Google cannibalizing their assets? Isn’t it a bit early for that?

Post by kirubakaran » Tue, Dec 02, 2008, 6:34 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #13

byrneseyeview wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many chain stores end up doing this. Krispy Kreme had a great business because people would drive an hour out of their way to eat there -- but that means that having two locations within an hour of each other is redundant.

Starbucks does this intentionally. They place franchises within walking distance of each other (in downtown Boston, there are literally 2 Starbucks on opposite sides of the block ), knowing that they'll cannibalize each other's sales. But they do it for branding reasons: by placing stores so close together, they make Starbucks ubiquitous and turn it into a cultural phenomenom, which helps the corporate bottom line at…

Post by scott_s » Tue, Dec 02, 2008, 9:31 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #13

byrneseyeview wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many chain stores end up doing this. Krispy Kreme had a great business because people would drive an hour out of their way to eat there -- but that means that having two locations within an hour of each other is redundant.

Starbucks does this intentionally. They place franchises within walking distance of each other (in downtown Boston, there are literally 2 Starbucks on opposite sides of the block ), knowing that they'll cannibalize each other's sales. But they do it for branding reasons: by placing stores so close together, they make Starbucks ubiquitous and turn it into a cultural phenomenom, which helps the corporate bottom line at…