes to pay taxes that pays for their local public schools, roads, fire, police, and other services.
But this isn’t the point of the original post. Your reply shows the problem with many people when confronted with an issue. They muddy it up and toss in a bunch of unrelated stuff to confuse matters. Then it’s easy to avoid the original point.
The issue was purely about the value associated with being able to go to a store (ANY LOCAL STORE) and physically interact with a product before you buy it. That’s all.
frum
on 26 Oct 06Such practices are forbidden by Jewish law. Similarly asking someone the price of something if you aren’t really interested in buying the product.
Bottom line misleading someone when you are never really interested in their products is dishonest. Good observation Jason.
DHH
on 26 Oct 06Justifying your desire to get cheap electronics, without paying the service-charge in a store, under the guise of “fighting the man” is incredibly self-serving.
“Down with Walmart, Down with Walmart. Their low, low prices results in poor working conditions for their employees and no health care. I’ll get on the barricades right now! Just as soon as I use their in-store service to checkout my new gear, then go to buy it EVEN CHEAPER online”.
Way to use a social banner for your own greedy desires. That’s some way to fight the man.
Tim Jolly
on 26 Oct 06Consumers are consumers and retailers are retailers. Its a dog eat dog world. What about the guy who compares every gadget in the world online, and then goes to town because he wants it now, does he owe endgadget an apology for not buying from their sponsors. What about listening to samples on iTunes and then getting the CD at Walmart. In my town, there is a small hardware store that remains open despite the presence of large chain stores just 15 minutes away. He does so by knowing his business, and when you leave you know you didn’t waste money. When I leave Circuit City I feel sick, usually because the 20 inch TV you went to buy turned into a Big Screen with a small mortgage attached to it. I don’t hate Walmart for their business strategy, but if they want to sell me a camera when I’m browsing, pay a decent wage so you can have someone their who knows cameras.
Kiliman
on 26 Oct 06Before I purchased my HDTV, I did a lot of research online reading reviews, going to forums, etc. Once I figured out the model I wanted I went to price comparison sites to see what the price range was.
I ended up going to the local Best Buy and got them to knock the price down that even with sales tax, I only paid about $200 more than the cheapest online store and got free delivery.
Well, that $200 bought me piece of mind that if something went wrong with my purchase, I could go face to face and discuss it with my salesperson. That’s much better than sitting on hold trying to talk to some faceless person on the other end of the phone. When you’re spending $3000 on something, is it worth the risk?
So for me, it was less a morality issue (although I do agree with the post), but a risk issue.
Free Market
on 26 Oct 06I say let the economics prevail. In the same way protection in international trade leads to inefficient/uncompetitive domestic practices and perhaps most importantly the lack of a sustainable competitive response, providing charity to local retailers will simply prolong their pain and hinder innovation.
I’m not advocating the local retailer disappear, I’m simply saying that if you mess with the advantage that currently exists for the consumer (try local buy online), you’ll mess with innovation. It’s not up to the consumer to convert themselves – it’s up to the retailer to figure that out.
Consumer Reports is called “Consumer” for a reason. They are a consumer advocacy group not a retailer advocacy group.
Joe Ruby
on 26 Oct 06BTW, this is pretty ironic. A while ago everybody was railing for people to buy from the local mom and pops and not the big box stores, now it’s buy from the local big boxes and not the far-away online companies (of which I think many of us here operate)?
48th Ronin
on 26 Oct 06Lets get real guys! Consumers look for value and if its offered freely(like feeling the product in local store) they will take it. If value is offered in terms of lowest price at a store they will take it. They are very consistent anf honest of their intentions.
The business look for value too. They let you feel the product so that you will buy it!! There is no such thing as free meal!
Justin perkins
on 26 Oct 06Don’t misquote me, that’s not what I was saying.
For my last camera purchase (Canon SD630), I shopped around at about 6 local electronics stores doing price research, then settled with the SD at a Circuit City. I never buy electronics online (unless we’re talking about memory or other support hardware), always purchased in-person.
If you desire cheap electronics, caring about local business (real local business, not box stores), worker conditions, etc. is probably not really high on your list. Is anybody claiming otherwise?
Mark
on 26 Oct 06Capitalism.
Arik
on 26 Oct 06I’m simply going to shop how I please. CR did the right thing. Its about getting the item you want at the best price and quite frankly companies apply a lot of mark-up in physical stores as opposed to online for obvious reasons.
When buying a PC, I usually shop the locals and attain advice the best hardware to buy for my budget, then do all the shopping online on my own. I might use their services to keep my PC maintained, but I’m not paying out my butt just so I can say it was store bought.
What this post suggests is that we purchase at a store for the sake of purchasing at a store.
Ian Leckie
on 26 Oct 06Interesting debate here…
I agree in theory with what Jason is saying, but I think there is a flaw in the argument… I would think that very few, if any, people use stores like Best Buy purely as a place to demo things they buy online. I don’t think I have ever been in Best Buy and only looked at one thing, or even one category of thing.
The last digital camera I bought I researched extensively both online and off. I compared it to a couple different models every time I would stop into Best Buy. And then I bought it from Newegg for over $100 less than it would have cost me in the store. That is a win for me. But is it really a loss for Best Buy?
Not really. Each time I was in the store I was exposed to countless “impulse” items, many of which have higher profit margins than the more expensive items. I almost always buy CDs, books, DVDs and Games in store rather than online.
So, I agree with the spirit of what you are saying Jason, but feel that for many people their real life experience and balance of what they buy online vs. off probably makes it a non-issue.
Splashman
on 26 Oct 06Very interesting discussion, as a microcosm of humanity’s moral stratification.
It is self-evident that brick-and-mortar stores provide value (why else would we visit?). If, over the aggregate, a person receives value but does not give anything in return, moral degeneration is guaranteed.
someonemaybe
on 26 Oct 06Give me a break.
The big box stores – where we test out electronics or skim through books – squeezed out all of the little local shops a long time ago – and they did so in vicious ways (see Clay Johnson’s copmment above).
Regardless your argument doesn’t hold up. We gain value throughout the purchase cycle from so many different places and in so many different ways (think of all the sites you have to visit to do research because the bix box staff usually know nothing about what they are selling) that it would be impossible to fairly distribute the deal.
Mike Swimm
on 26 Oct 06Its one thing to walk into a mom and pop store, ask a thousand questions about product x knowing full well you aren’t going to buy it, waste an hour of someone’s time, and then go home and order the product. I don’t think many people are encouraging that.
In my opinion that is not the same as checking out a couple of cameras at Best Buy giant camera kiosk before making a decision and ordering one online. God knows you couldn’t get anyone to help you in there if you wanted to anyway. I used to shop at that Best Buy on Elston, I can’t imagine a much worse shopping experience.
Plus Best Buy and Circuit City are big boys. If they think they are loosing a lot of money this way they will figure something out.
RS
on 26 Oct 06It’s not about bix boxes, mom and pop, or online stores. It’s about buying where you shop.
Antonymous Cowturd
on 26 Oct 06I’m sorry, but I think the “ethics” argument is turd. One simply doesn’t have the same level of “ethical obligations” towards commercial companies as towards individuals. The “store” is an anonymous money-making machine built to take your money from you in exchange for goods, and putting goods on display is just a sales-bosting mechanism. If this mechanism stops being efficient, it will have to evolve. IMO, the argument about “being nice” only applies to limited cases where a consumer would seek lengthy advice from a store employee who just happened to be knowledgeable and helpful (good luck with THAT!), and happened to be “on commission”. Besides, any local retailer has you every which way by factoring costs into prices. ANY costs, including damage caused by incompetent employees and careless consumers, theft, bureaucracy, bad workflow and stuff like that. I say, if I don’t steal from stores, and don’t break boxes walking around the store, I shouldn’t end up paying for others who do. Charity simply doesn’t apply to big labels: if a retailer can’t be efficient, he will be out of business.
Now where Consumer Reports might’ve actually missed the mark—it’s on the subject of practicality. Oftentimes it’s more practical to buy something from a local retailer than to go order it online for a few bucks’ savings. People are overly obsessed with “saving”, which leads to “hidden costs” like time wasted comparison shopping, shipping charges, increased risk of getting a “DOA” product and potential aggravation (and more spending on returns/replacements).
Sorry if my comment isn’t much more than a repetition of less-than-fresh thoughts in less-than-perfect English.
Elliot Swan
on 26 Oct 06It’s not about buying where you shop, it’s about the shop making their place worth buying from.
Being able to pick up and look at something is one thing stores offer, but they aren’t charging you for that service and are completely aware that you might go and buy it somewhere else, online or not.
But they offer a lot more than that, and should. They also offer instant gratification, which several people have already mentioned. The ability to return something and get warranties are another thing that stores will offer that many online retails will not.
If they’re still loosing business, then they need to rethink their strategy.
There’s nothing wrong with checking something out at the store then buying it somewhere else if the store doesn’t offer a good enough deal—that’s the store’s business, not yours. It’s no different than checking out something at one store, then finding a better deal somewhere else. This is why many stores offer deals where they’ll accept competitors’ coupons or match their deals.
Asking questions at a Best Buy then buying it from newegg is no worse than asking questions at Best Buy then buying from Circuit City—that’s called smart business. If Best Buy is loosing too much from other stores, they need to learn how to adapt to competition. Competition is what drives America’s economy.
Even if you don’t buy the original product at a local store, don’t you often end up buying other, related stuff there because of your experience? You may not buy the camera from them, but you might buy batteries, a memory card, and a tripod—and that’s the store’s job to sell it to you. It’s their job to create an experience worth buying from.
If they can’t do that, then something’s wrong—and it’s not the customer.
Chris Spicer
on 26 Oct 06I’m sorry if some of you like to wallow in ignorance and justify yourself by stating that big box stores have simply taken over the world and that speciality shops do not exist – but you are completely and utterly wrong. I myself personally work for a medium-sized retail speciality store, and while we don’t sell cameras, I do experience this sort of treatment every day from customers.
A lot of you seem to equate that the lowest price equals the best value, which simply isn’t true. Even when you walk into a big box store, regardless of if you utilize their sales people, you are taking advantage of their services. Services that cost them money.
Either way, in my situation this point is moot either way. The most infuriating aspect of my job is when I spend an hour with a customer who at the very end decides that they will order from an online store to save $50, if that. There have been cases where customers have come in wanting something incredibly specific then blown me off completely at the end of the conversation to save a buck. As a person who is giving his time to someone else, I find it incredibly rude when someone does this. It doesn’t personally affect me financially, but it takes advantage of services paid for by the company I work for and want to see do well.
I hate the argument put forth that ethics and business are two separate things – they aren’t. People are involved in business and ethics are a basis of being a person, separating the two is simply wrong. I have ethical standards and I expect customers who come into the store, regardless of wether or not they purchase from us, to at least respect and appreciate the fact that someone is spending time with them to help them and not to simply blow off all the service they have received to save a few bucks. It is disgraceful and disgusting.
They say that corporations are greedy, money hungry entities. From my point of view, consumers work in the same way.
Chris Campbell
on 26 Oct 06Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about books? I’ll browse a bookstore for awhile just looking for decent books and then buy a bulk order of the ones I like from amazon or half.com. Of course, if I want it then and there, I’ll buy it from the bookstore.
I generally agree with you, though. Especially if there is a commission for the salesperson who took the time to help me out.
Clark
on 26 Oct 06Why would anyone go to all the trouble of visiting a store and then order online to save 10%?
Part of the point of shopping online is to save the time you would usually waste shopping to use on more meaningful activities. If I need a new camera I need a new camera but I would certainly rather spend my time playing in the park with my daughter than milling about in some heartless big box store.
Ryan
on 26 Oct 06Put yourself in the shoes of a retailer to see why your thinking is off. As a physical retailer, would you rather that people planning to buy online be encouraged or discouraged from visiting stores?
You’d want them to visit, no question. It was a lost sale to begin with. But if they come to your store, some will actually stay and buy because of the convenience. They will see that your price is reasonably competitive (if it is, and in my experience this is often the case) and buy on spot for the convenience of instant gratification, easier return, etc.
Retailers fight like mad to be near traffic flows—foot traffic, car traffic, anything to get people into the stores. If Consumer Reports wants to encourage an extremely qualified lead to walk in off the street and give the store a chance to win the customer from a competitor, nearly any retailer would JUMP at the chance.
This is why you should not fight other people’s battles for them.
Jeff
on 26 Oct 06Ridiculous. If the local stores want my money then they need to compete for it with pricing and service—a battle they’re currently losing. Consumer Reports is simply dispensing the best advice for their customers. Suppose I check out Amazon.com for user reviews and other information regarding a given book or movie but buy it at Overstock or Half.com since they have a better price. By your rationale I should only buy from Amazon because they incurred the cost (bandwidth, building a user base, web designers) of providing me that initial information. There is no room for guilt-buying in an open marketplace.
Dean
on 26 Oct 06So am I being unethical if I do research online say at Amazon, Musician’s Friend, Zzounds, Sam Ash, or Guitar Center to find info about a piece of music gear and then go to my local mom and pop store and buy it from them?
Consumers look for info on products now in lots of different places. I don’t think you have a hard and fast “rule” about this.
Two examples: I researched a guitar online – reviews, specs, prices, etc. I ended up at a local small store and because they were friendly and no pressure – I orded the exact model I wanted. The price was inline with what I saw online.
I recently needed to replace my digital camera. I did some research online and went out to the local Ritz Camera. The sales person helped me decide and I probably paid a little more than I could have online but it was instant gratification.
Am I in debt to the online retailers that I got my research info from?
--Josh
on 27 Oct 06I’ll never understand people who love businesses while they are small but despise them when their sucess allows them to grow large. It’s ridiculous. Like them or not based on their merits.
Stealing from somone or using them in bad faith is wrong no matter how small or large they are. To say “It’s ok, they’re rich” is simply assinine and obviously rooted in jealousy and feelings of inadequacy.
And Consumer Reports should be ashamed of themselves.
Rodger
on 27 Oct 06While I agree with the spirit of the post, I think it’s a bit misguided in reality.
In business terms for big-box retailers, it’s a multi-channel world so it’s assumed that browsers in the store may convert instead online. Even if you don’t buy from the same retailer, in the end, it all works itself out in the aggregate. I wouldn’t worry about the ethics involved here.
If I walk into an electronics store, take 5 minutes of an associate’s time and simply walk around myself, I don’t think I should pay $300 more for a television based on that. The store is at fault for not providing more value – I would’ve purchased if that were the case.
I wholeheartedly agree that when the store provides value that is in parity with the added cost, you should buy from that provider. I don’t like taking up any person’s considerable time for an activity that I know won’t end up converting for him just because I can. Otherwise, that value that independent stores and personal attention will start to disappear.
I believe in the personal feel of an independent store and the value that brings, so I believe in the spirit but it has to be in the context of value-creation and competition as well.
Raineri Bello
on 27 Oct 06Your argument is pretty stupid, nothing personal. It’s the job of consumers to get the best price they can. Globalism is nothing new; it will continue and it’s up to businesses to rightly adapt. It’s not taking advantage its being smart. You act as if business don’t have the advantages of offering lower prices & giving offers and incentives, they do, look at walmart. Just like there are online websites offering products online so is walmart, they are really pushing that as of late. You can’t control it, you may think its immoral but there will always be a market for buying offline. The online market is not going to replace that, but that doesn’t mean offline players can’t try to get online. I say let the economy flow.
Avi Flax
on 27 Oct 06Don’t have time to read all the comments (!) – just wanna say: I totally agree with the sentiment of the post!
Drew Pickard
on 27 Oct 06When I look at something at a store I am not entering into any sort of agreement social, legal or ethical that I am going to buy it from them, or even buy it at all.
I appreciate places where I can get friendly advice from people and feel comfortable and welcome. I support those places when I can and when appropriate.
However, I may look at the item and then choose to buy it elsewhere if I decide there is a significant price, convenience or quality issue. And dammit, that’s my right as a consumer. If they don’t like it they can refuse service or change the way they do business. I’m not obligated to do what they want me to. It’s a free market.
I look around Amazon and many other websites a lot – I don’t feel required to buy everything I examine there.
I understand that there’s a difference between a small shop and Amazon.com but really – it’s the same principle.
James
on 27 Oct 06I completely agree with this post. I only really thought about this when I bought my last guitar a couple of years ago. I went to my local store and tried about 10 guitars in the price range I was looking at. I then selected the one I thought was best, and bought it. I knew full well I could go there, check out guitars outside of my price range and buy them cheaper online. But that’s not the point, the store added value by the fact I could try the guitar before I bought it. I chose the best guitar for me, and I could only do that by physically holding and playing it. For me to try a guitar and like it, but leave and buy cheaper online I felt would not only be dishonest, but it could screw me over, because if everyone did the same, the shop would go out of business. Then where would I test-run my next guitar?
Drew Pickard
on 27 Oct 06I would also add:
I would LOVE to buy things from shops right next door to me. But sometimes, I need to save that $50 or $100 for something more important.
I do my research to find a good price on something, make a good purchasing decision. I investigate the item in person first with no intention to buy it at all (no decision has been made on my part) and then balance out the costs and benefits of buying at local shops versus online.
But paying $50 + state salse tax on top of it hurts.
It’s a lot harder to quantify the lost monies of a place if I walk in and look at something without buying. And honestly, the customer doesn’t give a flying crap about that either way – it’s not our problem.
Glen Barnes
on 27 Oct 06Question: If you test drove a car at a local sales lot and the sticker price was $40,000 but you could get it for $30,000 online would you still buy it from the lot?
I’m sorry but I would rather save the $10,000. If the lot wants to drop the price to something close to the same amount then I would consider it. Hey the car comes with a manufacturers warranty which is valid at any mechanic so why not?
I used to say ‘support the local guy’ but now I don’t unless they are providing something extra for the price and that somthing extra is post sale. I buy all my books on Amazon (I’m from NZ and the NZ book stores are 1.5x the price). I buy other things locally when I know there may be issues and I need the support/after sales service that Big Box retailers/online retailers quite often don’t give.
Glen Barnes
on 27 Oct 06Question: If you test drove a car at a local sales lot and the sticker price was $40,000 but you could get it for $30,000 online would you still buy it from the lot?
I’m sorry but I would rather save the $10,000. If the lot wants to drop the price to something close to the same amount then I would consider it. Hey the car comes with a manufacturers warranty which is valid at any mechanic so why not?
I used to say ‘support the local guy’ but now I don’t unless they are providing something extra for the price and that somthing extra is post sale. I buy all my books on Amazon (I’m from NZ and the NZ book stores are 1.5x the price). I buy other things locally when I know there may be issues and I need the support/after sales service that Big Box retailers/online retailers quite often don’t give.
Antonymous Cowturd
on 27 Oct 06Chris, I hate to break this one for you: business and ethics are not only two separate things,.. in fact, they are oftentimes OPPOSITE! Business is about what you do to bring advantage to yourself. Ethics is about what you not do to prevent disadvantage to others. Any attempt to marry the two are, basically, a hypocrisy. A successful enterprise is always a compromise of these two factors; think yin and yang, if you’re into this kind of stuff.
Please note how you switch to “I” when you talk about “ethical standards” at your workplace. That’s right, your employer doesn’t have “ethical standards”, because your employer is not even a human! The proclaimed “standards” posted on the wall near your manager’s office are the necessary evil from your company’s perspective. Let’s imagine, for an argument’s sake, that some of your co-workers were thieves and morons, reliably adding a hefty overhead to your employer’s costs. Provided that these people were left to do as they would, who, in your opinion, would be covering these costs? Would you call THIS ethical?
I can sympathise to your colleagues who happen to actually depend on commissions for their income, and I wouldn’t call it a good practice to annoy a store clerk with questions for an hour, and then go buy someplace else—but, of course, not because of a concern for an employer. If helpful store clerks were allowed to accept tips, I’d say this situation warrants tipping.
May I suggest this healthy mantra, “I am not my employer”?
James
on 27 Oct 06Glen Barnes:
$10,000 is a lot of money. What this post is about is saving $20 or $30 dollars by going to a store, trying it, but not buying and going home (with the knowledge you gained at the store) and buying it online. How much is the opportunity the store gave you to “try before you buy” worth to you? If $30 dollars isn’t worth it to you and others that store will go out of business. Then what would you do when you wanted to try before you buy?
Joe Ruby
on 27 Oct 06It’s not about bix boxes, mom and pop, or online stores. It’s about buying where you shop.
So I must buy wherever I shop? Never hear of window shopping? Or shopping around—I’ll do that, then buy from the local business that has the best price, warranty, etc.
Eric
on 27 Oct 06Rules of Economics 101: shit rolls down hill, not up.
Marc Guldimann
on 27 Oct 06Your argument is akin to saying if I click on someone’s google ad while shopping online I should buy from them. Or because I used amazon’s review system I should buy from them. You are confusing two different kinds of value used in the sales process (yes, I’m oversimplifying, and I’m sure the sales blog you are reading or sales seminar your boss sent you to has many more): value provided to establish the relationship, and value provided during and after the purchase.
Here are some examples of value used to establish relationships (notice that most are sunk costs): - a “safe retail environment, see the product you want to buy, play with it, take a few shots with it, feel it, and, perhaps, ask a salesperson questions about it” - booth babes - schwag - free demos of software - product reviews - adwords (easily found product)
Examples of value gained during and after the sales process: - one-click ordering - easy returns - instant gratification - free shipping - no scary cyber-hackers to steal your credit card.
Ask any experienced salesperson if they would discourage people with intentions to buy online from coming into their store. The answer will be no. Why? Because every salesperson wants a shot at that sale. The idea that this is “unfair” to retailers is cute. Unfortunately, these companies do not have your best interest in mind (ever heard an extended warranty pitch?), and you shouldn’t have to have theirs in mind. People are far from rational, and a good salesperson should be able to show enough value to close the sale right there.
The holier-than-thou tone of this blog is getting old fast, albeit not too suprising coming from the people who compared themselves to Jonathan Ive.
Ryan
on 27 Oct 06Here is a common scenario. I want to buy a camera. I visit dpreview.com, read reviews of different models. I visit amazon.com to read customer reviews of a few of the cameras I saw on dpreview.com. Then I visit Best Buy so I can actually see the camera I think I want. I have recieved “value” from three places. Luckily, I can’t actually buy a camera from dpreview.com so I have no dilema there. Do I have to buy two cameras, one from amazon.com and one from Best Buy because I feel guilty about taking advantage of one of them? I seriously hope your answer is no, and that is my main point. You seem to be neglecting the fact that we recieve “value” from many places in our shopping experience, but only one place gets the sale, and unless Best Buy gives me a compelling reason to pay more, I’m probably going to buy the camera from amazon.com. I’m sorry, but being able to see a product in a store is just one of many things that help me decide on a product, so that alone is not a compelling reason to make my purchase there.
MonkeyT
on 27 Oct 06You want a model that works on all levels? Nerdbooks.com maintains a storefront in Dallas. It’s their warehouse. If you’re fortunate enough to be in the area, you can go in, browse, sit on couches, talk to staff, read, whatever. When you decide to buy, you actually purchase through their online store from that location – for the same price, and the shipping charges get waived. You get the convenience of a local store, live people to talk to, and competitive online pricing all from one vendor. They are also very active in supporting their client base by providing space for user groups (with wireless access). I’m not certain how well this would translate to non-specialized retail operations, there are definitely other models out there to be tried.
When the margins are thin, customer loyalty matters. If you want to build customer loyalty while competing in an online world, this works.
If sales staff offer value to a shopper, they’ll get some loyalty in return. If all retailers provide is a chaperone while the customer handles merchandise and information a savvy customer can already find online, they won’t. I went with my sister looking for a video camera last saturday, and the salespersons provided some value by sharing their own experiences of actually using the different models. They earned some loyalty and got the sale. I’m shopping for a car right now and no salesperson has come anywhere near earning any loyalty. I’ve walked into every single dealership knowing more about their cars than they have.
Any retailer who hasn’t been expecting online commerce to change their game has clearly been burying their head in the sand. That’s not going to work much longer.
Benjy
on 27 Oct 06I will almost always check out a product physically in a store before choosing to purchase, even if I end up buying online. I do understand the cost to run a store and the benefit I received from it being there for me to “kick the tires,’ so I will buy from them or their website if the price is within a reasonable range of the online stores I trust enough to purchase from. I check out my digital camera at Best Buy, and when it was only about $15 more through BestBuy.com (with in-store pick-up) I ordered from them, rather than Amazon, Buy.com, etc. However, had it been $50 or $100 I’ve have ordered it from someplace else.
Jim
on 27 Oct 06I’ve all but stopped actually buying things from Best Buy. I agree with Jason in principle. In practice, Best Buy doesn’t treat their customers well. I wanted a digital camera. I did my research online, picked out a camera, then checked the prices online. Great – Best Buy has a sale this week. I drove down to the store only to be told it was an online only sale, and there’s no way I could but it in the store at that price. #$ that – I bought it from Staples (in the store) instead.
Geoff DiMasi
on 27 Oct 06In an interesting flip…
Many online retailers are the mom and pop local stores… run by small teams of 5-8 people that are investing in their local economies.
As to Consumer Report… the real news is that CR reviews are WORTHLESS in an age where products evolve faster than the CR review cycle. Much better information in blogs, forums and on the retailers own sites in the comments.
CR is really a lame duck… it is a tool of our parent’s (if you are in your 20s -40s), not a tool of today.
justin perkins
on 27 Oct 06MonkeyT, Nerbooks sounds really awesome, way to go Dallas!
Joe Ruby
on 27 Oct 06“Much better information [than Consumer Reports] in blogs, forums and on the retailers own sites in the comments.”
I value CR’s ratings much more than any of those others. But for stuff they don’t review (like the latest techy stuff), I check out other review sites (CNET, for example) and/or comments (Newegg).
Chad Burt
on 27 Oct 06I think it really comes down to intent and timing.
If you go into a store knowing you will be buying online, then take up someone’s time with questions you need answered, that is wrong. But checking out the demo is of minimal cost to them, especially if you pick up a CD.
Likewise, if you go in and give them a chance at a sale, that seems ok to me.
Trying to seperate business from ethics is unfortunate. Do you want retailers to have the same attitude towards you? Then we end up with companies like Verizon :P
Brian
on 27 Oct 06If someone comes to our store and says they compared prices and found a better deal, we would say “Oh you should go with them.” First of all, the customers who appreciate the value of our service are the ones we want to work with. Second, they appreciate our honestly and help and will probably come back next time. And yes, some people do come back again and again and it takes a period of months before they buy anything. Hey they keep coming back so our business model is working. And our prices might even be higher for this reason. We’re competing. We’re not going out of business. Don’t worry about it, shop as you please. If the practice was actually stealing or unethical, the store wouldn’t even let you do it. It’s potentially annoying, but potentially a sale. My momma told me, you better shop around.
Kevin Barber
on 27 Oct 06Why not just go to the local retail store, talk to the salesperson about every camera, let him show you how to use it, then purchase it to make sure you like it…. simply keep the box and return it within the company policy…. Then you can take those 14 to 30 days to shop around and truly find the very bottom dollar online price. but, don’t forget to send that online note about the expensive shipping, and be sure to leave negative feedback for the long delivery time even though you ordered it at 5pm on Friday and it arrived Wednesday.
I once worked in a sales position selling computers and digital cameras, I sold a new item to a woman who was quite disrespectful, and for some reason I chose to look at her account. She had purchased 21 items at the store, 18 of which were later returned! I went to the manager who then sought out to find her in the checkout line but could not, she was in the returns line returning a television in order to purchase the camera I just sold! Companies should instate a 3 returns and you’re banned policy, because this is the #1 reason they cannot afford to compete with online stores. Fixing the issue of customers waisting salespeople’s time is a more difficult problem.
Antonymous Cowturd
on 27 Oct 06...just about as unfortunate as trying to accept pain and death. Business and ethics are indeed two different things, and the best one can do is accept the fact and learn to use it both ways: for gaining profit and not harming real people in the process. On the client’s side that probably means knowing to do one’s homework instead of pestering store clerks with questions (knowing full well that “you’re not gonna buy it here”). On the business side, knowing when your customers will go elsewhere if you offend their feeling of “fairness” in your quest for Profit.
It’s funny how only a few commenters here have shown understanding of a simple fact that a store display is a courtesy thing, not a contractual obligation of any kind. In pretty much every big store (talking mostly about electronics now) there are shelves open for exploration, yet quite a lot of things are locked in cabinets, and you have to actually get somebody to get that something out of the cabinet for you. The reason is, “they” know exactly what they do, and do not, mind “you” touching.
By the way, those who agree with the author here, should be really careful about going abroad, to Middle East, Asia, or Africa: with their street vending practices, you guys risk severe trauma either to your sense of self-righteousness, or to your wallet (all for no good reason). ;)
Guan Yang
on 27 Oct 06For electronics, I often do all my research online and then head down to the local store to close the sale.
