Ah Larry!

"M.W.Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You probably aren't a swimmer either.

My last timed 50 free was a 24.9 sec. I am 50 years old. I hope to get faster.

Don

Shahin Malekpour said:

"Bill Geiser" wrote:

[Walmart rhubarb rhubarb]

<snip>

Quoted message said:

There are an infinite number of ways to compete - and win -

^^^^^^^ <snip>

Which flies in the face of Michael Porter's "Generic Competitive Advantage" that identifies "Cost
Leadership" and "Differentiation" as the ONLY competitive options, with "narrow" and "broad"
dimensions. Other options are identified as: "caught in the middle".

Factors like better technology; trained human resources; promotions strategy; niche marketing,
etc. all fall into one or the other of the options according to Porter's widely held model.

In swimming, Cost Leadership, e.g. reducing energy expenditure by avoiding drag is a major
advantage. This strategy particularly relies on investment in excellent training and superior
teqnique.

A "Differentiation Strategy" in swimming competition however, would be very interesting as a
discussion subject.

Cheers, Shahin

I think this is a matter of semantics. I said 'there are a number of *ways* to compete and
win'....sounds like Porter favors using 'factors' (vs. ways) then rolls factors up into 'options'.

Call them what you want and categorize them any way you like - the point remains the same:
competiting with giants is not an impossible task.

BTW, I really like your 'cost leadership' analogy wrt to swimming. I often use a similar analogy in
my business. Specifically, comparing 'cash' in a business and 'oxygen' in swimming. Both are
precious commodities and, when the supply runs out, you are dead.....

Bill

Jason O'Rourke said:

The less polite word for this is "monopoly."

...snip...

Quoted message said:

But I don't think they have that edge anymore, just watching them fail to compete with Costco.

If they are failing to compete with Costo, how can they be considered a monopoly? A monopoly happens
when there is only one competitor.

But, your point regarding WalMart's tough negotiating stance is well understood and well taken. I am
sure that for a number of small companies WalMart represents an unhealthy percentage of their total
business. I've been in that situation myself - not with WalMart - but the feeling is the same -
they've got you by the balls. So, at that point you have a couple of choices: a) sit there and do
nothing....and wait for your big customer to squeeze you to death or give *your* business to someone
else selling it for one cent less (and they all will - that practice is not limited to WalMart); or
b) go out and find new products and/or new customers to help you balance your sales/revenue
portfolio. In other words, the people managing the businesses that sell to WalMart have choices as
well. Some choose to exercise their options....some don't.

The other point - while some companies become the 800 lb. gorillia in their market, very rarely
will you see this one company dominant that market for an extended period of time. IBM comes to
mind in the 60's & 70's, when they owned at least a 70+% of the computer market. But they didn't
stay on top. New technologies & innovations created by much smaller, faster-moving companies
changed the game.....and, these little companies have now become the giants of their markets (I'm
speaking specifically of MicroSoft, Cisco, & Dell). Free markets tend to self-regulate. Let the
circle be unbroken.

Bill

Shahin Malekpour said:

In my opinion. TI has not shown as yet signs of unethical practices, although, arguably, it seems
that potentially it could have a near monopoly in this particular sports market. Terry Laughlin is
not the first sporting entrepreneur, nor the last. I think if I remember correctly, one of the
earliest sports businessmen (promoter) was the golfer Mark McCormac

I don't believe you can have a monopoly in a field with absolutely no barriers to entry. If Larry
decided he'd like to sell classes about Total Loping, he can do it...unless Terry tries to enforce a
trademark for total. (Thus giving Larry great publicity for a new name)

He's sold a few books, and runs training seminars. Hardly unique. Just decently successful.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Bill Geiser wpgeiser@nospam said:

Actually it wasn't a mistake in negotiations IBM made...it was a flat mis-read of the critical
importance of of the desktop O/S. IBM, in its glorious arrogance, assumed hardware - not software -
was the market driver, and Microsoft took them apart as a result. Proves my point even more - every
company has a weakness or a blind spot. Big ones in

Uh...where did you get the idea that IBM was dead?

Its market cap is 157B. Its revenues are 85B, with about 30B in profit. It had over 300k employees.
Sure it doesn't have 70% of the PC market, but who would want it? It's a commodity business. IBM has
always been about a lot more than just PCs, and they continue to move forward. They do remain the
leader in the notebook segment with its higher margins.

