April 22, 2013
Will Gap’s Take On In-Store Pickup Be a Retail Game Changer?
For those people who love shopping online, hate to pay for shipping and are not willing to wait for standard shipping, there is in-store pick up. While the system works great for customers, it actually works against the retailer, according to Art Peck, president of growth, innovation & digital at Gap Inc.
Speaking at Gap’s 2013 Investor Meeting, Mr. Peck discussed a planned 10-store test of reserve-in-store, a new program that lets customers go online to reserve an item at a local store. After placing an order, store associates will pick the item and set it aside for later pickup. The reserved item will be held until the end of the next business day and returned to the store’s inventory if not retrieved by the customer.
Mr. Peck, according to a meeting transcript on Seeking Alpha, cited a recent personal shopping experience at a consumer electronics chain to explain why Gap is not pursuing traditional in-store pick up. What makes the Gap program different is that consumers don’t pay for the item online, they complete the purchase in the store giving sales staff more face time with the shopper.
"I got a confirmation e-mail 17 minutes after I placed my order that my order was ready to be picked up. I went into the store up Market Street, I walked in at 5:00 on a Friday afternoon, I identified myself, they found my order, and I was out of the store in four minutes," said Mr. Peck. "It’s an amazing thing for me from a transactional efficiency experience in that store. It’s a crappy thing if you’re actually running the store, because you just missed an opportunity to build a shopping experience around the fact that I was in there. I’ve identified I wanted to buy — but I was in there and I was gone in a heartbeat."
Reserve-in-store will launch in June in 10 Gap and Banana Republic stores. According to Mr. Peck, the company will "debug it and build the structural capabilities around it … we are very focused on making sure that this experience show up in front of our customer in an absolutely seamless way so they have a great experience from the get-go."
Interestingly, Gap Inc. sees the system working differently based on the individual personality of the chains, which included Athleta, Banana Republic, Gap, Intermix, Old Navy and Piperlime, once it is eventually rolled out across the company.
Whether or not Gap views reserve-in-store as a traditional in-store pickup program, it’s clear the company is on trend with the initiative. According to eMarketer, half of all retailers offered in-store pickup for online orders in 2012 while 29 percent offered in-store pickup for mobile orders.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Will Gap Inc.’s reserve-in-store prove superior to current in-store pickup programs available in retail outlets today? Where do you see challenges and opportunities for Gap as it tests and rolls out the program?
Poll
I have a different take from Art Peck’s. Those that want a “shopping experience” won’t opt for the in-store pick-up choice, but will shop as usual. For those that want convenience and speed, not giving them what they want and forcing them through the traditional shopping experience will open the door for competitors.
I also think this system is hinged completely upon the store’s ability to pick and pack properly. If it’s not done with care, there will be unhappy customers that don’t get in and out in four minutes.
For apparel retailers, this could work. Most apparel shoppers probably still want to try on some items before purchase. For other types of products, this could be an annoyance for shoppers looking to get in and out quickly.
It’s also interesting that Gap is viewing the program differently depending upon the “personality” of the brand.
It’s never a good idea to hold customers hostage. Requiring in-store payment is idiotic; if a customer wants to get in and out in a minute that’s fine—sometimes a very quick, efficient transaction is the best way to build long-run engagement.
There’s good and bad in reserve-in-store. The good is that consumers can shop from their homes or offices, come to the store to pick up, and while there may see something else they want, logging at least some time in the store. The bad is that customers might spend a minimal time in the store solely to complete their purchases.
I see more positive than negative in the program. It gets customers into stores. Not all will walk in, buy and walk out. The traditional shopping experience is changing. Reserve in-store is one option for retailers to try.
It’s definitely not superior for the customer. I can kinda sorta see why he’d think it’s superior for the retailer. But he ignores a lot of real data that says consumers want to have it their own way and will ultimately spend more with the retailer if they can have it their way.
I’ll be interested to see how long it takes to abandon the idea.
Bookstores have been using an analog version of this system for years, substituting the phone for the Internet.
I guess the issue is, do you have the items that people want? If the answer is “Yes” then you probably want to make it as easy for them to pick up as possible. In a world of instant gratification consumerism—two hours beats overnight shipment.
The issues are pick times, right picks, returns of items not picked up and, of course, presumed loss of the impulse purchase. On the other hand there are mitigating factors such as building loyalty, getting the sale and keeping the customer happy.
I don’t think this is Gap’s biggest problem.
Gap is building a program that fits their needs, not the customer’s. If customers want to get in and get out with what they need, then they will seek out other retailers who provide that service. The Gap program is less convenient than the alternatives and forces consumers through the checkout line, which is a key vulnerability for retailers in general.
Meet customer needs and they will reward you with loyalty and increased frequency.
The biggest downside is the ability to execute at the store level. Do the people working in the stores have the competence to appropriately pick and pack the orders, when we see difficulties getting associates to properly handle the inventory in the store?
The idea that the customer does not have to pay until they pick up the merchandise just encourages customers to not show if they change their mind. The cost of that has to far outweigh the idea of “keeping them in the store” while they pay.
On the positive side, it will increase the online sales as customers order merchandise with the idea of picking it up and then seeing that delivery charges are significantly less than the time and cost of going to the store.
Isn’t this just like the old, “let me call another store for you?” In theory it sounds great but in practice, many items were pulled off the shelves in the promise someone would come in and pick it up. That’s why we required customers to pay if we took it off the shelves. It cut down on having our best merch and employees taken off the floor on a whim. I would suggest resources are so thin at the store level, another “thing for them to do,” unless it is staffed accordingly, will do little to move the bottom line.
I have always been a big fan of order online with pick up in-store. It simply makes sense for everyone involved. But I also understand the risk involved as the store becomes merely the last drop in the retailer’s distribution network. The emphasis for the consumer is a “frictionless transaction” that quickly and easily ends with them leaving the store with their purchase. They don’t necessarily want to spend a lot of time being “up sold” and offered other products or services.
The fundamental goal of the GAP effort seems directly opposed to that of the consumer. They want to create greater interaction between the consumer and the retail staff. It also depends very heavily on timely and accurate store execution. Employees have to confirm the item is available in the correct size and put it aside so it can be quickly found later. Unclaimed merchandise has to be returned to floor stock. During a test, the focus on execution may hide the difficulty in maintaining the necessary level of accuracy on long term basis. This could lead to a lot of disappointed consumers.
I am still a fan of in-store pick up, but I don’t think it is wise to require an interaction with store personnel. It makes sense to allow the consumer to pick up other items if they want, but they should also be able to simply show ID, grab their purchase, and leave the store.
The design of the in-store pick up program should be based upon the customers. I can see that paying in-store would be very attractive to Boomers as many Boomers are reluctant to enter payment information online. For the younger customers that want to be in and out in four minutes on their way home from work after they stop at the grocery store, paying in the store is probably not the best way to go.
It seems Mr. Peck may need to be reminded that what is best for the customer is best for the store. There are many examples of companies telling customers what their customers should want. These companies all paid for their arrogance as their competitors were more than happy to give the customers what they actually wanted.
In-store pick-up is not for every category. It has worked well for grocery, thanks to solutions like MyWebGrocer.com. Consumers save time and retailers gain loyalty. Win, win.
In-store pick up works well for: Frequent purchases (grocery), specific sized items (shoes), bulky items (large screen TV), hard to find (iPhone), expensive to ship (kids play set) or items that are alive (Shrubs and trees).
For Gap, I am not sure the model is saving anyone time or helping to build that loyalty or basket. Unlike grocery, how often is someone really shopping at the Gap?
What might make the Gap service interesting is if the associate in store had additional items that were complimentary to what the customer was picking up ready to look at during the pick-up. For example, the shopper reserves a pair of jeans online. The store associate has a belt, blouse and tank top that would look nice with the jeans. This is a way of offering a personal shopper service, but only during times when the associate is not truly busy in-store with customers. Then when the person comes to pick up her jeans, she can be presented the additional items. Builds loyalty and basket. A winning combination.
Is this strategy putting the needs of the store ahead of then needs of the customer?
If the customer is looking to get in and get out in a quick and efficient manner, the retailer should provide an experience that supports that goal.
Does Gap have any insight that the customer who uses in-store pickup is interested in a high-touch experience?
Buy online pick up in-store is it’s own shopping experience. Having the customer pay in-store is trying to force a different shopping experience on the customer.
They are on the right track and can better compete, but I would suggest pay online and use something like the locker pick-up concept.
If the customer wants to shop further while in store, they will, but give them what they want first!
Gap’s reserve-in-store initiative as outlined by Mr. Peck is certainly a move in the right compass heading, but also a 7 foot jump across a 10 foot wide GAP. Why do retailers continually insist on trying to outsmart their shoppers? If your online customer wanted to spend more time in your store, she wouldn’t have ordered online. The fact that she is willing to pick it up in your store should tell you that she has a very specific journey.