August
on 27 Oct 06For once, I totally agree with you guys. I like a good deal as much as the next guy, and for my current financial situation I probably need it even more than the next guy. But I’d gladly hand over my money to the guy who gave me the good service than to the guy with the lowest price.
As for “Anonymous Cowturds” comments about shopping from street vendors in the Middle East, I have to say that I’ve done it, and not one of them would be so rude as to make me purchase a product unless I had inspected it. They tend to be pushier to make a sale, but they also are pretty rigid when it comes to their sense of politess.
Antonymous Cowturd
on 27 Oct 06No, this wasn’t to say they wouldn’t let one inspect the product; on the contrary, they’d be so much all over the prospective buyer that one would often find him/her-self feeling “obliged” and pressed to buy just because “the guy is so nice”. Need I mention that the westerner not accustomed to the traditions of bargaining is an easy target for double-dipping AND does not elicit much “genuine” respect bacause of his total lack of social skills, as perceived by locals.
As to their politeness, “my mileage has varied” in different countries, but discussing it here would be blatantly off topic.
Kenny Smith
on 27 Oct 06Even at a box store, if the salespeople are working commission only (or a draw commission) you are definitely affecting your local economy.
Although I’m not aware of a box electronics store that has employees on commission.
James Head
on 27 Oct 06What about reading reviews of products on Amazon then buying from elsewhere?
I think the abuse only happens if the salesman helping you is on a commission. Otherwise… evolve or die.
norvasc
on 27 Oct 06Don’t worry about it. The average Joe I know probably doesn’t even read Consumer Reports. What are we talking about, maybe 10% of the US population? Just a stupid guess, but my points still the same. This is not the same thing as the consumer issues writer on major network news saying the same thing. If that person did say it, how many people would remember it?
Sevenoaks
on 27 Oct 06I do not think that this behaviour is unetical.
1) The local shop will continue selling to people not comfortable with internet shopping.
2) The local shop may be a part of a large chain that sells online too.
3) It’s competition baby! It’s the free market baby!
Adrian L
on 27 Oct 06“But using the resources of your local store to make your final purchasing decision and then firing up your browser to buy it from the lowest bidder 2000 miles away instead just doesn’t seem decent or fair.”
What about my dad, who is constantly online going through the sites of online retailers researching his purchase, and then going to his local supplier, armed with knowledge, and buying there?
Isn’t he exploiting the online stores in exactly the same way you’re complaining about? He’s using their resources to make the purchase he’s most comfortable with.
Steve R
on 27 Oct 06Jason has a point, and it is this:
If you want to get what you pay for, you must pay for what you get.
Decide what you value, and spend your money/votes that way. Bear in mind, it may cost you more money to support things you value (physical place to check out gear / a government that will take care of you if you get catastrophically ill) but you can then expect to get what you paid for.
Too often I see my fellow citizens do things like vote down a school budget with pay raises for teachers, then complain that their schools suck.
Jameson
on 27 Oct 06A lot’s already been said about how ridiculous this “you touch it, you buy it” logic is in many if not most purchasing situations. What about this?
Supposing, heaven forbid, you don’t like the product? You found a cheap price online, tested it out in the store, and found it didn’t meet your expectations? Are you still obligated to buy from the physical retailer, since you wasted their time and touched their display merchandise?
Anonymous Coward
on 27 Oct 06There is a case for saying that the future value in the offline world is to just showcase and demonstrate the products in a store, rather than facilitating the transaction.
The Apple stores do this very well by making it a whole experience to interact with their products. How long will it be before you see a Canon shop that lets you play with the products and then buy via an internet pc in the store?
Also, consumer reports is definitely very old fashioned. At Crowdstorm.com we’re trying a new approach where you build up a network of people you trust and they recommend the products to you.
Philip Wilkinson
on 27 Oct 06argh – forgot to put my name in the post above…
Jake Walker
on 27 Oct 06Imagine what the world would be like if everyone took the action you are taking.
In this case, it would result in the closing of retail stores, and the ability to test out that digital camera in person.
Prophetess
on 27 Oct 06I must say, I’m surprised at the tenor of some of the responses coming through here….
Let’s look at it from the perspective of someone living in a large city: For years, you’ve been subjected to rude, indifferent, or just plain ignorant salespeople. Nothing you do makes any difference—the store relies on foot traffic in the area for its business, and the lack of your business doesn’t mean squat for them. Your complaints to the management fall on deaf ears. The store needs warm bodies to staff it, preferably at the lowest possible cost (gotta keep those profits up!).
Now, on the other hand, you have a vast number of stores online, where you can browse the merchandise in peace, without some salesman (who couldn’t help you anyway) bothering you. Furthermore, the online store is cheaper than the store you need fight traffic, salespeople, and “service contract offers” to buy from.
Why wouldn’t you buy from the online store?
When the local brick & mortar businesses realize that the only thing they have to offer customers is the customer experience, maybe they’ll become pleasant enough places that they’ll get my business again. But, in all actuality, Hell is more likely to freeze over before they finally put 2 & 2 together.
Arnie McKinnis
on 27 Oct 06You can tell the hot issues – there are tons of comments – so here’s mine…..
First off, I agree in the assertion that the Consumer Reports report was wrong and provided misleading advice. Their responsibility is to be “fair” in their reporting.
BUT – everyone price shops. This example is for a digital camera – but that’s just one point product. This type of “shopping” happens (or has probably happened) even for 37signals (more than likely in the early days of the company, rather than now). Here’s a likely scenario for a B2B sale….
Business Owner wants a really cool web site and starts doing some research. Business Owner reads about websites, what’s possible, what’s involved, etc. Business Owner contacts several business – online and off (remember he did some research, probably over the internet, provided by someone wanting to sell their services to him) Business Owner finds a couple of these companies, gets proposal, possible a demo site or wireframe, maybe even a project plan. Business Owner takes this information and begins review – during this review, a friend mentions eLance and that the Business Owner can get a great site for pennies on the dollar. Business Owner takes all the work produced by those he has already contacted and utilizes it to “contract” with someone over eLance. Business Owner is HAPPY – he saved money. But what about those service providers that in an effort to “gain” a customer and provide their worth, provided the business owner with all the right tools to contract with a “low cost” provider?
The internet (and companies like WalMart) have conditioned us to look for the lowest price possible. Somehow, a company that provides additional value (and marks up their products or service appropriately) has to “convince” the customer their worth it. It is the seller’s responsibility, not the buyer’s, to both create and demonstrate “why” someone should pay more for a product that is exactly the same from seller1 or seller 2.
James
on 27 Oct 06I have to say that I agree with what appears to be the majority of comments here – that this post is pretty far off base, one-sided and short-sighted.
One might wonder if 37signals applies the same ethical logic to their own products? Is there some sort of ethical obligation to buy Basecamp or Backpack just because I tried them out, consumed your resources and leveraged the value that your demos provide? I think not. I doubt very much that the 37s team thinks this way, either – it’s the cost of marketing, the cost of advertising – it’s an operating cost. Am I supposed to buy products from every company I see a billboard for? Every magazine ad I see?
Whether I like your service or not, and no matter how hard YOU choose to work for the potential sale (by offering test drives or product demos), I am in no way ethically, morally and legally obliged to part with my hard-earned money. No amount of ethical guilt jibber-jabber entitles you to my money more than any other merchant.
James
on 27 Oct 06And to illustrate even further how the ethics of your argument are flawed (as if it hasn’t been done enough by other posters), if I enter a single store, and pick up and play with several different cameras, which one am I now ethically bound to purchase?
If I must purchase the camera in this store in order to reward them for the experience, shouldn’t I also have to reward the camera-maker for their part of fronting the costs for the demo unit? Oh no! I’ve touched more than one camera! Guess I’ll have to buy all of them.
JF
on 27 Oct 06Am I supposed to buy products from every company I see a billboard for? Every magazine ad I see?
Nope, and I never suggested that.
And as far as our products go, we offer free trials. We encourage you to try them and kick the tires. But, if you want to buy them, you have to buy them through us. We don’t sell our products anywhere else. So your comparison is flawed.
Ok, back to the original point of the post…
What I’m talking about is that Consumer Reports recommends. They suggest that before you buy something online you should go to your local retailer and play with the product. You should use their commercial resources for your free, personal gain and then give your sale to someone else just because someone else has a lower price. That is the CR recommendation. I personally find that “pretty far off base, one-sided and short-sighted,” to use your words.
Your local retailer is not a showroom for the internet store 2000 miles away. Your local retailer is a showroom for the products they have on display for sale at their location.
To be clear, again, I’m not taking issue with any physical retailer or any internet retailer. What each of them are doing is fine. I’m taking issue with CR’s recommendation that you should use your local stores as a surrogate showroom for the lower priced internet retailer.
So if you want to argue that point, fine, but please don’t put words in my mouth.
JF
on 27 Oct 06And to illustrate even further how the ethics of your argument are flawed (as if it hasn’t been done enough by other posters), if I enter a single store, and pick up and play with several different cameras, which one am I now ethically bound to purchase?
That wasn’t my argument, so before you call it flawed you may want to attribute it correctly.
If you walk into a store, and try out a bunch of cameras, and purchase one of them, then great! That’s what they are there for. That is why the retailer provides multiple models and a comfortable retail environment where you can try the products. So you can review and choose in their store.
But if you use your local retailer’s space as a surrogate showroom, spend 5, 10, 15, 30, 60 minutes playing with all the models they have for sale and then go home and find it online for cheaper, well, I find that disappointing. Is it illegal? Nope. It’s it immoral? I wouldn’t go that far. Is it disappointing and unfortunate? Yes.
That’s all I said.
Mike
on 27 Oct 06What about the cost of running online stores like Crutchfield or Amazon, who both have a lot of the background information. In this analogy, the costs of bricks and mortar are the same as bandwidth and content managers. Just because you are using the internet for research doesn’t mean there isn’t a cost to the company providing the info.
Chris Brainard
on 27 Oct 06It really doesn’t matter as Consumer Reports blows and makes it’s money by getting money from the products it recommends.
As for the camera part most people should really go into a store because in most cases they will find that it is just as cheap in the store and it is easier to return it.
It is also one of those things where you really want to try out how it feels in your hands too. I recently went to Circuit City and got a 5 mega pixel camera for $100 and a 2 gig memory stick for $69. Ended up buying two of them as the price was so great.
The main selling point was the controls and how easy it was to use.
Arik
on 27 Oct 06I agree as well with most of these comments, No one is obligated to buy where they shop. You insult smaller unspoken freedoms when you say we should. And you definitely insult people by calling them selfish for choosing where to spend their money.
James
on 27 Oct 06I didn’t quote you at all. Or put words in your mouth. I simply made some simple obersvations and extrapolations of the logic that seemed evident in the OP to me, personally (and a lot of other commenters, as far as I can tell). Your response is appreciated, however. Thanks for adding some additional thought and clarification on your views.
JF
on 27 Oct 06I agree as well with most of these comments, No one is obligated to buy where they shop. You insult smaller unspoken freedoms when you say we should. And you definitely insult people by calling them selfish for choosing where to spend their money.
It’s like a game of telephone. The message gets more and more muddled as more and more people pass it on.
I’m not at all suggesting anyone is obligated to do anything. I just find it disappointing and unfortunate that people would use their local retailers as surrogate showrooms for internet retailers.
I’m talking about intentions. I’m talking about walking into a local retailer with no intent to buy, but with the intent to take something away to be used somewhere else. Retailers aren’t public services, they are businesses with costs. I just find it disappointing when people purposely take advantage of those costs, with no intent to help pay for them.
And that is what CR is recommending. “Go to your local store to try the product first before you buy it online.” Those are their words and I find them disappointing and unfortunate.
That is all.
Free Market
on 27 Oct 06“What I’m talking about is that Consumer Reports recommends. They suggest that before you buy something online you should go to your local retailer and play with the product.”
I don’t know a single physical retailer that wouldn’t jump at the chance to have and try to convert this CR driven foot traffic. The probability of a local sale goes from zero (strict online purchase – no local trial) to something greater than zero (which is a function of the local experience).
Arik
on 27 Oct 06JF, that just doesn’t make sense. You’re literally suggesting that we (even though you claim its not what you’re saying) not find the best deal or spend my money in the best possible way. Is it not my money I’m spending? did I not work my butt off to earn that money? If no, then fine, you’re right. But in the case of yes, I owe stores nothing. I will play with cameras in store and find a better deal online. Exactly in that order. Cause its how I choose to shop. Stores cater to consumers, not the other way around.
Is it really disappointing that I found a better offer online after trying out a product in-store? Nope. Is it unfortunate that I, the customer, is now happy cause he got a great product for a great price, certainly not. Let’s be real here.
Gonzalo
on 27 Oct 06Hola, mi nombre es Gonzalo y queria comentarles algo que empece a ver en Internet que me parecio muy interesante. La educacion a distancia empezo a ser el emblema de estudio en muchos paises de lationamerica. Calculan que es una de las principales fuentes del comercio electronico. Yo hace un poco, hice unos cursos en estos dos sites muy interesantes:
http://www.designanimation.com.ar http://www.portuguesonline.com
Saludos!
Mike
on 27 Oct 06I do it all the time and will continue to do so.
Does it make me a bad person? Maybe.
Do I like saving money? Definitely.
Tom
on 27 Oct 06I’ve always heard that retail stores like Best Buy sometimes sell things like CDs and DVDs below cost in order to get people in the door. They then design stores and displays so customers take a look at other, higher-margin things (DVD players, appliances, etc).
I wonder if similarly they could monetize the people that come in and take advantage of their sales force?
Min
on 27 Oct 06Well, I guess one humorous way to put what Consumer Reports is recommending to do is to blue ball brick and mortar stores.
Let’s get this straight, it’s not wrong to save yourself money, but think of it this way: Those prices that are charged are going into things that offer added value on top of the service. If everyone in the world took this advice to heart we would see a drop in local services. It’s a case where private good contrasts against a public good.
scott
on 27 Oct 06“Down with Wal-Mart, Down with Wal-Mart. Their owners’ inflated salaries and ethically questionable business decisions result in poor working conditions for their employees and no health care.”
just clarifying one particular issue, tangental to the original topic of this thread (which i agree with, incidentally).
filmnut
on 27 Oct 06The right thing to do? Are you serious? Do you think these corporations extend the same moral code and respect for us?
Jeff Koke
on 27 Oct 06Wow. Interesting topic. There’s obviously a strong bias toward “it’s my money, I’ll do what I want with it,” and I don’t think Jason’s saying you don’t have that right. What he’s basically saying is “don’t be a dick.”
Don’t make up your mind that you are going to buy a specific product online and then go to a local retailer to try it out. Go to the retailer with an open mind; see if what they have to offer in terms of the total package is worth the price they are asking. If not, follow your conscience.
AGirlForGoodnessSake
on 27 Oct 06I’m amazed at the difference in attitudes about shopping between men and women. I once knew a guy who refused to walk into a drug store and leave without at least buying a pack of gum, whether he wanted it or not. Women do not have this problem. We don’t feel obligated to buy something merely because the store allowed us to browse. Perhaps it’s because we do so much more shopping than men. The comedian Rob Becker points out in great detail how women as “gatherers” needed to know the subtle differences in hue between edible and poisenous berries. Today we spend enormous amounts of time pondering the subtle differences in color and fit of an average pair of jeans. Retailers know this! They know we try on 10 pairs before even thinking about buying one. And they don’t consider us malicious! Providing an accessible and safe store environment is part of the cost of doing business.
The store is open to bring in traffic, knowing that a percentage of it will be looky-loos or window shoppers. Every real estate agent who’s had to spend the day showing houses knows this. You might not buy the printer, but perhaps you’ll remember that you need paper or print cartridges – or even some impulse item. You might come in with a pal, and they might buy something they wouldn’t have otherwise come to the store for. Retailers know this and they are more than willing to host you on the chance this will happen.
Consumer reports is supporting that as well, in their recommendation to go try before you buy. This is sage advice and it’s not limited to low or high-ticket electronics.
Would you buy a car without test driving it? Would you really buy it from the dealer who let you test drive it even if it meant paying a premium? Come on guys.
You’re deluding yourselves if you think it’s your duty to pay for the “value”, the privilege of shopping, because it’s the right thing to do. But go ahead, keep doing it. Because you are the percentage that pays for the rest of us to do our due diligence. I really can not believe you are suggesting that people act in direct opposition to their own best interest.
Salespeople who are not on commission have to be there anyway. Commissioned salespeople understand the numbers game. Both of them benefit with every customer experience by gaining people-knowledge or sales process knowledge, and frequently, product knowledge as they continue to learn about features the customer inquires about. They also learn whether the manufacturer is delivering what the market wants. This is invaluable and only makes them a better representative for both the retailer and the manufacturer. (Keep in mind: I’m talking about a reasonable and courteous consumer here, who is not completely oblivious to other shoppers and doesn’t monopolize a salesperson to an extreme degree.)
Having gone through this very exercise recently on the purchase of new DVD camera, there is a actually a different issue at hand. The real problem is that many of the high-rated and discounted models available online, are NOT stocked at the retail stores. The manufacturers of products should offer retailers an incentive to stock as many models of their products as possible for the sole purpose of allowing potential buyers to test drive them. And if the retailer really wants a sale, they should train their staff to probe the customer as to the objection, and have the ability to make a competitive deal on the spot, if documentation of internet discount is provided. If they’re not willing to cut their margin, then it’s in their best interest to let the customer walk. This is no-brainer stuff, guys.
James
on 27 Oct 06Right on AGirlForGoodnessSake. Right on.
smorty71
on 27 Oct 06So you should continue to support retailers who refuse to compete? If a brick and mortar store doesn’t want to match the online price of a product, then I have no obligation to buy from them (whether I go to the store first or not).
And what if I go to one brick and mortar retailer and check out a product, but then buy from a different brick and mortar retailer who has a lower price? Is that OK, Jason? Or should I remain loyal to the first one?
Business is a competition. If a brick and mortar retailer refuses to adjust to the growth of online shopping, they should close.
Anonymous Coward
on 27 Oct 06the stores already have taken those risks that consumers come in, waste their time and not buying anything.
life is not fair, why store should be any different?
if it’s a ‘bargain-ok’ store, i’d tell the lowest price on the net and ask for price-match. if s/he cannot match, i’d go buy online.
once in singapore, i got an apple store phamplet that gives 170+ dollars worth of ‘extra’ if i buy ibook … i went to sim-lim square and asked stores to cut 170+ from their prices (apple prices are fixed everywhere) or else i buy from mall. finally i got a store that okayed it :)
Dan
on 27 Oct 06It’s “consumer” reports, not “support a particular merchant or class of merchants” reports. Their advice is for the buyer in case you hadn’t noticed. This post is worse than the occasional Audi nob gobbling I see here.
37 signals + 63 noises = 100% of this blog.
Free Market
on 27 Oct 06AGirlForGoodnessSake sees the forest from the trees. Would hate to shop with you (10 pairs of jeans!) but love the way you think.
