InBev asking for Busch park vendors to accept net 120 payment terms

Rob Ascough said:
Have Americans really come to willingly accept this as the truth, or have way too many cheap products been shoved down their throats and forced them to accept this as the truth.

Americans may have resisted at first, but now cheapness and disposability have become hallmarks of our society. Don't fix that X, throw it out and buy the new X - it's faster, more energy efficient, and comes in this hip new carrying-case. Landfills are filling up partly due to increased numbers of people, but moreso based on the fact that almost NOTHING gets repaired anymore...it gets thrown out. It's good for businesses that manufacture the new product, but it's bad for the environment (and the people who used to make a living fixing things that broke). "If I'm going to replace it with a new model inside of two years anyway, why would I spend twice the price for the durable version."

Americans haven't just accepted it Rob. Most have indicated, through their purchasing decisions, that this is what they want. They want to pay less for more stuff. Not better stuff. More stuff.

You and I may not like it, but that's the way it is.

Edited to add:

Don't fix that X, throw it out and buy the new X - it's faster, more energy efficient, and comes in this hip new carrying-case.

Consumer Reports has a "repair vs. replace" analysis for a wide variety of products. The specific recommendations are only available to subscribers, but overall I was very surprised to see how soon major appliances move from "repair" to "replace".

When even Consumer Reports---about as pro-consumer a source as you can find---tells you to throw out that X, you know we've gone a ways down that path.

Brian Noble said:
Americans haven't just accepted it Rob. Most have indicated, through their purchasing decisions, that this is what they want. They want to pay less for more stuff. Not better stuff. More stuff.

Yes. I agree with this 100%.

I just wonder if this want drove the Wal-Mart culture or Wal-Mart showed people that they could get cheap stuff...well, cheaply and it went from there. I suspect the latter - most people are ok with 'good enough' and the idea of paying a higher price (even for increased quality) just doesn't click for a large segment of society.

And that's exactly what I refer to when I say "the Wal-Marting of America" - people expect stuff on the cheap. I feel the idea of value is lost. It seems people don't understand the idea of spending more for a better quality product or better experience or whatever advantage the higher price tag may carry with it.

And I believe that comes full circle to our own situation with the economy and such. We can't even make things as cheaply as we expect to buy them for anymore.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

We had that discussion at work the other day, when some of my developers were asking why I would "waste" money on a more expensive Apple product when I could get something similar for a lot less from HP or Dell. I explained that "similar" is a cop out for "not quite as good," and I'm willing to pay more for something better. I'm the same way with hotels and food.

But I wouldn't totally write-off Americans as not getting value. For a very long time, the average Honda and Toyota was a little more expensive than the American equivalent, but the Japanese still won, in my opinion because of a better quality-price (i.e., value) ratio.

Yeah, I don't imagine it's all or nothing for folks when it comes to appreciating value. In fact, I would guess there is a sliding scale correlation of sorts between value appreciation and the overall price range for the product. Your higher end purchases like cars and houses would generate a larger expectation/appreciation for value than your disposable toiletry items and other things sold at places like Wal-Mart.

But I do tend to agree that we are very much a disposable society. Regardless of how much value our "stuff" has, we have gotten a lot more lenient about discarding and replacing things than generations before us.

Then again, quality and price do not always go hand in hand.

Case in point: about twelve years ago, my wife and I went to look for patio furniture. One place we went to was one of those swimming pool supply stores that also sell pool tables and stuff like that. The salesmen wanted us to buy this patio set that sold for $4,000 (in c. 1997 dollars). Instead, we went to Target and bought a whole set for less than $400.

Twelve years late, and that set still looks pretty good, despite our not always taking the best care of it and having to use bleach to clean the bird droppings every so often. Now would that $4,000 set from the pool store look a little better now than our $400 set? Maybe -- but I doubt it would look 90% better.

Jeff said:
Apple...Honda and Toyota...hotels and food.

Interesting that your mind goes to those things - computers, cars, travel, dining.

When I posted (and when I keep saying Wal-Marting of America) I'm thinking things like shoes, jeans, X-mas decorations, tape measures, candles - the everyday things. Not quite the necessities like Carrie mentions, but not the big ticket items like you mention. I'm talking the inbetween, the everything else, the very fabric of life.

I think that's where people have lost all sense of value.

Obviously big ticket items are given more thought and commodoties go on the cheap. That's common sense. That the sliding scale Carrie mentions.

It's all the inbetween stuff that, to me, is what makes our quality of life what it is (or isn't) and that's where I think we as a whole have lost sight of value in exchange for price.

Jeff said:For a very long time, the average Honda and Toyota was a little more expensive than the American equivalent, but the Japanese still won, in my opinion because of a better quality-price (i.e., value) ratio.

