Wild Oats sale to Whole Foods goes through

[Robin Garr]

Come on Robin! I know you are itching to reply to this thread. Flame on!

It's tempting, really tempting.

Really, though, Thomas has expressed much of what I would have said, and Ray J. also covered some ground that's parallel with mine, although I don't really think it's a "class" thing so much as maybe a "urban" vs "suburban" thing, which is more a social than economic division.

In general, I don't think that the rise of the powerful, virtually untrammeled corporation since 1980, with its skewed emphasis on the stockholder and the quarterly balance sheet, is good for communities, the nation or the world, and if it's "free market," it's not the kind of free market that I grew up with and learned to admire. Its goals and its priorities are distorted beyond recognition.

Because of its international growth and the reality that its size allows it to direct the market, Walmart stands as the poster child for all this, and that's why it generates such a visceral response in so many people.

I'm also down on them for their virulent anti-unionism in the workplace, but they don't really stand alone there. I have the same problem with Whole Foods.

Do I need a rocket scientist to help me buy Clorox?

To address a thrice-mentioned straw-man: I don't expect people to like Walmart if that's not their wont. What I find telling is the need for some people to demonize it, to attribute its success to malign intentions rather than an appeal to a different and broader market segment (maybe that phrase won't bother people as much as "class") than the average participant on Internet forums dealing with specialty wines and foods.

Do I need a rocket scientist to help me buy Clorox?

To address a thrice-mentioned straw-man: I don't expect people to like Walmart if that's not their wont. What I find telling is the need for some people to demonize it, to attribute its success to malign intentions rather than an appeal to a different and broader market segment (maybe that phrase won't bother people as much as "class") than the average participant on Internet forums dealing with specialty wines and foods.

Is that why you singled out my dislike for their employment selections?

I didn't question their reasoning for hiring know-nothings and I didn't make any claim about it's potential social implications. I expressed my dislike for the so-called customer service that the policy of hiring know-nothings produces. Plain and simple.

I don't like blank stares or bad information when I ask a question of someone who has memorized the UPC code but not the product's intentional use.

Whether it is a fact that customer service in Wal-Mart or the other big chains is a casualty of low price or of malign intentions the result is the same--no or poor customer service. Why would anyone want to put up with that? If a wine retailer acted that way, where would you buy your wine?

Maybe by reading something else into my employee comment (and you did not address any of my other dislikes) you viscerally understand something about Wal-Mart that emotionally you don't want to face. I don't know that. But I know that I approach the subject from the standpoint of quality of life, and I see this bigness, sameness, low costness, low payness, low talentness thing as a reduction in the quality of our lives.

[Robin Garr]

to attribute its success to malign intentions

Straw person! Straw person!

Thomas, I think my disagreement with you comes from different expectations- when I go to a deep discounter (whether Walmart, Costco, whatever), I don't expect knowledgeable, attentive sales help. That costs money. So for things where I want/expect customer service (e.g., artisanal cheese, wine, tools, computers), I expect to pay more and shop accordingly. If I'm buying Clorox, printer paper, clothespins, or batteries, I'd rather pay less and get the damn things off the shelves myself. Others with a different attitude can shop at Macy's and pay the price. That's fine.

So maybe not for you, but for a pretty significant demographic which includes me, there are perfectly rational reasons to want to shop at deep discount/low service operations. And when I see new ones going up locally, it gladdens me because my choices and opportunities are thereby extended- Walmart won't put my tomato lady out of business, but it will make my local Safeway shape up its customer service and food choices in order to compete. It will provide lots of jobs for people just getting started in the working world, and ease our local tax burdens (our town doesn't subsidize big business, and that's a practice that I would argue is VERY immoral).

The people it WILL put out of business are local merchants who charge extortionate prices for a limited range of commodity items because it was too expensive and inconvenient to drive 50 miles to save a few bucks or get a better selection. Or the ones with poor stock, high prices, and a worse attitude (like our local music and bookstores).

And honestly, I just can't work up much sympathy.

edit: And if Walmart kills our local Radio Shack, even better.

You all have made very good points--both for and against WM and it's "style" of consumerism.

Personally, I don't believe in WM; sure, I get use out of the convenience of random necessities, save a few bucks here-and-there, but I just need a way to get what I need. If it's WM, so be it; although, WM has made it kind of hard not to be a WM that you walk into, especially in rural and suburban areas. Goodness, that's all I have here (desolate eastern NM) with the exception of one other grocery store that charges 220% more for the same loaf of bread, for example. WM does it's real majic in these places; not only might a lot of the people be ignorant to the facts (or not care), but they don't have a choice (like me).

