Retailers can save big on inventory and shipping costs by filling e-commerce orders from brick-and-mortar stores. But the practice also carries some serious risks—like alienating in-store shoppers.
Ben Ames has spent 20 years as a journalist since starting out as a daily newspaper reporter in Pennsylvania in 1995. From 1999 forward, he has focused on business and technology reporting for a number of trade journals, beginning when he joined Design News and Modern Materials Handling magazines. Ames is author of the trail guide "Hiking Massachusetts" and is a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism.
If you’ve shopped in a brick-and-mortar store in recent months, you may have seen store employees acting strangely. Instead of restocking shelves or helping customers find goods, they’re on the floor picking inventory themselves, filling carts with items for e-commerce orders.
The trend is the latest way that exploding e-commerce demand has rocked the world of retail.
The advantages of filling online orders from store shelves are clear—retailers can save money by offering curbside pickup or same-day delivery to consumers who live nearby, instead of shipping those orders from distant warehouses. They also stand to realize major cost savings by serving both store and online customers from a single pool of inventory.
However, industry experts warn that there are drawbacks to the practice as well. For one thing, there’s the potential for traffic jams when consumers and employees all try to pick from the same inventory at once. For another, there’s the risk of alienating shoppers who may find themselves competing with store employees for items that are in short supply. And that’s to say nothing of the cost implications of devoting expensive urban real estate to tasks usually performed in warehouses in low-rent areas. Or the need to retrain workers for specialized shipping operations.
All this goes to say that as appealing as shifting to a store-based fulfillment may sound, it’s not a decision to be taken lightly. There’s more to it than simply having employees pivot from placing shelf goods into shopping carts to placing shelf goods into shipping cartons. In reality, it’s a complex calculation that requires retailers to weigh a host of sometimes competing factors that include real estate costs, training needs, and in-store shoppers’ experiences.
PRESERVING THE IN-STORE EXPERIENCE
It’s an issue Michele Dupré sees retailers struggle with every day. Dupré, who is group vice president at Verizon Enterprise Solutions with responsibility for enterprise customers in the retail, hospitality/travel, and distribution sectors, says companies from across the retail landscape are combing through their market data and statistics to determine whether it makes sense to perform e-commerce fulfillment in their stores.
What makes the decision so difficult, Dupré says, is that it forces retailers to balance the competing needs of on-site shoppers and digital shoppers. “Retailers are weighing the current obstacles, because the last thing you want to do is provide a bad experience, so the shopper doesn’t engage with the brand and you lose their business.”
Given the complexities involved, it’s no surprise that the retail industry has yet to settle on a single operating model, she adds. “It’s an ever-evolving and changing environment, as the sector continues to morph into co-existing digital and physical operations.”
SELECTIVE SERVICES
Of course, in-store fulfillment doesn’t have to be an “all or nothing” endeavor. One way to capture the savings of in-store fulfillment while avoiding clashes with in-store shoppers is to roll out the practice in only a few of a retailer’s stores within a given city, says Joe Dunlap, managing director for supply chain advisory with the real estate services and investment firm CBRE Group Inc.
“If a retailer has four, five, or six facilities in a given metro [area], it can still provide next-day time-in-transit service to the broader market by doing e-commerce fulfillment from a single location,” Dunlap says. “Maybe it’s overkill to ship from every store; you just need one in a given market.”
Another option might be to limit the types of e-commerce fulfillment services provided from a given brick-and-mortar outlet. For example, a retailer might decide to make “buy online/pick up from store” (BOPIS) service available at a given site but not the more ambitious ship-from-store service, which requires more employee involvement and training. Still other possibilities include shifting e-commerce activities to a nearby microfulfillment center (MFC) or to a “dark store” (one without live shoppers).
As for which strategies are gaining the most traction, the answer is not yet clear. “It’s still a little bit early to see trends here because property data doesn’t distinguish between those uses yet—for pure walk-in, BOPIS, or buy online/ship from store,” Dunlap says. “[Retailers are all performing] ongoing perpetual analysis as the infrastructure changes, volumes change, and consumer behavior adapts to these new shopping patterns.”
NO SILVER BULLET
As retailers continue to struggle with this issue, they’re looking to both high-tech and low-tech solutions, according to Jim Barnes, CEO of supply chain consulting and IT services firm enVista. On the low-tech side, the solutions can be as simple as scheduling e-commerce fulfillment work for off-peak times such as early mornings and late nights to minimize inconvenience to shoppers. “Stores don’t want … their sales associates to pick food during peak shopping times, when they might be competing with in-store shoppers for that last container of Chobani yogurt,” he says.
As for technology-based solutions, retailers are investing in handhelds and tablets as well as exploring their automation options—although progress on that front has been slow to date. For example, according to a white paper from enVista titled CMOs and CFOs Take Control: Don’t Let Your Ship From Store Strategy Break the Bank, less than 25 percent of retailers have well-defined, automated processes for ship from store.
Still, when it comes to multistep operations like ship from store, simply upgrading your technology is no silver bullet, Barnes warns. It’s more complicated than swapping out a basic order management system (OMS) for a “light” warehouse management system (WMS), he says.
“What you don’t want to do is think you can turn on your WMS and … be able to ship from store, because there are so many other variables,” Barnes adds. By way of example, he points to the need to train employees on how to package and ship delicate goods like lamps or glassware.
A LONG ROAD AHEAD
Launching omnichannel fulfillment operations within a brick-and-mortar store remains an enticing option for retailers caught between skyrocketing e-commerce demand and the need to keep shipping costs in check. But it also requires them to meet the sometimes competing needs of in-store and online shoppers. And when it comes to the question of how best to do that, industry analysts warn there’s no clear path forward yet.
“There is overlap between pure industrial and pure retail; there’s a gray space in between brick and mortar, pick up in store, and ship from store,” CBRE’s Dunlap says. “There are blurred lines between what’s an industrial space and what’s a retail space. There’s still a long road ahead.”
The Port of Oakland has been awarded $50 million from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD) to modernize wharves and terminal infrastructure at its Outer Harbor facility, the port said today.
Those upgrades would enable the Outer Harbor to accommodate Ultra Large Container Vessels (ULCVs), which are now a regular part of the shipping fleet calling on West Coast ports. Each of these ships has a handling capacity of up to 24,000 TEUs (20-foot containers) but are currently restricted at portions of Oakland’s Outer Harbor by aging wharves which were originally designed for smaller ships.
According to the port, those changes will let it handle newer, larger vessels, which are more efficient, cost effective, and environmentally cleaner to operate than older ships. Specific investments for the project will include: wharf strengthening, structural repairs, replacing container crane rails, adding support piles, strengthening support beams, and replacing electrical bus bar system to accommodate larger ship-to-shore cranes.
Commercial fleet operators are steadily increasing their use of GPS fleet tracking, in-cab video solutions, and predictive analytics, driven by rising costs, evolving regulations, and competitive pressures, according to an industry report from Verizon Connect.
Those conclusions come from the company’s fifth annual “Fleet Technology Trends Report,” conducted in partnership with Bobit Business Media, and based on responses from 543 fleet management professionals.
The study showed that for five consecutive years, at least four out of five respondents have reported using at least one form of fleet technology, said Atlanta-based Verizon Connect, which provides fleet and mobile workforce management software platforms, embedded OEM hardware, and a connected vehicle device called Hum by Verizon.
The most commonly used of those technologies is GPS fleet tracking, with 69% of fleets across industries reporting its use, the survey showed. Of those users, 72% find it extremely or very beneficial, citing improved efficiency (62%) and a reduction in harsh driving/speeding events (49%).
Respondents also reported a focus on safety, with 57% of respondents citing improved driver safety as a key benefit of GPS fleet tracking. And 68% of users said in-cab video solutions are extremely or very beneficial. Together, those technologies help reduce distracted driving incidents, improve coaching sessions, and help reduce accident and insurance costs, Verizon Connect said.
Looking at the future, fleet management software is evolving to meet emerging challenges, including sustainability and electrification, the company said. "The findings from this year's Fleet Technology Trends Report highlight a strong commitment across industries to embracing fleet technology, with GPS tracking and in-cab video solutions consistently delivering measurable results,” Peter Mitchell, General Manager, Verizon Connect, said in a release. “As fleets face rising costs and increased regulatory pressures, these technologies are proving to be indispensable in helping organizations optimize their operations, reduce expenses, and navigate the path toward a more sustainable future.”
Businesses engaged in international trade face three major supply chain hurdles as they head into 2025: the disruptions caused by Chinese New Year (CNY), the looming threat of potential tariffs on foreign-made products that could be imposed by the incoming Trump Administration, and the unresolved contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX), according to an analysis from trucking and logistics provider Averitt.
