warehouse club warning

Ron Hunter wrote:

measekite wrote:



Ron Hunter wrote:

SamSez wrote:

"Crownfield" wrote in message
...

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

If I buy a Toyota from a Toyota dealer, then I buy from from
Walmart, I
expect to get a Toyota. It's labeled a Toyota, has the same window
sticker, etc.

I do not expect to get a Ford engine and cheaper seats for the
IDENTICALLY LABELED Toyota.

Ilford wrapped materially different paper inside the same wrapper as
what they use for their dealer stuff. That's just plain WRONG.

When you label them identically, the consumer has every
expectation that
the same stuff is inside.




did the wrappers look similar,
or were the product numbers the same?

many products come in multiple flavors for different buyers.





The FULL ENTIRE NINE WORD name is the same. The packaging is very
similar but
not identical, but as we all know, packaging is updated all the time.

I contend that if you are going to call it the same thing -- to
that level of
sameness -- it had better BE the same thing [try this trick with
prescription
drugs, I dare you...]

Go to the Sams Club website -- look up Ilford. Then open a second
window on
Ilford's website.

As Ilford only lists one "Ilford Galerie Professional Inkjet Photo
Range Smooth
Pearl Paper" and Sams Club only lists one "Ilford Galerie
Professional Inkjet
Photo Range Smooth Pearl Paper", what am I supposed to expect?




Sounds like Ilford was scamming Sam's as well as the end user.




I can't see that. These stores provide the manufacturers with
specifications that lead into a contract. Big stores have
departments that inspect the goods and see that the products they buy
do meet the specifications they pay for. If Ilford was doing that
kind of stuff then I am sure they would intermittently short their
own dealers and sooner or later they would get caught.



And didn't they?
Sam's stocks thousands of items, many of which change frequently. I
doubt they examine every shipment of every product to assure that
quality hasn't been compromised. They rely on customer complaints to
catch such things.

General Motors also has thousands of parts going into their automobiles
that are outsourced. And they inspect representative samples of each
shipment to insure they meet the specifications they require and they
have the same safety ratings they require. Many customers would not
know if they are short changed on paper requirements.

Ron Hunter wrote:

Jer wrote:

Ron Hunter wrote:

SamSez wrote:

"Crownfield" wrote in message
...

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

If I buy a Toyota from a Toyota dealer, then I buy from from
Walmart, I
expect to get a Toyota. It's labeled a Toyota, has the same window
sticker, etc.

I do not expect to get a Ford engine and cheaper seats for the
IDENTICALLY LABELED Toyota.

Ilford wrapped materially different paper inside the same wrapper as
what they use for their dealer stuff. That's just plain WRONG.

When you label them identically, the consumer has every
expectation that
the same stuff is inside.




did the wrappers look similar,
or were the product numbers the same?

many products come in multiple flavors for different buyers.





The FULL ENTIRE NINE WORD name is the same. The packaging is very
similar but
not identical, but as we all know, packaging is updated all the time.

I contend that if you are going to call it the same thing -- to
that level of
sameness -- it had better BE the same thing [try this trick with
prescription
drugs, I dare you...]

Go to the Sams Club website -- look up Ilford. Then open a second
window on
Ilford's website.

As Ilford only lists one "Ilford Galerie Professional Inkjet Photo
Range Smooth
Pearl Paper" and Sams Club only lists one "Ilford Galerie
Professional Inkjet
Photo Range Smooth Pearl Paper", what am I supposed to expect?




Sounds like Ilford was scamming Sam's as well as the end user.


Considering that Walwart (Sam's) is notorious for flexing their
discount muscles with their suppliers, it seems that both could be
complicit in this deception. Walwart demands lesser quality (to
force a lower price) and Ilford complies because they're being
courted by a retail discounter with hundreds of stores full of
bargain hunters and staffed by underpaid wanks.


I doubt that Wal-mart was complicit in this case, and the average
Wal-mart employee gets $9.96/hour, plus one of the best profit sharing
plans in the business.

