Shopping as a Game

By -
JC Penny recently fired its CEO -- Ron Johnson -- because his concept of simplicity was not working. With hindsight, we see that they forgot an important fact: for the typical JC Penny customer -- shopping is a game.

Exploration: Imagine a computer maze game. It has twists and turns. Imagine that you had to discover gold and treasure  hidden along the way, by exploring, discovering, and then learning tell-tale signs -- often coming up empty-handed, but finally hitting pay-dirt.

Now imagine the game developer decided to simplify things  by removing the maze. Instead, he gives you a straight hallway. And, why hide the gold --- such a waste of time? He simply places it on clearly-visible tables along the way. Perhaps the tables are placed so the gold jumps into your hand as you pass by. You start the game, press the forward key for a while, and you're done. You get through at record speed, and with all the gold. Simple and efficient... great if this was something you really wanted to get through as a means to another end.... but a lousy game. That is the story of JC Penny's new store and pricing concept.

The value of junk: You see customers (players?) hunting through a pile of merchandise to find the one thing they really like. There are some things that few people ever buy. Does it make sense to figure out what is junk and stop stocking it? Or, does it make sense always to have some junk, to make the hunt more interesting? A game where all the gold is out in the open is boring.


Texture and complexity can be a good thing. You see customers (players?) checking out your store but resisting temptation because they know a coupon will be out next week. Does it make sense to simplify pricing so that even a dullard can always get your best deal? Or, does it make more sense to keep pricing at a level complexity that require customers to be smart and knowledgeable about how the system works? A game without learning and failure and success is boring.

Shopping as Entertainment: Perhaps the metaphor of a game is exaggeration. There's obviously a utilitarian aspect to shopping. It varies from person to person and by situation. Nevertheless, shopping for clothes -- particularly women shopping from clothes -- is not strictly utilitarian, but a good part fun... entertainment that JC Penny removed from the mix.






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Country Shares of World GDP

By -
Image
Here's a chart of world GDP, broken down by country share. ( HT: Carpe Diem ). Careful with the x-axis, it is not at all to scale! The basic idea is that India and China had large shares pre-industrial revolution, after which Europe rose. The U.S. shoots up, to over 40% of world GDP by 1950. Then, Japan begins to grow in the 1960s, and China in the 1980s. Suppose countries end up with GDPs proportionate to their populations. What would that picture look like? I've added a bar to the right, showing the break-down of world-population. Look at the U.S. squished down, with less that 400 million out of a world population of over 7,000 million. The biggest change is in the previously un-noticed 'rest of the world". If Africa, the Middle East and so on moved toward freedom, that could be the story of the century.  What if they do not? Here's a chart with a new assumption. Suppose the "rest-of-world" does not increase its relative s
Read more

von Mises on the Quantity Theory of Money

By -
Reading von Mises a while ago, I was surprised to see him speak against the Quantity theory of Money, but what he said made a lot of sense. A recent Facebook comment sent me back looking for the source, and I decided to blog a few choice quotes, because others may find it interesting. My summary of von Mises's position is as follows: The supply of money is an important factor in its value. This is the element of truth in the Quantity Theory However demand for money is the other factor. The quantity theory gives short shrift to demand for money. (One must look to individual decision-making processes and their objective context to understand the demand for money. One cannot start with the aggregate demand for money.) Even if supply were the only factor, it is wrong to assume the value of money will change in direct proportion to the change in supply It is also wrong to assume that an increase in supply of money changes all prices generally and similarly A good theory o
Read more

U.S. Economy: Federal Debt- How big is it?

By -
Image
( Updated: Dec 2012 ) Lots of numbers:  Trying to get a clear picture of U.S. government debt can be frustrating. The government owes: 60% of GDP : bonds owed to private entities , both foreign and domestic 100% of GDP : if we add bonds owed to the government-itself (e.g. Social Security "trust fund", Federal Reserve) 400%+ : if all Fed promises to social security and medicare recipients are met (they won't be) [Note: the GAO claims that adding another 2% (of payroll) to the current 13% payroll tax would keep social security funded for more than 70 years!] A snapshot: The U.S. government (officially) owes about US $16 trillion to the public, plus to the Fed, plus to the "trust funds".  The GDP of the U.S. is approximately $16 trillion. (Both these were about $15 Tr. last year.) To put this in perspective:  adding up the assets of everyone in the U.S. and subtracting liabilities, we get a "net worth" that adds up to about $ 64 trillion ($5
Read more