Ars Technica has found that Lowes.com has a ridiculous policy on linking to them. They require that Web sites that link to them must fill out a form. The actual idea of having to receive permission to link to a Web site is pretty stupid. It’s a concept that has been dead for years.

It gets even more insane when you see that Lowes has three different licenses that users must sign when wanting to link to the Web site in different ways. The three ways are linking to Lowes and using their logo, linking to Lowes without using their logo and if both you and Lowes are linking to each other.

Once again, may I add for emphasis, that the only way to receive permission to link to Lowes is if you fax them a license request. Oh, by the way, Lowes has the right to terminate your license at any time.

Ars Technica contacted Lowes about this seemingly archaic policy to hopefully confirm that it’s just an old policy that they forgot to remove. Unfortunately, that is not the case:

“Managing link agreements is part of protecting our brand,” is the polite reply I received. “The process we have in place to handle links to lowes.com is a business decision.”

By the way, I found this awesome chainsaw on Home Depot that would be perfect for a zombie apocalypse. I hear Lowes has the better deal, but I’m awaiting to hear back on whether or not I have permission to link to it.

To read the absolutely ridiculous link agreement in its entirety, check it out below:

HypertextLinkAgreement_A

There are companies that have a significant online presence, of course, like Sears, but I think it’s safe to say that unlike consumer electronics purchasing habits, major appliances (the industry calls the category "majapp", by the way) are still purchased based on in-store discussions with salespeople and hands-on experience.

The list of top Majapp retailers:

1. Sears, with $8.3 billion in major appliance sales in 2007 (a drop of 7.3% from their 2006 sales)
2. Lowe’s, with $4.3 billion in majapp sales (an increase of 3.1% over their 2006 sales)
3. Home Depot, with $3.8 billion in sales (an increase in 2.3% from 2006 sales)
4. Best Buy, with $1.9 billion in sales (an impressive increase of 8.3% over 2006 sales. Best Buy is really becoming a powerhouse in both majapp and consumer electronics sales!)
5. Wal*Mart, with $713 million in sales (an increase of 5.1% over 2006)
6. P.C. Richard & Son, with $602 million in sales (a drop of 4.1% from 2006 sales)
7. hhgregg, with $486 million in sales (a staggering increase of 36.6% over 2006 sales)
8. BrandsMart, with $269 million in sales (a decrease of 2.7% from 2006 sales)
9. Conn’s, with $224 million in sales (a 3.0% decrease over 2006 sales)
10. Costco Wholesale, with $211 million in sales (an increase of 0.9% over 2006 sales figures)

The rest of the top 25? Pacific Sales Kitchen & Bath Centers, Target, ABC Warehouse, ABT Electronics and Appliances, Menards, Sam’s Club, EXPO Design CEnter, R.C. Willey Home Furnishings, American TV & Appliances, Nebraska Furniture Mart, The Great Indoors, Appliance Direct, Kmart, Fry’s Electronics and Grants Appliance.

Somehow, in 2008 I expect to see some sort of company like "Appliances Online" or even Amazon show up on the top 25 list (after all, Grants Appliance is on the list with only $77 million in annual major appliance sales)…

Is it possible that major appliances will always be purchased primarily through a physical storefront, perhaps simply due to the complexity of delivery and installation? What do you think?

Comments

Suck Quieter, Lest They Make A Website About It

In general though, you want good publicity, and you want good business reviews to come to the limelight. Bad reviews, you’d do well to sweep them under the rug and hope nobody notices. The last thing you want to do, especially when competition in your sector is rather steep, is bring attention to customers that aren’t very happy with you.

Somebody in Lowes’ PR department should let somebody in Legal know that. Bad reviews and botched installs are bad for business, but bringing more attention to them by making a customer who was already angry enough to set up Lowes-Sucks.com angrier via cease-and-desist letters isn’t going to help.

Allen has pictures of the $3,500 fence he says Lowes installed around his yard. They aren’t pretty. He asked Lowes to repair it, says Consumerist, but they gave him the runaround instead, and when he refused to pay for it, they sent him up for collections.

And well, that’s when Lowes-Sucks.com was set up. Shortly after, Lowes attorneys were sending him nasty letters about trademark violations, even though a lawsuit probably won’t make it very far. Seems criticism is still protected speech in these parts.

So, from this vantage point anyway, what could have been fixed quietly and cheaply (not so much cheaply as virtually cost-free) is now gaining a lot more bad publicity than the company would probably like, while turning at least a few heads towards competitors.