Amazon has been doing this in parts of Germany since 2009. The results haven't been nearly as dramatic as the article predicts. As others have indicated, the limiting factor isn't so much speed of delivery as the inclination to physically inspect items before buying them. That said, Zappos, now a part of Amazon, has succeeded in doing that in one of the markets that tends the most towards such. Even so, there are still a lot of places to buy shoes.
When Zappos first came out I thought they'd tank. I purchase new basketball/running shoes every 6months, and never ever make a new purchase without trying it on. Playing basketball or running with an even slightly uncomfortable shoe can lead to blistering, back problems, ankle sprains, etc.
But my gf at the time thought it was brilliant. What I learned was that a lot of women's shoes are purchased based on anything except comfort. The quality can be shoddy, the wear can cause excruciating pain, yet some top brands sell for hundreds and even thousands a pair. Swing by the Nordstrom's women's shoe dept sometime and take a look at the quality of build. Eavesdrop a bit and take inventory of the questions the clients ask about. (Zappos is started by a bunch of ex-Nordy folks).
To this day I've only purchased 1 pair of shoes on Zappos, and that's after I had bought it previously at the dept store (New Balance 993, imo best shoes for walking/running in case you're wondering).
Yes. The build quality of women's shoes is astoundingly bad. Sometimes I look at them and they literally feel like glued on piece of leather, pretty on the outside, and nothing more.
It's interesting how two different markets have developed (men's shoes and women's shoes) that have such different parameters. Men's shoes have outstanding build quality --- to the point where a good pair of quality shoes gets resoled multiple times. Do women ever resole shoes?
I wouldn't say it was "bad". Women's shoes are designed with fashion and daintiness in mind. They seem flimsy because they are flimsy, and they are flimsy because well crafted, long lasting shoes are big and burly with lots of material and stitching. This goes counter to the point of the shoes: to look trim and to make the woman's foot look small and pretty.
This maybe a bit impractical by todays social norms but I don't think anyone has ever thought of carbon-fibre footwear combined with leather cushions. I'm reasonably sure that this will be light and strong.
We only need comfort testing, but I think the flip-side would be that womens shoes would cost upward of $200-$300 equivalent. I don't know if there's a market for that.
I would think when you are spending ++$ to look fashionable, you really don't want the shoes to last. Wearing three year old 'fashionable' shoes would sort miss the point, no?
I think you've unknowingly nailed the problem. Unlike men, womens' fashion moves at a very rapid pace. So for long term, it'd be more prudent to buy something timeless rather than the current trend.
WOW! I am so out of touch with these high end shoe prices. Suddenly, my idea doesn't seem that far-fetched after all.
Except, I know of not many women who'd like the carbon fibre look. I guess, designer labels...
This isn't just true for women's shoes, but women's clothing in general. I don't understand the reasons, but men's clothing tends to be made with less design and more durability.
A fashioner designer once told me he made the men's clothing first, then crafted the women's clothing out of its leftovers + some embellishments.
Women's fashion changes quickly, so if she keeps up she may only be wearing whatever it is for a single season. It doesn't make sense to make something durable if it's only going to be worn a handful of times.
Men's fashions change much more slowly, and within much narrower parameters. It actually makes sense to spend a few grand on a suit that you're going to wear to work every week for a couple years, and it has to be pretty well made to last that long.
The hipster doofus stuff is as shoddy as women's wear and for the same reasons.
This is so true. My SO purchases clothes that are made from terrible materials, with stitching that falls apart.
Womens shoes exclusively seem capable on only lasting 6 months of regular wear. Everything from straps, buckles, soles and innersoles seem to fall apart.
The ultimate insult in all this is that they always cost more than the equivalent male version. The only exceptions to this are where the two items are equivalent (ie mens/womens levis, mens/womens running shoes).
I don't like buying clothes unless they're made from natural fibres/materials. It's cotton, wool + leather for me. For a woman, it's virtually impossible to stick to a rule like this.
I guess it's all about the fashion and style, and they aren't expected to last due to the built-in obsolescence of womens fashion.
For an easy anecdote, just walk into any Forever 21. The clothes are extremely thin, with bad stitching, and made from materials that aren't durable at all.