I think that argument bears out very well when you consider that the American "equivalents" had resale values in the range of 1/3 less than the Japanese (holding purchase price constant).

Yeah, I haven't seen data on that, but I would assume that was the case.

With clothes, I tend to stick to brands that I have solid history with. I'm an Old Navy poster boy because the clothes have been durable and I felt worth the price. They are not the cheapest, but they're hardly luxury goods.

And yet places like American Eagle and what not stay in business (although I understand they're all struggling). I think vanity can trump cheapness in a lot of cases too in our culture.

I think I know what you guys are driving at. I can go to a discount store & buy brand "X," work boots for, say, $50, amd they might not fit right, fall apart or not protect my feet as well.

Or I can go over to my local Red Wing store (which I did, BTW), got a pair of boors that cost $150, are more well made, and will last 3-4 times as long. Plus, I get a guy who runs the place who does NOTHING BUT fit boots all day, versus sime kid who might be working in shoes one day and electronics the next.

Shoes are one of those thing I don't mind spending the extra cash on, because I'm in them all day and they are more steak than sizzle.

Some consumers have embraced the "replace instead of repair" mentality but as Jeff pointed out, quite a few are willing to spend more for a better product. That's why people made the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord two of the best-selling cars during the pasdt two decades while similar products from American companies have come and gone (of course, there is something to be said for cars like the Ford Taurus and Chevy Malibu selling in great numbers because they're cheaper than their Japanese counterparts.) Many people are willing to spend more for a product that is clearly better- better quality, better features and better resale value. It's true that you often get what you pay for.

I can't help but think a lot of spending mentalities depend on where you live. There are many parts of the country where stores like Walmart are the only options for people because they don't live 20 minutes from five different malls. Places like Walmart sell the cheap stuff, so I guess it's normal to buy a $40 microwave, use it for a year and buy a new one when it stops working. I don't think places like Walmart sell $200 microwaves that are designed to last for years and years.

There's a pervasive mentality among consumers that the only difference between the "cheap" item and the "expensive" item is that you're "paying for the name." Maybe this comes from the idea of generic vs. brand name medicines and OTC products. It's also true that many store brand groceries are as good as or better than national brands.

But in some ways it's true. Is the "Rachel Ray" or "Emeril" cookware really any better than the pans without a celebrity on the package? If all you want is 10 good cups of coffee, is the $150 Cuisinart that much better than the $40 Mr. Coffee? I guess along with discussion of quality and durability, another issue of "value" is not paying for bells and whistles you really don't need and won't ever use.

I just don't think the vehicle comparison applies in this discussion about value appreciation. Those kind of purchases by nature will generally garner a lot more consideration. And they certainly don't have the same level of "disposal tendency" that your everyday purchases do. And given those purchases are made a lot less frequently, they don't really offset the general trend we are talking about here.

But, I do agree with your observation in part about Wal-Mart shopping. I think that gets to what Gonch was saying about whether Wal-Mart created the change in consumer mentality or whether they just provided the means to explore it. I'm sure it is both.

They saturated the market and as such, for some it is the only viable option for shopping. But others, despite having many alternative options, seek them out like a buffet at fat camp.

RatherGoodBear said:
There's a pervasive mentality among consumers that the only difference between the "cheap" item and the "expensive" item is that you're "paying for the name."

Exactly. And that one kills me. Consider the inverse as well. Some people believe something is better just because they paid more. I'm sure in some cases both hold true, but it's hardly a rule.

If all you want is 10 good cups of coffee, is the $150 Cuisinart that much better than the $40 Mr. Coffee?

Perfect example.

If coffee is the only deciding factor, then probably not. But durability, ease of use, style, cost of use, etc might make the $150 Cuisinart a better value for you. Going back to what I was saying earlier - all of those other factors add up to a certainly level of quality of life that I think people are willing to give up for a low price.

Carrie M. said:
I just don't think the vehicle comparison applies in this discussion about value appreciation. Those kind of purchases by nature will generally garner a lot more consideration. And they certainly don't have the same level of "disposal tendency" that your everyday purchases do. And given those purchases are made a lot less frequently, they don't really offset the general trend we are talking about here.

Yes! For most people a car will probably be the first or second biggest purchase they make in their lives. That's just not the level I'm talking on here. RGB is in the right area - those things you use often, maybe even think you need to a degree, but aren't necessities or major purchases - the little things that make your life what it is.

That's the area where I feel people have tipped the scales to an "only price matters" mentality.

To bring the discussion full circle, Wal-Mart may be selling cars in the future:

http://www.leftlanenews.com/chinese-automaker-to-sell-cars-at-wal-m...ostco.html

Now who wouldn't want that Wal-Mart dealer license plate holder on the back of their car?