221–230 of 386 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know of a few retailers that operate on Net 270 terms for their smaller vendors (Looking at you, Home Depot) and Walmart would tell us that they would reset the 'calendar' if we would call and ask for the status of a payment. This was 2003-2006ish, for the record.
>Walmart would tell us that they would reset the 'calendar' if we would call and ask for the status of a payment. How the hell is this even legal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like agreeing to contract terms you are entirely unable to uphold?
They didn't even understand the terms they agreed to. The distributor didn't "grift" them. They weren't swindled, it was just bad business decision making and lack of understanding their terms.
Inventory financing is a severe pain in the ass for small businesses. It makes moving up to the next level incredibly difficult. Math example: You sell something for $20, and it costs you $5. You have free shipping, which costs you $3. Shop and CC fees are maybe $2, so you're netting $10. Then taxes means you net $6. So if you sell 10,000 units you've netted $60k. But to make that $60k you need to spend $50k up front…
> So you use money from the 60k in "profit" to buy inventory, leaving you no profit. Not exactly related but I see a lot of comments online from people usually saying "wow, this business is made up of a bunch of greedy profiteers gouging customers for doing _____ behavior" when in reality... aren't most businesses at most running at 10-20% net profit margin? Small, medium, and large?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They generally are, but if you say net 30 and set a % penalty for not paying in net 30 (common), when a multi-billion dollar corporation decides to do net 90 and won't pay the penalty, what are you going to do as a freelancer? Sue them? The amount of money you spend on legal fees would likely be multiples of the penalty fees. And it would delay payment further. Big corporations rely on this power imbalance.
I wonder how you could word the contract such that failure to pay on time would be onerous enough that the big company would actually move on it. Something like penalties + legal fees + treble damages or something.
Inventory financing is a severe pain in the ass for small businesses. It makes moving up to the next level incredibly difficult. Math example: You sell something for $20, and it costs you $5. You have free shipping, which costs you $3. Shop and CC fees are maybe $2, so you're netting $10. Then taxes means you net $6. So if you sell 10,000 units you've netted $60k. But to make that $60k you need to spend $50k up front…
The "math" is wrong. You've described cash flow, not profit. You still have a profit of $60k. That you choose to reinvest that profit in acquiring additional inventory does not affect the profit calculation on the inventory already sold.
But yes, they’re talking cashflow and liquidity issues.
Others have pointed this out, but no one has actually done the math yet, so... 6000 "units" for $250,000 is $41/unit. At wholesale. For a product that retails for $16/bag. It is just inconceivable that no one noticed this discrepancy. This is not a "grift" by the distributor, this is an elementary and obvious fuckup by the producer. In fact, it's so elementary and obvious that it would not surprise me a bit if this w…
Something something high quality, ethically-sourced coffee? (I don’t actually know the details of those descriptions. Playing devils advocate it sounded to me like they were trying to run a very ethical, environmentally friendly, health-focused business from the start, which is expensive as far as I can tell in the US, so maybe those prices made sense.)
The story smells fake to me. The most charitable interpretation is that they were misled by their "food broker" more than they realize even now.
Others have pointed this out, but no one has actually done the math yet, so... 6000 "units" for $250,000 is $41/unit. At wholesale. For a product that retails for $16/bag. It is just inconceivable that no one noticed this discrepancy. This is not a "grift" by the distributor, this is an elementary and obvious fuckup by the producer. In fact, it's so elementary and obvious that it would not surprise me a bit if this w…
Something something high quality, ethically-sourced coffee? (I don’t actually know the details of those descriptions. Playing devils advocate it sounded to me like they were trying to run a very ethical, environmentally friendly, health-focused business from the start, which is expensive as far as I can tell in the US, so maybe those prices made sense.)
Did I miss something in the article about how this was a grift? While these guys feel like they were screwed, and sure, they might have been screwed, making an order and then cancelling it isn’t a grift. No one stole from them, and I’m not sure how the multi-billion dollar grocery distributor got any financial benefit from the whole episode.
They might order 10x what they think they’ll need to hedge a risk on their side, fully expecting to cancel 90% of them (and telling the suppliers the opposite of course), and screw all but the lucky one. And often use that as leverage on the ‘lucky’ one too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It IS a tough call.
I think the real problem is if there starts to be a reliance on the kindness of strangers and more people decide to dig deeper holes for themselves instead of pulling the pin.
Others have pointed this out, but no one has actually done the math yet, so... 6000 "units" for $250,000 is $41/unit. At wholesale. For a product that retails for $16/bag. It is just inconceivable that no one noticed this discrepancy. This is not a "grift" by the distributor, this is an elementary and obvious fuckup by the producer. In fact, it's so elementary and obvious that it would not surprise me a bit if this w…
Something something high quality, ethically-sourced coffee? (I don’t actually know the details of those descriptions. Playing devils advocate it sounded to me like they were trying to run a very ethical, environmentally friendly, health-focused business from the start, which is expensive as far as I can tell in the US, so maybe those prices made sense.)
I also think it's pretty dishonorable to publicly characterize the consequences of their mistake as a "grift" by their distributor. Modest Coffee is not the victim of anything but their own negligence.