Slashdot Mirror


Wal-Mart Pushing Suppliers For RFID

Weather Storm brings us an InformationWeek article about Wal-Mart's push for suppliers to RFID tag their product shipments. Wal-Mart seems to have lost patience in waiting for its suppliers to adopt the inventory tracking initiative. From InformationWeek: "The retailer says that beginning Jan. 30, it will charge suppliers a $2 fee for each pallet they ship to its Sam's Club distribution center in Texas that doesn't have an RFID tag. The charge is to cover Sam's Club's cost to affix tags on each pallet, says a Wal-Mart spokesman. The retailer hasn't taken such a strong-arm approach yet with the more than 15,000 suppliers that still haven't complied with its request to tag pallets and cases headed for its Wal-Mart stores. Instead, it seems focused on turning its 700-store Sam's Club warehouse-outlet division into an example of RFID supply chain technology in action, down to requiring item-level RFID in 22 distribution centers by 2010."

14 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Can you charge a supplier $2? by rkcallaghan · · Score: 4, Funny
    JimboFBX wrote:

    So in other words, Sams Club is going to try to give themselves a $2 discount? I think I tried that with my cell phone bill because the service wasn't as good as I wanted. It didn't work out very well. Imagine you were, well you, and you were standing under King Kong's foot. If he steps on you, the obvious happens. Kong demands "a $2 discount" from you, even though you are his banana supplier.

    The question of the day is, does Kong get his bananas for $2 less? For extra credit, can you explain why reverse would not be true, if you attempted to demand a $2 on Kong's security services he's providing you?

    ~Rebecca
  2. Re:Can you charge a supplier $2? by gatkinso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It would have if you were responsible for a large fraction of global celluar activity.

    Love em or hate em, Walmart has the clout to do so.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  3. Isn't this a good use for RFID? by morbiuswilters · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not being implanted in anyone, it's not being used to track personal information, it's just for inventory control. Maybe I'm missing something here, but this seems like the kind of application we should be supporting. Complaining about it seems almost as bad as the people who fought against barcodes because they contain the "mark of the Beast".

    --
    I have come here to chew memory and kick ass... and malloc() is returning a null pointer.
    1. Re:Isn't this a good use for RFID? by Serenissima · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, it's obviously NOT a good idea because it's in the "Your Rights Online" category. That has to mean there are some rights being infringed up, right? It's not like they would put in the YRO category just to make a sensationalist headline to get hits rather than actually inform people... right?

      --
      Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
  4. Stack them by Fuzzums · · Score: 3, Funny

    If wallmart wants pallets with rfid, why don't they put the whole pallets of the supplyers on one of their pallets WITH rfids...

    Problem solved. NEXT!

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  5. Re:Can you charge a supplier $2? by homer_s · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's say a warehouse employee makes $18/hr. (They make less, I'm sure, but it makes the math easy.) $.20 goes to the cost of the tag, and $1.80 goes to the cost of putting the tag on. This means that it takes 6 minutes (1/10th of an hour) to tag a pallet? If it took 3 minutes, I'd be very surprised. That employee should be able to tag 1 pallet per minute, easily. Remember, he doesn't have to actually COUNT the product, since even the tagged ones still need to be counted. He just needs to read the manifest and enter it into the computer, and slap the RFID tag on.

    Cost of employee to tag at 1 per min= $0.30
    Cost of labour training=0
    Cost of payroll tax, HR management=0
    Cost of chip = $0.20
    Cost of ordering the chips = 0
    Cost of receiving the chips = 0
    Cost of storage of the chips = 0
    Cost of restocking the chips = 0
    Cost of quality control = 0
    Cost of equipment to affix the chip=0
    Cost of insurance=0
    Cost of billing the suppliers and paperwork involved =0
    Interest on capital employed for the above=0

    Yep, your math works out. You should start your own business instead of posting here on slashdot.

  6. RFID and Walmart and more by Lord+Satri · · Score: 4, Informative

    Maybe I'm missing something here, but this seems like the kind of application we should be supporting. I agree, without much analysis, to me it seems Walmart is pushing their partners in the right direction: enhanced efficiency for everyone.

    Let me act as a karma whore (not that I care about virtual karma). Last May Walmart was announcing their embrace of the RFID tech, underlining the "green" component of this tech. Then, /. discussed in October Walmart's faltering RFID initiative. (Flash map of Walmart stores) And today, great news, Walmart is deep into RFID. Technology itself is neutral, it is what we do with it that makes it good or bad.

    Other RFID stories that I find pertinent: a successful implementation of RFID tags at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Washington Navy Yard. Don't forget we discussed over /. the use by Microsoft of RFID for marketing in groceries. If Microsoft is using it, it must have great potential? ;-) I won't lie that I'm amazed at passive RFID chips being as small as 0.15mm x 0.15mm x 0.0075mm (Hitachi), enabling rather conspiracy-theory applications of the tech. India and China seems are seriously looking at RFID. Well, you get the idea, more stories about RFID here. We live in interesting times. Technology is evolving at an exponential rate... now I wonder if we, as a civilization, will successfully cope with the realities of our resources-limited planet... (I'll stop here, I'm getting off-topic ;-)
  7. It's probably been in their Ts & Cs for years by originalhack · · Score: 5, Interesting
    They've probably had this in their terms and conditions on their purchase agreements for years.

    Imagine you run a monster distribution center. You order from a zillion vendors and pallets of merchandise appear. Some pallets have a nice list attached to them describing what is in them so you can route them to the store without unpacking them. Others just show up with a pile of boxes and you have to, at least partially, unpack and re-wrap them to confirm the contents.

    1. Your next version of your terms and conditions require a packing list.

    Then, you find that most of the lists have the PO number on them and list the items by part number, but a few just say something like "Here's 10 cases of green shirts." Most have the packing list printed on a label on the side of the wrapped pallet. Some have it inaccessible from the outside.

    2. Your next revision of your terms and conditions require the list to be on the outside and dictate the format.

    After a few rounds, you realize that these lists are very expensive to produce and to read and all of your suppliers have (or should have) computers anyway, so you have them electronically send you the packing list and specify a shipment number. That number goes on a bar-code label at a specific place on the shipment. On your receiving dock, you have someone dance around each pallet to scan it and then it disappears into your warehouse.

    3. Your next Ts and Cs require the bar-code

    You find that the bar-code requires stopping the flow of items in all sorts of places. You invest in RFID readers for your whole distribution line. You tag all the incoming shipments as they arrive, and you find that it works.

    4. Your next Ts and Cs require RFID labels.

    A grace period comes and goes. Tagged shipments fly right through your distribution center smoothly, but you have some suppliers who still don't comply with your agreements with them and you have to stop each of those shipments on your dock and slap an RFID label on them yourself. The industry gets to the point where labels with tags are down to 40 cents in tiny quantities and the equipment to program them is down to under a thousand. There are also companies that will sell tags preprogrammed for a dollar or two. Still, some of your suppliers who were eager to sell to you and signed the Ts and Cs the day they took the order, fail to follow through.

    5. You start to either refuse to accept shipments that don't comply with the contract or you charge a fee to fix the sloppy shipments.

    Now, a legitimate issue is where the power in the relationship is. WM is well known for holding all the power and that really can be viewed as being all about price and accepting the Ts and Cs in the first place. That's an issue that comes up anytime they meet with a supplier. If your Verizon service stinks, you cannot do anything about it because, when you "negotiated" your contract, you could either sign THEIR terms or you could go to one of a tiny number of serious competitors who seem to have conspired to have equally onerous terms. (This is exactly why legislators keep looking at things like "customer bill of rights" legislation... the individual customer doesn't have the ability to choose a better contract).