Thats poverty level. Their Gas cost them 50% of their wages. Their
rent cost 60% of their wages (California). What are they going to eat?
Besides, they make them work overtime and do not pay them. There are
many lawsuits against this organization. Their own managers have stated
they are required (unofficially) to do these things to meet profit goals
or they will not have a job.All of this was exposed on multiple news
programs including 60 minutes.

Don't feel too sorry for them. The charges of underpayment are made
by labor unions because Wal-Mart won't put up with their extortion.

measekite wrote:


Ron Hunter wrote:

Jer wrote:

Ron Hunter wrote:

SamSez wrote:

"Crownfield" wrote in message
...

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

If I buy a Toyota from a Toyota dealer, then I buy from from
Walmart, I
expect to get a Toyota. It's labeled a Toyota, has the same window
sticker, etc.

I do not expect to get a Ford engine and cheaper seats for the
IDENTICALLY LABELED Toyota.

Ilford wrapped materially different paper inside the same wrapper as
what they use for their dealer stuff. That's just plain WRONG.

When you label them identically, the consumer has every
expectation that
the same stuff is inside.





did the wrappers look similar,
or were the product numbers the same?

many products come in multiple flavors for different buyers.






The FULL ENTIRE NINE WORD name is the same. The packaging is very
similar but
not identical, but as we all know, packaging is updated all the time.

I contend that if you are going to call it the same thing -- to
that level of
sameness -- it had better BE the same thing [try this trick with
prescription
drugs, I dare you...]

Go to the Sams Club website -- look up Ilford. Then open a second
window on
Ilford's website.

As Ilford only lists one "Ilford Galerie Professional Inkjet Photo
Range Smooth
Pearl Paper" and Sams Club only lists one "Ilford Galerie
Professional Inkjet
Photo Range Smooth Pearl Paper", what am I supposed to expect?




Sounds like Ilford was scamming Sam's as well as the end user.


Considering that Walwart (Sam's) is notorious for flexing their
discount muscles with their suppliers, it seems that both could be
complicit in this deception. Walwart demands lesser quality (to
force a lower price) and Ilford complies because they're being
courted by a retail discounter with hundreds of stores full of
bargain hunters and staffed by underpaid wanks.


I doubt that Wal-mart was complicit in this case, and the average
Wal-mart employee gets $9.96/hour, plus one of the best profit sharing
plans in the business.


Thats poverty level. Their Gas cost them 50% of their wages. Their
rent cost 60% of their wages (California). What are they going to eat?
Besides, they make them work overtime and do not pay them. There are
many lawsuits against this organization. Their own managers have stated
they are required (unofficially) to do these things to meet profit goals
or they will not have a job.All of this was exposed on multiple news
programs including 60 minutes.

Don't feel too sorry for them. The charges of underpayment are made
by labor unions because Wal-Mart won't put up with their extortion.




If the rate, $9.96/hr is true, it beats many, many retail stores. Many
of them pay only $7 and change. McDonald's in NYC pays $6 something,
whatever the minimum set by the NY state and do you suggest living in
NYC is cheaper?

Back to the original issue. Many retailers don't have the resources to
check every item. They depend on the trust of the suppliers. For
instant, many department stores carry jewelry. How can they tell it's
14K, vs. 18K gold? Ilford is obligated to not using the same name for
products with different grades. There is no reason for the retailers to
do such a trick.

Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:02:55 -0600, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
in wrote:


Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

In article ,
measekite wrote:



The nice thing about Costco is that
they have a return policy unmatched by other.


They do have a nice return policy. So does Sam's and WalMart.




Sams club is Walmart. I
do not like the way they take advantage of their employees and see no
advantage of doing business with them.


You'd be surprised at how Costco deals with HR issues.


Interesting. Wal-Mart has about the best profit sharing arrangement in
US industry. I wouldn't feel too sorry for their employees.


Do you get it if you work part-time? Because they try very hard to
ensure that their employees don't get enough hours to get health care,
so I wonder if they make it easier to get profit sharing.


Only Walmart??? I would think many retailers hire as few full time
workers as possible. They have little trouble finding people to fill in
at any time. Their actual excuse is they pay less but offer FLEX time
schedule for many moms and students and managers need to work harder to
find people for the shifts. LOL.

Rick Brandt wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...

Rick Brandt wrote:

There was a documentary on CNN (I believe) recently that explored how
Wal-Mart conducts business with its suppliers. After watching that I can
tell you that it is almost a certainty that Ilford solicited Wal-Mart to sell
their product and offered a wholesale price for doing so after which Wal-Mart
"counter-offered" with "We will be glad to sell your product. Here is the
wholesale price that you _will_ sell it to us for."

This non-negotiable price that Wal-Mart specifies in a very high percentage
of cases forces the supplier to cut costs somewhere to make any profit at all
and I suspect that this is what Ilford did. I agree that a change in the
name/packaging would have been a better service to the final consumer.

I sense that you think this Wal-Mart policy is wrong, but if it is, then all
large companies are doing the same wrong thing. Don't you think that
Sears/KMart doesn't do the same thing? Haven't you read how GM, Chrysler, and
Ford 'manage' their parts suppliers? It's called controlling costs to make a
profit.


I wasn't making a moral judgment one way or the other. Simply offering a
explanation why a product purchased at Wal-Mart/Sams might be of lower quality
than the same brand sold through other outlets, that being that the price
structures imposed on the suppliers can force them to "cheapen" the product if
they want to do business with Wal-Mart.


The concept that many clothing companies make lower quality clothing for
warehouse. You won't notice that because they don't sell the same items
or use the same name. Clothing made for Gap Oulet is lower grade than
Gap. Same idea for Ilford, the UPC code got to be difference. Why don't
they use a different name?

Ron Hunter wrote:
SamSez wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
...


Out of curiosity have you looked carefully at the box for a product
number you


can

compare? Why a company with a known name like Ilford would allow an
inferior


product

to be sold with exactly the same name puzzles me somewhat. My cynical
side


figures

they know some people will get burned, but believe their bottom line
will


still

benefit from the extra sales to the budget crowd. Come to think of
it, the


rest of me

thinks that way nowadays, too.

I once bought 3 disposable cameras that had both the Fujifilm and
Walmart


brands on

the package intending to use them in an underwater camera housing
that was


supposed

to take Fujifilm disposables. Apparently the Walmart version was a
slightly


different

size, so the controls didn't quite work. I have no idea what else
might have


been

different, and I don't think the price was much different than any
other place


I

might have gone.

To their credit, Walmart refunded the price for all 3, even though I had


managed a

couple of shots on one and opened all 3. Initially the manager of the
camera
department said he couldn't accept them since he wouldn't be able to
sell


them, but

after a bit of bitching another manager told the returns desk help to
step on


them

and say they were broken when the customer opened them if need be.
Since the


counter

was under a sign that said something about 100% customer satisfaction
I don't


think

they had much choice about issuing a refund.

--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a
reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.



Yes, if you have the two packages both in hand [unlikely in a store, and
impossible for the pack that I ordered over the web], the UPC numbers
and other
code numbers are different on the packages -- but the UPC and code
numbers on
Corn Flakes boxes are also often different between warehouse and
retail due to
different sizing, combined packing, etc., and yet, this consumers'
reasonable
expectation is that identical names means identical contents.

Yes, I'm sure that Sams will take the product back, though it will
represent a
bit of a hassle, as the pearl pack was web order and the glossy pack
was from a
retail location [and I'm not sure I even have the retail receipt any
more]. But
that was not the point of my original post -- the point was to note to
the good
readers of this group that the paper you buy from your local retail
photo shop
is potentially a higher quality that what you might think you are
getting when
you buy the identically labeled brand name product at a warehouse club
-- at
least for this particular brand.

Recall too, one recent 'inkjet print longevity' thread in this very
group was
based on prints made on paper bought at a warehouse club, so the value
of what
we learned there is also in question.

And the bigger question remains -- does this experience apply to the
several
other major name brands of named photo inkjet papers sold at all the
various
warehouse clubs? I never thought so before, but now I'm not so
sure. Anyone
from Kodak, HP, or Epson care to comment?


I have bought several different types of Kodak paper at Sam's, and at
other places. Haven't noticed any difference in quality (and not much
in price, either), but I have noticed that my previous favorite for
making greeeting cards, the Kodak soft gloss glossy on both sides paper
is no longer available at Sam's. I guess Kodak refused to meet Sam's
price point.


And soon we'll only find Kirland brands at Costco...

Ron Hunter wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:02:55 -0600, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
in wrote:


Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

In article ,
measekite wrote:



The nice thing about Costco is that they have a return policy
unmatched by other.



They do have a nice return policy. So does Sam's and WalMart.




Sams club is Walmart. I do not like the way they take advantage of
their employees and see no advantage of doing business with them.



You'd be surprised at how Costco deals with HR issues.


Interesting. Wal-Mart has about the best profit sharing arrangement
in US industry. I wouldn't feel too sorry for their employees.



Do you get it if you work part-time? Because they try very hard to
ensure that their employees don't get enough hours to get health care,
so I wonder if they make it easier to get profit sharing.


Probably not. But then if you take a job, you have to know that
part-time and full-time don't get the same benefits. ALL companies try
to manage their benefits packages to assure that their business makes a
profit and is still around to pay their employees NEXT year.



This is about wooden head so maybe it isn't off
topic. You missed a point or two. Many of
Walmart employees are retired and already have a
variety of benefits from their previous
employment. They don't need health care and
don't need retirement plans and since they work
part time they don't need paid vacations. Since
benefits plans can easily add 1/3 to the pay and
probably are nearly all worth at least $3-5 per
hour, Walmart can eliminate the benefits and pay
higher wages and still make a profit. So which
would a retired worker prefer-- higher pay, or
duplicate what he already has.

Other employees may need a benefit package and
need to consider that when trying to get a job.
Complaining about lack of benefits or lack of full
time employment after one accepts something less
is just sour grapes. If you don't like a company
or don't like the wages and benefits, don't work
for them. Like I said, wooden head or maybe just
knot heads.

SamSez wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
...


Out of curiosity have you looked carefully at the box for a product number you

can

compare? Why a company with a known name like Ilford would allow an inferior

product

to be sold with exactly the same name puzzles me somewhat. My cynical side

figures

they know some people will get burned, but believe their bottom line will

still

benefit from the extra sales to the budget crowd. Come to think of it, the

rest of me

thinks that way nowadays, too.

I once bought 3 disposable cameras that had both the Fujifilm and Walmart

brands on

the package intending to use them in an underwater camera housing that was

supposed

to take Fujifilm disposables. Apparently the Walmart version was a slightly

different

size, so the controls didn't quite work. I have no idea what else might have

been

different, and I don't think the price was much different than any other place

I

might have gone.

To their credit, Walmart refunded the price for all 3, even though I had

managed a

couple of shots on one and opened all 3. Initially the manager of the camera
department said he couldn't accept them since he wouldn't be able to sell

them, but

after a bit of bitching another manager told the returns desk help to step on

them

and say they were broken when the customer opened them if need be. Since the

counter

was under a sign that said something about 100% customer satisfaction I don't

think

they had much choice about issuing a refund.

--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.



Yes, if you have the two packages both in hand [unlikely in a store, and
impossible for the pack that I ordered over the web], the UPC numbers and other
code numbers are different on the packages -- but the UPC and code numbers on
Corn Flakes boxes are also often different between warehouse and retail due to
different sizing, combined packing, etc., and yet, this consumers' reasonable
expectation is that identical names means identical contents.

Yes, I'm sure that Sams will take the product back, though it will represent a
bit of a hassle, as the pearl pack was web order and the glossy pack was from a
retail location [and I'm not sure I even have the retail receipt any more]. But
that was not the point of my original post -- the point was to note to the good
readers of this group that the paper you buy from your local retail photo shop
is potentially a higher quality that what you might think you are getting when
you buy the identically labeled brand name product at a warehouse club -- at
least for this particular brand.

Recall too, one recent 'inkjet print longevity' thread in this very group was
based on prints made on paper bought at a warehouse club, so the value of what
we learned there is also in question.

