As the biggest “disrupter” in retail, Amazon is always a hot topic on RetailWire. Here’s a recent comment:
There may be more innovative retailers who are not as visible as Amazon, but it’s hard to think of a company with such scale that is less willing to rest on its laurels. I know that some panelists view Amazon’s push into new businesses and logistics methods as not much more than a well-oiled PR machine (see yesterday’s discussion of intimate apparel as an example). But it’s hard to deny that the company is anything but complacent when it comes to extending its reach and improving its execution promise.
The real test for Amazon will be its success in rolling out innovative brick-and-mortar retailing models. The bookstore and especially the C-store tests will be telling, because most other stores with “omnichannel” strategies have not succeeded in offering an innovative approach to the business of shopping.
And more thoughts from another post:
Amazon’s competitors have it all wrong if they think it’s all about low prices. (And this is the fundamental error behind Walmart’s “brand promise” over the years.) Amazon has always been focused on breadth of assortment and great execution. As the company has entered more categories (starting all the way back when when they were in the business of shipping books), it has never lost sight of these key competitive advantages. Customers’ expectations have been scrambled as a result, and everybody else (whether pure play e-commerce or omnichannel) is just trying to keep up.
JCP’s CEO recently declared that its (slight) 2016 profit repreesented an historic turnaround. Most RetailWire panelists agreed with my contrary view:
It’s admirable that JCP has stopped bleeding cash but its net earnings in 2016 were just over $1 million (not the EBITDA number, which was higher). So it’s premature to declare an historic victory in light of store closings and soft sales. The slippage in gross margin in 2016 is another area of concern, because competition won’t be any easier in 2017.
With those reservations in mind, Mr. Ellison has had his eye on the ball ever since assuming the CEO chair and continues to focus on the right things — data science, expense controls, driving sales opportunities and weeding out unproductive locations.
Target’s CEO announced last week that investors should expect tough 2017 returns as the company invests in stores and more competitive pricing. Here’s my recent comment from RetailWire:
Walmart was criticized a couple of years ago for investment spending on its stores because it was likely to put a dent into short-term results. But the long-term view for WMT is brighter because of this decision, and Target is aiming for the same kind of outcome.
But Target has some specific challenges ahead that a store revamp won’t fix on its own:
1. The longstanding conflict between “cheap” and “chic”: Target needs to be more price competitive but has built its brand promise on more aspirational goods;
2. The continuing lack of traction in the grocery business, especially to drive more frequent visits;
3. The head start on e-commerce (and omnichannel) that its biggest competitors already have;
4. The company’s longstanding inability to keep its shelves and pegs filled.
I can’t overstate the importance of the last point. A trip to Target where a third of the shopping list can’t be filled is a waste of time, no matter how compelling or competitive the merchandise might appear.
From a recent RetailWire blog post, I have some comments about the continuing struggles in the department store segment. Some of my concerns are based on the relevance of their merchandise content, and some are based on the “sameness” of the shopping experience:
There are two key “relevance” issues, especially pertaining to traditional department stores: First, are retailers using all of the technological tools at their disposal to enhance their brands? Are they leveraging today’s tools (mobile payment, RFID, and so forth) to improve customer service or simply to cut costs? And how has “omnichannel” (especially BOPIS) actually eroded the shopping experience? There is very little difference between shopping at Macy’s or Dillards today compared to 30 years ago, other than UPC scanning and more sophisticated POS terminals.
Second — and it always comes down to this — is merchandise content. I’ve shopped a lot of traditional department stores over the last few weeks, and I’m struck by how much inventory and square footage continues to be devoted to dressy career apparel for men and women. This may be the retailers’ sweet spot (as they see it), but the lack of adaptation to change is concerning. Do these stores not recognize that Boomers are retiring — and leaving the workforce — in droves? Do they not see that most Millennials are working in more casual environments and are shopping elsewhere for their wardrobe needs? (Add to this the slow reaction to the movement toward activewear-as-sportswear.)
Sometimes achieving “relevance” costs money — whether through new tech tools, more payroll or a fresh coat of paint. But mostly it’s about the products, brands and trends that stores choose to put forward.
I commented on RetailWire in early January about Macy’s announcement of 2017 store closures:
I saw with a particular shudder that one of the Macy’s stores on the list is the “flagship” location in downtown Minneapolis — the old Dayton’s headquarters, where my wife and I both worked and eventually met. It’s hard to imagine that a store with an appropriately sized footprint can’t thrive in downtown Minneapolis — full of office workers and residents — unless there is something fundamentally wrong with how Macy’s is running its business. I’ve shopped their stores from California to Florida to Nevada to Illinois over the past couple of years, and continue to be disappointed by the merchandise content, the physical condition of the stores and the service experience. Until Macy’s addresses these “Retail 101” issues, it doesn’t matter how many stores they close.
Additional thoughts from RetailWire:
Some of our observations about Macy’s are based on 20/20 hindsight, not based on what seemed like a smart move at the time. Even though there was plenty of debate about the disappearance of powerful local nameplates like Marshall Field’s, the reality is that several of those retailers were in their own slow decline. So Macy’s effort to create a national brand (and economies of scale) paid off for awhile.
Where Macy’s has lost its way is in the failure of the “My Macy’s” initiative to cater more effectively to local tastes. The best data science in the world may not be a substitute for experienced managers who really understand their customers’ taste (and when things sell in a given climate). But the bigger issue is the overassortment of women’s brands, erosion of customer service and lack of capital spending; no amount of localization can overcome those hurdles.
And to add a final thought after visiting Macy’s Manhattan flagship in early March: This is a spectacular store that has gotten a big boost in capital investment over the last few years. But Macy’s is so focused on this location (visible to its investors, suppliers and competitors) that it has neglected hundreds of other locations around the country.
A delayed posting from late 2016 about Amazon’s convenience store concept being tested in Seattle. What’s unique about this store is that customers can pick what they want and walk out the door without “paying” — it’s all handled through mobile payment technology. My RetailWire comment speculates on the impact on other types of retail:
Amazon has redefined convenience in every category they have entered (starting with their original business of shipping books). The company has raised customers’ expectations for speedy execution, and has raised the bar for all of its competitors at the same time. Whether Amazon Go works or not is almost beside the point, because the company can afford to fail — but Amazon appears committed to bringing its vaunted tech-driven efficiency to brick-and-mortar retail models that haven’t advanced much beyond the UPC code. (But if Amazon Go works…watch out!)
RetailWire panelists (including me) weighed in recently on the question of whether Costco is missing “omnichannel” opportunity right now:
Costco is not wrong in “sticking to its knitting,” especially while it continues to have the opportunity to open more of its destination stores around the country. (It started with one store in the Milwaukee area and gradually grew to four.) It’s clear from observing grocery carts at the checkout lane that fresh good and bulk groceries are key drivers of Costco sales. (It’s also apparent that the switch from Amex to Visa was a win.) It would be tough online to duplicate the variety of goods bought on a typical Costco shopping trip if you’re looking online for a single item.
That being said, Costco can do better online — not only in terms of product sales but especially in terms of ancillary services. B2B, insurance, travel, etc. are all big opportunities to leverage the Costco website.