First it threatened the music industry, then movies, then the news media. Now the internet is starting to worry any number of industries and even governments with unprecedented online interconnectedness across communities and borders. With no end in sight to the disruptive impact of online technology, here’s a handy how-to guide for wealthy, powerful industries who want to respond to the fact that people are using the internet to avoid giving them money:
- This is important: make sure you completely fail to understand the possibilities offered by the internet in providing a better product to your customers. That of course might involve moving away from the comfortable business model that has served you – if not your customers – so well for generations, and possibly even require some vision, investment and risk-taking – hardly the stuff of entrepreneurship. Continue to treat your customers like passive sources of cash without minds of their own.
- Initially dismiss the internet as a non-issue that poses no threat to you and will never replace the authentic experience you offer via real world objects like CDs, newspapers or shops. If it’s online, it isn’t real, so how could anyone treat it as real?
- When it becomes a serious threat, reach into your bag of stereotypes. Play the nationalism card, suggesting only those nasty foreigners benefit from the internet, and not the honest working folk in your own country whose continuing employment is the real goal of your business activities, not accumulating personal wealth. If that doesn’t work, use various other stereotypes, like suggesting that using the internet supports organised crime, pedophilia or terrorism.
- Start claiming there’s something unlawful about the internet. Argue that what your customers or online competitors are doing is illegal, even if it isn’t. Start combing legislation for something to charge people with, or threaten to sue your customers or competitors to deter them. Rail against competitors as “parasites” spongeing off your hard work.
- If there’s no specific legislative prohibition on what your customers and competitors are doing, demand that governments make one. Do that even if normally you devote all your time to campaigning for smaller government and less “red tape” for business.
- Run a media campaign – in old media outlets – against your online competitors that is so laughable its only result is to draw further attention to your competitors and make you an object of internet mockery.
- Finally, sit back and watch your industry become home to smarter, third-party players who have worked out how to offer your customers an effective online service, transferring a substantial chunk of what should be your profits to them.
These handy tips have been tried and tested by a number of industries who have had to deal with the threat of the internet. You’ll find they work for you just as well as they’ve worked in other sectors!
42 Comments
Excellent analysis!
Rather than shoot fish in a barrel with about how the majors are coming across dealing with it, sadly even Crikey is not addressing that many local independent retailers are hurting from online sales, due in part to what many see as a uneven playing field of… simply put… buy in Australia you pay tax, buy from overseas you don’t pay tax.
It’s not Myer or Harvey Norman that will close it’s the independent specialty stores that make up the character of your Brunswick or Greville Streets that are closing.
The argument shouldn’t be “support Australia don’t buy online”… but that there is a tax loophole that encourages overseas online shopping.
If it can go online, it will go online. This is the new reality – adjust to it
Gold, Bernard. Truly.
It’s kind of scary just how often those exact steps have been taken by totally unrelated industries and industry “players”…
Steele @2: The problem isn’t the tax difference. I can buy books from the book depository for less than half the price they are at Borders. I can buy games from the UK 12 months before they’re released in Australia. Though I have to wait for postage, I can get the buying and selling done instantly, instead of waiting for poor sales service and dealing with holiday crowds in shopping centres.
I don’t shop online because it’s 10% cheaper.
I love my local retailers. I particularly love that a lot of them have online stores, and if I’m in a hurry I don’t mind ordering online and paying $5 to get something sent to my work or my home rather than take a couple of hours off work and go to their store and buy it in person.
But I can’t do that with Harvey Norman.
I went to pre-order a book yesterday, and I looked it up on http://www.borders.com.au and it was $51 for the paperback. So I went to http://www.BookDepository.co.uk and it was $16. So my money went overseas, and the saving of $1.60 in GST was negligible to the saving of $35 on the cost of the book. *This* is where I look for savings.
@steelesaunders
What’s your evidence that the internet or the tax exemption is hurting independent traders? It is my observation that independents and small traders are the ones that are adapting to the new reality best of all, either by going online themselves and/or offering products and services that actually appeal to their customers.
steelesaunders it is called competition. Many a high street shop was driven out of business by the likes of Harvey Norman and time stands still for no one. Adapt or die.
I buy online vitamins, cosmetics, vet supplies (much cheaper!) and mag subscriptions. I buy them from Australian online sellers, every one of them. But yesterday I went looking for a wah wah pedal for my daughter. I found one in the states for $68US and on special here (near my house) for $99. Of course I supported my local music retailer for a measly $30 (not considering the exchange commission and postage costs) but when I went in there I realised that it originally cost $139 and had been discounted. Frankly with such a massive gap in price, well of course I would have ordered it from the states. So I agree with Daniel, if it’s a case of GST versus postage and buying Aussie, I’ll choose Australia every time. But if you’ve ever worked in retail you know how much stuff is marked up, and the wages they pay are pathetically low. A bit like the pathetically low royalties that musos get from the record company. So sorry, I have zero tolerance for behemoths like Harvey Norman with their “no interest till” traps for the unsuspecting. I will always pay for customer service and that is where these dinosaurs are failing. Shades of IBM…………
@steelesaunders
A: The difference is rarely, if ever, within that 10% margin, though. If it were, I’m sure many would purchase from stores just to save themselves the wait for goods from overseas, and to have the satisfaction of being able to actually handle the goods prior to purchasing.
B: They don’t pay our tax (if under $1,000), but they do pay tax for whatever jurisdiction they’re shipping from. In many cases this is actually notably higher than Australia’s GST. Do you think that tax should be paid twice on an internet sale? Even with that, refer to my point in A:
The Recent JP Morgan Internet Outlook 2011 suggest continued to shift online and that undifferentiated retailers will suffer.
See http://emoney.allthingsd.com/20110104/making-the-case-for-e-commerce-i-e-amazon-in-2011/?mod=ATD_rss&mod=atd
The emerging power of social networks/mobile devices for discovering products – 8% of Amazon’s traffic comes by facebook! – must also be considered.
The purchasing scale of Amazon (or other etailers) for example, and their inventory/logistics efficiencies/scale are such that it is cheaper to buy from overseas and has been for a while (notwithstanding the $AUD) – compared to the relatively small portion (2%) of the global economy that is Australia.
I truly wonder if the current situation that retailers are complaining about that hurts – the volumes seem too low and much of the noise about poor sales I am sure is clouded too by cautious consumers in today’s economic uncertainty.
The next few years may mark the true globalisation of retail businesses across the complete supply chain, or at the very least emergence of true scale players in rich countries such as Europe and US that can compete at-a-distance with local players across the supply chain.
- nc
@steelesaunders
REALITY:
Online sales only account for 3% of retail sales in Australia. Of those, half of those retailers are Australian.
IT’S THE END OF THE WORLD!
The Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten is absolutely correct, the cost of enforcing compliance would outweigh any revenue recouped.
One of the things local retailers could do is work on reasons why customers should buy from them instead of online. For example, they could sell Australian made/grown product, and make a big sell to potential customers that Australian-made, Australian-grown is better.
Oh yea thats right, the retailers dont buy any Australian product any more.
They moved all their buying to online sources. They buy overseas because it costs less.
Now they have the cheek to criticise us for doing the same thing??
Where was Gerry Harvey et al when all those manufacturers were going to the wall because they couldnt sell their products to retailers any more?
The music industry nearly went to the wall becuase they tried to push back the tide of the internet. Apple Computer saw the opportunities that the music industry SHOULD have seen and is now the world’s biggest music retailer.
Lesson to learn there, Gerry Harvey, if you’ll only stop whinging long enough to see it.
Those in retail that worry about losing their jobs could always work as courier drivers for all those internet deliveries.
Steele, Many retail businesses happily source their product from lower wage countries, avoiding paying for the wages and better conditions of Australian manufacturing workers and sending Australian money overseas. Why? It’s cheaper, there is more profit to be made. End result: Australian industries contract, Australians lose jobs. Why is it ok for retailers to do this to manufacturers, but not for consumers to do it to retailers?
To turn your own words around: simply put… retailers who buy in Australia pay for Australian manufacturing jobs, wages and conditions, retailers who buy from overseas don’t.
Again… I’m not saying don’t buy online… that’s not what the discussion should be at all.
Yes Australian stores do buy products from overseas to sell here… and they PAY A IMPORT DUTY.
When people buy products from overseas they don’t.
I am very aware the price difference is more than 10% by the way… but it adds to it.
Now ignoring the logistics of it all… do you think thats basically fair?
It is frustrating that ALL RETAILERS are bundled together with Gerry Harvey as some evil corporation.
Gold! well done
If customers don’t like physical shops … THEN DON’T BLOODY SHOP IN THEM.
Can you not make that choice on your own, without a distortive tax policy nudging customers in that direction? We have what amounts to a 10 per cent reverse tariff against the domestic competition.
So let’s all use the tax system to punish all those nasty shop people for groping their David Jones employees on a daily basis, running out of my shoe size, stocking a bit of everything instead of a choice of ten thousand models of 40 inch plasma, expecting me to pay prices which cover reasonable wages for employees, and most of all, for refusing to serve me twenty minutes after closing time when they’re trying to catch the last train home.
steelesaunders – “Now ignoring the logistics of it all… do you think thats basically fair?”
It’s fair when you include the logistics. Local buying means you pay GST. Overseas buying means you pay individual freight. The difference between the two is sod-all.
Local buying of imported products means you pay both GST and freight. Individual freight charge if you make a special order because your local specialty fishing shop does not have the exact model of tackle you want.
Additionally, if you buy from a showroom you pay inventory holding costs, inventory wastage costs, wages, rent, insurance, and despite what DrButtocks wrote at 3:18pm, all applicable taxes in the country of origin.
For that, you get to browse through a coherent selection of goods which the retailer has selected and sourced out of the millions available, taking into account coverage of the most common customer requirements as well as quality and minimal likelihood of return. You get after-sales support such as spare parts, fast return and swap, and authorized-dealer warranty coverage.
If it’s a specialty shop you may get expert advice right there in the shop. Even if it’s a discount warehouse or department store with school-leavers on the sales floor, they can almost always put you in a phone conversation with the supplier if you have any technical questions. That’s an option I use fairly often.
If I don’t like a shop, I walk out. As the customer I may not always be right, but I sure have the power to act like I am. I don’t need some tariff-like distortion to pressure other customers into making the same choices I do. You think foreign internet merchants are better? Fine, then use foreign internet merchants. But don’t ram your choice down my throat by using tax distortions to close down marginal shops.
It’s true that the $1000 threshold was intended to save compliance costs, it wasn’t intended to be a reverse tariff. But that’s how it’s turned out as internet shopping proliferates and cross-border payment systems eliminate foreign exchange fees.
Taxes have both direct and indirect effects. Direct effects are revenue and compliance costs. Indirect effects are what’s called “excess burden” or “deadweight cost”. When a tax is applied unevenly, it distorts a lot of decisions. The economy limps a little bit, like having one leg shorter than the other, so it produces less and grows less. So when Bill Shorten says eliminating the threshold would cost more than it raises, I’m not convinced that he’s correct.
“many local independent retailers are hurting from online sales, due in part to what many see as a uneven playing field of… simply put… buy in Australia you pay tax, ”
I buy books online. If I want to buy something relatively rare (I don’t mean collectable, I just mean out of print, not among current best sellers and unavailable in my home city) the internet is easy convenient and cheap. M
@freecountry
I stand corrected on the tax point.
That said, this “excess burden” is still negligible. The 10% difference that GST puts on is not in any way inducing shoppers to buy from overseas online. This is simply not a direct nor an indirect effect because, as many have noted, the price difference far exceeds 10% – add 10% to the price and it’s still much more beneficial for consumers to purchase online.
Further, the total of online sales in Australia amount to a measly 3% of retail business. With the bulk of that 3% coming from stores within Australia anyway. Australian businesses (large or small) are simply not hurting because of the online purchasing model and the tax break that overseas online purchases get, and any attempt to say that they are is a flat-out lie. It may become true in the future, but for now it is most certainly not.
If one takes these points into consideration, then it becomes pretty damn clear that Bill Shorten’s statement is perfectly accurate.
The way business is conducted is changing (just as it has done in the past), and the only way to deal with it is to accept that change and work with it – try new business models. Any attempt to do otherwise will result in the deserved end of a business.
DrButtocks,
Suppose something you want is $500 down the local shops, or $400 from an overseas Ebay store. There are certain advantages to buying from a local retailer, as I discussed above. Let’s say you estimate those advantages to be worth about $50 to you.
Then, even if $40 GST is charged on the overseas option, the difference of $60 still exceeds the $50 of local value-add, so you would still buy remotely. But if the price difference is only $90, or if the local value-add is worth $60 to you, it becomes a break-even choice, and from from that point your favour would shift over to the local shop.
That’s how tariffs work. A 10 per cent import tariff makes no difference if the import is 30 percent better value for money, but there is a margin in which it makes all the difference, and that can be enough to make or break some businesses that are on the edge.
