There is an English muffin that has been around for decades. The brand name is Thomas, although it is actually made by a bakery that makes many products. Its name is Bimbo.
The world acknowledges that Thomas invented the English muffin. Over the years, many other bakeries have marketed their interpretation of an English muffin.
However, the Thomas muffin is acknowledged by most consumers as the best.
So why did the challengers enter the market? Theirs aren't relatively cheaper or easier to find on the grocer's shelf. They don't taste as good because their recipes aren't similar to Thomas's.
I say it's because Thomas insists that the customer slice their muffin by poking a fork a bunch of times in the middle of the side to slit the muffin in two, then pulling it apart. Over and above the poking, when finished, it doesn't work well with a conventional toaster.
The others pre-slice theirs, just like the consumers prefer. Their challenge has nothing to do with taste. It has to do with not accepting the obstinance of Thomas.
Vanity Fair is a monthly magazine that has been around, off and on, for decades. Its recent success has been attributed to its Canadian editor, Graydon Carter. Mr. Carter was one of the founders of Spy Magazine. It appears that he is not a US citizen.
The longtime business plan of the magazine seemed to be that its editorial substance would be interesting stories about people, fashion and in depth pieces about the rich and famous of today and the past.
Mr. Carter went on a rampage, beginning about a year before Mr. Tump was elected, in which he revealed that he had often had dinner with Mr. Trump, had been invited and did attend at least one of his weddings, but the bottom line was that he hated Mr. Trump, and tried his best to convince readers to not vote for him.
From that point forward, the magazine and Mr. Carter's monthly opinion columns, contained many bully pulpit stories that were purposely unflattering toward Mr. Trump.
As time passed, apparently the magazine lost substantial net subscribers, and received many letters objecting to the magazine's altering or changing its business plan.
For certain, a significant portion of the subscribers of Vanity Fair are supporters of Mr. Trump. At least one Dallas Realtor has advertised in the magazine, odd since Dallas is primarily a Republican city.
Earlier this month, Mr. Carter was either fired or allowed to resign after the September issue was put to bed.
These two examples have a strong similarity, and it is that the owners or management chose to take actions that caused some of its current buyers and those who were considering buying, to buy someone else's product.
If Thomas sold their muffins already split, they would sell substantially more muffins, and their competition would be reduced.
If Vanity Fair's owners had reigned in Mr. Carter, and reminded him that his purpose was to execute the magazine's written business plan, not to take off on some rogue plan of his own, the magazine would have saved subscribers and probably added to the net.
Hard headedness regarding a position on a controversial subject is rarely a good component for a business.
Our job is always to not be satisfied with some mark that we have predetermined is good enough. That doesn't meet the definition of being competitive.
Which leads me to the question: How is it that we, as Realtors, have a national representative, NAR, that found it OK to assist the Truilas of the world to successfully compete with us, using information you and I developed, that the Truilas merely copy and use against us?
BILL CHERRY, REALTOR