Don't Believe The Hype!

This article was published in the original Podium magazine on March 21, 2000, with the tag line, "One take on the hype surrounding e-commerce" It had originally appeared on Mr. Hui's personal website on Dec 24, 1999.

by Andrew Hui


I was watching some financial show with Garth Turner where he was interviewing this 20-something yahoo about e-retailing. This num-nut had no idea what the hell he was talking about. He kept blathering on about how e-retailing would save money by reducing rent and staffing costs. As the old (and wrong) argument goes, since a company that sells on-line uses a web site, it doesn't need a storefront or people in the store. Therefore, it saves money and can sell for less.

Bollocks! I've never heard such a pile of crap. Ok, wait a second, I should be fair. I did believe it myself, but, after thinking about it, I realised that e-retailing is going to do very little. In fact, I wrote a paper about it. You can check it out at http://www.geocities.com/ahui.geo/other/essays.htm. It's called: "Will the Internet mean the end for intermediaries?"

Basically, there are 4 reasons for why e-retailing isn't going to make a big dent:

1. The "savings" aren't real.

Sure you don't need the store and the sales staff, but you do need a big warehouse and staff to take care of inventory. The advantage with retailing is that your staff act as sales people and inventory people. With e-retailing, you just have inventory staff. So basically, the staffing changes and rental changes are not significant.

Also, it goes down to very basic economics. It is often cheaper to ship 1000 goods to 1 location that it is to ship 1 good to 1000 locations. With the Internet, your distribution system is the latter and therefore, it is more expensive for the e-retailer to get the goods to the customer. Furthermore, since the onus is on the consumer to buy the good, the cost will be paid, in full, by the customer. That's why most e-retailers such as Chapters Online have a $10 shipping fee.

Some argue though that I should have included the travel time and the line-ups as part of the equation in that they represent a cost savings. I would argue that the amount is so little and the expense is so hidden that it doesn't really factor into the equation. I mean, does anyone know (or care) how much it costs to drive to the corner store?

2. The advertising factor

If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound? That's the kind of idea for e-retailing. The Internet is just so big, and competition is so fierce that it is impossible for a startup retailer to generate enough buzz to generate enough traffic. I mean, even "successful" e-retailers such as Amazon.com have yet to make a profit!

Regular stores are useful because they let people go to one place and browse. With the Internet, there aren't enough central locations for people to go. And when there are, they will either be too big (i.e. too many affiliated retailers listed) or too expensive (the site charges too much "virtual" rent).

3. The human factor

Shopping is such an engrained tradition among citizens of most Western societies. Marketers have long recognized this as part of the buying process. Simply said: people like to go out and be with other people. E-retailing negates this. This is not to say that no one will be attracted to e-retailing because they don't go out, just that there are not enough of these people right now to make it profitable.

4. Some goods can't be sold on-line

Can you imagine test-driving a car on-line? Or maybe buying an engagement ring online? Generally, unless you have more money that Bill Gates, these goods need to be tested and touched before a sale is made. Commodities, on the other hand, such as pop and toilet paper, can be sold this way since they are fairly generic and low risk. But therein lies the problem. Competition will be fierce for these products, and the value-to-volume ratio is just too low to justify selling it online. Basically, there is almost no money to be made selling commoditized goods.

Anyway, I've bored you all enough. Those four reasons are basically why e-retailing isn't going to revolutionize anything. As per usual, if you think I'm off the deep-end, let me know!


Andrew Hui is a 4th year Commerce student at the University of Toronto. In the future, he hopes to be one of those annoyingly young and rich owners of a dot.com business. In the meanwhile, he enjoys writing controversial and revealing rants, and sharing them with his friends in an effort to spur some intellectual or, in many cases, pseudo-intellectual discussion about a variety of topics. His objective with the rants is not to engage in serious discussion, but to spur thought and encourage people to frame their ideas and opinions in writing.

Why Feminism is Evil

This article was published in the original Podium magazine on Feb 10, 2000, with the tag line, "Mr. Hui gives his take on modern feminism." A version had first appeared on Mr. Hui's personal website on Nov 27, 1996.

by Andrew Hui


Here is my anti-feminism rant that you have all been:

• eagerly
• nervously
• curiously
• not

awaiting.

Feminism is evil. Now before any of you brand me an ignorant male chauvinist pig, read on to understand my arguments. But first my thesis: present day feminism is an antiquated belief who's leaders consists of those women who have failed in life, and who require someone to blame for their failure. It is an ideology that promotes discrimination, restricts the freedom of women, and supports a fallacious belief in an aspect of society that exists on such a minute scale that it is no longer relevant.

First, what is a feminist? Feminists are women who believe that the female gender is superior to the male gender. Now, I know some of you who are reading this are saying, "What a fool, he has no idea what feminism is. Feminism is about achieving equality for both genders." Well, I submit that those who are thinking, saying, yelling, cursing this in fact do not know what feminism is.

The gender equality ideal belongs to a philosophy which I have dubbed, "Egalitarianism". Like the name suggests, this philosophy believes that all human beings are created equal, and that it is wrong and foolish to discriminate with respect to gender, race, religious/political beliefs, sexual preference, etc.

So in fact, most "feminists" are indeed egalitarians. But don't tell the core feminists that. They know this is true, but how else would they give the impression that their political and social minority is a significant force? So, feminists are those who believe in the superiority of the female gender, while egalitarians believe in the equality of all human beings with respect to each other.

Now that that little issue is clear, let me proceed to explain why feminism is so bad.

Feminism promotes discrimination. For the simple fact that feminists believe that women are superior to men, it becomes clear that they are biased against men. They believe that, because women are superior to men, they should be granted special rights. For example, hiring quotas. Just because there are more men in some fields than women, it is immediately assumed that women are being discriminated against and therefore must be given a more equal opportunity for jobs. Well, this "more equal opportunity" has manifested itself as affirmative action. Well let me just tell you this: quotas are nothing more than legalized discrimination. By the very nature of a quota, some people are excluded with respect to their physical attributes, while others are not. This is called DISCRIMINATION. Since feminism supports quotas, it supports discrimination.

Just as a note, I don't understand why anyone would want to play the "minority card" when getting employment. But, then again, maybe they aren't good enough for the position in the first place, so they need to use this dirty trick.

Also, quotas are no good for all parties involved. People who get in via quota lack legitimacy. (i.e. "You only got in because of the quota.") This creates unnecessary tension between rival groups, which, in the long run, can bolster the forces of discrimination. So this is another way that feminism promotes discrimination. Also, this inevitable situation will hurt those "minorities" who got in without the quotas. Although they are competent, they will be regarded as just another beneficiary of the quotas.

Feminism restricts the freedom of women to choose their own way of life. Unfortunately, many women who currently choose to stay home with the children are seen as opponents to women's rights. They are viewed with contempt and seen as inferior to those women who choose a career. I know this because of a certain eavesdropping operation on a group of unsuspecting women.

This attitude that women who stay home are inferior to those who choose a career is just wrong. First of all, it is none of anyone's business whether or not a woman chooses to stay home or not. Secondly, maintaining house and family is an extremely tedious and difficult job definitely not for the weak of heart.

So, as I have shown, feminism limits the choices of women to determine their own destiny.

Feminism creates the false impression that women are a disadvantaged group and therefore implants a "Oh well, who cares, I'm not supposed to succeed" (defeatist) attitude in women.

By continuously spouting their "Boo hoo, women are the victims" propaganda, feminists have created a situation in which young women are taught that they are the underdogs and are not very likely to succeed. The same thing happens to many African Americans (especially those from low income families) in the USA. They were constantly told that they are victims, and now believe it. The result has been the propagation of despair: the idea that there is no use trying because you won't succeed. (This attitude is reflected in most of Spike Lee's films.) Feminists have consciously or subconsciously --it doesn't really matter which-- created the same idea for women.

Well, let me just say that this is just wrong. Women are not at a disadvantage. Discrimination died in the late 80's and early 90's; well, it has diminished to the status of a "non-factor". The irresponsible propagation of this idea is not only deceiving, but threatens to reduce women's hopes and aspirations to rubble.

Feminism is an outdated belief of the past. Like I said before, discrimination is a non-factor now. Diehard feminists are using the victim card to simply further their personal and political gains.

Women would not rule the world better than men. Let there be no doubt, women are just as violent as men. They always have been and they always will be. Just see the matriarchal tribes of Africa and the rise in female crime for proof. Women and men are equal and neither would rule the world better than the other.

So basically, to sum it all up:

1. There are fewer feminists than you might think. Most people are egalitarians.
2. Feminism is a retroactive philosophy which serves to stagnate the process of final equalization between men and women.
3. Feminism is a self-serving, discriminatory action that has potential to be one of the great "isms".

So long live light of egalitarian rule. Down with the darkness that calls itself feminism.



Andrew Hui is a 4th year Commerce student at the University of Toronto. In the future, he hopes to be one of those annoyingly young and rich owners of a dot.com business. In the meanwhile, he enjoys writing controversial and revealing rants, and sharing them with his friends in an effort to spur some intellectual or, in many cases, pseudo-intellectual discussion about a variety of topics. His objective with the rants is not to engage in serious discussion, but to spur thought and encourage people to frame their ideas and opinions in writing.