It’s your (the retailer’s) responsibility to provide her with additional value, benefit, or incentive to remain in your store. Design your POS, supply-chain, inventory and compensation/bonus systems to make it everyone’s benefit in your organization to serve your customer on her terms—not yours!
My first reaction is that Mr. Peck is making a big bet on Gap’s in-store service levels hitting all time highs. Most retailers get it that their customers want options, thus the plethora of pick up, delivery and payment selections available (some profitable, others not so much). Like its fashion dictation fails of the past, Gap’s contrarian attempts to control shopper behavior won’t play well in this environment.
Limited availability and time sensitive inventory are a constant pain in retail. This has elevated to agony in the 21st century with the predawn integration of e-commerce in a brick & mortar store (or brick and mortar to e-commerce). Following the restocking, handling and shipping costs for returns of inventory items multiple times and a sale event that left you with disappointed store customers, and markdowns for the event inventory that was returned after the sale, is the issue of the credit card billing costs incurred to sell inventory several times in order to find an owner for any single item. When you add lost impulse/add-on sales to operation’s inflated costs of goods sold, the subsequent sales margin report can cause several ulcers amongst the executive management membership.
These problems are significant enough for GAP to try and put a limit on the exposure to margin depletion. An attack on the bookkeeping costs and returned damaged goods is an excellent start for action against profit losses that can be controlled. While this plan will most certainly save a large sum of the company’s profit dollars, I see this more as an endorsement for damage control instead of a solution for the issues involved.
The problems for a merger of e-commerce and brick & mortar retail start with who is sitting in the driver’s seat. Ownership of a company that wishes to develop and grow in both directions should consider keeping them as separate subsidiaries which are allowed to compete openly and perform separately. Any cooperative sales effort should use one subsidiary as the transaction owner contracting the other for goods and/or service as needed to complete the sale. It may be that from this type of continuing working relationship a better understanding of the complexities of doing business together can be reached.
With a clear and unbiased understanding of issues, the holding company can combine where allowable, or spin off something new and grow both businesses to the place this one world market is taking us, whether we want to go or not. Future discussion options might consider reviewing enterprise software applications available that have merged the needs of both business types. These observations will reveal more of the inner workings of just how difficult this merger is.
Our colleagues will discover not only how divided both sides are in terms of issues of relative importance, but the one true divisive issue that has in itself created huge fatal impasse problems. I am of course speaking of language where certain strategic terms and vernacular expressions have totally different meanings and degrees of importance.
The retailer gets a shopper to go to their store and actually buy something, delivering a wonderfully efficient experience, and he’s complaining? I don’t even know where to start at critiquing that mindset….
This is the same implementation of most QR code shopping models or online order/pickup of pizza. My immediate concern is social engineering manipulation of a retailer inventory by script kiddies.
What if several customers enter the store in a hour with cash in hand looking for 32×30 jeans with most of the inventory “on hold” for an IP address that never materialized into a customer?
The Gap is smart to develop a Reserve-in-Store system that works differently for each chain and for the more upscale stores it would be nice to add a personal shopper opportunity as suggested by John Boccuzzi.
Completing a purchase in-store and giving sales staff face time to interact with the customer creates opportunity to reward the customer, educate the customer and increase brand awareness. A well trained staff, streamlined pickup program and use of social media to stay in contact with the customer through the entire transaction experience are all key to success.
If we agree that the customer is in the lead and should be allowed to engage with each brand as they wish, not the way we want them to, then the Gap’s take on in-store pickup is flawed.
Even though it may be factually correct that the buy online and pick up in-store model reduces face-time between associates and customers, if customers find this pleasing, won’t they be inclined to return again the future?
This is not either/or, it is both/and. And it is not one customer versus another. As a Gap customer, there are times when I may want to browse and find something new or there may be times when I’m in a hurry and know exactly what I want and will appreciate the service in-store pickup provides.
The customer defines service based on his or her needs in that moment; if she is in a hurry, too much attention that slows things down can be just as bad an experience as not being able to find someone to help you when you want to shop and learn more about the merchandise.
The shopping experience is going to be controlled by the shopper, not the store. There’s going to be a big learning curve here as retailers try to adapt.
Anytime you can make a process that is easy for the customer, it is worth considering. And, if that also means more foot traffic in the store, why not? Once in the store, the sales people can do what they do best, sell.
