Eaton's & the Federal Liberal Party

[August1991]

This is how wikipedia describes the T. Eaton Company:

The T. Eaton Co. Limited was once Canada's largest department store retailer. It was founded in 1869 in Toronto by Timothy Eaton, an Irish immigrant. Eaton's grew to become a retail and social institution in Canada, with stores across the country, buying offices across the globe, and a catalogue that was found in the homes of most Canadians. A rapidly changing economic and retail environment in the late 20th century proved difficult for Eaton's, and the chain went bankrupt in 1999.

Wikipedia

It is surprising that the Eaton family allowed all the value of their family name to disappear so quickly. Some companies spend a fortune building up name recognition while the Eatons sat aside and let their name recognition fall to nothing. Eaton's is now only known for downtown buildings in several Canadian cities. Immigrants and younger Canadians have no other knowledge of the name and know nothing of the place that Eaton's once played in Canadian life.

How did this happen? Some argue that a large retail department store like Eaton's has no role in a modern economy. But Walmart is evidence that that's not true. Markets in other countries have full spectrum retail stores. Clearly though, Eaton's did not adapt and the Eaton family mismanaged its prime asset: the retail network, its brand and reputation.

----

The federal Liberal Party appears to be following exactly the same path as Eaton's. There are various internal battles amid the general assumption that the party, the brand and reputation will last forever.

I find it notable that on this forum, we have many posters who support the NDP, many who support the Conservatives and some who support neither. There are few posters however who openly support the federal Liberals.

Edited May 10, 2011 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

It is surprising that the Eaton family allowed all the value of their family name to disappear so quickly.

I believe department stores went through a long, slow decline - first challenged by malls and chains such as Sears, then finally done in. If they were around for 140 years or so, they were definitely in declin for the last 20% or so of that.

How did this happen? Some argue that a large retail department store like Eaton's has no role in a modern economy. But Walmart is evidence that that's not true. Markets in other countries have full spectrum retail stores. Clearly though, Eaton's did not adapt and the Eaton family mismanaged its prime asset: the retail network, its brand and reputation.

Walmart is not a department store, it is a discount chain. The Eatons brand no longer made sense as the middle class is disappearing - they would have had to rebrand as something else.

I find it notable that on this forum, we have many posters who support the NDP, many who support the Conservatives and some who support neither. There are few posters however who openly support the federal Liberals.

I, for one, hope that the Liberals take this chance to really talk to Canadians and find out that they can once again claim the middle and move the left- and right- off to the side.

[August1991]

Walmart is not a department store, it is a discount chain.

What's the difference?

----

Michael, you are welcome to analyze why Eaton's went bankrupt and is now unknown to younger Canadians. It is quite likely that in a few years you will be also analyzing why the federal Liberal Party disappeared. But in doing this, you are partly missing my point.

I am not saying that the federal Liberal Party will disappear, or that the causes of Eaton's bankruptcy apply to the Liberals. I am simply saying that institutions disappear. For a variety of reasons, people make mistakes and institutional links, brand recognition and reputation all lose value.

Some people believe that some institutions will last forever. That's not true. Other people believe that the collapse of institutions is inevitable. That's not true either.

----

I will add this last point. I don't like to draw parallels where there is none but it is somewhat curious that the life of Eaton's seems to have covered roughly the same timeframe as the federal Liberal Party. So, maybe the two institutions do have something in common.

Edited May 10, 2011 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

What's the difference?

What's the difference between a Walmart and Eaton's ? Really ? The shopping experience is totally different, the prices are different, the goods available...

Michael, you are welcome to analyze why Eaton's went bankrupt and is now unknown to younger Canadians. It is quite likely that in a few years you will be also analyzing why the federal Liberal Party disappeared. But in doing this, you are partly missing my point.

You have a great confidence in yourself, Auguste, if you are predicting the demise of the Liberals as "quite likely". I wouldn't have predicted that for the PCs in the early 1990s, even at two seats.

I am not saying that the federal Liberal Party will disappear, or that the causes of Eaton's bankruptcy apply to the Liberals. I am simply saying that institutions disappear. For a variety of reasons, people make mistakes and institutional links, brand recognition and reputation all lose value.

"Institutions disappear" is an observation. "Institutions disappear because of XYZ" is an analysis. This board can be used for both but generally requires more thinking than observation.

I will add this last point. I don't like to draw parallels where there is none but it is somewhat curious that the life of Eaton's seems to have covered roughly the same timeframe as the federal Liberal Party. So, maybe the two institutions do have something in common.

That is interesting. I would like to look back at the last 200 years and find a time that is more similar to where we are today, economically - in terms of mix of people working for large corporations, entrepreneurs, resource sector workers etc. It seems to me that we were in this boat in the early 20th century but I'm out of my element here.

[Shwa]

I will add this last point. I don't like to draw parallels where there is none but it is somewhat curious that the life of Eaton's seems to have covered roughly the same timeframe as the federal Liberal Party. So, maybe the two institutions do have something in common.

Well, in fact, you DID draw a parallel and made no bones about it in the OP:

The federal Liberal Party appears to be following exactly the same path as Eaton's. There are various internal battles amid the general assumption that the party, the brand and reputation will last forever

Other than very superficial generalizations about both entities, what other common links could they possibly have that give information about one another?

Why not Woolworths in Canada? Did it have something in common with the PC demise?

How about Consumers Distributing? Was that all about the PC demise in Quebec? Or better still, Steinburg's - an expansion and decline that somehow paralleled the Canadian political landscape of the 90's?