Microeconomics all happens at the margins. No one is trying to stop the overseas internet trade in its tracks. Retailers just want the same tax for everyone, then let the game of competition play out fairly. Some people think it’s not worth the compliance cost; some think it is. What I don’t understand is all the hatred that’s been poured all over retailers in recent days, just for suggesting that taxes should be charged evenly.
From the coal face: I TOLD YOU TO GET AN ONLINE PRESENCE!!! (frustrated Communications writer to ‘she’ll be right mate’ retail clients who took the above seven steps program)
Seems to me that this argument is not about where to buy, but about the outrage at Gerry Harvey’s hypocrisy in leading the big retailers’ great charge to the rear.
Defending the indefensible is always hard – I sympathise with steelesaunders.
If I’m naive in seeing this in simple, black and white terms, I’m in good company.
Gerry is simply verbalising the mantra of the true hypocrite: Do as I say, not as I do. This one time billionaire shows his colours when he promotes his “buy now pay much more much later” schemes to the great unwashed.
@freecountry. You are not alone on not getting the ‘hatred’. This is a tired and beaten up consumer base who has found a new market place that they like better than the old one. The ‘level playing field’ is a furphy – and they get that.
Freecountry,
The difference is that (for the vast majority of cases) that thing you want that’s $500 from the local shops is usually between $200 and $300 online. Those local value-additions would have to be pretty damn hefty. And they’re normally not. Service in most Australian shops (compared to other countries that I’ve shopped in) is abysmal, both in terms of politeness and product-knowledge – I wouldn’t put the advantages of purchasing in most stores in Australia at more than $10, but that is a personal opinion and I begrudge nobody their choice to disagree on that point.
Again, though, online retail accounted for only 3% of retail sales in Australia in 2010. And, once more, the vast majority (80%) of that 3% was spent through Australian online retailers. An even smaller proportion of that remaining 0.6% of retail that’s going to overseas online retailers would be affected by imposition of a 10% GST, probably bringing it to around 0.2% gain to brick-and-mortar stores (this is only my opinion on that final number, but I would say that it’s really quite generous given the numbers being worked with here) if anything at all. In all honesty, if your business model is so fragile that a 0.2% drop in sales is going to bankrupt you, then I’m sorry to inform you that you need to change the way you do business, because you’re clearly doing something quite wrong.
Also, remember that the freight costs are much higher for individual purchases made online for overseas stores than they are for businesses importing in bulk (even with the import tariffs that businesses have to pay) – it may not make up 10% of the price of the goods, but it certainly eats further into price differences, making that 0.2% I gave earlier seem an even more generous number.
The problem, at least for me, isn’t the potential of paying an extra 10% on orders under $1,000 – put it on there, I don’t care, I’ll still shop primarily online because of choice, customer service, and enormous savings, whether they be overseas or local retailers – it’s the way the message was delivered. Gerry Harvey et al badly misrepresented themselves (“Supporting Australian jobs”? That phrase, or anything like it, coming from any of those people is odious at best) and have acted like self-entitled, whiny toddlers who have already bullied the other children around them out of their toys and are now upset that there are some other kids with a handful of their own.
The tax situation certainly needs to be looked at, not because it’s affecting Australian businesses small or large (it patently isn’t in any appreciable way when you look at the numbers – retail trade in Australia actually rose almost 3% in the 12 months to October) but because it’s simply unfair. The problem is that a tax is designed to generate revenue for a government, and applying this no-GST threshold much lower than it is currently set will result in money lost (yes, even if you factor in the supposed “damage” to the retail industry).
Dr Buttocks – Is that 3% of discretionary retail consumption, or 3% all retail sales including daily groceries?
The line about supporting Australian jobs is a fallacy. As Ross Gittins explains, we’re not in the 70s any more, and free trade creates more new jobs with one hand than it takes away with the other. As long as it’s genuine free trade supported on a level playing field.
Also this …
Yes, but for specialty shops in a downturn, that often means de-risking and becoming generic. Laying off knowledgable staff, dropping high quality goods, dropping unusual product lines, and targetting the lowest common denominator.
For example, a lot of independent bookshops, ranging from quirky to exotic, have died during the last two years, being swept away by a tide of Dymocks chain stores which make a steadier, more reliable profit. Like the ice-cream sellers all drifting towards the middle of the beach.
Now maybe you are happy finding books by following the “other customers bought this” links in Amazon, but I’m not. Sure you can get a bargain on the latest by your favourite author in Book Depository, but how did you discover that author in the first place? I’ve had real trouble finding interesting novels on the bookshelves of shops lately, and I’ve almost stopped reading them since 2009.
the vitriol directed at Gerry Harvey is hardy surprising for those at the receiving end of his advertising…there is a group who will not respond to the advertising style of HN, will go for one item (usually 70% off ‘normal’ pricing) and leave immediately. These are the group who are internet connected, perhaps (attempt) to watch sport on free to air constantly interrupted by intrusive brash loud advertising with unbelievable interest free periods…
this articulate mobile group have access to the means of production in the media..and use it!
as we all have done in this comments section
the attitude we have towards ‘on sale’ periods is resolute that we will not pay ‘full price’ as the full price is often 200% markup
the early plasma TV were over 300% markup
store bought for over $5000, internet same model $2000 plus shipping of $250 direct from Korea
that’s where computers are different
PC are typically 70% markup, more usually 30%
apple is 4% – that’s why there is very little discounting apart from loss leaders on anything apple
in the early days IBM took over 100%….
IBM no longer sells notebook or consumer computers
commenters have been very restrained with regards Gerry, and Solomon wisely Dick Smith stayed well away from this one!!
now to start on Bunnings…
The problem Mr Harvey faces is that he chose the wrong growth strategy. By franchising his stores he got fast growth without him putting up much capital or taking much risk but still retaining a large amount of control. However, these franchises don’t want Mr Harvey undercutting them by him offering the same goods online. Thus the Harvey Norman web site doesn’t do e-commerce.
You can compare this with a competitor — JB HiFi. Their strategy was to raise funds through a stock offering and use that as capital for their growth. There are no franchisees, and thus no reason not to offer a good e-commerce website.
So how can Mr Harvey respond? He can’t undo those franchise agreements. He could possibly renegotiate them to allow for a “e-commerce channel” but in return the franchisees would negotiate to send less of their revenue to Mr Harvey. And one hold-out franchisee could scupper the whole thing.
In the meantime, he can derail the threat from other retailers by prodding the government to “do something about them” and by giving those websites a black mark in shoppers’ minds. It’s fair to say that this tactic has been counterproductive.
You can see that Mr Harvey’s “threat” to run a website beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of Australia has significant contract advantages, not just minor taxation advantages. The “threat” is unlikely to be carried out — there is enough of Harvey Norman’s operations in Australia for aggrieved franchisees to get restitution, and his extensive remarks about using a China-bases site to avoid GST would doubtless be used by the ATO to argue that it is a tax evasion scheme.
It was nice to watch the government not get all flustered, develop a backbone, and shove the thing off to a committee for a decent burial. Similarly it was nice to watch the opposition see through this transparent special pleading and say “you’ve got to be dreaming” rather than seek some minor political point scoring.
What hasn’t been so good is the readiness of the Australian media to fail to do any fact checking. So they’ve quoted a statement that Germany charges GST on postal imports. Which is true. But like Australia they have a minimum value for which they don’t charge because that would lead to excessive overhead, currently Eu45. The low amount is a form of protectionism, as imports from other EU members are GST-free.
Ref: http://www.zoll.de/faq/postverkehr/postverkehr/
GlenTurner1,
First of all, Harvey’s reasons – whether cynical, altruistic, or anything in between – have nothing to do with whether he’s right or not. That question should be decided purely on its merits.
Second, your suggestion that Harvey’s proposal would benefit only his business, and only because of the particular problems facing his franchise business model, would be more convincing if either (a) he were trying to shut down internet trading, or (b) his domestic competitors were avoiding tax through online commerce. But neither of these is true.
Third, for those of us who don’t read German, could you please clarify why Germany’s tax laws are “a form of protectionism”. Isn’t it true that the EU is a free trade zone in which GST is charged only in the country of origin, so the special treatment of intra-EU movement of goods is nothing to do with protectionism? Isn’t it more comparable to the free movement of goods between Australian states?
Can I safely assume that all contributors to this topic that want the $1,000 limit removed, agree that it should also be removed from duty free purchases?
This is good Bernard Keane, very very good. It is nice to see you lending a hand to the old guard and it seems they are following your advice to the letter. best laugh I have had all day. Thanks.
Tamo – Speaking for myself, yes.