John
on 27 Oct 06For the first time, I really don’t care for the SvN / 37Signals approach – Hell, I would pay for the sales team at Best Buy to leave me alone. Thanks to Consumer Reports, I am typically more knowledgebale about the product(s) I purchase than the pimple-faced 17 year old anyway. Not to mention the fact that it is my hard earned money – money earned from working in a business world that doesn’t care for my “value-add” personality / efforts. I agree that supporting “local” business is important, but not when my “local” stores are Best Buy, Circuit City, etc…
This all somehow brings me to a larger issue – I don’t have time to worry about someone’s “value add” when it means more out of my pocket or my company’s pocket when I can get the same product / service (while not as cute / friendly) from somewhere else. That said, I am getting very tired of hanging on to Basecamp bc it is cute and the company has videos on Apple.com – I want an issue tracker – I think everyone has been screaming for the same feature for a very, very long time. Quit being stubborn and produce a product that we can use for the long term – your trendy little company cuteness is wearing off – Let’s add value. Thank you.
DHH
on 27 Oct 06Jason is not saying that you should always buy in a store just to support that store. If you feel like shopping online is good enough for you, more power to you.
This post is about people who KNOW they’re going to buy something online, but then go to the store to fondle the products any way before the pick the lowest cost retailer online. That’s just lame.
Free Market
on 27 Oct 06I would venture that in many cases that fondling is covered covered by typical retail display allowances (RDAs) provided to manufacturers. They probably don’t care where the the product is finally purchased so long as it’s their product.
Free Market
on 27 Oct 06Ooops correction: I would venture that in many cases that fondling is covered by typical retail display allowances (RDAs) provided by manufacturers. They probably don’t care where the product is finally purchased so long as it’s their product.
Anonymous Coward
on 27 Oct 06let’s mentally put ‘sensitivity analysis’ here and see if u maintain such integrity
let’s say the local store does not put price tag, and u just tried various models, asked q, etc … so u do have some moral obligation
given that time, travel, etc don’t cost anything ….
the q is … if the store price is revealed to be more expensive by: 10%, 25%, 50%, 100%, 200% ... would u still buy it? or would u buy from online store?
another scenario if u buy from local store that put price … then u see another price from another store that is 10%, 25%, 50%, ... 100% cheaper … would u refund your first purchase?
if ur answer stays the same … i commend you o/w you’re just normal people, a bunch of hypocrites
Dave!
on 27 Oct 06To be clear, again, I’m not taking issue with any physical retailer or any internet retailer. What each of them are doing is fine. I’m taking issue with CR’s recommendation that you should use your local stores as a surrogate showroom for the lower priced internet retailer.
But that’s not what Consumer Reports said… they said, “Here’s a great tip: Make sure that you check out the cameras in person at a local store before you buy it online. This is a great way to get the best price and be sure you’re happy with what you’re buying.”
They didn’t say, “Go to the store and then don’t buy it there, go online.” You are reading that into the statement (granted, I did not hear the ad). One could just as easily go to the store and find they they had an equal or better price than on-line.
Again, I don’t think the onus here should be on the consumer. It should be on the store. Period. Your post and comments subsequent imply that the consumer somehow owes a debt of gratitude to the local store for existence. Bull. As many others have pointed out, if the local store differentiates itself (on price, service, experience, etc.) they have nothing to fear. Considering the 37 Signals model of providing a better experience, I would think you would understand and support that. Like you said, 37 Signals offers a “free trial” of their products: that’s exactly what local stores are doing. If they can’t turn that into a sale, that’s not the consumer’s fault. It’s the store’s.
Daniel Higginbotham
on 27 Oct 06I think one reason people feel comfortable with using local retail stores as “surrogates” for online is that there’s often an adversarial relationship between customer and store. Almost everyone has had their trust abused by a salesman or representative who uses the customer’s ignorance to profit at the customer’s expense.
I imagine most people perceive that retail stores do not have their best interests in mind, especially the larger ones. The majority of people in these comments have expressed no qualms over “trying out” merchandise at stores like Best Buy, Circuit City, etc, but most have said they wouldn’t do the same at a locally owned store. Why is this?
It may be because they’ve seen the notes posted to cash registers reading, “Say: have a nice day! and smile.” Or they’ve been employees themselves and have been through the training process of memorizing and repeating customer service scripts. Or they’v read Paco Underhill or Robert Cialdini and realize the extent to which the store’s environment, from the product placement to the people, is manufactured to get them, the customers, to spend more money.
In other words, I think people feel ok with taking advantage of stores, especially the larger chain stores, because they perceive that the stores are taking advantage of them, through deception and marketing tactics, rather than actually helping them.
And there’s something more… often when dealing with people at chain stores you don’t actually feel like you’re dealing with a human being. It feels like you may as well be interacting with a computer. Not sure what more to say about that here.
Anyway, from what I can tell, most people don’t automatically defend against taken advantage of by locally-owned stores and are in fact happy to give them money for what they feel is personal, genuine, human service.
Right now I’m not trying to either disparage or justify using local retailers as “surrogates”, just trying to explain why I think people think it’s ok.
It’s probably for the same reasons that people loathe most politicians but greatly admire Barack Obama, for example.
The end!
Daniel Higginbotham
on 27 Oct 06Another perspective- as a web developer, I myself am always happy to offer limited advice to people needing it, even if they end up going elsewhere or even if they advice is that they SHOULD go elsewhere. But there is a point where it’s unfair for people to keep soliciting advice without paying for it.
Anonymous Coward
on 28 Oct 06Jason says that the radio ad said: “Make sure that you check out the cameras in person at a local store before you buy it online.” Jason also says: They suggest that before you buy something online you should go to your local retailer and play with the product. You should use their commercial resources for your free, personal gain and then give your sale to someone else just because someone else has a lower price.
Let’s turn this advice around. Suppose CR said: “When looking for the best price, never visit a local store to check out the cameras in person before you buy it online.” This sounds like terrible advice, doesn’t it? Unlike the original advice, which potentially costs the local business in some way without any cost recovery, this new advice guarantees that the local store will never recover any of their costs! I think it would be much more “disappointing and unfortunate” if CR was telling people to stop going to local stores. Hopefully we can all agree that the “best” advice lies somewhere between these two extremes.
Jason’s argument is really about the consumer’s intention. He writes: I’m talking about walking into a local retailer with no intent to buy, but with the intent to take something away to be used somewhere else. Retailers aren’t public services, they are businesses with costs. I just find it disappointing when people purposely take advantage of those costs, with no intent to help pay for them.
You’re completely missing the point of the CR advice. There is only one reason someone would go to a local store to try a product out—because they haven’t made up their mind. If you already know what you want, and who has it cheapest, you are simply wasting your time by “fondling” it for “60 minutes”. So in fact your intention when you go to the local store is to make up your mind. This is the local store’s big chance to influence you and convince you of their value.
Jason’s last sentence in the quote is nearly offensive to me. I did not start the business. I didn’t ask them to build the store there. I didn’t request that they put their products out on free display. And I didn’t ask them to say, “Try it, with no obligation to buy.” Jason is suggesting that even if there isn’t an obligation, that there is an expectation (disappointment is caused by missed expectations, right?) that the consumer not try it unless they haven’t already decided to buy it someplace else. The part I find offensive is Jason’s suggestion that when I go to a store to take advantage of their costs, that I should intend on helping to pay them. Whaaa? I’m sorry, I have my own bills to pay. I’ll intend on paying my costs, and you can intend on paying your costs. I won’t ask the store to pay my electric bill for that high-watt Plasma they just sold me, and the store won’t ask me to pay for their demo display. I think that’s a fair deal. Jason’s position is so backwards to me, I think there must be a “In Soviet Russia, costs pay you” type of joke in there someplace.
I am absolutely certain that if I walked into a local store, found a clerk, and told him, “I want to buy X. I have found it online for $Y, which is $Z cheaper than what you sell it for. I have no intention of buying the product from you. May I please take a look at X now?” that the clerk would in fact show my “X”. Why wouldn’t the clerk want to show it to me? I’ve already declared that I have the intention and ability to purchase the product. From his perspective, I’m nearly begging him to make the sale to me.
I’d be really interested in hearing Jason’s advice on this topic. It seems that if I use a website’s resources such as buyer feedback (bandwidth ain’t free!) to make a purchasing decision, even though my intention is always to buy at a local store to save on shipping and to have a local place to return the product in the event of a problem, that I am going to be equally “disappointing and unfortunate” in Jason’s eyes. So is Jason’s advice that I simply hold off on intending anything until after I get there? Or that I only shop one place? I’m just having a real hard time understanding what draconian shopping process Jason requires me to take in order to not disappoint him.
JF
on 28 Oct 06I’m just having a real hard time understanding what draconian shopping process Jason requires me to take in order to not disappoint him.
I’m not requiring you to do anything. Maybe you’re having a hard time understanding because you aren’t listening.
All I said was I find the practice of using a local store as a surrogate for an online retailer disappointing and unfortunate.
I didn’t say you are wrong if you do it. I didn’t say it’s illegal. I didn’t say it’s immoral. I didn’t say it makes you a horrible person.
I basically just said I don’t like when people do it. I also don’t like when people talk on cell phones at high volumes in public places or when people don’t say thank you when you do them a favor. That disappoints me as well. I find that unfortunate.
So, you are free to infer that I require you to stop doing it because I’m disappointed by it, but that would be an incorrect inference. I can’t require you to do anything. That’s what laws are for. And using a local store as a surrogate for an online store is perfectly legal. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with the practice.
That’s all.
Raineri Bello
on 28 Oct 06Your missing the business logic. If I had a store and customers came in to view products that they would want to buy online—I would not care. Do you know why I would not care? Think. Because its free traffic. The price of rent and workers, etc are fixed expenses, the more customers I get inside my store the better. Now, if a person is looking for a certain product and I have a large range of products in that category, what do you think the chances of them buying something would be? It increases. Do you know what impulse buying is? You fail to see the opportunities and the incentives that business owners can throw at potential customers. I would prefer 100 persons walk into my store that think they are not going to buy something, then 0 customers… why? Because you can influences their decisions with offers. You can offer a broad range of products and make them rethink their choice. You seem to think businesses have everything to lose in this situation and your extremely wrong. Frankly I’m kind of surprised at your remarks, because a smart startup like yourself should know everything about marketing and influencing customers.
