Hacker News Reader

Comment by skellera | Hacker News Reader

Not for everything but Walmart is cheaper on many things. Amazon used to be the cheapest but that is no longer the case. People just assume Amazon is the cheapest for some reason but they’re just the most convenient.

View on HN

> People just assume Amazon is the cheapest for some reason

They were for a long time, especially when they didn't collect sales tax. Many people just stopped comparison shopping and haven't realized the situation's changed.

> but they’re just the most convenient.

Not necessarily. Oddly enough, Best Buy is the most convenient for me (for electronics), and it's usually not any more expensive than Amazon, at least for the stuff I buy. Amazon less convenient due to the hassle with their delivery delays and packing materials.

> Best Buy is the most convenient for me (for electronics), and it's usually not any more expensive than Amazon

They will also price match Amazon in most cases. I hear a lot of people complain about Best Buy but I’ve made a few big purchases at my local Best Buy store and their employees were super helpful and friendly. I’d much rather shop there and get the item immediately rather than wait two days, personally.

I used to have a very low opinion of Best Buy but I’ve recently found myself going there for the majority of electronics I buy...no shipping or filtering through counterfeits like on Amazon, and there’s one that’s open 24/7 within walking distance of my office in NYC. Employees are friendly and helpful if not extraordinarily knowledgeable. Hard to beat on the convenience front.

Best Buy refused to price match Phillips Hue bulbs for me because they were apparently a "prime" only price.

Made no sense for me to pay more ($20 across 4 bulbs) to get them that day in person.

There are some things I just try to buy local... laptops and displays (TV/Monitors). In the end, if you get a bad one, it's usually apparent within a day or two, and it's far easier to deal with in a store. I think I just have bad luck with TVs and Monitors though. Despite doing research, about half the time I order either via Amazon/Delivery, I regret it (last time 42" 4K monitor was DOA).

Almost everything else, I tend to favor Amazon though. But I find myself looking locally more and more.

And if they are more expensive but I wanted something fast, Best Buy has always price matched Amazon for me without question.

Almost a little bit embarrassing, but to share an anecdote -- I bought a higher-end TV late last year (>$2k) and the price difference on Amazon was $2.

I half-jokingly asked the gentleman helping me if we could price match, and how long that would take. He said that if their automated system "accepted it" then it'd be instant.

Their system did accept it pretty much immediately, and so I saved $2 for about 90 seconds 'delay' (half of which was borderline laughter/seeing if I was serious; I was only half-serious).

Made for a positive experience for me and my wife, and I now won't hesitate to consider Best Buy, via price match, in the future if I'm ordering something that they stock locally. It was also the first time I'd ever asked for a price match in the last 10+ years, if ever. :)

But does Best Buy still have a restocking fee? I found their return policies unfriendly given that they charge a premium for the physical store experience.

No restocking fees, and pretty much a no questions asked return if it's within the time window which changes depending on your reward level. I can return anything except software within 45 days of purchase and they price match Amazon.

Keep in mind that Best Buy will ban you from returns if it is a frequent thing or other factors (type of items, etc). Obviously this won't affect most people but if you tend to try things and return then don't do it with Best Buy.

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-buy-punishes-customers-f...

But apparently, so will Amazon. https://slate.com/business/2018/05/amazon-is-banning-custome...

There's also the fact that Walmart achieves low prices by strong arming suppliers into giving them lower quality goods masquerading as the "same" model.

Buying anything that you expect to keep more than a year is a waste at Walmart, even if its cheaper.

Just curious, do you have any links to evidence on this?

Full Disclosure: I'm a WM Associate, but am speaking on my own. This type of behavior is against our Code of Ethics, and would be sent to investigation.

