2013 Cedar Fair Season pass question

Travis, the difference is that I've recently been in a Walmart to back up my opinion. I'm not arguing about how they were in the past. In fact is argue they were much better in the past.

Tekwardo said:

I'm not proving a point. Arguing ones opinion is not the same as trying to ague a fact, skillet.

You are not making much sense here either.

Skillet? lol

No need to get so mad, friend. lol I'm just talking.

One of my skilleted points, hidden in the subtext of my post, is that every Walmart is different, much like every SF is different.

And I didn't "skillet" the conversation. This is a roller coaster and theme park website. I waited until the conversation was almost dead before I interjected that amazing observation.

That wasn't even directed at you. You snuck In between me and bucks. And I'll concede there are decent walmarts out there. But from a former lifer I can also see how far their standards have fallen in cuts service.

Tekwardo said:

That wasn't even directed at you. You snuck In between me and bucks.

Although posting without quotes is easier to read, it comes with the risk of an intervening post. LOL

Well I'd have hoped he would have realized the context of my post was directed to the pot/kettle comment.

Tekwardo said:

Walmart just happens to be the #1 'offender' becasue they're the biggest (If Target had the bargaining power Walmart does, they'd be doing the same thing).

I have always thought along a similar line - Walmart was the first to do what they do. If they had not done it someone else certainly would have. That is the name of the game.

Same goes for the quality issue. In this age of corporate profits driving the world, even if Walmart did not "force" manufacturers to lower their quality to in turn lower their price, some of these manufacturers would have done it on their own. If company A make a widget and they are in competition with company B who makes a nearly identical widget you can bet that the two companies are trying to figure out on their own how to lower their manufacturing costs so as to gain a market share advantage over the other company. Walmart just accelerated the evolution.

I don't necessarily agree with that. Walmart forces the issue because they sell their customers on pricing. In order to meet Walmart's pricing demands, retailers must produce an inferior product. Walmart is a big enough retailer that if you're not in their stores, you're not making money.

There was a time when there was room for widgets of all prices and qualities in all the different stores. The widget makers were just fine until Walmart became so ubiquitous. Then they needed to be in Walmart to be selling their product to a decent number of people. Walmart doesn't want to sell your $5 widget no matter how good it is. They want to sell your $2 widget...not matter how bad it is.

Walmart didn't accelerate the issue, they created it. Believe it or not, there was a time when higher-priced, higher-quality products weren't niche items.

So you are saying that Walmart was the only store capable of doing what they do? Target would not have done it, Costco would not have done it, no one else would have done it? I don't agree with that at all. Yes there was a time when higher priced higher quality items were the norm. That was a long time ago. The game changed. That is what the shareholders demand - more return on their investment. Someone else would have done it; it was inevitable.

Lord Gonchar said:

At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Oh really, fool? Hee hee...

Stop looking at me swan!

Oh Veronica Vaughn, sooo hot...

Although favorite Sandler movie moment for me will always be from Happy Gilmore: "YOU'RE GONNA DIE, CLOWN!!"

Shades said:

So you are saying that Walmart was the only store capable of doing what they do? Target would not have done it, Costco would not have done it, no one else would have done it?

No. Not really.

(why does everyone insist on redefining my words today?)

That is what the shareholders demand - more return on their investment. Someone else would have done it; it was inevitable.

Maybe. Still doesn't make it ok. Let me know how far, "It's ok that I did (generally negative action) because somebody else was probably going to do it if I didn't first" gets you in life.

---

And for the record, I've still never found cheap-ass flip flops that give you chemical burns at Target, Costco and their ilk. So maybe they aren't necessarily concerned with lowering the bar where they don't have to. Or at the very least that's how they differentiate.

Come to think of it, I think that's why I prefer the other stores - if I want Coke and Windex and Q-tips, I can get them all at prices competitive to Wal-Mart, but if I want to pick up some flips flops or a couple of T-shirts too while I'm there, I can grab store brand items and be satisfied that even though I might have paid a buck or five more, the item I grabbed isn't pure, careless, rock-bottom crap.

Yes there was a time when higher priced higher quality items were the norm. That was a long time ago. The game changed.

