i don't think anyone is refutting submerge's expansion. merely pointing out the dangerous consumer habits of declarng them or anyone the new 'one-stop'
it's consumers who bear the responsibility- not the bussinesses On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, J.T. wrote: > submerge is not distributing clone stuff. it merely carries it in s.i.d. > first of all this is not consolidation, it's expansion. it's one more place > in the usa that carries clone stuff. more copies in circulation in the usa. > this is a good thing. it is increasing competition not eliminating it. the > records arent $12 like many other shops charge these days. usa distribs are > picking up fewer and fewer copies of releases these days and submerge is > picking up the slack. it's GREAT. > > why would you complain submerge is going to make people overlook some labels > (or stores is it?) at the same time it is picking up more labels. that's > nonsensical. do you want them to carry fewer labels, or more? do you want > dozens of mail-order places all carrying different stock and struggling like > mad to get by? that's not a smart business model. submerge is far from a > monopoly, in fact it's the most human and most specialized store of any > record store i know of, this is some insane hating going on. > > the fringe is what gets eliminated. that's why they call it the fringe. the > goal is to not be on the fringe. more records bought and sold is good. there > cant be much competition to begin with unless there's a healthy market. > >
