I bought a kayak loader a week ago and I paid the lowest price I could find, but I'm not certain that I've done the right thing. The issue is in the detail.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The loader I wanted is a simple bar that clips onto a roof rack, and you lift one end of the kayak onto the bar then the other end onto another roof rack, slide the first end from the bar onto the roof rack and job done. There are two available, one called Rack and Roll and the other Rhino-Rack Universal Side Loader, and I believe both work well.
A Lower Hunter kayak retailer sells the Rack and Roll and has reduced its price to match the online price of $160, including delivery. The Rhino is available at a number of stores for $184, and I called into a nearby store to check that they had it and to see the price. By this stage I'd watched the online videos for each loader and I'd pretty much decided on the Rhino, and that was confirmed when the store's staff member pointed out that the Rhino came with attachments to fit all racks but the Rack and Roll had only the attachment for the buyer's particular racks. Yes, the price was $184, and I left.
At home I checked online for a secondhand Rhino, and while there were none within a reasonable distance an Australia-based online retailer popped onto my screen with the offer of a new Rhino delivered for $168. I was about to click the Buy Now button when I hesitated. I should, I decided, give the local retailer the opportunity to match the price, which I did.
The store's employee who answered the phone declined the offer, which surprised me given my belief that its margin would be substantially more than the $16 difference. Still, their business.
Nonetheless I'd decided to buy from the local store, given that the price difference was not great, when another offer popped onto my screen. Funny how word gets around on the net, and this price was $158 delivered, a saving of $26, and I did the deal.
The next morning it arrived at my front door. Interestingly, this offer was from a retailer who has both a bricks-and-mortar shop and an online store.
Was I unfair, perhaps even dishonest, in buying online after inspecting in shop? In defence I say that I inspected both online and in shop and that I gave the shop the opportunity to match the online price; in prosecution I say that inspecting in shop then buying online is unsustainable, and that we cannot reasonably expect the shop to match an online price.
Was I unfair, perhaps even dishonest, in buying online after inspecting in shop? In defence I say that I inspected both online and in shop and that I gave the shop the opportunity to match the online price ...
There are many examples of this unsustainability. We're the poorer for the loss of the big bookshops Borders and Angus and Robertson a decade ago, closures that happened because too many were buying online the books they discovered in the shops, and I wonder if the closing of these bookshops has reduced the number of books sold overall.
Cycling shoes provide an interesting illustration of the problem. Because cycling shoes must fit precisely, everyone buying a different brand or model of cycling shoe, which hold a cleat that allows the rider to clip into and out of the pedals, must test them for fit, and of course they do that in a shop.
Then many, even most, buy the shoes online. The result is that an increasing number of bike shops are no longer stocking cycling shoes, and as the demand for the free fitting service is met by fewer shops there will be even fewer shops prepared to wear the cost of that.
Is the answer to make less money where you need to and more money when you can? For many items most stores charge what they believe the market will bear, hence the ubiquitous .99, and it may be that stores need to reassess what the market will bear.
There is less validity now in the old argument that the bricks-and-mortar shop has unique costs in providing the retail premises, buying its stock in relatively small quantities, storing the stock, and providing the staff to show us the stock, because online stores have their own costs. Most will have a warehouse, a website that requires servicing and updating, staff to respond to customers and delivery costs.
And it seems to me that an increasing proportion of shoppers, me among them, are as comfortable shopping in store as they are online, with electronic payment and delivery seen now as close to risk free, and if there is a difference it is advantage online with its easy price comparison while sitting in an armchair without a sales staffer in sight. Remember, the offers of a cheaper Rhino loader came to me while I was sitting at home and my car was in the driveway.
And, remember, the bricks-and-mortar shop lost its one advantage, that of having the loader on display, when it declined to match the lower price.
Was I unfair in buying the kayak loader online?
A month ago I set out to buy five new tyres for my wife's Landcruiser and after looking at tyres at a couple of retailers I asked my preferred retailer if it would match the sale price of a particular tyre at another retailer.
The difference over the five tyres was more than a couple of hundred dollars. It agreed, and the deal was done.
What's different?
- Jeff Corbett writes for the Newcastle Herald. Contact the writer: jeffcorb@gmail.com