Hacker News Reader

Comment by stoney | Hacker News Reader

I sometimes feel a bit bad about price checking items in a local shop against the web. For example, I wanted to buy some climbing shoes recently. I have never bought a pair before, had no idea what I should be looking for and what size I should get. I went to a local climbing specialist, they talked me through the options, fitted me for a shoe, etc. At that point I could have left the store and bought the shoes on eBay for about 75% of what they would have cost in the store, but I didn't - I chose to pay full price because the store offered me a valuable service. If that store hadn't been there I couldn't have tried on the shoes. So I think there is a place for paying more for goods when you want/need extra assistance.

In the case of huge stores like BestBuy that are basically like a warehouse with pretty much no customer service except at the checkout I would have no problem buying from the cheapest alternative provider (Amazon/ebay/whatever).

View on HN

I would say that it's OK to walk into a store and price compare with other stores, however I personally agree that it's immoral to use the brick and mortar store to discuss the options and decide what you want to buy, then buy it online.

Some stores are for when you know exactly what you want and just want the most convenience and the best price, others are for actually shopping: investigating your options and deciding what works best for you. Helping you shop costs money. It's immoral to steal the stores time discussing what to buy then buy it from Amazon because it's cheaper.

stealing time?

This may be against your own personal morals but it isn't a crime to waste other people's time.

He never claimed it was a crime, just immoral, and I agree.

If the store provides you a valuable service, like allowing you to try on shoes or giving you significant advice on which product to buy, you should buy the product from them so that they get profits with which to cover the cost of providing that service.

Now, it depends how extensively you used their resources and how much of a markup they want. If you were in the store for something else and all you did is wander around to try to get ideas of what else you wanted, I don't think there's much obligation to buy. But if you're spending 15 minutes talking to a salesman about all of the possibilities (especially if you wanted to ask him the questions, as opposed to him seeing you in the area and approaching you to try to close the sale and upsell you) or extensively trying out the demo units, the store is providing you value and you're using resources that cost them money. As long as the additional markup that the store wants is fair (for an example of unfair markup see the guy who chose not to buy a $40 DVI-HDMI cable that costs <$3 on monoprice), you should compensate them for the value they provided you and buy from them.

there are no clear ethical boundaries here; morality is hardly universal.

I'd like to stay focused here on the so-called immorality. kgermino's choice of words to "steal the stores time" implies theft. I'm not sure if I see eye to eye with this description.

[edit: I'm curious to know why i'm being downvoted here without any followup reply. nothing that I've stated is factually inaccurate - morality refers to personal values, which vary between person to person.]

Does it help to turn it around - you are paying a (probably marginally) higher price in the brick and mortar store in gratitude for the service (advice, time, hands-on experience with the gadget) they are providing. Nothing stolen, but fair compensation provided for information obtained.

> advice, time, hands-on experience with the gadget

Only if I can trust that the advice, time are all beneficial to me and not the store, which I can't, especially if I'm not dealing with a specialty store. More to the point, does the higher price justify the less then trustworthy advice provided?

If brick and mortar stores are only offering questionable advice and a hands on experience in exchange for the same product at a higher price then the online store with lower cost, then they have to compete with that. If they are providing real value, then they'll do fine.

The problem is, no one wants to pay for advice.

The assumption here is that this is just with online stores. Offline stores also compete as well, and not just using price, but real value-added services. If I got to store-x to learn about a product, an then end up purchasing at store-y because they provide greater value, am I doing wrong?

Well maybe the downvotes are for ignoring 2500 years of philosophical tradition - some ethical behaviour is universal

In some countries, "wasting police time" is a criminal offence.

Let's apply the golden rule here: do you care if people waste your time?

And just for the sake of arguing, let's consider the use of the word theft could apply because if the staff is helping you, that takes up time they could be spending on paying customers.

Based on my morals I stand by the word choice. I agree that not everybody will agree that it is stealing, and it is certainly not against the lost but yes I believe that it is stealing from the company.

Here's why, the way I see it when a company hires an employee they are, as much as anything else, buying that person's time. When you think of it like this while the employee is on the clock the company owns their time. Stealing is to take something without the owners consent. The store owner consent to you using the employee's time, that is effectively the employer's time, with understanding that you are wanting to buy something at the risk of you changing your mind. This is the unspoken agreement. When you use the employee's time without any intention of buying something you are doing so outside of this unspoken agreement and that requires a different consent. If you walk in and say that you do not intend to buy something then the owner can decide whether to consent to your taking the employee's time, or then can decline.

tl;dr Stealing is taking without consent. When you talk to an employee you are taking them away from the company. Consent under false pretenses ins't consent.

Morality doesn't come into it. It's business. They're trying to get as much money out of you as they can, and you're trying to save as much money as you can. If their business model involves them giving out free advice, then fine. That's their risk. Sometimes it will get them more sales, sometimes it will waste their time.

This is modern business mantra in a nutshell. It's sad. When it comes to implementation, business interactions involve people. If those people want to be dicks and say, "It's business," that's their prerogative. We're all sharing an existence on a small planet in the middle of a huge void, and many would apparently prefer inventing silly definitions to justify sociopathic behavior as opposed to helping one another.

I had a sad vision of the future while reading the article, one in which business no longer involves human interaction of any kind. Instead, we're all just browsing virtual stores, ordering items that will be packaged and shipped to us by people and robots working in factories. There will be no more traditional sales or customer assistance jobs. Some may consider this an improvement, but I don't.

> I had a sad vision of the future while reading the article, one in which business no longer involves human interaction of any kind. Instead, we're all just browsing virtual stores, ordering items that will be packaged and shipped to us by people and robots working in factories. There will be no more traditional sales or customer assistance jobs. Some may consider this an improvement, but I don't.

The future is now, so to speak. Sure, there are still knowledgeable people in mom-and-pop brick-and-mortar stores, but most people already choose to shop at big box stores. I don't trust the salespeople at those big box stores to be knowledgeable and unbiased, and I doubt other shoppers do either.

Discerning shoppers already research their choices on the web before (maybe) looking to buy something at a local store. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Sure, you are no longer interacting with a salesperson at your local store. However, this is expensive -- a fact you pay for through higher prices -- in comparison to getting a recommendation from someone you trust, be that a blogger or someone you know from physical interaction (who may have gotten their recommendation from a blogger). Reading a blogger's review or roundup is not a physical interaction, but it's still a human interaction.

There is no other way a capitalist system can work.

When I go pick up boxed merchandise from a store like Best Buy or Target, there's nothing the clerk is doing that couldn't have been done by a vending machine. It wastes a human being's intelligence to keep them in a dead-end poverty-level job like that, and we're only doing it because we haven't really figured out how to deal humanely with our huge labor surplus.

When I want advice, I'll seek it out from people who don't have huge conflicts of interest around what I do or don't choose to buy.

So 'fess up. Have you ever bought shoes online?

I've purchased two pairs of boots online, yes.

> I would say that it's OK to walk into a store and price compare with other stores, however I personally agree that it's immoral to use the brick and mortar store to discuss the options and decide what you want to buy, then buy it online.

If the brick and mortar store's only value-add is providing the same information I can find online by reading the online-retailers website, then why do they deserve my business? I go into brick and mortar stores to see if they can offer me something else. Sometimes this happens, and the value makes me purchase it from the local store.

> It's immoral to steal the stores time discussing what to buy then buy it from Amazon because it's cheaper.

Except, that's an incredibly small number of people purely doing this. People don't go into the store to learn what to buy and then just buy it on Amazon. They go into the store, learn what to buy, learn about what the store can offer, what Amazon can offer, and then make a decision based on the value. Or they might go onto Amazon and learn what to buy, and then go to the store and buy the item now rather than wait for it.

Stores need to adapt (as demonstrated in the article) and even mom-and-pop stores can compete in this arena. I'd say that they can compete in certain areas easier than online or big-box retailers.

>If the brick and mortar store's only value-add is providing the same information I can find online by reading the online-retailers website, then why do they deserve my business? I go into brick and mortar stores to see if they can offer me something else. Sometimes this happens, and the value makes me purchase it from the local store.

Exactly, if that's all the value they add then they are basically competing on price. I am thinking of the stores that actually guide you through the process.

One example by me: a mom and pop shop that specializes in HDTV's. You go in, often are greeted by one of the owners, and they take you through everything explaining what the specs mean, what is best for you etc. This is far more information than you can find in an Amazon description. Now don't get me wrong, if you go in there and tell them that you're not planning to buy anything they will still be more than happy to help you out, that's their business model. However I would say it's immoral to go there, tell them you are going to buy a TV, work with them to figure out exactly what you need, then go on Amazon and buy it for less.

tl;dr It's not immoral to walk into a car dealership and ask for a test drive under no pretense that you plan to buy a car, but it is immoral to spend 3 hrs. with the salesman then at the last minute say that you never even considered buying a car from them. The actual line falls somewhere in between.

This is really not new though. I remember back when I was in 6th grade or so and I got interested in photography (this would have been 1979 or so, well before digital, before online retail, etc). I wanted a 35mm SLR and spent a lot of time in the local camera shop asking questions, learning, comparing brands and models, etc.

When I was ready to buy, I could have ordered the camera from B&H, Adorama, or one of the other big catalogs, and saved some money. And the thought certainly crossed my mind. But I decided, with some counsel from my father, that the right thing to do was pay the local shop their premium for the advice they had provided.

I went to Best Buy looking for a DVI <-> HDMI cable once. They wanted 40 dollars. I got it on Amazon for 7.95. And they wonder why their stock recently took a big hit...

I hate to get too far off topic, but when it comes to cables, you should know about Monoprice: http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=102...

I second this. Monoprice is great. Their cables are dirt cheap yet at least as high quality as what you'll get anywhere else.

They're also great for adapters. I bet 10% of the people reading this have paid Apple $30 for a Mini DisplayPort to {VGA|DVI|HDMI} adapter. I got all 3 for $30-something.

Yeah, there's a limit to how much of a premium I'm prepared to pay for the benefit of bricks and mortar!

Though cables can vary a bit in price depending on quality, so that might have come into it a bit too.

Oh yeah, because you totally need gold-plated connectors on your DIGITAL Video Interface cable to maintain picture quality

(for those who are unaware: basically the entire purpose of digital communications is to confer immunity to signal noise and distortion)

Yeah I had to pay this much just recently. I was annoyed as I knew the same item would be avaialble for roughly $10. But I needed it that day - not an option to wait a couple of days for delivery when you have no display.

Agree. To consume a local store's customer service resources with every intention "not" to purchase a product there is immoral.

Bestbuy and customer service aren't normally found in the same sentence

The asymmetry of the extra-legal moral obligations is somewhat odd to me, though. I can accept that extra-legal moral obligations exist, but why not on all sides?

When we discuss things on the corporate side, most people seem to be of the opinion that the law is all that matters: if a retailer can find a tax loophole that lets them book all their profits in Bermuda, even though they actually did business in and used the resources of the United States, then well, good for them. But if a person dares waste the retailer's time, even though what the person is doing is every bit as legal as those tax games, suddenly that's a moral issue we should worry about.

If a company goes out of its way to uphold ethical standards above and beyond what the law requires, I do try to do the same when dealing with them. But for companies that only go by the letter of the law and play hardball, I don't feel I have any obligation beyond the letter of the law either.

I quite frequently hear or read complaints about companies' ethics -- exploitation of tax loopholes, spreading disinformation about global warming, getting their press releases to appear almost verbatim as newspaper articles, etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps there's a correlation with politics? Most of the politically-charged stuff I read has a leftward rather than a rightward skew, and generally lefties are more concerned about the ethical behaviour of businesses and righties about the ethical behaviour of individuals. (Yes, I know that's a sweeping generalization. And is it just me, or is "lefties" quite a commonplace term and "righties" really weird?)

Note: Please let's not turn this into a discussion of any of the particular ethical transgressions I mentioned; the point isn't whether, e.g., oil companies are really spreading disinformation about global warming, nor whether that's a bad thing, but whether they're commonly accused of doing so by people who think it is a bad thing. My experience is that they are.

> To consume a local store's customer service resources with every intention "not" to purchase a product there is immoral.

I'd question why it's okay to consume a non-local store's resources?

I'd also question the concept that people go into local stores with every intention not to purchase. People go into the store with every intention to compare products and price, but that doesn't mean the local stores loses because of the person's intention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com