Arik
on 28 Oct 06Well said, Raineri Bello. Well said.
Joe Ruby
on 28 Oct 06Hopefully this doesn’t lead to somebody trying to get a law enacted requiring patrons leaving physical stores who haven’t bought anything to pay a toll, or requiring online stores to pay physical stores a commission/tax. :P
Joe Ruby
on 28 Oct 06This post is about people who KNOW they’re going to buy something online, but then go to the store to fondle the products any way before the pick the lowest cost retailer online. That’s just lame.
So trying before buying and comparison shopping should be forbidden?
Arik
on 28 Oct 06Joe, Remember? No one is telling you or saying anything is forbidden or not permissible. They’re just simply proclaiming their disappointment and thoughts of misfortune concerning it all.
We’re lame if we don’t share the same disappointments and thoughts of misfortune…
”...This post is about people who KNOW they’re going to buy something online, but then go to the store to fondle the products any way before the pick the lowest cost retailer online. That’s just lame.”
DHH It’s statements like these that are not sitting well with people. You’re making people feel guilty for employing a shopping technique being thats all it actually is. No one is trying to stick one to the man or cheat the system or act out of selfish revolution. They’re simply saving a buck and controlling their shopping experience. Again, calling people lame sets in place an obligation to adhere to your theoretical disappointments. And that to me is a bit insulting.
smorty71
on 28 Oct 06After thinking about Jason’s POV on this, I think this is just the Apple Kool-Aid talking. Maybe you should just sip it from now on. You’re starting to get way too preachy lately. Maybe you could get Justin Long to post to this blog for you.
Fabio
on 28 Oct 06Jason,
First let me say that I understand your POV and that I too try to buy from a place if I’ve used it to help me make a decision on the purchase. I also try to buy from small businesses whenever possible because I think small businesses are the back-bone of our economy. However, I don’t think you are really looking at the big picture.
When the transportation market changed with the introduction of the automobile, many horse-and-carriage companies went out of business. Entire vinyl disc pressing “plants” went under because of the tape and the cd. Would you have advised people back then to keep using and buying antiquated technology for the sake of helping those companies stick around? Of course not. Although it is not a perfect analogy, I think we have pretty much the same thing today. In all likelyhood, Best Buy et. al. would not altogether close down, instead they might be forced to have fewer locations, or perhaps change their business model to something similar to Lee Valley hardware stores or something altogether new (that we haven’t thought of). The point is that (thankfully) we live in a capitalist society where enterprise changes to suit the consumer, not the other way around.
If the value these retail stores bring is great enough then either a) the retailer could charge for these services (and credit that fee if you purchase there); or b) people will realise the value and be willing to pay for it in the form of a higher product price. If that isn’t happening, it is because the consumer feels that the retail service is not of great enough value considering the increased cost. And the customer is always right.
Thank you for giving your readership a gentle reminder that every time they buy something, they are “voting” for that company with their dollars.
Joe Ruby
on 28 Oct 06Local stores have to incur the costs of allowing you to enter their safe retail environment, see the product you want to buy, play with it, take a few shots with it, feel it, and, perhaps, ask a salesperson questions about it.
And I have to expend time, gas, and wear-and-tear on my car getting to the store. Let’s call it even! :P
Fabio
on 28 Oct 06Sorry for the double-post. I have a couple more thoughts:
Think of how blockbuster had to change (primarily) because of netflix (no more late fees). This is a good example of a retailer having to change because of an online retailer. Notice how the consumer benefits from that. In a similar way, “the retailers” you mention will be forced to change for the consumer’s good in order to compel the consumer to spend his dollars there and not mooch.
Lastly, this is just a crazy concept, but perhaps someday “retailers” won’t actually sell anything, they will make their revenues from the manufacturers who pay to have their products displayed and talked about by the reps. Then you go and buy online at your fav etailer.
Greg Spira
on 28 Oct 06When Consumer Reports reccomends that you research a product online at places like Amazon and similar sites but buy locally (which they have done for some items, such as huge televisions, furniture, etc), would that also be unethical advice?
When you go to a audio specialty store and get good advice but still find that their price is too high on the item you decide you want so you go pick up the item at Best Buy instead, is that unethical?
Anonymous Coward
on 28 Oct 06Jason, you’re not listening to ME. You said: I’m not requiring you to do anything. Maybe you’re having a hard time understanding because you aren’t listening.
Buit I said: I’m just having a real hard time understanding what draconian shopping process Jason requires me to take in order to not disappoint him.
My stated goal is to not disappoint you. I would like you to explain what steps you would like me to take in order to not disappoint you. How can I comparison shop online and in the store without disappointing you? Is that even possible?
DJ Vono
on 28 Oct 06Wow, this might be the first time I disagree with a post from 37signals.
Looks like I’m not the only one.
DJ Vono
on 28 Oct 06Still thinking about this… I guess I agree that Consumer Reports shouldn’t have given this advice—if for no other reason that it’ll probably upset some retailers.
But I still disagree with Jason. Let’s take online out of the equation. What if I go to Best Buy to check out a camera, then go to Circuit City for a price comparison, and CC has it for less? Am I obligated to purchase the camera from Best Buy because I went there first? That’s silly.
Arik
on 28 Oct 06Going to go out on a limb here and say this post’s point of view is foolish and strongly founded on a personal point of view and is joyously one-sided in a pile of silly assumptions of what consumer behavior is and should be.
Thats all.
DJ Vono
on 28 Oct 06STILL thinking about this an hour later (why am I still thinking about this?).
Consumer Reports’ “unfortunate advice” doesn’t have to be a bad thing. It could inspire smart retailers to simply try harder to win the customer over, utilizing their strengths as a retail store. For example, some people may find it difficult to use their new digital camera. A retail store could offer on-the-spot training following a purchase. I’ll bet that could convert some of the “malicious” shoppers into buyers.
I think a really savvy retailer could look at this as an opportunity: “Consumer Reports is advocating that people come into my store! I’ll win them over and even sell them MORE than they intended to buy!”
Richard
on 28 Oct 06I think the point of the post is to get those of us who have not thought about this idea to consider it when shopping and buying and I agree, it’s worth considering. I think CR made a mistake in recommending demoing local and buying elsewhere.
I live in a small, rural town in New England (pop: 1300). There is a “package” store in town and it happens to be the only store. We can get wine and beer but no milk in town. We’re not big drinkers but we do buy wine and beer and not the kind one buys from a supermarket. Our little store is a bit more expensive than bigger stores in neighboring towns and going in means talking with the owner and hearing all the town gossip. However, if I ask him to get me something he doesn’t stock he’ll not only get it, he’ll drop it off at my house as I live on his way home. No charge, just a friendly thing to do.
If enough of us stopped shopping there he’d fold in a month, his margins are that slim. And what would that mean to me? It would mean I’d have to travel further to get my wine and beer and that hassle and gas cost would not completely make up for what I pay extra at the store but it would eat into the savings of going elsewhere.
And, I’d miss talking with the owner and finding out all the “poop” on my neigbors.
Bottom line is, I’m willing to pay more for good service, to keep money local, and to support people I like. Cost is not the only variable in buying things, service is meaningful too. And I’d agree with those who say that big box stores generally do not offer the kind of service worth supporting but smaller more local stores do.
Arik
on 29 Oct 06All these things depend on the consumer. You can’t take your personal shopping habits and preferences and proliferate them over everyone elses.
CR’s advice isn’t a mistake and if it was it surely wouldn’t put anyone out of business. You’re a prime example of why it wouldn’t. There are millions of people just like you. And there are millions of people like me who demo then buy elsewhere. And I’m sorry, but this domino effect everyone CR could cause just won’t happen. CR has been offering this same exact advice for years. And yet, businesses thrive and flourish regardless.
I think whats more disappointing is that this ongoing rhetoric is founded on a sandy foundation. No one side is correct and no one side has the right to pass disappointment to the other. This whole “debate” is just getting silly now.
Ryan
on 29 Oct 06JK,
Would you be equally disappointed with advice to use amazon.com to research a product even if your intent was to go down to the nearest Best Buy and purchase it just because you can get it faster? I suppose if you do, then I disagree with your opinion but at least find it consistent with your post.
Mauricio
on 29 Oct 06I think you are being too judgmental on CR’s advice. Their advice could be figured out by anybody and I don’t think that people will stop buying in local stores if they find true value in their services. But sometimes you just can’t afford the extra cost and you decide to buy online knowing that online shopping has also its risks and its drawbacks.
But when I am short of money, I don’t think it is unfair to go to a local store to know better the product and then buying online, anyway this visit to the local store also takes time, and then in the store you may find an unexpected offer or simply buy another product that you need immediately.
I think that in the end local stores will survive the web era because sometimes you, and your friends, find fun in the shopping process (and more fun if you go with your family and friends).
Mauricio
on 29 Oct 06I think you are being too judgmental on CR’s advice. Their advice could be figured out by anybody and I don’t think that people will stop buying in local stores if they find true value in their services. But sometimes you just can’t afford the extra cost and you decide to buy online knowing that online shopping has also its risks and its drawbacks.
But when I am short of money, I don’t think it is unfair to go to a local store to know better the product and then buying online, anyway this visit to the local store also takes time, and then in the store you may find an unexpected offer or simply buy another product that you need immediately.
I think that in the end local stores will survive the web era because sometimes you, and your friends, find fun in the shopping process (and more fun if you go with your family and friends).
Aaron Kassover
on 29 Oct 06Wow! This seems to be a hot issue. There’s definitely value to being able to see products before you buy them, but that value does have its limits.
I bought a new car last year. After test driving it locally, I bought it from a dealer out of state because the local dealer wouldn’t come close to the out of state price. The local dealer still benefited because I go to them for all of my service.
