You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Remember too, the CEO’s of the supermarkets have a different set of customers – namely investors. That’s who they have to keep happy. Rightly or wrongly.
Well rightly or wrongly my point is that by not considering a cheaper delivery model they are going to lose market share.
IF the 50% by 2030 of food being delivered is in anyway accurate then taking it from the delivery to store on shelves (in case someone buys it) to send someone else to take it back off the shelf (if it's still there) doesn't seem very efficient in any way.
With 50% that means half their orders are pre-orders... they don't have to hold excess stock they can order when it's ordered. (or in practice adjust)
The reality of 50% is more profound though... I mean the whole point of supermarkets to the consumer is "everything in one place" and a secondary one being "parking" (isn't it).
Parking disappears and the all in one place and a single reliable delivery would seem to be the replacement of driving to some place that has everything you need?
I think a reading of this thread suggests that on the whole we are satisfied with the service in general, we don’t want to pay any more for it, and consequently we’re happy to ‘STFU’
You seem convinced its going to cost more ... I'm far from convinced and think it should cost less.
Less kept in stock, less waste, less touch points, less returned, lower human error and more automation.
theotherjonv - your long post up the page^^^ cuts through much of the crap that preceded it.
Supermarkets are true experts in demand modelling and determining and implementing the optimal solution which is always a combination of service and cost.
They're not in the business of holding stock just in case nor having deliveries arrive just too late.
If it was cheaper and won market share, the experts at the supermarkets would have done it already.