Showing posts with label Dollar Tree. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dollar Tree. Show all posts

Friday, June 23, 2017

Retailing in the Age of Amazon Will Not be Devoid of Human Contact

By now you probably heard or read about Amazon’s pending purchase of Whole Foods Markets, what business analysts are projecting as the tipping point in a retail revolution that may well transform consumer transactions into experiences almost devoid of human interaction. With your smart phone you will be able to circumvent dealing with store personnel, they say, resulting in massive layoffs of workers at the lowest rung of the labor force, many who are unskilled, or elderly, or handicapped, or immigrants with tenuous English language skills, or combinations of the above (https://nyti.ms/2sAPV2D).

Analysts point to the the example of Amazon Go, an experimental store for its Seattle employees. Customers scan their phones upon entering, sensors remotely monitor what they put into their shopping baskets, and exit without the need to stop at a checkout stand and interact with a cashier for their purchases to be charged to their accounts.  

It reminds me of a technology I witnessed back in 1990 at my first EuroShop exhibition of store equipment and technology in Dusseldorf, Germany. A shopping cart haphazardly loaded with products was wheeled through a box the size of a compact refrigerator. Presto, all the items were scanned and ready to be taken home by the customer. So here we are more than a quarter of a century later, nowhere near the promise of yesterday, much like the flying cars we expected to be riding had we believed the future as portrayed in color newspaper inserts of the 1950s and 1960s. Heck, we haven’t even been able to create the flying hover board Marty McFly rode in 1989’s Back to the Future Part II set in 2015. Our earthbound hover boards are fire hazards.

But I digress. The point is, despite Moore’s Law and its corollaries to the rapid adoption of technologies, we are decades away from widespread implementation of Amazon’s futurescan. For several reasons.

Not everyone who enters a store buys something. Not everyone wants their whereabouts and their identities known and cached in some unknown database à la Minority Report. Civil libertarians would have a field day if such technology becomes ubiquitous, implemented without the authorized consent of the public.

Perhaps most socially and culturally relevant, eliminating the human factor in retailing would exacerbate the bifurcation of society already underway. While smart phones are ubiquitous in most neighborhoods, checking accounts and credit/debit cards are not. 

Three times a week I drive into Manhattan along Fifth Avenue, from 142nd Street in Harlem to 98th Street, one of the tonier sections of New York. From 110 Street, where Central Park begins, to 98th Street, Fresh Direct trucks double park as drivers deliver groceries to the wealthy. Above Central Park, over nearly three years I have yet to see a Fresh Direct truck servicing the population.

When visiting a supermarket, I opt for self-scanning in Stop & Shop. Except, not all Stop & Shops in my sphere of buying offer self-scanning. Stores in less desirable neighborhoods do not. Hmmm. I don’t really need to wonder why.

At upscale stores, such as Trader Joe’s, where friendly, knowledgeable service, along with exclusive products, are differentiators, I cannot foresee management abandoning their unique service proposition. 

Stacy Torres, an assistant professor of sociology at the University at Albany, provides real-life examples of why robots replacing humans has its drawbacks as long as we remain social animals: https://nyti.ms/2tVmHbT

The most dynamic growth retailers are deep discounters in food and general merchandise. While Trader Joe’s concentrates on the upscale market, its sister company, Aldi, aims low. It is a German-based no-frills, generic low-priced grocer sweeping across our country. So is Lidl, another German discount grocer with aggressive U.S. expansion plans.

Dollar stores, among them Dollar General and Dollar Tree, though the former is not a true dollar store purveyor as its price points are not restricted to 100 pennies, are the growth vehicles of challenged America. They serve a class of customer that will always be handled by store personnel.

Just imagine going into a Home Depot or Lowe’s. Not that it’s easy to find someone to help you right now, but it is doubtful they will do away with sales floor assistance. Cashiers? Sure, they’ve already eliminated many. But don’t expect to be walking into cavernous buildings barren of staff. The same can be said for electronics stores.

For sure, apparel and department stores are prime candidates for downsized labor costs as long as technology inhibits five-finger discounting from destroying a retailer’s bottom line. Consumer affinity for off-price apparel stores amply demonstrates that help is not necessary on the selling floor. Even Macy’s is now finally embarking on a Backstage off-price concept in an attempt to prolong its corporate lifespan, having let Nordstrom Rack and Saks’ Off Fifth enter the battle with Marshalls, T.J. Maxx and Ross Stores decades ago. 

It has been noted that even as store-based personnel are vanishing the number of warehouse staff is multiplying. Amazon, if not already there, is the number one apparel retailer, with all sales coming from its warehouses or those of its vendors. The reduction of apparel outlets will continue. 

Some retail innovations take years, even decades, to catch on. Thirty-six years ago a retail industry guru named Alton F. Doody decided he had preached enough. During his illustrious career he had counseled such groundbreaking retailers as Walmart and Target, but now he wanted to test an idea for a store of the future: Investment Clothiers. It was a concept where men and women could try on samples of suits, jackets and pants, then leave empty-handed with the knowledge that their selection would be pulled from a warehouse and ready for pickup or delivery the next day. 

