Am I right or are they?

Techhead_2

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I can't see why not, it is a business after all and to live in the world of commerce, one has to commit themselves to doing the work.



Which is better, attempt to satisfy the customer in the shop, or lose the on-line customer anyway? Either way they will lose a customer, at least they have an opportunity to sell something different to the customer in the store to make up for it. A sign on the wall next the products, warning shoppers that if they don't buy now, they will lose the opportunity to secure the bargain; might be an incentive for the store customer to buy straightaway, rather than thinking about it.



I really can't see why that would be an issue. One off the shelf, means one less in stock, surely; how difficult can it be?

Just one example:

I pick one from the shelf and continue my shopping around the store. Meanwhile you place an order for it on-line. Sometime later I go through the checkout. Does the retailer tell me I can't have it or tell you that you can't have it?

Even in the situation where the stock is just sitting on a shelf in a distribution warehouse, there are still occasions when either the stock count is wrong (human error) or the goods can't be sold (eg leaky roof )

What you can't do is design the system to completely eliminate mistakes or unexpected circumstances. You can design it to minimise those occurrences, but people only complain when it goes wrong.

Flyboy152

Techhead wrote: »

Just one example:

I pick one from the shelf and continue my shopping around the store. Meanwhile you place an order for it on-line. Sometime later I go through the checkout. Does the retailer tell me I can't have it or tell you that you can't have it?

The seller tells the one who paid for it last that they can't have it. If the customer is in the shop, they have the opportunity to sell them something else and make amends for their inconvenience. If they have given ample warning (a large sign is probably best) that if they don't put the item through the checkout straightaway, there is a risk they will not be able to purchase it at all, is a good plan. That way, the seller will retain the on-line customer and still have the opportunity to retain the store customer as well and prove that they provide a good level of service when things go wrong (the real test of any retailer).

Even in the situation where the stock is just sitting on a shelf in a distribution warehouse, there are still occasions when either the stock count is wrong (human error) or the goods can't be sold (eg leaky roof )

Then that is the risks of business. If sellers cannot control their stock to an acceptable standard, they are not very good business people. If the seller can't count, or does not maintain his facilities, that is not the fault of the customer.

What you can't do is design the system to completely eliminate mistakes or unexpected circumstances. You can design it to minimise those occurrences, but people only complain when it goes wrong.

I agree, therefore the seller needs to improve their standards. A little bit of care and consideration would go a long way to minimise a loss of reputation. A goodwill gesture of honouring one's commitments to the buyer is a start.

scheming_gypsy

I'm guessing you've never worked in a shop then where there could be breakages, shoplifters, returns and replacements that weren't booked out properly etc etc, but you think it's acceptable to employ numerous people to sit watching the system waiting for orders to come in just so they can pick them the second they're ordered?

you're living on a very strange planet if you think retail will ever work like that

Flyboy152

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

I'm guessing you've never worked in a shop then where there could be breakages, shoplifters, returns and replacements that weren't booked out properly etc etc, but you think it's acceptable to employ numerous people to sit watching the system waiting for orders to come in just so they can pick them the second they're ordered?

you're living on a very strange planet if you think retail will ever work like that

You are describing something that doesn't happen on a regular basis. It really doesn't take much for some to to walk to a shelf and take it off. If it has been "stolen," that would be the only viable excuse, but breakages and miscounts are the fault of the seller and no one else. If they can't manage their business effectively, they need to reconsider their career choices.

It doesn't take numerous people to sit watching the system waiting for orders to come in, properly administered systems can facilitate a business to keep proper control of its stock, with the minimum of human interference.

scheming_gypsy

i can't be bothered replying to you any more. You either really do think you're right or you know you're wrong you're just being ridiculous but i'm out.

You're clearly enjoying looking stupid.

Flyboy152

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

i can't be bothered replying to you any more. You either really do think you're right or you know you're wrong you're just being ridiculous but i'm out.

You're clearly enjoying looking stupid.

It really is not rocket science to keep track of ones stock. I fail to see why anyone would imagine that it is.

sharpy2010

I don't see why you are talking about maintaining stock levels with regards to a business which runs both online and real shops concurrently. The OP is talking about eBuyer, which has only an online presence.

So quite frankly you're both arguing about something that the OP hasn't even asked, just for the sake of it.

sharpy2010

For the sake of being a bit one sided though, I agree with Flyboy... A stock maintenance system shouldn't be difficult or complicated to install... Buy 10, sell 1, have 9 left. It gets no more complex than that.