  8. Re:Can you charge a supplier $2? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Imagine you were, well you, and you were standing under King Kong's foot. If he steps on you, the obvious happens. Kong demands "a $2 discount" from you, even though you are his banana supplier. The question of the day is, does Kong get his bananas for $2 less? For extra credit, can you explain why reverse would not be true, if you attempted to demand a $2 on Kong's security services he's providing you?

    Qualifying questions:

    If I give Kong a discount, am I still going to be able to eat? Or am I going to die slow? Can I feed my bananas to another monkey and have them grow while Kong shrinks? Do I enjoy my life enough that I wouldn't just tell Kong to fuck off out of spite?

    Wal-Mart are a short ways from collapse at all times, it's a consequence of their "Keep no back stock" policy. They run everything at the edge, and at some point, it's going to bite them hard.

    In the end, didn't King Kong get killed when everyone united against them?

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  9. Re:Can you charge a supplier $2? by rkcallaghan · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ShieldW0lf wrote:

    If I give Kong a discount, am I still going to be able to eat? Or am I going to die slow? There's a web full of anti wal-mart sites out there that can show you just how many companies (Levi Jeans, Master Locks, Huffy Bikes, etc.) this has happened to.

    So your first question is unfortunately irrelevant. Your second, is however, as the only winning move in this situation is not to play with King Kong at all, and attack him instead of yourselves as he demand. How to get that to happen is a topic for another day, under another revolution thread; as the Kong you'd have to defeat here has help this time.

    ~Rebecca
  10. Re:Can you charge a supplier $2? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Insightful
    So you think it's fair to charge $2 to slap a $.20 RFID tag on a pallet?

    If they charged their cost, then the supplier could, in effect, "hire" the Walmart guy to put the tags on. It's much simpler - no need to buy the tags or equipment, and no chance of error. Walmart's aim is not to get the $2, it's to get the supplier to put the tags on.

  11. Word of the Day... by RealGrouchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When a retailer is able to charge/coerce the people it buys its merchandise from, that retailer is a monopsony. (I'm by far not the first to label Wal-Mart as such)

    - RG>

    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  12. Re:Can you charge a supplier $2? by shark72 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "So you think it's fair to charge $2 to slap a $.20 RFID tag on a pallet? As far as I can tell, this is not 1 RFID per item, it's 1 per pallet. It is -only- used to track shipments, not individual products."

    I suppose we can add channel management, supply chain management and logistics to the areas of knowledge that Slashdotters know everything about.

    Distribution centers have rules about receiving products. These rules are necessary to keep the inventory flowing and to keep costs down. Retail DCs (owned by Best Buy, Target and the like) have them, as do distributors, like Ingram and D&H.

    The missing RFID tag is a McGuffin -- it could be anything. Missing RFID? Low pallet count? High pallet count? Pallet packed with unexpected dimensions? Unannounced change in the case pack quantity or outer box pack quantity? The product doesn't conform, so it needs to be segregated to another part of the warehouse, and people need to be assigned to rework the product. In the meantime, it's dead inventory that can't be sold.

    As has already been mentioned, your estimate of the rework cost is low, but that's not the point -- Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Ingram et al aren't trying to build a profit center out of RFID tag reworks or any sort of rework! They pass the cost of the rework along to the supplier, and the goal is to have it not happen again. Product that's delayed in the warehouse or the DC means missed sales, and if it's a load-in for a holiday weekend or a scheduled promotion, lots of money is lost.

    --
    Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  13. Re:Can you charge a supplier $2? by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And somebody needs to investigate how well Snapper is doing as a result of that move. You never hear a follow-up.

    Here locally, I can tell you that the small mom & pop hardware store, the kind of place Snapper wants to sell through (higher markup, more money per unit sold for Snapper) is now out of business and the building is in the process of being converted into a strip mall.

    So let's see some links to a follow-up story, not that same tired old link. How is Snapper doing a year or so later?