Target to stop carrying Amazon Kindle

[tubemonkey]

I played with the Kindle NT several times at my grocery store; and then bought it at Walmart because it was cheaper there. Nothing unethical about that.

[ucfgrad93]

I was just at my local Target and they had no ereaders of any kind.

[Donnageddon]

Funny, I just purchased a Kindle Touch with SO at my local Target. They seemed to have plenty of them.

[heeby]

Businesses exist to make profit...they aren't doing us a favor or being "ethical" in their practices most times...so this attempt to guilt people into paying more because you stopped and saw an item is absurd. It doesn't cost Best Buy anything for me to go inside. If their price is not significantly higher I will buy there for convenience...but I will not pay twice as much or even 30% more for an expensive item. If those of you screaming "UNETHICAL UNETHICAL!" will then that is your choice.

I stopped in for an SD card knowing the online price and they were selling it for TWICE as much...I left and didn't feel the least bit unethical. I owe them nothing. If there end up being no places I can physically go to see something that is fine. I will order online and then keep it if it is satisfactory, and return it if it is not as expected. My money...my rules. This is not am internpersonal relationship based on trust and fairness...it is a transaction with an entity who wants my money, and I have the choice how to complete it.

People who return a computer box full of rocks are unethical...not those who shop for the best total benefit.

[hrosvit]

I find it interesting that in this thread we have people saying that we, as consumers, are behaving unethically if we go into the store to look at something and then buy it online for cheaper. But, in other threads, we have people saying that corporations are neither good nor evil, and exist only to maximize profits for their shareholders, and so are not obligated to act towards us in any particular manner.

Does anyone have an issue with consumers being held to ethical standards towards corporations, when, apparently, there are no such expectations of the corporations?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by hrosvit

I find it interesting that in this thread we have people saying that we, as consumers, are behaving unethically if we go into the store to look at something and then buy it online for cheaper. But, in other threads, we have people saying that corporations are neither good nor evil, and exist only to maximize profits for their shareholders, and so are not obligated to act towards us in any particular manner.

Does anyone have an issue with consumers being held to ethical standards towards corporations, when, apparently, there are no such expectations of the corporations?

Corporations are run by people. People make the decisions. People should adhere to some ethical standard, whether they are acting in their own personal interest as a consumer, or in the interests of corporate success as a board member, executive, employee or stockholder of a corporation.

However, the ethics involved may be different. The set of rules that determine the right action when your duty is to the public at large or to stockholders or to what is supposed to be a value-neutral market transaction may be different then when your duty is only to your own conscience.
For example. It might be quite ethical for an individual to chose not to patronize a company because he objects to the political affiliations of the company owners, but it may not be ethical for that company to refuse to provide services to an individual for the same reason.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by hrosvit

I find it interesting that in this thread we have people saying that we, as consumers, are behaving unethically if we go into the store to look at something and then buy it online for cheaper.

Fore the record, the actual complaint was about if we go into the store ALREADY having decided to buy online.

My position is, if I have gone into the store then, 1, I apparently haven't DECIDED anything, or I would have just bought it already.
Once I do them the favor of entering the store, they have the opportunity to change my mind, or sell me something else. That's what they want. That's why they put up signs that offer air conditioning, clean bathrooms and free coffee. Because they need to get me in the door. Unless I'm going in to rob them or something, my behavior is perfectly ethical.
In fact, if I decide to buy online and DON'T go into the store, they haven't got a chance.

[rkomar]

I wouldn't say that it's unethical to test drive a product in a store and then buy it online. However, if you value that experience, you should take that into consideration when deciding who to purchase from. It costs more money to sell in a B&M shop that it does to to sell online. Rent at multiple locations, sales staff, and theft are overheads that the online vendors don't have, so you have to expect the price in the physical store to be somewhat higher. If you're not okay with the stores eventually going out of business and leaving you with online shopping as your only option, then you should probably be acting to keep those stores in business.

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I wouldn't say that it's unethical to test drive a product in a store and then buy it online. However, if you value that experience, you should take that into consideration when deciding who to purchase from.

We will do the try-then-buy thing every now and again. If it's THAT good of a deal that we could get online, we'll probably make the order. But, sometimes the shipping costs will put it around the same price as the B&M store + tax that it would just be easier to get it at the store.

I think that we buy more in-store than online, in general, even with some price-shopping with phones. I think we're more looking for user-reviews when shopping than anything else.

[Kumabjorn]

Let's say you used to go to a Borders once or twice a month. You like books so yo like to browse about, you read a few pages and put it back, or the author catches your attention and you end up buying the book every now and then. Obviously you also bought all the books you planned to read at Borders. During a year you probably spent $300 - $350 at Borders.

Along came Amazon.com, you like their prices. Your planned purchases no longer goes to Borders, you now spend $100 - $150 per annum with Borders, because you still like to browse about, after all there is no ambiance at Amazon. Then you get a Smartphone, suddenly you can do instant price checking. You browse at Borders, check the price with your phone and see that it is 30 % less at Amazon. You make a rationale decision to purchase from Amazon, you already have some books on your TBR list, you can wait a few days before you read it, but for some books you still want them immediately, you now spend $50 - $75 a year with Borders. Along comes the Kindle..., but you still like to browse paper books and you still enjoy the ambiance.
Now all your decisions here have been perfectly rationale, you are maximizing your utility (is how economists describe it, I believe). So no, you haven't been unethical in any way, but neither are you in a position to complain that you no longer have a place to browse books and enjoy the ambiance of that experience.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by hrosvit

I find it interesting that in this thread we have people saying that we, as consumers, are behaving unethically if we go into the store to look at something and then buy it online for cheaper. But, in other threads, we have people saying that corporations are neither good nor evil, and exist only to maximize profits for their shareholders, and so are not obligated to act towards us in any particular manner.

Does anyone have an issue with consumers being held to ethical standards towards corporations, when, apparently, there are no such expectations of the corporations?

Corporations are not people, but we are.

Heck, nobody's saying there's anything "illegal" about browsing in a store and then buying the products online, but it is, to my mind (and it's just a personal opinion) unethical. If you do this routinely, don't be surprised if the store is no longer there in a year or two.

[tubemonkey]

I fully support going to a store to browse/handle merchandise you intend to buy elsewhere. I frequently visit Amazon's store and then buy at a local box store like Walmart or Best Buy.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you do this routinely, don't be surprised if the store is no longer there in a year or two.

No big deal. There's always somewhere else.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by rkomar

If you're not okay with the stores eventually going out of business and leaving you with online shopping as your only option, then you should probably be acting to keep those stores in business.

Agree.

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

So no, you haven't been unethical in any way, but neither are you in a position to complain that you no longer have a place to browse books and enjoy the ambiance of that experience.

Agree.

Originally Posted by HarryT

but it is, to my mind (and it's just a personal opinion) unethical.

What is the ethical rule you feel is being violated? You should never walk into a store without compensating them for the showroom?
You should never take any action that might favor one store over a competitor? What?

If you do this routinely, don't be surprised if the store is no longer there in a year or two.

If you routinely do both your browsing and buying online and never go into the store they will gone even faster. C'est l'affaires.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Corporations are not people

Ever see a corporation act or set a policy without a person involved?
Maybe when Skynet incorporates....

(At best, I'd grant that corporations act more like a mob than an individual, but I never thought the 'mob mentality' thing was much a defense for bad behavior, either.)