I prefer patronizing local/smaller/family owned places, especially when it comes to restaurants; my biggest gripe with WM, and the like, is the sense of urgency, the crowds, and the lack of shopping experience. When I dine, I take in the experience; when I shop or browse, I take in the experience--there's no "experience" at WM, just get in/get out.

All that being said, I've been in Whole Foods once, in Santa Fe, and never even heard of Wild Oats; I was impressed by the pastry selection. . . .

Thomas, I think my disagreement with you comes from different expectations- when I go to a deep discounter (whether Walmart, Costco, whatever), I don't expect knowledgeable, attentive sales help. That costs money. So for things where I want/expect customer service (e.g., artisanal cheese, wine, tools, computers), I expect to pay more and shop accordingly. If I'm buying Clorox, printer paper, clothespins, or batteries, I'd rather pay less and get the damn things off the shelves myself. Others with a different attitude can shop at Macy's and pay the price. That's fine.

So maybe not for you, but for a pretty significant demographic which includes me, there are perfectly rational reasons to want to shop at deep discount/low service operations. And when I see new ones going up locally, it gladdens me because my choices and opportunities are thereby extended- Walmart won't put my tomato lady out of business, but it will make my local Safeway shape up its customer service and food choices in order to compete. It will provide lots of jobs for people just getting started in the working world, and ease our local tax burdens (our town doesn't subsidize big business, and that's a practice that I would argue is VERY immoral).

The people it WILL put out of business are local merchants who charge extortionate prices for a limited range of commodity items because it was too expensive and inconvenient to drive 50 miles to save a few bucks or get a better selection. Or the ones with poor stock, high prices, and a worse attitude (like our local music and bookstores).

And honestly, I just can't work up much sympathy.

edit: And if Walmart kills our local Radio Shack, even better.

Radio Shack is the world's most mystical enigma, and its endurance must be tied either to something cosmic or the force of Hades...

Yes, I understand the difference between our perspectives. But I worry about the general acceptance of mediocrity as a potential cause for more and spiraling down mediocrity--you know, reward the activity and it proliferates. Sure, it's only Clorox, but every dollar of profit made on that Clorox feeds the beast of mediocrity.

You call local small stores extortionists, which to me means that either you do not understand the economy of scale when buying to stock a retail outlet or you have a particular agenda that may be the same as the one you accuse Wal-Mart haters--you seem to believe that small retailers rather than large ones have a malign purpose. That's the visceral/emotional thing I referred to in my post.

No, in my view, it's analogous to small farmers who grow commodity crops instead of niche high-margin stuff, then whine and demand subsidies or protection laws when they can't compete with MegaAgriBiz on corn or soybeans.

That said, Clorox is exactly the same whether I pay $9 or $4 for a bottle. It is no more or less mediocre from Costco than Don & Betty's Honest Grocery.

What's your point?

The point is, the things so many of us often say we dislike in one thing we accept in another. Your list of dislikes about Wal-Mart are many of the same things you will find in Macy's and other large stores. And yet, the others don't draw the same wrath and rants!

I didn't question their reasoning for hiring know-nothings and I didn't make any claim about it's potential social implications.

This nation hired someone to run it in 2000, and renewed his contract in 2004, who knew little about the product line, its policies, and intentional use (for which there is a document that lays it all out). I have a feeling many of the people who were instrumental in making that happen would be among those who don't shop at and who rant about Wal-Mart and how it's leading to our national degredation. Present company excepted, of course. Just a minor observation -- that's all!

No, in my view, it's analogous to small farmers who grow commodity crops instead of niche high-margin stuff, then whine and demand subsidies or protection laws when they can't compete with MegaAgriBiz on corn or soybeans.

That said, Clorox is exactly the same whether I pay $9 or $4 for a bottle. It is no more or less mediocre from Costco than Don & Betty's Honest Grocery.

Stuart, are you purposely missing my point? I've smelled and I've used Clorox; it is far from mediocre when supplied by any store...

My point is: Buying the cheaper Clorox from a mediocre business entity gives the business the profits that spur it to believe in (maybe rightly so) their model of mediocrity.

What's your point?

The point is, the things so many of us often say we dislike in one thing we accept in another. Your list of dislikes about Wal-Mart are many of the same things you will find in Macy's and other large stores. And yet, the others don't draw the same wrath and rants!

I didn't question their reasoning for hiring know-nothings and I didn't make any claim about it's potential social implications.