And then there is Dominion, which can show us that after many iterations, an "institution" can be 'reformed' and fool us to believe it now is, what it's former self used to be.

[BubberMiley]

This is fun! I think the Sears takeover of the Eaton's name was sort of like how the Canadian Alliance took over the PC name. But that was more successful for the conservatives.

[Bonam]

This is how wikipedia describes the T. Eaton Company:Wikipedia

It is surprising that the Eaton family allowed all the value of their family name to disappear so quickly. Some companies spend a fortune building up name recognition while the Eatons sat aside and let their name recognition fall to nothing. Eaton's is now only known for downtown buildings in several Canadian cities. Immigrants and younger Canadians have no other knowledge of the name and know nothing of the place that Eaton's once played in Canadian life.

How did this happen? Some argue that a large retail department store like Eaton's has no role in a modern economy. But Walmart is evidence that that's not true. Markets in other countries have full spectrum retail stores. Clearly though, Eaton's did not adapt and the Eaton family mismanaged its prime asset: the retail network, its brand and reputation.

Eatons had terrible customer service, not enough employees walking the aisles to be available to ask for help/information/directions, higher prices than their competitors for the same low quality products, etc. I personally remember going to Eatons a few times in the late 90s and being totally dissatisfied and completely switching to stores like Sears and Zellers. They filled the exact same niche but had better customer service (Sears) or lower prices (Zellers).

The federal Liberal Party appears to be following exactly the same path as Eaton's. There are various internal battles amid the general assumption that the party, the brand and reputation will last forever.

I find it notable that on this forum, we have many posters who support the NDP, many who support the Conservatives and some who support neither. There are few posters however who openly support the federal Liberals.

I don't think there's any analogy to be drawn here besides the roughly comparable time scale. Not even that comparable though, I mean it's 12 years since Eatons died, and the Liberal party will probably hold on for a few more elections even if it ultimately disappears.

[Shwa]

This is fun! I think the Sears takeover of the Eaton's name was sort of like how the Canadian Alliance took over the PC name. But that was more successful for the conservatives.

Yep. And let's no forget the Becker's versus Mac's Milk convenience store wars in Ontario back in the day. This was a direct analogy of the provincial PC-Liberal political tussles of the time. For a while, Piggly Wiggly (NDP) had the lead share, but have since sunk back to small towns and union neighbourhoods...

[Topaz]

I remember Eaton's very well, and they close up shop in my area in the early '70's and only kept the shops open in the big cities until they close all of them. Simpson-Sears was the competitor and won out. As far as the Eaton's family, Harper appointed a female Eaton to the senate. As I said before, we must keep 3 parties, even the Tories, so voters have a choice and not get it down to two, were the parties take turns being in power like the Rep. and Dem of the US. The Liberals lost some good people and hopefully they will get them back in the next election.

[Tilter]

How did this (Eaton's demise) happen? Some argue that a large retail department store like Eaton's has no role in a modern economy. But Walmart is evidence that that's not true. Markets in other countries have full spectrum retail stores. Clearly though, Eaton's did not adapt and the Eaton family mismanaged its prime asset: the retail network, its brand and reputation.

I did some work in The Eaton house in 1987. This is a HUGE place-- even has a 80' X 80' ballroom, many rooms & a family of 34 living in it.

The owner was packing up a shotgun & I asked him what he was going to shoot--- he replied that he was going to Brooks Alta to shoot pheasants--- or rather, as I knew that the limit was 1 bird per person, he was actually going to shoot Pheasant. At this time the T. Eaton Co was in mortal decline and I wondered how, if the head guy was going to Alberta to shoot 1 Pheasant, the company was going to survive. It didn't .

Edited May 10, 2011 by Tilter

[August1991]

You have a great confidence in yourself, Auguste, if you are predicting the demise of the Liberals as "quite likely". I wouldn't have predicted that for the PCs in the early 1990s, even at two seats.

The PCs split into three different parties in 1993. Harper managed to cobble 2 1/2 of those parties back together. The Liberals haven't split apart. They have been shedding votes like an enterprise losing money.

Well, in fact, you DID draw a parallel and made no bones about it in the OP:

Shwa, fair point. But my main comparison is that Eaton's was once an institution that was a fixture in the minds of many Canadians. People made mistakes and all that value of recognition, goodwill and organizational links was lost. It happens.

And when people put the emphasis on the competition or how other other companies did better than Eaton's, it loses sight of how Eaton's management took a successful business and wrecked it. Now, take a look at how the federal Liberals have run their shop over the past decade or two.

Edited May 11, 2011 by August1991

[Ravenwood]

I think it's a great analogy. Both the retail chain and the party were Canadian institutions that over time lost their dominance. Eaton's died. The Liberals are at risk of doing so.

Eatons had terrible customer service, not enough employees walking the aisles to be available to ask for help/information/directions, higher prices than their competitors for the same low quality products, etc.

There are a lot of parallels to be seen here...

I've been trying to contact my Liberal riding association, but there doesn't seem to be any way to do so. (Granted, they just went down to defeat to the Conservative candidate, but even still - have they completely closed up shop?) Where is the 'customer service'? The Liberals do not seem to have the same 'army on the ground' that the Tories do. (Not enough employees walking the aisles.) They are not offering a compelling 'vision' (or 'product', to use the Eaton's analogy). And they are perceived to be the party of higher taxes (or higher prices, to continue with the analogy even further).

I think August's analogy is dead-on.