Lisa Hancock wrote:
More to the point, the Bell system monopoly was actually sanctioned by the government. No analogous situation has ever existed in US retail, thankfully.
The defined market that Sears itself paid attention to was "retail", and Sears was for decades the market leader in the US. I remember in the 1980s when Sears execs were warily watching Kmart creep up to almost match their market share. They were so busy keeping tabs on Kmart that they were caught flat-footed when Wal-mart zoomed by BOTH companies and became the new king of the retail hill (where it remains today, of course).
And we still do, including a vast plethora of new specialty and discount stores out there in cyberspace. The way people choose to shop is heavily influenced by the available technology. The railroads were what made it possible for Sears to invent the nationwide mail-order retail channel in the late 19th century. Likewise, suburban living patterns gave rise to the classic shopping mall in the mid-20th century. Refrigeration and transportation advances made the modern supermarket possible. As new ways of buying things become available and popular with consumers, it is inevitable that some of the older ways will wane in popularity. And that's a good thing; "creative destruction", as Schumpeter called it.
I think this actually reinforces (not refutes) my point. (And the "railroad business vs. transportation business" observation isn't actually even my own; it's the one made famous by Theodore Levitt in his 1960 Harvard Business Review article entitled "Marketing Myopia".) The behavior of the railroad companies shows that they clearly saw their other business lines as mere adjuncts to support their crown jewels, which were the railroad lines. So much so that when they were forced to choose between the old, proven business and the new, higher-growth lines, the railroad execs chose to stick with what they knew and to sell off the other stuff. They could have chosen instead to sell off their rail assets and concentrate on the higher-growth markets. Of course, that kind of bold step is one that most companies find hard to take when faced with such a decision, and who can blame them? A lot of people were probably skeptical when an old Finnish industrial conglomerate whose chief products were paper, rubber and cables decided a quarter century ago to get into telecom equipment and to ditch the older slow-growth product lines. But the move was a success, and now practically everyone has heard of Nokia. On the other hand, the formerly stodgy old French water company Gnrale des Eaux chose to get rid of its original utility businesses several years ago in order to complete its transformation to Vivendi Universal, an entertainment conglomerate whose stock price has not so far been kind to its shareholders.
That's exactly right. The department stores have been trimming departments as business trickles away to other retailers, especially "category killers". How many people would buy a TV or a pair of skis at Macy's these days, when they know they could get a better selection and better prices at Best Buy or a sporting goods superstore?
But unlike clothes and furnishings, department stores aren't something that consumers actually BUY.
People just don't particularly need department stores any more in order to purchase their clothes and furnishings. They can buy their clothes and furnishings elsewhere, and they increasingly are doing so, which is why the department store chains are having so much trouble in the first place. Department stores themselves are not a product that consumers buy; they are merely a vehicle, a means to sell products. Other retail channels have waxed and waned over the years (how many door-to-door salesmen are still around, for instance?), but a channel is not a market. It would be absurd to define the particular retail sales channel known as "department stores" as a market in its own right, to which antitrust measures must be applied in isolation without treating discount stores, "big box" and "category killer" specialty stores, on-line and catalog retailers, etc. as part of the same market. One might as well try to apply antitrust rules to nonsensical categories such as "retailers whose names begin with the letter 'N'", or "retailers whose logos don't use the color red".
Bob Goudreau Cary, NC
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have seen mentions of Sears, Roebuck occasionally in this thread. Back in the 1920's, Sears Roebuck was a very large chain of stores. The radio station they started acknowledged this fact by its call sign: 'W'(orlds)'L'(argest)'S'(tore), based in Chicago. WLS is on AM radio 890 kc, which was and still is a clear channel frequency. It was called 'The Prairie Farmer Station' in those days, and I think it was part of the Mutual Network.