October 24, 2024
iStock.com/Ekkasit919
Should In-Store Robots Be Hired or Fired?
A new survey of over 400 U.S. shoppers who have visited retailers with in-store robots in the past three months found the majority — particularly those who shop more frequently — cited a “positive affinity and strong preference for robots” in stores.
The survey commissioned by robot-maker Simbe found:
- Only 4% of shoppers have a negative opinion of retail robots, with the majority (77%) viewing them positively and 96% expressing a positive or neutral attitude overall.
- Most shoppers see retailers using in-store robots as innovative (84%) and expanding businesses (80%) that prioritize customer experience (76%).
- Shopper approval of in-store retail robots remains high with repeated exposure — 100% of those who enjoyed seeing a robot once continued to feel the same after three or more sightings.
- Regular shoppers have an even stronger preference for in-store robots, with their approval 29% higher than that of less frequent shoppers.
- Over half of consumers (61%) say they are more likely to shop at stores featuring in-store robots.
Simbe’s autonomous item-scanning robot, Tally, enables retailers to gain visibility into near real-time store and shelf conditions to help overcome issues such as inconsistent pricing, confusing promotions, and low or out-of-stock (OOS) inventory. In a press release from 2020, Simbe shared that Tally offers 14 times the out-of-stock detection rate compared to manual audits and achieves at least a 20% decrease in out-of-stock items for stores using the system.
At the Stop & Shop, Food Lion, and Giant Food banners owned by Ahold Delhaize, Marty the robot, known for its googly eyes, started rolling out in 2019 at stores to spot and alert workers to potential floor hazards and spills. Later on, it also began detecting when items were misplaced or needed restocking.
Almost a year after debuting Marty, Stop & Shop posted on social media that the robot spots, on average, nearly 40 spills or other potential hazards in each store daily.
The Cobi 18 autonomous floor cleaning robots from ICE Cobotics clean 5,000 to 7,000 square feet per hour and have been deployed in recent years at RaceTrac, Kum & Go, Phillips 66’s, J&H Family Stores, and other C-stores.
Last year, Amazon introduced Astro for Business, a version of its household security robot for retailers and other businesses. The roving robots provided visibility on blind spots beyond existing stationary cameras. However, the retailer discontinued the device just seven months after launch.
Several columns over the years have been written about the disruptions robots are causing as they increasingly patrol shopping aisles. A Mashable column from 2019 claimed that robots were adding “unprecedented levels of anxiety and absurdity” to the shopping experience.
A recent U.S. Sun article exploring Tally’s rollout at BJ’s called out one customer complaint on Facebook, which stated that the inventory robot “just rolls around whistling like a psychopath in a horror movie.” Responses to the Facebook post generally agreed that in-store robots are “annoying” and “creepy.”
The threat to jobs is also referenced in discussions around robots, although many note that in-store robots promise to free associates from repetitive tasks such as counting inventory or mopping to tackle customer-facing activities.
In-store robot makers contend robots are being welcomed by customers.
Toby Pickard, Retail Futures Senior Partner at the Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD), said the findings from Simbe’s new survey align “with what I have previously heard from CEOs and store managers that have Tally in-store. I have been told that Tally is helping drive footfall to stores, as the robot brings joy and excitement to their shopping trips, especially shoppers with children.”
Karen Mitchell, chief marketing officer and senior vice president with Stop & Shop, noted at a recent Omni Talk Retail virtual event that the grocer is looking to leverage Marty’s increasing popularity, particularly with children, by bringing the robot out to community events.
She said, “Not everybody loves him today either. People still roll their eyes or whatever from time to time, but he really is becoming more and more of a staple for Stop & Shop and a trusted part of our community and I think now’s the time to really start to leverage him.”
BrainTrust
Sarah Pelton
Partner, Cambridge Retail Advisors
Lisa Goller
B2B Content Strategist
Neil Saunders
Managing Director, GlobalData
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Has the arrival of in-store robots been more net positive or negative to the shopping experience?
Are you creeped out or annoyed by them, and do you believe this suggests limitations in robot design or marketing?
How could stores address these concerns to make robots more universally accepted?
