The more a company can excite loyalty, the more it will prosper. Walmart's move to offer a highly competitive service is strong. In the long run, Walmart will not be looking at the service fee as a broad money maker, the cost to deliver will likely exceed that of the service fee. What Walmart builds on is an already loyal base and offer a new segment of grocery consumers access to familiar goods/produce.
There is a large portion of America who does not shop at "boutique" grocery chains like Whole Foods and New Seasons. Walmart gets to now tap into their expansive territory and demographic which could expand their loyal base.
As consumer purchase >> delivery expectations continue to narrow, fulfillment centers will need to be able to store product in dense population centers to meet these expectations. Land is not cheap and building up allows a company to do more with less. There are numerous defunct shopping malls which may be a great option to retrofit to meet these ever-evolving needs.
Nike continues to pursue strengthening brand loyalty. Apart from the more obvious convenience incentive, This may be a hard sell to the average family who see kids shoes as a commodity. Nike has the potential to attract young sneakerhead families if they were to create a focused option of exclusive releases for Adventure Club members. This would help differentiate their service from a consumer's ability to purchase the mass market shoe at will.
The North Face is connecting with the consumer via story, which will always be a powerful tool in engaging a person. By providing historic evidence of their product meeting the needs of exceptional explorers, the consumer will assume trust that the same product/brand will be able to meet their own needs. This is a clever way of engaging the emotion of the consumer at the POS.
This is a move by Etsy which will continue to cause disruption with their seller community as it seems counterintuitive to the site's original ethos. This feels like a step away from indie and a step towards corporate.
Simply, this can work. That said, the best value add will be to continue to refine the experience for BOPIS customers and integrate with localized delivery services which compete with Prime Now for the last-mile. Most of the big-box retailers already have infrastructure and DCs in/near major cities which are able to satisfy this perceived need of turning stores into FCs.
The application of this technology into an ecommerce experience, when intentionally and thoughtfully applied, would benefit a site's traffic and sales. The VR application of "trying-on-glasses" with Warby Parker is wrought with a subpar experience. If the use of the deepfake technology doesn't look "real", then the effectiveness and acceptance of this may hurt a brand. I suggest that if an ecommerce store were to adopt this, that it be included only as an added, selectable option as not all consumers are going to want this technology or trust it.
This is a step in the right direction for eBay. One of the bigger customer complaints for the ecommerce giant is inconsistency in the fulfillment of purchased goods. By targeting this specific issue, adding reliability, and hastening fulfillment, eBay will be leveraging itself as a more inline competitor with Amazon. If eBay can offer sellers better fee rates than Amazon, this introduction may intrigue Amazon only sellers to test a new market.
The value proposition that Google offers are inline pricing options from big box retailers, something which Amazon wants to shield from the consumer to retain their business. Google's biggest obstacle will be changing consumer habits of either an Amazon first mentality or thinking of Google in its classic sense as only a search engine. Consumers will still be after convenience and quick delivery, something which Google won't have control of unless they were to have product at their own DCs, giving Amazon a higher comparative value proposition.
This is Amazon, an e-commerce juggernaut whose mission seems to be monopoly. The value proposition offered is near 100% benefiting Amazon, who becomes capable of capitalizing on new, great ideas and sellable product at a very low cost. To the wishful entrepreneur, if they truly can rebrand without a non-compete in the contract, they now face Amazon as their marketplace competition, a monster of their own creation.
From the high level perspective we are given, this is a win for the Walmart customer, who's experience will be much more streamlined. The practicality of combining two separate storefronts into one will require much strategizing and structure to ensure "both" are equally successful. This feat will be very difficult to do, these organizations are often times very siloed. If Walmart can work through the learning pains to better deliver to their customer's needs and wants, this work will prove beneficial to all.
If this concept operates on a pop-up model, this could be a largely successful marketing campaign. By limiting opportunity, they would increase demand and lower their overhead. Consumers will be interested in this as a unique opportunity though I would anticipate there would be very few, if any, repeat tourers. Look for this to remain interesting as long as the modern news cycle.
Prime Day used to be an Amazon event, now, the generative consumer interest spoils are strategically being targeted by other rival retailers. This is not unique to this year's sales, it has been occurring for the last few years; though this year's mid-summer sales have been marketed the best by the competition and are diverting sales away from Amazon. What was a day for Amazon, is now a competitive sales and shopping event for consumers in America.
Retailer's are not the only person who can profit, companies who choose to participate can as well, but this comes with a cost. Often times, these steep pricing discounts are funded by the manufacturer, shrinking their margin, in hopes that sales traction explodes and they can be the "LifeStraw of 2019." I'll be interested to see what happens next year at the intersection of opportunity and cost.
I've seen it often, that the enthusiasm and energy of the visionaries and managers often think of the end of the customer experience at purchase. This limited vantage leads to incomplete customer journeys, and ultimately, customer dissatisfaction when not properly scoped. In these scenarios, when a customer has a bad experience, all parties lose. Ultimately, the customer's experience needs to be managed intentionally and thoughtfully to ensure it is positive.