5 ms·

No checkouts, no chocolate: Online shopping hits impulse buys

30 points by Amadou 13y ago

malandrew 13y ago
Interestingly, I find that online shopping permits me to diversify my impulse buys to products I normally wouldn't ever have the option of buying. The chocolates and gum in supermarkets, convenience stores, and pharmacies are all the same 50 or so products everywhere you go, sold by the same half-dozen candy companies. Instead of getting these candies, I can instead buy more interesting candies and other foodstuffs that I've not yet tried or find hard to get. Online shopping is going to hurt the fat tip of the power-law distribution and move things out towards the tail. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an otaku of impulse candy buyers already out there or forming now, who focus on blogging and tweeting about more interesting candy than those at the fat tip of the curve.
- kaybe 13y ago
  I want to subscribe to one of those as soon as I have disposable income - http://skoshbox.com/ http://skoshbox.com/ / http://www.candyjapan.com/ http://www.candyjapan.com/ (sends you a box of japanese candy each month!)
  - Morgawr 13y ago
    Thank you for making me aware of that candyjapan service, it seems to be the greatest thing ever. Definitely going to subscribe!
    - icebraining 13y ago
      Coincidentally, its creator is also an HN user: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2745694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2745694
erichurkman 13y ago
On the flip side, online retailers have a much stronger opportunity to up-sell products -- they can up-sell on a per-product basis, whereas physical retailers are bound by shelf space to up-sell/cross-sell. Online can match products by consumer, too, and even do small A/B tests on pricing of individual items. That's powerful. Grocery stores have a much harder time price testing.
myhf 13y ago
In public, an impulse shopper might buy $3-$10 worth of chocolate and magazines, but in private they might buy $30-$100 worth of Kickstarter kipple.
kosma 13y ago
So basically, online shopping hits big food corporations because they can't exploit people's basic instinct to trick them into buying something they don't really need? That's actually a good thing.
snoonan 13y ago
I would think the upsell happens in email before, during the shopping experience, or completely after the online checkout is done, not during the checkout process. Upsell during checkout is kind of a grocery store concept. At least those is common in my industry. As it's hinted to at the end of the article, better consumer habit tracking and targeted discounted low friction shopping cart adds with would probably make up for a lot of what is lost trying to port real world shopping behaviors into online stores (an utterly different experience)
username42 13y ago
I think it is just a question of habit. When I started online shopping, I have reduced impulse buys (candies, ...). Now, I add them to the list.
onion2k 13y ago
"In Britain, the country where e-commerce is most popular, about 13 percent of people do all or most of their grocery shopping online. Yet this only accounts for 5 percent of overall spending, suggesting consumers spend more when they visit a store." I don't think you can draw that conclusion from the evidence. Perhaps the people who shop online are the ones who spend less - there isn't likely to be a linear relationship between spending and impulse buying, and people who spend less are possibly more likely to be the ones who go online first (no kids, relatively affluent, time poor seems a likely demographic). As someone who doesn't like being in a supermarket I went in, got what I needed, and got the hell out as fast as I could. I don't impulse buy because I'm focused on speed. I don't browse. When online shopping came along I was a very early adopter - I switched my supermarket brand choice so I could use it.
marquis 13y ago
"Companies most at risk are Mondelez International, Mars Inc and Nestle, the top three candy makers, soda makers like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, and magazine publishers like Time Warner and Hearst Corp." All companies that arguably are doing nothing for betterment of humanity. Perhaps this Internet fad is a good thing.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  If you think humanity would be better off without the occasional ice cold Coca-Cola, I think you don't understand much about humans. We don't work just to 'better ourselves' as philosophers and artists, we work to enjoy things in life. Maybe Coca-Cola doesn't do it for you, but everyone else who enjoys it isn't necessarily brainwashed.
  - marquis 13y ago
    When a bottle of coca-cola is cheaper than a bottle of water, yes I think that that company, out of many, deserves a little less market share.
    - wcummings 13y ago
      I strongly suspect this has more to do with bottle water being overpriced (you're paying for convenience). Also, who cares that coca cola is cheaper? Why is that "bad for humanity?"
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      But that's not what you said. You claimed Coca-Cola was doing "nothing for the betterment of humanity". The billions of dollars people spend on their products suggest they're either providing some benefit or have brainwashed their customers. I guess I have a little more faith in humanity than you do.
      - marquis 13y ago
        I urge you to step into a supermarket or corner store/dairy, in any country outside of an area of affluence. Are you familiar with the concept of Food Deserts? "Because of the Agriculture and Food policies soon people living in food deserts will have only a couple of food producers to choose from: Coca-Cola, Nestle, Kraft and Kellogg’s." http://saynotofoodwaste.org/2013/06/03/food-deserts/ http://saynotofoodwaste.org/2013/06/03/food-deserts/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

