Amazon’s hostile takeover

In my previous article we investigated the new strategy implemented by Starbucks in which they closed their online stores and force consumers to physically enter their stores to purchase something. This runs strictly against the business models of giants like Amazon who are happy to sell to consumers in the c omfort of their own home – epitomized by the launch of Amazon Prime – a same day delivery service on selected items bought on Amazon.

But what are Amazon (AMZN) doing in response to this apparent new culture of buying in store? In true Darwinian fashion, they strike back with their own vision of how consumers will be purchasing in the years to come through an appropriation of the semi-monopolized safeguarding market.

ffElectronic payments are a growing market. Traditionally, everyone had a bankcard that was linked to two providers – Mastercard (MA) and Visa (V). These two safeguard companies are well trusted by users and renowned worldwide as being safe, secure and trustworthy. Since the launch of the internet, new providers came along such as PayPal (PYPL) – who ensured a safeguarding through internet transactions. But the market seems to be shifting in another direction now, which will leave these companies in the rubbish-bin of history.

Moody’s Stephen Sohn and his team of analysts tell us that the electronic payments market is large, with plenty of new entrants. This poses a threat to current payment ecosystems of networks and cards. The potential interlopers include, but are not limited to: Alphabet Inc’s Google (GOOG), Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN), and Apple Inc (AAPL). The new goal is to create a gateway system that bypasses Visa and MasterCard’s safeguarding by doing it in-house. Alongside this, we are seeing a myriad of new entrants into the market. If this happens, we could see an even more centralised power from online companies.

We can infer two things from this shift. Firstly, the fact that there are new entrants into the market means that there is a market to be tapped into. This must mean that consumers feel more comfortable doing in house deals with companies than in the past. If there is more competition for roles that were traditionally accomplished by Visa and Mastercard, then it means people are not as suspicious as they once were – which is understandable – consumers often have a lot of faith in companies like Amazon and Google.

Secondly, that online companies are themselves pushing for easier trading on the internet – which is directly opposed to Starbucks’ (SBUX) vision of the future. If this market were tapped by online retailers, they could cut out costs making it cheaper and quicker to purchase online.

This being said, Sohn reports “material displacement of traditional electronic payment providers remains unlikely.” As we have established, Visa and MasterCard have near universal acceptance in the USA which will make them very difficult to dislodge. This may make it difficult for online companies to fulfil their ambition of securing their place in this market.

As a generalisation, tech companies such as Alphabet and Amazon subscribe to the philosophy “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.” So far, there have been collaborations between already existing safeguard mediums (Visa and Mastercard) and new-comers into the market (inc. GOOG and AAPL).

So, what can we make of all of this?

It seems that there is a heavy focus on consumer perception to predict the future of sales. Amazon are dependent on online sales to survive and cannot allow Starbucks, or any other competitor such as Nike, to create a social-trend where experience is crucial in the buying of goods. Their response to this is in creating better and easier ways to buy and sell online. Although Starbucks wish to create a new trend, online companies are building on an already existing one.

We will have to wait and see how consumers react to Amazon’s adaptation of buying online.

 

(Please note: James O’Leary does not currently hold a position in: Amazon (AMZN), Starbucks (SBUX), Nike (NKE), or PayPal (PYPL). Henry James International Management does not currently own a position in: Amazon (AMZN), Starbucks (SBUX), Nike (NKE), or PayPal (PYPL).

(Please note: James O’Leary currently holds a position in: APPLE (AAPL), VISA (V), and MasterCard (MA. Henry James International Management currently owns a position in: APPLE (AAPL), VISA (V), and MasterCard (MA).

 

What can we learn from companies shutting down online stores?

Starbucks has recently shut down its online stores. As a pioneer in sales and marketing strategy, Starbucks may be telling us something about the way businesses will have to operate soon. Since jumping onto the Central Perk culture from hit TV-series – Friends, they have revolutionized food and beverage in the last few years by making customers pay and pre-order using their smartphones. Their culture of fast coffee purchases using smartphones was influential enough to inspire credit card companies to produce cards the contactless cards we all have today. Starbucks are always ahead of the game.

 

Starbucks has been a innovator of trends for the last decade
Starbucks has been a innovator of trends for the last decade

 

In the last few years, companies have shifted from high-street retailers to online websites, selling their goods using only their web-client as a means to interact. It is easier for the client, it is cheaper for the company, and it means that people have better access to goods and services. So why have Starbucks shut down their site and discontinued online selling?

Starbucks’ new campaign strives to get people to leave their houses and come into their stores as opposed to surfing their products at home. Their CEO stated that he wants Starbucks to be an “experiential destination.” Customers can surf the net and check out their products using the app, but cannot buy anything without entering a store. This means you can order a coffee on the app and pop in and grab it, but you cannot have anything sent to your house. There must always be some physical interaction with the brand.

This is an interesting move. Why is it that we are seeing this shift back to high street retailers? What is it that companies value in such strategic shifts? Firstly, it allows companies to compete with giants like Amazon, who have a large market share, and sell the products of others. When we think about it, Starbucks would be extinct if Amazon found a way to sell their coffee online. This revolution would hit Amazon hard if Starbucks managed to make a trend of “experiential destinations,” as Amazon do not have a place where customers can come in. If this becomes a trend, it will make companies with a physical presence shine.

Secondly, it makes their product more valuable. Nike and other fashion companies have saturated the market with their goods, they are no longer seen as special. The consumer engagement is lower and people care less and less about high-quality Nike products. They are also available on Amazon. It is more than likely that Nike will swiftly follow suit, and emulate the synthesis of internet marketing and in-store experience. This could be the future for all big companies that sell goods online.

If successful, this business model will have a significant impact any company whose business model is focused in online sales. It will give power back to retailers, and will hinder “middle men” like Amazon. But before all this, they are going to have to convince the world that experiential destinations are successful.

 

 

Starbucks is a place we can work in or relax
Starbucks is a place we can work in or relax

(Please note: James O’Leary does not currently hold a position in: Amazon, Nike, or Starbucks. Henry James International does not currently own a position in: Amazon, Nike, or Starbucks)