No announcement yet.

10 Brands That May Disappear in 2014

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    10 Brands That May Disappear in 2014

    Very interesting. Thanks. I for one will be glad to see the death of Martha's smiling face on her magazine cover wherever I go. I have never liked the woman. She seems too 'perfect' to be real and she must have a huge cast of characters behind her to come up with all the ideas that are supposedly Martha's. I had a chance to review an Advance Reading Copy of one of her books, and I couldn't believe how behind the times the book was even before it was published.


      Interesting. I'm not surprised about the Nook. The Kindle and the iPad have far more market share. We have an iPad and my wife uses the Kindle app to read books all the time.

      Olympus is interesting, though not really a surprise. Hardly anyone I know carries a digital camera anymore. I've been into photography since childhood but my camera today is my iPhone 5. It is the best quality digital camera I've ever owned and it is always in my pocket. I don't see myself ever carrying a separate camera again.

      JCP is a shame. It is one of the few reasonably priced stores left. Everything is either high end (Macy's, Nordstroms) or low end (Target, WalMart). There isn't much of a middle anymore. My wife and daughter still shop there regularly but I guess they are a minority.

      I like both Groupon and Living Social and currently have a couple of vouchers from each but if they aren't making money, the can't survive.

      * Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
      * Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?
      * There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going.


        1. JC Penney - Unlike a lot of analysts, I'm not willing to blame this on "mistakes" because doing so presumes that a different decision made at an earlier time would unequivocally led to success, something which no analyst has even deigned to try to prove. The fact that people talk about competition from Macy's and from Target shows the reality of the issue: Rampant consumer price fixation has led to only two viable paths for department stores: Upscale, seeking to monetize "keeping up with the Jones" through creating "value" (and I use that term loosely) around a brand, rather than the products they sell; or economy, seeking to "make it up on volume". The former approach almost requires starting there: You cannot expect to ever have Long John Silver's compete head to head with McCormick & Schmick's. Their only option there would be to create a new brand, which requires more capital than the company had, which is why no analyst could prove that that would have been a successful path for JC Penney. The latter approach would move JC Penney into competition with some of the largest retailers in the country, where they regularly "make it up on volume" in volume. "Market section consolidation" is a reality of today's business, and so there is no reason to believe that JC Penney wouldn't have gone down regardless of what approach they tried, the market demand that they used to capitalize on, gone, and JC Penney just being one, relatively small competitor in the new frontier.

        2. Nook - The article got it right: "destined to struggle from the start". It was mostly the product choice of the contrarian - the alternative to the clear leader for true readers, the Kindle, and the "I want one thing to do everything" alternative, the iPad. That wasn't ever going to be a good choice, specifically because the leader,, wasn't, and still isn't, the "big bad" that a contrarian needs to make a viable go of things. Taking investment money from Microsoft was the nail-in-the-coffin. While I cannot prove it would have been successful, I think Nook's better play would have been to hit and book publishers from the start with anti-trust litigation, forcing to make their cloud systems open so that Nooks could access content from's cloud and Kindles could access content from B&N's (and eventually Apple's) cloud, and trying to make price regulation by publishers illegal. That would have really opened the door to superior price competition, thereby leaving room in the marketplace for a contrarian.

        3. Martha Stewart, 10. Road & Track - Magazines and such are so 20th century.

        4. Living Social - Weren't they original a lifestyle social networking community? If they're who I think they were, their decision to abandon that "reason for people to visit" in favor of a strictly commercial model is what killed them. (Just checked Wikipedia... yup, they were a major social networking company back before 2009.)

        5. Volvo, 6. Olympus, 8. Leap Wireless, 9. Mitsubishi - More market sector consolidation. Someone's gotta lose.

        7. WNBA - Gender discrimination still affects what people want to pay for.


          Magazines and such are so 20th century
          I LOVE magazines but in my particular niche--needlework and quilting. I was given a free one year subscription to Good Housekeeping this year and can't believe how disappointing it is compared with what I used to get out of the magazine 20-30 years ago. Now it is mostly makeup ads, which as far as I know have NOTHING to do with 'good housekeeping'!

          Several of my needlework magazines can be read on an I-pad or something like that, but I don't have one, just one of the smaller Kindles that is in black and white and doesn't show pictures most of the time. I do see the writing on the wall about magazines though.

          I do wish someone here who understands these things would start a thread about these many gadgets, what they are good for and how they differ from a laptop, etc. All ads seem to assume that you know what they are talking about, such as 'the cloud'. I used to see the commercials for the cloud and had no idea what they were talking about.


            Originally posted by Gailete View Post
            ... can't believe how disappointing it is compared with what I used to get out of the magazine 20-30 years ago.
            The expectations for return on investment are so much higher for everything, or at least the pressure thereof is, due to higher costs and depressed demand due to other, less costly options for the same experience.

            Originally posted by Gailete View Post
            Now it is mostly makeup ads, which as far as I know have NOTHING to do with 'good housekeeping'!
            I remember reading a complaint by someone regarding the advertising in a magazine (or maybe it was on a website) dedicated to frugal living or perhaps to simplicity - that it wasn't typically frugality-oriented. Of course, the reality is that frugality - true frugality - isn't very profitable. Only the things that make people feel like they're being frugal, but aren't actually making them frugal - are.

            Originally posted by Gailete View Post
            I do wish someone here who understands these things would start a thread about these many gadgets, what they are good for and how they differ from a laptop, etc. All ads seem to assume that you know what they are talking about, such as 'the cloud'. I used to see the commercials for the cloud and had no idea what they were talking about.
            The "cloud" simply refers to storage of data on central servers, accessed in the moment, instead of data stored locally. Consequently, the device you're using must be connected to the Internet whenever you're trying to access data stored in the cloud.

            The main advantage of the cloud, from the standpoint of tablets (for example), is that the tablets therefore don't need to have lots of (heavy, expensive, itty-bitty) storage on-board. The less weight and space and cost devoted to storage, the lighter, smaller and less expensive the tablet can be.

            A smartphone can almost be thought of as simply a small tablet, at least in the context of these observations.

            Another advantage of the cloud is the ability to be able to use multiple devices, the specific device dependent on where you are at the time (smartphone on-the-go, tablet while waiting for someone, laptop when in a meeting, desktop when in the office, etc.) and have your data available from all these devices, just the same.

            Some cloud storage solutions include the ability to pull down a copy of the data to be used locally, for superior performance, and to guard against times when you cannot connect to the Internet.

            However, this doesn't really answer what I think you're really questioning, because what you're really questioning is what do/can these myriad devices mean to you. Not surprisingly, that is a question that only you can answer, because no one can guess what your receptiveness is to the various options. One application that seems clear is where you see yourself viewing kitting magazines on a tablet. However, even there, not all tablets are equal. Some tablets have better and/or bigger screens (which have associated advantages), better connectivity, local storage, etc.

            By the same token, where do you read magazines? If you read a magazine while sitting at a desk, then you may be simply better off reading it on a laptop or desktop computer. Generally, anything you can do on a tablet, you can surely do on a laptop or desktop computer. The tablet form factor is intended to overcome the objections to using a laptop or desktop computer, i.e., lack of portability, weight, unwieldiness, etc. If you're looking for one device to do "everything" then you want a desktop computer. If, instead, you want to do things using a most appropriate device given what you're doing, you very well may need a desktop computer, an ultrabook (a form of lightweight laptop computer), a tablet, an e-reader, and a smartphone.* The difference between these two extremes are a matter of how much value you place on using the best form factor for each activity versus the cost of having so many different devices.

            But make no mistake: There are specific reasons why each of these different kinds of devices exist, and why some reasonable person would want to have multiple devices instead of just one device to do "everything".

            * I didn't leave out a basic laptop by mistake: I cannot imagine needing a desktop computer, plus a basic laptop, plus an ultrabook. My intention was to provide the largest list of different kinds of devices that a typical person might find use for, so it would be appropriate to only include two of the three on that list.
            Last edited by bUU; 07-11-2013, 07:21 AM.


              Blackberry should be on that list.


                We still use the desktop for most of our commuting time probably 12-18 hours a day. I have a desk top for upstairs when I am resting but as it is on dial up instead of satellite like the desk top is, computing is slow (we have attempted to get them both on the satellite but can't figure out how). I also have a Kindle for strictly reading although I make use of the dictionary in it frequently since it saves me having to handle the heavy bulk of a regular one. Although it can connect somewhat to the internet it is extremely hard to navigate so it is just another book to me. I like to read any and all places and have always maintained a book in my car while waiting at train tracks, drive through windows, etc. I read magazines while sitting in my cozy nest of a couch. In many respects I use them like a child does picture books when sick. Helps me to take my mind off of things and especially pain.

                The sad thing is I got my first computer in 1994 after reading up on what to look for. Whole magazines were published then just for people to learn about computers as it was the beginning of the personal computer age. Since then so many other products have come out, advertising doesn't really explain the features and when you look at descriptions, you might as well be reading Chinese as it is so hard to understand. It doesn't help that all instructions are generally one to three simple drawings and that was that. My hubby just got a cell phone for his business and had to go on line to try to figure it out as they didn't bother giving instructions with it! I haven't seen an article at all on what the various products do and why you might need them at all, they just keep churning out changes. So thank you for that bit of an explanation as I have truly wondered why one would need an ultra book instead of a laptop. And why a tablet instead of a laptop and what can they do. I do get brave enough when I see someone using one (mostly for games) to ask to look at it and find out what they use it for.

                I know that magazines are slowly going the way of the dodo bird and I am saddened by that. In the meantime though I do support them as much as possible. But the Martha one is one that I won't regret it's passing.

                As to the advertising in magazines, I fully understand the need, but Good Housekeeping has under the guise of editorial content been using feature stories about makeup, shampoos, etc. as their main content. Last month one of their headline articles I tried to find the article in the magazine. Something aobut saving $61 a month on groceries. Turns out the 'article' that got inch high fonts on the front cover was a 2 paragraph long mini-article about getting food home delivered, I believe, and by using a certain company you could save $61! It took me three tries I think to find it. Just my own pet peeve. I won't be surprised if it goes down the tubes in the fairly near future.

                thanks again for the enlightenment.


                  It wouldn't surprise me if magazines you typically find in the waiting rooms at medical facilities eventually get replaced by specialized tablets tethered or built into the chairs. Although I hate advertisements, I could see this as a way to target products based upon the one's viewing habits, as well as services offered by the professional one is waiting to see. Much more interactive and engaging compared with other methods.


                    Regarding content: Keep in mind that a lot of other readers may be substantially shallow.