5 ms·

This is a terrible idea[see edit]. What incentive is there for any store to use this system when they're providing their data in a single easy to query location

This is a terrible idea[see edit]. What incentive is there for any store to use this system when they're providing their data in a single easy to query location? Brick and mortar stores have custom because of brand loyalty, a large part of brand loyalty is saying "I shopped around twice and both times x was cheaper, I'll assume x is always cheaper and use them". Now imagine if every time a consumer wanted something they would just type "product" on their PC and get told "product x is cheapest at: y". Boom, brand loyalty is gone, nobody would go to their "favourite" store any more because there would be no favourites. Yes, big stores like walmart and competitors compete on $0.01 (and openly advertise that they're $0.01 cheaper) but any store that isn't providing grocery type items doesn't, although maybe England is unique and in America it's different? I know that this idea would not work in England. edit: when I say terrible idea I mean it's deeply flawed and has serious drawbacks for a party involved. The idea would be great if nobody were to lose out; but then if that were the case this would have already happened.

eurleif 14y ago
But if you can build a critical mass, stores won't have much choice; if they don't submit their data, they'll lose out on lots of customers.
- timerickson 14y ago
  But they can't create critical mass without access to data from those stores. It's chicken and egg, and it's flawed in more ways than one.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  I don't see how it would ever get to a critical mass situation. The only stores that would take part are those already competing on price, big chain stores, stores that already take part in large price comparison sites. Again, maybe England is different, but we have this sort of thing here for large chains, there is a site called mysupermarket.co.uk that will take your shopping list and tell you which supermarket is cheapest. Why would a small store (the sort that aren't already engaged in this sort of thing) willingly signup to be pitched against their competitors in a race to the bottom? It's nonsensical. My mother shops at specific stores for specific goods because over the years of custom she has had a good experience with their pricing and service, she views the good experience she's had as justification for not shopping around, "they've always been good to me so spending time looking around at new shops to maybe save 2% isn't worth it" but if she could just type "umbrella" into a website and instantly be told which shop is the best for that item she'd no longer be loyal to that shop. Retail isn't the hackernews world of SaaS, people don't choose to spend an extra 20% every time because "it's a good brand", "the founders are good people", they choose primarily based on price and service is a small part of it, a part most people will sacrifice to save 10%.
  - the_bear 14y ago
    I must be missing something here, because I can't see any reason for a store to turn this down. They're getting a free inventory system, and they're being shown in local search results. The alternative is to pay for an inventory, and never have a chance to win the local search customers at all. Sure, some customers will go to Walmart instead of a locally owned business, but how does the local business benefit from not being in the search at all?
    - citricsquid 14y ago
      If there are 4 stores in the "local search" and you search for "DVD Player" and each of the 4 stores lists "DVD Player X" and 2 have it for $100, 1 has it for $120 and 1 has it for $80, where do you go? You go to the $80. As I explained in other comments, people currently shop based on expected value, they can't know for sure that shop x has the best pricing but they have been there before and got a good deal so they assume it will again provide them with a good deal. If the only concern when purchasing is "which has the lowest cost?" this app would mean that EVERY user of the app can have that question answered, currently in the real world the question is "does the potential saving justify the time investment of visiting every shop and finding out their pricing"? If there are 4 stores in the local area and you've previously bought a DVD player from store #2 for $100 and you want to buy another and you think $100 is around the best price you'll find you go to that store and purchase it; sure you didn't get the best price but was the POTENTIAL SAVING (which is entirely theoretical) worth the time investment to search out by visiting every store? This app would create a race to the bottom, it would be worse than online for retailers because shops are quite close together, the only "cost" to the customer is the effort required to get to the cheapest store, in any mall or shopping district that's probably a very short walk. With online stores you can compete on shipping, next day vs. 7 days even though the item costs $5 more? I'll take next day, but $5 more to save me walking 20 yards? Not going to happen. Local search would be great if you're the lowest cost retailer, otherwise it'd be a big problem.
wtvanhest 14y ago