Doody chose Cleveland, where I interviewed him, as one of his test markets. Cleveland, after all, was a very corporate city back then. Lots of men and women needed affordable business wear. Alas, the experiment failed.

Doody was decades ahead of his time judging by the positive results enjoyed by Bonobos, a menswear retailer just purchased by Walmart. Begun as an Internet retailer, Bonobos has opened dozens of stores where goods are showcased, customers are measured and fitted, but product is shipped at a later date.

If you’re old enough you might remember a hot concept of the late 1970s and early 1980s—the catalog showroom. Sales from companies like Service Merchandise, Best Products and Luria’s ranked among the top 100 retailers. They displayed hard goods in showrooms, fulfilling customer desires on the spot from extensive behind-the-wall warehouses. 

Okay, sometimes, often actually during high traffic periods, the wait for your purchase to be pulled off the back room shelves was exasperatingly long. And small showrooms meant fewer model options could be offered compared to those available at a traditional discount store. So it was not surprising the catalog showroom concept disappeared when Walmarts and Targets, not to mention Kmarts, appeared at virtually every crossroad. 


What all this means is retailing is among the most evolutionary of enterprises. As The New York Times related in two articles on April 15 (https://nyti.ms/2oJWGwQ and https://nyti.ms/2odz8xo), retailing is evolving faster than perhaps in any previous time. It is too early to seriously consider mass retailing on a robotic scale, but there surely will come a time when a segment, too soon to say how small or large, will accept automated, non human service. I just don’t see its widespread implementation during my transactional lifetime.

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Dollar Daze, Made in China

Dollar Daze: Perhaps you saw the article in today’s NY Times magazine section, “The Buck Shops Here.”A well-written piece, the basic premise was more middle class and even affluent people buy goods at dollar stores, examples of which it noted were Dollar General, Family Dollar and Dollar Tree, each with thousands of links in their chains (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/the-dollar-store-economy.html?scp=2&sq=family%20dollar&st=cse).

They may all have the word “dollar” in their names, but only Dollar Tree is a true dollar emporium, a store that prices everything at a dollar or less. Dollar General and Family Dollar long ago abandoned any pretense they sell stuff for 100 pennies. Dollar General and Family Dollar, along with other companies such as Big Lots and National Wholesale Liquidators, are part of the extreme-value retailing segment of the industry catering to those who increasingly live paycheck to paycheck, or government assistance check to government assistance check.

Most Dollar General and Family Dollar stores blossomed in the southeast, though they’ve now sprouted up in more than half of the country, usually in small towns where rents are low and the needy are many. About 30 years ago I sent one of my writers to a Family Dollar store in Kentucky to outfit himself with clothing from head to toe, inside and outside, for less than $10. He easily fulfilled his assignment. It would be harder today, given the higher prices Family Dollar now charges.

But the strategy remains the same—provide basic affordable goods in small, low-rent, off-the-beaten-track stores customers can get into and out of in a hurry. The dollar and extreme-value stores are one reason Wal-Mart has not done as well lately. Customers view them as easier, less expensive outlets to shop.

If you do visit one of those stores, keep in mind you must check a package’s volume. That $1 bottle of shampoo might actually not be such a bargain. These stores are not above having suppliers put 8 ounces of product inside what appears to be a standard 11 oz. bottle. Check the label. Caveat Emptor!


Made in China: Here’s another retailing story that didn’t sit right with me. A recent Los Angeles Times article, citing a federal study, provided what I thought was a misleading impression (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-made-in-china-20110813,0,2746654.story).

No doubt you’ve looked at the country of origin of products you’ve bought and came to the conclusion everything was “made in China.” According to the government study, in the words of the LA Times, you’d have “Sticker shock: ‘Made in China’ ranks only 2.7% of U.S. spending.”

How could that be? Simple, if you include all services, groceries and gasoline purchased by Americans, none of which come from China. The economists at the San Francisco Federal Reserve say in 2010 about 88.5% of U.S. spending was on American-made products and services. Services, such as dry cleaners or plumbers or auto repair shops, are the key to this analysis, since services make up two-thirds of all spending.

Hard to argue with those facts, but easy to dissent from the intended conclusion. Of course services, groceries and gasoline are not Chinese imports. Duh!

A better study might have been, what percent of the remaining 11.5% of consumer spending came from China. Perhaps my math is wrong, but my calculation (2.7% of 11.5%) puts that at 23.5%, meaning roughly one out of every four consumer products bought in the United States was made in China. According to the LA Times, 12% of all durable goods (furniture, appliances, automobiles) purchased here last year were produced in China. In other categories, such as toys and apparel, the percentage would be even greater, I believe. I'm also quite sure you'd find a high percentage of made in China goods in dollar stores and other extreme-value retailers.

Bottom line—we’re awash in Chinese goods and the tide is rising. Until more American firms choose to manufacture domestically rather than in the cheaper labor markets of China and other developing countries, we’ll continue to be plagued by high unemployment, a generation or more of skilled workers not able to find new, comparable jobs lost to overseas production, a growing trade imbalance, and our national status as a producer country will be imperiled.