Amazon’s Pantry model is just one of many and simply put, the lack of consumer interest killed it. Ultimately, the key issue is how people shop for goods. I suspect that most shoppers don’t differentiate between essential packaged goods and other grocery items, and so it didn’t make sense to treat these items separately. There’s an endless list of possibilities for why this program may not have been successful but, the point is, it wasn’t for Amazon — but that doesn’t mean other players couldn’t necessarily make it work.

I suspect that the problem with Amazon Pantry was the complexity. Consumers would likely want to maximize the space in the box and it would result in a lot of trade-off decisions. With many simpler options from other grocers, consumers shifted their spending due to convenience.

There is probably room for essentials bundling if Amazon can use data to find patterns in usage cycles. But realistically, I use paper towels at a different frequency than Windex. Why wait for my bundled order if I can order one item and get it here in an hour?

What drove it is Amazon noticed people would rather purchase single items on demand than wait for bundles. And the incentive wasn’t great enough to get them to wait. But now Amazon knows with little money lost and maybe some knowledge gained.

The problem with Amazon Pantry was that you had to hit a minimum to “fill the box.” But at the same time you could go to regular Amazon and get most of the very same items without constraints.

We run out of mayonnaise. We go to Amazon and order a jar of mayonnaise. Later in the day, we run out of dishwashing liquid. We go to Amazon and order dishwashing liquid. No fuss, no limits, no “box” to fill.

Like everything online from buying to returns — the name of the game is convenience, convenience, convenience.

I tried to use Pantry but never actually ordered and had anything delivered using Pantry. Having two different delivery processes when ordering several items was frustrating. I am glad there will only be one delivery service. I have found the process of having some items available for a low price and shipping when over $25 (or whatever the limit is) to be fine because I understand that it is expensive to ship an inexpensive item by itself. However, having to order a whole box of only Pantry items was too restrictive.

Amazon Pantry was a bit clunky to use. Shoppers had to focus on filling the box, I suspect in many cases with stuff they may not have needed or wanted at that particular time. Consumers prefer to make purchases on their terms. Add in shipping costs, these days the metric is free shipping. With the rise of curbside there are lots of ways to get the same products, without fees, and in quantities and on the schedules consumers want. Basics especially are something that when you need it, you need it then, not a few days from now. I believe consumers lost interest jumping through all these hoops to make the service work. One note for retailers, adoption of subscription models for fulfillment of basics has not really come to mass yet. I think most consumers have not shown that they really like automatic shipping and payments. Retailers will need to do more to figure out a better replenishment model for individuals and some sort of seamless approve/not approve process for orders to move the… Read more »

There were are number of structural flaws to the Pantry program from its inherent complexity to the fact that Amazon subscription selling already takes care of “pantry restocking” without transferring excess inventory to the consumer’s home. So, yes, it served its purpose and it’s a fine time to retire it. Other retailers will have all the same problems. People don’t yet think through online purchasing in the same way they build a brick and mortar shopping list. Will this change over time? Without a doubt, and we may well see a reincarnated Pantry program emerge in the next few years.

Simply stated the Amazon Pantry model required too much customer work to fill a box. Plus other online options made it easier to order and receive products. Customer disinterest and attrition killed Amazon Pantry. Recall Amazon is the king of trying new initiatives, separating the wheat from the chaff. Amazon Pantry is today’s chaff.

Focus group of one here — I tried the service and found it confusing since you had to order through another shopping cart interface. It also appeared to cannibalize the narrative of “subscribe and save” which is prevalent on most Amazon product pages.

I do not think this is outdated — Amazon just finally accepted it’s a very bad way to sell goods to consumers when online.

Imagine — it’s hard enough to envision making good use of something like this when you can hold and heft and size the things you’re selecting. Now, try to do that online?

THEN, let’s ask: How much real advantage to Amazon would this have provided? It’s minor and tiny.

Tiny consumer value plus tiny value to the merchant? Time to close it down.

I am an avid Amazon user and have barely ever used Amazon Pantry, mostly because it was too inconvenient for me as a consumer. One of the biggest strengths of Amazon is the ease of shopping for everything under the sun and getting it delivered in as little as a day or two. An Amazon customer is conditioned and expects this ease when they shop. Pantry simply didn’t fit into this expectation.

Amazon Pantry wasn’t convenient and it wasn’t simple. Consumers didn’t like it. End of story.