this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
134 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37757 readers
623 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 102 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

It's bound to happen. Why waste hours replacing tags when you can just change what the shelf says when the prices change.

But this article is so pro Walmart it's crazy.

Retailers argue that these innovations increase efficiency and reduce costs in an industry known for its slim profit margins.

Slim profit margins my ass. Walmarts gross profit for the twelve months ending July 31, 2024 was $163.786B,

[–] thurstylark@lemm.ee 77 points 3 months ago (6 children)

I think the main concern is that this is a step towards normalizing extremely frequent price changes, a la Uber surge pricing.

[–] Eggyhead@fedia.io 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It’ll be exciting to see prices temporarily jump during the few hours the majority of working class folk have to do their shopping.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

As long as it's advertised openly, I don't see a big problem with it. It would probably be sold as a discount for shopping at slower times, though. It's a tried-and-true method of smoothing congestion.

Assuming a store with 9a-9p hours (every day), a 9-5 worker can shop 44 hours in a week, vs 40 they cannot. But that doesn't particularly line up with the busy hours. Around here, after 7 on weekdays and 5 on weekends tend to get pretty slow.

[–] davehtaylor@beehaw.org 34 points 3 months ago

It's price gouging, pure and simple. There's no positive to it whatsoever

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 24 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You're thinking logically and with the desire for good service. I assure you they are not.

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 3 months ago

If capitalists valued the public good instead of profit min-maxing then they wouldn't be capitalists. They'd be some kind of socialist, probably market socialist (co-ops owned by workers or the public.)

[–] Eggyhead@fedia.io 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Assuming a store with 9a-9p hours (every day), a 9-5 worker can shop 44 hours in a week, vs 40 they cannot.

You can’t just logic this kind of thing out mathematically because during those 44 hours people have lives to live and obligations to fulfill. Families to manage, food to prepare, appointments to attend, plus they need to sleep. Busy shopping hours are busy for a reason. Nobody wants to be stuck in a busy shopping center. They just do because that’s the time they have to do it.

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Since you are arguing from a perspective of what benefits society, I can only assume you must be a socialist. One of the foundational principals of capitalism is that capitalists have every moral and legal right to extract as much value from society as they can and the market will regulate itself. As long as we have a capitalist system this will always be the default position of the general public and our politicians.

[–] Eggyhead@fedia.io 7 points 3 months ago

Huh. TIL only socialists argue from a perspective of what benefits society...

[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 25 points 3 months ago (3 children)

That’s exactly what this is. All stores will eventually do this and prices will fluctuate throughout the day.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 13 points 3 months ago

isn't it pretty much what amazon's been doing since the beginning? the difference being there's no "app" like camel yet to track prices over time at a single store

but yea, still another reason not to go to walmart. how do they mitigate the problem of something being $X when you put it in your cart, and the price being X+whatever by the time you get through the 2 mile long line at one of the 2 open registers?

[–] 100@fedia.io 6 points 3 months ago

seems like great time to cap how often prices can be changed and force them to show price history

[–] Tabzlock@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

Paper ticket stores already do this, its just a more work for the workers than e-ink.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

And personalized pricing, based on your profile and what they think they can get you to pay.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 14 points 3 months ago

I can't wait for them to get sued into the ground because their AI is changing prices based on skin color.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 points 3 months ago

Well, that's what coupons are for.

[–] spizzat2@lemm.ee 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

So, if I grab an item off the shelf and browse around the store for a while, is the price going to be the price currently displayed or the price when I grabbed it?

If it's the current price, what's the point of a price tag? If I can't actually know the price until checkout, then showing me the price is kind of a useless bit of data. I also suspect that the "speak to a manager" types would make that a major headache for stores.

If it's the price when I grabbed it, how are they keeping track of that? I see two ways of handling that: one requires that you use their app to shop, and the other requires cameras and "machine vision" that are still unreliable, at best. The former seems more likely, but I doubt either is going to sit well with customers.

Edit: someone pointed out that it might not actually display a price, and you'd have to scan it to get your price. Kind of like the first option, but I think it's going to turn off less tech savvy customers.

I haven't seen that aspect addressed in any articles about the "feature".

[–] Tabzlock@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Take a photo of it, I work with paper but we change our tags frequently. We often have prices changed when a customer reaches checkout. I've also had times where a customer came back to check a shelf tag after I just updated it. I honored the previous price those times as I was still holding the tickets but its not a guarantee even in paper stores.

[–] Fuzzy_Red_Panda@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

We often have prices changed when a customer reaches checkout.

