Wal-Mart Using FedEx As Extension Of Its Stores

Written by Evan Schuman
October 14th, 2010

Wal-Mart, the 8,000-pound gorilla in retail with 4,300 U.S. stores, finds itself in an awkward position in many urban areas—its stores are few, and resistance is strong. One of Wal-Mart’s more creative responses to this problem was rolled out Wednesday (Oct. 13): Give E-Commerce customers free shipping (no minimum required) and let them pick up the order at a local FedEx office, which in an urban area is probably a lot closer than a Wal-Mart store.

The program, called FedEx Site to Store (every so often, marketers throw us a curve and go for WYSIWYG naming. PayPal did something similar last week), has been piloted by Wal-Mart for months in Los Angeles and Boston, and this new move sharply expands the trial to New York, San Francisco, Chicago and Washington, D.C.

Wal-Mart also extended a related trial called Pick Up Today, which is little more than a modification of buy-online-pickup-instore. For many consumers, it will feel identical, but the difference is that they will be accessing store—instead of online—inventory. Compared with the FedEx approach, this has the advantage of enabling customers to buy other stuff while at Wal-Mart. Sending a customer to a FedEx ship station has no upsell potential.

That’s why the “pick up at FedEx” is the more interesting move. By marrying that option with free shipping, Wal-Mart truly is leveraging FedEx’s locations as extensions of itself. The retailer gains a local point of presence where city officials won’t allow one. Wal-Mart is likely making sales where it wouldn’t have otherwise. And there’s an excellent chance that many of those shoppers might then migrate to full E-Commerce customers and pay to have items shipped directly to their homes.

Even though this move seems to be clever, the chain couldn’t resist pushing its claims a bit. One PR person for the company was E-mailing the following Wal-Mart quote to reporters: “It’s worth noting that our Site to Store service has saved customers hundreds of millions in shipping fees since its launch in 2007.”

Not necessarily. That statement assumes that all of the site-to-store customers would have placed their orders and paid shipping had the program not existed, as opposed to the more likely scenario that many of them would have simply obtained the ordered item elsewhere or forgotten about it entirely. In that case, they could have saved the purchase price, too!


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.