Gerry_DiNardo's comment history

Gerry_DiNardo said...

This idea of "leveling the competitive playing field" is somewhat overstated. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with two distinctive business models and there can never be a true "level field" between an internet retailer and a brick-and-mortar retailer. Each offers it's own distinct advantages to the consumer, and it's up to the consumer to weigh such advantages. Sometimes, a consumer may favor the brick-and-mortar's ability to offer a tangible purchasing experience and the instant gratification that comes with walking out of the store with the product upon checkout. Other times, the consumer may prefer to forfeit the instant gratification a physical shopping experience offers in favor of a discounted price of the digital experience.

Brick-and-mortar retailers will never be able to compete with internet sales on price, as this is the nature and distinction of the two business models. Internet retailers typically experience much lower overhead and associated costs. But brick-and-mortar types can offset this with a real shopping experience that internet retailers can never produce.

Clearly, the sales tax advantage enjoyed by some internet retailers in certain states widens the profit margin, and a streamlined sales tax agreement would mitigate that margin somewhat. But brick-and-mortar stores will forever experience smaller margins on retail sales vs. their internet competitors.

Additionally, the article implies that internet retailers are, or would be, opposed to a streamlined agreement. I think it's important to note that the now local internet giant, Amazon.com, has supported the streamlined sales tax project since it's inception in 2000. The implication above is that Amazon.com has actively lobbied Washington to prevent such legislation, and this is not true. Amazon and others recognized a decade ago the long-term solution to be a streamlined sales tax, and they have actively held this position in D.C. since.

July 10, 2011 at 1:08 p.m.
Gerry_DiNardo said...

"while UT has three total commitments, including one that isn’t rated by Rivals."

Stephen, I think it may be prudent to note that the "one that isn't rated by Rivals" is a 4* on ESPN and the #16 OLB in the country. A prospect that has not been rated on Rivals means that prospect hasn't been evaluated by Rivals staff, not that the prospect was found unworthy of any ranking.

Assuming that you're aware of how Rivals rankings work, you would know this. As such, I think it would be prudent to include another source that has evaluated the prospect (such as ESPN). Your failure to do this leaves the impression that the omission was intentional and the evidence inconvenient to your agenda in this piece. Does not appear too objective and thorough which is a shame for the TFP. This type of writing is more on the Tennessean's level and it is disappointing.

Perhaps you were pressed for time.

July 10, 2011 at 11:55 a.m.
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.