Google Striking Fear into the Corporate Masses

SpectralDesign writes "The New York Times reports that Google is striking fear into the hearts of even unrelated industries. From the article: 'We watch Google very closely at Wal-Mart," said Jim Breyer, a member of Wal-Mart's board. In Google, Wal-Mart sees both a technology pioneer and the seed of a threat, said Mr. Breyer, who is also a partner in a venture capital firm. The worry is that by making information available everywhere, Google might soon be able to tell Wal-Mart shoppers if better bargains are available nearby.'"

Comments

Monopolies

[Crouty]

Jim Breyer is not against monopolies, he is just against monopolies that others have. This small-minded businessman is for the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Re:Monopolies

[DrHanser]

I'm not sure why this is modded insightful. As a member of Wal-Mart's board, it is his job to do what's in the best interest of Wal-Mart and its shareholders, not the general public. Railing against a businessman for doing what makes sense for his business is more than a little silly.

I'm no fan of Wal-Mart by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm a capitalist at heart, and seeing comments like these make me scratch my head in confusion.

Re:Monopolies

[DoraLives]

for the right thing for the wrong reasons

As it's shaping up right now, Google, monopoly or not, is beginning to look like the only thing that might possess the throw-weight to successfully counter the otherwise alarming trend that has recently manifested itself among almost all large capitalist enterprises, and that is the trend of restricting and choking access to information/data/operating code to the point where no one is able to access/use/employ that information/data/operating code without the considered permissions of whomever "owns" it.

We now live in a VERY dangerous time in which the scales seem to be tipping in favor of an Orwellian outcome where all information is locked down tight and any attempt to look under the hood or otherwise perform any "unauthorized" operation on any information/data/operating code is met with a draconian response of severely criminalizing those who would attempt to do so.

As it stands now, Google seems to be the only large capitalist entity that would further its interests by tearing down any and all restrictions on information/data/operating code.

As loathsome as the business of political lobbying may be, it is now incumbent upon Google to get cracking in the seats of political power to ensure that information/data/operating code is kept as open and free as possible.

No one else has the clout that Google now possesses, and therefore no one else has a prayer of achieving the absolutely vital goal of keeping information open and free.

Should this endeavor fail, some very dark times await us.

That Google may be a monopoly is, at present, something that we're just going to have to ignore. We can't have our cake and eat it too, so we must, unfortunately, cheer on Google as it becomes even larger and more powerful.

Should the battle to free information/data/operating code be won (and it is by no means a certainty), then and on then may we turn our attentions toward Google itself with an eye toward reducing such excesses of size as exist at that time.

For now, Google is the enemy of our enemies, and is perforce our friend.

Re:Monopolies

[Crouty]

the enemy of our enemies, and is perforce our friend.

Talking of dangerous times, this is the most dangerous concept I know. Like in "the Shiites are the enemies of our enemy Saddam." There are plenty of search engines out there, some already very good (like vivisimo) and even ones under open source.

Re:Monopolies

[Halfbaked Plan]

Many of the people who loudly oppose WalMart as a big monopoly, are proponents of a former powerful monopoly. One that in the past wielded as much or more power than WalMart. I am, of course, referring to the Unions of retail clerks, food handlers, etc. who are being badly beaten every time WalMart opens a new store that sells groceries, produce, and meat.

They're just pissed because someone else is eating their cookies now.

Re:Monopolies

[czarangelus]

So when IBM worked with Hitler to exterminate the Jews... the fucking shareholders, man! Think of the fucking shareholders!

This is a rhetorical example, but seriously. There have got to be limits to what a corporation is allowed to do in pursuit of the almighty dollar, but you never hear any of the Ayn Rand-types talking about that. But capitalism is no magic utopia where the invisible hand stops pollution, disposes of hazardous waste properly, or ensures that children are fed and cared for even if their parents are drug-addict deadbeats. Time and time again, corporations show to us that they are untrustworthy on their own, and will always do the most profitable thing, no matter how many lives they destroy in the process.

Re:Monopolies

[LostCluster]

I can't begin to tell you how often I have wanted to price-compare Best Buy vs. Staples vs. Circuit City vs. OfficeMax when standing in any one of those stores.

And Best Buy, Staples, Circuit City, OfficeMax, etc. all can't begin to tell you how much they enjoy the fact you can't.

Re:Monopolies

[frogstar42]

i seriously doubt the allegation that unions are bad for the economy. do you know any studies/research about this? the theory that unions are bad for the economy sounds like a fat corporate trying to justify why unions should be abolished. face the facts - unions are the people. economy depends on how comfortable and well fed people are. atleast that's what i think.

Re:Monopolies

[DrHanser]

i seriously doubt the allegation that unions are bad for the economy. do you know any studies/research about this? the theory that unions are bad for the economy sounds like a fat corporate trying to justify why unions should be abolished. face the facts - unions are the people. economy depends on how comfortable and well fed people are. atleast that's what i think.

Have you ever worked for a union? I have. And by and large, they promote mediocrity. On a not-so-personal level, take a look at American automakers. The unions are strangling them, and one of the reasons they turn out junk is because of the unions. American cars are decidedly average, and that's what unions promote: being average. In fact, where I worked, if you were better than average, you were looked down upon and made to feel unwelcome.

Re:Monopolies

[ceoyoyo]

Pure capitalism works great if individuals have well developed social values. Communism works great if individuals have well developed social values. Individuals don't. Both systems don't work well. And no, the US isn't a pure capitalist system. For that you'd have to look at Britain, Germany and France at the beginning of the industrial revolution. You know, where they used children to mine coal because they were smaller and could fit through the tunnels more easily. Not to mention being in plentiful supply, and therefore cheap.

Re:Monopolies

[doormat]

I can't begin to tell you how often I have wanted to price-compare Best Buy vs. Staples vs. Circuit City vs. OfficeMax when standing in any one of those stores.

Same here. However, Best Buy has computers hooked up to the internet, just sitting there in the open for anyone to use. I go and browse to OM, OD, CC, Newegg, ZipZoomFly and Monarch for the item I was looking to buy. It was quite funny and informative. And just go jab the blueshirts a bit, I left Newegg up on the browser.

I tell ya, the next killer app for a cellphone is a RFID tag reader and/or barcode reader and a connection to google. Scan in a UPC, enter your zip code (or whatever the last GPS coordinates you got were) and then google will show you the lowest price.

cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar wor

[httpamphibio.us]

unlikely...

cheaper than walmart online? yeah, but it's not just froogle that lets us find that out.

Woah...mod that nonsense down

[thrill12]

Search and replace "Google" with "a cute little elephant" in the above text and you'll see what I mean.

Lame...

[Douglas Simmons]

Competition historically has been a good thing, but here are two companies, public i should add and /not/ that completely disconnected in terms of their respective industries, that could improve each other's customers' satisfaction. But once in a while, as in this instance, things get too adversarial and people stop working and start fighting.

If this were kindergarten, they'd be given time-out to stare at a wall. I'm not going to suggest that there's any conspiracy with Microsoft pulling some wal-mart puppet strings, so I'll just some other paranoid poster take care of that.

Ah . . .

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

. . . so capitalism is best with perfect information. Wal*Mart no doubt would like as close to perfect information about its customers and what they might be willing to pay in a given market. But they cry foul when the tables are turned and their policies of discriminatory pricing based on region and neighboorhood might be in jeapordy. Go figure.

And nobody in the business world understands it:

[lord sibn]

Just a few years ago, Google was nothing. Now entire industries are shitting their pants, because they are incapable of understanding Google's business model.

Google has become ubiquitous; They make products people want to use. And they don't even feel compelled to say "customer satisfaction is our number one priority!" on every sign, railing, and even doormat in the building.

While other companies (and even industries) are struggling to lock consumers into their own little slice of the marketing pie, they have not figured out a way to get people to stop going to google for products or services. And that scares the bejesus out of them. It's not that hard; run the business and stay in the black. Give people what they want, instead of offering them a product and telling them that they want it because you want what's best for them.

That's a very negative way to look at it

[Biotech9]

Wal-mart could also see a glass half FILLED with milk, Google would be able to tell customers that Wal-mart have a better deal than their competitors. That's all google can do, is spread information. It's not ever going to act by itself, it's just going to allow people to make better decisions (assuming the information is accurate).

Some customers might spend a while looking at froogle.com and find that the cheapest Speakers only cost 50 quid at Wal-mart, and that'll keep Wal-mart and the consumers happy.