Boom, brand loyalty is gone, nobody would go to their "favourite" store any more because there would be no favourites. You are assuming a store like walmart doesn't differentiate itself from other stores by having an easier return policy, or that target doesn't differentiate itself with a nicer store. If you could get 1 store to adopt this system, others may follow since they would be losing out to store 1. Would it take a while? Yes, Would it be really, really tough, yes. Has it happened before in other industries? Absolutely: Airlines, Hotels, Its happening with cars, carwoo. etc. etc. etc. So, while you may think it is a terrible idea, and it very well may be a terrible idea, it could also be a very achievable idea. To me, it is more like the steam engine concept. It may not happen exactly as the OP describes it, but my guess is it will happen in time no matter what. [added] for those that say no store will ever agree, that is a really bold assumption. You may be right, but if you just worked on getting 1 store in 1 industry online, then got a competitor, then got another one it could work.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  I might need to clarify my point, I don't mean companies like Target or Walmart that have huge numbers of outlets, these companies already compete on $0.01 differences, these companies (in England at least) already do the sort of thing the post describes. I'm talking about the "normal" stores, the ones that might have 1 or 2 locations in one city, or have 2 or 3 locations across the country, the stores that rely on brand loyalty and don't compete with their competitors on $0.01 difference. No small business would ever choose to compete on $0.01 price differences; the idea the OP is proposing would cause exactly this.
  - tobtoh 14y ago
    If you are giving them the inventory management software for free, that is a huge hook for cash strapped small businesses. And once your 'trojan horse' is installed, it's a lot easier to convince a small business owner to 'activate' the product sharing feature to gain an edge over other nearby businesses. And then as you said, once one business does it, the others follow so that they don't become disadvantaged. It would seem to me that the key to success is ensuring that your inventory management software is highly intuitive and easy to use for the time-poor business owners.
w1ntermute 14y ago
Exactly. I had this idea ages ago - ever since smartphones became ubiquitous, all the technological pieces have existed - it's just a matter of getting some competent engineers to put them all together. You could have all kinds of cool extensions, such as ordering ahead of time on your phone and having pick-up drive-thrus at big box stores and supermarkets, where payment could be taken care of automagically, via NFC. You could sort not just by price, but by price + time/distance from current location (the latter for gas costs) + tax, sort of like Hipmunk's "agony" sorting feature for airfare. You could make a shopping list and the app would optimize which stores to buy which items at, and in which order you should visit the stores, based on things like individual item costs, geographical locations of stores, opening/closing times, delaying of purchasing of frozen foods, etc. But retail outlets will never cooperate. They'll be the big losers here, as the last barriers to comparison shopping disappear and customer loyalty is replaced by the cold, hard facts.
jessepollak 14y ago
You bring up a very good point, and I don't really have a answer for it. I don't necessarily think that it completely ruins the idea though—bigger brands wouldn't suffer from the same problem and if you could get more than a few in, the momentum would start to build. To be honest though, this post was less about the idea and more about reflecting on thought of committing to a big idea at a young age. It's cool to see all these people giving real, and great, feedback on the idea, but I think that's kind of overlooking the idea. As many have said, there will always be huge ideas, and all ideas will always have problems—maybe that's why I don't yet feel comfortable committing a huge chunk of my life to just one. As the OP, I might get torn up for writing this, but I thought it was worth sharing.
damian2000 14y ago
Your assumption is that people buy based on price only. Far from it - they still have to physically go to the store to buy it and so many other factors then come into play. Are they familiar with the store? Does it have free parking? Is the service good? What is their return policy? I agree with your main point that small stores might not like such a system but then to assume that all buyers will make a decision based solely on price is flawed.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  If you're buying a $100 item (let's say a DVD player that a friend recommended) and you've always bought that item from a store previously because back when you first bought a DVD player you shopped around and found this shop had the best service and prices, it's not worth shopping around again because you're probably only going to save $5 or $10 and going to another 5 stores (which will take an hour because they're all over the town). You go to your favourite store because past experience dictates it's probably the best place. What if you're standing outside the store and decide to check out a service that will price check for you across EVERY store; you type in the item and it says "this item is $90 at store y" and you notice store y is just 2 doors away. What do you do, do you shop at your regular store or do you shop at the new one? The majority of people will go with the new one, it's stupid not to walk an extra 10 feet to save $10, the new store might even be better!
  - damian2000 14y ago
    Yeah I see your point. I can see this happening in large malls where there's shops selling the same products.
jenius 14y ago
Read the post, came back to look at hacker news comments knowing the most popular one would say "This idea sucks", was not disappointed. First sentence, boom. But hey you know you'll always get some constructive criticism no matter the idea, and that's definitely worth something.
- SkyMarshal 14y ago
  Fyi, your observation, while perhaps accurate, doesn't add much to the discussion without actually saying why you think the top post is right or wrong. That's actually a pretty good discussion when we just stop being meta and debate it.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  I would hope that I explained my own opposition to the idea enough that saying it sucked was okay. I understand that negativity isn't great but when it is backed with reasoning then it should be acceptable. Would it be preferred if nobody pointed out problems or is the problem my approach at explaining why I think the idea is bad?
AJ007 14y ago
I think the concept is inevitable, the problem is how do you get there? To some degree, Groupon's mobile app was supposed to do something similar, but on a more generalized basis. Here is what I would do (and yeah I've run my own business for many years, always easier said than done.) #1 Build this produce but make it specific to a specific retailer or chain. #2 For #1 to happen, the system needs to be pretty much "free to try" and seamless for the retailer. Think about that one real hard. #3 Build a checkout system where customers walk in to the store and walk out with the product. All sales happen electronically, payments through the application. #4 Now instead of "Walgreens App", "CVS App", etc, you consolidate the data in to one system. This sounds far fetched, but is very much the business model Google has employed. Tens of billions of dollars of customers flow through Google's platform. Google's method of consolidation include search algorithm "updates", opaque Adwords "quality score", moving Google Shopping from free to paid, and so on. If no one manages to accomplish #4, retailers will start doing it internally. To some limited degree, it is already being done. Accomplishing all of this could take a while. Whats certain is the US has a vast overcapacity in retail, and people waste too much time wandering through stores trying to find crap (and then there is the whole driving to stores thing for the rest of the non-urban areas.)
lotharbot 14y ago
Speaking as a consumer, I wouldn't expect to use this to find out which store is a penny cheaper. If I'm going for just one item, convenience of location trumps a penny; you gotta have a substantially better price to get me to go out of my way. If I'm going for a bunch of stuff, maybe this replaces grocery ads for letting me find the best prices overall or for finding specials, but next time I'm probably shopping wherever I got the best overall prices last time. At worst, on this front this app is equivalent to grocery ads from the store's perspective. Where it shines would be for something semi-obscure: "I need a plumbing snake" or "I need some fabric glue". Do they carry that at my grocery store? What about Wal-Mart? Where's the nearest specialty store that might have it? If I can just type the product in and know which stores have it, that saves me a ton of aggravation -- and might, as a byproduct, mean I do some other shopping at that store instead of my normal place.
- paulsutter 14y ago
  Perfect examples, thanks!
- citricsquid 14y ago
  There are a few examples of purchasing: 1. Heading to a grocery store with a list of items that you frequently buy that are priced at similar prices at every store. 2. Going to a store to purchase a specific item 3. Going to a store to find an item For case #1 it's most likely that you're shopping at a place that is already competing for the lowest price point (places like Walmart and Target) so this application would be useless to you; however these stores already engage in the sort of activity the OP discusses. For case #2 if it's an item you've purchased previously you probably have a "favourite" store, one that you used previously and had a good experience with so naturally you go to this store. If this is an independent store they might have the item for $5 more than another store of a similar type, but because you've used this store before and because it has always been cheaper on previous occasions you bet that extra $5 against the time investment of finding if it is cheaper elsewhere (which isn't guaranteed) and go with the "safe" option. If in case #2 you didn't have to consider your previous purchases, if you could just type in the product into your phone and be told (without doubt) that the product is $10 cheaper at a store across the street from your normal store most people would take that; it's $10 that would be saved by walking across the street, it would be stupid not to, right? So now you have a situation where in case #2 any store that stocks an item (HP Printer, for example) is required to stock it at the lowest price because if they don't and a competitor is within 2 blocks (the "distance of $10") people will just go there instead. So now where is the value to the retailer? They enable themselves to be pitted against their competitors, thus requiring they lower their margins and inevitably lose out to bigger stores that can work with lower margins. In example #3 the same situation occurs, you enter a store and locate the item that you want, enter it into your phone and get told exactly where it can be acquired and at what price; if the store that has it cheapest is 2 blocks away and the price difference is $15 why not go over to the other store and save the $15? That store just lost a sale because of the system. Almost everyone that I know (I'm not from a rich background) would absolutely walk over the street to save $15, that's a non-neglible amount of money to quite a large portion of consumers. Sure if every other store has the item cheaper but it's only $0.25 difference people probably aren't going to go to another store, but then it becomes a race to the bottom. Wonderful for the consumers, awful for the retailer. What incentive is there for a retailer to force themselves to reduce their own margins? Currently purchasing an item in a retail store is a gamble on whether or not you'll pay the lowest price (unless you spend time researching every stores pricing), stores make money because of this. Currently it's a matter of taking a consumer, showing them a product and convincing them to purchase, if this system existed it would have an extra step: convince them to purchase at that particular store.
paulsutter 14y ago
I think you're missing a key distinction here: - there are many items people buy on price and are willing to order online. Such items will gradually become unavailable in stores whether or not this idea is ever implemented. - there are also many items that people want immediately, and are not well suited for online ordering. This convenience makes them well suited to these local search capabilities, and this characteristic may overcome a good part of the resistance to share data. This distinction is crucial. It may not overcome the psychological resistance you mention, but it isn't obvious how serious that is or whether it can be overcome by system design. For example, you point out a key feature of this system which is the need for limited query capabilities and no downloading (cue debate on how possible that is). But you miss the real problem with the idea. System integration difficulties will prevent the system from achieving critical mass and broad coverage. It will be unreasonably painful for stores to join the system for extremely mundane reasons like file formats and the difficulty of mapping proprietary taxonomies. Offline retailers just won't have data as ready to integrate as online. Not impossible, but the sort of unrecognized under appreciated real challenge of the system.
- freshhawk 14y ago
  You have pointed out some of the other big problems but I disagree that any of them are "the real problem". The biggest problem, as the parent said, is that brick and mortar stores would be actively hostile to this idea.
  - paulsutter 14y ago
    Not if they specialize in items that are not well suited to mail order. The urban corner grocery doesn't compete on price with the supermarket 10 blocks away. Locality is the foundation of their business. I'm not saying that there are enough categories of items that are not well suited for mail order, and have a high degree of value based locality. But this is the central question for such a product. Retailers whose businesses are protected by locality won't be as reluctant as you imagine. Note that these will be the only successful local retailers over time anyway.
    - 14y ago
hef19898 14y ago
If you think it the other way round, you give local stores a way bundling together. and size sometimes matter. add some "buy over the internet" function with a partnership with local courrier services and you have a potential threat to the likes of wal-mart and even amazon. yes, amazon. Why so? because they are doing the same thing, more or less. the biggest advantage amazon has is logistics and range. but sometimes locality matters. I think there will be enough place for both approaches. But this idea will only work if you work out two things: sales for market penetration and to gain acceptance by local stores and logistics. Both issues aren't trivial but the idea certainly has potential, HUGE potential. In more than one way. I can imagine that as "your social and local amazon alternative". And the main benefit smaller stores have is a means to ultimately counter amazon in some way or the other. But again, convincing these stores, very hard, logistics, very hard. And that's exactly the reason why the potential is that big.
zobzu 14y ago
To be honest, while i trust customers telling me face to face, i don't trust the reviews. They're all polluted with fake data by now. Most stores don't even accept bad or medium reviews (except big ones like amazon, but those are plagued with PR companies making fake reviews) not saying the core of what you say is wrong, but it's difficult to apply in many cases these days.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ricardobeat 14y ago
> Now imagine if every time a consumer wanted something they would just type "product" on their PC and get told "product x is cheapest at: y" I don't know where you've been living, but this is already here, and that's exactly how I (and millions of others) buy more expensive stuff.

eurleif 14y ago

But if you can build a critical mass, stores won't have much choice; if they don't submit their data, they'll lose out on lots of customers.

timerickson 14y ago
But they can't create critical mass without access to data from those stores. It's chicken and egg, and it's flawed in more ways than one.
citricsquid 14y ago
I don't see how it would ever get to a critical mass situation. The only stores that would take part are those already competing on price, big chain stores, stores that already take part in large price comparison sites. Again, maybe England is different, but we have this sort of thing here for large chains, there is a site called mysupermarket.co.uk that will take your shopping list and tell you which supermarket is cheapest. Why would a small store (the sort that aren't already engaged in this sort of thing) willingly signup to be pitched against their competitors in a race to the bottom? It's nonsensical. My mother shops at specific stores for specific goods because over the years of custom she has had a good experience with their pricing and service, she views the good experience she's had as justification for not shopping around, "they've always been good to me so spending time looking around at new shops to maybe save 2% isn't worth it" but if she could just type "umbrella" into a website and instantly be told which shop is the best for that item she'd no longer be loyal to that shop. Retail isn't the hackernews world of SaaS, people don't choose to spend an extra 20% every time because "it's a good brand", "the founders are good people", they choose primarily based on price and service is a small part of it, a part most people will sacrifice to save 10%.
- the_bear 14y ago
  I must be missing something here, because I can't see any reason for a store to turn this down. They're getting a free inventory system, and they're being shown in local search results. The alternative is to pay for an inventory, and never have a chance to win the local search customers at all. Sure, some customers will go to Walmart instead of a locally owned business, but how does the local business benefit from not being in the search at all?
  - citricsquid 14y ago
    If there are 4 stores in the "local search" and you search for "DVD Player" and each of the 4 stores lists "DVD Player X" and 2 have it for $100, 1 has it for $120 and 1 has it for $80, where do you go? You go to the $80. As I explained in other comments, people currently shop based on expected value, they can't know for sure that shop x has the best pricing but they have been there before and got a good deal so they assume it will again provide them with a good deal. If the only concern when purchasing is "which has the lowest cost?" this app would mean that EVERY user of the app can have that question answered, currently in the real world the question is "does the potential saving justify the time investment of visiting every shop and finding out their pricing"? If there are 4 stores in the local area and you've previously bought a DVD player from store #2 for $100 and you want to buy another and you think $100 is around the best price you'll find you go to that store and purchase it; sure you didn't get the best price but was the POTENTIAL SAVING (which is entirely theoretical) worth the time investment to search out by visiting every store? This app would create a race to the bottom, it would be worse than online for retailers because shops are quite close together, the only "cost" to the customer is the effort required to get to the cheapest store, in any mall or shopping district that's probably a very short walk. With online stores you can compete on shipping, next day vs. 7 days even though the item costs $5 more? I'll take next day, but $5 more to save me walking 20 yards? Not going to happen. Local search would be great if you're the lowest cost retailer, otherwise it'd be a big problem.

wtvanhest 14y ago

Boom, brand loyalty is gone, nobody would go to their "favourite" store any more because there would be no favourites. You are assuming a store like walmart doesn't differentiate itself from other stores by having an easier return policy, or that target doesn't differentiate itself with a nicer store. If you could get 1 store to adopt this system, others may follow since they would be losing out to store 1. Would it take a while? Yes, Would it be really, really tough, yes. Has it happened before in other industries? Absolutely: Airlines, Hotels, Its happening with cars, carwoo. etc. etc. etc. So, while you may think it is a terrible idea, and it very well may be a terrible idea, it could also be a very achievable idea. To me, it is more like the steam engine concept. It may not happen exactly as the OP describes it, but my guess is it will happen in time no matter what. [added] for those that say no store will ever agree, that is a really bold assumption. You may be right, but if you just worked on getting 1 store in 1 industry online, then got a competitor, then got another one it could work.

citricsquid 14y ago
I might need to clarify my point, I don't mean companies like Target or Walmart that have huge numbers of outlets, these companies already compete on $0.01 differences, these companies (in England at least) already do the sort of thing the post describes. I'm talking about the "normal" stores, the ones that might have 1 or 2 locations in one city, or have 2 or 3 locations across the country, the stores that rely on brand loyalty and don't compete with their competitors on $0.01 difference. No small business would ever choose to compete on $0.01 price differences; the idea the OP is proposing would cause exactly this.
- tobtoh 14y ago
  If you are giving them the inventory management software for free, that is a huge hook for cash strapped small businesses. And once your 'trojan horse' is installed, it's a lot easier to convince a small business owner to 'activate' the product sharing feature to gain an edge over other nearby businesses. And then as you said, once one business does it, the others follow so that they don't become disadvantaged. It would seem to me that the key to success is ensuring that your inventory management software is highly intuitive and easy to use for the time-poor business owners.

w1ntermute 14y ago

Exactly. I had this idea ages ago - ever since smartphones became ubiquitous, all the technological pieces have existed - it's just a matter of getting some competent engineers to put them all together. You could have all kinds of cool extensions, such as ordering ahead of time on your phone and having pick-up drive-thrus at big box stores and supermarkets, where payment could be taken care of automagically, via NFC. You could sort not just by price, but by price + time/distance from current location (the latter for gas costs) + tax, sort of like Hipmunk's "agony" sorting feature for airfare. You could make a shopping list and the app would optimize which stores to buy which items at, and in which order you should visit the stores, based on things like individual item costs, geographical locations of stores, opening/closing times, delaying of purchasing of frozen foods, etc. But retail outlets will never cooperate. They'll be the big losers here, as the last barriers to comparison shopping disappear and customer loyalty is replaced by the cold, hard facts.

jessepollak 14y ago

You bring up a very good point, and I don't really have a answer for it. I don't necessarily think that it completely ruins the idea though—bigger brands wouldn't suffer from the same problem and if you could get more than a few in, the momentum would start to build. To be honest though, this post was less about the idea and more about reflecting on thought of committing to a big idea at a young age. It's cool to see all these people giving real, and great, feedback on the idea, but I think that's kind of overlooking the idea. As many have said, there will always be huge ideas, and all ideas will always have problems—maybe that's why I don't yet feel comfortable committing a huge chunk of my life to just one. As the OP, I might get torn up for writing this, but I thought it was worth sharing.

damian2000 14y ago

Your assumption is that people buy based on price only. Far from it - they still have to physically go to the store to buy it and so many other factors then come into play. Are they familiar with the store? Does it have free parking? Is the service good? What is their return policy? I agree with your main point that small stores might not like such a system but then to assume that all buyers will make a decision based solely on price is flawed.

citricsquid 14y ago
If you're buying a $100 item (let's say a DVD player that a friend recommended) and you've always bought that item from a store previously because back when you first bought a DVD player you shopped around and found this shop had the best service and prices, it's not worth shopping around again because you're probably only going to save $5 or $10 and going to another 5 stores (which will take an hour because they're all over the town). You go to your favourite store because past experience dictates it's probably the best place. What if you're standing outside the store and decide to check out a service that will price check for you across EVERY store; you type in the item and it says "this item is $90 at store y" and you notice store y is just 2 doors away. What do you do, do you shop at your regular store or do you shop at the new one? The majority of people will go with the new one, it's stupid not to walk an extra 10 feet to save $10, the new store might even be better!
- damian2000 14y ago
  Yeah I see your point. I can see this happening in large malls where there's shops selling the same products.

jenius 14y ago

Read the post, came back to look at hacker news comments knowing the most popular one would say "This idea sucks", was not disappointed. First sentence, boom. But hey you know you'll always get some constructive criticism no matter the idea, and that's definitely worth something.

