Local Shops VS Online Dealers.....discuss.

[raginduck]

Forum Sponsor

They have figured that into their business model. They've reduced in-store inventory and order everything in, so that you have nowhere to try anything on unless you haul your butt out to a superstore.

So now, if I can't even try on an item in the local shop before I buy it... then what reason do I have to even explore the option of buying a item there? If some place is going to have something ordered in for me without me being able to try it in their store first... what reason is there for me to bother going there and not just order the item blindly online myself... as that is now what the shop is basically doing?


Ronnie, how would you feel if I came into your store and flat out told you I will not be buying a specific suit from you, but offered to pay you for the time you spend fitting and sizing me so I know I am ordering the correct size, etc... form the online store I am going to buy it from?

 

[viper84737]

I said it was like stealing.

It isn't. If it was, shops would have "DO NOT TRY ON" signs by their inventories and "DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS" signs on their employee name tags. They WANT you to try things on, knowing that some of you won't buy anything at all. This is something they're well aware of, I assure you.

It's only in motorcycling that we are getting gouged so bad.

...and in Ontario, Land Where Fun Was Banned Long Ago -- pretty much everything else that's entertaining here {movies cost more, parking costs more, transit costs more, identical clothing at Zara here and the same shirt found at the Zara at the 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica costs more (here), food costs more, booze costs more, and the worst culprit of all: Canadian gas prices cost 40% more than American gas prices despite we being the ones selling them the exact same bloody freaking oil}.

You're consuming the presence of the inventory, which is a locked-in asset for the dealer if you aren't buying it. Again, it's morally wrong.

Disagree all you want. You're morally wrong.

Thankfully "morality" doesn't exist in this universe beyond a contraption humans make of it to control others through guilt. Of course, one could try to press the case for morality, in which case I'll refer you to a meteor that decimated the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, or at least 4 other Mass Extinction Events in puny Earth's history. The universe doesn't notice/observe puny human morality, it is far too busy being awesome for that. Also, the presence isn't being consumed. It's being borrowed, and upon you not buying it, is returned back to the store. Total time on loan: probably 30 seconds to 10 minutes.

In stores, you can ask questions and you can try stuff on, knowing full-well that you're not going to buy anything. They've built this "cost" into that number on their price tag already. If it was too much of a burden, they'd have to hire more people to answer questions, or alter their prices to make up for lost sales online. If it's too costly for them to stay in business, they won't survive. This is exactly why I don't have my own personal oil refinery, pumping out gas at ludicrous Canadian prices to complacent Canadian consumers.

Now, I have some information that may surprise some people here: Stores have been doing this for decades, and also currently do this all the time. Walmart isn't a one-man show, folks, they discovered this problem-solution set long ago! Same with your local grocery store.

If anyone has a problem with this, they might have some hypocritical behaviors within themselves to check out next time they:

- visit an open house
- test drive a car
- look at the fresh food aisle at the grocery store (you junk food eaters, you)
- ask yourself if the girl you're eyeing is really for you, and then realize you're too drunk to care anyway
- do any kind of exploratory research about a product by asking someone about it, knowing you don't intend on buying it now
- try on a suit at the store
- etc

Obligation to buy == 0.

Damn.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

So now, if I can't even try on an item in the local shop before I buy it... then what reason do I have to even explore the option of buying a item there? If some place is going to have something ordered in for me without me being able to try it in their store first... what reason is there for me to not bother going there and not just order the item blindly online myself... as that is now what the shop is basically doing?


Ronnie, how would you feel if I came into your store and flat out told you I will not be buying a specific suit from you, but offered to pay you for the time you spend fitting and sizing me so I know I am ordering the correct size, etc... form the online store I am going to buy it from?

Chicken and the egg: The current situation, in smaller stores, is a direct result of people buying online, while frequently using the local stores as fitting rooms. Why should you expect them to stock inventory, that you aren't going to buy?

 

[iegod]

But if the shop can spend an hour sending you for that very same helmet and bring their price down to $550 only to have you still walk away just because of its $50 more expensive, that's douchebaggery foooooooshooooooooo.

I think a matter of percentage is also important. I called up Rider's Choice to inquire about a particular item. They didn't have it in stock, but could special order it for $260. I found it online in the US for $200. So locally it was ~30% more expensive for the exact same item at the exact same service level - neither had the capability for me to try before buying. In addition, the US retailer has a rewards program where I get store credit for future purchases. The decision was a no brainer.