Stereotypically, because men tend to care less about clothing, fashion and the like, and so want clothes they can wear for a long time, while women worry more about changing fashion trends and wear clothes for relatively shorter periods of time.
Well from my own personal experience. When I go out to buy shoes, I look at things like durability, ruggedness, comfort. The shoes must be long lasting and one must be able to wear them for long hours without feeling uncomfortable.
Most girls I know don't have that criteria. The first and foremost criteria for them is they must fashionable, good looking, must match with their dress etc. Given this use case, there is only so much you can do for things like durability and ruggedness. Because you need to make them colorful, with some deigns etc.
There are plenty of poor quality men's shoes. Go to H&M or any similar "fashionable" retailer and pick up some low cost shoes. They'll have terrible thin rubber soles and fall apart within weeks.
Similarly, there are plenty of high quality women's shoes.
I'd probably agree that more men buy high quality shoes. In my experience men on average tend to put less emphasis on style over function, and so that does inevitably lead to functional (well made) shoes.
Men usually have fewer shoes than women. Some men can get away with 2 pairs: dress shoes and daily wear. --I used to be that way, until I started working out and then was cajoled into diversifying a bit. But even today I have one pair that gets used probably 75%+ of the time, and they're definitely of higher quality than a lot of shoes I see people wearing.
I see multiple comments from men here about how women they know buy impractical clothing and shoes that are poorly made and don't last well. I'm happy to report that whatever the general pattern is, there are happy exceptions. Some women I know (for example my wife) and some girls I know (for example my daughter) seek out clothing and shoes that are well made and hold up to heavy use in outdoor exercise. Just the other day, my wife asked for advice among a Facebook private group of mutual friends about good garments to wear while bicycling that are also suitable business wear for teaching piano lessons (her occupation). She loves to bike to the homes of clients (her preferred location for delivering lessons) whenever she can, year-round. She invented her own outfit built out of clothing items she already had after receiving advice from friends to "buy [Brand X]" or "buy [Brand Y]." She takes a hacker's approach to clothing and fashion, and tests the boundaries of what is possible with the resources and constraints that she likes.
We both like taking walks or bicycle rides together. I ask her for advice about shoes for both purposes.
P.S. When I lived in Seattle in the very early 1990s, I was told that Nordstrom's was known as "Rent-a-Shoe," because the generous return policy at that department store meant that a woman could buy a pair of shoes to attend a fashionable party, wear the shoes just once, and then return them without hassle to the store. I don't know what current policies are at Nordstrom's, but it does seem that fashionable shoes for occasional use have long been a mainstay of the store's business.
It's also worth pointing out that many men make their decisions on factors other than comfort. I'm currently wearing some Cons that are falling apart only a year after I bought them, and I've probably only worn them 1/3 of the time I've had them. I get blisters if I walk too far, they're a pain to take on and off, but they look awesome and I'll probably be getting another pair.
Well, part of the reason I got them and part of the reason they're hurting my feet is that they are completely flat soled, with almost no cushioning. I'm transitioning quite well to a mid-step gait when walking, and eventually I want to be running mid-step or on the ball, rather than toe to heel.
I scanned the thread and surprised no one mentioned the reason I use Zappos so much:
Free returns.
When buying a new model of shoe, I order at least 2, sometimes up to 4 different sizes. Try them all on, then sent back the ones that didn't fit. This has a few downsides: slight hassle of printing shipping labels and dropping off at UPS, as well as the capital outlay of paying for all those shoes. But to me, this is so vastly preferable to dragging myself to a mall or a department store that it's not even a contest.
I wouldn't recommend this for higher end shoes however, anything above $150. Both because then the capital requirements start getting onerous, and because fitting (at least for men's shoes) becomes such a crucial component you may go through more pairs before you decide than a single credit card can likely afford on Zappos :>
Used to love the 993, but now I've switched to the Pearl Izumi for running, which I discovered through Zappos and their awesome return policy. Watching my wife goes through the Zappos process, and being an overall internet hermit, made me want to try it out.
I bought four pairs of shoes in what seemed like the best size and width for me (there is good information about brand size trends on their site), got them the next day and tried them on, decided on the Izumis and sent the others back with the UPS shipping tag they gave me.
