Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> "The economics are clear... direct-to-home has a supply chain cost three times higher than a store-based model."

That surprised me. Does anybody have more details as to why that would be?




In the store-based model, the customer handles the 'last mile' of getting the product from a distribution center (the store) to their home.


Yes, but direct-to-home doesn't need to pay urban rent or salaries for its distribution centers. There must be some other factor. Perhaps the costs of maintaining a reliable e-commerce site?


It's not clear to me that "supply chain cost" includes the cost of the storefront.


Here's a simplified example: shipping. Let's say I sell 5,000 widgets a month. I can ship all those widgets in one big truck to my brick-and-mortar store for $10k. Or, I can ship each one to 5,000 individual customers for $10/ea... or $50k total. My pure shipping cost is five times higher.

With a store-based model, I have to pay for retail space and employees; with direct-to-home, my dollars go to pick-and-ship and warehousing. eCommerce scales better because of the capital costs of building out new retail locations (effectively higher out-of-area CAC), but not insurmountably so. E.g., Amazon vs. Walmart.


Basically the last mile is by far the most expensive.

It's cheaper to get a truck full of stuff to your shop than having trucks all over the country's cities going from door to door to deliver stuff to individual customers.


And this is exactly why Walmart can offer free shipping with in-store pickup on heavy items like snowblowers.


Because you have to get the product to the customer instead of the customer coming and getting it from you?




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: