Adventures in Retailing
      Part II: Two Guys from Retailand
      by
      Ross M. Miller
      Miller Risk Advisors
      www.millerrisk.com
      December 6, 2004
      My megastore memories of youth are of the Two Guys from
      Harrison (later known as "Two Guys") in Union, New Jersey just
      off infamous Route 22 and down from its even more infamous Flagship—the
      ship-shaped building that has hosted several different establishments over
      the years. Two Guys never ventured far from its roots in Harrison, a burg
      best known to commuters for its woebegone PATH
      station, but it foreshadowed the future of retailing.
      The Union Two Guys store was huge and filled with
      discount merchandise, much of which said "Made in Japan" when
      that was still a pejorative term. Many of my cherished toys and my first
      transistor radio came from that store. When my parents went shopping
      there, they would leave me in the play area with a handful of nickels and
      I would immerse myself in the various pinball machines and other forms of
      electric entertainment until they gathered me back up. Two Guys had
      everything—school supplies, clothing, records, electronics, house wares,
      jewelry, hats, and in its last days, groceries. Unlike the downtown
      department stores (Macy's Bamberger's, etc.), which were where the
      retailing action was in New Jersey during the early 1960s, Two Guys was
      all on a single sprawling level with seemingly unbounded parking.
      Long before it closed its doors, Two Guys went into the
      typical retail death spiral. Anything in the store that broke stayed
      broken. It looked a lot like my local Kmart (Martha among the ruins) looks
      today and the way that my local Wal-Mart is beginning to look. (Don't
      expect me to comment on the Sears/Kmart merger.)
      Maybe Two Guys was ahead of its time. Maybe not. Maybe
      all retailers have a life cycle that includes death or a related
      transformation. As went Two Guys, so went E. J. Korvettes, Woolworth's,
      and all the rest.
      The two guys that are the real focus of this commentary
      are not from Harrison. Wal-Mart is from Bentonville and Target is from
      somewhere like the MoMA design store (or maybe just the Michael Graves
      section). I have done only a quick in-and-out at my local Wal-Mart since
      my notable
      excursion this past summer, though I must admit to being a regular
      Target customer.
      Given enough time, both Wal-Mart and Target will almost
      certainly succumb to a combination of market forces and their own
      stupidity. I'm not one to bet on which will far by the wayside first (and
      if I did, I'd be tempted to bet against myself). Target still seems to be
      working on finding themselves. The newest store in the area has an
      embedded Starbuck's and even the older stores look like new stores that
      have not quite figured out what they are doing. But at least shopping at
      Target is an inoffensive experience, though I wish they would ditch that
      mascot dog of theirs (maybe Old Navy could use him).
      Wal-Mart, on the other hand, knows exactly what they
      are. In an attempt to develop a General Theory of Wal-Mart, I have come up
      with my two special theories of Wal-Mart. Bear in mind that my theories
      apply only to Wal-Mart and not Sam's Club. Any unified theory of
      Bentonville retailing must wait for future generations of economists.
      The first special theory I call "Miller's First Law
      of Wal-Mart." It goes like this:
      It only pays to shop at Wal-Mart if
      you going to purchase goods worth one-thousandth your personal annual
      income.
      For example, a crack dealer who makes $350,000 a year
      should only shop at Wal-Mart if he expects to purchase at least $350 in
      goods. This law was derived using certain assumptions about the psychic
      cost of being in Wal-Mart and the opportunity cost of waiting in line. I
      would provide the details, but Harvard can probably use a problem like
      this on their economic theory general exams. (My favorite generals problem
      began "Lobster live forever..." and I'm almost certain that it
      was written by an economics professor who could pass for the humanoid form
      of the aliens
      in the movie "Galaxy Quest.")
      The second special theory that I came up with is even
      simpler and it is not suitable for economics graduate study. Here it is:
      Wal-Mart hates people.
      I suspect that Wal-Mart did not always hate people. At
      some point, the greeters must have been there to welcome people rather
      than grunt and look to see if they were carrying automatic weapons into
      the store. In business school circles, Wal-Mart is famous not for its
      retailing prowess, but for its ability to work its computers and bash its
      suppliers. In other words, while Target is clearly trying to enhance my
      shopping experience in order to keep my business; Wal-Mart does not seem
      to care about me, their associates, or anyone. Worse than that, Wal-Mart
      is not even willing to go through the motions. That would cost too much
      money.
      I am well aware that all around cyberspace Wal-Mart is
      taken to task for abusing their associates in myriad ways and that a
      best-selling book has chronicled this abuse. I am in no position to judge
      Wal-Mart as an employer and while there is no bigger employer in the U.S.,
      I am sure that there are worse ones. On a personal level, the problem is
      that Wal-Mart abuses their customers by making them shop in dirty stores,
      wait in unconscionably long lines, and interact with associates who mostly
      range from catatonic to rude. (I am sure that Wal-Mart has some wonderful
      associates, too. I have never met them. If you or a close relative works
      there, do not bother to send me hate mail.)
      The market, however, is in a position to judge Wal-Mart.
      Over the past two years while the S&P 500 Index has moved up over 20%,
      Wal-Mart stock has gone nowhere. Could it be that the people that Wal-Mart
      hates the most are its shareholders?
      Next week will be the last of my regularly scheduled
      commentaries for a while, possibly a long while, possibly forever. But
      before going sporadic, I will explain my current thinking about Google,
      China, and the meaning of life itself in next week's commentary entitled
      "Going Sporadic."
      
      Copyright 2004 by Miller Risk Advisors. Permission
      granted to forward by electronic means and to excerpt or broadcast 250
      words or less provided a citation is made to www.millerrisk.com.