In a seemingly paradoxical move Walmart signs a partnership with a third-party group, San Diego-based Acenda, to help it optimize its portfolio offerings across e-commerce marketplaces with the end goal of getting the right product in front of the right consumer at the right moment (i.e.: intent to purchase) on the Path to Purchase. The move is paradoxical because Acenda already partners with Walmart main rivals Amazon, Google and eBay. (https://p2pi.org/article/walmart-teams-acenda-improve-third-party-listings?eid=362039299&bid=1862676).
In doing some brief research (https://mixergy.com/interviews/gavin-mandelbaum-acenda/) I learned a little bit of the history behind the founder of Acenda but also what it is, exactly, that Acenda does. It’s actually a marketplace integrator. So it enables individuals to establish a presence on different e-Commerce marketplaces. The curious part is that Acenda can actually see all of the revenues that are passing through each of the marketplaces. Also it has created a direct relationship in-between the marketplaces and the Customers. Both are valuable if Acenda were to try to pivot and become the direct-seller to Customers removing both the individual seller and the marketplaces. Hence, the paradox.
What do you think? Is this the right move for Walmart? Given Marc Lore’s background is this something that Walmart should be able to build internally? And in that vein with Amazon’s tech chops why does it need Acenda? If it’s just the ease of use and getting access to a list of sellers why not just mimic what Acenda is doing?
Facebook opened its first volley in the Content Wars (see: Apple vs Amazon vs Netflix vs AT&T/TimeWarner vs Comcast vs Disney vs FOX vs Verizon/Oath). Okay, it wasn’t THAT big of a shot in its bid to broadcast the Indian Premier League (Indian cricket matches) which it lost out to Rupert Murdoch’s Star. What’s interesting to note is that Facebook was looking at live content. Live content, the rule-of-thumb goes, is highly unskippable. Meaning that Consumers will watch the ads for fear of missing something that occurs. Additionally, the content is something that is preferred to be watched in that moment (no one likes to really see a replay of a game or have to avoid ESPN so as not to see the score of a game that they recorded). It also can be cheaper than building content for sitcoms or movies. Could their bid have been a primer for moving in on NFL broadcast rights that come up next year when Verizon’s mobile rights expire?
Comments
Post a Comment