Quoted message said:

Dell pointed out the merits of a direct, more cost-effective distribution channel...and has become
the number one supplier of PC's.

Dell succeeds by doing virtually no R&D, and leeching off the work of the other players. That's not
sustainable, and as it is, their leading stance garners them but a 20% share. Revenues = 38B,
profits but 7B.

Quoted message said:

Because there are U.S. laws against it, generally falling under the category of Anti-trust
violations and which incldue: pricing fixing, predatory pricing, bid-rigging, customer and market
allocation, tying arrangements, price discrimination, monopolization and various species of unfair
competition, including false advertising.

There are no laws against selling at 1% margins, are there? And then raising prices later when the
competition folds.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Bill Geiser wpgeiser@nospam said:

Quoted message said:

But I don't think they have that edge anymore, just watching them fail to compete with Costco.

If they are failing to compete with Costo, how can they be considered a monopoly? A monopoly
happens when there is only one competitor.

Costco is a very different business, with much more focus on groceries. Walmart's [censored] son Sam's
Club is the equilivent.

Quoted message said:

The other point - while some companies become the 800 lb. gorillia in their market, very rarely
will you see this one company dominant that market for an extended period of time. IBM comes to
mind in the 60's & 70's, when they owned at least a 70+% of the computer market. But they didn't
stay on top. New technologies & innovations created by much smaller, faster-moving companies
changed the game.....and, these little companies have now become the giants of their markets (I'm
speaking specifically of MicroSoft, Cisco, & Dell). Free markets tend to self-regulate. Let the
circle be unbroken.

IBM moved on. MS and Cisco, yes. Dell, no, as written elsewhere.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Bill Geiser wpgeiser@nospam said:

Jason O'Rourke said:

Costco is a very different business, with much more focus on groceries.

Well, you've got me really confused....this discussion centered around CA Grocery workers going on
strike because WalMart was entering the market. How come they don't [censored] about Costco if, as you
say, WalMart can't compete with them?

Forgive me, I live in NorCal, but I thought they were striking over medical copays, nothing to do
with WalMart save that their employees probably have no medical plan at all. Larry?
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Bill Geiser wpgeiser@nospam said:

Uh...where did I say IBM was dead? I didn't say it, nor did I imply that. What I said was Microsoft
took them apart in the desktop market. That's a fact. And, if you track IBM's market cap during the
'80's you'll see a significant dip...due to Bill Gates and company.

The dip was from cloners, not from Microsoft. IBM didn't make their money selling PC DOS.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dell succeeds by doing virtually no R&D, and leeching off the work of the other players. That's
not sustainable, and as it is, their leading stance garners them but a 20% share. Revenues = 38B,
profits but 7B.

How do you know it's not sustainable? They've held the number 1 or 2 spot in PC shipments for at
least the past 10 years....what makes you think that's going to change? The PC is a commodity at
this stage, so the low cost supplier should have the most leverage. Dell is the low cost supplier.

Check your numbers - I doubt they held #2 in 1993. And again, their share is less than 20%. As for
sustainability, if the other players decide to stop doing Dell's work for them, what will they do?

And at this point, Dell has seen very clearly that they need to bump their business in the higher
margin server sector, which is hard to do riding on other coattails. The methods used to sell a
cheap PC to consumers are not applicable to a market based on performance and reliability.

Quoted message said:

As for Dell's financial viability it would appear Wall Steet places higher value on them than they
do IBM when you compare revenue to market cap.

Wall Street is a democracy of buyers, and we've seen that often it more ressembles a mob of idiots.
Dell was a performer in the past....it's not so easy to grow once you're as big as you're going to
get, in a business with declining margins.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are no laws against selling at 1% margins, are there? And then raising prices later when
the competition folds.

Not unless it restrains trade.....so, what's yer point?

That's the Walmart (and Home Depot) model in little America.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

M.W.Smith said:

Donald Graft said:

The standard for wit is very low for liberals it seems. The idiot lost the debate when he invoked
Nazism.

Debate? There was no debate. You haven't raised any legitimate points. You probably aren't a
swimmer either. I have actually never met a swimmer with an attitude like yours.

He is a swimmer. As I read this, I recalled that I had gotten videos of Donald Graft himself
along with all his clips of elite swimmers. There's a zipfile of an mpg of Donald swimming crawl
at this link:

donalfagan.comswim videos.htmlOpen ↗

I was surprised when I pulled it up. Donald has always criticized TI's admonition to roll as a unit
or "like a log," but when I look at this video clip, he is doing just that. He doesn't rotate a lot,
but his hips do rotate along with his shoulders.

Donal Fagan AIA Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com (Anglicise the name to reply by e-mail)

"Bill Geiser sbcglobal.net>" wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[Walmart rhubarb rhubarb]

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I think this is a matter of semantics.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

... competiting with giants is not an impossible task.

From "semantics" to lilliputian argument? Neither!

If you seriously believe that say a traditional English corner shop is capable of competing with
Asda, a giant British supermarket recently gobbled up by Walmart, let that be your end of the
egg to crack.

Of "factors" that enable a giant to dominate the field and aim for a monopoly, you cannot ignore the
"economies of scale" that enables the "giant" to stifle the competitive environment by launching
unfair price wars (at cost or even below), mostly targeting inelastic goods. They are able to
sustain the course by appeasing the customer in their drive to claim the market, frequently at the
cost of their quisling supply chain, and desertify the competitive environment in the process. In
the long run the social cost will be high, and the tax payer (the customer) will pick up the tab:
the law of diminishing returns.

Quoted message said:

BTW, I really like your 'cost leadership' analogy wrt to swimming. I often use a similar analogy
in my business.

That brings us nearer to topical, Bill. Here in r.s.s. we have a very interesting case study: "Total
Immersion".

This business is built by the admission of its founder on "serendipity" when by gut feeling rather
than a plan, a segment of the sports market, the general recreational swimmers, were identified as
customers. This is a classic example of "Differentiation Strategy", albeit grown out of intuition
than design, with a "narrow scope". TI's strategy is "Differentiation Focus" in positioning itself
to its quite specific market.

TI needn't a "Cost Leadership" strategy, because it is very fortunate not to have any incumbent
competitor of significance in its domain, to the ire of its critics who suspect commercial motives
might spread poor standards into a field vested with interests beyond material gains.

In my opinion. TI has not shown as yet signs of unethical practices, although, arguably, it seems
that potentially it could have a near monopoly in this particular sports market. Terry Laughlin is
not the first sporting entrepreneur, nor the last. I think if I remember correctly, one of the
earliest sports businessmen (promoter) was the golfer Mark McCormac (I read a book by him in the
Eighties).

A British soccer player, Beckham is also a sporting businessman and a virtual trade name. Which is
worse: to become a celebrity endorsement machine and sell everything from underpants and condoms, to
gassy drinks and handheld telephone, or to create a well targeted brand to promote healthy,
efficient and safe practice of a popular sport, grow a successful business, and create jobs?

In my opinion, Laughlin, as far as I know, is a good example of the American dream: an innovative
man with initiative who discovered a yawning gap in the market and knuckled down to doing what's
needed to be done in making him a free and independent man; free enough not to indulge in vicarious
vainglory. But I think he needs effective competition in his field to encourage more creativity and
benefits to this sport.

Regards, Shahin

Quoted message said:

Bill

In article <plrzb.409100$Tr4.1172315@attbi_s03>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"M.W.Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You probably aren't a swimmer either.

My last timed 50 free was a 24.9 sec. I am 50 years old. I hope to get faster.

Don

Good time! I've been feeling guilty about my nazi arm band post, by the way - didn't mean for it to
come off as "Don is a nazi because he's conservative..." - it's just such a rare occassion when I
feel I have something "witty" to contribute that I tend to sometimes lose sight of the underlying
meaning or insinuations, so I apologize.

Regards,
- Al

Jason O'Rourke said:

Uh...where did you get the idea that IBM was dead?

Uh...where did I say IBM was dead? I didn't say it, nor did I imply that. What I said was Microsoft
took them apart in the desktop market. That's a fact. And, if you track IBM's market cap during the
'80's you'll see a significant dip...due to Bill Gates and company.

IBM then wised up and figured out to make hay in professional services. They do quite well these
days....a superior managment team and an incredible stint at the helm by Lou Gerstner.

Quoted message said:

Dell succeeds by doing virtually no R&D, and leeching off the work of the other players. That's
not sustainable, and as it is, their leading stance garners them but a 20% share. Revenues = 38B,
profits but 7B.

How do you know it's not sustainable? They've held the number 1 or 2 spot in PC shipments for at
least the past 10 years....what makes you think that's going to change? The PC is a commodity at
this stage, so the low cost supplier should have the most leverage. Dell is the low cost supplier.

As for Dell's financial viability it would appear Wall Steet places higher value on them than they
do IBM when you compare revenue to market cap.

Quoted message said:

There are no laws against selling at 1% margins, are there? And then raising prices later when the
competition folds.

Not unless it restrains trade.....so, what's yer point?

Jason O'Rourke said:

Costco is a very different business, with much more focus on groceries.

Well, you've got me really confused....this discussion centered around CA Grocery workers going on
strike because WalMart was entering the market. How come they don't [censored] about Costco if, as you
say, WalMart can't compete with them?

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:44:44 +0000 (UTC), Jason O'Rourke wrote:

jason - i'd love to continue the discussion....but am feeling pangs of guilt about doing it on
rss...we're clearly off topic...feel free to email me directly.

BG

Jason O'Rourke <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message :
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

He certainly gave the UN a try, but when France pulled the veto [censored], that didn't leave
many options. France should never have had a permament veto in the first place- it is a second
tier nation.

Yeah, that's right. Cannot conceive France refused to give us full powers to go to war, under the
fallacious pretext that they (and the vast majority of council members) were not entirely convinced
by our numerous proofs about the massive presence of WMD in Irak. And we should withdraw veto power
to Russia, too, they have a smaller GDP than France, after all. And of course, Germany or Japan
shouldn't have it, too: no nuke, non real army, not that big. Only Bush should have a veto power.
USA should BE the Security Council. Maybe could we add UK (despite they are in the same league as
France) to represent the world diversity of culture and opinion. Or add some african or south
american state with which we are sure we can exert our usual bribe / blackmail / friendly
pressure...

But who cares about vetos and UN anyway? Didn't we already blatantly defy the UN Security Council,
going into Irak for having blatantly defied the Security Council?

-- Olivier (thinking for Jason / Bush...)

Jason O'Rourke said:

M.W.Smith said:

English language, his social conscience, then how can you possibly see George W. Bush as
President? I'm serious when I say that your view on this, which is held by at least 20% of
americans, is beyond me. He can't speak well; he has a very limited vocabulary; his general
demeanor is either smarmy or disrespectful; he can't think on his feet; he knows very little about
the world having never traveled outside the US; his thinking is black & white; he has chosen
mostly fundamentalist fanatics to run his administration, people who his own father referred to as
the crazies. When you decided you wanted George W. Bush for President, what were the reasons? He
had no reasoned and well thought out policies, and he still doesn't. He never had a plan for Iraq,
for example, and he still doesn't. He has turned a huge budget surplus into an even bigger budget
deficit in record time. He has forced a mammoth debt onto your grandchildren. He has abrogated or
backed out of several treaties or other agreements. He refuses to recognize any efforts to prevent
global warming. He refuses to work within the UN. He refuses to abide by international law. And
the world is not a safer place since he started using unilateral violence to make the world a
safer place.

Quite the rant, Martin. How can one possibly respond to all of them.

Rather, address the issue of the pattern of American policy his administration has presented to the
world by all these points. His is not the only administration at fault, but it is the worst in this
regard, and it is the one in office now. After 9/11, there was enormous support for the US, and this
support was based on history more so than on the attacks themselves. Two years later, all that good
will is gone! We the people did not lose it. Who did?

Quoted message said:

I'd actually be quite happy with a good Democratic alternative next year, but this bunch of warmed
over bozos won't do the job. The Party is in serious need for leadership, and it isn't there.

ok, I don't think that is a fair appraisal of either Clark or Dean, but good heavens, if you mean
that both Clark and Dean are warmed over bozos, then what did you say about George W. Bush during
his campaign? You would have had to be passionately against him becoming President, since he can't
hold a candle to either Clark or Dean. You would have had to be alarmed about him becoming
President. Were you? Have you been speaking out against his policies and actions? Think back to the
2000 campaign. Can you honestly compare George W. Bush favorably to either Clark or Dean?

Quoted message said:

The deficit changed before his first budget came through. Along with that recession. The surplus
wasn't going to last. He just pushed it along with the tax cuts (easily removed) and the GOP pork
(not so easy).

Clinton sat on the Kyoto accords, never presenting it to Congress. Which treaties are you
referring to?

The ABM, and the Geneva Conventions.

Also the ICC, which isn't a treaty.

Quoted message said:

He certainly gave the UN a try, but when France pulled the veto [censored], that didn't leave many
options. France should never have had a permament veto in the first place- it is a second tier
nation. Moreover, none of them should have this veto just because they happened to be on the
winning side of WWII. Any peace organization owned by the victors of a past war can't last. And
this peace organization failed its mission with Iraq. Saddam signed a surrender treaty and
failed to live up to the terms. He brought the conclusion upon himself; it would not have taken
much to avoid
it. Instead he made it quite easy for Bush and Co to move forward on the prewar propoganda
machine.

Yes, we agree the UN should be re-engineered. But, the Bush administration, like all the others
before it, simply ignored the two elements that must be at the foundation of any solution to these
problems. These two elements are our failure to address the Israel/Palestine problem, and our
support for dictatorships and non-democracies, especially in Arab and other Muslim states. We are
still doing
it. Uzbekistan is one example. Egypt is another. And we still support the Saudi Family.

France did the right thing. France didn't veto anything in this case. The US acted as an outlaw.
France, Germany, and Russia argued against doing that, and they argued for extending the inspections
until the inspectors declared they had done all they could do. According to Hans Blix, they needed
some few more months. The correct, law-abiding, democratic move was to go along with that, preserve
good will toward the American view, and when the inspectors had completed their work, then decide
what to do next.

Recall that both Colin Powell and Condoleza Rice, in 2001, before 9/11, had stated in very public TV
interviews that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, that he could not re-arm, that he
was not a threat to the US or to any of his neighbors, and that he was under control. I have seen
these interviews. You can see them yourself in the latest John Pilger documentary, if it is shown in
the US (Truth and Lies in the War on Terror - two thumbs up). These two people represented the Bush
administration. They spoke before 9/11 based on all the same intelligence that, after 9/11, was
suddenly used by them to say exactly the opposite. Why? 9/11 changed nothing about Iraq. So were
they lying before 9/11 or were they lying after?

The correct move was, is, and always will be, to insist on implementation of exactly what this
recent Geneva Conference has produced. Implementing that program, which is essentially the same
pre-67 borders, two-state solution that the UN and most of the world has advocated for 35 years,
must be among the first steps to eliminate terrorism. Instead, the Bush administration moved away
from democracy, away from consensus, away from human rights, and toward more violence and terrorism.
The world is not safer now, and America has lost respect and good will.

martin

Shahin Malekpour said:

If you seriously believe that say a traditional English corner shop is capable of competing with
Asda, a giant British supermarket recently gobbled up by Walmart, let that be your end of the egg
to crack.

I'm not saying its easy - but it can be done. Look at MicroSoft who upended what, argueably, was the
greatest monopolist of its time (IBM).

More specifically, I can only speak about America in this regards. The number of 'rags to riches'
stories in America are too numerous to count. And, they are still happening. You may be right
regarding the business climate in England - it may not be possible for the small guy to compete.

BTW, Porter's term 'Cost Leadership' isn't universally accepted. "Process leadership" (having better
processes and ability to execute on them) may be a more precise term to use in that it describes how
a company like WalMart achieves it's cost leadership position.

Quoted message said:

Of "factors" that enable a giant to dominate the field and aim for a monopoly, you cannot ignore
the "economies of scale" that enables the "giant" to stifle the competitive environment by
launching unfair price wars (at cost or even below),

Predatory pricing practices (selling below cost) are against the law in the US. As big as WalMart
is, I would find it hard to believe they aren't watched very closely on this. If they break the law,
they should be severely punished.

Quoted message said:

In my opinion, Laughlin, as far as I know, is a good example of the American dream: an innovative
man with initiative who discovered a yawning gap in the market and knuckled down to doing what's
needed to be done in making him a free and independent man; free enough not to indulge in
vicarious vainglory. But I think he needs effective competition in his field to encourage more
creativity and benefits to this sport.

I agree - Terry has built a nice business by delivering real value to his customers. However, I
don't think you can classify him as a monopolist simply because no one else is doing what he's
doing. There are at least 26 million people in the US who swim on average once every two weeks
(Source: Sports Publications). I might be wrong, but Terry's share of this large market would not be
considered as a material or significant percentage.

Bill

"Al" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:MPG.1a393c4c497e6a349896ee@mayonews...

Quoted message said:

In article <plrzb.409100$Tr4.1172315@attbi_s03>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"M.W.Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You probably aren't a swimmer either.

My last timed 50 free was a 24.9 sec. I am 50 years old. I hope to get faster.

Don

Good time! I've been feeling guilty about my nazi arm band post, by the way - didn't mean for it
to come off as "Don is a nazi because he's conservative..." - it's just such a rare occassion when
I feel I have something "witty" to contribute that I tend to sometimes lose sight of the
underlying meaning or insinuations, so I apologize.

Thank you, Al. That is a gracious post and I appreciate it. I too have sort of gone over the top.
I'm planning to make up for it with a new batch of Barcelona 2003 videos, to be uploaded shortly.

Don

Bill Geiser

Quoted message said:

Shahin Malekpour said:

If you seriously believe that say a traditional English corner shop is capable of competing with
Asda, a giant British supermarket recently gobbled up by Walmart, let that be your end of the egg
to crack.

I'm not saying its easy - but it can be done. Look at MicroSoft who upended what, argueably, was
the greatest monopolist of its time (IBM).

But Microsoft didn't do that. It was a mistake by IBM in the negotiations for IBM's licensing of
DOS. This sort of think is an anomoly, not a path to success that can be duplicated. It isn't
something to emulate, because there isn't anything that can be duplicated.

Quoted message said:

More specifically, I can only speak about America in this regards. The number of 'rags to riches'
stories in America are too numerous to count. And, they are still happening. You may be right
regarding the business climate in England - it may not be possible for the small guy to compete.

But "rags to riches" and "possible for the small guy to compete" are not at all the same thing.
Furthermore, the ratio of rags to riches stories to failures is almost 0. It is simply irresponsible
to suggest that the way for the small guy to compete against the big guys is to depend on achieving
a rags to riches story.

Quoted message said:

BTW, Porter's term 'Cost Leadership' isn't universally accepted. "Process leadership" (having
better processes and ability to execute on them) may be a more precise term to use in that it
describes how a company like WalMart achieves it's cost leadership position.

Why should it be legal for a company like Microsoft or WalMart to operate at a loss for years in
some area, when small guys are trying to compete in that same area?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of "factors" that enable a giant to dominate the field and aim for a monopoly, you cannot ignore
the "economies of scale" that enables the "giant" to stifle the competitive environment by
launching unfair price wars (at cost or even below),

Predatory pricing practices (selling below cost) are against the law in the US. As big as WalMart
is, I would find it hard to believe they aren't watched very closely on this. If they break the
law, they should be severely punished.

But by then it is too late. They don't have to prove up front that their pricing is not predatory.
Selling below cost is not illegal. A pattern of selling below cost for the purpose of defeating
competition is illegal. That is often hard to prove, because WalMart isn't required to prove
anything up front.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In my opinion, Laughlin, as far as I know, is a good example of the American dream: an innovative
man with initiative who discovered a yawning gap in the market and knuckled down to doing what's
needed to be done in making him a free and independent man; free enough not to indulge in
vicarious vainglory. But I think he needs effective competition in his field to encourage more
creativity and benefits to this sport.

I agree - Terry has built a nice business by delivering real value to his customers. However, I
don't think you can classify him as a monopolist simply because no one else is doing what he's
doing. There are at least 26 million people in the US who swim on average once every two weeks
(Source: Sports Publications). I might be wrong, but Terry's share of this large market would not
be considered as a material or significant percentage.

Bill

Bill Geiser sbcglobal.net said:

Porter's term 'Cost Leadership' isn't universally accepted. "Process leadership" (having better
processes and ability to execute on them) may be a more precise term to use in that it describes
how a company like WalMart achieves it's cost leadership position.

Thanks for the update. Management consultants have vested interest in churning dime a dozen terms to
keep them in business. 🙂 "Process Leadership" seems to lead to cost reduction, cost reduction
leading to ... Well if _that_ isn't a Lilliputian argument, I don't know what is! 🙂

Quoted message said:

I agree - Terry has built a nice business by delivering real value to his customers. However, I
don't think you can classify him as a monopolist simply because no one else is doing what he's
doing. There are at least 26 million people in the US who swim on average once every two weeks
(Source: Sports Publications). I might be wrong, but Terry's share of this large market would not
be considered as a material or significant percentage.

Rather than "classify", I indicated "potential". I find your points regarding the American market
very useful. Thanks for the dialogue.

Shahin