Re: OT - Re: Program templates as Object Classes

On 7 Dec 2004 22:04:24 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

 
>I 
>
>Thank you.
>
>Given that much of that is transport, freezing, processing, fertiliser
>and pesticide production, then reducing meat and replacing this with
>more other foods is unlikely to make much difference to the energy
>consumption.

Good point. There's also the inefficiency factor of 18:1 when
converting plants to meat. If there were no meat, we wouldn't need to
farm as much land.

Vegetarians claim that if there were no meat, the US could feed the
entire world.  It's not realistic, but an interesting numbers game. I
did a  detailed study years ago. The result was we could feed 900M,
about 3.5 times the US population. A far cry from 6B.

I should have been as skeptical with these energy numbers.

> Diamonds were a poorly chosen example of a low-volume,

Your whole previous messages were 'poorly chosen'.

> The items move slower than sugar per inch of shelf space.

You've obviously done some actual research now.  Previously you claimed
they wouldn't even know what the stock turn would be:
 

> The reason WHY profit is so high is not because supply is
manipulated,
> it's because velocity is low.

No. The reason why it gets much less shelf space is because number of
items sold is low, this brings the stock turn up (being ratio of items
sold to space allocated).  Pricing is set by what the market will bear.
If the price is set too high for an item then customers will buy it
elsewhere.

Setting shelf space does _not_ manipulate supply, as you claim, If
there is one on the shelf then supply is available.

You are proposing a theory that supermarkets will raise the price of an
item as the number of sales falls.  This is bunkum.  If they raise the
price then fewer will sell.

Or perhaps you imagine they can raise the profit margin _without_
increasing the price.

In some cases supermarkets will sell items at a _loss_ and will give
shelf space to this, but may limit the purchase per customer.

> today I noted a 12 foot facing (shelf space) for 5lb bags of sugar

The space allocated would also reflect the shelf refresh.  If shelf
restocking is only done overnight then the amount of shelf space must
be at least the highest expected sales for the day.  You can't run out
of staples because the shoppers will go to another supermarket and will
buy everything there.

> Gross profit: 67%
> Gross profit: 83%

You just made that up.

> gross profit percent. ... If a chain is higher, its prices are higher
than others; if it's lower, its prices are lower.

That is crap.  There is more to profit than just the price.  There are
overheads and volume.  The most profitable supermarket around here is
the 'Pak'N'Save' which has the lowest prices for most items.

> Bzzzt, wrong. No store has 100% scan rate. I've seen some as low as
> 70%. If a checker can punch .99 Grocery, you've lost control of
> inventory.

Every supermarket I use here has 100% scan rate and has done so for
years.  When I worked on modifying Supermarket systems 20 years ago it
was 100% scanning.  This includes fruit and veg.  How hard is it for
you ?

> It hasn't happened in any US supermarket company

Then they are pathetic.

And how could your self-checkout work if it is not 100% scan ?

> General merchandisers such as Wal-Mart have seen greater success, but
still
> not 100%.

How difficult is it ?  In the UK the Supermarkets are 100% scan.

> does the computer know about allocated shelf space?

Yes.  Not only that, but in this part of the world (mainly Aus)
supermarkets _sell_ some of the shelf space to suppliers.  They don't
get product on shelves without paying for it.

> I've never seen that in a database.

What a surprise, there are things you haven't seen.

> Stores frequently 're-set' shelf space without bothering to update a
database.

Not here they don't.

> MY high-priced product?

Yes, this one:

RW> If artisan pain au levain were priced for 60% gross profit,
supermarkets would overflow with it.

> Diamonds were a poorly chosen example of a low-volume,

Your whole previous messages were 'poorly chosen'.

> The items move slower than sugar per inch of shelf space.

You've obviously done some actual research now.  Previously you claimed
they wouldn't even know what the stock turn would be:
 

> The reason WHY profit is so high is not because supply is
manipulated,
> it's because velocity is low.

No. The reason why it gets much less shelf space is because number of
items sold is low, this brings the stock turn up (being ratio of items
sold to space allocated).  Pricing is set by what the market will bear.
If the price is set too high for an item then customers will buy it
elsewhere.

