ETD: 971 To compete or not to compete?; Does Not Compute!; The
Rich Are Getting Richer and Spending More on Luxury
E-Tailer's Digest
etd_post at gapent.com
Tue Apr 18 12:01:52 GMT 2006
E-Tailer's Digest --- Everything for the Retailer
Issue #0971 April 18, 2006
George Matyjewicz, Moderator mailto:georgem at gapent.com
Published by: GAP Enterprises, Ltd. http://www.etailersdigest.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
[1] Greetings
[2] To compete or not to compete?
[3] Does Not Compute!
[4] The Rich Are Getting Richer and Spending More on Luxury
---------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Greetings.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi All:
As Javilk pointed out, I should have said we will
not be publishing E-Tailers Digest for the next
two days, not issues. However, there is a change
to that plan with today's issue. We will be skipping publication on Thursday.
Along those same lines, I think it's interesting
how often we say or write things that are really
not correct and don't realize it until somebody
points it out. Sometimes we just don't know. See 3 below.
List member Jim Straw has an interesting post on
competition, which was as a result of our Wal-Mart post. Very good comments.
List member Pam Danziger has a new report of
luxury spending. I find the identification of
the "super affluent" quite fascinating. What do you think?
Now, let's get to everything for the retailer.
Sincerely
George Matyjewicz, PhD
Chief Global Strategist, GAP Enterprises, LLC
mailto:georgem at gapent.com
http://www.etailersdigest.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
[2] To compete or not to compete?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Wal-Mart pledges to help small retailers
To compete or not to compete? -- Should we even ask the question?
To compete or not to compete, that is the
question. Whether it be nobler in the minds of
men to accept the challenges and rewards of
competition, or turning away from competition,
endure the apathetic indolence of a non-competitive society.
The United States of America was founded and grew
upon competition; the struggle to survive,
achieve, and accomplish. Yet, at this juncture in
our history, we are faced with the possible
destruction of our existence by our own hands. We
are, more and more, becoming a nation of people
who demand all of the rewards of competition,
without the challenges and struggles.
Trade Unions demand higher wages, more benefits,
and guaranteed jobs; without the challenges of
increased production, job responsibility, or
elimination of non-essential or redundant work
units. - Big business demands sanctions,
restrictions and limitations on their
competition; rather than accepting the challenge
of the market place. - Welfare recipients demand
higher paychecks for not working; without competition in the job market.
In days gone by, if a business was confronted by
a competitor who could produce and sell a
comparable product at a lower price, the business
scrutinized its production and attempted to meet
the challenge in the market place. Today, the
business contacts one of the many and various
governmental agencies, bureaus or commissions; or
one of the trade, consumer or special interest
organizations, and attempts to eliminate the
competitions ability to compete. If they can
incite a Trade Union to organize the competitors
work force; or enjoin the competitors from doing
business under the thousands of fair trade
regulations; or limit the competitors ability to
compete by enacting restrictive legislation or
trade limitations, the business need not compete.
Remember when you could buy a "brand new"
American-made automobile (not that long ago) for
under $3,000? - Then, the American automobile
makers waged war against the Japanese automobile
makers; but not in the marketplace. Rather than
trying to compete with the Japanese, the American
automobile industry lobbied for import
restrictions and limitations levied against that competition.
Unfortunately, this attitude of gaining an
unwarranted, non-competitive edge has permeated
our society. - Students can no longer "fail" in
school; as evidenced by a 60% functional
illiteracy rate among high school graduates. They
are "passed" because requiring them to
toe-the-mark and earn a passing grade would
violate their human rights (it is their human
right to remain ignorant and unlearned). - People
want to receive a paycheck without working; get
rich without effort; lose weight without dieting;
live forever by taking a pill; and be a winner
without playing the game (Monday-morning
quarterbacks are the rule, not the exception).
Competition forced this nation to be great. To
compete, we have developed new technologies,
advanced methods, and diverse approaches to
production. Without competition, we would still
be riding horses (or walking), firing muzzle
loaded muskets, and tilling the soil with our
bare hands. - If necessity is the Mother of
invention, competition is the Mother of necessity.
A business, nation, or person, that accepts,
embraces, and relishes the challenges of
competition has the opportunity to succeed. Those
that strive only to eliminate the challenges of
competition are doomed to self-destruction at the
hands of the self-same methods they use to eliminate their competitors.
J.F. (Jim) Straw
PHLANDER Company
2310 First Street N.E.
Dalton, GA 30721-8127
http://www.businesslyceum.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------
[3] Does Not Compute!
----------------------------------------------------------------
> We will not be publishing E-Tailers Digest for the next two issues.
As Rhoda the Robot would say, "Does Not Compute!"
If you are not publishing the next two issues, then who is?
If the next two issues are not published, then
they are not the next two issues, and hence the
not published would apply to the two issues
beyond that, etc. so there could be no new issues ever again.
The only escape from that logical screw-up is to
publish the equivalent of "this page
intentionally left blank". Which might not be a bad idea.
(Which, if you wish, someone else can do.)
-J- (C) 2006, javilk at mall-net.com ------------------ www.mall-net.com/javilk
--- Laugh at yourself, Our Creator loves company -- and You! ---------------
--- After all, we wouldn't want our Creator to cancel the show, would we? --
+++ [Moderator's Comments] +++
You are absolutely correct. Which is why we
should really identify this as 972, not 971,
since we did say we were not publishing, eh?
Amazing how we say things that we really don't
mean. Like how "I love" that movie. You love a
living thing not an object. You like an
object. Or "I feel" instead of "I believe." Or
the use of "i.e." instead of "e.g."
I'm sure there are hundreds of everyday
statements. What do you think list members?
Thanks for the correction
George
----------------------------------------------------------------
[4] The Rich Are Getting Richer and Spending More on Luxury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Out of the nation’s 113.1 million households, a
total of 30.2 million, or roughly the top 27
percent of households by income, are classified
by Unity Marketing as affluent. These affluent
households have an average income of $137,500,
which is a comfortable income almost anywhere in
America, though hardly rich. In 2004 the number
of affluent households grew 8.4 percent from 27.9
million affluent households in 2002, according to
Unity Marketing’s new Luxury Report 2006: Who
Buys Luxury, What They Buy, Why They Buy.
Among the affluent market the segment with the
highest income also grew faster than any
other. The super-affluents, defined by Unity as
those with incomes of $150,000 and above, grew
18.1 percent from 2002 to 2004 to reach 6.6
million households, more than twice as fast as
the affluent market overall.
Super-affluents spent two times more than
affluents on luxury and three times more than near-affluents
In 2005 the average affluent household spent
$52,588 buying luxuries, up 3.8 percent over the
average amount spent in 2003, or $50,640. But
super-affluents spent significantly more than the other segments on luxuries.
The typical super-affluent household spent
$86,445 buying luxuries in 2005, as compared to
only $26,488 among near-affluents and $42,224
among affluents. Overall super-affluents spent
three times more buying luxury than
near-affluents and two times more than
affluents. The super-affluents outspent
everybody else in all four categories of luxury —
home luxuries, personal luxuries, such as fashion
and jewelry, automobiles and experiences, such as travel and dining.
Trends in spending point to growth for
experiential luxury marketers, while many home
luxury marketers will face challenges
The affluent consumers, while representing just
about one-fourth of U.S. households, are a
powerful force in the consumer economy. Their
spending preferences will determine the ultimate
success of many industry sectors, companies and
luxury brands in the future. For example, the
typical luxury household spent nearly 5 percent
less buying home luxuries in 2005, while their
spending on personal luxuries rose a modest 5.6 percent.
Given these trends in spending, the best
prospects for growth in the home luxury market
are in the categories of garden and outdoor,
kitchen appliances, bath and building products,
and luxury kitchenware and cook’s tools, the only
home categories that experienced increased
spending in 2005. Personal luxury marketers
must remain vigilant about delivering superior
value and quality in their products, while
maintaining competitive prices to attract more luxury consumers in the future.
About Unity Marketing’s new Luxury Report, 2006
This important new study of the luxury market
provides the results of a four-year longitudinal
research study of the luxury market, which
combines qualitative and quantitative
methodologies. This report is compiled from
Unity’s quarterly Luxury Tracking surveys, which
in 2005 included over 4,000 survey
respondents. In 2005 the average income of
respondents was $139,075 and the gender
distribution was 65 percent female and 35 percent
male. The average age of respondents was 42.9
years, with 47 percent of respondents being Baby
Boomers and 38 percent being GenXers.
Pam Danziger, President, Unity Marketing
717-336-1600
Author of Let Them Eat Cake: Marketing Luxury to
the Masses — as well as the Classes
New book, Shopping: Why We Love It and How
Retailers Can Create the Ultimate Consumer
Experience, will be published Fall 2006.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Links to follow
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAP Enterprises, Ltd. http://www.gapent.com/
E-Tailer's Digest http://www.etailersdigest.com
Interim Help http://interimhelp.com
Sophisticated Me http://sophisticatedme.com/
Marketing Your Web http://www.gapent.com/myweb/
Automated Press Releases http://www.automatedpr.com
More information about the ETD
mailing list