Kudos to Warren for tackling this topic in such a forthright manner. Retail has traditionally had a massive female presence -- possibly outnumbering males and everyone was okay with it. That was when it was acceptable for women to be clerks and sales girls (girls!) and occupy other low-end positions while "the men" led the companies. It's difficult to place blame on the industry for that because society worked that way everywhere. Now women are in a much better position, but I'm regularly reminded, not an equal one. I don't understand why. I'm married to an equally (OK more!) intelligent and talented woman that has insights into areas I don't. I have no reason to believe women as a group are any different. So WTF is wrong with men that need to keep women down? It's their own weaknesses and insecurities. I don't believe anyone wants women promoted solely on the basis of their sex. That would be disrespectful to deserving and undeserving applicants alike. But as men, we need to quash any biases and prejudices that are kept hidden under the surface and seize the opportunity to make the industry a better one. And unequal pay, especially when race is an added factor, again, WTF is that?

There will be no Lone Ranger riding in to fill the vacuum left by Toys "R" Us. It took many years (decades) for the brand to establish itself as an industry leader. No one can pick up the mantle and quickly do that without buying the assets of the company and making a massive effort/investment and that won't necessarily work anyway. The industry has changed now. It's a lesson for any vertical that is very dependent upon one brand/merchant to reach consumers. If that's lost, the industry is shaken and it takes time for a reshuffling to take place, take effect, and create a new landscape that consumers are familiar with. Although the newly launching KB envisions itself as the best-positioned entity to fill the void, I believe the TRU market will be carved into many chunks with Amazon and Walmart investing in and taking sizeable pieces. The higher end and unique toy niches will likely go to independents, better positioning them against the giants. I believe any grocery store that follows Tim Hall's advice and puts energy into being a toy purveyor will set themselves up for pain, given grocery's already rapidly changing and increasingly treacherous environment. Imagine the potential double benefit to both Walmart and Amazon: not only will they gain a bigger toy share but grocery too, thanks to misguided and preoccupied supermarkets.

Isn't this essentially what Stop & Shop pioneered about a decade ago? Where's the props for them? This is the direction grocery is going. Just as online grocery has been slow to gain momentum, but a light is visible at the end of that tunnel, the same is true for new forms of in-store grocery checkout. It's easy to put this down in comparison to the lore of Amazon Go, but no one really knows what goes on there (missed scans, etc.) and the scale of a grocery store vs. a convenience store is markedly different. The real solution which is at least 15-20 years old is RFID. It would make everything fast and convenient, but it just cannot gain a foothold at an item level. One day maybe.

This sounds like a home run, but it's not. I've written about this before. It's a second rate attempt at catch-up. When one steps back from the PR and really examines the details of how such a system would work end-to-end, particularly from a user's perspective, it's quite flawed. Amazon controls their entire ecosystem. Merchants that sell on Amazon defer to Amazon's rules and rulings over selling procedures and customer issues. Amazon controls the delivery terms and free shipping thresholds as well. All the data is Amazon's with limited sharing with merchants. Google, in trying to replicate such an environment, will never have that level of influence or control over the vendors it's assembling. Target, Home Depot or Walmart and other large retailers each have their own mechanisms of business and will not compromise them for Google. The shine comes off when there are returns, especially when multiple vendors are involved in one order and they have different policies. The ugliness also appears when free shipping thresholds differ amongst vendors, the carriers and shipping origination points differ, etc. And large merchants are used to owning their data. Being the recipient of second-hand data that may be less granular will be a point of contention. Then there's the softening of their brand identity in what is essentially, Google brand building. Small merchants will surely be lost in the shuffle and will be rendered less competitive for a multitude of reasons. I have no sides in this except for a commitment to true customer experience and not corporate spin. Yet rather than going on further, I suggest that those considering Google's offering carefully dig deep into what user experience in digital/retail really means.

While the idea of local vendors, food truck operators, and celebrity chefs creating unique experiences sounds great, I'm skeptical about this. Functionally, this is a food court in a mall. Rather than the mall model, the emphasis being on retail with food added as a secondary attraction (rent source), the model is flipped. Especially in a food-oriented city like New York, without additional data, I don't see proof of long-term viability and am cautious about the property owner's claims. And celebrity chefs and most restauranteurs seek to build chains, so with success, the individuality/uniqueness will evaporate.

Early days of a very nascent concept. It's no surprise that for both operational and educational reasons the store is heavily staffed. In time, if the concept continues, streamlining is inevitable. It's not unlike comparing Amazon Go in 2018 to an Apple 2 in 1981 and then considering what Apple offers today. Surely near term profit is not a motivation. Testing consumer reaction, technology, and PR manipulation are more of what they're interested in.

I've been researching this topic in-depth for a long-form article I'm writing but keeping personalities out of it. I don't know Mr. Simon, but my long-distance impression is that he's expressing sour grapes for being part of the team that was asleep at the wheel and bested by a nerd with a vision. George points out the irony of his comments nicely. Walmart, Macy's, Sears, Toys "R" Us or anyone has had decades to create a cloud computing service or embrace e-commerce properly and they did nothing. If they had, there would be no Amazon. That's not Amazon's fault, it's theirs. It's easy to make off-the-cuff comments about breaking Amazon up, but the devil is in the details. Amazon will not roll over if antitrust action is taken against them. They have the means and will fight relentlessly. And some of the arguments that would be used against them by the government, if leveraged successfully, would if applied universally, impinge upon the business practices of Walmart, Google, and others. Additionally, my argument is that the remaining Amazon (post break-up) would be even more devastating to retail than the one they're dealing with now (it requires a long explanation). So my admonition to retail and whimpering retail execs: be very, very careful what you wish for.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but nostalgia retail brands seem like a concept looking for a market. KB has been gone for nine years. While Millenials of childbearing age may have some fond memories of the chain (maybe not), as Toys "R" Us learned, that era of toy shopping is a distant memory and a name or a memory isn't going to revive it. KB will have the same challenges everyone else is facing, namely Walmart and Amazon's domination of the mainstream toy market. More specialized toys are the domain of independents and I doubt there's too much room to squeeze into that niche either.

First, I have said to the scorn of others, that Alexa as an "assistant" and all her skills are a subterfuge to a frictionless purchasing tool. Amazon couldn't care less that anyone hears a joke or has their lights controlled by voice. All of that is a pacifier and smokescreen to a more effortless way for consumers to make purchases that Amazon can often steer to products it chooses. People seek convenience and as Gene noted, speaking is easier than typing. It eliminates or mostly eliminates searching and speeds the purchase cycle by skipping steps, like reading product details and/or reviews. For contemporary humans, although a learned trait, speaking is almost, almost a natural trait and a more efficient communication channel than typing or touching. So it's an inevitability that until chips are embedded in human skulls, it will be a dominant interface. And that's the last point: voice is just an interface. A very cheap sensor called a microphone is all that's needed to enable it on the front-end, but it takes computing power to make it do something effective. So as AI and machine learning develop, voice interface experiences will improve. Until then, any criticism offered needs to be directed at the still-nascent empowering technologies and poor UX design, such as converting menu tree structures to voice as Chris Petersen mentioned. How do I know? I've been designing intelligent voice-based systems before anyone heard the word "Alexa."

It's impossible to be completely the same or completely different. Some aspects of being a merchant are universal. However, copying Amazon, Walmart, or the corner store is absolutely a weak strategy which will ultimately lead to mediocrity or failure. Being a follower is being a follower, never gaining an advantage, just trying to keep up. That means every time the leader zigs, the follower has to zig, Same for zags. And a leader with resources that catches on to that can make life hellish if they choose to. Look back to Walmart in the '90s and ask Marc Lore about the ultimatum Quidsy received from Amazon. Imagine a high school commencement speech where the honored speaker implores the students to go out into the world and be followers. It wouldn't be acceptable. There is always room to lead if you look for the opportunity.

D2C startups are the antithesis of CPG, retail and e-commerce in the way that 1990s e-commerce pure-plays were to retail. It's yet to be seen if they will be able to shake up the industry as devastatingly. I'm all for these commerce models. Prior to 1999 (the birth of Napster), it was mostly inconceivable that music distribution could happen without physical media and the control of record labels, but look at what dominates music now. CPG is definitely feeling the water in the pot warm around it and D2C startups are one reason. Retail might just experience a second wave of "attack" if D2C scales in the coming decade. E-commerce pure-plays might "get a taste of their own medicine" too. However, D2C is tougher than it sounds. Consumers might find it tiresome to have to maintain accounts or track a multitude of sources to get products they seek and likely won't have tolerance for service failures.

Luxury goods are considered a premium, both in quality and cost. They offer a cache where people can experience something a little out of the ordinary whether real or perceived. Beyond that, people are people and have the same expectations of delightful experiences, no matter if they are on a budget or have extensive disposable income. Why luxury has effectively forgone sales opportunities to watch from the sidelines for so long is a mystery. They never had to be aligned with eBay or Amazon. These brands will have to execute on two fronts:

1. Keep the brand promise and provide better than ordinary experiences. However, technology is very democratizing so that's much harder nowadays. Amazon, Walmart, convenience stores, supermarkets, etc. can provide near gratification with two-hour delivery. A large swath of e-tailers have hassle-free returns. AI personalization is taking hold. The gauntlet has been thrown down to them.
2. Execute flawlessly. Commerce technology is mature and consumers are conditioned to high expectations even from discount brands. The tolerance for mistakes from high-end purveyors is minimal to none.

How many years has it taken for this obvious lightbulb to go off? Too many. I can't be too harsh though, most retailers still haven't had the revelation. Now that they've been beaten down, it's a good thing that Target says it is moving in this direction, but the proof will be in what an "expert" is. I can't think of a store where I expect that I will encounter a subject matter expert, but I was pleasantly surprised recently while shopping with my wife for window treatments -- something I know little about. So it's possible, but experts cost money and want a career. Unless Target is able to deliver that for their team, they will ultimately be investing in training for the next competitor that offers a dollar more per hour.

All good forward thinking steps, but none are innovative -- just catch-up to where Macy's needed to be aiming years ago. VR for furniture is already an old concept, but more importantly, the devil is in the details where a pilot and day-to-day deployment (requiring helmets) are vastly different scenarios. Mobile checkout again is not new (doesn't need to be) but the make or break point will be at the mobile checkout where delays/friction will offer no advantage over traditional checkout lines. Strange that Gennette is revamping the recently revamped loyalty program that he was personally touting at the start of the holiday season. What does that mean? Let's see what happens when talk meets reality....

I suggest reading the referenced Forbes article. It's reported that "Blue Cross plans will soon begin to provide “no cost” transportation via Lyft to customers of Walgreens Boots Alliance and CVS Health in certain markets." So it seems (?) per my comment, the pharmacies are getting a free ride too and have no reason not to take the windfall. Lyft just received another $200M in equity and "plans to use the funds towards manufacturing self-driving vehicles." So the pharmacies do seem to be the clear winners, with everyone else in a gray zone.