It's always hard to read between the lines but sometimes you just get the feeling you're not getting the whole story. Obviously they are under no obligation to 'tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth'...only what looks good in terms of PR (Carrie is the expert in this field)

Given that the whole operation was outsourced to World Flowers (W/F) it would seem that Tesco was in a win-win situation regardless of the level of orders. I would assume that W/F paid for the website maintenance (par for the course with suppliers). So if it was a contribution to bottom line profits and i can't see how they could incur a loss (they're not that silly)..why dump it?

The content on Tesco.com must have been a positive thing. It's not like they had to display the order volumes or give out anything negative.

It just makes me wonder, flowers being such a huge market and Tesco being the largest retailer of these things, combined with the relentless pursuit of world domination. Why give up on it altogether. It's not like they can't afford to throw money at it.

Is there another angle in the pipeline?

Are they going to do things differently?

There must have been a contract with W/F. Could it be that they must technically stay out of the market for a while before launching their own service? Hard to see that..It's normally a case of 'Don't like it...tough biscuit...sue us if you like'

And another thing..If W/F also supply Sainsbury & John Lewis..what's happened to customer choice?
Isn't it a bit like Flowersdirect/Boots/Debenhams etc

Are people starting to realize that all these sites just filter down to the same wharehouse?

__________________