Comment by godelski

Comment by godelski 19 hours ago

  >  I wish they were sold in a store that I could just walk into and try them for a minute.

I've constantly wondered why this doesn't really exist. Not even just with AR or VR but with lots of products. I thought that early on in the transition to more online purchasing that it was well understood that people were still visiting stores so that they can inspect items before purchase. There always seemed to be a weird perverse incentive where for a given store their online prices would be cheaper than those in store. Combined with wider selection of sizes and styles, it felt weird not to buy online, especially if you were not in a major city. Employees would even tell you this! Themselves being unable to just handle the "online" sale for you (baffling...). Malls offered a lot more business value than just facilitating direct purchases. They do a lot to build brands, loyalty, and advertise to customers.

Being a lanky kinda guy I could never find clothes in my sizes in store but it was still quite helpful to see the difference between certain materials and would often lead to buying a more expensive version than another. Without the stores, it just seems to make a market of lemons[0], and I think that's kinda apt given general consumer frustration. You can't rely on reviews and you can't rely on images or even product descriptions...

How the fuck am I supposed to know what I'm buying?

My hypothesis is that some bean counters saw that sales were plummeting in stores and concluded that they should then close them. Having the inability to recognize that the purpose of the store had changed, despite them likely using the stores in the new fashion themselves. Hard to make effective decisions if the only viewpoint you have is that of a spreadsheet...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

20after4 18 hours ago

Several other factors probably pushing the bean counters:

  * Real estate in high-traffic areas, especially in malls (do those still exist?) can be extremely expensive.
  * With retail stores, shoplifting is the business's problem, after the switch to ecommerce, a lot of theft is shifted to being the customer's problem (porch pirates)
  * Customer service staff in the store are likely more expensive than outsourcing call centers and now AI is well on the way to cutting out most of those jobs.

So while I doubt they completely overlooked the value of a physical presence, they probably calculated that it's an acceptable tradeoff.

I think Apple does a really good job at blending their physical stores and their online business into a very seamless experience. Not many companies can operate at that level of excellence. Although I have many complaints about Apple's business practices, however, their retail stores and customer service experience are not among them.

Reply View 3 replies

godelski 17 hours ago

I'm quite aware that stores cost money. I'm not sure why you'd think I didn't.
I agree that Apple is doing it right and is kinda what I'm talking about. They do focus on the experience even though I'm sure most sales translate to online sales. They do understand that the physical presence generates many of these sales. It's not trivial to measure like direct sales but it is measurable.
I'll admit Apple has an advantage that it isn't a franchise (pretty sure?). But that doesn't mean the other companies couldn't adapt to the new environment. But clearly a lot of them failed due to this. The experience still matters to customers but if they don't have many choices they still gotta do what they gotta do

Reply View | 2 replies
- numpad0 3 hours ago
  
  Apple makes gobsmack amount of profit from both devices and gambling apps(they don't do games) that easily cover costs of demo units. It'll be harder if you only sell only one type of fancy low-volume gadget at $499.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- bbarnett 12 hours ago
  
  One thing I've noticed is that some stores are, as you ponder, indeed franchises.
  In some franchises, store owners get a vote on change. They also have no inventive or desire to be a mere showcase for purchases happening elsewhere, such as online.
  Combine this with a sometimes contracted inability for the company to "compete" with franchises, and you get some very weird behaviour.
  And the of course, as people and politics are involved, you may see non-optimal, status quo results from votes.
  It's only really been 15 years, since retailers have really seen a notable dive in store sales, and the last 5 years being the most harsh.
  Meatspace speed is slow. Most of the world's behaviour is ossified compared to people on HN.
  In other words, the Internet is fairly new. I think eventuality we'll see some stabilization here, over the next 10 years.
  An example...
  Used to be, before opening trade with China, that most cultery was made in the US. There were in fact 4 or 5 main manufacturers of cutlery.
  Once the cheap stuff came in, this all collapsed. All of them shut or went bankrupt.
  Yet out of the ashes one emerged, and I think a second now. The market was in such turmoil, sales collapsed so fast, that they all weakened at once.
  But at least one can exist.
  My point is, we're in this period of chaos now. It'll sort out I think.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

danparsonson 18 hours ago

> ...it was well understood that people were still visiting stores so that they can inspect items before purchase.

You have all the pieces but you're not putting them together.

Bricks and mortar stores cost money just to exist - rent, rates, staffing, etc. - and that's why they can't compete on price with online stores, which can just be giant warehouses with shipping. The online arms of some physical stores can benefit from the same economies as totally online businesses, leading to cheaper prices online even for companies with a physical presence.

How can a physical shop make any money if they are just treated as a gallery for browsing before the buyer heads to Amazon to get the item 10% cheaper? It's not bean counting, it's basic economics.

How the fuck are you supposed to know what you're buying, indeed - patronise physical businesses because you recognise the value in their existence, and understand that that's worth paying an additional premium for.

Reply View 3 replies

godelski 18 hours ago
> Bricks and mortar stores cost money just to exist
I understand this. I'm not sure why you think I don't. I thought it was a pretty obvious thing...
Reply View | 2 replies
- danparsonson 9 hours ago
  
  Because you said this:
  > I've constantly wondered why this doesn't really exist.
  and if you understand that real stores are more expensive to run than online stores, then the rest seems obvious?
  Places like that did exist in the past - they were the places we had to go to buy things. Online prices are lower so people bought online instead and drove most of them out of business.
  Perhaps I'm missing something?
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  godelski 4 hours ago
  
  > Perhaps I'm missing something?
  Is that you're being extremely insulting, I'm just not sure who you're insulting more. Me, believing I missed the most widely discussed and obvious component of cost. Or you, for thinking such a low level addition makes an actual contribution to the conversation. It's a conversation killer either way because you call me a moron and over value your analysis.
  You are missing that I've talked about how there's more business value than direct sales. You can easily infer from here that this means "the value outweighs the costs". What costs would those be? I think we all know the location costs money as well as the people who work there. These costs are such a universal experience it only makes me wonder about you? Do you not have a job or employ people? Do you not rent or pay a mortgage? Watch the news? Be on HN? Did you ever have a parent that worked, rented, or bought property? Family? Friend? These costs are literally at the core of our economy that people become failure with them as young children.
  Yes, you have to infer some things. I'll have to write so much more if the only message that can be conveyed is the direct literal translation of my words. Which I don't think you expect because you're using natural language and expecting me to do the same with you.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies