LFS vs. Online discussion split from FosterSmith Poll

[Liam]

This is a double edge sword and alot more complex of a issue than this for the reason to Buy American. Stop buying american products ultimately creates a weaker economy which lowers wages and the standard of living. people start looking for cheaper products which is usually an import based on the cheaper wages. the imbalance widens. In short, part of the reason people have trouble finding good paying jobs simply is in part because people stop buying the american products. not usually for quality reasons but because they are more expensive. Walmart is a great example of this. cheap stuff, lower quality for alot of it and whats happening - job losses and a reduced quality of life. More people need better understanding of macro and micro economics. So stop buying american products and see what happens, rather look around and see what is happening. Although imported fish and corals are better than domestic

probably going to get my head chewed off here but i'm going to say it anyway
I often avoid things made in the USA purely because a lot of it is junk,price does'nt always come into it.
Obviously this is not a blanket statement but it is definitely something i consider on certain products.

 

[Moe_K]

the active sponsorship agreement for the past year and a half states that a table was $100.00 per meeting. I have never taken a table, so i can't speak if a fee was ever collected but its in the documentation.

Really? I don't remember that from the older sponsorship agreement. Could be there, I don't know. I'm not that familiar with it.
I know in the 2004 sponsorship agreement the table option was a perk for tier two and three sponsors as part of their yearly fee - no extra fee.
Looks like in the current agreement, Forum Level sponsors get the table as part of the yearly fee.

 

[JayM]

probably going to get my head chewed off here but i'm going to say it anyway
I often avoid things made in the USA purely because a lot of it is junk,price does'nt always come into it.
Obviously this is not a blanket statement but it is definitely something i consider on certain products.

I'm hesitant to agree as a blanket statement as well. I can say for fit and finish that vehicles sure don't match up. I drove imports for over 15 years.

In 2000, I bought a Ford Expedition. Rattles from the date of delivery. Been good mechanically. In 2003, bought a Yukon. When it went to the dealer for Warranty repairs, the tech had a LOOSELEAF BINDER full of tech service bulletins for rattles and body issues. Between the expiration of the 36k warranty and when I traded it in at 68k, it needed almost $4K in repairs. I traded it on another Yukon. This one has squeaks and rattles too.....and now needs a steering box and pump at 13 months old and 34k miles. Extending the Warranty on this one, at least until it's paid for.....

The dang truck has never even been off road, unless you count my blue stone driveway

I really love the truck, but the powertrain technology to build it isn't any different than it was 40 years ago.....pushrod V-8, not multivalve, and just awful on fuel. If there was one better built that had space for the 2 of us, 2 kids, 2 big dogs, could haul my trailer, and fit all of the other crap we haul down to the Cape....I'd buy it. Sorry, don't have 100k for a super-size benz, either.

I've been very intentionally renting a whole bunch of different rental cars in my work travels, and have been really diappointed in pretty much all of them, from chevy/buick/pontiac/caddy to ford/mercury to chrysler/jeep. It makes me sad that 20 years of pressure from imports hasn't done anything other than getting them 'good enough' instead of 'good'.

 

[dz6t]

If there was one better built that had space for the 2 of us, 2 kids, 2 big dogs, could haul my trailer, and fit all of the other crap we haul down to the Cape....I'd buy it

TOYOTA Sequoia

 

[Alex]

I never thought I'd be getting into a conversation about Economics here at the BRS. The drop in the quality of life is due to lack of innovation. It's a proven economic fact that closed borders, tariffs, and quotas are all economic losers. You protect an industry and the industry gains, and if there is a tax associated with it the government gains. The loser is the consumer who pays a jacked up price for an inferior good or service and there is a consumer surplus that is lost that goes to no one. Not the government not the producer, and not the consumer. How does that improve the quality of life. The only time it makes sense to protect an industry is if it is a) an infant industry that needs time to develop, b) an issue of national security where we don't want to be dependant on another nation for something we need to have, c) cases where you want to protect an industry from someone dumping cheap goods with the sole purpose of destroying an industry. Last time I checked none of those applied to LFS.
Economies change. The one we are in does not resemble the one from 20 years ago, and the one from 20 years ago does not resemble the one from 20 years before that. Granted as things change some people lose out but it's a shift and others gain. Cheaper goods mean you don?t have to make as much to enjoy the same quality of life. They also lead to competition which leads to innovation. The reason the American car industry is in so much trouble is because it was protected. They were propped up for decades with buy American sentiment and government protection. They didn't need to innovate and now they are clearly behind foreign car companies. Ask anyone who bought a Mustang in the mid 80s. lol So how did buying American help? Lot's of people bought inferior product at artificially high prices and now the realty of the inferior business plan is going to cost people their jobs anyway. Is that a higher standard of living?
The increase in standard of living that we have seen since the 1950s has come from mostly one thing innovation. Increases in productivity are what have kept inflation in check while our economy grew at a huge pace. This innovation comes from competition. If the guy down the street makes widgets better than you, you either figure out how to make a better widget at a lower cost or you make something else that he needs and you trade him that for widgets. Higher prices for the same product is an inferior product. You get less utility for your dollar and that is actually a lower standard of living. The whole idea that buying American is good for the country is perpetuated by special interest groups that aren't worried about everyone but just themselves. They in turn scare uninformed American voters into thinking these things are a good idea. These things are not opinions they are actual fact. That is what Micro and Marco Economics will tell you.
Thru out this whole thread we've had many business owners come forward and explain how in their industry they have dealt with internet companies. Almost all of them had positive things to say about changes they made or customer niches that they found. I've also seen numerous customers come forward and give great ideas on how they would change LFS to better suit them. I have also seen former LFS owners come forward and give examples of services that only they can provide. I think that is great and maybe we need to be reminded of these things but that is the responsibility of the LFS. It is also the responsibility of the LFS to price those advantages properly. Not at the value that they give them but at the value that their customer gives them. The old reality of luring in customers with livestock and using the mark up on dry goods to cover your margin just isn't going to work well going forward. If I was an LFS owner reading this thread I would not be complaining about all the people who want to buy some of their products online. I would be looking for the edge that my store needed to be successful. Big companies pay big money to other companies to run focus groups just to find out all the stuff that was written in this thread. Here it is for free.
Now this thread was originally started over a discussion of whether we should support our sponsor just because they are our sponsors. In my opinion said sponsors made a business decision when they decided to advertise here and support the BRS. Now we as club members will make decisions about what we want to do with our money. That will lead to ramifications. Maybe we will get less sponsors and maybe we will have to have more fund raisers or higher dues or less guest speakers, but we will decide that and the majority will rule. Seems very democratic to me. Also seems like I?m spending for an improved club one way or the other. Or not and it goes back to a simpler club like it used to be. I guess money really does talk. lol

Wow that was long sorry.

 

[dz6t]

Another high quality post. Thanks Adw.

 

[Matt L.]

Wow. This thread is on fire. I think we're on our tenth page.

I never thought I'd be getting into a conversation about Economics here at the BRS.

Everything is discussed here at the BRS

The drop in the quality of life is due to lack of innovation. It's a proven economic fact that closed borders, tariffs, and quotas are all economic losers.

This was quite the post on economics.

As much as I can follow your post, and the economics was way over my head, I agree with your overall conclusions.

My only argument is that economics is just one approach to modeling the real world -- like all models, economics cannot fully define life.

A case in point is my surgeonfish example. From an economics standpoint, I should buy the cheapest and smallest tank for my tang. Even though the tang can survive in a 55gal (or 40gal, et cetera), probably indefinitely, the correct decision is to place the tang in a 90gal or larger tank, depending on the species.

This is a conclusion contrary to what economics dictates.

I am also in the odd position of agreeing with Yaktop 100%. I would rather walk than buy a foreign automobile, but at the same time, I can't hold on to my '99 Saturn forever, and the automobile made in the US today are crappier than the other crap out there. Why? the notion of my dollar going outside this country is just too unsettling.

I guess I am every economists worst nightmare.

For me, personally, my own internal moral barometer governs my decision making process as much as economics does (economics still does, don't get me wrong). I am part of a growing movement in young America who rebuffs purely economic decision making.

Another example is the meat at Shaw's. I grew tired of buying the ill-tasting meat sold at Shaw's. I know the butcher at one. he said the demand for low cost meat has only led to him now constantly cutting the tumors out of the tissue before packaging it for sale. Oh, and the lousy taste, and the often cruel conditions in which these animals are raised also bothered me. So now I buy All Natural meat for an average of $1 per pound more. I readjust my life accordingly.

