Can Google Get Chains To Solve The $10 Delivery Ceiling?

Written by Frank Hayes
March 6th, 2013

Google’s same-day delivery service for retailers will reportedly have an Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) Prime-like twist: a fixed annual price. That could open up a wide range of options for chains, including retailers paying the yearly fee (expected to be between $65 and $70) for favored loyalty customers. That, in turn, might make the delivery service financially viable for Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) and retailers.

Google has been testing a same-day delivery service since last fall with several chains, limited to employees and a small number of other testers. The big problem is the one that all same-day efforts in the U.S. have faced: Even affluent customers won’t pay more than $10 per delivery.

A study of 1,500 consumers released on Tuesday (March 5) by the Boston Consulting Group found that all but the most affluent consumers are only willing to pay $6 at most for same-day delivery of an order. Young, urban consumers with household incomes over $150,000 will go as high as $10.

That closely matches what delivery company Shutl, which just started doing deliveries in the U.S., has found in the U.K.: London retailers subsidize a typical £10 delivery and only charge customers £6, or about $10. The main difference: Most U.S. consumers appear to be even less willing to pay. That pretty well guts the business model most chains were hoping for.

But Google reportedly plans to try a different tack. TechCrunch reported on Monday (March 4) that Google will charge an annual fee, like the $79 charge for Amazon’s Prime service for presumably unlimited deliveries from major retailers it has partnered with. No specific chains were identified by TechCrunch as being signed up, but the site speculates that Google could use an expanded version of the Toronto-based BufferBox service that Google acquired in November to cut the cost of deliveries.

Yes, that makes sense—or it would, if Google’s delivery service had enough customers to make its knockoff of Amazon Lockers worth the cost. But Google doesn’t, and installing all those lockers would be highly speculative even for Google.

On the other hand, a membership-type service with a fixed annual fee would make possible a steady revenue stream for Google. And with a low-enough fee, chains might be willing to cough up for memberships for large numbers of its loyalty customers as a membership benefit (and also a way to compete with the dreaded Amazon, even though the E-tail goliath claims its own same-day delivery trials aren’t aimed at stores).

Is that Google’s plan? We don’t know, but it certainly sounds more interesting than yet another pay-by-the-delivery service. As everyone from eBay (NASDAQ:EBAY) and Amazon to Walmart (NYSE:WMT) and the U.S. Postal Service has discovered, same-day delivery is either very expensive or very hard or both—and it’s going to take a lot more trial and error before anyone figures it out.


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.