I don't see it that way...
I believe the consolidation to a handful of nation-wide stores was driven more by Wall Street and the expectations of investors than by consumer habits. Those big box stores showed up well before the customer demanded them. Once built, they were bigger, newer, and offered more of the same products at a lower cost. Even if they are actually losing money. The goal is to run out the competition and become the main play. Then, cut costs. Even beyond the point where you damage your business interests. Ride it out until you see the ultimate end and bail. Maybe, you become so big you "cannot be allowed" to fail.
This is a new phenomenon. It is now prevalent in many businesses. In my opinion, this happens when too many involved have no long-term interest in the actual success of the business. Rather, it is a short-term play in a bubble. In many ways the little guy ends up holding the bag.
It is a Wall Street recipe: If you need to see a glaring example how it happens, look at the banks.
Let me tell you a little story from Best Buy's history. Back in the early 80's when the company was named "Sound of Music" and was one of those audio stores that everyone seems to miss so much. One store in Roseville, Minnesota was hit by a tornado and the actual building was nearly destroyed. In response, Sound of Music held a tornado sale - cut rate prices, stripped down service and lots of product. It was so successful that they started bringing in more product from other stores, and the "Tornado sale" became an annual event. Consumer's voted with their dollars, and Best Buy started its transformation -- to reflect the financial benefit and feedback from consumers, not the other way around. Combined with the new computer age that started to push out new technologies that consumers wanted an alarming rate and you have the birth of the Best Buy Superstore. If consumers wanted these little audio stores, then they would have flourished because demand would have been there to support them.
The free market does not hold you at gun point and make you spend money at any given place or time. Consumers vote everyday when they choose to spend money. You always have a choice, and if the needs of large numbers of people are not met, new markets are open to those who innovate.
If we look at retailers like Kmart (once the world's Walmart) and Sears (Grandfather of Walmart) you can see what happens to businesses that do not adopt to what consumers demand. Both of these retailers used to have strangle holds on the market, and over extension was not their downfall.
I don't see the parallel with the banking system. Completely different situations. Selling a TV that you take payment for at the time of sale is not a big risk, unlike hoping that a low income person will pay a mortgage for 30 years.
A comment on Best Buy and its business culture. A vast majority of employees at the corporate office are fully invested members of a team. Most have pounded the floors in your local Best Buy store. The CEO has been with the company for 35 years and is not some soul-less hired gun looking to plunder the system. Brad Anderson has donated stock options in the past to employees and his salary has stayed stable, yet he continues to build value and profits year to year.
I know its really fun to bitch about the haves in this day and age, but frankly, ethically challenged companies that take advantage of their customers, employees and stock holders can not and will not be profitable over the long term.
And yes, I am proud to work for a forward looking, thoughtful company that tries to provide value not found anywhere else. Nobody else could provide me with the ability and freedom to serve with the Geek Squad in people's homes on a daily basis. I make a difference.
dew.
