Skip to main content

Where is Target in the eCommerce Arms Race?

In the Digital War Target has been lacking in headlines relative to its peers (i.e.: Amazon and Walmart). But recently Target's CEO, Brian Cornell, had an interview (see it here: https://youtu.be/dPBZ-Xrdb7Y) to discuss his strategic approach. Part of that approach includes pulling back on moon-shot initiatives and focusing on the core. This includes things like; opening smaller footprint stores in urban centers, store remodeling and fulfillment. Cornell commented that Target had brought in entrepreneurs that they provided seed money to but he felt that they were “drifting out to another universe” and that he wanted to see shorter lead-times in the payoff to the investment. He also wanted to refocus the investments on the core business with the consumer in mind first. Is this new approach to innovation more like pitching around the edges? Should Target have had (and should have) a long-term strategic approach that would have enabled the entrepreneurs they brought in to be tethered to the realities (and constraints) of the Target business today? How does this compare to Amazon with Lab126? Or Walmart’s Store No. 8? Should Target be partaking in the digital arms race that both its biggest competitors are eagerly locked in? Or is Target’s approach more similar to that of the GE vs. Westinghouse rivalry (as a note for readers: Westinghouse was a whir of activity buying and selling businesses that in the end lack a clear strategy. General Electric is still around today).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is Eddie Lampert doing an Amazon to Amazon?

Back in the day Amazon used to sell books but it also had a strategic approach to broaden it's portfolio. That was to establish a seemingly non-hostile relationship with brick & mortar retailers like Toys 'R Us (see bankruptcy), Borders Books..etc. The goal? To get in front of the customer interaction. Amazon sold itself as an expert in the digital space and allowed for cost efficiencies (i.e: not having to build out a web-site or deal with the head-ache of how to fulfill product or the logistics on from where) from the brick and mortar company to focus on what it did best (selling in a physical store) while letting Amazon manage it's digital footprint which was a low volume mix relative to the traffic that was walking into the brick & mortar stores on a daily basis. But, as we all know now, by insinuating itself in the path to purchase and putting its brand in-between the customer and the brick & mortar brand Amazon was able to create a wedge that has grown

Apple Makes its Content Move

Right about now Tim Cook is probably wishing Steve Jobs hadn’t sold Pixar to Disney. Think of the arsenal of content and iconic characters not to mention the head start it would now have versus its tech peers (i.e.: Amazon and Netflix). Instead Apple is playing catch-up in an ever escalating content arms race. The first salvo Apple fired was back in June with the hiring of two former Sony execs to start up video programming positions that didn’t exist before at Apple. And now, after Netflix upped the ante by signing hit maker Shonda Rhimes, Apple has reportedly set aside $1 billion to invest in the creation of original content. BOOM? No, not really. Because that was the same amount that Amazon invested 4 years ago when it started up its original content machine and a pittance compared to what both Netflix and Amazon are projected to invest on programming this year ($6 billion and $4.5 billion respectively). BUT, Apple has a built-in advantage that neither Netflix nor Amazon can