To: StaggerLee who wrote (1497 ) 7/30/1998 3:57:00 PM From: j_b Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 4903
Thanks for the correction on the grocery stores. The 2% was probably their net margin, not gross. As to Ingram, I agree the scope is significantly different. The point I was making is that you can make make up for low margins with high volume. At what point that becomes an effective strategy is an interesting topic for discussion. Once again, you refer to the general public, but ONSL is targeting business, not the general public, as their future. Will businesses spend billions on computers, travel and other items, especially when combined with sales to the general public? Absolutely - they already do. Will ONSL capture a significant piece of that pie? I don't know - buying ONSL because you do believe they will succeed in the business-to business market would be speculation, but that's okay too. If they do successfully move to that market, their customer acquisition costs will go down, profitability would increase, and their break-even point would become more realistic. I don't consider auctions to be gambling - when you gamble, you can lose your money. When you participate in an auction, you either make a purchase or you don't - you can't lose your money. Will auctions work with businesses? Apparently the existing players in the business-to-business market think so, since many of the major players (including Ingram and several of the computer manufacturers) have started their own business-to-business auctions. They just aren't as good at it (yet) as ONSL. Maybe ONSL can run their auctions as another revenue stream. FWIW - Thanks for the cordial response - I know how easy it is to lose it sometimes when you strongly disagree with the sentiments being discussed - been there, done that.