Friday, October 16, 2009

Currently wondering

This idea came to me in the context of Walmart, but I'd imagine it could also apply to other big businesses.

Some people boycott Walmart. I wonder if it would be more damaging if, instead of boycotting, they instead shopped at Walmart but only bought loss leaders, in as copious quantities as they could tolerate and get away with. Never buy anything the company would make a profit on, just things they'd lose money on.

I can think of about half a dozen arguments each for and against this approach.

4 comments:

laura k said...

I don't think this would work. You can't hurt a store by shopping in it.

Can you?

impudent strumpet said...

My thinking is that they're selling loss leaders below cost with the assumption that it will draw people into the store to buy other things, so a huge amount of the loss leaders are sold to people who don't buy other things they'll lose money.

The big question which I can't even begin to figure out how to answer is what the margins are like. Obviously they will have budgeted for some people to buy only the loss leaders, so how many would need to do this to hurt them?

(There's also a bunch of other complicated factors like how it would affect other area retailers and employees etc.)

Another idea would be to use Walmart's washrooms and parking lots and whatever else of their resources that you could use for free, but never buy anything.

laura k said...

Another idea would be to use Walmart's washrooms and parking lots and whatever else of their resources that you could use for free, but never buy anything.

I'm up for this. I'm up for any use of washrooms, anywhere.

impudent strumpet said...

Yes! Peeing for all!