Obviously, Walmart doesn't say, "give me lower quality goods". Walmart says, "give me goods for lower price than last year, or we'll cancel our order", which then pushes suppliers to cut corners for Walmart orders.

i have often heard a claim that electronics manufacturers sometimes have a "walmart" version of certain products which are made with cheaper parts but sold in almost-identical packaging to the version that they stock at other retailers. i haven't been able to find any specific examples, though, so i don't think it's true. or, at least, it isn't a common practice.

many electronics manufacturers, however, do create "black friday" versions of their products. this is well-documented. i think this practice is the origin on the claim made by the GP.

I think that's more about price matching...

BestBuy: "Sorry, but that Walmart price is actually a different TV model."

Try comparison shopping for TVs.

You'll find the following:

     LG TV Serial:ABC123WM  at walmart
     LG TV Serial:ABC123BB  at best buy

Every chain gets their own "differentiation" on the serial number. Same fucking monitor, same bells and whistles... But that "serial" is different.

It's called managerial plausible deniablity. And this tactic is very much welcomed across all stores, as it prevents comparison shopping.

> Just curious, do you have any links to evidence on this?

I THINK this is along the lines of your request. I read this when it was published (2006) and didn’t reread it when I searched for it now. Describes a culture of lowering quality to achieve sales at prices dictated by WM, as I recall. Sorry, want to be more complete but unable at this moment.

https://www.fastcompany.com/54763/man-who-said-no-wal-mart

That, and at Walmart, I rarely have to worry about counterfeit products.

yah, walmart will pre-counterfit products for you--they get the manufacturer to build a cheaper version of a mass-appeal product and slap a different sku on it and sell it at the same price as the copied product.

> Walmart is cheaper on many things

Caveat: only if you need a car anyways. If you only need a car to run errands, Amazon is pretty competitive for pretty much anything except fresh groceries.

In other words if you live anywhere in the country outside of a couple of cities.

I'd put the number closer to 100. All states have at least one metro area with good enough transit, and most have either two larger metros or at least one good-sized college town.

I'm not sure which "couple of cities" you're thinking of, but I'm pretty sure I haven't lived in either of them. And even when I've owned a car, I've never used a car day-to-day.

This has not been my experience.

I live (barely) inside the city limits of a town of 13,000 people, in a county of 37,000. My wife and I both have vehicles and we use both of them probably 80% of days - and I work remotely to boot.

"A couple of" cities was not meant to mean two, but 100 sounds like too many, and even if you live in the best-served metro areas, the service is usually limited to a small portion of it.

I agree with that. There's one US city where it's completely normal and ordinary not to own a car. There are maybe a dozen others where, if you live and work in a relatively central area of the city, you can probably get by without one without too much hardship. Go much beyond that and you may be able to get off without one but a lot of things get harder and you have to compromise on your activities.

18 cities have >25% households without a car. 8-9% of households lack cars.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/car-ownership-numbers-of-v...

Yes, much less than 100 cities. I live in the Phoenix area, and can't imagine how hard it would be without a car. It's so spread out that it isn't funny. I have a car mostly because I like driving, but still would have one if I didn't, just not the same kind of car.

I also feel like a certain number of those people are carless not by choice but because they cannot afford a car, and are putting up with a pretty extreme level of inconvenience.

I will tell you that South Dakota absolutely does not have that, and unless you're in the dorms of one of the schools and can bum a ride with someone who's already going, a car is required.

That's probably a bit of an exaggeration but I daresay that there are very few people who own a car solely to run errands today. If I need to own a car to run errands, I probably need a car for other reasons too.

What is true is that there are people who live in cities and use Zipcar, Uber, regular rentals, etc. instead of owning. If that's the case, the cost calculus changes if you need to pay in order to run errands.

It's not. The amount of places where you can get by without having your own car is pretty small in this country.

I honestly don't think anyone who doesn't live in the center of a city everyone's heard of uses a service like Zipcar, but sure, if you need to rent a car to go Walmart looks less attractive. If you need to rent a car to go you also probably don't live near a Walmart, which as far as I know has abandoned the urban concept and decided to stick with their rural/suburban box store.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com