Poll
Loading …
Robots can be useful for some functions such as checking out of stocks, finding and addressing spills and so forth. However, I still don’t believe that they will replace human staff for customer service functions. Many shoppers like and value the emotional connection with humans while shopping and robots simply do not replace that.
Opportunities abound for robots and cameras in gathering of shelf information, out of stocks, and ordering. And this work can be done after closing or at night. Since aisles are packed with products, robots on the sales floor during the day are either going to be in the way of shopping (blocking displays) or a flat out distraction.
From a Sales or ROI standpoint, are robots helping the customer get through the store quicker? Helping customers find products without delay? Are they solving something faster than someones mobile phone? I’d place my long-term bets on robots helping behind the scenes, not being part the sales floor and customer experience.
Adding robots during quieter periods can help to normalize these in-store innovations without getting in shoppers’ way. Retailers can post signage or a note on the robot to inform customers of the robot’s role (like checking for out-of-stocks or spills). I always curious about why I only saw Walmart’s robot in the dairy aisle.
The debate over in-store robots glosses over a relevant observation about successful technological adoptions: resistance most quickly dissolves not through persuasion, but through the power of subtle everyday exposure. Simbe’s survey trumpets high approval ratings and Stop & Shop celebrates Marty’s community appeal; however, these metrics obscure the more profound transformation that is occurring right in front of us: the gradual normalization of human-robot coexistence. Consider how Marty’s, who was once known for its googly eyes, now roams with little fanfare in its never-ending search for wet spots. The subtle desensitization brought on my consistent exposure is precisely what makes this paradigm of retail robots so significant – they’re pioneering a social construct by which human-robot interaction becomes unremarkably normal. The most brilliant innovation isn’t in the robots’ technical capabilities, but in their role as architects of future human comfort with automation.
Hired or fired? No… unionized! (That’ll kill the enthuisam real quick)
I’m not normally one to inject a sample-size-of-one survey (aka: personal experience) into a discussion, largely because the tactic is so often abused, but I’m going to here: I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a robot in a store (at least a robot as I would define/recognize it) And while I’m hardly Joe shopper, nonetheless it’s thousand of visits…and ever. So I have to wonder who these shoppers are, and how representative they are; even if the robots are randomly distributed – I won’t claim they don’t exist (at all) – I have to worry about the perils of Small Sample Size.
When it comes to surveys commissioned by robot manufacturers, I’d be cautious. They often have a bias to show robots in the best light. The reality is more nuanced—it’s not as simple as robots being all good or bad.
Robots can be super helpful for behind-the-scenes tasks like inventory checks or cleaning, which keeps things running smoothly without directly impacting the customer. But when they get involved in customer-facing roles, it can sometimes feel intrusive. A robot rolling down the aisle might seem cool at first, but if it malfunctions or doesn’t respond well, it can disrupt the experience.
At the end of the day, I think most shoppers still appreciate some level of human interaction. Whether it’s getting advice, having a quick chat, or just feeling more connected, robots can’t replace that personal touch that many customers value.
Plus, moms have enough problem controlling their children in grocery stores. Robots are bound to be yet another distraction for little ones while making the rest of us feel guilty that someone else’s job was taken away by a robot.
PS 400 consumers does NOT a valid survey make. Retailers, sure. Consumers….you need well over 1,000 to have a quorum.
Except for replacing human jobs with robots, I see no reason to avoid using them at grocery stores, especially if customers aren’t bothered by them.
In recent weeks, I learned privately that at least one major retail chain might soon have robots using artificial intelligence for direct customer communication. In response to “Where can I find salad dressing?” the robot answers, “Salad dressings are in aisle 4 Wishbone products are $1.00 off with coupon.” The service will seem much like “Alexa.”
Once robots provide the benefits of customer communication, consumers will realize many convenient benefits. It will be even better if and when the robots will reach items on high shelves for customers!
“Bill Gates proposed recently that robots should be taxed like human workers, based on the value of their work” (source: https://www.futuresplatform.com/blog/robot-tax)(Full disclosure – I work for Microsoft)
Given that robots potentially displace human workers you can see some logic here.
The reality is that robots can work for longer, and can be less error prone than humans. However they do lack the personal touch of humans so can never replace humans completely.
However as governments increase minimum wages, increase employment taxes on employers, and create legislation making it more costly to hire staff or part with staff in the event of business or performance issues the relative cost of investing in technology such as robots will decrease.
At a macro level this could increase business – and indeed total economy – productivity.
Technology has always been a deflationary force in economies and it will continue to ‘disrupt’ providing new opportunities for humans to move into other areas as we have seen countless times before.
My local Chinese restaurant has a couple for shuttling orders from the kitchen to diners’ tables. They’re cute, and it means they don’t have to add another employee who might not have a lot to do in a regular shift (and labor is tight in the Twin Cities anyway). The hotel I stayed at in Tokyo last year had a few for delivering supplies & room service items – again a tight labor market and an intermittent activity that would be hard to schedule humans for otherwise. Specific use cases make it easier to integrate.
“Leverage him?” as in develop a relationship with the mostly stupid robot wandering the aisles?
Beyond stupid. At least for now. Come back in five years perhaps.
Robots that detect spills offer a clear value proposition. Store safety plus improved customer perception of store. Out of stock detecting robots seem more transitory.
Shoppers have been dealing with out of stocks and making personal substitutions as long as there have been retailers. Grocery ecommerce orders fulfilled from the dynamic store shelf inventory changes the game.
Somehow supermarkets get away with delivering ecommerce orders that are incomplete or include items not ordered. No other retailer could get away with the same in ecommerce. The minimal viable for any other ecommerce retailer are what’s ordered delivered when promised. I see incomplete and inaccurate grocery ecommerce orders as the biggest barrier to what should be wider grocery ecommerce adoption. Shoppers will substitute on-the-fly in store but their online order to be delivered as ordered.
Thus the urgent need for in-store, out of stock detecting robots. It’s a way for supermarkets to get closer to delivering ecommerce orders accurately like every other ecommerce retailer. Thus not superfluous technology but in-store robotic technology that will be replaced by dedicated and trackable ecommerce inventory and different, order fulfillment robots as grocery ecommerce volumes increase.
I think robot design plays a huge role today and going forward as to how they make people feel. Is it a smiling non-intimidating robot, industrial looking and what job does it do. Functional robots that are cleaning might be small like a Roomba whereas something roaming the store during open hours might want to be designed to look friendly, have a small footprint, etc. We are still in the very early days of this.
I could see where a retailer that uses robots is considered more forward thinking. But those testing in these early days, likely are more forward thinking. therefore they probably have a clean store, well-light, well-stocked, fully staffed.
While we don’t do testing with robotics companies, we have done testing in the automotive industry, industrial designers are ideally understanding the environments and jobs there robots are doing and designing them accordingly. By the time the retailer buys in, the sentiment should already be directionally sound. Then it comes down to how well the robot operates in store, is it intrusive, what traffic pattern does it follow, is it kept clean.
Robotics and automation have their place, specifically in inventory management, scanning aisles, and troubleshooting issues more efficiently. We view integrating robots into the store as an enhancement and a tool for the frontline workers, and by no means a replacement for humans.
Coming out of the recent Groceryshop conference, there are clear business use cases emerging and gaining momentum for robotics and camera sensors, including:
- Monitoring aisles – Analyzing customer patterns to determine optimal product placement and overall flow of traffic through the store
- Leveraging robotics – Scanning products and shelves 24/7 to forecast demand and optimize the allocation process
- Preventing out of stocks – Optimizing the inventory management process and building contingency stock for unexpected events
- Mitigating shrink – Reducing the overall shrink numbers by monitoring customer behaviors and providing alerts to the store operations team
- Optimizing retail media spend – Determining the optimal retail media investments based on conversion rates, in-store traffic, and customer engagement
I don’t believe the results of the survey, which was conducted by a robot manufacturer. If the results were negative, would the robot maker have publicized that? Robots behind the scenes? Fine. Robots in the aisles? Creepy and an obstacle.
The use cases shared present significant opportunities for value-added in the grocery shopping experience. High prices driven by inflation have consumers shopping around more frequently, forcing grocers to get creative to meet expectations and capture customer loyalty.
Improving inventory management and cleanliness are two of the most significant challenges grocers face today, and if robots can make strides in those areas, the investment could be worthwhile. As with anything new, once consumers see the benefits, they will get behind it. Noticing fewer out-of-stock items and better, more well-organized shelves will go a long way.
More Discussions
How Important Is ‘Vibe’ in Physical Retail?
Not attempting to be too playfully groovy about this question: According to a recent report from…Will Pinterest Translate to Shoppable TV?
Will Pinterest lead the way in shoppable TV?How Can Retailers Improve Shoppers’ Sense of Closure When Concerns Emerge?
How can retailers better provide closure and proper resolution to today’s shoppers?
Robots can be useful for some functions such as checking out of stocks, finding and addressing spills and so forth. However, I still don’t believe that they will replace human staff for customer service functions. Many shoppers like and value the emotional connection with humans while shopping and robots simply do not replace that.
Opportunities abound for robots and cameras in gathering of shelf information, out of stocks, and ordering. And this work can be done after closing or at night. Since aisles are packed with products, robots on the sales floor during the day are either going to be in the way of shopping (blocking displays) or a flat out distraction.
From a Sales or ROI standpoint, are robots helping the customer get through the store quicker? Helping customers find products without delay? Are they solving something faster than someones mobile phone? I’d place my long-term bets on robots helping behind the scenes, not being part the sales floor and customer experience.
Adding robots during quieter periods can help to normalize these in-store innovations without getting in shoppers’ way. Retailers can post signage or a note on the robot to inform customers of the robot’s role (like checking for out-of-stocks or spills). I always curious about why I only saw Walmart’s robot in the dairy aisle.
The debate over in-store robots glosses over a relevant observation about successful technological adoptions: resistance most quickly dissolves not through persuasion, but through the power of subtle everyday exposure. Simbe’s survey trumpets high approval ratings and Stop & Shop celebrates Marty’s community appeal; however, these metrics obscure the more profound transformation that is occurring right in front of us: the gradual normalization of human-robot coexistence. Consider how Marty’s, who was once known for its googly eyes, now roams with little fanfare in its never-ending search for wet spots. The subtle desensitization brought on my consistent exposure is precisely what makes this paradigm of retail robots so significant – they’re pioneering a social construct by which human-robot interaction becomes unremarkably normal. The most brilliant innovation isn’t in the robots’ technical capabilities, but in their role as architects of future human comfort with automation.
Hired or fired? No… unionized! (That’ll kill the enthuisam real quick)
I’m not normally one to inject a sample-size-of-one survey (aka: personal experience) into a discussion, largely because the tactic is so often abused, but I’m going to here: I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a robot in a store (at least a robot as I would define/recognize it) And while I’m hardly Joe shopper, nonetheless it’s thousand of visits…and ever. So I have to wonder who these shoppers are, and how representative they are; even if the robots are randomly distributed – I won’t claim they don’t exist (at all) – I have to worry about the perils of Small Sample Size.
When it comes to surveys commissioned by robot manufacturers, I’d be cautious. They often have a bias to show robots in the best light. The reality is more nuanced—it’s not as simple as robots being all good or bad.
Robots can be super helpful for behind-the-scenes tasks like inventory checks or cleaning, which keeps things running smoothly without directly impacting the customer. But when they get involved in customer-facing roles, it can sometimes feel intrusive. A robot rolling down the aisle might seem cool at first, but if it malfunctions or doesn’t respond well, it can disrupt the experience.
At the end of the day, I think most shoppers still appreciate some level of human interaction. Whether it’s getting advice, having a quick chat, or just feeling more connected, robots can’t replace that personal touch that many customers value.
Plus, moms have enough problem controlling their children in grocery stores. Robots are bound to be yet another distraction for little ones while making the rest of us feel guilty that someone else’s job was taken away by a robot.
PS 400 consumers does NOT a valid survey make. Retailers, sure. Consumers….you need well over 1,000 to have a quorum.
Except for replacing human jobs with robots, I see no reason to avoid using them at grocery stores, especially if customers aren’t bothered by them.
In recent weeks, I learned privately that at least one major retail chain might soon have robots using artificial intelligence for direct customer communication. In response to “Where can I find salad dressing?” the robot answers, “Salad dressings are in aisle 4 Wishbone products are $1.00 off with coupon.” The service will seem much like “Alexa.”
Once robots provide the benefits of customer communication, consumers will realize many convenient benefits. It will be even better if and when the robots will reach items on high shelves for customers!
“Bill Gates proposed recently that robots should be taxed like human workers, based on the value of their work” (source: https://www.futuresplatform.com/blog/robot-tax)(Full disclosure – I work for Microsoft)
Given that robots potentially displace human workers you can see some logic here.
The reality is that robots can work for longer, and can be less error prone than humans. However they do lack the personal touch of humans so can never replace humans completely.
However as governments increase minimum wages, increase employment taxes on employers, and create legislation making it more costly to hire staff or part with staff in the event of business or performance issues the relative cost of investing in technology such as robots will decrease.
At a macro level this could increase business – and indeed total economy – productivity.
Technology has always been a deflationary force in economies and it will continue to ‘disrupt’ providing new opportunities for humans to move into other areas as we have seen countless times before.
My local Chinese restaurant has a couple for shuttling orders from the kitchen to diners’ tables. They’re cute, and it means they don’t have to add another employee who might not have a lot to do in a regular shift (and labor is tight in the Twin Cities anyway). The hotel I stayed at in Tokyo last year had a few for delivering supplies & room service items – again a tight labor market and an intermittent activity that would be hard to schedule humans for otherwise. Specific use cases make it easier to integrate.
“Leverage him?” as in develop a relationship with the mostly stupid robot wandering the aisles?
Beyond stupid. At least for now. Come back in five years perhaps.
Robots that detect spills offer a clear value proposition. Store safety plus improved customer perception of store. Out of stock detecting robots seem more transitory.
Shoppers have been dealing with out of stocks and making personal substitutions as long as there have been retailers. Grocery ecommerce orders fulfilled from the dynamic store shelf inventory changes the game.
Somehow supermarkets get away with delivering ecommerce orders that are incomplete or include items not ordered. No other retailer could get away with the same in ecommerce. The minimal viable for any other ecommerce retailer are what’s ordered delivered when promised. I see incomplete and inaccurate grocery ecommerce orders as the biggest barrier to what should be wider grocery ecommerce adoption. Shoppers will substitute on-the-fly in store but their online order to be delivered as ordered.
Thus the urgent need for in-store, out of stock detecting robots. It’s a way for supermarkets to get closer to delivering ecommerce orders accurately like every other ecommerce retailer. Thus not superfluous technology but in-store robotic technology that will be replaced by dedicated and trackable ecommerce inventory and different, order fulfillment robots as grocery ecommerce volumes increase.
I think robot design plays a huge role today and going forward as to how they make people feel. Is it a smiling non-intimidating robot, industrial looking and what job does it do. Functional robots that are cleaning might be small like a Roomba whereas something roaming the store during open hours might want to be designed to look friendly, have a small footprint, etc. We are still in the very early days of this.
I could see where a retailer that uses robots is considered more forward thinking. But those testing in these early days, likely are more forward thinking. therefore they probably have a clean store, well-light, well-stocked, fully staffed.
While we don’t do testing with robotics companies, we have done testing in the automotive industry, industrial designers are ideally understanding the environments and jobs there robots are doing and designing them accordingly. By the time the retailer buys in, the sentiment should already be directionally sound. Then it comes down to how well the robot operates in store, is it intrusive, what traffic pattern does it follow, is it kept clean.
Robotics and automation have their place, specifically in inventory management, scanning aisles, and troubleshooting issues more efficiently. We view integrating robots into the store as an enhancement and a tool for the frontline workers, and by no means a replacement for humans.
Coming out of the recent Groceryshop conference, there are clear business use cases emerging and gaining momentum for robotics and camera sensors, including:
I don’t believe the results of the survey, which was conducted by a robot manufacturer. If the results were negative, would the robot maker have publicized that? Robots behind the scenes? Fine. Robots in the aisles? Creepy and an obstacle.
The use cases shared present significant opportunities for value-added in the grocery shopping experience. High prices driven by inflation have consumers shopping around more frequently, forcing grocers to get creative to meet expectations and capture customer loyalty.
Improving inventory management and cleanliness are two of the most significant challenges grocers face today, and if robots can make strides in those areas, the investment could be worthwhile. As with anything new, once consumers see the benefits, they will get behind it. Noticing fewer out-of-stock items and better, more well-organized shelves will go a long way.