Re: I'll not miss them
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Harpozep
While I feel bad for the employees,, I'll not shed a tear. CC played hard and fast with their employees last year if you recall, getting rid of experienced higher paid help , hiring new cheaper less knowledgeable folks to "Help" us. 
|
And even that cost-cutting didn't help keep the stores profitable. If you're trying to assert that what they did was a bad idea, what the heck do you think would have been a better idea? Incurring even more cost?

Don't get me wrong -- if you're trying to say that they should have just given up and went out of business last year, because there was no profitable business plan possible, then perhaps you have a point. However, other than that, if you're trying to say that "playing hard and fast" was not the right move, then I think you're way off-base.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Harpozep
Imagine having to pay each viewing of a DVD? Yup, modem and all, so they could allow you access to the DVD content, and charge you per "view cycle"
|
What's good for the suppliers is not necessarily good for the consumer; that's not news. Sometimes, the consumer isn't paying enough attention, and what's good for the suppliers succeeds. That time it didn't. I think you're trying to ascribe nefarious intentions to something that was simply business.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Harpozep
Circuit City lost over 100 million dollars on that scheme. I wonder if it hurt them in the long run? Bet they could use the money now.
|
Doubtful. That was so long ago, that it counts as ancient history. What did Circuit City in was the ascendancy of Amazon.com and its ilk. In just the one year prior to the discontinuation of the DIVX rental system, AMZN shot up from about $16 to $62 per share. That specific point in time was the beginning of the end for Circuit City, but not because of DIVX. Indeed, DIVX, if it was successful, might have been Circuit City's saving grace in all this. However, DIVX was ten years before its time; the big problem was that the physical media was necessary, and at that time, more costly than it is today. You will see today's version of DIVX, prospering, over the next couple of years, as several companies move to a more broadband-based online video model. They benefit from electronic delivery, and therefore no cost for the media. Netflix Watch Instantly, for example, is what DIVX always should have been, but simply was not practical until recently.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Harpozep
Bad decisions can be with you your whole life as a company.
|
Up until the ascendancy of Amazon.com and its ilk, Circuit City actually did quite well, making generally good decisions. It is incredibly easy to have perfect hind-sight. I suspect that it is likely that short of basically buying (all of) Amazon.com when it was at $16, Circuit City was doomed as of Amazon.com's ascendancy, and no other decision (i.e., no decision other than buying or building Amazon.com in 1999) would have saved Circuit City.
And if you think that Best Buy disproves this, get back to me in five years and we'll go over how many B&M stores Best Buy still has, then. Indeed, I suspect the main reason why Best Buy is doing better than Circuit City is that they had the luck of deciding to go online sooner and stronger than Circuit City -- but it won't save B&M.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Harpozep
For myself and many others, the DIVX debacle was enough to sour us forever on the company.
|
Luckily, the vast majority of customers didn't even remember, a month later, that Circuit City had anything to do with DIVX -- perhaps never even knew or cared.