1 - From a vendor perspective "winning" might be defined as getting as many retailers to use technology as possible (because it creates profit for the vendor).
From a retail perspective, winning is all about generating profit, which is used to pay shareholders or to reinvest.
From a retail perspective, winning is all about generating profit, which is used to pay shareholders or to reinvest.
2 - This disconnect is readily visible out here on Twitter, with vendors and trade journalists breathlessly screaming about how technology leads to "winning".
Of course it leads to winning ... for vendors and trade journalists.
Of course it leads to winning ... for vendors and trade journalists.
3 - When a retail brand is "winning" (via new merchandise, existing merchandise, and low-cost customer acquisition), the brand generates profit that can be spent with vendors, allowing the vendor to win as well.
4 - There's a chicken-and-the-egg thing going on here. Outsiders yell at my clients that their technology causes winning to happen.
My clients use merch/acquisition to win, giving them money to spend on technology.
My clients use merch/acquisition to win, giving them money to spend on technology.
5 - From a retailer perspective, merch/cust-acquisition might generate 9x as much profit as technology delivers.
Those who aren't retailers sometimes pretend this isn't the case.
Most of the time, this is the case.
Those who aren't retailers sometimes pretend this isn't the case.
Most of the time, this is the case.