With services like GeekSquad, I don’t think Best Buy cares who sold you the low margin computer if they can be the ones that provide the high margin support.
nex
on 30 Oct 06stores don’t just offer the advantages mentioned in this post, but more: if you find something you like, you can take it home right on the spot, you don’t have to determine the trustworthiness of an online store, fill out forms, disclose personal details, pay a shipping fee, or wait for it. so if you’re comparing prices and you still think the amount charged by the local, physical store is too high, they’re just too expensive. that’s their fault, and you’re not a bad person if you find a better offer on the web and order online.
Prashant
on 30 Oct 06Consumer Reports is called “Consumer” for a reason. They are a consumer advocacy group not a retailer advocacy group.
Thats a good one
by that logic next thig CR will be doing will be to suggest consumer to do shoplifitng just because this serves their interest .
Waht JF is trying to say is that you shouldn’t enter a store with the intention to treat their resource , stff as a testbed , a surrogate Display window for something which you will surely going to buy online . they are there to do business not to offset your fear that thing will look good on you or just because you want to feel it . before bying on line
its about intention not about implication of your action . both cyberstore and Brick and mortar will exist fora long time . but i will hate if some one wnatto ride on my back to let his customer a pre sales exp [on my cost] to help him decide and buy .
i don’t know why you folks are having tough time understanding this . May be you don’t wantto understand
Prashant
on 30 Oct 06Consumer Reports is called “Consumer” for a reason. They are a consumer advocacy group not a retailer advocacy group.
Thats a good one
by that logic next thig CR will be doing will be to suggest consumer to do shoplifitng just because this serves their interest .
Waht JF is trying to say is that you shouldn’t enter a store with the intention to treat their resource , stff as a testbed , a surrogate Display window for something which you will surely going to buy online . they are there to do business not to offset your fear that thing will look good on you or just because you want to feel it . before bying on line
its about intention not about implication of your action . both cyberstore and Brick and mortar will exist fora long time . but i will hate if some one wnatto ride on my back to let his customer a pre sales exp [on my cost] to help him decide and buy .
i don’t know why you folks are having tough time understanding this . May be you don’t wantto understand
rhubarb
on 30 Oct 06Puhlease!
Poor poor store owners who have to put up with people coming in and asking about a camera they are actually interested in but are thinking of buying elsewhere (the internet as it happens).
There they are with a potential customer in their store, someone who already has the model they want in mind and is prepared to pay for it, someone interested in learning about the features. Sure, someone who is thinking about buying elsewhere for cheaper, but so what? So, maybe they have to actually close the deal? Make a sale? What a pain. All they have going for them is the benefit of instantly gratifying the customer, the benefit of letting them test the unit before paying, the beneift of having a real place to bring it back to if it doesnt work.
I tell you, if I were a retailer, I would PAY for that kind of radio advertising. Suggesting that people who were going to buy online trot by and talk to my salesperson first. Yay!
Sure I’m risking losing the cost of the salespersons time + all the overhead on a nosale – but thats the whole point.
Get off your high horse Jason.
Arik
on 30 Oct 06Prashant, No one wants to be called lame or selfish for controlling their own shopping experiences. After all, it is our experience, not the stores. I use the commerce around me how I see fit. Its not that anyone doesn’t want to understand, its just that yours and Jason’s point of view is merely based off a personal perspective, not a professional one. And in your personal perspective you see us (anyone who doesn’t share your perspective) as lame and selfish? C’mon guys.
Stores are obligated to gain me as a customer, its their job. If they can’t convince me that the experience gained from shopping inside their store will trump any experience I pursue on my own through purchases online, then I have no obligation to buy where I shop. So of course, I want to use their store as a surrogate to test products then buy online. And the day a salesman can prove to me that I want to buy an item in their store is the day Jason’s point and perspective will be valid.
Nick Dynice
on 30 Oct 06They are just encouraging existing behavior. The salespeople should use this information to their advantage and maybe modify their sales tactics. Check out this talk by CEA conducted with Yahoo. http://www.podtech.net/home/technology/1328/cea-forum-industry-crunches-online-retail-data
Jeff
on 30 Oct 06I’ve basically tuned Consumer Reports out of my life. I have found that their choices are often based on misinformation—I generally would not make the same choices made by them. I also find that they generally promote a self-centered approach to living. They have little interest in development of community.
Craig
on 30 Oct 06Such as?
Capitalism.
You should see if there’s a communist version of CR.
RJB
on 30 Oct 06Got to go with ABT... They have grown at an incredible rate because they never left their “family owned” values behind… Haggling is still a part of their model.
Prashant
on 31 Oct 06Arik
you said it your self . read again
Stores are obligated to gain me as a customer, its their job…....................................So of course, I want to use their store as a surrogate to test products then buy on line. And the day a salesman can prove to me that I want to buy an item in their store is the day Jason’s point and perspective will be valid.
First ruleof economics is that a transaction starts when someone with an intention to buy meets with someone with an intention to sell . according to Adam smith in a perfect market every seller & buyer know how and where a thing can be purchased so that they can optimiz there gain chances of closing a sale
when you enter a store just to get a Hang of product . where is the intention of purchase ? ask your self will you buy anything from store no matter what input or assistance a sales guy provide . for you every thing out side of price is intangible . so any $50 rebate you may get at an on line store will offset all the wisdom an sales guy can offer .
its not only selfish but its also shortsightedness on your part . in long run Drying up local trade helps no one . store owner might be your customer in some other walk of trade . how will he pay for your bills when someone sitting 200miles away is getting paid for his infrastructure , knowledge and hardwork
you run a web designe firm i guess why do you think you charge for any consultation or pre sales ? because it cost you something . why you want to make an exception in case of your local store ? why ambiguity ?
Arik
on 31 Oct 06Prashant, You’re assuming this is the only way I shop, which is close-minded of you.
when you enter a store just to get a Hang of product . where is the intention of purchase ? ask your self will you buy anything from store no matter what input or assistance a sales guy provide . for you every thing out side of price is intangible . so any $50 rebate you may get at an on line store will offset all the wisdom an sales guy can offer .
Like I said if a salesmen can convince me that its worth the gas and time to buy in their store then I’m all for buying it in-store.
If he can’t convince me, then I am doing what I set out to do in the first place. My first priority is always to save money. I’m 98% of the time savvy about the products I buy before I buy them (cause I do my homework) which means I know as much if not more than the salesman, which makes the need of a salesman pointless. So the only thing to do is see how the product feels up close. Shopping without buying. Shopping doesn’t require purchase nor does it obligate doing so.
its not only selfish but its also shortsightedness on your part . in long run Drying up local trade helps no one . store owner might be your customer in some other walk of trade . how will he pay for your bills when someone sitting 200miles away is getting paid for his infrastructure , knowledge and hardwork
When you make a purchase at a grocery store you don’t say to yourself, “Hmmm…yeah this is definitely benefiting the companies infrastructure.” Thats kind of silly. You just simply shop their cause that is how you prefer to get your groceries. You don’t really care if the smaller local grocery stores are getting their due or their share of your “feed the local trade” money.
Retail business infrastructure is their for people to shop first, then decide to purchase second. Not the other way around. Local trade is obligated to convert customers into sales. I’m not going to convert myself and make local trade feel better about the risk they took only catering to a local consumer base.
you run a web designe firm i guess why do you think you charge for any consultation or pre sales ? because it cost you something . why you want to make an exception in case of your local store ? why ambiguity ?
Yeah, you haven’t the slightest clue. My entire client base comes from referrals. I don’t do pre-sales cause I shifted and changed to get better results for my business because prospects were taking my pre-sales and not acting on them. They took my advice and ran with it. It is my obligation and duty as a business to change with the temperature of the market so my knowledge and hardwork never goes for broke.
Prashant
on 31 Oct 06prospects were taking my pre-sales and not acting on them. .They took my advice and ran with it. It is my obligation and duty as a business to change with the temperature of the market so my knowledge and hard work never goes for broke. I admire your candor and honesty in saying this but your own code of conduct store owner /sales guy should be paid something when he imparts some knowledge .if you are right in not buying from local store inspite of a good sales rep than y blame prospects for not converting after pre sales ? don’t you see any inconsistency here ?
cjcurtis
on 31 Oct 06A comment made WAY up the page sums this situation up for me personally…it’s the “expert” factor that really makes the difference.
I don’t subscribe to the simple idea that if they’re local you should feel obligated to buy from them. It’s the fact that they have the expertise to teach you something you want to learn. This often turns into more frequent visits, which is guaranteed to generate sales. And finding a local retailer that actually knows their business is a rare and powerful sales tool.
Ritz, BestBuy, Circuit City, etc.. you rarely come across anyone in these stores that know jack about what they’re selling. They are there to close the sale…period. Freely explaining the weaknesses of a particular product do not factor in to that mindset.
I have, in fact, shopped in a store and bought online, but it’s rarely price alone. It’s almost always the fact that the WEB closed the sale instead of the store. This could mean a better price, better information allowing me to make an informed decision, non-biased reviews, etc.. I usually reserve my major purchases for online, whether I’ve seen the product in person or not, because I do a great deal of online research before I decide to drop $2000 on a camera, after which I know more than anyone (local expert included) why I do or do not want to buy it.
So Merrill Photo Supply…I love ya man. But Ritz can kiss my a**.
Darrel
on 31 Oct 06Is the converse as true? Is it ‘dirty’ to research your product online and look at spec’s at Amazon and then go buy it at Home Depot?
gasp did you read a review somewhere else!? For shame! You should only use one retail channel to make the entirety of your purchase decision! :/
Arik
on 01 Nov 06What inconsistency?, I did what every business has done for years which is adapting to the behavior of my customers/clients.
This discussion is closed.