And the bigger question remains -- does this experience apply to the several
other major name brands of named photo inkjet papers sold at all the various
warehouse clubs? I never thought so before, but now I'm not so sure. Anyone
from Kodak, HP, or Epson care to comment?


Sounds like a straw horse to me. People use to
(maybe still do) say that brand names sold by
chain stores were lower in quality than those sold
by an appliance store. It wasn't true then and it
isn't true now. No brand name manufacture is
likely to degrade his standing by producing a
quality product and an economical product with the
same model number.

There may be instances of this, the Ilford paper
seems to be such a case, but it is rare and
probably the result of some marketing idiot at
Ilford. Just think how much negativity this
Ilford paper case has generated. How many people
will now never buy Ilford because of it? Don't
get this confused with different models, but names
in paper are the same as model numbers in a
refrigerator. Manufacture are smart enough not to
sell a product with different qualities under the
same model number.

In article , says...
I am sure they know what they ordered. Now knowing what they GOT is
another matter entirely. NO company has the personnel to inspect every
shipment of a product for quality, and suppliers KNOW that.
Example. I buy 'jumbo' eggs, because they are a better value, but in
almost EVERY PACK, I find at least one egg that is noticeably smaller
than all the others. So who is doing this? The store, other customers,
the packager?



--
Ron Hunter



Im pretty sure its the chickens Ron..


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
In article ,
"George E. Cawthon" wrote:


Sounds like a straw horse to me. People use to
(maybe still do) say that brand names sold by
chain stores were lower in quality than those sold
by an appliance store. It wasn't true then and it
isn't true now. No brand name manufacture is
likely to degrade his standing by producing a
quality product and an economical product with the
same model number.


Which is why they DON'T have the same model number, but they DO continue
to have the identical outward appearance.

In fact, the model number is in the smallest print you can find.

So there's no price shopping the appliance store model against the
discount store model. Technically, they aren't identical.

And despite outward appearances, they aren't identical. The cheaper
models use less insulation, smaller motors, etc, etc, all to keep the
price down.

People want "the best price," but too often people don't look at the
value equation. They get the lowest price, but they also get the lowest
product--and they convince themselves that they're happy because to
outward appearance, they got "the same thing" that the appliance store
was selling for $100 more.

They didn't get the same thing, but don't try to tell them that.

The appliance manufacturers are simply responding to human nature.


Most of what you said is not true in my
experience. Lots of things look similar until you
look closely, after all what does a refrigerator
look like.

Best price and lowest price are quite different
things. Some how you have ignored features.
When you go to buy something your primary concern
should be features, not looks. And if you are
comparing brands, of course the model numbers
aren't the same. I have found, particularly at
Costo, that a much higher quality product, can be
purchase for less or the same as a much lower
quality model. Heck, in comparing the same model,
I can often get two for the price of one in other
stores.

Despite what you say I have found that
Model numbers are usually stated and comparison
shopping for the same model is not that difficult.
It is not comparison shopping if you are talking
about different models.


Somehow you have changed this to different models
that look similar and cheap models, from models
with the same number. Of course different models
have different prices and different features,
that's why they are different models. And, of
course, the cheapest models many not perform as
well as the most expensive models (however, this
isn't always true).

If you are looking for midrange models, you can
often find the same model in many different stores
including the appliance stores and the discount
stores. You think they make a different model for
every store? When I find a model I want to buy, I
shop around at different stores for the same
model. Sears can be a problem because you don't
know who made the appliance unless they put the
name on it. But a Whirlpool, a Maytag, etc. is
easy to check. Yes, a store may not carry the
same model as another store, and of course models
vary in price. Years ago we bought a Whirlpool
and priced that model at various stores including
Sears and K-Mart. We bought it at an appliance
store because that was the only place we could get
it with a crinkle door (an option in that model).

I don't believe your statement about the smaller
motors etc. The basic running gear of many
appliances (within a brand) is the same regardless
of model and most of the model differences are
related to convenience features, such as controls,
size, and material of some obvious part. For
example, the same compressor/motor unit will used
in a whole series of models of refrigerator.
The most obvious of these is the water heater
where the only difference other than size and type
of burner is likely to be the warantee.