It seems like an obvious extension of the Thrive Market offering. The company has laid the groundwork with less sensitive products and now that it has the brand, customer base, logistics, etc. in place it's widening the offering. It's a good way of keeping them in the Thrive Market ecosystem rather than buying their perishables elsewhere and potentially take all their business there. I think as long as the price is right and customers have the freezer space to accommodate the goods then it's worth a try.

Micro-designers are well placed to capitalize on a number of trends such as shopping more locally and exclusivity -- people like to have something that not everyone else has. There's also a chance for customers to get in early with a designer who may go onto bigger things. I think fast fashion serves a different purpose for a lot of people, which is to literally get on new trends quickly. This audience may over their lifetime move away from fast fashion, but not towards the traditional designer brands. Micro-designers may help fill that gap. There could also be potential for fast fashion brands to do some sort of collaboration with micro-designers.

There's no denying that for the consumer this is a real bargain, but I'm not sure how this will carry over to retailers. There may be a lot of people who decide to combine going to a film with getting something to eat (although if you go several times a month that's not sustainable spending), but I'm not sure how many deliberately combine it with shopping. And while generally having more traffic in malls is a good thing for retailers they can't even reach the whole cinema audience if some are seeing movies outside of retailers' open hours.

I think a lot of retailers struggle with technology. There seems to be a reluctance to be a first mover with a lot of tech, due to the speed of change and cost, and then by the time it's nearing mainstream they're playing catch-up. I think a lot of retailers are buying start-ups or running tech incubators as a way of sidestepping this -- and the challenge of staff. I always say that retailers need to look at their business and their customers first, and then use technology as a tool to serve them better. That can help stop knee-jerk implementation of tech or wasted investment. If your customers aren't going to interact with touchscreens you don't need to invest in them. Perhaps you should be focusing on your app. Or maybe your customers don't want any tech on their side at all, but you should be putting investment into tech that helps your staff provide a better experience. Once you have a strategy you know what talent you need. Although retailers are competing against buzzy tech companies, for some there may be an attraction in being able to help revamp a well-known business.

There's so many benefits to small-format stores that I'm not surprised that Target is seeing success. Reduced rent and overheads, more flexibility as to location which means you can really target your audience by going to them rather than expecting them to come to your big store, retaining the marketing value that physical stores have and having a physical hub to use in conjunction with your online business. There's also a strong argument to say that the endless aisle that e-commerce enables means you don't need a big store to display everything. You can offer customers a huge product range from a small space by letting them order online and pick up in-store, or order from staff in-store for delivery at home, with a range of core products available for people to drop in and buy on the spot. It's not a complicated strategy, but Target have done a great job of executing it. I also like the idea that the stores aren't all going to be homogeneous, but tailored to their local audience.

I think the genie is out of the bottle when it comes to customer expectations around delivery and there's not much retailers can do about that. Amazon is going to keep pushing fast, free delivery further and further, but right now even it isn't as fast as someone like Argos where you can reserve items and pick up in-store straight away. The main thing retailers need to do is to get their house in order. They need to underpromise and overdeliver -- not the other way round. If they can't maintain next-day free delivery it shouldn't be an option. But they should make sure that every delivery option that they do have works brilliantly so customers have confidence buying from them. I also think that consumers are still OK with the idea that you pay more for quicker delivery and that if you want shipping for free you wait a bit longer -- let's not forget that Amazon Prime isn't a free service.

Amazon Go is certainly a testing lab and Amazon has the money for such an experiment. Right now I don't think the ratio of staff or the cost of the tech is the biggest concern. It's more about the concept and the implementation of it, and of course it makes sense to test that in action in a small store environment. But I don't think we should ever assume that this isn't being done with a greatest purpose in mind. Amazon is going to apply everything it learns to its other activities, which includes physical retail in the form of its Whole Foods and other stores. And if it can crack the tech and the cost challenge then I have no doubt it will be taking this idea wider. Let's not forget how many companies already use Amazon tech, whether they are using Amazon Web Services or have a presence on Amazon's e-commerce site. Perhaps this will be another incarnation of that.

I think Aldi's trying to strike a balance between its low-cost credentials and the high quality of its produce. There's certainly still some who associate Aldi with low prices, and therefore low quality, so upgrading the in-store experience slightly may help to convince them otherwise. In addition it may bring the experience a little closer to that which its middle-class fans are used to, and the new look may make it easier for them to penetrate new markets. For its original customer base I don't see these changes as being massively divisive. It seems that Aldi isn't trying to jazz things up too much and as long as it sticks to its core principles it shouldn't be too alienating.

In terms of data, gamification could give retailers better results as customers are likely to be less conscious of their choices. They're just putting together clothing combinations that they like, based on their own personality, style, etc., which they do automatically. Whereas there may be more conscious choice making happening when completing surveys (and even self-editing of their answers) which can create results that aren't a true representation of the customer's thoughts, etc. I'm sure there are opportunities for Trendage -- customers may well get more inspiration in their outfit choices and that could lead to other sales -- but I wonder if a fashion retailer would prefer to build the idea/tech into their own app or website? It might work well for a shopping mall with multiple fashion retailers as well.

I would suspect that people tend to say they want to be left alone because experiences with staff generally aren't up to scratch. Often these engagements can make customers feel like staff are being pushy or putting the pressure on for them to buy, when in reality maybe all they want is to know a price or get some more information. I'm sure we've all had to awkwardly make our excuses before when a sales assistant fixes you with an expectant eye. It's no wonder that customers are looking at tech as a way of avoiding all of that and self-serving as much as possible. Equally, the more expensive the purchase, such as with tech or audio products, the more customers are likely to want some expert guidance. I think a lot of the issues could be fixed with better staff and customer service training. Also, there's some great new tech ideas that can help staff with these interactions, such as Sprucebot which is background tech but helps staff to make sure they know all about a customer in order to have a better, more informed, personal conversation with them. Which is probably what most of us want.

I think to say it's the end of digital-only retailing is a bit of a stretch. There's a lot of different models out there that suit different retailers. That said, the physical store is a differentiator. If you think of how many brands there are out there, and how many have stores, it's clear that not everyone has a store. For those brands that do, the store is a great marketing channel -- seeing a brand name on the high street can really help to cement it in a shopper's mind, and give them increased confidence in that brand as they can go in and try things and interact before they buy. As the examples show, all of these brands have found that adding a store to their ecosystem has given them increased customer insights, brand awareness and the ability to serve customers faster. I don't see the store going anywhere.

I think brands have never known as much, or had the opportunity to know as much, about their customers as they do now. As such, there's an opportunity to do segmentation in a meaningful way. I would be wary of putting people into fixed boxes though as individuals tend not to match up to specific criteria, and I think you also need to monitor those customers as they may change overtime, e.g. the Style Shopper could become a Dedicated Sneakerhead. This is a good step towards real personalisation though and making sure that all interactions serve the customer with useful, interesting and relevant information.

I think that online shopping has reached a mature state in a number of key markets and that's giving luxury retailers more confidence. The fact that companies like Farfetch exist also helps luxury retailers overcome some of the hurdles of getting online. I think authenticity of products is one of the biggest things about selling luxury online -- customers are usually paying larger amounts of money for products so they need to know they're getting the real deal. This is why luxury brands tend towards selling through their own sites only, or with partners in the sector like Matchesfashion. I think though that the store experience is going to remain very important in luxury. Customers want to have that great treatment and experience -- whether they are a regular luxury shopper, or if they've saved up for their first piece.

It looks like the customer is ahead of the retailer when it comes to the idea of retail. Customers just want to buy. The stats from the research suggest that retail is lagging behind in terms of enabling that to happen in a seamless fashion. As to the physical store, I've been saying for a long-time now that it's not going away, but retailers need to use it better. I just wonder who this research is news to.

This is what I always expected from Amazon since hearing they'd bought Whole Foods. It's not just about that business, it's about gaining a network of physical stores quickly. Putting pick-up points for Amazon/Whole Foods orders in those stores seems like an obvious move. The idea of extending it to third-party retailers is an interesting one, and I assume will be targeted at those Amazon already has a relationship with. I think impact may also depend on the specific store and demographic. If customers are driving to the store, then they may find it convenient to pick-up bulky items (that they find it hard to have delivered during the day when not at home) at the same time, but those using public transport will be focused on portability.