This is page 2 of:

Target’s Showrooming Futility: It Should Be Winning But It’s Not

January 25th, 2012

The rest of the memo discusses “a differentiated guest-focused assortment,” plus the usual retail supplier request for tightening margins.

Differentiation is great. But in the context of the memo, differentiation is not being used to offer better products for consumers as much as it’s being used to frustrate consumer attempts to price and product compare.

Not only is showrooming a battle where Target can win without such tactics, but the battle will be getting even easier. Amazon’s various sales tax concessions have created a situation where it will be charging all customers sales tax in less than a year, with some states happening much sooner. And when Amazon folds it sales-tax-avoidance tent, so will just about all other major E-tailers.

Therefore, not only will E-purchases typically have the burden of shipping costs and delivery delays, along with the lack of an easy return mechanism, but their current tax-holiday advantage is also evaporating.

The real question that Target needs to address is how it is losing customers who are already in its stores. Target’s prices are generally quite aggressive, so it’s not as though there is usually a huge price difference with Amazon. Even a long checkout line doesn’t explain it. How could a consumer be impatient enough to not accept a checkout lane but simultaneously be patient enough to wait 3 to 6 days for home delivery?

Even the Amazon gambit that Target and others have attacked as pure showrooming—the multi-day mobile price-scan effort from last month—really wasn’t much of an attack. It was more successful at sending its customers into the open POS arms of brick-and-mortars coast-to-coast.

Target’s memo identified the issue, but glossed over it: “Create a superior guest experience.” That’s arguably what JCPenney is trying to do with the store makeovers it announced Wednesday (Jan. 25). JCPenney’s approach—which will take years to complete—is to remake its stores as a maze of 100 different Sephora-like in-store shops, along with a heavy dose of Apple-Store-like customer service.

It turns out those Sephora shops inside JCPenney stores move far more merchandise per square foot than the rest of the store—and without Penney’s typical discounting, even though all the goods are also available online. No wonder that looks attractive. It’s the perfect solution to the showrooming problem: Sephora gets customers to come in for the whole customer experience, and then to walk out the door with products in hand. No one, it seems, has to keep those customers from checking for bargains online.

There’s no way of knowing whether JCPenney can actually spread that formula to every department, or whether trying to capture some of the Apple Store design magic will work, either. And even if JCPenney can make it work, that might not be something Target can adopt.

Still, if a Target customer felt comfortable with the friendly, helpful and expert associates just a few feet away at the store, do you think Amazon or would have a chance at that sale? Let alone or


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.