Setting shelf space does _not_ manipulate supply, as you claim, If
there is one on the shelf then supply is available.

You are proposing a theory that supermarkets will raise the price of an
item as the number of sales falls.  This is bunkum.  If they raise the
price then fewer will sell.

Or perhaps you imagine they can raise the profit margin _without_
increasing the price.

In some cases supermarkets will sell items at a _loss_ and will give
shelf space to this, but may limit the purchase per customer.

> today I noted a 12 foot facing (shelf space) for 5lb bags of sugar

The space allocated would also reflect the shelf refresh.  If shelf
restocking is only done overnight then the amount of shelf space must
be at least the highest expected sales for the day.  You can't run out
of staples because the shoppers will go to another supermarket and will
buy everything there.

> Gross profit: 67%
> Gross profit: 83%

You just made that up.

> gross profit percent. ... If a chain is higher, its prices are higher
than others; if it's lower, its prices are lower.

That is crap.  There is more to profit than just the price.  There are
overheads and volume.  The most profitable supermarket around here is
the 'Pak'N'Save' which has the lowest prices for most items.

> Diamonds were a poorly chosen example of a low-volume,

Your whole previous messages were 'poorly chosen'.

> The items move slower than sugar per inch of shelf space.

You've obviously done some actual research now.  Previously you claimed
they wouldn't even know what the stock turn would be:
 

> The reason WHY profit is so high is not because supply is
manipulated,
> it's because velocity is low.

No. The reason why it gets much less shelf space is because number of
items sold is low, this brings the stock turn up (being ratio of items
sold to space allocated).  Pricing is set by what the market will bear.
If the price is set too high for an item then customers will buy it
elsewhere.

Setting shelf space does _not_ manipulate supply, as you claim, If
there is one on the shelf then supply is available.

You are proposing a theory that supermarkets will raise the price of an
item as the number of sales falls.  This is bunkum.  If they raise the
price then fewer will sell.

Or perhaps you imagine they can raise the profit margin _without_
increasing the price.

In some cases supermarkets will sell items at a _loss_ and will give
shelf space to this, but may limit the purchase per customer.

> today I noted a 12 foot facing (shelf space) for 5lb bags of sugar

The space allocated would also reflect the shelf refresh.  If shelf
restocking is only done overnight then the amount of shelf space must
be at least the highest expected sales for the day.  You can't run out
of staples because the shoppers will go to another supermarket and will
buy everything there.

> Gross profit: 67%
> Gross profit: 83%

You just made that up.

> gross profit percent. ... If a chain is higher, its prices are higher
than others; if it's lower, its prices are lower.

That is crap.  There is more to profit than just the price.  There are
overheads and volume.  The most profitable supermarket around here is
the 'Pak'N'Save' which has the lowest prices for most items.

> Bzzzt, wrong. No store has 100% scan rate. I've seen some as low as
> 70%. If a checker can punch .99 Grocery, you've lost control of
> inventory.

Every supermarket I use here has 100% scan rate and has done so for
years.  When I worked on modifying Supermarket systems 20 years ago it
was 100% scanning.  This includes fruit and veg.  How hard is it for
you ?

> It hasn't happened in any US supermarket company

Then they are pathetic.

And how could your self-checkout work if it is not 100% scan ?

> General merchandisers such as Wal-Mart have seen greater success, but
still
> not 100%.

How difficult is it ?  In the UK the Supermarkets are 100% scan.

> does the computer know about allocated shelf space?

Yes.  Not only that, but in this part of the world (mainly Aus)
supermarkets _sell_ some of the shelf space to suppliers.  They don't
get product on shelves without paying for it.

> I've never seen that in a database.

What a surprise, there are things you haven't seen.

> Stores frequently 're-set' shelf space without bothering to update a
database.

Not here they don't.

> MY high-priced product?

Yes, this one:

RW> If artisan pain au levain were priced for 60% gross profit,
supermarkets would overflow with it.