There is no doubt that some customers will reserve something and not show. How many times do our customers go into a dressing room with five items and don’t buy any one of them? It’s not all that different. However, the customers who do show up will make a difference. As mentioned, the sales people can do their job and accessorize or add-on to the sale. Everyone wins!
Will it be superior? Well, I am not sure, but I do love the idea of having the option to reserve items before buying them, especially for products that may require me to experience them in person or try them on, such as apparel.
While it may seem that reserving items will not be any more efficient than buying for pick-up, one big advantage for consumers and the Gap is that the item can be given back in the event that the consumer does not like it, without having to go through the time and hassle – for both parties – of having to process a return.
I would agree with Max Goldberg’s comment in that the good of in-store pickup (higher foot traffic) outweighs the bad (less time spent browsing). Retailers need to remember that people are shopping online before they go in-store anyway, the key is to get as many people in-store as possible and into YOUR stores especially. At least then, you have an opportunity to showcase other products, personalized customer service and other improvements in shopping convenience. At the end of the day, added consumer convenience is a good thing.
More Discussions
Is Meta Committing to Retail via Meta Lab Stores, or Are Other Goals More Important?
Is Meta playing in retail, actually committing to retail, or looking for more data?Aerie Recruits Pamela Anderson To Highlight No-AI Models Promise
American Eagle’s Aerie banner has recruited former “Baywatch” star Pamela Anderson to broadcast the lifestyle brand’s…How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…
I have a different take from Art Peck’s. Those that want a “shopping experience” won’t opt for the in-store pick-up choice, but will shop as usual. For those that want convenience and speed, not giving them what they want and forcing them through the traditional shopping experience will open the door for competitors.
I also think this system is hinged completely upon the store’s ability to pick and pack properly. If it’s not done with care, there will be unhappy customers that don’t get in and out in four minutes.
For apparel retailers, this could work. Most apparel shoppers probably still want to try on some items before purchase. For other types of products, this could be an annoyance for shoppers looking to get in and out quickly.
It’s also interesting that Gap is viewing the program differently depending upon the “personality” of the brand.
It’s never a good idea to hold customers hostage. Requiring in-store payment is idiotic; if a customer wants to get in and out in a minute that’s fine—sometimes a very quick, efficient transaction is the best way to build long-run engagement.
There’s good and bad in reserve-in-store. The good is that consumers can shop from their homes or offices, come to the store to pick up, and while there may see something else they want, logging at least some time in the store. The bad is that customers might spend a minimal time in the store solely to complete their purchases.
I see more positive than negative in the program. It gets customers into stores. Not all will walk in, buy and walk out. The traditional shopping experience is changing. Reserve in-store is one option for retailers to try.
It’s definitely not superior for the customer. I can kinda sorta see why he’d think it’s superior for the retailer. But he ignores a lot of real data that says consumers want to have it their own way and will ultimately spend more with the retailer if they can have it their way.
I’ll be interested to see how long it takes to abandon the idea.
Bookstores have been using an analog version of this system for years, substituting the phone for the Internet.
I guess the issue is, do you have the items that people want? If the answer is “Yes” then you probably want to make it as easy for them to pick up as possible. In a world of instant gratification consumerism—two hours beats overnight shipment.
The issues are pick times, right picks, returns of items not picked up and, of course, presumed loss of the impulse purchase. On the other hand there are mitigating factors such as building loyalty, getting the sale and keeping the customer happy.
I don’t think this is Gap’s biggest problem.
Gap is building a program that fits their needs, not the customer’s. If customers want to get in and get out with what they need, then they will seek out other retailers who provide that service. The Gap program is less convenient than the alternatives and forces consumers through the checkout line, which is a key vulnerability for retailers in general.
Meet customer needs and they will reward you with loyalty and increased frequency.
The biggest downside is the ability to execute at the store level. Do the people working in the stores have the competence to appropriately pick and pack the orders, when we see difficulties getting associates to properly handle the inventory in the store?
The idea that the customer does not have to pay until they pick up the merchandise just encourages customers to not show if they change their mind. The cost of that has to far outweigh the idea of “keeping them in the store” while they pay.
On the positive side, it will increase the online sales as customers order merchandise with the idea of picking it up and then seeing that delivery charges are significantly less than the time and cost of going to the store.
Isn’t this just like the old, “let me call another store for you?” In theory it sounds great but in practice, many items were pulled off the shelves in the promise someone would come in and pick it up. That’s why we required customers to pay if we took it off the shelves. It cut down on having our best merch and employees taken off the floor on a whim. I would suggest resources are so thin at the store level, another “thing for them to do,” unless it is staffed accordingly, will do little to move the bottom line.
I have always been a big fan of order online with pick up in-store. It simply makes sense for everyone involved. But I also understand the risk involved as the store becomes merely the last drop in the retailer’s distribution network. The emphasis for the consumer is a “frictionless transaction” that quickly and easily ends with them leaving the store with their purchase. They don’t necessarily want to spend a lot of time being “up sold” and offered other products or services.
The fundamental goal of the GAP effort seems directly opposed to that of the consumer. They want to create greater interaction between the consumer and the retail staff. It also depends very heavily on timely and accurate store execution. Employees have to confirm the item is available in the correct size and put it aside so it can be quickly found later. Unclaimed merchandise has to be returned to floor stock. During a test, the focus on execution may hide the difficulty in maintaining the necessary level of accuracy on long term basis. This could lead to a lot of disappointed consumers.
I am still a fan of in-store pick up, but I don’t think it is wise to require an interaction with store personnel. It makes sense to allow the consumer to pick up other items if they want, but they should also be able to simply show ID, grab their purchase, and leave the store.
The design of the in-store pick up program should be based upon the customers. I can see that paying in-store would be very attractive to Boomers as many Boomers are reluctant to enter payment information online. For the younger customers that want to be in and out in four minutes on their way home from work after they stop at the grocery store, paying in the store is probably not the best way to go.
It seems Mr. Peck may need to be reminded that what is best for the customer is best for the store. There are many examples of companies telling customers what their customers should want. These companies all paid for their arrogance as their competitors were more than happy to give the customers what they actually wanted.
In-store pick-up is not for every category. It has worked well for grocery, thanks to solutions like MyWebGrocer.com. Consumers save time and retailers gain loyalty. Win, win.
In-store pick up works well for: Frequent purchases (grocery), specific sized items (shoes), bulky items (large screen TV), hard to find (iPhone), expensive to ship (kids play set) or items that are alive (Shrubs and trees).
For Gap, I am not sure the model is saving anyone time or helping to build that loyalty or basket. Unlike grocery, how often is someone really shopping at the Gap?
What might make the Gap service interesting is if the associate in store had additional items that were complimentary to what the customer was picking up ready to look at during the pick-up. For example, the shopper reserves a pair of jeans online. The store associate has a belt, blouse and tank top that would look nice with the jeans. This is a way of offering a personal shopper service, but only during times when the associate is not truly busy in-store with customers. Then when the person comes to pick up her jeans, she can be presented the additional items. Builds loyalty and basket. A winning combination.
Is this strategy putting the needs of the store ahead of then needs of the customer?
If the customer is looking to get in and get out in a quick and efficient manner, the retailer should provide an experience that supports that goal.
Does Gap have any insight that the customer who uses in-store pickup is interested in a high-touch experience?
Buy online pick up in-store is it’s own shopping experience. Having the customer pay in-store is trying to force a different shopping experience on the customer.
They are on the right track and can better compete, but I would suggest pay online and use something like the locker pick-up concept.
If the customer wants to shop further while in store, they will, but give them what they want first!
Gap’s reserve-in-store initiative as outlined by Mr. Peck is certainly a move in the right compass heading, but also a 7 foot jump across a 10 foot wide GAP. Why do retailers continually insist on trying to outsmart their shoppers? If your online customer wanted to spend more time in your store, she wouldn’t have ordered online. The fact that she is willing to pick it up in your store should tell you that she has a very specific journey.
It’s your (the retailer’s) responsibility to provide her with additional value, benefit, or incentive to remain in your store. Design your POS, supply-chain, inventory and compensation/bonus systems to make it everyone’s benefit in your organization to serve your customer on her terms—not yours!
My first reaction is that Mr. Peck is making a big bet on Gap’s in-store service levels hitting all time highs. Most retailers get it that their customers want options, thus the plethora of pick up, delivery and payment selections available (some profitable, others not so much). Like its fashion dictation fails of the past, Gap’s contrarian attempts to control shopper behavior won’t play well in this environment.
Limited availability and time sensitive inventory are a constant pain in retail. This has elevated to agony in the 21st century with the predawn integration of e-commerce in a brick & mortar store (or brick and mortar to e-commerce). Following the restocking, handling and shipping costs for returns of inventory items multiple times and a sale event that left you with disappointed store customers, and markdowns for the event inventory that was returned after the sale, is the issue of the credit card billing costs incurred to sell inventory several times in order to find an owner for any single item. When you add lost impulse/add-on sales to operation’s inflated costs of goods sold, the subsequent sales margin report can cause several ulcers amongst the executive management membership.
These problems are significant enough for GAP to try and put a limit on the exposure to margin depletion. An attack on the bookkeeping costs and returned damaged goods is an excellent start for action against profit losses that can be controlled. While this plan will most certainly save a large sum of the company’s profit dollars, I see this more as an endorsement for damage control instead of a solution for the issues involved.
The problems for a merger of e-commerce and brick & mortar retail start with who is sitting in the driver’s seat. Ownership of a company that wishes to develop and grow in both directions should consider keeping them as separate subsidiaries which are allowed to compete openly and perform separately. Any cooperative sales effort should use one subsidiary as the transaction owner contracting the other for goods and/or service as needed to complete the sale. It may be that from this type of continuing working relationship a better understanding of the complexities of doing business together can be reached.
With a clear and unbiased understanding of issues, the holding company can combine where allowable, or spin off something new and grow both businesses to the place this one world market is taking us, whether we want to go or not. Future discussion options might consider reviewing enterprise software applications available that have merged the needs of both business types. These observations will reveal more of the inner workings of just how difficult this merger is.
Our colleagues will discover not only how divided both sides are in terms of issues of relative importance, but the one true divisive issue that has in itself created huge fatal impasse problems. I am of course speaking of language where certain strategic terms and vernacular expressions have totally different meanings and degrees of importance.
The retailer gets a shopper to go to their store and actually buy something, delivering a wonderfully efficient experience, and he’s complaining? I don’t even know where to start at critiquing that mindset….
This is the same implementation of most QR code shopping models or online order/pickup of pizza. My immediate concern is social engineering manipulation of a retailer inventory by script kiddies.
What if several customers enter the store in a hour with cash in hand looking for 32×30 jeans with most of the inventory “on hold” for an IP address that never materialized into a customer?
The Gap is smart to develop a Reserve-in-Store system that works differently for each chain and for the more upscale stores it would be nice to add a personal shopper opportunity as suggested by John Boccuzzi.
Completing a purchase in-store and giving sales staff face time to interact with the customer creates opportunity to reward the customer, educate the customer and increase brand awareness. A well trained staff, streamlined pickup program and use of social media to stay in contact with the customer through the entire transaction experience are all key to success.
If we agree that the customer is in the lead and should be allowed to engage with each brand as they wish, not the way we want them to, then the Gap’s take on in-store pickup is flawed.
Even though it may be factually correct that the buy online and pick up in-store model reduces face-time between associates and customers, if customers find this pleasing, won’t they be inclined to return again the future?
This is not either/or, it is both/and. And it is not one customer versus another. As a Gap customer, there are times when I may want to browse and find something new or there may be times when I’m in a hurry and know exactly what I want and will appreciate the service in-store pickup provides.
The customer defines service based on his or her needs in that moment; if she is in a hurry, too much attention that slows things down can be just as bad an experience as not being able to find someone to help you when you want to shop and learn more about the merchandise.
The shopping experience is going to be controlled by the shopper, not the store. There’s going to be a big learning curve here as retailers try to adapt.
Anytime you can make a process that is easy for the customer, it is worth considering. And, if that also means more foot traffic in the store, why not? Once in the store, the sales people can do what they do best, sell.
There is no doubt that some customers will reserve something and not show. How many times do our customers go into a dressing room with five items and don’t buy any one of them? It’s not all that different. However, the customers who do show up will make a difference. As mentioned, the sales people can do their job and accessorize or add-on to the sale. Everyone wins!
Will it be superior? Well, I am not sure, but I do love the idea of having the option to reserve items before buying them, especially for products that may require me to experience them in person or try them on, such as apparel.
While it may seem that reserving items will not be any more efficient than buying for pick-up, one big advantage for consumers and the Gap is that the item can be given back in the event that the consumer does not like it, without having to go through the time and hassle – for both parties – of having to process a return.
I would agree with Max Goldberg’s comment in that the good of in-store pickup (higher foot traffic) outweighs the bad (less time spent browsing). Retailers need to remember that people are shopping online before they go in-store anyway, the key is to get as many people in-store as possible and into YOUR stores especially. At least then, you have an opportunity to showcase other products, personalized customer service and other improvements in shopping convenience. At the end of the day, added consumer convenience is a good thing.