This nation hired someone to run it in 2000, and renewed his contract in 2004, who knew little about the product line, its policies, and intentional use (for which there is a document that lays it all out). I have a feeling many of the people who were instrumental in making that happen would be among those who don't shop at and who rant about Wal-Mart and how it's leading to our national degredation. Present company excepted, of course. Just a minor observation -- that's all!

Well, I can't speak for the wrath and rants of others. I told you that I don't shop in Macy's either and I also mentioned I don't shop in Lowes, Home Depot and other big box stores for the same reasons that I don't shop in Wal-Mart. Don't know what else I can say.

I did not, never would have, never will and never will understand why anyone else did vote for (or hire) Mr. Bush league. But then, I also don't rant about Wal-Mart so maybe I have no validity I try to make my voice heard through reasoned debate. But I also realize that some people call any debate a rant, especially when the debater does not hold their position.

some people call any debate a rant, especially when the debater does not hold their position.

If your comment is pointed, you will note (if you care to (re)read my comments) that I have spoken in general terms and not called anyone anything. And, the one thing I am quite skilled at is not only holding, but quite deftly espousing my position. As it appears, are you. Nice debating with such a worthy opponent!

Buying the cheaper Clorox from a mediocre business entity gives the business the profits that spur it to believe in (maybe rightly so) their model of mediocrity.

You're right, I absolutely don't see your point. Clorox is Clorox- what value-added is given by a service-oriented retailer? What makes Walmart a mediocre (your word) business for consumers to buy commodities? They're there, they're cheaper, their distribution is better and more efficient because of the economies of scale.

I also don't understand what George Bush has to do with this, but I figured he'd be dragged into it somehow. In the red/blue divide, I'm chartreuse.

And, FWIW, I avoid WF like the plague.

[James Roscoe]

Robin, thanks for making my day!

Buying the cheaper Clorox from a mediocre business entity gives the business the profits that spur it to believe in (maybe rightly so) their model of mediocrity.

You're right, I absolutely don't see your point. Clorox is Clorox- what value-added is given by a service-oriented retailer? What makes Walmart a mediocre (your word) business for consumers to buy commodities? They're there, they're cheaper, their distribution is better and more efficient because of the economies of scale.

I also don't understand what George Bush has to do with this, but I figured he'd be dragged into it somehow. In the red/blue divide, I'm chartreuse.

And, FWIW, I avoid WF like the plague.

I didn't bring Humpty Dumpty into this--Jo Ann did by equating Wal-Mart haters with Bush lovers, which I can neither see nor understand, but that's what she did.

Yes, you don't seem to see my point which is--once more--that you say you shop at WM for only those items like bags and Clorox; for the important stuff you go elsewhere. I'm saying that by buying the Clorox and bags, etc., you feed the profits of WM and thereby validate its mediocrity in its institutional mind. Profits is profits, whichever product they come from.

Who or what is WF or have I misplaced that reference?

some people call any debate a rant, especially when the debater does not hold their position.

If your comment is pointed, you will note (if you care to (re)read my comments) that I have spoken in general terms and not called anyone anything. And, the one thing I am quite skilled at is not only holding, but quite deftly espousing my position. As it appears, are you. Nice debating with such a worthy opponent!

Thank you Jo Ann, for the debating kudos. Worthy--hmmm: maybe, maybe not

The problem with general terms is that keeps you distant from the debate. That's why I asked you what your point was re, Macy's.

But even after I answered your Macy's question, which was directed at me and not in general, you seemed not to acknowledge my answer, which I took as directed at me and not in general. Do I make sense? I am beginning to doubt if I do, especially after tangling with recalcitrant Yaniger...

Thomas, whether or not I agree with you or see your "light," I completely understand what you mean--no worries, your statements are lucid and comprehensible

I'm done with this, you guys have fun!

I still don't know what you mean by "mediocrity." What's mediocre about Clorox just because it's bought at Walmart? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm sincerely baffled.

I still don't know what you mean by "mediocrity." What's mediocre about Clorox just because it's bought at Walmart? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm sincerely baffled.

C'mon, man! You don't baffle easily.

You see the point. You just don't want to hear about or deal with it.

These are people who object to the business model - being the biggest customer of mainland China, largest American presence in China, supporting child labor, driving jobs off this continent etc.

I don't think it is a class thing at all. I think it is a naive kind of patriotism.

I think these folks are objecting to the basic sociopathic capitalism I object to. Damn everything else except the bottom line. Ain't got nothin' to do with the price of beans, Clorox or copy paper.

When I was still in Tennessee, if the lines I was in were any indication when I went in a Walmart, illegal aliens are the principal customers.

I can understand their not wanting to patronize this entity. Prices be damned.

You are talking pragmatism and these folks are talking heart.

you seemed not to acknowledge my answer

Sorry, Thomas. But, I don't know what this means. I reread your post and don't know what in your response I should have acknowledged. You have an opinion/I have an opinion. I am quite neutral about Wal-Mart. It appears you are not. I acknowledge the difference. You have your reasons. It strikes me that the reasons you listed can be applied to any number of large stores. The reference to Macy's is because their flagship store is in NY, therefore I wanted to draw a comparison to Wal-Mart (based on your anti-WalMart list) with a store with which you should have been familiar. It wasn't personal nor intended to be pointed at you in any other way. I agree with Stewart in everything he has said in this post. (much of what I have read here defies rational thought!) And, like I said in my first response to A.B.'s post, I don't get it! But, C'est la vie! And, like A.B., I am over this conversation. Good Night.

You see the point.

No, I really don't. Truly and honestly. I do see an illustration of my point in what you said about the customer base.

Now, you'll need to excuse me while Jo Ann and I find a room.

[David M. Bueker]

Thomas,

While I can perhaps understand some of your objections to Wal-Mart (which I rarely shop at - but they are the only ones who carry the replacement screens for my electric razor by the way), you go off the rails with the hiring "know-nothings" comment.

Not everyone in this country is an MIT graduate, Mensa eligible brainiac. People of less than superior intelligence need to work too. Wal-Mart & other service industry jobs are mainly what is available. There is no requirement for Wal-Mart to be the model employer, and honestly I have no desire to pay $3 more for my razor screen just for them to do so. I don't get a raise based on shopping at idealistic stores. I have to live within my means & that involves seeking the best price on things where personal service is irrelevant. 99.6% (hyperbole alert) of the stuff at Wal-Mart is in that commodity/minimal to no service required category. There's no reason that Wal-Mart should pay for and pass through costs to provide service on items where it is not needed.

As for how GWB got elected/re-elected, I would venture to say that the base includes vast numbers of regular Wal-Mart shoppers as well as folks who don't do a lot of thinking for themselves (and also don't stop to ask for advice).

you seemed not to acknowledge my answer

Sorry, Thomas. But, I don't know what this means. I reread your post and don't know what in your response I should have acknowledged. You have an opinion/I have an opinion. I am quite neutral about Wal-Mart. It appears you are not. I acknowledge the difference. You have your reasons. It strikes me that the reasons you listed can be applied to any number of large stores. The reference to Macy's is because their flagship store is in NY, therefore I wanted to draw a comparison to Wal-Mart (based on your anti-WalMart list) with a store with which you should have been familiar. It wasn't personal nor intended to be pointed at you in any other way. I agree with Stewart in everything he has said in this post. (much of what I have read here defies rational thought!) And, like I said in my first response to A.B.'s post, I don't get it! But, C'est la vie! And, like A.B., I am over this conversation. Good Night.

Yes, Jo Ann, but you ignore that I said I don't shop in Macy's. Plus, even when I did, I noticed the lighting was more conducive to humanity, the floors were not industrial strength, the merchandise was quality oriented, and the sale staff knew what they were selling--most of them.

So, I see a parallel to WM, but not a direct one, and since i have never been in a Macy's outside of NYCity (and that was 30 years ago) I have no idea what the corporate owners have done to it.

And if you think that what I am posting defies rational thought, perhaps our impression of rationality is at odds too.

Stuart is obviously taunting me with the Clorox thing. He knows what I mean but he won't admit it. Ask him yourself.

Thomas,

While I can perhaps understand some of your objections to Wal-Mart (which I rarely shop at - but they are the only ones who carry the replacement screens for my electric razor by the way), you go off the rails with the hiring "know-nothings" comment.

Sorry about that. It's obvious that the agenda's ascribed to me, which I have never espoused in any one post, about class seemed to have been picked up in that unfortunate phrasing.

What I mean by "know-nothings" is that they don't seem trained or knowledgeable about the products they sell. (I have no idea what their general education or knowledge level is and I don't intend to talk about it. I am talking within the context of retailing.)

Large store employees seem eminently trained in the myriad ways to greet people and to apologize for myriad problems in the shelf stocking, the UPC confusion, pricing problems--all those things that retailers are supposed to have down pat before they put the product into the consumer's hands. But they seem woefully inadequate to talk about the products, about which they seem to know nothing and therefore I called them "know-nothings."

PS: I don't believe that intelligence and knowledge are directly related. The former is innate; the latter must be sought and learned.