Originally Posted by Legend:
Valid point. My only addendum would be that the locals are the shop that are in danger of going out of business and this would make you want to give them more attention or an edge. That is where the more valuable comes in they know there are a ton of guys who only smoke socially and would not order on the net or just don't do the "internet thing".
This is only true if you assume that the departure of that B&M creates a vacuum in the market that is not filled after it is out of business. There is a convenience factor to the guys that smoke socially to buy their sticks at the B&M so that is where they smoke and therefore that is where they buy.
Saying that they would then quit their cigar smoking outright as a result of not having the B&M is likely a stretch for 100% of them. Now of those I am sure many of them also buy online, otherwise this conversation you have had with your fellow lounge members would never have transpired (after all if they all bought there sticks at the B&M there would be no basis of comparison). I would argue that although many of them may reduce their consumption that they would not stop outright.
I don't think the "internet thing" is a fad nor is it an elitist or exclusionary group, e commerce continues to grow which is both good and bad for the consumer depending on your personal profile, for me its great, if I never had to go to another store I would be happy. Assuming I am getting the same product at the same or better price. I think there are many that have varying degrees of usage of e commerce and that is by either choice or necessity depending on each individual situation.
I would suggest that the internet has increased the breadth of cigar sales as those in markets that don't have a B&M (of which there are many ~ think of rural areas alone) now have access to cigars. On the other side of that I would suggest that manufacturers and retailers have increased the geographical scope of their offering. I am willing to bet that Rob at Tabboo would not have near the geographic penetration with his cigars if it where not for the internet.
I fail to see how any commercial application fits this theory that you propose on same products as in this box of CAO Brazilias at the B&M is of better quality than the exact same brand and type bought at Atlantic online. I as the consumer would find this to be an underhanded unethical approach to doing business as in the end it is the consumer that you are lying too and providing an inferior product too under the same branding.
This logic would imply that rental car companies who buy 1000's and 1000's of cars and trucks are getting a slightly inferior product than the mom and pop dealership that only gets 5 to 10 at a time.
It would imply that 1000's of tons of popcorn that an entertainment facility like a stadium buys is inferior to 100's of pounds the local theater buys.
It would imply that the triple A beef I get from my grocery store is of inferior quality compared to the triple A beef in my butcher shop yet it is graded by the same governmental standards.
It would imply that the cigarettes people buy at wal-mart are of lesser quality than the ones that are purchased at the owner owned convenience store on the corner.
It would imply that the 87 octane fuel I put in my truck at the local Esso station is inferior to the fuel that Esso sells to the local owned gas station.
I can go on and on and on.
While I will not dispute that the cigars from your B&M are better in the moment I think that the notion of different quality levels within the same branding and then sold based on that quality to different retailers is ludicrous.
This thread has no empirical evidence and in my opinion denies simple logic and flies in the face of ethical business practices. If it was uncovered that this was a normal practice for a manufacturer that they where knowingly providing an inferior product to the end consumer via one distribution method or another and concealing that fact from the consumer I would suspect that the repercussions could be legal in nature. If nothing else I can personally guarantee I would never purchase anything from that manufacturer if it was uncovered and I would pass that opinion along to whomever would listen.
Damn.
Originally Posted by Legend:
Eddies comment was unsolicited. We were discussing business and I explained how mine had started with a very large customer and I had concentrated on building many small customers so that one leaving me would never effect me. To which he responded "of course" and the rest of the quote. He was not catering to a local guy he was just talking business.
I wasn't trying to imply that the comment was solicited. I was just stating that any good businessman or politician is going to work the crowd he is among at the time, so of course Ortega is going to say how important B&Ms are to him while he is in a B&M.
:-)
We really are in the Whacko Basket.
Originally Posted by SilverFox:
This is only true if you assume that the departure of that B&M creates a vacuum in the market that is not filled after it is out of business. There is a convenience factor to the guys that smoke socially to buy their sticks at the B&M so that is where they smoke and therefore that is where they buy.
Saying that they would then quit their cigar smoking outright as a result of not having the B&M is likely a stretch for 100% of them. Now of those I am sure many of them also buy online, otherwise this conversation you have had with your fellow lounge members would never have transpired (after all if they all bought there sticks at the B&M there would be no basis of comparison). I would argue that although many of them may reduce their consumption that they would not stop outright.
I don't think the "internet thing" is a fad nor is it an elitist or exclusionary group, e commerce continues to grow which is both good and bad for the consumer depending on your personal profile, for me its great, if I never had to go to another store I would be happy. Assuming I am getting the same product at the same or better price. I think there are many that have varying degrees of usage of e commerce and that is by either choice or necessity depending on each individual situation.
I would suggest that the internet has increased the breadth of cigar sales as those in markets that don't have a B&M (of which there are many ~ think of rural areas alone) now have access to cigars. On the other side of that I would suggest that manufacturers and retailers have increased the geographical scope of their offering. I am willing to bet that Rob at Tabboo would not have near the geographic penetration with his cigars if it where not for the internet.
I fail to see how any commercial application fits this theory that you propose on same products as in this box of CAO Brazilias at the B&M is of better quality than the exact same brand and type bought at Atlantic online. I as the consumer would find this to be an underhanded unethical approach to doing business as in the end it is the consumer that you are lying too and providing an inferior product too under the same branding.
This logic would imply that rental car companies who buy 1000's and 1000's of cars and trucks are getting a slightly inferior product than the mom and pop dealership that only gets 5 to 10 at a time.
It would imply that 1000's of tons of popcorn that an entertainment facility like a stadium buys is inferior to 100's of pounds the local theater buys.
It would imply that the triple A beef I get from my grocery store is of inferior quality compared to the triple A beef in my butcher shop yet it is graded by the same governmental standards.
It would imply that the cigarettes people buy at wal-mart are of lesser quality than the ones that are purchased at the owner owned convenience store on the corner.
It would imply that the 87 octane fuel I put in my truck at the local Esso station is inferior to the fuel that Esso sells to the local owned gas station.
I can go on and on and on.
While I will not dispute that the cigars from your B&M are better in the moment I think that the notion of different quality levels within the same branding and then sold based on that quality to different retailers is ludicrous.
This thread has no empirical evidence and in my opinion denies simple logic and flies in the face of ethical business practices. If it was uncovered that this was a normal practice for a manufacturer that they where knowingly providing an inferior product to the end consumer via one distribution method or another and concealing that fact from the consumer I would suspect that the repercussions could be legal in nature. If nothing else I can personally guarantee I would never purchase anything from that manufacturer if it was uncovered and I would pass that opinion along to whomever would listen.
:-)
Who says the ol' SilverFox is retired??
:-)
:-)
