Comments on: Corporatizing Transit http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038 Dedicated to the sunset of government planning Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:24:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: prk166 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038&cpage=1#comment-85284 prk166 Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:55:47 +0000 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038#comment-85284 Mike, if I remember correctly RTD voted the proposal down because they felt the cars wouldn't look good. It seems odd considering they're a $3-#5 billion in the hole on Fastracks and already allow RTD buses to be covered by advertising. Now it could be that they want to hold off on launching deals for it until the advertising market picks up. That would make sense. But I don't recall that being reported by the media. Mike, if I remember correctly RTD voted the proposal down because they felt the cars wouldn’t look good. It seems odd considering they’re a $3-#5 billion in the hole on Fastracks and already allow RTD buses to be covered by advertising.

Now it could be that they want to hold off on launching deals for it until the advertising market picks up. That would make sense. But I don’t recall that being reported by the media.

]]> By: Mike http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038&cpage=1#comment-85047 Mike Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:19:49 +0000 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038#comment-85047 Branding is a huge part of what makes Apple profitable. While I doubt they actually sell inventory at a loss at those stores (especially at the prices they set), I wouldn't doubt for a moment that they have structured the Apple store business plan as a "Cadillac" retail environment. High service, high cost, volume irrelevant. This is as opposed to Costco, for example, which has huge warehouses that lack even drywall ceilings, that understaffs cash registers so that wait times are long (and people accept this because of the low prices), and so forth... low service, low cost, high volume. Branding is a huge part of what makes Apple profitable. While I doubt they actually sell inventory at a loss at those stores (especially at the prices they set), I wouldn’t doubt for a moment that they have structured the Apple store business plan as a “Cadillac” retail environment. High service, high cost, volume irrelevant. This is as opposed to Costco, for example, which has huge warehouses that lack even drywall ceilings, that understaffs cash registers so that wait times are long (and people accept this because of the low prices), and so forth… low service, low cost, high volume.

]]> By: the highwayman http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038&cpage=1#comment-84926 the highwayman Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:10:05 +0000 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038#comment-84926 Andy, Bennett isn't talking about Apple Corps Ltd. Though they are in the music business too. Andy, Bennett isn’t talking about Apple Corps Ltd.

Though they are in the music business too.

]]> By: Andy http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038&cpage=1#comment-84922 Andy Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:56:31 +0000 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038#comment-84922 I don't see why you disagree with me, bennett. Don't you think the whole point of Apple Stores is to increase profits of Apple.com, or Apple Inc. The Apple Stores themselves are not very profitable because they are over-staffed and subsidized, but I am sure they generate a lot of profit for Apple Inc. People who buy Apple products (like me) buy music, videos, and other products through Apple. But those payments are not through the Apple store itself. I don’t see why you disagree with me, bennett. Don’t you think the whole point of Apple Stores is to increase profits of Apple.com, or Apple Inc.

The Apple Stores themselves are not very profitable because they are over-staffed and subsidized, but I am sure they generate a lot of profit for Apple Inc. People who buy Apple products (like me) buy music, videos, and other products through Apple. But those payments are not through the Apple store itself.

]]> By: bennett http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038&cpage=1#comment-84909 bennett Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:02:25 +0000 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038#comment-84909 Come on Andy. If Gucci, Prada and Marc Jacobs are so profitable why are they not in a wal-mart... Not! As a private sector champion, you above all, should know what marketing and "trends" can do for the bottom line. Apple is the mack daddy of personal computing, smart phones, and mp3 devices. They make S#!%loads of $$$, and make a lot of it out of their super trendy stores. Plus Mac stores are starting to pop up in some of the old suburban indo malls. Just remember, Starbucks didn't start out on every corner. Come on Andy. If Gucci, Prada and Marc Jacobs are so profitable why are they not in a wal-mart… Not! As a private sector champion, you above all, should know what marketing and “trends” can do for the bottom line. Apple is the mack daddy of personal computing, smart phones, and mp3 devices. They make S#!%loads of $$$, and make a lot of it out of their super trendy stores. Plus Mac stores are starting to pop up in some of the old suburban indo malls. Just remember, Starbucks didn’t start out on every corner.

]]> By: Andy http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038&cpage=1#comment-84901 Andy Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:51:59 +0000 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038#comment-84901 I think it is incorrect to say that Apple stores have high profits. They might have more profits per square foot than a Best Buy store ( http://www.gadgetell.com/tech/comment/apples-profit-per-square-foot-beats-best-buy-and-tiffanyco), but that is like comparing Trader Joe's to WalMart. The Apple Stores are in trendy malls to build the trendy image of Apple; not necessarily to make a profit on their own. If they were so profitable, they would be in every mall and not just the trendy ones. I think it is incorrect to say that Apple stores have high profits. They might have more profits per square foot than a Best Buy store ( http://www.gadgetell.com/tech/comment/apples-profit-per-square-foot-beats-best-buy-and-tiffanyco), but that is like comparing Trader Joe’s to WalMart.

The Apple Stores are in trendy malls to build the trendy image of Apple; not necessarily to make a profit on their own. If they were so profitable, they would be in every mall and not just the trendy ones.

]]> By: ws http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038&cpage=1#comment-84884 ws Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:04:50 +0000 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038#comment-84884 Suppose they do, Mike. I guess I was mostly wrong, but I'd gander that most advertisements for airplanes has to do with their special interest. For instance, Sea World advertisement only promotes the use of Southwest airlines (gotta use an airplane to get there). I'm sure there were special deals, etc. to San Diego while SW was doing those advertisements. Maybe if they have Disney advertisements there's good deals to Orlando. I'm not against the advertisements for the transit agencies, like I stated before, but most airplanes are not going to slap down any and all advertisements unless it has something to do with their business. You won't be seeing an Apple Ipod advertisement on a SW airplane anytime soon because it has nothing to do with Airline business. It's good to note the difference in advertisement and marketing tactics. Suppose they do, Mike. I guess I was mostly wrong, but I’d gander that most advertisements for airplanes has to do with their special interest. For instance, Sea World advertisement only promotes the use of Southwest airlines (gotta use an airplane to get there). I’m sure there were special deals, etc. to San Diego while SW was doing those advertisements. Maybe if they have Disney advertisements there’s good deals to Orlando.

I’m not against the advertisements for the transit agencies, like I stated before, but most airplanes are not going to slap down any and all advertisements unless it has something to do with their business.

You won’t be seeing an Apple Ipod advertisement on a SW airplane anytime soon because it has nothing to do with Airline business. It’s good to note the difference in advertisement and marketing tactics.

]]> By: Mike http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038&cpage=1#comment-84877 Mike Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:40:53 +0000 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038#comment-84877 OK that was snarkier than I ought to have been. But damn, do people research the claims they make in their posts anymore, or do they just, like, use the Force? OK that was snarkier than I ought to have been. But damn, do people research the claims they make in their posts anymore, or do they just, like, use the Force?

]]> By: Mike http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038&cpage=1#comment-84875 Mike Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:30:22 +0000 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038#comment-84875 <b>ws:</b> Huh. I was unaware that Southwest Airlines owned <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/f18e777/2402146080/" rel="nofollow">Sea World</a> and <a href="http://www.businesspundit.com/southwest-airlines-sexy-sports-illustrated-plane/" rel="nofollow">Sports Illustrated</a>. Or that those companies were in the aviation business. Turns out you just don't know what the hell you're talking about, as usual, and this time it took 5 seconds on Google to prove it. ws:

Huh. I was unaware that Southwest Airlines owned Sea World and Sports Illustrated. Or that those companies were in the aviation business. Turns out you just don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, as usual, and this time it took 5 seconds on Google to prove it.

]]> By: ws http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038&cpage=1#comment-84866 ws Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:28:26 +0000 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2038#comment-84866 Mike: Airplanes have ads that advertise their own product. I'm not against advertisements for transit agencies. If done correctly, they aren't that bad. That ipod tram better have gotten some good money, because that is a seriously distracting advertisement. Mike:

Airplanes have ads that advertise their own product. I’m not against advertisements for transit agencies. If done correctly, they aren’t that bad. That ipod tram better have gotten some good money, because that is a seriously distracting advertisement.

]]>