On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:46:31 +0100, Pete C
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 10:38:09 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Screwfix and B&Q have become the leading suppliers in their fields in
the UK and B&Q is no. 3 in the world. That isn't achieved or
maintained by not running a business reasonably properly.

Hmmm, McDonalds, Microsoft and Walmart are properly run businesses
that are leaders in their fields, that doesn't say a lot for their
products.

Note that I didn't mention anything about quality.

In the (financial) context that I was using, the normal definition of
leading is by sales revenue, or perhaps on closer look, profitability.

On this definition, all of the companies that you mention are leaders
or close to being so in their fields.

If you apply the quality definition to the same companies, they would
all come quite low on the scale. I certainly wouldn't go into any
store run by Walmart or its subsidiaries, and have as little to do
with the others as possible.



Competition on price alone is good up to a point, but there must come
a point where the effect becomes negative.

I couldn't agree more. You're preaching to the choir.

John Ruskin, the philosopher (1819-1900) had words of wisdom on this.

"There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on
price alone is this man's lawful prey. "

'It is unwise to pay too much, but it is worse to pay too little. When
you pay too much, you lose a little money ... that is all. When you
pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you
bought was incapable of doing the things it was bought to do. The
common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a
lot... it cannot be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is
well to add something for the risk you run. And if you do that, you
will have enough to pay for the something better!"


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl