End of Small Business. People Don't Seem to Upvote Small Guys Anymore. Frontpage Littered with Big Corporations Only

• 

  dcep on 11/02/2019 - 23:41

  +34

  this is ozbargain , not ozanticorporate

  if you care about the cause, learn more about illuminati/rockefellar, stop working for money, move to nowhere, start growing your own food.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 09:12

    +3

    Everybody wants the $30 minimum wage. Nobody wants the off-shoring.

    How do these intelligent individuals cope with the conundrum? Unions!

    Hmm. Where did all the small businesses go?

  • 

    HighAndDry on 12/02/2019 - 09:27

    -1

    And for our sakes, get off the internet…

• 

  [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 00:13

  +3

  There are plenty of IT people here. It's been 20+ years that the world doesn't give a stuff about offshoring, so I'm not sure why people in other industries want protectionism.

  (This is also a great era of the ultra rich blowing their money on Mars expeditions. Far from bitching, I support that, except for Elon not risking his own life. )

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 09:10

    I heart Elon. Lay of the eMusk. He gave us PayPal. Long live PayPal!

    • 

      Morphio25 on 13/02/2019 - 17:15

      -3

      PayPal is a complete and utter pile of dog shit. Worst financial based company out there bar none.

      • 

        bobs burgers on 13/02/2019 - 20:38

        +4

        Thats quite a strong opinion. Heard of the banks?

        • 

          callum9999 on 14/02/2019 - 05:07

          -1

          @bobs burgers: How is PayPal better than the banks?

  • 

    HardlyCharly on 12/02/2019 - 13:18

    +1

    That's just dumb, a president can't risk their life on the front lines after they've declared war for example, they're too important.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 13:29

      Richard Branson takes risks. Think before you call things dumb.

      • 

        HighAndDry on 12/02/2019 - 15:02

        +5

        I actually agree that Musk shouldn't take too many risks. He's proven plenty that he's willing to put his money where his mouth is, considering how many millions he's sunk into his projects. I'd rather prefer to keep his vision and initiative alive, because I don't think anyone else in his companies will keep his ambitions alive.

• 

  fantombloo on 12/02/2019 - 00:24

  +1

  richest 1% now own half the world's wealth

  The big keep getting bigger

  Late stage capitalism - gonna hurt.

• 

  whooah1979 on 12/02/2019 - 06:10

  +7

  OP, many of the businesses you've listed are public companies that have super fund shareholders. Working Australians are benefiting from their profits.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 07:30

    +7

    Working Australians are benefiting from their profits.

    So are retired Australians

• 

  Some Human on 12/02/2019 - 06:28

  +5

  Oh great, another one of those threads.

  • 

    fantombloo on 12/02/2019 - 07:22

    +2

    Yes, we better not float potentially uncomfortable ideas lest we need to think about things, and thinking hurts when we know everything already.

    • 

      Some Human on 12/02/2019 - 08:41

      +4

      Again, you’re preaching to the wrong audience.

      • 

        fantombloo on 12/02/2019 - 08:52

        +1

        Ever considered that this forum is full of diverse types of people and that you may not be part of the intended audience in every post?

        • 

          HighAndDry on 12/02/2019 - 09:30

          +3

          @fantombloo: I don't think all diversity is necessarily a good thing. For example, diversity in level of rationality, or sanity, etc.

        • 

          Some Human on 12/02/2019 - 10:27

          +3

          @fantombloo: I thought the forum was full of bargain hunters who don’t care where their stuff comes from as long as it’s cheap.

          • 

            fantombloo on 12/02/2019 - 11:44

            @Some Human: Bargains mean different things to different people. You thought wrong.

            • 

              Some Human on 12/02/2019 - 14:28

              @fantombloo: Definition of bargain (courtesy of google)= a thing bought or offered for sale much more cheaply than is usual or expected.
              Not sure what you're on about.

              • 

                HighAndDry on 12/02/2019 - 15:00

                +2

                @Some Human: We're living in a post-truth world where people use whatever definitions of words they like. And unfortunately it's not limited to any one side of politics or ideology either.

              • 

                fantombloo on 12/02/2019 - 16:26

                @Some Human: Go upvote the credo courses then, because by that tight standard they're bargains.

• 

  dylo on 12/02/2019 - 06:50

  +7

  do people here still support small business or we just really care about the cheapest?