I wouldn't call it so quickly. I think the "price is all that matters" market was largely untapped. Wal-Mart has monopolized it - and spectacularly even. But now what? They've saturated the country, they've roped in all the bottom feeders and business is stagnating.

A business that makes nothing but money is a poor kind of business - really great read here. If you click any link, check this one. (because the idea that it's not just price that gives your product value and that customer service is very important is a discussion we've had about the amusement industry for years now and this article's ideas can be applied to our beloved parks in the same way - think early 2000's Six Flags, it was pretty much the Wal-Mart of the amusement industry and it was horrible)

Back in the olden days, when I was taking business classes, it was generally acknowledged that Walmart's low prices were a result of superior supply chain management. I think it's clear that advantage is gone. Some say it's been replaced with a race to the bottom resulting in low prices, yes, but horrible product quality and low overall value. Let's call it the Walmart anti-Midas touch. (everything they touch turns to crap!)

My question is why is not everything they sell affected by this anti-Midas touch?

Lankster, I think probably because some of the brands are so desperate to keep going that they give WalMart the distribution but don't really change their product. Like LEI: They were huge for juniors in the 90's, but then they kinda disappeared. They're now at Wal-Mart, and while I can't squeeze my butt into their clothes, they look like they're still probably decent. Also, not everything is strictly made for Wal-Mart. Sure, you can get normal everyday stuff there that is a brand name, and it is not like they make it special for Wal-Mart, so that stuff is safe. It is when you get into the stuff that is made strictly for Wal-Marts that you probably run into more problems.

Gonch, chemical burning flip-flops? Yikes! I never heard that one, and I've bought Wal-Mart flip-flops (though until Old Navy changed theirs, I just always used Old Navy flippies). That's some scary stuff, but I think that kind of expresses your point perfectly. Would I ever worry about getting chemical burns from flippies at Target? Most likely not.

I guess that was what I was getting at--the stuff at Walmart that you can get anywhere, like Coke, Tide, etc. But Walmart also sells their own soda beside the Coke, not sure if they have their own detergent, but I'm sure they have cheap brands along with the Tide.

I keep seeing that Walmart customers are conditioned to shop on price alone, yet the Coke, Tide, etc still sells next to the cheap stuff.

And you can bet that Walmart places enormous pressure on Coke and Tide to get the price points and product sizes they demand. The destructive power of their market position was well documented in a 2003 Fast Company article about Vlasic pickles. I think this was the final nail for me to make a conscious decision to avoid Walmart.

Jeff beat me to the Vlasic pickles post.

Having said that, there are companies that Walmart wants their items in their stores, and Walmart would rather be on the side of "We have to have this in our store to draw people in for other things" than "We need it at this price".

Apple comes immediately to mind.

And having said that, Walmart does sell their 'own' brand of many comodity items (as does any grocer), but if you look at who is actually producing the items, generics are often still made by the company that makes the brand name. They just strip the branding off.

What if Coke and P&G said no to Walmart's offer? Would Walmart's customers not complain? If they're simply looking for the lowest cost they wouldn't care--but then Coke and Tide wouldn't be there in the 1st place as they aren't the lowest cost.

I'm with Tek on this one--Walmart's customers do expect certain things to be there. And not all of these things can be considered crap.

Edited to add:

This says Coke changed a product due to Walmart.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/business/03walmart.html?_r=0

I've seen some anti-trust cases being made against Walmart, and there are some good points there. I would think the current administration would be sympathetic to such claims, so based on no action I'd assume the case is not open/shut.

If they cooperate, they stand to do more business with Wal-Mart, get better and larger amounts of placement on Wal-Mart shelves — and increase sales. "If you don't respond," Mr. Taft said, "your competitor will."

So if one of those companies pushes back, Walmart is less likely to say 'No we don't want you in our stores' and more likely to say 'Okay' and then lessen the amount of space available for Coke in each store (thus more of a chance of them selling out and the shelf being bare until Coke devotes more people and more time to keeping the shelf full), and gives Pepsi a bigger space beside Coke so that when that smaller amount sells out quicker, and all there is is Sams Cola or Pepsi, Coke still gets screwed.

Walmart still offers Coke, but if there's never enough product, how many people are going to start buying Pepsi or Sams?