Each of those factors could lead to significant shipping delays, production slowdowns, and increased costs, Averitt said.
First, Chinese New Year 2025 begins on January 29, prompting factories across China and other regions to shut down for weeks, typically causing production to halt and freight demand to skyrocket. The ripple effects can range from increased shipping costs to extended lead times, disrupting even the most well-planned operations. To prepare for that event, shippers should place orders early, build inventory buffers, secure freight space in advance, diversify shipping modes, and communicate with logistics providers, Averitt said.
Second, new or increased tariffs on foreign-made goods could drive up the cost of imports, disrupt established supply chains, and create uncertainty in the marketplace. In turn, shippers may face freight rate volatility and capacity constraints as businesses rush to stockpile inventory ahead of tariff deadlines. To navigate these challenges, shippers should prepare advance shipments and inventory stockpiling, diversity sourcing, negotiate supplier agreements, explore domestic production, and leverage financial strategies.
Third, unresolved contract negotiations between the ILA and the USMX will come to a head by January 15, when the current contract expires. Labor action or strikes could cause severe disruptions at East and Gulf Coast ports, triggering widespread delays and bottlenecks across the supply chain. To prepare for the worst, shippers should adopt a similar strategy to the other potential January threats: collaborate early, secure freight, diversify supply chains, and monitor policy changes.
According to Averitt, companies can cushion the impact of all three challenges by deploying a seamless, end-to-end solution covering the entire path from customs clearance to final-mile delivery. That strategy can help businesses to store inventory closer to their customers, mitigate delays, and reduce costs associated with supply chain disruptions. And combined with proactive communication and real-time visibility tools, the approach allows companies to maintain control and keep their supply chains resilient in the face of global uncertainties, Averitt said.
Bloomington, Indiana-based FTR said its Trucking Conditions Index declined in September to -2.47 from -1.39 in August as weakness in the principal freight dynamics – freight rates, utilization, and volume – offset lower fuel costs and slightly less unfavorable financing costs.
Those negative numbers are nothing new—the TCI has been positive only twice – in May and June of this year – since April 2022, but the group’s current forecast still envisions consistently positive readings through at least a two-year forecast horizon.
“Aside from a near-term boost mostly related to falling diesel prices, we have not changed our Trucking Conditions Index forecast significantly in the wake of the election,” Avery Vise, FTR’s vice president of trucking, said in a release. “The outlook continues to be more favorable for carriers than what they have experienced for well over two years. Our analysis indicates gradual but steadily rising capacity utilization leading to stronger freight rates in 2025.”
But FTR said its forecast remains unchanged. “Just like everyone else, we’ll be watching closely to see exactly what trade and other economic policies are implemented and over what time frame. Some freight disruptions are likely due to tariffs and other factors, but it is not yet clear that those actions will do more than shift the timing of activity,” Vise said.
The TCI tracks the changes representing five major conditions in the U.S. truck market: freight volumes, freight rates, fleet capacity, fuel prices, and financing costs. Combined into a single index indicating the industry’s overall health, a positive score represents good, optimistic conditions while a negative score shows the inverse.
Specifically, the new global average robot density has reached a record 162 units per 10,000 employees in 2023, which is more than double the mark of 74 units measured seven years ago.
Broken into geographical regions, the European Union has a robot density of 219 units per 10,000 employees, an increase of 5.2%, with Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia in the global top ten. Next, North America’s robot density is 197 units per 10,000 employees – up 4.2%. And Asia has a robot density of 182 units per 10,000 persons employed in manufacturing - an increase of 7.6%. The economies of Korea, Singapore, mainland China and Japan are among the top ten most automated countries.
Broken into individual countries, the U.S. ranked in 10th place in 2023, with a robot density of 295 units. Higher up on the list, the top five are:
The Republic of Korea, with 1,012 robot units, showing a 5% increase on average each year since 2018 thanks to its strong electronics and automotive industries.
Singapore had 770 robot units, in part because it is a small country with a very low number of employees in the manufacturing industry, so it can reach a high robot density with a relatively small operational stock.
China took third place in 2023, surpassing Germany and Japan with a mark of 470 robot units as the nation has managed to double its robot density within four years.
Germany ranks fourth with 429 robot units for a 5% CAGR since 2018.
Japan is in fifth place with 419 robot units, showing growth of 7% on average each year from 2018 to 2023.