Others might spend time with google.com and find the best speakers are from Genelec and buy them, keeping Genelec and the consumers happy.

More information = more informed people = less bad purchases. It can only affect Wal-mart (and others) badly if they are not offering what their target market wants.

Re:Pointless if Walmart is your nearest store?

[pintomp3]

the point is, you will have the information, and thus the choice. if the cost difference is not that much, it won't be worth it. you won't drive down the road to save $.30 on a lbs of sugar, but you might for $200 if the tv you are looking at is on sale elsewhere. a lot of shoppers like to know they are getting the best price. this will let you combine impulse shopping with bargain hunting. if walmart truly believes their prices are the lowest, they will love this.

Healthcare

[wralias]

The worry is that by making information available everywhere, Google might soon be able to tell Wal-Mart shoppers if better bargains are available nearby.

What they really should be worried about is workers finding out that other companies actually pay living wages and provide good health coverage, unlike Walmart.

Big corps = bad

[Elixon]

Google, Microsoft, Wall-Mart, Nestle... all of them are the same - they tend to grow too much. As the Nestle grown behind the Europe and Google grown behind the USA all became a real threat to small businesses in its segment... And wors think is that super-large corporations try to "diversificate" the risks by expanding (better "attacking") unrelated segments of business. :-) War of monopolies. The bad news for us: there will be less and less monopolies as the globalization expands.

Huge companies has too much money so they can buy all the important konwledge (I mean patent it) and thus prevent you from being succesfull. How you will climb up if they patented the rope and even the idea of "generic way going up" ;-)

I see google becames the same threat as microsoft is (or any other superdominant company).

Perfect Markets

[Varitek]

In an ideal world, a transaction between buyer and seller would be done with full information and with satisfaction on both sides. That is, it's not a zero-sum game - the buyer gets a product they're happy with at a price they like, and the seller makes his profit.

Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. The motives of companies do not always co-incide with those of the consumers. As we can see here, not only does the customer suffer from imperfect information (a market inefficiency) but the companies actively fear an increase in this information, and also actively seek to restrict the flow of information that is required to become closer to market perfection (remember the copyright arguments about the posting of special offers on third-party websites). They don't want the kind of transaction I mention above; if they think they could get away with it, they screw the customer.

What's my point? Information is *good*, and if companies attempt to mess with the market by restricting this flow of infomation, they need to be regulated until their pips squeak. We need to realise that when businesses whine about regulation restricting the market, they're usually whining because *they* want to to mess with the markets to distort them in their favour.

Google, Coupons, and You

[patio11]

Are you familiar with the economics of coupon clipping? Coupon clipping is essentially the retail establishment's version of price discrimination: they know that, for example, that V. Pickles brand I can never spell but always buy appeals to people with vastly different ability to pay for quality pickles. So "they" (and by they I meant both the pickle manufacturer and the retail stores) put coupons out in the paper. If you're willing to spend the time searching through lots of advertising to find the coupon for the pickles you buy and not the hair dryer you don't, you get a little money. I'm a working professional, searching for a 25 cent pickle coupon is not a good use of my time. My mother, on the other hand, used to do this religiously before *every* shopping trip. The average shopper clears between $6 and $8 in savings per hour. So I end up paying an extra quarter for pickles than mom does (and, considered over several million buyers, thats not a small amount of difference to Wal-Mart).

OK, so thats the retail environment for you. Now, you'll notice that the price discrimination is enabled by one thing: differential access to information, or the "cost of search" if you want to think of it that way. You're already assuming that the cost of search for a better deal is going to be greater than the savings you'll realize. Question: do you consider $6 an hour for boring tedium a good use of your time? Many, many millions of people whose opinions are very valuable at Wal-Mart world headquarters do. The ultimate nightmare app for Walmart would be a scanner attached to your cellphone (already widely available here in Japan) which would just scan all the items you need and tell you "Buy pickles, diapers, baby formula, and orange juice at Walmart. Go to the Jewel three minutes away for apple juice, note paper, and their 8 for the price of 3 pizza deal."

Another thing retail loves is called a loss leader -- something which is a staple, like milk, priced so low it will actively get people to come into your store, where they'll naturally buy other items which are priced higher. This works because people might know, for example, that $1.50 a gallon milk is an absurdly good deal, but putting together a list of all the items you need is very difficult, so you just get people to comparison shop on a few high-profile items and nickle-and-dime them on, say, cereal. (This is also one thing small stores LOVE to do to Wal-Mart, since it is very, very difficult to beat Wal-Mart's pricing across the board.) You can have loss-leaders which are much more expensive than milk though -- computer monitors, for example. And that + google = scare the pants off of you if you work in retail. Because it will bring people to your store for the purpose of getting the loss leader and *nothing else*. Best Buy calls these sort of customers "demons" (Google it, interesting article on the phenomenon) -- if you can exploit the information gap between you and the store you can tremendously cut into their business.

Re:Google, Coupons, and You

[codegen]

Another thing retail loves is called a loss leader -- something which is a staple, like milk, priced so low it will actively get people to come into your store, where they'll naturally buy other items which are priced higher. This works because people might know, for example, that $1.50 a gallon milk is an absurdly good deal, but putting together a list of all the items you need is very difficult, so you just get people to comparison shop on a few high-profile items and nickle-and-dime them on, say, cereal. (This is also one thing small stores LOVE to do to Wal-Mart, since it is very, very difficult to beat Wal-Mart's pricing across the board.) You can have loss-leaders which are much more expensive than milk though -- computer monitors, for example.

Actually, the loss leader is the thing that Wallmart excells in, and they do it at the higher level items. They advertise the $30 DVD player, and it is the cheapest you will find, but it will be lacking many of the features that many people want. Sitting just up the ailse will be a DVD player with more features that will be more expensive. Having seen the cheaper DVD player which really is the lowest price, your expectation has been set up that DVDs are cheap at Wallmart. The one with the better features is actually not the cheapest, but may be cheaper at a different store just down the road. And they do this with more than just Consumer Electronics.They do it with kitchen appliances, jewelry and others.

Re:And nobody in the business world understands it

[xintegerx]

What you are thinking of is Walmart trying to be stationary and not adapting to the real world. You are thinking that Walmart executives are like government employees who would just want to sit and do the same exact job for 50 years. In THAT case, you are right, Walmart would be afraid of Google, a fast-moving company, taking over Walmart, a company that just wants to be stagnant. But, that's just not true. Walmart, and any other #1 company in their field, gets their company from a $0 income a year company to a billion/year income company in no other way than by always advancing and always saying, I want my share of the pie! So, I am sure that the Corporate world is looking at Google, but not in that sense. They are thinking more along the lines of, "all that money people are investing into Google, that could be money the consumers could have spent at Walmart." In other words, big companies look at each other as competitors regardless of whether they are in the same niche or field, simply because they all want that consumer $dollar. Doesn't mean they are afraid, it just means they set goals that they want that consumer's $ to go to them and not google. Even if the 2 companies have nothing to do with each other. Finally, there are a lot of great small businesses out there, and just focusing on Google like it's a god is not fair. There is a Google story on slashdot every hour and rarely about any other company.

Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar

[fermion]

Many years ago Walmart was a bit cheaper. They now are often much cheaper as they now have the power to pressure suppliers and rent factories to produce thier own branded products. This is a defacto national brand that competes with other national brands through the advantage of not having to run seperate ad campaigns.

However, like other companies that started on the bottom rung by being cheap, they now need to learn a new trick or become irrelevent. Walmart needs customers with money, customers that are not going to shop at a cheap place that depends on illigal immigrants and desperate mothers. Shoppers that are going to value reasonable working conditions over wide aisles.

And it is going to be hard for Walmart to keep prices low, unless they start looking at ineffeciencies in management and other overhead. These ineffeciencies, according to Forbes, is why Costco is a better company. And these ineffeciencies are why Walmart is vunerable even at the brick and mortor level. Historically a firm that competes just on price, or just on style, are not good long term prospects.There are a few national chains, like Target, that are competeing heavily on quality of life issues, and those chains will likely do better as Walmart is forced to sacrifice price to attact the more affluent customer.

Walmart has already shown no dedication to a particular community. There are empty husks of building all over the country left as Walmart moved 10 miles up the road to cheaper land. With the price of gas, we may again be reaching a point where a 5 mile trip to the safeway is better than a 10 mile trip to the walmart.

Balancing the economics for supply and demand.

[alchemist68]

This is great for the consumer because is balances the economics further in the consumer's favor, makes true on the generality the "knowledge is power", and allows the consumer the keep the economy pumping by having more money to purchase other goods and services.

Case in point: I just purchased a Power Mac G5 with Mac OS X Tiger on it. I downloaded a slew of Dashboard Widgets from Apple's website, one of the more important ones being "GAS". By typing my zip code and specifying a radius in miles/km around the zip code, I can locate the lowest price gasoline in the immediate area. If I happen to be going in a particular direction, or the price is so ridiculously low, I will go out of my way to save money on gasoline.

Once again, this is a balancing of the economics in favor of the consumer. There is absolutely no rationale for gasoline prices varying from street corner to street corner other than to eek-out a much profit from the consumer. And with gasoline prices in the U.S. being so high and Exxon-Mobile reporting over $10 bollion in 3rd quarter profits, the approval rating polls for the Bush Administration and Republican party seem to reflect that these people are not looking out for the better good of the American people.

I've heard that Konfabulator available for both PC and Mac is similar to Apple's Dashboard and there should be available an equivalent to "GAS" for that graphical environment. If so, get it, you won't regret the $30 shareware fee for Konfabulator.

Google is frightening

[louisfreeman]

You have to admit though, is knowledge = power (in this world it is more like: info = power) then moving a lot of info into everyone's hands (as in "into the hands of the corporations who will use it to make a proffit at the expense of .... us ? ") is a bit scary

Re:The dark side of Google

[lloydtesterman]

why?

The trick to that offer

[wowbagger]

Many stores, including to an extent WalMart, will offer that guarantee. However, while on the face of it the offer is good, the reality is that the offer is meaningless, as they have a trick to get around it.

Example:

You go into Z-Mart, and you see a Ricaroni 5 CD changer for $15. You pick up a Z-Mart flier showing the price.

You now head over to Q-Mart, and locate what initially appears to be the same Ricaroni 5 CD changer for $20. Since Q-Mart offers a "200% price difference" offer, you figure you are going to get the CD player for $10.

But wait! When you go to claim your offer, the friendly Q-Mart manager points out that the Z-Mart flier is offering a Ricaroni model #5551212-a player, and Q-Mart's is a Ricaroni model #5551212-b - a different model number. He then points out that their offer only applies to "the same model", and since this is NOT the same model number, it is not covered under their vaunted "200% price difference" offer.

Now, if you were able to check, you would find out that the only folks who have the model #5551212-a are Z-Mart, and the only folks who have the #5551212-b are Q-Mart. Moreover, if you could go to the Ricaroni manufacturing plant, you would see that the only difference between the model numbers is the model number sticker - they are otherwise the same unit.

Then why the model number difference? Because both Q-Mart and Z-Mart insist upon the model numbers they sell being unique - so that their "200% price guarantee" trick can work.

I've changed the names to protect the guilty, and obviously this trick isn't played on every item sold in every store, but it is played enough to allow the stores to offer tricks like this. And before you ask why the manufacturers go along with this - because when you are dealing with customers with the buying power of WalMart, BestBuy, and so on, you do what they want, or you don't sell product.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Robocoastie]

one doesn't need Google to find better deals at all. All you have to do is open your Sunday paper to the ads and use your Target ad which always beats Wal-Mart's price. Wal-Mart being "cheap" is only true with wal-mart brand ie "generic" products.

Re:wow!

[loucura!]

Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

Price-matching isn't about the consumer, it's about competitors. When a retail store announces that it will match prices, it is telling its competitors that it wants to end a price-war. When the competitors follow suit, the price-matching serves as a mechanism so the corporations in question can see who is breaking the "terms" of their cartel action. In essence, price matching is collusion to keep prices higher.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[FatherOfONe]

your sig.

Gas is now at $2.00 a gallon here in the midwest. Down from over $3.50

I find that the people who buy SUV's don't really give a rats ass about gas prices, now the people that drive 10+ year old cars and live paycheck to paycheck get killed when gas doubles in price. Ironically, it is usually those people that buy fuel efficient cars... Those that can afford a $50k + SUV may "whine" about gas prices but those with an under $10k car generally get hurt very bad by the price.