SkyMarshal 14y ago
Fyi, your observation, while perhaps accurate, doesn't add much to the discussion without actually saying why you think the top post is right or wrong. That's actually a pretty good discussion when we just stop being meta and debate it.
citricsquid 14y ago
I would hope that I explained my own opposition to the idea enough that saying it sucked was okay. I understand that negativity isn't great but when it is backed with reasoning then it should be acceptable. Would it be preferred if nobody pointed out problems or is the problem my approach at explaining why I think the idea is bad?

AJ007 14y ago

I think the concept is inevitable, the problem is how do you get there? To some degree, Groupon's mobile app was supposed to do something similar, but on a more generalized basis. Here is what I would do (and yeah I've run my own business for many years, always easier said than done.) #1 Build this produce but make it specific to a specific retailer or chain. #2 For #1 to happen, the system needs to be pretty much "free to try" and seamless for the retailer. Think about that one real hard. #3 Build a checkout system where customers walk in to the store and walk out with the product. All sales happen electronically, payments through the application. #4 Now instead of "Walgreens App", "CVS App", etc, you consolidate the data in to one system. This sounds far fetched, but is very much the business model Google has employed. Tens of billions of dollars of customers flow through Google's platform. Google's method of consolidation include search algorithm "updates", opaque Adwords "quality score", moving Google Shopping from free to paid, and so on. If no one manages to accomplish #4, retailers will start doing it internally. To some limited degree, it is already being done. Accomplishing all of this could take a while. Whats certain is the US has a vast overcapacity in retail, and people waste too much time wandering through stores trying to find crap (and then there is the whole driving to stores thing for the rest of the non-urban areas.)

lotharbot 14y ago

Speaking as a consumer, I wouldn't expect to use this to find out which store is a penny cheaper. If I'm going for just one item, convenience of location trumps a penny; you gotta have a substantially better price to get me to go out of my way. If I'm going for a bunch of stuff, maybe this replaces grocery ads for letting me find the best prices overall or for finding specials, but next time I'm probably shopping wherever I got the best overall prices last time. At worst, on this front this app is equivalent to grocery ads from the store's perspective. Where it shines would be for something semi-obscure: "I need a plumbing snake" or "I need some fabric glue". Do they carry that at my grocery store? What about Wal-Mart? Where's the nearest specialty store that might have it? If I can just type the product in and know which stores have it, that saves me a ton of aggravation -- and might, as a byproduct, mean I do some other shopping at that store instead of my normal place.

paulsutter 14y ago
Perfect examples, thanks!
citricsquid 14y ago
There are a few examples of purchasing: 1. Heading to a grocery store with a list of items that you frequently buy that are priced at similar prices at every store. 2. Going to a store to purchase a specific item 3. Going to a store to find an item For case #1 it's most likely that you're shopping at a place that is already competing for the lowest price point (places like Walmart and Target) so this application would be useless to you; however these stores already engage in the sort of activity the OP discusses. For case #2 if it's an item you've purchased previously you probably have a "favourite" store, one that you used previously and had a good experience with so naturally you go to this store. If this is an independent store they might have the item for $5 more than another store of a similar type, but because you've used this store before and because it has always been cheaper on previous occasions you bet that extra $5 against the time investment of finding if it is cheaper elsewhere (which isn't guaranteed) and go with the "safe" option. If in case #2 you didn't have to consider your previous purchases, if you could just type in the product into your phone and be told (without doubt) that the product is $10 cheaper at a store across the street from your normal store most people would take that; it's $10 that would be saved by walking across the street, it would be stupid not to, right? So now you have a situation where in case #2 any store that stocks an item (HP Printer, for example) is required to stock it at the lowest price because if they don't and a competitor is within 2 blocks (the "distance of $10") people will just go there instead. So now where is the value to the retailer? They enable themselves to be pitted against their competitors, thus requiring they lower their margins and inevitably lose out to bigger stores that can work with lower margins. In example #3 the same situation occurs, you enter a store and locate the item that you want, enter it into your phone and get told exactly where it can be acquired and at what price; if the store that has it cheapest is 2 blocks away and the price difference is $15 why not go over to the other store and save the $15? That store just lost a sale because of the system. Almost everyone that I know (I'm not from a rich background) would absolutely walk over the street to save $15, that's a non-neglible amount of money to quite a large portion of consumers. Sure if every other store has the item cheaper but it's only $0.25 difference people probably aren't going to go to another store, but then it becomes a race to the bottom. Wonderful for the consumers, awful for the retailer. What incentive is there for a retailer to force themselves to reduce their own margins? Currently purchasing an item in a retail store is a gamble on whether or not you'll pay the lowest price (unless you spend time researching every stores pricing), stores make money because of this. Currently it's a matter of taking a consumer, showing them a product and convincing them to purchase, if this system existed it would have an extra step: convince them to purchase at that particular store.