  It's OzBargain, of course we just really care about the cheapest. We don't come to OzBargain to solely support small businesses.

• 

  stirlo on 12/02/2019 - 08:21

  +11

  With the number of price error/coupon stacking/free shipping “deals” on here maybe it’s for the best that there’s not that much small business exposure.

  While Officeworks can afford to price beat a phone for hundreds below RRP and maybe below even their cost price, a small business might suffer serious harm from an influx of bargain hunters. You see this quite often when a small business offers free samples and has to cancel the offer under an influx of ozbargainers just looking for “free” anything.

  At the end of the day the most important thing to ozbargain deals is price. Normally small retailers don’t compete on price but rather service and quality so it’s unsurprising to see few of them make the front page.

• 

  Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 12/02/2019 - 08:40

  +13

  I'm going to be brutally honest.

  Being a great butcher, baker, mechanic, electrician, etc does NOT mean you are a good businessperson. Lots of small/medium businesses close/go out of business because they don't know HOW to run a business. They can easily have lower overheads, better service, better community connection, better everything than the big boi corporations yet a lot still fail.

  The big boi corps know how to run a business, run it efficiently, know economics, hire the best people to do the grunt.

  Also OP, you are mistaken that the big boi corps keep getting bigger. A LOT of medium/large retailers have gone bust in the last 2 years alone.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 08:41

  +4

  I would support, a certain percentage section of front page to be dedicated to small businesses.

  Maybe also keep a certain section percentage for Australian owned businesses also (even large Aussie businesses).

  Both would have to have the premise whereby they are actually the cheapest currently available . I don't think anyone would support upping a deal to front page when it's much cheaper elsewhere.

  Making 'front page' is based how many upvotes, and how quick the upvotes come in etc. So with current system in mind…..

  Of course, the deals have to be posted first. So small business is at a disadvantage because many of the deals are spotted 'online' and small business does not have as much online presence.

  Then to get those upvotes once posted, many of the small business deals are localized, so in a sense, they are targeted to people in that area. Unless delivery is available and still remains a great deal/bargain. It is understandable that deals that are less accessible to the majority, are naturally going to get less upvotes.

  One potential solution here would be to have the small business deals that are just available in one area (no delivery, you need to go into the local shop) , well these could show on 'front page' dependent on location. Eg. I'm in Wollongong, so I would like small business deals for Wollongong only area to show on my front page, but not bargains from Western Australia.
  I recently posted deal for fuel (small independent servo, Aussie owned) in Wollongong, and it would have been nice for all the Wollongong ozbargainers to see it, but not show for people in areas far away. As obviously fuel isn't deliverable and understably nobody from far away will upvote such a 'small business bargain'.

• 

  swapsey on 12/02/2019 - 08:56

  +8

  I think it's the toxic culture of ozbargain at work. If you post a deal and the boys don't like it, just like this comment which they won't like, they will smash it with negative comments and votes. It has become deeply predictable.

  So there is no hope for simple innocent deals that aren't big screen tvs and from the big stores and available everywhere and having cash rewards.

  For some reason, people want to hurt others first and never ask genuine questions. Member's have become more self focused. Maybe it's a product of the political society we find ourselves in these days. Maybe its the greed coming through. After all, ozbargain is at it's core the selfish endeavour to save a buck or two.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 09:08

    +7

    no hope for simple innocent deals

    You are looking for OzHipster.

  • 

    HighAndDry on 12/02/2019 - 09:33

    Wrong, for the simple reason I don't have enough negs for all your comments.

    After all, ozbargain is at it's core the selfish endeavour to save a buck or two.

    And this is obviously false - the point is the site is to share deals. That's the opposite of selfish.

    • 

      dazweeja on 12/02/2019 - 10:05

      +1

      Agreed, and it occasionally happens that by sharing the deals, the deal becomes unavailable to the one who shared it.

  • 

    dazweeja on 12/02/2019 - 10:09

    +3

    Exactly why are you here? If the culture is toxic and saving a buck or two is selfish, what possible benefit can this site provide you?

    Regardless, I fail to see how buying things at a discount is selfish - obviously the retailer is offering it at the price for a reason, eg. to increase exposure, drive traffic to that business, or, just maybe, to maximise their profits by selling a greater quantity at a lower price than their competitors.

    • 

      swapsey on 12/02/2019 - 11:21

      Perhaps selfish was too strong a word - I would replace with self-focussed if I rewrote that.

      I am here to share things with people and have things shared with me, in a positive way not a negative way. I have donated things to ozbargain members, made countless suggestions in the view to help people and sought advice from the wise members.

      I fail to see why we have to be so negative to each other. People will write the most unhelpful comments in their rage and there is no wonder the tone seems to get worse and worse as months go by.

      People who are negging my expression of frustration have no need to worry - I will be here less and less as I value positivity over negativity.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 12:21

        +2

        I fail to see why we have to be so negative to honest with each other.

        In a world where the majority are governed by feelings, I value the fact that ozbargain is honest, albeit at times brutally.

        The very nature of the site is objectivity of deals. Why is anyone surprised when that objectivity spills into the discussions.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 09:04

  +1

  or we just really care about the cheapest?

• 

  p1 ama on 12/02/2019 - 09:24

  +2

  I've never understood the vitriol towards "big corporations". These "big corporations" are acting in the best interest of their shareholders, so if you really believe they're doing that well, you can be a part of that by buying shares in said corporations. The great thing about public financing is that it allows anybody who believes in a publicly listed business to invest in it and be a part of its fortune.

  The big keep getting bigger. Then they outsource and move jobs offshore to make bigger profits and do creative accounting to pay minimal taxes. None of this is surprising but do people here still support small business or we just really care about the cheapest?

  Maybe not the cheapest, but people care about the best value. And by all accounts, people should. Paying more to prop up dying industries is a fool's game. In the end, it's detrimental to everyone involved. The people who are buying are paying more, the owners of those small businesses have capital tied up in a business that has to be propped up by others meaning their capital cannot be better used, and of course, the people who you wish to support (i.e. the jobs) will have to one day go away because that sort of protectionism cannot last forever. When that happens, these people are not adequately skilled to move on and find better jobs.

  Long time ago, there were people putting things together by hand, today, machines do that. The nature of productivity and efficiency gains mean that certain jobs are going to no longer be required. There's nothing wrong with that. These people have to re-skill and move to another profession or job. Not that long ago, "calculators" were prestigious jobs where you sat in a room and calculated sums for a living. Today, computers can do that much better than humans.

  The reason why Amazon (e.g.) has such a big leg up on small businesses is because they have huge advantages in the supply chain, they negotiate better prices with manufacturers and they often are able to cut out middlemen such as distributors. They have the infrastructure advantage that the small guys do not. There is no moral basis on which we can say the small business should or should not exist. They are either competitive or not. If they are not, then the capital is better used elsewhere where they are better able to compete.

  • 

    noshopping on 12/02/2019 - 10:10

    +1

    So by your logic, rich people should pay same tax rates as poor people? Could be argued that rich just work smarter and utilize their time better?

    • 

      HighAndDry on 12/02/2019 - 10:46

      +3

      So by your logic, rich people should pay same tax rates as poor people?

      On principle I would agree with this.

      Practically, there'd be not enough money for all the welfare recipients if rich people suddenly started paying tax at rates equal to the rest of us.

      Say two people are twins with identical genetics and upbringing. One works harder through school and uni, gets better grades, works more part-time jobs, gets a better paying job and has more investments. The other waffles through life and ends up with no qualifications, no savings, and a job at Maccas. Assuming equal government support for both - the better one didn't apply for HECS and was a full fee-paying student, etc - what rationale do you have that the richer twin should not only pay more tax, but at an even higher rate?

      Could be argued that rich just work smarter and utilize their time better?

      By definition, yes - they're earning more money, and therefore by the representation of value universally accepted by society - they're adding more value to society. If they weren't, society is free to stop paying them; they're not bank robbers - someone is willingly paying them. Oh, and in a lot of cases, they work harder too.

      If poor people were adding more value to society, they wouldn't be poor because others would be giving them money for that work if they really thought it was valuable.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 12:24

        -2

        Nah, rich people had it all given to them and they exploit the rest of the hard working people.

        They are stupid and lazy. And cunning. And lucky.

        • 

          HighAndDry on 12/02/2019 - 12:32

          @[Deactivated]: I really should stay out of this kinds of threads. I have nothing against poor people, but I swear I must come across as some monocle'd, mustache-twirling Monopoly mascot guy with a cane….

          • 

            [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 12:33

            +2

            @HighAndDry: Huh. Where have I seen that guy before…

      • 

        HardlyCharly on 12/02/2019 - 13:28

        +4

        No. It is a fundamental truth that everything in our lives comes down to chance. You can only slightly influence your chances, you have no actual control. This is obvious to anyone of sufficient intelligence. Attributing wealth or 'success' to oneself is a coping mechanism to avoid this fact, to feel superior, to feel like one has earned it. The reality is too complex for them to reconcile with, because in the end we all search for a reason for things to happen after the fact even if there isn't one. It's part of human nature. Sounds like you have some reflecting to do.

        • 

          HighAndDry on 12/02/2019 - 13:29

          +1

          @HardlyCharly:

          Attributing wealth or 'success' to oneself is a coping mechanism to avoid this fact, to feel superior, to feel like one has earned it.

          You say this, but doesn't it seem far more likely - or at the very least equally likely, since people generally cope with success far better than they do with failure, that:

          You can only slightly influence your chances, you have no actual control.

          This is a coping mechanism for failure?

          To use your logic, I'd somehow need a "coping mechanism" if I won the lotto. I haven't - but if I did - I doubt very much I'd give much thought to it other than "F*** YEAH! HOOKERS AND BLOW TIME!" in terms of why or how I 'deserved' it. I'd readily concede I didn't deserve to win the lottery, but it's not going to keep me up at night (apart from said hookers and blow).

        • 

          noshopping on 12/02/2019 - 14:00

          +1

          @HardlyCharly: True to a degree. Every dole bludger here earns more than the hardest healthcare worker in every South East Asian country. You can study as much and work as hard as you want, circumstances and luck play huge roles. Another key fact, almost all US presidents come from privilege backgrounds. JFK's father milked Wallstreet before it crashed and was responsible for creating the S.E.C. to "safeguard" investors. He was well known to be a major scammer but how did a scammer end up creating the S.E.C?. He was Roosevelt's right hand man.

          • 

            p1 ama on 12/02/2019 - 19:39

            @noshopping: You're making comparisons that lack context though.

            Every dole bludger here earns more than the hardest healthcare worker in every South East Asian country.

            Yes and no, even if I accepted your argument in raw dollar terms, this has little to do with the bigger picture. You have to look at the cost of living, how comfortable they are in their country and a whole host of other things. I'd be willing to say that a well-paid worker in SEA (even if they are earning less than the dole here) are living a very comfortable life, whereas the dole bludger here isn't.

            If you want more context: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-salary-of-a-doctor-in-Chin…

            Basically, the long and short of it is, yes, people are paid less in certain countries, e.g. China. But the price of various things are cheaper. Here in Melbourne, the price of a daily train ticket is around $8, in Beijing, it is $0.30 USD. Raw income doesn't tell the full story.

            You can study as much and work as hard as you want, circumstances and luck play huge roles.

            Nobody is saying that luck doesn't matter at all or that there is no impact of circumstances. Of course, some have it easier than others. Social programs such as universal education and healthcare go some way to levelling that playing field. However, there is always going to be some innate differences. Some people are born in a better place, to a better family, with better genes…etc. The point isn't so much equality of outcomes, but rather, equality of opportunity where everyone plays by the same rules.

            Another key fact, almost all US presidents come from privilege backgrounds.

            What's the privileged background that Obama came from? His father was a Kenyan economist who came to the US to study and by all accounts, he was raised by his mother and her family much like a single mother. Certainly his mother was very successful (a prominent academic in her own right), I wouldn't go so far as to say that their family situation is specifically privileged.

            Either way, without nitpicking, I agree with your broader point, that there is benefit to being "privileged". I think society has come a long way in evening out that playing field, though there are issues to tackle. That said, we aren't really talking about being the president of the US, we're talking about living a happy and fulfilling life.

      • 

        abb on 14/02/2019 - 09:32

        what rationale do you have that the richer twin should not only pay more tax, but at an even higher rate?

        Marginal utility, and the fact that poorer people (tend to) spend a higher proportion of their income which benefits the overall economy (more jobs etc).

        • 

          HighAndDry on 14/02/2019 - 09:42

          @abb: Both are more utilitarian/practical considerations - which I agreed with above:

          Practically, there'd be not enough money for all the welfare recipients if rich people suddenly started paying tax at rates equal to the rest of us.

          But they're far from the kind of deontological ethical or moral ones that most people use to justify it. I.e., it's more in the form of "This is what's for the greater good", not "This is what's fair."

          If people can accept and concede this, I'd be happy.

          • 

            abb on 14/02/2019 - 09:54

            +1

            @HighAndDry: I disagree. I think it can be inferred from the concept of marginal utility that it's fair for a richer person to pay a higher rate of tax, it can be considered as scaling the raw dollar %age to a utility %age. (edit: to clarify by way of invented example, a 50% tax on income above $100k might impose the same cut to utility as a 25% tax on income above $50k)

            There's also the idea that they derive more benefit from society - the presence of a well-functioning police/justice system is a far more desirable thing to the man driving a $500k car than it is to me with a below-average car, roads for their business empires etc.

            I'm far too sleep-deprived, and lack the high-level philosophical training, to get into a really serious ethical debate (isn't 'the greater good', by definition, 'fair'? No, let's not..). In any case I'll never convince you, you'll never convince me, good thing we live in a relatively free country and are all entitled to our views :)

            If I run into you at a bar I'd be happy to have a long rambling conversation… after you buy me a drink because you earn more than I do ;)

    • 

      p1 ama on 12/02/2019 - 13:38

      +1

      I think you fundamentally misunderstand what I say. I'm not suggesting that the rich not pay more taxes than the poor, nor that we should not have social programs. My belief is that if we are to spend public money, it needs to be in a way that is productive and an investment for future society. For example, education and healthcare benefit society - healthier and more educated people increase society's productivity and everyone benefits. Subsidising industries and businesses which are going to collapse anyway is a bad idea. It's an investment nobody should make.

      Just have a look at the Aussie car industry. I love Aussie cars, all of the cars I've ever owned are produced here. However, it never made sense for the government to continue spending billions of dollars on subsidies that just went to parent companies overseas. Sure, some jobs were saved for a little while but they all eventually went anyway. That money was much better spent building industries of the future and retraining workers. Ultimately, I think we missed out on a lot of opportunities.

    • 

      RefusdClassification on 14/02/2019 - 22:10

      Rich people get most of their income from economic rents rather than through industriousness. For instance, if you have a block of land in Syndney it will increase in value by 10% per year without you having to list a finger. Economic rent is passive income and derives from owning infrastructure, patents, intellectual property, shares, government connections. Look up the term "Rentier Capitalism".

  • 

    jason101 on 13/02/2019 - 23:06

    +2

    I've been hated for saying this before, and I'll probably be hated again …

    Should start by declaring: I own and run a couple of small businesses, I am also employed by a medium sized family owned corporation (effectively a family business on steriods) BUT….

    Telstra, Coles, Hardly Normal, Woolworths, Bunnings and most of the companies listed above (who Ozbargainers love to hate) are owned by YOU AND ME. As wage earners in Australia who have super, WE OWN the big companies. They employ locals, pay tax in Australia and are essentially DIRECTLY owned by the local man/woman in the street Aussies through their super.

    I think we should collectively cut them a bit of a break. Sure they make millions or billions, but as a business that is their core job, make as much as they can for their shareholders - but ALL of that money goes straight back into the pockets of you, me, our neighbours and friends, we ARE the shareholders. Even the unemployed and pensioners benefit from Telstra, Woolies or Coles making a few billion each year due the immense contribution these firms make to the Australian Taxation System.

    If we want to review what the Googles, eBay's and Amazon's contribute to the Australian economy - the foreign owned entities who pay no tax here, employ basically no one and have shareholders overseas to feed - thats a completely different topic (although we can credit these guys for generally raising the living standard of everyday aussies by lowering prices generally through increased product offerings and competition).

• 

  bobbified on 12/02/2019 - 09:28

  +5

  I notice whenever a small business owner opens a thread, they seem to get criticism/abuse from OzBargainers.

  Can you please provide some examples of this?

  I'd say it's more likely about the accessibility, relevancy and the user confidence around each deal. We're all here for a bargain and I'm sure no-one is conciously trying to "screw the little guys", as you've put it.

  • 

    HighAndDry on 12/02/2019 - 09:36

    +5

    It's really because there's now a proliferation of Shopify drop-shippers masquerading as legit businesses which might make it seem like small businesses are 'flamed' more.

    Other than that, it makes total sense that on a site where price is the most important consideration, there would be more bigger companies and stores featured because they're going to be the ones both most likely to be benefiting from economies of scale and able to absorb at-/below-cost promotional campaigns.

  • 

    Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 12/02/2019 - 14:31

    +2

    Only real criticism I've seen recently is "wordpress" "webhost" companies advertising on ozbargain when it's just a person with a sole trader ABN and a reseller account. They pretend to be something they are not, have no actual technical knowledge and offer super cheap 1 year plans (that default to $1890000 after the first year)

• 

  jnewau on 12/02/2019 - 09:38

  +5

  This is a bargain site. Small business can't compete with the big boys on price, hence it's not surprising you won't see much here
  A small business trying to compete on price with the big chains will be out of business soon.

  Instead they need to find a niche, whether it be quality products at a premium,convenience,great personal service, being a local part of the community itself etc.

  Many small firms do this successfully (I love my local butcher) but the desires of their customers don't often align with the mindset of this website.

• 

  plmko on 12/02/2019 - 09:40

  +2

  If I was running a small business at the moment, I wouldn't want to deal with OzB community. It's the type of customer that is unreasonable, scrupulous, manipulative or needy; there's no loyalty. I also don't see anything wrong with that, it's just what it is.

  Fortunately the small business target audience isn't OzB, big business however can wear the loss from discounts because they get your personal data in return and that is useful for them, the same cannot be said of small business.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 11:19

    +2

    You should look up the definition of 'scrupulous' sharpish ;)

    • 

      HardlyCharly on 12/02/2019 - 13:30

      They obviously know it, I don't see how it could possibly not fit into that sentence. What are you on about? If you think it should be 'unscrupulous', they can both easily apply in the context.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 13:33

        Your first sentence should have been two. There are many things in your blindspot.

• 

  HighAndDry on 12/02/2019 - 10:03

  +1

  Then they outsource and move jobs offshore to make bigger profits and do creative accounting to pay minimal taxes.

  I dare you to claim that you don't use anything from a big company, or anything that's made overseas or from imported components.

• 

  swapsey on 12/02/2019 - 11:06

  If I was a small business owner I wouldn't want the business you get from ozbargain anyway. Better to get a customer through genuine interest in the humanity behind your product and business than race to the bottom economics.

  • 

    HighAndDry on 12/02/2019 - 11:19

    +1

    The "race to the bottom economics" is why things like computers, smart-phones, and the internet aren't restricted to the aristocracy. Oh, and things like vaccines, MRIs and other imaging, safety features in cars, air travel, etc.

    I really really wish the people who keep harping on the ills of capitalism could go experience what the world would be like without it. Actually, you can! Move to Venezuela.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 12:36

    +1

    …genuine interest in the humanity behind your product and business…

    @.@

    • 

      HighAndDry on 12/02/2019 - 13:27

      That's got to be a euphemism for prostitution right?

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 13:38

        There are these words/concepts which seems a bit… Fluffy.

        Most recently, I watched a protest where someone kept chanting "you're exploiting my free emotional labour!".

        Where are these concepts coming from?

        • 

          HighAndDry on 12/02/2019 - 13:42

          @[Deactivated]: Bah. It's same misuse of language as airlines calling bargain hunting "tariff abuse", just on the opposite side of the ideological fence.

  • 

    p1 ama on 12/02/2019 - 19:28

    +3

    Better to get a customer through genuine interest in the humanity behind your product and business than race to the bottom economics.

    That's just fluffy nonsense, bunch of words that don't mean anything.

    What is a "genuine interest in the humanity" of a product? If I want to purchase a TV, what is the "genuine interest in the humanity" of a TV?

    I certainly don't follow right-wing orthodoxy, in fact I'd say I'm very strongly left leaning, but to suggest that there is some moral responsibility on behalf of buyers to choose pricier goods is dubious at best.

• 

  spackbace on 12/02/2019 - 14:33

  +8

  Hey OP, how are you contributing to the cause?

  https://www.ozbargain.com.au/user/143839/voted

  Most recent 10 up-votes
  Coinspot
  JB Hi-Fi
  Yubico
  Pizza Hut
  Newegg
  7-Eleven
  Udemy
  Shopback
  Udemy
  iTunes

  If you want to change the world, start by practising what you preach…

  • 

    noshopping on 12/02/2019 - 20:24

    heh yeah I noticed that which is disappointing because I like supporting the little guys, guess I'm going to start upvoting small businesses more from now on. I think it's like sugar. I tell family members how bad it is, how the average soda has teaspoons of the stuff but it's hard doing the right thing.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 21:05

      What is your definition of small business?

      What is the tolerance if the definition is exceeded?

      What if the business is within your definition but the business is immoral?

      How will you define those morals?

      What if the business is owned by several people but one or more is behaving criminally?

      What if the profits from the business is well known to be spent overseas?

      I had this crazy idea. Why not just vote for the best deal based on an objective criteria… say price for example?

    • 

      p1 ama on 12/02/2019 - 22:00

      I like supporting the little guys

      Why?

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 23:25

        So I can spank the monkey… with the lights on.

        One good deed a day keeps the shame away.

    • 

      spackbace on 13/02/2019 - 00:32

      Up vote them if they create a good deal. Don't just blindly up vote or you encourage them to spam the site.

• 

  Third_Gear on 12/02/2019 - 16:30

  +3

  As a small business owner I’m doing quite well financially and the big corporations have very little impact upon me. The trick is to own multiple small companies all making your money work and applying the same processes across them all.

• 

  scrimshaw on 12/02/2019 - 16:43

  Tobydeals is just eGlobalDigital Cameras but they claim to be a different entity. They shut down their former site after the GST regulations were active.

  • 

    Clear on 12/02/2019 - 18:52

    They probably realised that the new GST legislation is not being enforced or checked and figured they could open up shop again.

• 

  mousie on 13/02/2019 - 16:13

  +1

  Are you loooking for a smashed avo and toast bargain? Wrong demographic.

• 

  Cheaplikethebird on 13/02/2019 - 17:25

  +1

  So many of the small business that I see here are just people selling cheap chinese imports or some tshirt/coffee mug printing company filling some weird niche. They don't have the buying power to offer good deals and they're still sourcing cheap product from China so it's likely the purchase is no more ethical than if i'd purchased from a big bad corporation.

  If you're a small business where you are making your own quality product then I will support you, if not you are just an inefficient supply chain for my cheap chinese trinkets.

• 

  Omitsukasa on 13/02/2019 - 17:35

  +2

  To get on the front page, the deals need to be exceptionally good.. So good that small businesses can't afford to discount to that level whereas big corps can. It's better off for them to just get regular customers instead of lowering prices to such extreme levels to attract ozbargainers who won't make second purchases unless it's at another loss-making price.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 13/02/2019 - 18:45

  I never upvoted or downvoted by looking at who is posting and on whose behalf but looked at the deal that I could actually use and sometimes it was just good timing. So if you are small business or big it does not really matter unless you have a good product at good price at the right time. I would upvote it straighaway.

• 

  imurgod on 13/02/2019 - 20:20

  I have to agree, at least in part, with this post.

  I am genuinely put off posting deals sometimes because of the willingness of people to often shoot everyone down.

  There must be business owners on here too afraid to provide a deal for fear that they are shot down.

  I could easily provide a cracking deal for Ozbargainers based on economics of scale that would easily annihilate the big boys, but there's no way I would subject myself to what followed.

• 

  bobs burgers on 13/02/2019 - 20:47

  The thing that everyone appears to be missing is big business was small business at one point that has gone well.

  Amazon like most other businesses started in a garage.

  So those big businesses are providing services that people clearly want, they get bigger. Have a look at Apple they had not only ups but many years of downs. A crappy company about to go broke in the 90s turned around by the success of the ipod. Also started in a garage.

  Its not that people don't want to support small business. Plenty do but small business in the world of the internet is dangerous to those that don't understand it.

  Why would I go to some small business to get something they may not even have for unknown price because they don't want to have a proper website with say pricing on it at least.

  I buy plenty locally when it makes sense or I want it in a hurry. Often times I will complain about the price knowing I could have had it cheaper online if I could have waited.

  Im sure many are in same position and would buy locally if it were more convenient. The internet is what makes doing business convenient, both for sellers and buyers.

• 

  jason101 on 13/02/2019 - 23:12

  Its probably also reasonable to note that Ozb has become so popular only businesses with huge reach and stock availability really appeal on this site. Your average little store with 10-20-30 items to clear (even if they are legitimate bargains) wont fare too well when they get 2,000-3,000 clicks an hour for the 10-20-30 items they are looking to clear out at bargain prices.

• 

  HangryCakeStore on 14/02/2019 - 01:26

  Also alot of favouritism and biased voting among popular users?