Topic: Don't buy cheap-ass projectors at the drug store...

[UncleBob]

So, I stopped by the CVS/Pharmacy tonight to pick up some stuff - and they had a projector for only $100.  I bought it - I wasn't expecting cinema quality by any means... but wow.  This was total crap.  It's going back...

[TJ Spyke]

I think the fact that CVS was selling it should have been the first hint. It's like how Aldis (a chain of supermarket stores for those who haven't heard of it) sells laptop computers for some reason. I don't know who would buy a computer from a supermarket, but they can.

It's a shame though, I don't have much use for a projector but $100 would be a good deal if it wasn't crap/

[ShyGuy]

Is CVS the worst drug store chain?

[that Baby guy]

I'd guess Rite-Aid.  Every one I've ever seen has been dingy, to say the least, and has been smaller than most CVSs and Walgreens I've seen.

That said, CVS and Walgreens have the most boneheaded, competitive strategy imaginable, where they build opposite each other on street corners.  It would be so much more convenient, and likely more profitable if they didn't try to cannibalize each other's business and spread out to reach more customers, just a little bit.

[TJ Spyke]

It must vary from location. The newer Rite Aid's are pretty big and very nice (I have been in the smaller ones too). In terms of revenue, CVS is the largest in the US (followed by Walgreens and then Rite Aid). In terms of quality, to me that really varies from store to store as some I have been in are good and others have been bad.

thatguy, fast food places are the same way. Almost any location you see a McDonalds at, you will see a Burger King or Wendy's less than 1 block away.

[UncleBob]

That said, CVS and Walgreens have the most boneheaded, competitive strategy imaginable, where they build opposite each other on street corners.  It would be so much more convenient, and likely more profitable if they didn't try to cannibalize each other's business and spread out to reach more customers, just a little bit.

You're wrong.  Except about the more convenient part.

Let's say you have a town...



Now, lets say you and your competitor build on opposite ends of the town...



Now, aside from the few brand-loyal people, you're generally going to end up with the customers closest to your store...


The blue store getting the blue customers and the green store getting the green customers - with the white customers in the middle picking whichever store they like better.

Now... if you both build in the middle of the town (or anywhere in the town next to each other...


It doesn't matter where the customers live in the town - they have to come to your general location.  This allows you to attempt to woo customers from all over town based on things like price, service and selection.  If I need a gallon of milk and have to drive across town to get to your store to buy it when I can go down the block, it doesn't matter how awesome you're store is... I'm going to go down the block.  But if I have to drive across town to get to *any* store, well, then, I'll pick the better store.

[ShyGuy]

I have a Walgreens two blocks away. We also have Medicine Man Pharmacies and Sav On Drugs.

[that Baby guy]

Except in this case, most store duos are at pretty inconvenient places in regard to distance from living centers and in my home town, a large variety of small pharmacies with better locations closer to their customers and easier to reach beat out these guys regularly, despite not being able to compete in many pricing practices.

Truly, in my experience with Walgreens and CVS, the decision is solely one where the store attempts to grab its competitor's customers, rather than provide convenience to customers.  Even when I visited Denver, Colorado, on the 16th Street Mall, a long pedestrian-only road, the only two pharmacies were on juxtaposing street corners, despite the fact that another area reached more foot-traffic, among other things.

I normally see logic in different fast-food places opening up in similar locations near interstate exits and the center of busy population centers.  The issue here is that often, with CVS and Walgreens, that's not the typical case.

[bustin98]

Rite Aid, CVS, Walgreens, Drug Mart, a local pharm, Walmart

Only a town of 20,000 and full of old people hooked on drugs.

[ShyGuy]

Lowe's and Home Depot have a crazy rivalry like that too. Home Depot went into a small town called Moses Lake because Lowe's was already there.

[UncleBob]

Most of the small-town pharmacies though, are just that - pharmacies.  That's where CVS/Walgreen's/etc... have the small grocery selections and such as an added draw for the customers (not to mention, typically better prices).  If you just need your prescription filled, you might go to the local guy so you don't have to drive across town.. oh, but wait - CVS already has your information on file from the last time you went because you needed milk and eggs.  And it's so much easier to click your refill online than have to deal with getting it all set up at the new place...

[Halbred]

We have a Walgreens across the street from a Fred Meyer. Worst. Location. Ever.

The Walgreens is perpetually empty, and their prices are higher. What genius decided they could complete with Fred effing Meyer?

[UncleBob]

We have a Walgreens across the street from a Fred Meyer. Worst. Location. Ever.

The Walgreens is perpetually empty, and their prices are higher. What genius decided they could complete with Fred effing Meyer?

Yeah, that was a bit of a mistake.  Was the Fred Meyer's there first?

[Stogi]

Eh, I see your point. But no competition for less customers is better than hard-fought competition for more customers.

[MegaByte]

Don't forget zoning laws.

[Ian Sane]

thatguy, fast food places are the same way. Almost any location you see a McDonalds at, you will see a Burger King or Wendy's less than 1 block away.

Fast food is different.  The food is different so realistically you might very well want both in the same area.  Sometimes you want a Big Mac, sometimes you want a Whopper.  It's convenient to have access to both.
 
But with a drugstore it's the same damn product in both stores.  Same with gas stations or supermarkets.  Restaurants are probably the only example I can think of where each franchise had a completely unique and exclusive product.
 
Of course I've seen Starbucks that are across the street from each other which is pretty damn silly.  Competing coffee shops make sense but the same exact franchise?

[TJ Spyke]

That reminds me of when EB Games and GameStop merged, and for a long time you would see two GameStops in the same mall.

[NWR_insanolord]

That reminds me of when EB Games and GameStop merged, and for a long time you would see two GameStops in the same mall.

We still have that in the mall near me.

[nickmitch]

Of course I've seen Starbucks that are across the street from each other which is pretty damn silly.  Competing coffee shops make sense but the same exact franchise?

The funny thing is that actually works great for them. Putting a Starbucks next to a Starbucks increases revenues for both. For whatever reason, the sales just don't canabalize.

[BranDonk Kong]

In Virginia (last time I was there at least), there is a mall with a GameStop and an EB Games directly across from each other. There's a Starbucks across from another Starbucks pretty close to my house as well. Actually if you count the one in the mall, there's 2 locations within 12 miles that you'll find a Starbucks across from a Starbucks. So sad.

[Stratos]

Of course I've seen Starbucks that are across the street from each other which is pretty damn silly.  Competing coffee shops make sense but the same exact franchise?

The funny thing is that actually works great for them. Putting a Starbucks next to a Starbucks increases revenues for both. For whatever reason, the sales just don't canabalize.

They rely heavily on rush hour traffic. On busy roads it is easier for commuters to turn right into a coffee shop than either wait at a left turn light or hope traffic opens up enough for a left turn. So having one on each side of the road ensures you get the most customers going both ways versus having an appeal to only one way. My favorite local coffee shop is on a small busy road that goes through the Indian Reservation so they won't/can't expand it. I have to make a left turn with near non-stop traffic during peak hours. The owner has talked about opening a satellite drive-thru location on the other side for that reason.

Starbucks also has a full store in a Fred Meyer parking lot and then there is a separate Starbucks in the Fred Meyer. Both appeal to and draw in different clientele.

[jrlibrarian]

The funny thing is that actually works great for them. Putting a Starbucks next to a Starbucks increases revenues for both. For whatever reason, the sales just don't canabalize.

Well, the same company is making the same money, it doesn't really matter which location they go to. It basically comes down to how many Starbucks they can dump within a ten block square radius throughout the country/world.

[TJ Spyke]

They reached the saturation point a few years ago, they closed about 600 of their stores in 2008 and then closed 300 more in 2009. Having too many stores hurts a company because at some point they are not bringing in new customers, they are just splitting their existing customers while also having to pay the expenses of a new store. The benefit of having two stores across from each other is really minimal, they may both be profitable enough to stay open but I don't they make more money than they would with just one of them in that location.