I know this isn't your fault or anything but damn, that seems lightly customer hostile at best, and deeply unethical at worst. It sounds like it should be illegal.

[–] amju_wolf@pawb.social 2 points 3 months ago

That sounds very illegal, yeah. You can't advertise a price and then charge something different. It doesn't matter that the person didn't notice it. At that point you might not have price tags at all (which is also illegal, just FYI).

[–] Tabzlock@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

I can't speak internationally or legally but from what I know from friends in similar jobs daily prices changes aren't uncommon. The reason and when it happens often is normally the start of the day when there is a new batch of tickets. They don't go up instantly and multiple 100s of tickets normally take a couple hours to get placed depending on how many/busy staff are.

Main thing is e-ink's don't really make this significantly better or worse. I personally think they are neat for the end worker. The problem is that this is allowed or not enforced well.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 3 months ago

Its not that it can't happen now. Its that it will happen all the time with digital tags.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 4 points 3 months ago

Even at stores that have this feature, I rarely see people use it. It's clearly not an experience that people flock to.

OTOH, on the rare occasion I've visited a Walmart in the past 10 years, I have a 100% rate of checkout taking an absurdly long time. Everyone there just seems to accept it like they have no choice.

[–] tangentism@beehaw.org 6 points 3 months ago

It will become an Olympic event where you have to get from the shelf to the till before the price changes!

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

I edited in another thought. I agree with that fear, that's obviously the concern. I didn't feel the need to repeat it.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Slim profit margins my ass. Walmarts gross profit for the twelve months ending July 31, 2024 was $163.786B,

Not to sound flippant, but do you know what gross profit means? They aren't pocketing all of that. Walmart's net profit margin is 2.66%, which is minuscule. They make up for that by having enormous volume.

[–] 667@lemmy.radio 15 points 3 months ago

A measly $3.2b. Can hardly afford a new yacht with that!

[–] gila@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's an expected tradeoff of operating an essential service is the point. It's not as though their margin is that slim by mistake, or out of goodwill, or bad business sense. It's meant to lead to the situation where we shop at Walmart not by choice, but in lieu of other options.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not really — it's because nearly everything they sell is highly fungible, and they compete on price. Nobody is willing to pay a premium to shop at Walmart. Twenty years ago you'd have been correct, but they've pretty much saturated the market at this point. They're trying to find profitability in automation rather than adding tons of new stores.

[–] gila@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm really meaning the lack of option not to consume fast-moving consumer goods, rather than the option to pay a premium for them elsewhere. When their market position is similar to like an outlet for government rations except for private profit, their net is essentially what was skimmed off the top of free enterprise. 2.66% is just the current maximum amount that is justifiably worth without doing societal harm

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago

That's true, but what you describe is pretty much the end state of big-box retail. Amazon is essentially the same, if we exclude AWS. It's all a race to the bottom. The solution, as always, is to buy direct from smaller producers if possible.

[–] ericjmorey@beehaw.org 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You made a good point and I immediately thought that reporting a gross profit dollar amount as an example of how profit margins are not slim as simply inappropriate. And I would have responded myself if you hadn't. There's no single dollar figure that can inform anyone about anything useful about the profit margin of a business. A number without context is useless.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Gross profit can be defined as the profit a company makes after deducting the variable costs directly associated with making and selling its products or providing its services.

Flippant away

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but there are many more expenses associated with running their business beyond simply COGS. Their net income last year was 11B, which is pretty average for a company that size.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'll be completely honest. I don't care anywhere near enough about the actual number that you do. I looked it up, and that was that. I didn't write a financial report.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I dislike that you've put me in the position of defending Walmart, but don't you find it rather misleading to imply that they made 163 billion dollars in profit when the real number is less than 10% of that?

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

Have a good one

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Slim profit margins my ass. Walmarts gross profit for the twelve months ending July 31, 2024 was $163.786B,

Walmart has 10.5k locations. 163B divided by 10.5K is about $15.6M per location.

Jesus, in what world is $15M profits per store location considered a "slim margin"?

"Gross profit" is a meaningless number in this context. Their net income was $15.5B. If you do the same math to try to determine profit per location, ($15.5B/10500) it's about $1.48M. Not bad, but still about 90% lower than your estimate.

Since I was already estimating seemingly random profit ratios, I also looked at their profit per employee, which came out to $7380/person ($15.5B/2.1M employees).

Unfortunately these numbers are also inclusive of, for example, Walmart's e-commerce program, so calculating the profit per location doesn't indicate anything meaningful to me, though I'm morbidly curious about what insights you are hoping to get from it?