Slashdot Mirror
Retailers Dread Phone-Wielding Shoppers
Ponca City writes "The WSJ reports that until recently, retailers could reasonably assume that if they just lured shoppers into stores with enticing specials, the customers could be coaxed into buying more profitable stuff too. But now, marketers must contend with shoppers who can use their smartphones inside stores to check whether the specials are really so special. 'The retailer's advantage has been eroded,' says analyst Greg Girard, adding that roughly 45% of customers with smartphones had used them to perform due diligence on a store's prices. 'The four walls of the store have become porous.' Although store executives publicly welcome a price-transparent world, retail experts don't expect all chains to measure up to the harsh judgment of mobile price comparisons, and some will need to find new ways to survive. 'Only a couple of retailers can play the lowest-price game,' says Noam Paransky. 'This is going to accelerate the demise of retailers who do not have either competitive pricing or a standout store experience.'"
I used my phone to find the best prices when I was buying various white goods (fridge/freezer, washing machine, dishwasher) upon moving house, from a certain UK big-box electrical retailer.
Of course, the salesperson said "Oh no, we can't match internet prices" but it turns out that given a choice between a discounted sale and no sale, they can
Protip: You haven't got the best price until the salesperson has sheepishly had to ask the manager for authority twice.
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
If the fact that Wal-Mart is the only local place I can buy my clothes and groceries is a sign the system is working I'm not so sure I want it to work. I'm not saying we should regulate the hell out of everything but I really miss having other options when I shop.
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
Stores can no longer use tricks to get me to spend my money there, and I'm okay with that.
I actually bought an iPod case at Best Buy the other day for $11 knowing it was available on Amazon for $7. The brick-and-mortar shopping experience is still worth it if I want something now or doing what to worry about paying for shipping (usually I buy *more* than I need at Amazon for small purchases to qualify for free shipping).
At the end of the day, the customer wins. The best stores win. And crappy stores lose. This is a good thing.
I regularly pay a little more for goods that I know less about if I got good service. As long as the price is at least vaguely comparable, being able to physically touch and try out something is worth a bit of money to me. Especially when it's something where the salesperson helped me look at options, understood what I wanted, picked the best value for me, etc, and didn't just hand me which one they were pushing that week.
Of course... sometimes the markup is too high. I really wanted to buy a TV locally, but they "don't price match amazon," which means that the same TV at amazon was $1500 less... you've got to at least make the same ballpark.
I recently shopped at both Best Buy and Sears and discovered that their online store sale prices were $80 and $70 cheaper than what their brick and mortar store could offer. I showed a sales member their store's site on my phone but it turns out that they can't match their own prices. I do, however, like both stores' website's option to buy now and pickup in the store. Yep, I bought the item online while in the store and just walked over to customer service and picked it up 10 minutes later.
"We are afraid now that customers can figure out we are cheating them with false advertising, before we manage to snatch their money."
It's a good thing to give the customers more transparency in who they do business with, but I am concerned that this will reduce competition even further to price warfare. Quality, safety, environmental sustainability and the welfare of employees may take even more of a backseat than it already does.
Needless to say, this transparency is not the root cause or a bad thing. However, with shoppers caring more about price than anything else, it is vital to regulate industry and retail to ensure that companies do not rape their people and the environment to stay competitive.
Admittedly not the way business is going these days, and this article is highlighting another nail in that coffin.
The very nature of capitalism requires steadily growing greed and want for larger profits. The only way a company can continue selling decent-quality products at realistic prices is if it has no desire to expand.
For some reason, "not expanding" is the same thing as "a business slowly dying", a concept which always eluded me. I mean, come on...if you're posting a profit, who cares if you're growing by 5% or 10% or whatever; you're still making a profit.
Living With a Nerd
You just hit on one of my fundamental disagreements with how the US economy now operates. Originally, when companies opened their stock for public purchase, the idea was to get a cash infusion to accomplish some objective (expansion, r&d, and so on). Those stock holders often received a dividend on that purchase. For instance they might have purchased stock at $10 per share, receiving a quarterly dividend of say $0.25. This essentially meant the investor often saw an immediate return on the investment when the company was profitable. In this case, a 10% return annually. This encouraged long term holding of the stock and a more stable stock price that didn't require dramatic 10% growth per year. If the stock holder held the example stock for 10 years before selling, the sale would be pure profit regardless of the stock price at the time of the sale. The problem is that a 100% publicly owned corporation gets very little benefit from the stock market once all of its shares have been bought up since the sales of its shares don't infuse new revenue into the company since those stock exchanges happen solely between 3rd parties.
Now stocks are bought and sold primarily for short term gains since most stocks don't produce dividends. The only motive there is the price of the share, which dictates that the company has to show profit growth. When a company makes a 3% growth in profit instead of 5%, the share price usually takes a significant hit, which is very illogical considering the company has actually improved its value per share. Wall Street now operates on totally unrealistic expectations of infinite 5-10% annual growth which is obviously unsustainable in the long term. This seems painfully obvious to me, but I never hear financial analysts discuss it on "news" shows.
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
I'm in the market for a new TV, but haven't done any research. I see a TV in BestBuy that is on sale, compare the price to other stores, see it actually is a good price, then buy it. If I didn't have my smart phone, I would've gone home and did some research first, rather than buy it right there. That means I'm out of the store, and that most likely means a lost sale for them.
Similarly, I was at a (plant) nursery this last spring. I had the impulse to buy some plants for my house, but since I have a cat, I wanted to make sure I didn't buy a plant that was poisonous to cats. I whipped out my phone, went on the web, and researched the plants I liked, one-by-one, to find the ones that were cat safe. In the end I bought $100 worth of plants. If I didn't have my smart phone, then I wouldn't have bought anything.
Hmm. Perhaps you could call it Target?
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!