Google| Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
| From | Tony Cooper |
| Date | 2014-04-21 18:35 (2014-04-21 12:35) |
| Message-ID | <nkgal9dcnr1t96dasifg5162ua5vv92jhp@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | Sandman (3h & 49m) > Tony Cooper |
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 11:48:39 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
nospamWhat difference does the amount of floorspace allocated to photography products make? If it is less than half of the store's square footage, does that make the department "tiny"?
In article <slrnlla86m.k4.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:nospamSandmanSandman
Incorrect, it is pretty much exactly 70% "hobby things", as you can see here:<>
The store is made up of 27.7% photography-related floor space, which leaves roughly 70% for the rest of the store, which consists of hobby-related merchandise.Feel free to provide a more accurate floor plan where the space devoted to hobby-related merchandis is either larger or smaller.As everyone can see, I have adequately proven and substantiated my claim, and it is 100% clear that it was far from a "lie".nospam
the only lie is from the store, by providing what is an incorrect floor plan.
For the record, the floor plan is actually pretty accurate, even if individual shelves may not be. But it adequately represents the size of the small camera section in relation to the rest of the store.
although i haven't been to the store, i doubt the exact percentage is significantly different than 27%. maybe it's 35% or maybe it's 20%. the point is that it's not all that much and actually less than half of the store.
If Colonial would buy or lease a separate facility of the exact same square footage that is allocated to photography in the present facility, and fill that space with the exact same amount of photography merchandise, would it then be a "tiny" store?
Would it be tiny in comparison with B&H? Certainly. Would it be tiny in comparison to some store in Sweden? Who gives a rat's ass? Would it be tiny in comparison to the market in the Orlando area? I don't think so.
To the best of my knowledge, the present facility is perfectly adequate for the market it serves. As a member of two camera clubs, and as a person who has met many of the photographers in this area, I've never heard a complaint or negative comment about Colonial's facility. Some lament that Colonial does not discount accessory items or have sales other than factory-sponsored specials, but that's not a size issue.
I suspect that the owner, Don Rausch, would like to have a more modern physical facility in a more attractive neighborhood. (I've talked to Don several times, but not about this.)
However, he owns this building and has since the 1970s. The value has risen, but the location isn't one where the increased value would allow a comparable facility in a better neighborhood to be purchased without adding considerable debt.
On the plus side, the building has adequate and convenient parking. That's a big plus in this town. The building is located roughly equidistant from all parts of the metropolitan area. Colonial Avenue (the street that gives the name to the store) is the roughly the dividing like between the north and south sides of the city. Mills Avenue, the street the store faces on, is roughly the dividing line between the east and west sides of the city.
The division of the metropolitan area into quadrants like this is a bit off since suburbs have popped up that change the demographics.
Of course, the biggest plus is that Colonial is so widely known and respected by photographers in the area that any minuses are discounted.
If some other arrogant Swede comes to town and says that the store is tiny, I don't think it will bother anyone at Colonial. Especially if that person can't tell a Best Buy from a real camera store.
-- Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
2014-04-14-
