To: Mike M who wrote (3433 ) 12/7/2000 10:43:18 PM From: Mark Marcellus Read Replies (2) | Respond to Case in point...You don't know that it is a coop with GUMM and the retailer...that is your opinion as is your definition of a good distribution company projections . This is fine with everyone. I say that the Eckard POS display was a coop, which seems kind of obvious, and you say that this is my opinion for which I have no proof. would explain why it was gone two weeks later.) Maybe an Eckard executive shot some Zicam up his nose and was so impressed that he ordered the chain to put a display up in every store. Either of these scenarios is possible, just like Dan's projections. Or, scariest of all for GUMM investors, maybe we could say that it was technically not a coop because GUMM compensated Eckhart to put the displays up and walked away, with no attempt to manage the process or make sure there was product to back up the marketing. opinion is that the retailer received some sort of compensation for putting up the POS display, either a cash payment or a marketing allowance. If they didn't it would be highly unusual, and unheard of for a company which hasn't established itself as a market leader. My opinion is that this was a coop, because that is how these things are usually done. My opinion is that good distribution companies make sure that there is product in place to back up their marketing. My opinion is that if this particular instance was anything other than an isolated anomaly, it indicates that the company does not have a clue about marketing and distribution (or, possibly, doesn't care because it's not the cold remedy they're really selling).