30 points by Amadou 13y ago

Interestingly, I find that online shopping permits me to diversify my impulse buys to products I normally wouldn't ever have the option of buying. The chocolates and gum in supermarkets, convenience stores, and pharmacies are all the same 50 or so products everywhere you go, sold by the same half-dozen candy companies. Instead of getting these candies, I can instead buy more interesting candies and other foodstuffs that I've not yet tried or find hard to get. Online shopping is going to hurt the fat tip of the power-law distribution and move things out towards the tail. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an otaku of impulse candy buyers already out there or forming now, who focus on blogging and tweeting about more interesting candy than those at the fat tip of the curve.

kaybe 13y ago
I want to subscribe to one of those as soon as I have disposable income - http://skoshbox.com/ http://skoshbox.com/ / http://www.candyjapan.com/ http://www.candyjapan.com/ (sends you a box of japanese candy each month!)
- Morgawr 13y ago
  Thank you for making me aware of that candyjapan service, it seems to be the greatest thing ever. Definitely going to subscribe!
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Coincidentally, its creator is also an HN user: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2745694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2745694

erichurkman 13y ago

On the flip side, online retailers have a much stronger opportunity to up-sell products -- they can up-sell on a per-product basis, whereas physical retailers are bound by shelf space to up-sell/cross-sell. Online can match products by consumer, too, and even do small A/B tests on pricing of individual items. That's powerful. Grocery stores have a much harder time price testing.

myhf 13y ago

In public, an impulse shopper might buy $3-$10 worth of chocolate and magazines, but in private they might buy $30-$100 worth of Kickstarter kipple.

kosma 13y ago

So basically, online shopping hits big food corporations because they can't exploit people's basic instinct to trick them into buying something they don't really need? That's actually a good thing.

snoonan 13y ago

I would think the upsell happens in email before, during the shopping experience, or completely after the online checkout is done, not during the checkout process. Upsell during checkout is kind of a grocery store concept. At least those is common in my industry. As it's hinted to at the end of the article, better consumer habit tracking and targeted discounted low friction shopping cart adds with would probably make up for a lot of what is lost trying to port real world shopping behaviors into online stores (an utterly different experience)

username42 13y ago

I think it is just a question of habit. When I started online shopping, I have reduced impulse buys (candies, ...). Now, I add them to the list.

onion2k 13y ago

"In Britain, the country where e-commerce is most popular, about 13 percent of people do all or most of their grocery shopping online. Yet this only accounts for 5 percent of overall spending, suggesting consumers spend more when they visit a store." I don't think you can draw that conclusion from the evidence. Perhaps the people who shop online are the ones who spend less - there isn't likely to be a linear relationship between spending and impulse buying, and people who spend less are possibly more likely to be the ones who go online first (no kids, relatively affluent, time poor seems a likely demographic). As someone who doesn't like being in a supermarket I went in, got what I needed, and got the hell out as fast as I could. I don't impulse buy because I'm focused on speed. I don't browse. When online shopping came along I was a very early adopter - I switched my supermarket brand choice so I could use it.

marquis 13y ago

"Companies most at risk are Mondelez International, Mars Inc and Nestle, the top three candy makers, soda makers like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, and magazine publishers like Time Warner and Hearst Corp." All companies that arguably are doing nothing for betterment of humanity. Perhaps this Internet fad is a good thing.

twoodfin 13y ago
If you think humanity would be better off without the occasional ice cold Coca-Cola, I think you don't understand much about humans. We don't work just to 'better ourselves' as philosophers and artists, we work to enjoy things in life. Maybe Coca-Cola doesn't do it for you, but everyone else who enjoys it isn't necessarily brainwashed.
- marquis 13y ago
  When a bottle of coca-cola is cheaper than a bottle of water, yes I think that that company, out of many, deserves a little less market share.
  - wcummings 13y ago
    I strongly suspect this has more to do with bottle water being overpriced (you're paying for convenience). Also, who cares that coca cola is cheaper? Why is that "bad for humanity?"
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    But that's not what you said. You claimed Coca-Cola was doing "nothing for the betterment of humanity". The billions of dollars people spend on their products suggest they're either providing some benefit or have brainwashed their customers. I guess I have a little more faith in humanity than you do.
    - marquis 13y ago
      I urge you to step into a supermarket or corner store/dairy, in any country outside of an area of affluence. Are you familiar with the concept of Food Deserts? "Because of the Agriculture and Food policies soon people living in food deserts will have only a couple of food producers to choose from: Coca-Cola, Nestle, Kraft and Kellogg’s." http://saynotofoodwaste.org/2013/06/03/food-deserts/ http://saynotofoodwaste.org/2013/06/03/food-deserts/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert