Early this spring, an unusual store made its debut at Gyaneswor in Kathmandu. With a slogan, "Mulya Ek, Saman Anek" (one price for sundry goods), the 99 Shop started selling everything from cups to T-shirts to bundles of stationery at Rs 99 flat. No bargaining, no haggling, but the same price for all goods that are on display. Despite a postage stamp of a parking space, claustrophobic interiors and congested aisles, shoppers from far and wide thronged the store, and goods flew off the shelves till closing time everyday. Soon, it was obvious that the concept behind the one-price shop was a profitable one.

By mid-July, a dozen or more similar outfits have sprung up all over Kathmandu. Some of these stores offer similar goods at Rs 98, some at Rs 96 and even less. The ubiquity of one-price stores makes commonplace what was until recently a relatively original retail idea. And that, for the following three reasons, is a very good thing for consumers.

First cheer: In business, being original costs money. Risk-takers are few and far between anywhere, especially in Nepal with no well-established intellectual property laws. Most businessmen do not like to throw money after the unknowns and the uncertainties, hoping for some return someday. They prefer to do what has already been proven to make money, as in the case of one-price shops, and get into that business while the window of opportunity is still open. When a Nepali businessman copies another's successful business, what he is doing, in effect, is minimising his own chances of failure. And thankfully, he does that by making use his own money and people-resources that would otherwise have stayed idle rather than giving a return.

Second cheer: Copycats make for wider consumer choices because they all sell similar goods and services. Now, with a little bit of looking around, one can buy a dozen tea cups at Rs 99 or less at any one of these one-price shops. When consumers can thus compare prices and buy at rates they feel most comfortable with, they have little to complain about. True, very often, the copycats' competitors-neighbourhood retail outlets, in this case-are unhappy to have customers snatched away. But as long as customers are happy, disgruntled
competitors will either have to innovate or continue to suffer losses.

Third cheer: As long as we can find a way to legally disallow copycats from forming an all-Nepal association of their trade to fix prices, they can help keep the markets competitive by offering similar goods and services at closely varying prices. In addition, by shortening the time length during which innovators can enjoy single-player returns on their originality, copycats force them to keep on evolving to stay ahead of the pack. In this context, don't be surprised if the one-price shop soon gives way to other innovative retail practices.

Finally, if you talk to most Nepali businessman, they complain the most about "unhealthy competition" and having to deal with copycats. Sure, illegal competition is something that should be challenged in a court of law. But so-called unhealthy (for whom? customers? sellers?) competition and the issue of copycats are, let's get real, merely the cost of doing business everywhere.