Yes, Gerry Harvey & Co screwed up with their ill-conceived & ill-timed campaign. (If you want to make a goose of yourself, don’t do it in the silly season when your dopey campaign is guaranteed to get maximum airplay &, hence, attract maximum ridicule.)
And, yes, it’s true the big retailers are losing business because they failed to move with the times, not just with an on-line presence but with a greater variety of stuff to match what’s on offer in the global bazaar.
But in our justifiable glee at their anguish over their spectacular own goal, let’s not lose sight of the fact that there is a real issue here that will have to be addressed sooner or later.
It’s not the fate of the billionaire retailers we should be concerned about but, instead, the state of the Federal Treasury’s coffers. If we purchase stuff from O/S that we’d normally buy at home, there is a loss of revenue that ultimately comes back to bite all of us. While I admit having taken advantage of the loophole, I think it’s madness to let it continue, particularly now Gerry & Co have given it such an enormous plug – if anyone didn’t know that goods are significantly cheaper on line before the billionaires started bleating, they certainly do now. And this greater awareness of the bargains to be had is going to mean that on-line/cross-border buying is going to continue to grow as a proportion of total consumer spending.
The government would be crazy not to close the loophole. If on-line purchases above $1000 attract GST, there is no reason why purhases below that amount shouldn’t also be slugged. As many people have already pointed out, even with the GST, those on-line purchases would still be a bargain compared to what it would cost to buy the same goods on the Australian high street, but at least we as a community would be reaping some of the benefit through the sales tax we pay on just about everything else we buy.
It’s a simple matter of equity and broader self interest.
@Stephen Feneley
There is a reason imports less than $1,000 don’t attract GST. Unlike with Australian retailers, the Australian Govt has no jurisdiction to compel foreign traders to collect and remit GST. The responsibility would fall on the Govt itself (probably through Customs), whose added compliance costs would, by all accounts, outweigh the revenue collections.
(And yeah, this means that all GST-registered businesses are effectively unpaid tax collectors for the Govt, but that’s another issue for another day.)
@freecountry
If you want to wipe out the distortions, fine, cut the $1,000 per-item threshold. But be sure to exempt purchases from businesses with turnover of less than $75,000. Small Australian retailers enjoy this exception, so it’s only fair to extend it to foreign traders, isn’t it?
What disturbs me is the way this has turned into a hate-fest. Consumers are already the legitimate judge, jury and executioner of poor retail service. If they don’t like Harvey Norman or any other retailers, consumers have the legitimate means to starve those businesses or even shut them down, simply by taking their money elsewhere to another shop or to overseas online traders. There is no need to defend distortions in the tax system as a stick for beating them over the head and pre-judging the consumer’s choice.
Compare our reverse-tariff regime with the more careful tax regime of the European Union. According to Wikipedia, the EU’s Low Value Consignment Relief on Value Added Tax (VAT, equivalent to our GST) can exempt imports only up to a maximum value of €22 (AUD 28).
freecountry,
If you are still interested, for the English version see http://www.zoll.de/faq/postverkehr/postverkehr/ (there is also a French one). All three pages have little flags for the three versions in the top right-hand corner under the site’s search box .
Sometimes sites have very clear links to their pages in other languages; sometimes I find it difficult to locate them; sometimes there are none.
This comment is for info only as GlenTurner1 did not respond to you. I have NOT read through the detail at the English page to see how it applies to the topic being discussed here.
Thanks, A.N.Onymus. I didn’t find the English version of that page, but in any case, Germany is part of a European Union Value Added Tax Area in which goods crossing internal borders are not considered imports. Similar in many ways to Australia’s constitutionally guaranteed interstate free trade zone. The Germans are pretty smart, and if they see good reason to set the threshold at €45 I think we should consider carefully their reasons for doing so.
Seems to me that one of the problems the Hardley Normals of the world face with the internet sales is the removal of a second source of income. They miss direct sales. then they miss the commissions from selling GE Credit to persons who not only cant pay cash but cant ever afford a massive ballon payment when the two years nothing to pay time runs out.Any one who doubts this go look at the lists at your local court of petty sessions.
These people are parasites on the community and deserve to loose sales to the internet offerings.
A. N. Onymus: I’ve no interest in a “debate”, thus my lack of reply. I wrote a considered letter and readers are more than capable of considering the points raised and extending the arguments further themselves. In general, I have found extended point-by-point Internet discussion to be time-wasting and fruitless. I would rather spend that time elsewhere.