5 ms·

Quite a few comments about how Radio Shack lost their way and squandered their opportunity, but really their business model was dead. True, but I'm not sure th

Quite a few comments about how Radio Shack lost their way and squandered their opportunity, but really their business model was dead. True, but I'm not sure those are mutually exclusive. I'd bet that the primary reason RadioShack never became a major online parts and electronics retailer is because of fear that it'd start cannibalizing their retail stores. Which it would have -- but either you cannibalize your own business or someone else does it for you. And I could certainly imagine an alternate history where they kept their own "captive brands" like Realistic and Optimus and competed reasonably well with the likes of Jabra, Jambox, Vizio and friends; I'm sure they had what they felt were sound business reasons for dumping that strategy, but it removed virtually all possibilities that buyers would go to RS for something only they sold, and I can't help but think that had significant value. (I suspect it's only the Sears captive brands that have let it hang on as long as it has, given how woefully it's been managed its last decade.)

dragonwriter 12y ago
> (I suspect it's only the Sears captive brands that have let it hang on as long as it has, given how woefully it's been managed its last decade.) The Sears you are thinking about before the last decade was already dieing -- the current "Sears" is the result of KMart buying Sears in 2004 (during a brief profitably period shortly after KMart's own bankruptcy, and the combined entity -- which was called Sears Holdings Corporation -- went south pretty quickly.) I don't think Sears captive brands are keeping it alive for the last decade, I think the temporary reset it got at the acquisition by KMart has been keeping it alive.
- chipotle_coyote 12y ago
  It's the holding company that bought KMart and then bought Sears which I'm thinking of as the mismanager (so to speak), actually. Sears had its share of issues pre-merger but they weren't in as bad shape before KMart bought them as they ended up afterward. It's my admittedly anecdotal impression that when someone ends up in a Sears these days it's probably to buy a Sears-specific brand. That could certainly be wrong. (A cynic might say that when someone ends up in a Sears these days it's probably because they took a wrong turn.)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

dragonwriter 12y ago

> (I suspect it's only the Sears captive brands that have let it hang on as long as it has, given how woefully it's been managed its last decade.) The Sears you are thinking about before the last decade was already dieing -- the current "Sears" is the result of KMart buying Sears in 2004 (during a brief profitably period shortly after KMart's own bankruptcy, and the combined entity -- which was called Sears Holdings Corporation -- went south pretty quickly.) I don't think Sears captive brands are keeping it alive for the last decade, I think the temporary reset it got at the acquisition by KMart has been keeping it alive.

chipotle_coyote 12y ago
It's the holding company that bought KMart and then bought Sears which I'm thinking of as the mismanager (so to speak), actually. Sears had its share of issues pre-merger but they weren't in as bad shape before KMart bought them as they ended up afterward. It's my admittedly anecdotal impression that when someone ends up in a Sears these days it's probably to buy a Sears-specific brand. That could certainly be wrong. (A cynic might say that when someone ends up in a Sears these days it's probably because they took a wrong turn.)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]