It makes sense for FMCG brands to go D2C in specific conditions. A good example would be highly personalized products with repeat purchase potential. It can be financially viable if it creates loyalty that makes customer lifetime value much higher than the cost of acquisition and of servicing the customer. Relevant categories could be hair care, cosmetics, face care, shaving and baby products. For impulse products this model is less likely to work.

New technologies evolving alongside higher penetration of smartphones, the use of mobile apps and more advance sensors inside newer phone models -- all these enable retailers more easily analyze location and target audiences. Retailers can get via use of these technologies many insights that few years ago were more difficult to obtain, such as foot traffic volume, sources and destinations, which other stores are visited by the same consumers/shoppers, how often they visit the vicinity of the store, media consumption, demographics, social media activity, income level and more. Contrary to the claim that the the distance between winners and laggards related to location analytics will grow, I believe that the more mature, affordable and readily available technologies will cause this distance to decrease and will cause wider usage of location analytics.

UGC is a great opportunity for every retailer to better engage with consumers and shoppers. Retailers should encourage generating content and have in place technologies to facilitate it, including videos, photos and text. B&M retailers can get a lot of insights about their brand, service level and customers satisfaction, down to a single store level. There are in the market automated solutions to facilitate and track insights from UGC. A great example is Revuze.it that turns UGC into powerful actionable insights.

AI is becoming a fundamental piece of any marketing automation and prediction model. So it only makes sense that it will be used also to determine the right location for expansion. However, I’m not sure this is the most suitable task for AI. Using big data methodologies by humans may yield better results since some of the data streams would be subjective and inconsistent. Furthermore, planning path to opening new locations is a long-term planning project, and not real-time operational analysis. The speed of AI doesn’t necessarily have much value in this type of project.

Usage and adoption of AI-driven shopping curation is growing and the trend will continue the more confident consumers become with technology making simple and less-simple decisions for them. Indeed it is also a generational issue. It is interesting to see the different attitudes of different generations. While Boomers are happier to get help finding things they wouldn't consider, and don't look at narrowing the selection as a good thing, Millenials understand the value of narrower selection and are less afraid of "missing out." One of the reasons for the success of DTC companies like Casper is that it gives fewer options to consumers and helps them decide. Consumers generally seek convenience and once they try and see that AI works well and delivers similar or better results than they would have gotten without it, they will join the trend.

Same-day delivery is becoming a standard for retailers and they need a good execution partner to do it, otherwise costs are prohibitive. Since Sam’s is developing its online business they should have same-day delivery, but it looks more like a defensive move to match competition offerings. Walmart is testing different methods of last-mile delivery and most likely Instacart's cooperation with Sam’s can serve as a pilot to compare to other options.

Speed, simplicity, convenience, relevance, wide selection, good deals and less aggravation are what shoppers want. Retailers that will embrace technologies to deliver (note the double meaning) on these vectors will win. To mention few relevant strategies, most still have not reached their "Tipping Point" -- personalized offers, frictionless checkouts, endless aisles, BOPIS, buy in-store with home delivery, multidimensional dynamic pricing, empowering store employees with technology, delivering more value via store mobile app (navigation, proximity promos, handling returns).

This is a good move from Amazon that will benefit both Whole Foods and Amazon with more loyal customers and more data. The only downside is the high cost of this move that sacrifices significant parts of the margin. There may be a cheaper way to achieve the same objectives -- to personalize discounts based on shopper profile, purchase history and tier.

The right way to use location-based promotions is to target shoppers that downloaded the store mobile app and opted in to get promotions. Proximity promotions in store via mobile app can be very efficient and well-accepted by shoppers, especially if they are personalized and relevant based on purchasing history and location near the specific shelf. Unsolicited location-based promotions driven by cellular providers without shopper consent are not a good idea.

Both Instacart and Shipt specialize in last-mile delivery and have adequate financial resources to support developing and rolling out their services. The key point to win in my opinion is using advanced technologies to improve the operations from online ordering (e.g. notifying shoppers that an item is out of stock when they are ordering to avoid the need to replace it), to improving pick and pack using technology to collect faster and identify SKUs, to optimizing wayfinding and using AI to improve routing and delivery slotting efficiency.

It seems like a tactical move to more efficiently sell or rather get rid of excess stock that is unavoidable in the fast fashion business. Since excess stock directly impacts profitability this move makes sense.

In China alignment with brick-and-mortar retailers is a part of Alibaba's strategy, mainly to drive their Alipay and other related technology and possibly gain more physical stores to improve last-mile delivery. Obviously Alibaba's online capabilities and advanced technologies combined with Kroger's physical assets could lead to interesting cooperation. However given Alibaba's currently small foothold in both offline and online retail in U.S. markets, it is uncertain if this alliance can really become a rival to the duopoly of Amazon and Walmart.

The "cashless" approach is obviously here to stay. It is not only about cashless, but rather about seamless checkout, paying via an app or seamlessly via face recognition technology, etc. If you want to see the future of cashless payments just look at China, where already the majority of payments in restaurants, and in any type of store including street stalls, are made by scanning a barcode on the consumer's phone or by face recognition charging a consumer's virtual wallet. The West is far behind China in the adoption of these payment schemes mainly because of lack of a standardized payment platform such as WeChat that has in China over 400 million active users who use their mobile wallet to buy anything from food to plane tickets.

I'm not sure I understand what "platform thinking" is and how is it connected to the examples above, however the way to compete and survive is to create competitive advantage in the specific niche in which you operate. Create a better customer experience, provide better service, offer multichannel purchasing opportunities, seamless payment process and generally aim to make customers "love" shopping at your stores whether online or off-line.

Mobile commerce is mainly about UX/simplicity of use and about trusting the retailer/brand that owns the app. We can look at China, where mobile payment already became the mainstream channel, as the future of m-commerce. It happens because of WeChat -- which is trustworthy and simple to use. To improve conversion retailers should improve their UX but also create mobile specific incentives that will make shoppers buy on mobile -- even small baskets at the beginning which will help them trust the system and try it again with a larger purchase.