91–100 of 568 posts
My parents were young, and broke, and opened a Sears "charge card" to buy their wedding rings. "Craftsman, so it'll last forever!" I mean, intellectually, I get why Sears is going away, but it still kinda tugs at the ol' heartstrings a little, you know?
The huge Sears campus anchored a community on the west side of Chicago for nearly 70 years, and then they built an HQ2 with a fancy downtown tower (the world's tallest building) in the early 1970s. Having two campuses really cost them a lot of mojo, and by the early 1990s they reconsolidated into a new campus in the far-flung exurbs. It didn't save them and shall now be their final resting place. It's a good thing ot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a good example to those that claim companies should pay employees liberally. Unless you're in a niche that people are willing to pay a margin for or serve upscale customers who also don't mind paying margins (Costco, Whole Foods, Nordstroms, Apple, etc), then you're going to lose business to competitors offering lower prices. In this situation, the only way to improve the well being of those whose labor isn't as…
I am extremely wary of n=1 reasoning. It ends us being confirmation bias. We look at Sears, note that they pay more than Walmart, and say that paying employees more either has no effect, or is harmful. But are we also looking at the thousands of businesses that pay their employees terrible wages, but go out of business? Businesses are complex systems that defy the search for simple explanations. That won't stop human…
Congratulations on driving a company into the ground! Have a golden parachute! https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sears-bankruptcy-court-oks-25-m...
I get the tone of your post But have you considered that prosperity preaching is the bigger issue here? The idea that “success” = wealth or that they are correlated in any circumstance aside from coincidence, and that other combinations are part of a therefore broken system The reason I bring it up is because its a set of rules exclusive to lower socioeconomic groups, as opposed to a more effective set of rules
I'm not saying that this is always the case, or that those are even the best priorities to have. But effort, success and wealth are definitely correlated. There are far more upper-middle to upper class people that put in their time, energy and effort. And far more than the occasional ass that never really worked a day in their life.
Here are some rules to follow...
* Don't have kids before marriage * Don't marry anyone you can't get along with * Stay together when you have kids * Prioritize your family's needs above your own wants
Married/involved parents (plural) are the single biggest correlation factor to financial success.
Edit: I say this as someone in their 40's who has never fathered a child, but been a step-parent and a couple of failed marriages. In the end, a huge portion of the population has irresponsible, even narcissistic, parents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few years ago, the ancient (circa 1998) microwave in my house failed. I merrily trundled off to the local appliance store and bought a new one, and had them install it. Seemed to work, but eventually I realized it must be drawing too much electricity. Like something out of Green Acres , I had to limit what lights and other appliances were on in the kitchen if I wanted to use the microwave. I had an electrician come…
I'm curious, do you remember what the difference in power draw between the old and new microwaves was?
Sears had everything. Global supply chain, check. Top notch distribution operation, check. System and infrastructure to take orders and handling billing, check. Name recognition and established customer base, check. They threw it all away, ending catalog operations in 1993 a year before Amazon.com opened in 1994. They owned part of Prodigy in 1984! Yet somehow thought it was a better move to expand into bigger box re…
The reason Amazon is successful is not because you can shop online (from a catalog) and receive items in the mail. The reason Amazon is successful is because you can do those things and receive your items within two days. Before Prime existed, Amazon had very quick fulfillment, and after Prime two-day it became even better.
The Sears catalog ended in 1993 but the Sears Wish Book continued to exist after that. In 1999 I remember ordering something from the Wish Book required 3 weeks to receive the item. If they didn't have the desire to improve that, then they would never have become Amazon.
> If anything, Sears was the worst positioned to become Amazon. What they had was just completely wrong and more of a burden than a benefit. Had they tried to retool with their massive catalog it likely would have been a disaster. Amazon had a real benefit starting small with just books which let them learn the ropes on the cheap. [0]
I think this is especially relevant here on HN because it shows how startups are required to solve problems. For many problems, a behemoth company has no reason to improve, and a lean startup can rush to a solution faster in many cases.
[0] https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/a6nwj7/sears_bankruptc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point isn't that they were too early, it's that they gave up too quickly. Buying online and picking up from a store really isn't that advanced of a concept.
Buying online and picking up from a store really isn't that advanced of a concept. You're right. Service Merchandise build an empire around it, just by mail or phone instead of computer. Other stores did it, too. JCPenny comes to mind. Even some local and regional chains. Amazon and others think they've invented something. But once again, it's just SV re-inventing something that worked last century.
Sears had everything. Global supply chain, check. Top notch distribution operation, check. System and infrastructure to take orders and handling billing, check. Name recognition and established customer base, check. They threw it all away, ending catalog operations in 1993 a year before Amazon.com opened in 1994. They owned part of Prodigy in 1984! Yet somehow thought it was a better move to expand into bigger box re…
Name recognition This can't be understated, and is something a lot of new companies don't understand. If people know your brand and trust your company, they will hand you money. Anecdata: My parents were massive Sears loyalists. When they bought an appliance, my father researched the various GE models, then bought the Kenmore version. When he wanted a video game console, he researched and decided he wanted an Atari 2…
In a way, they did.
Sears had everything. Global supply chain, check. Top notch distribution operation, check. System and infrastructure to take orders and handling billing, check. Name recognition and established customer base, check. They threw it all away, ending catalog operations in 1993 a year before Amazon.com opened in 1994. They owned part of Prodigy in 1984! Yet somehow thought it was a better move to expand into bigger box re…
There was an enormous Sears near where I grew up. It always felt shabby and badly run. They had lost the recipe even then, when they still had the catalog business. I get the impression from Sears and other big companies that lose their way that they become the playgrounds of big management egos that want to leave a mark and get written about in business publications, whether or not their ideas work.
And you can't operate a mega-chain on premium customer service since the average customer shops on price or convenience.
Department stores have been dying for a long time.