advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

Amazon’s Supply Chain Kicking The SKUs Out Of Walmart’s

Written by Evan Schuman
June 19th, 2013

After some 19 years of struggling with E-Commerce, Walmart (NYSE:WMT) is once again learning that managing a merged channel retail strategy is almost never going to beat a well-run pureplay e-tailer like Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) when it comes to online sales. Was reminded of this point courtesy of a wonderful stat in a Wall Street Journal story that ran Wednesday (June 19), which compared Amazon and Walmart’s supply chain costs: “Wal-Mart’s online shipping can cost $5 to $7 per parcel, while Amazon averages $3 to $4 per parcel, analysts say—a big difference considering some of Wal-Mart’s popular purchases are low-cost items like $10 packs of underwear.”

There are many factors behind those numbers, but it really comes down to the fact that Walmart’s massive global supply chain needs to support more than 4,000 physical stores—a feat that Amazon need not worry about.

Given that huge physical burden, Walmart’s costs are quite impressive. But no one ever said that fighting against a pure play was particularly fair.

Like all major chains, Walmart initially had two choices. Run the chain as one big happy merged channel family or separate and run online and offline as separate companies.

Neither approach is perfect. The single-happy-family strategy means that online would always play second fiddle to physical stores, which are certainly likely to generate far more revenue for quite a few more years. The separate-but-equal strategy—which is what Walmart deployed—puts online in the unenviable position of having to compete with its physical counterparts. That competition is officially for corporate resources and attention, but there have been plenty of instances of offline-online conflicts in the stores during deployments.

As the Journal reminds us—citing Internet Retailer stats—Walmart has yet to even get close to catching up to Amazon. In 2012, the paper said, Amazon posted Web sales of $61 billion, compared to an estimated $7.7 billion for Wal-Mart.

The supply chain, which ironically has been the weapon Walmart has historically used to destroy legions of physical retail rivals, is where Amazon has an amazing edge. There is no strategy that makes sense for Walmart’s E-Commerce group to create its own duplicate supply chain. It really needs to leverage the physical chain’s supply chain, which means absorbing its costs.

What Walmart can do—and is indeed trying to do—is flip the model. It wants to draw people into its stores, where the Web will provide infinite inventory. This requires a huge rethinking of the store experience. Given Walmart’s borderline self-service environment—where most, if not the overwhelming majority, of shopping trips involve no interactions with associates—it’s going to be difficult to guide shoppers into a different kind of experience.

Mobile is the likely answer. The more shoppers look to their mobile devices—and, hopefully, the Walmart app they have already installed—to act as a virtual associate guiding them through their trip, the easier it will be to integrate online into the purchase plans.

In short, Amazon has a single-minded, focused online-only supply chain that Walmart simply can never match. But Walmart has thousands of stores—in almost every neighborhood—that Amazon can never hope to match.

Amazon is pushing its same-day delivery approach—for that matter, so is Walmart—as a way to combat the immediacy of the local store.

That may push some sales, but it can never truly compete with a well-stocked convenient store with pleasant and helpful associates. (OK, that last part has never been Walmart’s store strength, but still…)

This will come down to whether Amazon or Walmart (sort of a Goliath Versus An Even Bigger Goliath story) will leverage its advantage better. Walmart’s technology deployments and acquisitions make it look promising, but it’s efforts thus far at getting its stores to be anything beyond local stores—remember its disastrous local Facebook site effort?—have been lackluster.

There’s also the question of what the objective of Walmart online should be. Should it be the world’s dominant commerce-Commerce site? Or would its efforts be better spent on boosting revenue and profit for all of Walmart? Might it deliver more profits by having a modest online site and using technology to boost store profits?


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

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!
advertisement

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...

StorefrontBacktalk
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.