Hacker News Reader

Comment by cushychicken | Hacker News Reader

I totally reject this article's somewhat Marxist undertone that RadioShack's demise was due to Americans' lack of demand for hobby electronics - rather, just generally poor decisions and a terrible rebrand by company leadership towards selling (what they perceived to be) high margin consumer junk like TVs, cell phones, and RC cars. We live in the era of Make magazine and hackaday.com. The maker community didn't vanish. They realized they could get the stuff they wanted from the internet for cheaper, and with less aggravation. (Much nicer than digging around in a RS part drawer for the one transistor you need - but can't find - for you 330MHz transmitter build.)

It was a crappy business decision from the top that just took years and years to manifest as catastrophe.

View on HN

Exactly. RadioShack could have decided to turn themselves into a DigiKey or a SparkFun, but instead they tried to turn into a Circuit City or a Best Buy.

(That said: "Marxist undertone", really? It's certainly an awful undertone, that it's somehow the fault of potential customers for not consuming enough at Radio Shack, rather than the fault of Radio Shack for not selling what people want.)

>RadioShack could have decided to turn themselves into a DigiKey or a SparkFun

They could have. I'm very unconvinced that strategy would have supported anything like the thousands of stores they currently have. After all, if there were an unmet mainstream need for that type of hobbyist store in every random shopping mall, I expect someone would have tried it.

I don't know what it is about running a business that makes people think they are failures unless they are aggressively expanding.

Well, the parent was suggesting how Radio Shack (which has/had thousands of stores) could have reinvented itself. Any such reinvention therefore would need to take their existing retail footprint into account.

There obviously are small niche firms that cater to the maker market without aggressively expanding. Of course they're not public companies--which investors do generally expect to grow.

Retail infrastructure is hard to establish. Much easier to go all-electronic out of a warehouse.

If Radio Shack wanted to differentiate themselves, they could have turned into a hobbyist maker space. Look at the local gaming stores that have survived: they have space in the back to actually play games, and events going on every day. Imagine going down to Radio Shack to hack on something; they could have sold Radio Shack memberships, and gotten much of their revenue that way, reducing the need to rapidly move inventory. Bring your laptop or use theirs; borrow a soldering station; try out a 3d printer (and later buy your own) or a CNC milling machine; grab (and buy) a few spare components as needed; post a picture and how-to guide for the shiny new thing you built at Radio Shack.

They could have sponsored "Shackathons"; they could have provided an online community; they could have worked with high schools and universities. There's a lot of "they could have"s.

And sure, they could also help you buy a cell phone or laptop, and make some money that way; they could have developed the reputation as the place to go where you get opinions from the employees and half the customers.

And no, of course it wouldn't have been a "mainstream need", though it could have been a lot more mainstream by grabbing the attention of kids and parents.

> I totally reject this article's somewhat Marxist undertone that RadioShack's demise was due to Americans' lack of demand for hobby electronics

How is such an explicitly market-based argument "somewhat Marxist"?

Marx predicted that tensions inherent in capitalism would cause the system to destroy itself. Radio Shack's story seems like what he thought would happen to the entire system: relentless expansion beyond its core mission, in order to serve capitalism's need for unlimited growth, caused its inevitable downfall.

I get skewered, but in this case maybe Marx was right? I thought they had too many stores. In my neck of the woods, they had three within 10 minutes driving?

This company seemed to be having trouble even before the Internet. They seemed to run the stores like it was still the 50's?(demanding ties, while paying minimum wage=grouchy employees). The website was always terrible. Marketing was terrible. Seemed top heavy with assistant regional managers, corporate big wigs, etc.

My last time shopping there I bought a tube if Artic 5 to reball a faulty HP graphic chip. The price was more than 2-3 online competitors price. The nice guy helping me said, "You are not are typical customer." I knew what he meant, and I was sad. I walked past the garbage near the front entrance, the dissy array of phone plans, dodging marketing stands, and said goodby to the only lonely employee." I knew that would be my last time in a Radio Shack. (The only reason I can imagine why they loaded up the front of the stores with--crap, is because maybe we don't tinker as much as I want to think? I know you people do, but the average consumer--I've seen so many people roll their eyes when I tell them I can fix it. "Just buy a new one!" As to crafts, like sewing and leather work--I think people will get back into it, but right now it's just easier to buy because their is a lack of time. I will never forget the neck Ties and the perpetual help wanted sign though.

Marx was right, in the same way Malthus was right. Excessive growth can lead to collapse of individual companies or communities. Both failed to appreciate that in globally distributed, heterogenous, decentralized economies not everything collapses at the same time, and new things grow in the spaces left by the old.

Lamenting the increased number of hours worked is a popular notion among those on the left. The author suggests that the downfall of Radio Shack was based on societal changes rather than more traditional market forces (competition, changing consumer demands, etc).

> The author suggests that the downfall of Radio Shack was based on societal changes rather than more traditional market forces (competition, changing consumer demands, etc).

Societal changes producing changes in supply and demand, and that causing both the fall of old firms and the rise of new firms are traditional market forces. Its what proponents of capitalism point to as the manner in which capitalism, via the free-market, aligns the work done in society with its current needs and desires.

Anything that implies people should not be working from cradle to grave while being 100% involved in only productive tasks is Marxist to far too many people.

The reality is that RadioShack pretty much always sold high margin consumer junk. (I remember laughing about their lousy stereo gear purchased by people who didn't know they'd be far better off going to a "real" pre-big box stereo/electronics store back in the late 1970's.) And they also sold stuff like CB radio and TV antennas back when those were things. Between the Internet and the way consumer electronics developed over time, I'm not sure there is a strategy Radio Shack could have pursued that both had some connection to their roots and which would support the scope and type of retail that they created over time.

Agreed - Radio Shack completely lost sight of what the hobbyist was doing and how they were evolving. The stores became a mix of Best Buy and Radio Shack from the 80s.

However, it is also important to note that the evolution of consumer electronics was away from the "tower" PC you could easily build and modify yourself, and towards sealed devices with intricate and highly designed components like laptops and smartphones. Still possible, thanks to iFixit, but not quite as easy.

There was a post on HN a few months ago from an employee at RadioShack retelling his horrors of working there:

http://www.sbnation.com/2014/11/26/7281129/radioshack-eulogy...

I think this is a better explanation as to why RadioShack is folding

Your comment, while informative, puts the cart before the horse. High work stress and poor employee treatment are usually symptoms, not causes, of a business going under.

I would argue otherwise. If you know for a fact that you are not valued, you aren't going to care. If you come into work and find that not only are you mistreated, you are ACTIVELY despised, you are going to put the absolute minimum effort in. And it will show. Employees are humans. Abused humans do not make good corporate interfaces.

It's not just treating employees like shit. He has a first-hand look at all sorts of incredibly stupid management decisions.

The very first story was getting rid of advertising in newspaper inserts, staffing up like crazy for Black Friday, only to sell maybe $200 worth of stuff that whole day. Other ridiculous things include stocking up on remote-controlled cars based on PT Cruisers and on Brum, which essentially no American recognizes. [1] Next to these, the CueCat seems like genius.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brum_%28TV_series%29

> There is a part of me who isn't comfortable with talking this way about an employer who provided my income for three and a half years, but I, along with most people I worked with, put in far more than we got back.

Unfortunately, this is how you make money. Getting more for your investment than you put in. RadioShack received far more back than they put in, and when that happens in a labor transaction it really is a zero sum game. What a great system we have in the US.

I can't help but to view their decision as this kind of greed that turns people stupid. They could have been leaders of local tinkerer communities, but they chose to sell useless junk instead. Sad, but I guess it's Moloch at work again.

From the article:

Make magazine, the movement’s bible, has a circulation of only 125,000, whereas RadioShack’s instructional manuals, sold in every store, were printed by the millions when America’s population was about two-thirds what it is now.

RadioShack could have been the home for the makers, but even if they doubled the size of the maker community, they would have to shrink by at least 90%. The maker market exists but it's not big enough to support 5000 stores across the country.

Shrinking that much might as well be death. All the stakeholders inside the company who are going to get squashed are going to fight back, refusing to believe the inevitable.

Sometimes you just can't win. Kodak invented the digital camera and was destroyed by it. They could have survived, but only as a much smaller company, because their entire film division was going to be destroyed.

RS management did a lot of stuff wrong, but that doesn't mean there was a right answer.

yeh I just brought some bits for my arduio thought I was buying 10 of somthing turns out I was buying 100 switches and it cost less than 2 quid shipped from china.

I completely agree. I occasionally patronize (is it time to put that in the past tense yet?) my local Radio Shack for parts, but for the 99% of my purchases where I'm not in a big hurry and I don't need to see the item in person, they don't get my business.

They sell a lot of stuff I and a lot of other people buy. Electronics parts, cables, kits, fun remote controlled vehicles, and yes, even cell phones. The problem is not that the market somehow evaporated out from under them. The problem is that they became a crappy place to buy these things compared to the competition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com