Who in their right mind would pay this much for so little?
Of course the moron doesn't understand...
Totally dumbass story
Wow, are you dudes related to...
Posted on 01/18/2006 9:32:09 AM PST by freepatriot32
This story has everything to do with marketing and very little to do with Wal-Mart.
1. Snapper is correct in trying to maintain its brand image.
2. Wal-Mart is correct in trying to expand its "low cost" product offerings.
Somethings, both sides win by NOT doing business together.
I know of plenty of small businesses that were bankrupted trying to do business with the Big Three (two ?) automakers, especially GM.
Well, I admit, I've no desire to buy a high end lawn mower, although, I'd be tempted to buy one, if I took care of my yard. However, being as I can't do as good a job as gardener, I'll be subcontracting out that work. I might look into hiring my neighbor, though. I think he does his own yard and it looks pretty good. ;)
Si.
Makes sense. I spent several summers working in a hardware store/small engine repair shop. We were also a STIHL dealer.
STIHL won't (or they used to not) let a place sell their products unless they also have a small-engine mechanic on-site to service their products.
And in case anyone is wondering, please save the small engine mechanics time and stay away from Weed-eater brand lawn trimmers ;)
Geez I used to hate those things lol
You are so right. Imagine, a story about business on a business page. Un-freaking-believable.
That was my take on it too, both of them made a buisness decision based on what they thought best for their companies.
If he had said "no" to Sears or Lowes there wouldn't have been a David and Goliath story though
"Wier remained CEO of both until last summer, when he resigned to join the private equity firm Kohlberg & Co"..
Code for "he sucked as CEO"..
its actually rather simple. would you rather pay $349 one time for a product that will last you 10 years or more, or $150 every year or two? the $320 mower in my garage is ten years old, while in six years, my friend is on his 5th $100 mower.
I read the article at:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/102/open_snapper.html
People call Jim Wier a "hero".
He recognized the market, knew his product and made the choice. Isnt that what youre supposed to do?
The reason this gets so much play is because of the anti-walmart spin.
We all live in a walmart economy...he had to update his manufacturing facility. Fewer people working there, faster production times, more volume than before...yada yada yada. Just becuase he chose not to work with Walmart any longer (remember he was already) doesnt make him or Snapper so much different than others.
What am I missing?
WalMart wanted the brand Snapper. Another brand name would not do.
Of course the moron doesn't understand the well-worn tactic of making a cheaper model under another brand name.
_______________________
Walmart didn't want another brand name, which you'd have known if you'd read the article. They wanted cheaper (literally) with the Snapper name.
There is a reason why some people go on to be business executives, and some go on to be, say, math teachers.
I shop at walmart for many commodity type items. Three years ago I needed a battery operated alarm clock for a hunting trip. Paid $5 dollars for it and it still works fine. The article points out that there are different marketing strategies between walmart and some potential suppliers. Wow, this is news?
Walmart already has these. It want's "the "Snapper" nameplate. Reducing quality for the lesser version would damage the higher ends reputation.
Stefko must have read the infamous pickle story :)
Who wants to replace a mower every year? You need to spend the time to go out and shop and buy one. You have to get rid of the old one.
If you can spend more initially and just keep using it for 10 years; that is a much simplier and less expensive route to go.
I've sold to Walmart, and was impressed with how unassuming the corporate office is. Notice how a rich liberal would be disgusted by the lack of a gilded headquarters with lush surroundings. Hypocrisy abounds. If the chairs were worth $1,000 they would complain about the waste of money which should go to the workers.
He had an opportunity to sell to Walmart. That's what counts. His refusal to deal does not mean Walmart is evil, they just have a different idea of who the customer is...and it's not the supplier. It's the CUSTOMER who walks into the store. I was a supplier, not the CEO, and even stupid me understood the concept. Get off your high horse Snapper.
This article is irrelevant, suppliers make these kind of decisions all of the time and if he can sell without Walmart great for him, but don't make a stinkin' political statement out of it.
"That was my take on it too, both of them made a buisness decision based on what they thought best for their companies.
If he had said "no" to Sears or Lowes there wouldn't have been a David and Goliath story though"
Exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.