Responses to Francis Gilpin and Scott Harrell's cover story on telecommunciation companies and the Internet, RhondaK's "Holy Road Trip" and a Corkscrew column by Taylor Eason.
*****************************
Facts of Life
Re: "URL, Interrupted" by Francis X. Gilpin and Scott Harrell (June 19-25)
Great story, however (in my opinion) wrong prospective.
Yes baby bells and incumbents will always try to rule the world, but lose market share? No way. Imagine you're an executive at Bell South, Verizon, Qwest or such. Are you going to just stand by and wait for the feds to dissolve your company?
And the small businesses, ISPs and entrepreneurs: Are they going to capitalize on the misfortunes of the big boys?
Everyone has their weakness; incumbents are slow moving, usually have poor customer service and lack innovation.
Small business is usually undercapitalized, has limited people and technological resources, and generally has a very limited view of large-scale issues and problems.
Incumbents are slow to develop new products, but they have established customers and capital to move forward. They can afford to wait out the market and let the little guys show the way, then use their mass to take over the market and lumber down the path. Our political and social economic environment lives to fight for the underdog; however, when it comes to personal choice, we usually select the status quo.
Why, for example, does AT&T still keep the lion's share of the marketplace when they have the worst pricing and offer no more service than any other provider?
The Internet has created such a dramatic impact on our society in such a short time that most business and political systems have yet to understand the changes we have already adapted to.
Mark S. Hewitt
Via e-mail
The Tao of Rhonda
Once again RhondaK has made us smile, laugh out loud and re-affirm our own observations regarding the contemporary myth that passes for religion.
The only religious organization that we would enthusiastically join would be the "Cult of RhondaK"
Diana Browning
Tampa
In Vino Veritas
Thanks for addressing an issue that has become an increasing irritant to me, and I expect to many wine lovers. I enjoy dining out in good restaurants and enjoying a fine wine with the meal, but I have observed a steady escalation in restaurant wine prices. Recently I dined with a friend at a North Atlanta seafood restaurant. The cheapest white wine on their list was $25, and it was a rather ordinary wine that I know sells for $5.99 in shops. That's better than four times retail. We settled on a bottle described as a "special" for $30, that I know sells for around $11 to $12 retail. I thought that was a more acceptable markup. It seems restaurants have a mentality that customers should be unconscionably gouged on wine.
I strongly suspect that restaurant consultants are advising their clients that most of their customers are either dining on fat corporate expense accounts or are celebrating a big promotion or other windfall and don't care what a bottle of wine costs. That certainly doesn't describe me, and I suspect does not describe the majority of diners. There have been occasions when I have been to an upscale restaurant and have simply declined to order wine, being unable to find anything I regarded as an acceptable value. I know that restaurants don't make a profit on wine they don't sell.
It is fundamental economics that prices should be set to maximize total revenue and not set so high that only a wealthy elite can pay them. If I had the capital, I would invest in a restaurant that would offer not only serious food but also a serious wine list, but I would make the markups reasonable. I would bet that I could make more money than restaurants gouging customers simply because more would order wine than otherwise. As it is, I think you are totally correct that current pricing policies simply perpetuate wine elitism and discourage a new generation of wine drinkers.
Nazdravea!
Don Pattillo
Via e-mail
This article appears in Jul 3-9, 2002.