paulsutter 14y ago

I think you're missing a key distinction here: - there are many items people buy on price and are willing to order online. Such items will gradually become unavailable in stores whether or not this idea is ever implemented. - there are also many items that people want immediately, and are not well suited for online ordering. This convenience makes them well suited to these local search capabilities, and this characteristic may overcome a good part of the resistance to share data. This distinction is crucial. It may not overcome the psychological resistance you mention, but it isn't obvious how serious that is or whether it can be overcome by system design. For example, you point out a key feature of this system which is the need for limited query capabilities and no downloading (cue debate on how possible that is). But you miss the real problem with the idea. System integration difficulties will prevent the system from achieving critical mass and broad coverage. It will be unreasonably painful for stores to join the system for extremely mundane reasons like file formats and the difficulty of mapping proprietary taxonomies. Offline retailers just won't have data as ready to integrate as online. Not impossible, but the sort of unrecognized under appreciated real challenge of the system.

freshhawk 14y ago
You have pointed out some of the other big problems but I disagree that any of them are "the real problem". The biggest problem, as the parent said, is that brick and mortar stores would be actively hostile to this idea.
- paulsutter 14y ago
  Not if they specialize in items that are not well suited to mail order. The urban corner grocery doesn't compete on price with the supermarket 10 blocks away. Locality is the foundation of their business. I'm not saying that there are enough categories of items that are not well suited for mail order, and have a high degree of value based locality. But this is the central question for such a product. Retailers whose businesses are protected by locality won't be as reluctant as you imagine. Note that these will be the only successful local retailers over time anyway.
  - 14y ago

hef19898 14y ago

If you think it the other way round, you give local stores a way bundling together. and size sometimes matter. add some "buy over the internet" function with a partnership with local courrier services and you have a potential threat to the likes of wal-mart and even amazon. yes, amazon. Why so? because they are doing the same thing, more or less. the biggest advantage amazon has is logistics and range. but sometimes locality matters. I think there will be enough place for both approaches. But this idea will only work if you work out two things: sales for market penetration and to gain acceptance by local stores and logistics. Both issues aren't trivial but the idea certainly has potential, HUGE potential. In more than one way. I can imagine that as "your social and local amazon alternative". And the main benefit smaller stores have is a means to ultimately counter amazon in some way or the other. But again, convincing these stores, very hard, logistics, very hard. And that's exactly the reason why the potential is that big.

zobzu 14y ago

To be honest, while i trust customers telling me face to face, i don't trust the reviews. They're all polluted with fake data by now. Most stores don't even accept bad or medium reviews (except big ones like amazon, but those are plagued with PR companies making fake reviews) not saying the core of what you say is wrong, but it's difficult to apply in many cases these days.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ricardobeat 14y ago

> Now imagine if every time a consumer wanted something they would just type "product" on their PC and get told "product x is cheapest at: y" I don't know where you've been living, but this is already here, and that's exactly how I (and millions of others) buy more expensive stuff.