It ain't your father's corner grocery store any more -- nor is it the bigger grocery chains' store. What's going to be important is what the stores will carry to suit the need/demand in their particular area -- size and content will be determined by the same criteria.
It takes Babies "R" Us's well-known branding into action mode ("Be Prepared-ish") which could be helpful. But for me, anything with the suffix "ish" sounds wISHy washy and diminISHes the image. Action to help? Yes. But also to encourage videos of "messy" moments? Not for me -- but then I'm not their audience.
The BrainTrust respondents to this question seem unanimous in their perceptive respective comments. The question was also answered in the body of George's article: "Each company is hoping to attract new customers and gain insights they can use to attract similar shoppers on their own." Great sign of Neiman Marcus's (and Rent The Runway's) acuity to stay current and modern and creative and relevant and forward-looking.
I am surprised that retailers (except declared "every day low pricers") continue to fall for the price-match offerings. It is a way to get people into your store that might not otherwise come, and if your other prices are not price matches and you sell additional products in your store, you may come out ahead. But if it's price match on every other item, you're going to lose. Clients such as those we serve (Retail Intelligence) have come to realize that price optimization is the answer. More retailers will adopt this scientific approach when they see its logic and benefits.
My BrainTrust colleagues' eloquent responses say it all. The ONLY scary part is what CAN'T Amazon do? Does anyone worry about Amazon's all-encompassing existence? Maybe we'll soon be hearing "Amazon for President"!
Really? Alcohol in supermarkets? Bookstores, maybe? Education on wine pairing and cooking make sense. But who checks the I.D.s? Where are the kiddies? I understand the principle of loosening up the shopper and providing an experience, but alcohol lowers inhibitions as well as impairs driving, so there may be more impulse items in the shopping cart (or get dates for some), but why do I, not a prude by any means, feel uncomfortable with these prospects?
Function rules the game, as Ralph Jacobson and others already states. I'd like to add another "f" to the list — "Follow." After we older persons see enough young people using the devices (as we did with iPhone, Facebook, etc., etc.), we will follow and adopt and use them. It has nothing to do with fashion, a lot to do with function, and finally adoption without looking back has to do with "following."
As technology does more and more and the Internet of Things evolves, and as more people have their noses in their devices and there is less and less personal contact socially and in stores, there will be a demand for more personalization and specialization -- less hassle to figure out where, when and how to search for my size, color, styles I like. Better to have them curated or selected for me -- that is, I see this as a retailer's and customer's dream -- if I can afford it.
Does the difference between "frontline male workers" and "women in every occupational category" INCLUDE "frontline female workers and executives"? There must be comparable studies on this for the U.S. I thought we were past this. Is it because of Canadians' politeness, i.e., the little woman being treated differently -- as in, less than male counterparts?