I agree with you that it is a proven economic fact that closed borders, tariffs, and quotas are all economic losers. But are they quality of life losers too? I personally believe that the quality of life is not improving in America. Lower wages, loisy service, less fulfilling employment all seem to be taking their toll.

...Now this thread was originally started over a discussion of whether we should support our sponsor just because they are our sponsors. In my opinion said sponsors made a business decision when they decided to advertise here and support the BRS. Now we as club members will make decisions about what we want to do with our money. That will lead to ramifications. Maybe we will get less sponsors and maybe we will have to have more fund raisers or higher dues or less guest speakers, but we will decide that and the majority will rule. Seems very democratic to me. Also seems like I?m spending for an improved club one way or the other. Or not and it goes back to a simpler club like it used to be

I agree with this statement as well.

Matt

 

[MarkO]

I say buy a lot and support both!

 

[Matt L.]

I say buy a lot and support both!

I agree with this statement. As I've said previously in this thread many times, I have and still do buy a limitted amount (mostly drygoods) from online vendors.

Now, if I could just buy a lot...:rollseyes:

Matt

 

[rjdudek]

Matt, I am confused by your last post, the items you listed as driving factors were all parts of an economic model. As example you state you buy all natural meat, this decision forces an economic change on the cattle industry. Economics does not dictate that the lowest price option wins, it dictates that the option that meets the greatest number of real and perceived needs for the greatest number of people is the winning option (excepting outside influences such as regulatory or dumping).

The "grumbling" you hear from vendors about BRS discussions is one of the core problems, this is a very honest, and open discussion from their target market about what the customer wants. (Aka market intelligence) BRS members are not cheap problematic customers, we are educated buyers. The more I hear about this the more it seems that an un-educated consumer is the LFS best customer (view of some). They are less likely to ask "what do I get for the extra $300 premium on that Wrasse?"

Sometimes when you have a business you actually have to work hard at just surviving, that includes adjusting your business model to meet customer needs even if the customers become educated consumers.

I do agree with Rich, there is a lot of value in sponsoring here. Some of the sponsors seem to put the effort into getting that return others don?t appear to place as much emphasis on actively developing the opportunity. Being a sponsor is not a guarantee? it gives you the first chance to loose the business.

Even at the highest rate shown on the agreement ($600) if a sponsor cannot turn out an additional $600 in EBIT they really are not trying. I alone have covered the sponsorship for at least 2 maybe 3 of our sponsors this year.

 

[RichConley]

Wow. This thread is on fire. I think we're on our tenth page.
Everything is discussed here at the BRS

This is a conclusion contrary to what economics dictates.

I am also in the odd position of agreeing with Yaktop 100%. I would rather walk than buy a foreign automobile, but at the same time, I can't hold on to my '99 Saturn forever, and the automobile made in the US today are crappier than the other crap out there

Matt, that would come into my decision, if, and only if, american cars were built solely in America. Thats not the case anymore. As the american car companies fall further behind, they look to ways to make their cars cheaper, and what has that led to? Factories in Mexico. So whether you buy american, or japanese, you get a foreign made car. Toyota has almost as many plants in the US as Ford does. Both are supporting american jobs to the same extent, so why not buy the better product?

Heres the question though, a ford focus vs mazda3. The mazda is built on the platform that the focus wont be built on until 2009. The mazda has a better engine, better suspension, and is just a higher quality car. Its basically where they want the focus to be in 3 years. Theyre built in japan, and SHIPPED over here. So why is the focus the same price? And why should I buy it?

I'd love to "do the right thing" and "buy american," but it seems to me that buying lower quality american products for more money affects my quality of living just as much as decreased wages would.

 

[Matt L.]

Matt, that would come into my decision, if, and only if, american cars were built solely in America...

I know. That's why I'm still driving a '99 Saturn (manufactured in TN). I can't find a replacement that is acceptable to me I think I'm going to buy a used car next time around that was made here.

Needless to say, I have not a kind word for the American auto manufacturers. Their decision making has been appaling as of late.

Some time in the early 2000's, it was like someone at GM said to Saturn: "Hey, cut this high quality cr@p out." I wouldn't buy a new Saturn, despite the fact that my existing '99 Saturn *knocks on wood* has never had a single problem after 7.5 years of heavy New England Driving.

I mean, while the foreign auto makers were develping hybrids, the US auto makers were still building gas guzzling SUVs and oversized pickups. I mean, didn't they learn a lesson from the 70's? How stupid can you be?

Matt

 

[Matt L.]

The "grumbling" you hear from vendors about BRS discussions is one of the core problems, this is a very honest, and open discussion from their target market about what the customer wants. (Aka market intelligence)

No, I agree. And in its best form, this thread provides them with the feedback they will hopefully seek out. I certainly hope all are willing to listen, but I know only a few will.

...BRS members are not cheap problematic customers, we are educated buyers....

From the stories I've heard, I'd say we have both here.

...They are less likely to ask "what do I get for the extra $300 premium on that Wrasse?"

Back to my traingle reference, I believe the local reef club is crucial to the long term reefkeeping experience. The customer becomes educated as to value via the reef club. Hopefully, if there is no extra value for $300 on a Wrasse, the customer will do the right thing and go elsewhere.

...Even at the highest rate shown on the agreement ($600) if a sponsor cannot turn out an additional $600 in EBIT they really are not trying. I alone have covered the sponsorship for at least 2 maybe 3 of our sponsors this year.

I commend you. I, too, spend as much locally as I can afford at maybe 2-3 of our sponsors. And I agree with your conclusion.

Matt

 

[Liam]

Matt, I am confused by your last post, the items you listed as driving factors were all parts of an economic model. As example you state you buy all natural meat, this decision forces an economic change on the cattle industry. Economics does not dictate that the lowest price option wins, it dictates that the option that meets the greatest number of real and perceived needs for the greatest number of people is the winning option (excepting outside influences such as regulatory or dumping).

The "grumbling" you hear from vendors about BRS discussions is one of the core problems, this is a very honest, and open discussion from their target market about what the customer wants. (Aka market intelligence) BRS members are not cheap problematic customers, we are educated buyers. The more I hear about this the more it seems that an un-educated consumer is the LFS best customer (view of some). They are less likely to ask "what do I get for the extra $300 premium on that Wrasse?"

Sometimes when you have a business you actually have to work hard at just surviving, that includes adjusting your business model to meet customer needs even if the customers become educated consumers.

I do agree with Rich, there is a lot of value in sponsoring here. Some of the sponsors seem to put the effort into getting that return others don’t appear to place as much emphasis on actively developing the opportunity. Being a sponsor is not a guarantee… it gives you the first chance to loose the business.

Even at the highest rate shown on the agreement ($600) if a sponsor cannot turn out an additional $600 in EBIT they really are not trying. I alone have covered the sponsorship for at least 2 maybe 3 of our sponsors this year.

very well put and very accurate in the case of certain LFS IMO

 

[nunofs]

I mean, while the foreign auto makers were develping hybrids, the US auto makers were still building gas guzzling SUVs and oversized pickups. I mean, didn't they learn a lesson from the 70's? How stupid can you be?

That shouldn't surprise you... afterall, by making it a point of buying american, independently of the quality, you're just validating that behavior of the manufacturers. Vote with your dollars, and things will improve.

Nuno

 

[RichConley]

No, I agree. And in its best form, this thread provides them with the feedback they will hopefully seek out. I certainly hope all are willing to listen, but I know only a few will.

There was a really long thread on RC that was the same thing basically. Users suggesting all these clever ideas about how to improve an LFS, and giving the reasons that theyre getting their butts kicked by online places, and the responce was generally along the lines of:

"It costs us money to hold a fish for a week. Theres a chance you dont come back, and we've lost a sale."

It was all excuses, and nobody realizing that by not offering added value, you've lost the chance at a sale. If I ask to hold a fish, and dont come back, you've lost a potential sale that could have been made while it was on hold, but you get my deposit. If you dont offer those types of services, I just dont use your store, so you lose.

LFSs, we are telling you here exactly what it would take for us to stop shopping online. We know you can't compete on price. You dont have to. You have to compete on added value. If you decide not to, its only your own fault.

When you're getting beat up by a competitor, its not the time to start cutting services because they add cost. Its the time to start looking at extra value to your product, or finding a way to offer your product cheaper. Consumers dont care that you dont want to guarantee fish because it increases your costs, they just know someone else will.

 

[RichConley]

That shouldn't surprise you... afterall, by making it a point of buying american, independently of the quality, you're just validating that behavior of the manufacturers. Vote with your dollars, and things will improve.

Nuno

Exactly, competition drives innovation. The whole idea of buying american because its american undercuts the entire fabric of capitalism. The whole point of capitalism is that the consumer wins because of increased competition driving quality higher and prices lower. When you buy just for the sake of supporting an industry, you push back towards lower quality and higher cost items.

 

[Alex]

A case in point is my surgeonfish example. From an economics standpoint, I should buy the cheapest and smallest tank for my tang. Even though the tang can survive in a 55gal (or 40gal, et cetera), probably indefinitely, the correct decision is to place the tang in a 90gal or larger tank, depending on the species.

This is a conclusion contrary to what economics dictates.

Matt I think your confusing Micro Economics with budgeting or saving. It isn't that you will spend the least amount of money possible. What you will do is maximize your utility with the resources that you have. Utility is like an imaginary unit of happiness that you get from consumption of a good or service. I know it's impossible to break up happiness into actual individual units of "happiness". It's more of a concept than a real measument like an inch or a gallon. It kind of works as an explanation of how people behave. It also tends to diminish as you consume more. For example you buy a candy bar and it's pretty good. You buy another one and it's good but it didn't give you the same enjoyment level as the one before that. Now you buy a fifth one and that one you barely even want. So the utility that you recieved from the fifth bar was much less than the utility you got from the first or even the second bar. So each person has a limited amount of resources at their disposal. To keep it simple we'll just use money. In a normal situation you will spend your money in a way that brings you the most happiness.

Lets take your example with the tang. Now I think your misunderstanding is that Economic theory would say that "you would want to spend as little money possible on your tank". What it is really saying is that you would spend your money in such a way that it would bring you the most happiness. For you that means providing a Tang with a proper home (some tang police would say that anything less than an 6' tank is a jail cell for a tang so you can see how a lot of this is perception of what is right ). You get more happiness or utility from providing a proper home than you would from saving that money and spending it else ware. So you have maximized your utility. You are willing to pay more for meat because you get more happiness from knowing that the meat you got tastes better to you and never had any gross tumers in it. Now you having that knowledge about the tumor means that you have more perfect information than some other shoppers who may not know any better and would other wise buy the cheaper meat. Information also has a huge effect on markets. The more information available the better the market will function. Even the buy American sentiment is a function of this rule. You are willing to buy (in my opinion an inferior good ) an American car and even pay a premium for that car because it is American. You feel right or wrong that buying that car helps someone, or your country and this feeling brings you happiness and guides decisions making process.

Now since this all started with Dong's group buy lets take a look at that. Dong is organizing group buys to save a few bucks as some have pointed out. Now the thing here is that Dong maybe recieves more utility from spending that money on more of the things he needs for his tanks than from maybe supporting the clubs sponsers. Having seen how many tanks he has I'm guessing it all get rolled back into his other tanks. He has made achoice that maybe he would rather have another tank that say see more speakers or get more expensive pizza at the auction.

So the difference in how you and Dong view the club and how you would choose to spend the part of your resources that you have deemed disposable on your reefkeeping hobby rules the choices you make. Now if you take all the Dongs and Matts and Alexs (That's me) and the decisions that we make and our willingness to spend at certain levels for certain things then you have a the demand side of a market.

On the other side you have the suppliers in the market (online stores, LFS, other reefkeepers). They have to figure out what prices they can charge to maximize what they get in return for their goods based on what the demand is for their goods or services. Now before anyone even says it. "Other reefers charge way less for their corals than a store so how are they maximizing their return". Return doesn't always have to be monetary. Those people probably enjoy supporting the reefkeeping comunity, or want to sell with the least amount of hassel. So they are gaining not only finacially but in other ways too. This is why unfortunately in this society we pay atheletes more than teachers. Most teachers get into teaching because they enjoy (utility) teaching others. Personally I think we're not taking into account the true value that they are adding (althoug for some reason during election time everyone talks about this like it's true but nothing ever changes) but that is a whole other argument.

I guess I am every economists worst nightmare.

So your not an Economists worst nightmare your actually behaving rationally by its rules. I think the part that you missed about Econ is that it encompasses more than money. It also takes into account enjoyment. Basically money is just a way of storing that enjoyment. Or the value of that enjoyment or utility.


Just as a side note I think this has been a great thread and for the most part has stayed on topic and been civil. Hope that keeps up.

Alex

 

[marco67]

From 9-12-06

Is there a dead horse around here

Nope, just beating the dirt where he was now.

 

[Alex]

If you don't want to read it I don't think you actually have to click on the thread. If you don't want to add anything honestly why post.