E-Commerce Times Talkback
|
|
|
Posted by: Mark W. Vigoroso 2001-09-05 11:56:34
See Full StoryThe difference between a satisfied online shopper and a disgruntled one often hinges on
the crucial last step in the e-commerce process -- the timely and economical delivery of
merchandise to consumer doorsteps. Even on occasions when a late delivery is the fault of
the shipping service, e-tailers can still suffer the consequences -- in lost future sales,
for example.
"The larger point that e-tailers should keep in mind is that they themselves are
ultimately responsible for all retail activities -- not shippers -- because e-tailers'
business will suffer if problems occur," analysts from research firm Gartner said in a
recent brief.
Posted by: A. Fraser 2001-09-09 21:32:46 In reply to: Mark W. Vigoroso
I devised a totally seamless win/win system for e-tailers and consumers, but trying to get large corporations to listen is too difficult.
E-tailing really can enjoy the high turnover that is warranted by the technology by providing a high standard of service. It only requires implementation. The solution is here now. There is no big question of how.
The way corporations simply do not address solutions presented leaves many a useful enterprize dead.
Posted by: David 2001-09-07 16:46:02 In reply to: Mark W. Vigoroso
Posted by: Jena 2001-09-06 16:15:19 In reply to: Mark W. Vigoroso
Posted by: Andrew Hobday 2001-10-04 00:36:39 In reply to: Jena
You can send it to me at: zero2infinity@optusnet.com.au
Posted by: John 2001-09-06 00:50:57 In reply to: Mark W. Vigoroso
is the best. Very rarely are there any problems. Where occasionally I've had a B/O it usually
shows up within a few days. Returns are unbelievably easy. Plus they pay for the return
shipping costs. Plus they PAY you a bonus to shop and refer others. Plus they made over
$518 Million last year. Plus they are privately owned. oh...maybe that's why no media
really understands them nor cares to give them much type text. They don't advertise! That's
a big stay-away-from issue.
Posted by: Greg 2001-09-05 17:05:37 In reply to: Mark W. Vigoroso
Posted by: Larry 2001-09-06 22:40:33 In reply to: Greg
Posted by: David Porter 2001-09-05 16:59:00 In reply to: Mark W. Vigoroso
To illustrate: if nobody in your family could be home to receive home-delivered goods, would you be likely to even order them in the first place? ...If you're like 78.6% of people, you'll probably say "no" (see www.fastlaundry.com/ipsos-reid.htm).
Presuming that this exchange problem is huge, what might resolve it? ...Many years ago, and presumably because too many not-at-home people were causing too much mail to be carried back to the post office, the US Postal Service required that all homes have mailboxes (see http://www.si.edu/postal/learnmore/knocker.html). Similarly, bigger/more functional boxes could be installed at folks' homes -- boxes that all companies could access like the SmartBox at http://www.ideo.com/studies/brivo.htm For then, just like nobody now cares whether or not they're home to receive their mail, nobody would care if they weren't home to receive other stuff; so as a result, orders would boom, companies could more densely and profitably deliver, and other related industries could join in the growth.

Headline Feeds
