Just to be contrary... ;-)

I'm gonna differ with you slightly on that...

If I can buy the same (or similar) product in multiple places, and only one of those places has online ordering, then that's the one that will get my business (even if they do cost a bit more).

That's because convenience is valuable to me, especially since I do most of my hobby purchases at a time of day when no-one's gonna be around to answer the phone to take my order.

I understand that developing a good website with on-line purchasing is not necessarily cheap, but against that one should presumably balance some additional facts:

(1) Taking the time to put certain types of info on a website can reduce certain costs (a FAQ is a perfect example of this), and

(2) That website may get the company additional sales that they would not otherwise have received (there's a lot of companies that have gotten purchases from me just because a Google search found their website!)

Clearly the above will not apply when you want to buy something that is single-sourced - but for multi-sourced items I belive it applies.

"It costs me too much" could also be used as an excuse why some businesses would not accept credit cards (for the same purchase price, the store gets less money out of a credit card transaction than a check or M.O.) - but a lot of businesses would lose out on significant sales if they did not take credit cards, so they balance the cost of the CC transaction against the increased sales. Seems to me that (within limits) the same argument could be made for websites with on-line ordering.

The above isn't meant as a bach against any companies that have no, or limited, websites - I'm just giving an alternate point of view to the ones posted so far.

Later,
Gordon