Catch of The Day - telling it like it is?

[Deactivated] on 09/12/2014 - 12:52

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/business-it/robots-are-processi…

In a stadium-sized warehouse in Melbourne's outer west, Gabby Leibovich has donned a hi-vis vest and is admiring his latest conquest.

In the centre stands a great big aluminium grid, housing 25,000 bins. Each is filled with cut-price stock, from soccer balls to novelty mugs, clearance electronics and top-brand shoes.

"I like to call it selling them shit they don't need at prices they can't resist," says Mr Leibovich, founder of Catch Group, of his bargain-based e-commerce offers to online shoppers.

General Discussion

Related Stores

Catch.com.au
Catch.com.au
Marketplace

Comments

  • iampoor on 09/12/2014 - 13:22
    +5

    Yep, that pretty much sums it up. I still have crap bought from COTD which are unopened in my storeroom.

    Only cost me a couple of bucks but space constraints mean I no longer buy stuff from COTD unless absolutely necessary.

    Maybe he could sell me some space to store the stuff that I didn't need but still bought from him?

  • steff on 09/12/2014 - 13:25
    +14

    what professionalism with a statement like that

    • BuyoTheCat on 09/12/2014 - 13:31
      +9

      It is all about context. I bet he is meant as a joke.

      If I was someone famous and the press will have a field day recorded me verbatim.

      • Charity on 11/12/2014 - 13:45
        +1

        No. He means it.

        Even if he was to call all his customers nasty insults and point out how stupid each and everyone was… a good proportion would still think he is god and defend him… and buy more junk.

        I think Zuckerberg has been caught red-handed saying similar, but who is going to quit facebook?? Virtually no one.

        Most people really are sheep and would not dare defy their popular masters… unless it was popular to do so

        • BuyoTheCat on 11/12/2014 - 14:24
          +3

          You know that he meant it because…..

          1) you were there during the interview?
          2) the article used "sansSerious font"
          3) You are Mr Leibovich! (pst…some vouchers please)

    • scotty on 09/12/2014 - 13:34
      +2

      Yes of course he meant as joke. When Catch of The Day first started they were following the Woot model where they sell one item every 24 hours, and Woot were famously selling Bag of Crap. I'll say Leibovich's description very fitting.

    • Wally on 11/12/2014 - 16:44

      Taking 3 years to advise (after they discovered the fact) that customers details had been stolen from their database should tell you their attitude to their customers! 0.o

      • [Deactivated] on 11/12/2014 - 17:28

        Ah, now I remember why I dumped them after just one purchase of a portable hard drive years ago. Thanks for the reminder.

  • p1 ama on 09/12/2014 - 13:27
    +32

    Let's be honest, this is what all retail is all about - selling people crap they don't need. There's even a whole discipline about it called marketing - if we didn't try to sell people things they didn't need, we wouldn't need marketing departments.

    At least this guy has the balls to admit the truth.

    • adamren on 09/12/2014 - 13:51

      Yeah "buying things you don't need with money you don't have"

      Just hope this real class act Leibovich (sp?) didn't say it in contempt, like Zuckerberg said about the college kids at 'The Facebook".

      Might have alotless customers soon. If I were in charge of a competitor I'd milk this and ride itto poach as many annoyed CoTD as possible.

    • Cheeper on 09/12/2014 - 15:46
      +1

      Spot on Paul.
      The final choice is yours. People can bleat all they like but the best way to stick it to em is to throw your money elsewhere.
      I don't bother to look at anything COTD any more (unless it is 32g usb sticks for $5 del lol) and also these days place DSE in the same category. You wont miss much.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 10/12/2014 - 04:02
      +2

      "At least this guy has the balls to admit the truth."

      Word, Pauls. Absolutely right. He probably said it thinking it was "off the record" too, but regardless I certainly think no worse of him for making the statement; it's hardly a revelation! I find his honesty quite refreshing.

  • BuyoTheCat on 09/12/2014 - 13:28
    +2

    Damn robots picked the wrong sized shoes for me!!
    It's UK8 not US8. Go get your eyes checked.

    • bargainbunny on 11/12/2014 - 13:31

      I think those robots are pretty inefficient too, 4 days to pack a few items. Only 4 staff members on the floor? Hire some people!!

      • BuyoTheCat on 11/12/2014 - 14:29

        Some of my stuff were packed and despatched quite quickly some took longer. Most came within a week some took longer.

        The wrong sized shoes were likely an honest mistake. I bought 4 pairs only 1 was wrong. And they promptly refunded.

  • scotty on 09/12/2014 - 13:37
    +1

    Click bait title from Fairfax — well that's modern day journalism for you. The title of the page says "Robots are processing your Catch of the Day orders this Christmas". The whole article is about automation of warehouse.

    However if you go to the home page of SMH or The Age the title and snippet used is

    Selling them s—- they don't need
    Gabby uses robots to sell Aussies 's—- they don't need at prices they can't resist'

    Because we all know which one would get the readers jumping up and down.

    • adamren on 09/12/2014 - 13:53

      He still said it though.

    • steff on 09/12/2014 - 14:15

      While the ethics of the title is questionable (like you correctly said), it wouldn't have happened if Leibovich was more responsible with his words - context or not, saying something like that defines his attitude in a nutshell doesn't it?

      • scotty on 09/12/2014 - 15:13

        See my reply to your previous comment — CoTD was in the same business selling "bag of crap".

      • GnarlyKnuckles on 10/12/2014 - 04:16
        +3

        "… if Leibovich was more responsible with his words"

        I reckon he would have said that to the 'interviewer' on the understanding that it was off the record; then subsequently they crossed him on it/ printed it anyway. And re:

        "… defines his attitude in a nutshell"

        Erm… I can't be bothered explaining at length why his words reflect no sin, but ask yourself how many other businesses that thrive on OzBargain are characterised by his words:

        "I like to call it selling them shit they don't need at prices they can't resist."

        This guy is just being honest about it. Big ups to him, I say. Blatant honesty should not be condemned; it should be appreciated. Would you rather buy from a mob that serially churns out the same old "PR-vetted, sugar-coated crap", or this guy, who quite frankly just calls it like it is?

    • [Deactivated] on 12/12/2014 - 19:22

      They are two separate articles on The Age.

  • coin saver on 09/12/2014 - 14:21

    I wonder if the robots get the same work conditions as the workers they replaced https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/134988

    • BuyoTheCat on 09/12/2014 - 14:40

      I am sure those are the robots mentioned in the article

    • elektron on 11/12/2014 - 09:55

      coin saver, I'm sure the people who are building, selling and servicing these robots get better working conditions than the robots they are servicing.

      Warehouse automation on a large scale was pioneered over a decade ago by the likes of Amazon and is definitely the future.

      You wouldn't save too many coins if your orders were fulfilled by a unionised workforce.

  • ProjectZero on 09/12/2014 - 15:03
    +2

    at prices they can't resist

    Seriously wtf… sometimes the price of items on CoTD is the same as when it is on sale in store… except you have to fork out shipping…

    I mean their CS is great seeing as I got a free pair of shoes when I asked to have it swapped… they literally said don't worry and refunded immediately…

    But the prices sometimes just aren't that attractive.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 10/12/2014 - 04:17
      +1

      Actually, much of their stuff is cheaper than you can get it in shops (particularly some of the groceries/cleaning products etc.), and also they frequently run deals with no shipping or reduced shipping…
      If none of that appeals, then you simply don't buy from them hombre… so… your point is?

      • ProjectZero on 10/12/2014 - 09:38
        +1

        I've rarely noticed a no shipping deal from them and also I should probably specify that the category I'm taking about is the electronics and shoes.

        I have seen reduced shipping, but even with reduced shipping again, the prices are roughly the same as brick and mortar stores.

        • elektron on 11/12/2014 - 09:57

          deleted

  • sim36 on 09/12/2014 - 15:18
    +2

    I don't think much of COTD nor this Gabby character. 'nuff said.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 10/12/2014 - 04:37

      More like "nuff'ing" said… please consider contributing something meaningful to the dialogue, rather than simply adopting the "Mr Mackey" approach.

    • elektron on 11/12/2014 - 09:58

      I got a Chromecast for them for $27…'nuff said.

      • GnarlyKnuckles on 12/12/2014 - 02:09
        +1

        I'm not sure why you bought them a Chromecast 'lil-charge' (they evidently have plenty already), but I'm sure they appreciated the gesture, and I applaud your generosity.

        • elektron on 12/12/2014 - 10:42

          I read your comment a few times and still didn't understand what you were on about. It was not until I re-read my own comment did I realise that the joke was on me!

  • [Deactivated] on 09/12/2014 - 15:20
    +2

    More Unemployment. o_O

    • earths_pacifist on 09/12/2014 - 15:58
      +1

      That was exactly the first thing I thought when I read the article.

    • cloudy on 09/12/2014 - 20:09

      Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how u see it, it's good unemployment.

    • p1 ama on 09/12/2014 - 20:49
      +1

      Not really, merely a shifting of employment from manual labour to more 'intelligent' work, per se. Instead of lifting boxes and crates, people are now designing, managing, improving on and maintaining robots which are better at those tasks.

      • Ughhh on 09/12/2014 - 21:20
        +1

        So basically less employment for low skilled guys and more for skilled workers.

        • p1 ama on 09/12/2014 - 21:27
          +1

          Which is a good thing, we can't compete with countries such as China in manufacturing, it's really important that we move towards an information economy and beat them with skills rather than with sheer force.

    • iridiumstem on 09/12/2014 - 22:15
      +1

      Technically speaking, since one person is now doing more job, he/she should be paid more according to economics. In real life, companies save more money than the increase in the wage.

      • p1 ama on 09/12/2014 - 22:20
        +1

        I don't understand why 'companies saving money' is a bad thing, companies saving money is essentially what drives competition and development and especially innovation.

        Regardless of what the stereotype is, mad scientists don't figure things out and make them. Most developments rely on private sector investment and a key reason for this is to gain competitive advantages.

        • iridiumstem on 09/12/2014 - 23:14

          I don't disagree with you on that, but rather I was simply pointing out that companies are likely to get better end of the technological advances. Whether that is good or bad, that really does depend on how you look at it.

          Where does the capital investments come from? Private investments and the profit that the company made. Is that a good thing or bad thing? I don't really know nor have the enough caffeine in my system to think that through. Also the article doesn't have enough data for me to work with anyways.

        • p1 ama on 09/12/2014 - 23:25

          @AznMitch: Companies do get the better end of the technological advances, that's why they invest. But, over time, those advances will be spread to the general community and we all will benefit. Just as an example, things such as computers, cameras, even telephones, they might have been conceived in research institutions by geniuses, but it was investment and interest from the private sector which has propelled them to the ubiquity we see today.

        • iridiumstem on 09/12/2014 - 23:30

          @paulsterio: Yeah, that is why I said, I don't know whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. There can be many arguments on it, depending on how you see it or where you see it from. I am going to leave it at there. I have too little data and too little caffeine in me.

        • GnarlyKnuckles on 10/12/2014 - 04:54

          @AznMitch:
          Maybe the "ICE-MAKER" analogy will put things in perspective, re this whole "robots stealing jobs" BS…

          MANY decades ago, a very wise dude came up with a machine called a FREEZER, that could turn water into ice. At the time, many of the peeps of the day bagged that dude out, and tried to discredit/destroy his research and his business. They hated the very existence of his invention; because you see, they rightly foresaw that it would eventually put all the "ice-deliverers" out of business.

          To borrow a phrase from sim36… "nuff said".

        • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2014 - 12:41
          +2

          @paulsterio: the vast majority of tech selling / retail companies don't invest in research or innovation at all, they simply onsell it. Their best investment is in well-trained and knowledgeable staff - until the day that smart robots are cheap enough to do the job of course. Your apparent love affair with the private sector ignores many things - including the many tax incentives involved and government contracts (and policies) which, if not driving development, at the very least facilitate it at some point. Then of course there is the largely publicly-funded education system which provided the engineers, scientists, chemists etc who do the R&D. Some of our great innovations have sprung from pure research in "independent" labs or from individual effort and vision from inventors. The wireless system we're all using for example, was a spin-off of "unrelated" research done at CSIRO. Anti-piracy software used by Microsoft (according to a court ruling) was developed by an Aussie working as a sound software engineer. In the end profitable and responsible companies, inspired people, good well-rewarded staff and whole host of other things, including markets, are all part of the development picture.

        • p1 ama on 10/12/2014 - 13:35

          @Possumbly: I never denied what you are saying. In fact, I completely agree with you, that all of those elements are required to advance technological developments, but it would be foolish to ignore the effects of private investment.

          Lots of R&D invested has to do with being able to sell the product at a later date. An example completely unrelated to technology is the pharmaceutical industry. Lots of people hate the pharmaceutical industry for various reasons, but the reason why they spend money developing these drugs is so that they can, one day, sell those drugs and make a profit off their investment.

          Your apparent love affair with the private sector ignores many things - including the many tax incentives involved and government contracts (and policies) which, if not driving development, at the very least facilitate it at some point.

          I never denied that. We can sit here and talk about what I have ommitted, but we would be here talking for years. There's no way that we could possibly cover every single thing.

          Then of course there is the largely publicly-funded education system which provided the engineers, scientists, chemists etc who do the R&D.

          I never denied that either.

          You're missing the point. Without private sector investment, most of these engineers, scientists…etc. would be unemployed.

        • iridiumstem on 10/12/2014 - 13:47

          Why can't we be all friends and buy cheap stuff, if they have any decent deals, from COTD?

        • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2014 - 14:35

          @paulsterio: You're missing the point. Without private sector investment, most of these engineers, scientists…etc. would be unemployed.

          Presumably this bolsters your argument in some way? I didn't miss the point at all, I made the point that it's a joint effort. Try again.

          Nothing wrong with SOME private sector businesses and practices, plenty wrong with many others. Either way they don't survive without taxpayer/govt support all the way through the cycle. Failing to acknowledge that fact while pushing the private sector barrel is puerile.

        • beyondtool on 11/12/2014 - 10:45

          @Possumbly: if only the private sector funds technology and innovation that it is much harder for the greater public good to be met..just look at all the patent suing in the states that is not productive or beneficial to society. There is also a role that the government needs to play through organizations like the CSIRO (recently gutted by Abbott) so that the cure for cancer doesn't cost more than the average person can afford (for instance).

          On the topic of robots and employment we are just getting started: http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2012/02/2-billion-jobs-to-dis…

          If I was at high school I would be looking for a future career that could not be replicated by a robot which rules out most manual labor like builders, delivery drivers, retail assistants and focus on creative tasks that require human emotion and understanding like psychiatry, creative arts, team management roles. Hairdressers will likely keep their role as women like to talk ;)

        • [Deactivated] on 11/12/2014 - 12:36

          @beyondtool: Yep. Patents on the human genome are a good example. But "public good" is not something many of the blinkered "private good, public bad" lot recognise let alone acknowledge.

        • iridiumstem on 11/12/2014 - 16:05

          As a person who is from a country that have been able to rise to relatively decent position from a central planned economy (though this is arguable), I still uphold my argument that there are so many information and aspects neglected.

          For example, technological "advances" are done via R&D but the benefits of the said advance can be outweighed by the cost, not all investments are correct, what private companies decide can flops, so are the government's decisions.

          Not many people know that Posco, 4th largest steelmaking company in the world, wouldn't have been here if there were no central planned market. There would be no Toyota if Japanese government didn't subsidise Toyota during 50s to change its industry to car making industry. This being said, government decisions are not always correct either, in fact if governments make wrong decisions, the impact of that usually are massive.

          Private companies act on their behalf, not on the behalf of the consumers or the society. Me and my girlfriend had a lovely argument on this, it all boiled down to what your assumptions are on whether they will act for the benefits of the consumers. But usually, private sectors are quicker to act to new technology, is this a good thing? I don't know, there are costs and benefits from these that can have its own papers on it.

          Also, what some people tend to neglect is that as a society, there is always cost on transitions in industry. Nobody expected robots to become this efficient this soon, so who's fault is it if people gets left behind because of robots? Yes, technological advances create new industries as well, but you cannot suddenly change your job from one industry to another. There are costs attached to it for the ones left behind.

          So my personal opinion, there are not enough data for me to actually definitively say which one is better nor the impact of robots on labour market and consumers would be.

          EDIT: My arguments and examples probably are biased from the fact that I dislike the neolibralism a little.

    • elektron on 11/12/2014 - 09:59

      See my reply to coin saver above in regards to this.

  • altomic on 09/12/2014 - 16:52
    +1

    half the crap I sell on ebay would be considered shit by half the people here. I wouldn't buy any of it myself. but it gets bought and I make money.

    it is the people who buy that shit that are important.

  • goosegog on 09/12/2014 - 18:13
    -2

    Sorry - was it Catch of the Day or CRAP of the Day - which most of their products are !?

    • Tal_Shiar on 09/12/2014 - 23:25

      Cotd are still pretty ordinary when it comes to appear snd efficiency IMO, but they aren't like a online reject shop anymore, I've found quite a few good deals from time to time

      • GnarlyKnuckles on 10/12/2014 - 04:58
        +1

        This makes no sense Tal:

        "… when it comes to appear snd efficiency IMO, …"

        As PH would say… "Ploise Exploine"… ;-P

        • Tal_Shiar on 10/12/2014 - 12:45
          +1

          You know, I'm honestly not sure anymore?

  • Iangh on 10/12/2014 - 08:44
    +1

    I'm sensing a "Gerald Ratner" moment. Gerald was another businessman that called his products crap. Didn't turn out to well for him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ratner

    • snook on 10/12/2014 - 12:49

      Agree, it doesn't really matter in what manner it was said/intended, joke or not, the underlying effect is contempt for the customer.

      Doing a Ratner, lol.

      If I didn't come in here to peruse, I wouldn't ever see anything from COTD anymore. I understand that such things make the world go round but we'd be doing better as humans if we avoided that which we don't need.

  • jellykingdom on 10/12/2014 - 09:52

    I have gotten a couple good things from COTD, but mostly things like discounted men's shoes and some pairs of socks. Any electrical, cosmetics, tech, etc i would go elsewhere.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 12/12/2014 - 02:17

      Any electrical, cosmetics, tech, etc i would go elsewhere.

      Careful jez-k… you're skating close to casting aspersions on COTD-mediated "ENELOOP DEALS" there… ;-P

  • devilbabies on 10/12/2014 - 16:08

    i haven't looked at catchoftheday in years. i used to check it religiously every day.

    • beyondtool on 11/12/2014 - 10:49
      +1

      I stopped after the Haviana thongs I ordered supposedly of "universal size" were small enough to fit a midget.

  • Mysterious on 10/12/2014 - 18:51
    +4

    COTD have increased their prices and don't have many really good deals nowadays. They made a name for themselves and increased their prices. When you include shipping, most products can be bought on eBay or in store at the same price.

  • teaBagger on 11/12/2014 - 17:19

    The yearly big bag of crap was truly specrapular

  • TRENT86 on 11/12/2014 - 19:37

    Yeah Catch is 98% crap and I guess that's one of the reasons 1 day deal sites have seen sales drop in the past 2 years

  • jz5147 on 12/12/2014 - 09:43
    +1

    I recently raised a false advertising claim against them. They advertised headphones under the label "ALL UNDER $50" but there was some sennheisers going for $149. They credited me $100 =)

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join