Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

No, I'm done with trying to explain how to make money in business.
Continue on with your lives.

Maybe you should start teaching business school. You clearly know something that all of them don't.

Yes, all those Harvard business grads have really done well.
Excellent point.

Harvard’s masters of the apocalypse

Perhaps Chrysler thinks having a smaller well controlled, high quality network of stores that offer both a great buying experience and excellent service would be better than a large number of outlets that are barely making rent and can't offer great anything.

Sound familiar?

Pariah wrote:

Perhaps Chrysler thinks having a smaller well controlled, high quality network of stores that offer both a great buying experience and excellent service would be better than a large number of outlets that are barely making rent and can't offer great anything.

Sound familiar?

Tell that to the Dealer Fox interviewed - second generation family business, very well kept, excellent reputation, profitable, now closed.

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Perhaps Chrysler thinks having a smaller well controlled, high quality network of stores that offer both a great buying experience and excellent service would be better than a large number of outlets that are barely making rent and can't offer great anything.

Sound familiar?

Tell that to the Dealer Fox interviewed - second generation family business, very well kept, excellent reputation, profitable, now closed.

Apple wiped outs it's independent dealer and service network to follow a different business plan.
One that worked.
How is this any different?

Fed Ex delivers Apple smurf to my home.
I never test drive Apple smurf.
I know how to fix my own Apple smurf.

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Perhaps Chrysler thinks having a smaller well controlled, high quality network of stores that offer both a great buying experience and excellent service would be better than a large number of outlets that are barely making rent and can't offer great anything.

Sound familiar?

Tell that to the Dealer Fox interviewed - second generation family business, very well kept, excellent reputation, profitable, now closed.

Is it possible they were not profitable for Chrysler?

And I don't see why they couldn't move to sell other brands or something along those lines.

It sucks though that they have to close, but with the economy not doing well, there's no way to have people not get smurf on.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Tell that to the Dealer Fox interviewed - second generation family business, very well kept, excellent reputation, profitable, now closed.

Do you buy this conspiracy theory?

I note that FOX news has run with it...

The guy who lost his dealership wasn't some actor.
And neither are his now unemployed employees.

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Tell that to the Dealer Fox interviewed - second generation family business, very well kept, excellent reputation, profitable, now closed.

Do you buy this conspiracy theory?

I note that FOX news has run with it...

The guy who lost his dealership wasn't some actor.
And neither are his now unemployed employees.

That didn't really answer the question.

I didn't answer it because I don't know what conspiracy theory fox is allegedly trying to push.
I haven't seen one. I did catch the interview with the Dealer, it was on Huckabee either last week or the week before, and I haven't caught anything about a Chrystler conspiracy during other shows.

Glenn and O'Reilly have been talking about ACORN. Glenn had a good interview with a former member of the board, who likes the concept of ACORN but believes the whole organization is corrupt - evidenced by the fact that many people who knew about the million dollar embezzlement while it was happening yet didn't speak up, including the current President, are still working there.

I've not seen anything about a Chrysler conspiracy theory, so I can't answer what I don't know anything about.

Are you sure Fox really is pushing some conspiracy theory?
Maybe your sources are on a smear campaign.

ScifiterX wrote:

Starbucks is closing up shops left and right around here. Why? There too many and none can make enough to cover operating costs.

That's part of Starbucks strategy.
They saturate an area so that the better smaller independents can no longer make it, and once they are gone, they pull out the excess.

It's really dirty and one of the reasons I hate them.

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I'm rather baffled by this. Chrysler and GM have been wanting to shut down a buttload of their dealers for years now. Industry observers have been urging it for years. It's part of the package of the reforms the company has come up with to become viable so it can stop being dependent on the taxpayer. And yet the Limbaughicans are complaining.

What's the alternative? Keep the company dependent on Uncle Sucker? Let it go under completely? Say, I don't suppose any of these conscientious folk are upset about the huge concessions the workers have made? Loyal Democrats too, aren't they?

It won't make the company viable any more than the bailouts would.
If Chrysler owned the dealers it might, but they don't. All Chrysler does is put cars on a car transporter and send them to a privately owned dealer. Only now with less dealers, they'll move less cars. It's also bad for consumers, consumers get better deals when they can threaten to go to the other dealership.

A network has to be maintained, branded, supported, monitored. Bigger networks also dilute the brand. If you're selling x number of cars, it's better to spread that number over a smaller number of dealers , which is what the competition does, than a larger one.

To pretend it makes no difference to the manufacturer how many dealers there are betrays a serious ignorance. Why has Chrysler been wanting to shut these guys down -- since long before Obama was elected?

ScifiterX wrote:

resedit wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

Starbucks is closing up shops left and right around here. Why? There too many and none can make enough to cover operating costs.

That's part of Starbucks strategy.
They saturate an area so that the better smaller independents can no longer make it, and once they are gone, they pull out the excess.

It's really dirty and one of the reasons I hate them.

I don't think their strategy was too successful here.

Before Starbuck's you could get coffee at any restaurant, all the 7-11s, the couple of Dunkin Donuts, Indian River Coffee Co and the local Barney's.
After Starbuck's many of those places have added expresso & cappuccino, there are more DDs open, they added coffee, expresso, & cappuccino to the Publixes and only Barney's has been replaced by a Starbucks.

It's hard to say if Starbucks' strategy is a net gain. Sure, they have spurred other coffee establishments to think about décor, atmosphere and offer other products. However, where I am -- Financial District, Downtown Toronto -- Starbucks' presence has resulted in less business for the independents. Usually the result is the drop in business means the independent has a hard time with the expensive lease and then Starbucks buys it out. A perfect example of this absurdity is in Downtown Vancouver where there are three Starbucks on opposing street corners of one intersection.

Then again, I am biased because Starbucks coffee tastes like ash to me.

ScifiterX wrote:

All coffee taste like swill to me.

You should brew it in a proper copper coffee pot.

Chrysler Dealership Closings: Why Certain Dealers Were Chosen Over Others

No, I can't speak to the truth of his argument.

jerwin wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

All coffee taste like swill to me.

You should brew it in a proper copper coffee pot.

Chrysler Dealership Closings: Why Certain Dealers Were Chosen Over Others

No, I can't speak to the truth of his argument.

I reinterate ALL coffee taste like swill to me. Then again that's probably for the best in my case. Caffeine does bad things to me.

Looks like they put in more thought than I suspected they were doing.