Power

[twitter]

For now, Google is the enemy of our enemies, and is perforce our friend.

No, Google is your friend. Google seeks to create and share information others create. As long as they believe in and fight for the right of others to do the same, they are your friend. This is the exact opposite and the cure for the insane but inate will to control others you see. The truth does set you free.

We now live in a VERY dangerous time in which the scales seem to be tipping in favor of an Orwellian outcome where all information is locked down tight and any attempt to look under the hood or otherwise perform any "unauthorized" operation on any information/data/operating code is met with a draconian response of severely criminalizing those who would attempt to do so.

Ah, true, but you do not go far enough in your understanding of collective oligarchy and current law. Creating and sharing information is also against the rules by the DMCA, a very real law. You are supposed to mindlessly consume information fed to you, not examine, share or even remember it. Control of information is key to establishing an Orwellian society. That society proves it's existence to itself through suffering. The result is a society that exists to make you misserrable.

In the pathetic WalMart example you see the motivation and an indication of how absolutely that motivation is applied. They are paranoid. Perfect information might hurt their sales and ability to take your money. Walmart is also freaky about taking pictures in their stores and other petty details. It's all about power and control. The small scale of this power and control is a good reason to be afraid. It indicates that no detail is too small to be controlled and manipulated. Power demands absolute power and the will to power is part of human nature. Small minded people get a kick out of such petty control but it's part of all of us and it's implications are much larger.

Orwell recognized this about human nature. He drew his conclusions from experience in the colonies of the British Empire, as a tramp in Paris and London, a witness to communist revolutions in Spain and the second world war. These were all terrible experiences where the ordinary rules of conduct were removed and people were free to do oppress each other in any way. So, I'll quote the master:

'The rule of the Party is for ever. Make that the starting-point of your thoughts.'

' You understand well enough how the Party maintains itself in power. Now tell me why we cling to power. What is our motive? Why should we want power?'

He knew in advance what O'Brien would say. That the Party did not seek power for its own ends, but only for the good of the majority. That it sought power because men in the mass were frail cowardly creatures who could not endure liberty or face the truth, and must be ruled over and systematically deceived by others who were stronger than themselves. That the choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and that, for the great bulk of mankind, happiness was better. That the party was the eternal guardian of the weak, a dedicated sect doing evil that good might come, sacrificing its own happiness to that of others.

'You are ruling over us for our own good,' he said feebly. 'You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore --'

He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O'Brien had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five.

'That was stupid, Winston, stupid!' he said. 'You should know better than to say a thing like that.'

'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. ... The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in thei

Re:Power

[DoraLives]

Ah, true, but you do not go far enough .....

Well spoken. Well quoted. Well worth extended consideration. You further elaborate my position for me nicely, and for that I tip my hat to you, sir. But I will continue to closely watch Google anyway. Times and men have a habit of changing, and I feel confident that Google is not somehow shielded from the currents of change and the unknown ways and places that they may lead to. That said, for now, Google is indeed my friend.

I *know* they care

[NigelJohnstone]

" Do you honestly think that the majority of consumers care about where their products are made? "

Oh yes, I think they do. That's why I think these brands link themselves to American products/ US Atheletes etc. to give the impression of being a US product (Or Swiss or Italian or whatever).

"What most people care about is getting stuff, and artificial intelligence and the internet (which is really what this article is about, not Google per se) is making this cheaper by stimulating competition."

I say this again and again, price isn't everything, value for money is. If you can't tell if an Italian Luxury handbag is really an Italian Luxury Handbag and not just a Chinese bag with some finishing done in Italy to qualify for the "Made in Italy" label, then how can you determine value for money? Any search you get from Froogle doesn't help with that.

Plus how much can you save? Is it worth the extra drive and extra time? I really don't think Walmart has much to fear there.

Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear

[Anonymous Coward]

No one really cares though. The fashion conscience know that half the stuff is made in China. They also know that the only difference between some of that expensive makeup and the cheap stuff is that when you pull it out of your purse, some people will be jealous that you have such an expensive brand or not. People like to pay for branding and being in the "in-crowd". It's always been that way.

Just FYI

[Andy Dodd]

Sams Club and Wal-Mart are the same company.