I buy locally when I feel that it's worth it and the price points match up within a certain percentage. That percentage certainly changes given the service level, but also at some point you just get tired of paying so much.


Case in point:

I'm willing to pay a premium to buy from a local shop - say 10% - but not 50-100% which is sometimes the norm.

As for this comment:

Chicken and the egg: The current situation, in smaller stores, is a direct result of people buying online, while frequently using the local stores as fitting rooms. Why should you expect them to stock inventory, that you aren't going to buy?

It's not a chicken and egg scenario at all, it's a poor response to the way customers are purchasing. They're not offering better service where they can provide it - in the tangible items. I have no incentive to walk into those stores.

 

[jolomatic]

The store is in business to sell me something. If they aren't successful it's not my fault.

Yes, but if you do not even give them the opportunity to try to sell you something (ie: you've decided you won't buy before you even go in), then you are taking advantage of them, and being dishonest.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

It's not a chicken and egg scenario at all, it's a poor response to the way customers are purchasing. They're not offering better service where they can provide it - in the tangible items. I have no incentive to walk into those stores.

Now you're equating product with service, where another poster equated price with service. You can have great service, with no product. The product isn't there because the money isn't there. The money isn't there, because the sales aren't there.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Thankfully "morality" doesn't exist in this universe beyond a contraption humans make of it to control others through guilt. Of course, one could try to press the case for morality, in which case I'll refer you to a meteor that decimated the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, or at least 4 other Mass Extinction Events in puny Earth's history. The universe doesn't notice/observe puny human morality, it is far too busy being awesome for that. Also, the presence isn't being consumed. It's being borrowed, and upon you not buying it, is returned back to the store. Total time on loan: probably 30 seconds to 10 minutes.

In stores, you can ask questions and you can try stuff on, knowing full-well that you're not going to buy anything. They've built this "cost" into that number on their price tag already. If it was too much of a burden, they'd have to hire more people to answer questions, or alter their prices to make up for lost sales online. If it's too costly for them to stay in business, they won't survive. This is exactly why I don't have my own personal oil refinery, pumping out gas at ludicrous Canadian prices to complacent Canadian consumers.

Now, I have some information that may surprise some people here: Stores have been doing this for decades, and also currently do this all the time. Walmart isn't a one-man show, folks, they discovered this problem-solution set long ago! Same with your local grocery store.

If anyone has a problem with this, they might have some hypocritical behaviors within themselves to check out next time they:

- visit an open house
- test drive a car
- look at the fresh food aisle at the grocery store (you junk food eaters, you)
- ask yourself if the girl you're eyeing is really for you, and then realize you're too drunk to care anyway
- do any kind of exploratory research about a product by asking someone about it, knowing you don't intend on buying it now
- try on a suit at the store
- etc

Obligation to buy == 0.

Damn.

Actually morality exists as a survival adaptation, because we'd otherwise kill each other.

The situation has changed. Even in the days of catalog stores you didn't have a huge number of people going into brick & mortar establishments, to try on clothes and gear. You can say that it's been happening for years all that you like, but the game has changed.

 

[daught]

Yes, but if you do not even give them the opportunity to try to sell you something (ie: you've decided you won't buy before you even go in), then you are taking advantage of them, and being dishonest.

Not at all. The only thing I decide before walking in is that I won't pay 20% more on items up to $400. 10% past that. If they stay within that bracket they have a much bigger opportunity to sell me something than online stores.

 

[Griffin]

Disagree all you want. You're morally wrong.

*EDIT* As I said previously if you walk into the store, with no intention of possibly purchasing there, just to make use of their inventory.

Hmm, so you're the moral adjudicator? Interesting. Thanks for trying to look out for my soul but I can make my own moral judgments.

Yes, but if you do not even give them the opportunity to try to sell you something (ie: you've decided you won't buy before you even go in), then you are taking advantage of them, and being dishonest.

I give them the opportunity to sell me things. And if they do a good job of it I buy from them. But I'm not obligated to buy because I walked in and looked around, even if I do try something on. Nor am I obligated to pay an outrageous price just because I tried it on in that store.

How do you two shop for cars? Walk into the first dealership and lay your money down? It must be "immoral" and "dishonest" to sit in a car or take it for a test drive if you aren't buying it, right?

 

[jolomatic]

How do you two shop for cars? Walk into the first dealership and lay your money down? It must be "immoral" and "dishonest" to sit in a car or take it for a test drive if you aren't buying it, right?

How on earth do you get that, when all I've been saying is this:

I give them the opportunity to sell me things. And if they do a good job of it I buy from them. But I'm not obligated to buy because I walked in and looked around, even if I do try something on. Nor am I obligated to pay an outrageous price just because I tried it on in that store.

I never said anywhere, anytime that walking into the store obligates you. What I said was wasting sales person's time, wearing out inventory, and using a store as your fitting room for your online purchase, when you have decided already that you will not be buying from the store is a douchy way to go about it.

So to answer your question directly, if you were not even in the market for a car, had no intention of buying, or already had a car somewhere else picked out to buy, but go in to the dealership anyways for a test drive, or joy ride, and you know you won't be buying, then yes you are being immoral. I have no issue so long as you are actually considering buying the car when you ask to take the test drive.

How would you look at it if you had your bike for sale and some guy comes up, and just wants a test ride before buying. Takes the ride comes back and says thanks, but no thanks, there's another guy selling the same bike for less down the street, but he wouldn't let me take a test ride first, so I just wanted to try your bike before buying his?
(Yes I know most people wouldn't put themselves in that situation for a private sale, but stores basically have to put themselves in that situation all the time, so consider the moral implications instead of posting about how you'd never do that in the first place).

 

[baljci]

Geez I read this article couple days ago and I went to a local shop and I said " thanks im just looking around", but the dude clearly didnt get the message, so he still tries to sell my stuff. This article popped up in my head as he was blabbing on,( Omg im one of them haha) but I just came to see the helmets if I like something Id actually buy it, I dont need him to teach me stuff that Ive already know and how his co-worker fell doing 190km an hour because he had a 500$ helmet. I dont care! If you see im sending you a message that I dont need help then dont come. This is why I buy online and obviously its cheaper.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Hmm, so you're the moral adjudicator? Interesting. Thanks for trying to look out for my soul but I can make my own moral judgments.

I give them the opportunity to sell me things. And if they do a good job of it I buy from them. But I'm not obligated to buy because I walked in and looked around, even if I do try something on. Nor am I obligated to pay an outrageous price just because I tried it on in that store.

How do you two shop for cars? Walk into the first dealership and lay your money down? It must be "immoral" and "dishonest" to sit in a car or take it for a test drive if you aren't buying it, right?

Apparently you aren't actually reading the posts that you're responding to, so it's pointless to continue the discussion.

 

[caboose56]

So now, if I can't even try on an item in the local shop before I buy it... then what reason do I have to even explore the option of buying a item there? If some place is going to have something ordered in for me without me being able to try it in their store first... what reason is there for me to bother going there and not just order the item blindly online myself... as that is now what the shop is basically doing?


Ronnie, how would you feel if I came into your store and flat out told you I will not be buying a specific suit from you, but offered to pay you for the time you spend fitting and sizing me so I know I am ordering the correct size, etc... form the online store I am going to buy it from?

Don't be obtuse.

Reduced inventory does not mean zero inventory.

Ideally a shop will have enough inventory so you can see the colours and try on sizes but odds likely won't have the size AND colour that you want. They will likely have a few Large Shoei RF1100s and they should have most of the graphics but they aren't going to have the RF1100 Hadron TC5 in S, M, L, XL and XXL. If they stock Icon jackets, they should have all sizes of Timax jacket available to try on and all colours available to see but not all sizes in all colours. Boots are even worse. I wouldn't expect any shop in the GTA to stock a good supply of race boots other than Rider's Choice since they have the distributorship for Dainese and Daytona. How many pairs of $500 SupertechRs should a shop have on the shelf for people to try on? How many would they sell a year in the GTA? The same goes for any super premium accessory or item.

Some customers are impossible and will just assume that American online prices are cheaper without ever asking.

Certain items don't sell and to bring in a decent inventory ties up way too much money and floor space. Arai helmets, liter bikes, expensive stuff in general.

 

[StudioCycleGroup]

Hi everyone,
Sorry to dig up an old thread, just wanted to clarify:

This happened almost a year since our loonie was at par with the US dollar.

There's a particular model that was brand new and had to be ordered in.
Arai X-Twelve helmet price quotes:
GP $927
Royal $1095
Studio Cycle $1250
Theses were prices before tax

I’m not sure how this would have happened. The X Twelve isn’t an Arai, it’s a Shoei. We don’t carry Shoei, so we couldn’t have given you any quote, let alone one for $1,250 + tax.

If you’re looking for an Arai, be sure to give us a call!

 

[OpenGambit]

Maybe thats why it costs you 1250!!!

j/k

Forum Sponsor