I understand things are different now, but that was an excellent buying experience. I've never bought running shoes from a local store since.
I've never found Zappos to have particularly good selection of the shoes I buy (men's dress shoes, boots of various kinds, etc). They're particularly bad for boots. Their main focus seems low to mid range female shoes.
Makes a certain amount of sense; boots are heavy and thus expensive to ship. Since they offer free shipping both outbound and return, that would eat directly into their bottom line. Particularly if the average customer buys and returns multiple pairs before finally settling on one.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are certain types or models of footwear that are completely off-limits due to their business model.
A good pair of men's dress shoes or boots should last for several years. Hell, a good pair of boots should last decades for most people. Low to mid range female shoes won't last more than a few months. It definitely makes good sense to focus on selling low to mid range female shoes when your primary concern is volume.
The best running shoes are the ones that suit your gait, it is definitely worth going to a reputable store (e.g. Runner's Need here in the UK) and having gait analysis done. It's free, but because I'm a decent bloke I would never get their recommendation then buy it online, I buy it in the store.
I would buy the shoes in the store then. But if I liked the shoes, a year later I might buy an identical replacement pair off Zappos instead of returning to the store.
Then I'm definetly a exception for a man. I buy most of my clothes because they look good. And if they aren't really comfortable or break down after a year than be it. Exceptions are sports and outdoor equipment, but again if the don't look good for me, no way I will ever wear them.
I still have to try them on so in order to judge all that.
As far as Amazon's same-day delivery is concerned, i guess it is as much warehouse / picking speed and efficiency as it is to have the right transportation partner. In germany they are aoing with DHL, now a post susidiery. And the german postal service always had over-night next day delivery for letters within germany.
But if they can really pull it off, it would be amazing!
30 years ago, I used to buy running shoes by mail order. Asics had outstanding quality control--I at least once bought a pair of Excalibur GTs the night before a marathon, and ran it in them with no discomfort (attributable to the shoes, that is). So a couple of times, I sent my check off to a place in Cumberland, MD, and got back a package with running shoes. I'm not sure why I quit doing this, unless it was that Asics discontinued the model.
That's why their super easy returns policy is essential. You order shoes, you try them on, you return them. It's not quite as easy as a trip to the store, but it's pretty simple.
I suspect it's partially in American thing. In most European cities, the shops are around the corner. There's little effort involved, so Amazon doesn't sufficiently offset the advantages of instant gratification and being able to physically see stuff to make such a dramatic impact. Also, the different European attitude towards regulation has resulted in many cities actively protecting the kind of independent stores that make local shopping different from anonymous shopping malls full of the same franchises.
There are plenty of areas in which brick-and-mortar shops will take a hit from online competitors, but I suspect the impact in Europe will be considerably smaller than in the land of strip malls and Wal-Marts, where commercial efficiency has already trumped the "user experience", and Amazon is simply a better option with few disadvantages.
Can't say I agree - shopping feels like a huge waste of time to me. Living in a big city in Europe, but still a shopping trip will take at least 1h. Of course for other people it is heaven.
One hour still beats same day delivery on every front except having to put on pants and leave the house. People for whom that isn't a barrier form a considerable market (albeit that they may be underrepresented on HN...)
But also, same day delivery is logistically near impossible and quite expensive in exactly those cities for exactly the same reasons. The density doesn't make them car friendly, and certainly not delivery van friendly.
Online shopping gives you a wide selection, instant access to customer reviews, easy price comparison, no hassle from salesmen, and other conveniences besides the painless shopping experience.
Maybe, though I have to say same day delivery is not really the most important aspect to me. For example we get a box of groceries delivered once per week, which is a huge time saver. In general, any kind of thing I can get delivered I will probably prefer - within ecological bounds, but I think delivery vans might not even be that bad. Certainly more efficient than people driving to the mall by car, I presume.
Perhaps the rest of Europe is better. As a UK resident I hope they absolutely crush the high street "experience" as it is in many large UK towns - which I find suffers from the exactly the same triumph of cost cutting over customer service that you're citing as a factor in the US. I'd rather see the high streets grassed over and turned into city centre parks. Or slabbed over and turned into parking, in some places. I would buy everything online and have it delivered given the chance. I already buy most clothes, shoes, electronics, media, computer hardware, groceries, and a lot of it comes from Amazon already.
I expect to eventually see big retail outlets where there is only stock for trying things out. No buying at the store but you could complete your online order while at the store and have it same day/ next day.
Does anyone here remember catalog stores? That may not be the right name, I've only been in one once, and it has to have been over 15 years.
You'd go in the store and look at the merchandise, all of it in glass cases. You'd use a little golf pencil to mark the order sheet they gave you at the door for what you wanted.
When you were done shopping, you'd give your form to the guy at the register. They'd ring you up and someone in the back of the store would collect all the stuff you just bought from the warehouse racks and bring it out for you.
I was amazed something like that existed in the 90s. I have a hard time envisioning that we'd see something like that again. I mean that's how grocery stores worked once, but the market changed with self-service.
I'll occasionally "window shop" at stores, but I only do that if I know the prices are really different. If it's a $10 difference and I'm already in the store, why wait for someone to ship it to me, even if it arrives later that day?
IKEA is still essentially this concept to this day, only the customer picks their own goods.
In the UK there is a big chain called Argos which still does this, right down to the employees fetching the goods. This might be related to the fact that big-box retail space in the UK is much harder to come by.
>Does anyone here remember catalog stores? That may not be the right name, I've only been in one once, and it has to have been over 15 years.
Oh yes. When I lived in a small town we had a Sears catalog store. You went in and ordered your stuff there and then picked it up at the same place (this is pre-UPS). There weren't enough people living in our tiny burg for anybody to operate a full-blown department store, but the catalog store only had a couple employees and allowed us to pick up and handle a reasonable selection of the things we could then order through the catalog. I think the staff would help you measure yourself so you'd get the right size when you ordered clothing.
Same here. Perhaps, given the right conditions, they can also make a bit of profit on items that require installation, service, or repair by setting the customer up with qualified staff or local repair-people.
Service Merchandise and BEST, right? I never figured out why they both went out of business. They should have been able to offer a huge inventory with hardly any overhead.
I think Lechmere (regional electronics and homewares store in New England) was similar, at least for some products. You could play with a display model, but to buy one you'd take a ticket to the counter and pay, then go to a pickup counter to get the actual item.
It left the store shelves looking a lot less cluttered than they would have otherwise been, and I suspect also protected against shoplifting.
Always liked that store, actually. They sold all sorts of stuff.
Taking your idea to its conclusion: A catalog store, (like Service Merchandise) which stocks only 1 of every item for demo purposes. The twist--if you buy it by scanning it with your phone or an in-store device, the store gets an amazon affiliate payout. Is the payout enough I wonder?
We have this in the UK still. A major one [Index] went out of business a few years ago (8?) but Argos still run this way. Indeed Tesco now have a version of this [for consumer electronics+household goods] in some of their largest stores.
$10 yeah. It is more if the difference was hundreds or the increased range of not carrying buyable stock gave you access to many times you didn't before.
There's no reason why this would be "big retail outlets" and not smaller boutiques. When you don't have to stock 5-15 pcs each of 30 flatscreen TVs, the local high-street enthusiast who actually knows stuff and can give you advice could see a renaissance. He doesn't even have to stock one of each, as "That one, but in 32 inches" is a viable order.
Makes more sense for Amazon to set them up themselves. To an extent this is what Apple stores are, although they have a limited range and stock for standard configs.
Similar to Dell's failed entrance into Asia, Americans are uniquely content with purchasing plenty of merchandise without ever physically examining the product.
Amazon has an absolutely amazing return policy. I've only returned an item once, but it was a $400 USB video adapter that didn't work with my monitors. I just printed out a UPS label, and returned it to the closest UPS store for free, and I got an instant refund.
Watch out of Amazon Marketplace though. I bought a copy of The Wire through there that ended up being pirated (and terrible quality), and Amazon would neither refund the purchase nor shut down the vendor, even after we got a letter from HBO confirming that it was a pirated copy.
Without looking I'd be nearly certain that Amazon isn't going to take the hit for chargebacks on the marketplace. Appart from costing a heap it would just be inviting fraud.
Yeah, I have found PayPal for all their supposed fraud protections to be quiet useless with preventing chargebacks. As a merchant you are also disadvantaged in that you aren't able to access any BIN/AVS data on the card yourself.
Yeah but outside the US we don't have UPS stores much. Posting a parcel here in the UK involves queuing at a post office for quite some time. Makes returns much harder.
Why wOuld I feel the need to inspect a book before buying it? I am working under the assumption that no pages will be missing. It's worked out fine thus far. You do realize that purchasing items over the Internet has been working well for some time now, right?
Purchasing from the Internet works fine until you have problems. Here in Romania you can't inspect the contents of the package until you sign for its delivery. Then if it's broken you get to keep the pieces, unless the merchant is nice. Of course, there's also the option of arguing with them, but it doesn't guarantee anything.
I bought a couple of years ago an LCD monitors from today's Romanian Amazon wanna-be and they assured me that if the monitor has any broken pixels I can have it replaced. The next day after the delivery, I discovered I had 1 broken pixel. I called them back only to find out that they can replace it only if it has 3 or 4 broken pixels as specified by some ISO standard. After this, I regretted that I didn't buy the one that I saw in a regular store and worked fine.
That's not true (probably you didn't knew). If you buy something online, you have 10 days to return it without giving a reason (and if they don't specify that clearly when you buy it, the period extends to 30 days). That's the law, it doesn't matter if they agree or not.
This was before any laws as far as I know. Also if I'm not mistaking, even with these laws the package must be intact. Otherwise I wonder if you can buy a TV or computer, use it for N days then return it. Do the same with the other stores until the first one forgets the repeat.
In the whole EU the customer can return items purchased online up until X days since the purchase arrival where X varies by country. There are some exceptions like digital items, custom made ware, DVDs etc. Check your local laws.
You're failing to account for the fairly sizable chunk of the world that's both not the US and not the third world. Such as Germany, where people do seem to prefer physically inspecting items.
China hasn't been a 3rd world country for some time. It isn't even close. Sure there are massive pockets of poverty (with 1 billion people, there are massive pockets of everything)...but visit India or parts of Africa if you want to see what 3rd world is.
If we were going by the original definitions of first world, second world third world. China would be a second world country since it was aligned with Russia and not the US.
Yes, there was a first and second world, it used to denote then Nato and USSR block respectively, that's how the third world got its name. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World
I supposed you could call China not a 3rd world, but I've been to China, Nepal, and parts of Africa, and a lot of rural China looks like the poor parts of the other two. How people in poverty live in China is still quite a bit below how the impoverished live in western countries
I like to flip a book open that I'm considering at a store to random sections. Not one of 20 pre-selected pages offered in some online shop, but just random places, so I can see if it's my speed. This has saved me from purchasing many (seemingly) awful works.
> Why wOuld I feel the need to inspect a book before buying it?
To make sure the pages will not start falling out before you're done reading it ? I had that happen to me several times with cheap paperbacks litterally falling apart before I was even through the first quarter of the book
I think, non-dramatic european response may, in-part, be due to comparatively sparse product options on Amazon's european stores compared to its US .com offerings. I have used Amazon.fr while in Paris and have been disappointed by the limited offerings. Price is an issue, too: on Amazon.fr: when shopping for a TV, for instance, the prices were cheaper at Parisian retail stores.
Amazon used to consistently have the best price compared to the local retail stores (where I live in the US), but in recent years they've been tinkering with dynamic pricing, so if you buy something popular you're often better off checking around.
I can't complain about selection, though. Particularly if you live in an area without boutique stores, Amazon US is likely to have every product you can buy locally.
Highly disagreed. I think assuming that people want an in-store experience when the extra information from online shopping is such a net gain is just an old way of thinking. Look at some of the work coming out of the best retailers, are from some of the researchers at Accenture Technology Labs into the Store of the Future.
For many things, I care more about the information - does it work, does it fit, what do the reviews say? - than I do about touching the object. Even small retailers are starting to do this - if you look at http://www.marinelayer.com/ - they offer approximations of sizing based on your height and weight.
Germany is about as different a market as one could get in the "advanced" economies. Drawing any conclusions from the effect it has or hasn't had on German retail is essentially and fundamentally flawed
