25 / 84
to do all kinds of things. Such “artificial
brains” are the power behind Google’s
search, Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s recom-
mendations and Tesla’s self-driving
cars. As those advancements increas-
ingly make their way onto the retail
sales floor, it becomes almost unfair to
make comparisons between human and
“artificial” or machine-based capa-
bilities. After all, machines don’t need
breaks or vacation days; they’re never
late for work, never steal merchandise
and can work 14 straight hours, seven
days a week without overtime pay or
Labor Department disputes.
Sure, even the smartest machines
have their limits. There will be mainte-
nance and upgrade costs and break-
fix inconveniences, but non-human
workforce solutions also have no need
for health insurance, worker’s compen-
sation and employment tax, and human
employees simply can’t compete in
terms of automatically gathering, storing
and retrieving on-demand gobs of cus-
tomer data the way machines increas-
ingly can. Smart machines and robots
also can speak multiple languages and
be updated constantly with real-time
inventory and customer data.
On the other hand, there will always
be lots of consumers who prefer the
face-to-face of human interaction and
real-person problem solving. But there is
also most certainly a decent percentage
of shoppers who are indifferent or even
prefer interaction with non-humans. A
recent study by Mintel suggest as much.
Within the relatively high-touch
category of cosmetics and beauty
products, Mintel found that 45 percent
of beauty consumers prefer to search
for product information in-store on their
mobile devices rather than ask for as-
sistance from a sales associate. What’s
more, two in five (39 percent) of those
consumers are interested in using, or
have used, a store-provided tablet to
research beauty products available.
When former McDonald’s USA CEO
Ed Rensi recently stated how it would be
cheaper to buy a $35,000 robotic arm than
hire a $15 an hour employee to cook and
bag French fries, it’s was largely said as a
claim in the highly charged minimum wage
debate. But placing politics aside and look-
ing at the matter purely mathematically,
smart machines at those prices can be
justified by eliminating the cost of just one
full-time employee, especially when factor-
ing in the dollars for training, insurance,
sick days, employment tax and so on.
We’re also already seeing “robot-
as-a-service” models being discussed,
under which the cost to purchase,
maintain and upgrade smart and learn-
ing machines is lumped into a recur-
ring monthly cost – much like labor.
And whereas current retail technology
investments in online, mobile, local and
social generally need to be justified by
a boost in revenue or customer reten-
tion, capital for AI-ML-NLP investments
may already exist in budgets, shifted
over from the labor line item.
Some may say we sound like doom-
sayers, or at least are inflating the
type of hype this publication is usually
careful to deflate. Even so, events and
advancements that truly disrupt long-
standing business models don’t appear
very often. When they do, it’s always
better to know about then too early
rather than too late.
Summer
2016
|
Inside
Outdoor
25