The Triumph of Ecommerce

Brick or Click
From rural strip-malls to Manhattan’s avenues, it has been a disastrous past few years for retail. There have been nine retail bankruptcies in 2017—as many as all of 2016. J.C. Penney, RadioShack, Macy’s and Sears have each announced more than 100 store closures. Sports Authority has liquidated and Payless has filed for bankruptcy. Last week, several apparel companies’ stocks hit new multi-year lows, including Lululemon, Urban Outfitters and American Eagle, and Ralph Lauren announced that it is closing its flagship Polo store on Fifth Avenue, one of several brands to abandon that iconic thoroughfare. A deep recession might explain an extinction-level event for large retailers. But U.S. GDP has been growing for eight straight years, gas prices are low, unemployment is under 5 percent, and the last 18 months have been quietly excellent for wage growth, particularly for middle- and lower-income Americans. The U.S economy has not hindered consumerism in the past two years; rather, the method and preferences of consumerism have simply changed. E-commerce has emerged as one of the principal methods of shopping; many are blaming it for the demise of traditional physical retail outlets. This document will analyze the validity of these claims by deconstructing three editorials, each of which posits the notion that the physical retail industry is losing market share to e-commerce.
Prior to analyzing the specifics of the foregoing editorials, it helps to contextualize them in terms of the general sentiment regarding the relationship between e-commerce and physical retail outlets. Proponents of e-commerce believe that with the growth of online shopping, American consumers have discovered the simplicities and comfort of buying goods online. As a result, many are forgoing conventional brick-and-mortar retail outlets. Many believe e-commerce giants such as Amazon have met the consumer’s every wish in terms of what is delivered (such as groceries) and how it is delivered (via free and quick shipping). Consequently, there has been significant opposition to the rise of e-commerce from champions of physical retail outlets. Individuals in support of local retailers have pledged to boycott shopping online to show their commitment to local, physical outlets. The tension between these partisans is readily evinced in the three editorials examined below.
In the first of these editorials, an LA Times opinion piece from June 4, 2017 entitled “Amazon.com is a 21st century deal with the devil,” Amy Koss argues that Amazon is malicious because it has ruined malls, driving booksellers and other retailers out of business. Moreover, she believes it has assumed nearly total control of people’s shopping habits via “Big Data.” Koss claims Amazon sees and knows all and anticipates every consumer’s next move. Koss’s focus on Amazon is extremely important, both to the overall conviction of her article and to the notion that e-commerce is displacing shopping in physical locations. Amazon is emblematic of the perceived negative effect e-commerce is having on brick-and-mortar stores. It sells virtually everything anyone would want, has become wildly profitable, and is able to offer prices that many traditional physical retail locations simply cannot match. Thus, an important, implicit premise to Koss’s editorial is that everything she is detailing about Amazon’s effect on physical retail locations represents the negative effects that Amazon’s business specialty—e-commerce—has on brick-and-mortar locations.
Start off saying she uses a narrative. One of the most distinguishing features about Koss’s editorial is that it functions as a narrative. The author is a character, some of the more salient aspect of her article are a story, one which explictly blames the impending demise of retail stores on ecommerce (and on Aamzon in particular). The personal touch is a little distracting, and there are moments when Koss’s piece functions more like standard journalism in which she refers to events and aspects of the journey of retail stores in the third person. What is missing from this article—which detracts from the overall conviction of the author—is the non-partisan approach of journalism. The author is decidedly one-sided in her recounting of her enouncters with forces she believes are indicative of the demise of retail based on e-commerce. A more neutral approach would have appealed to a broader reader demographic. As the editorial reads, she is obviously appealing to those who are already of her same opinion. She is making no attempts to proselytize those of alternative dispositions regarding this issue.
Koss couches her narrative by visiting the mall and talking to booksellers, using their experiences to support her own. She provides background information along the way to make her points. The argument is not so much proven as it is reiterated, like a theme, in variations throughout the piece. It is assumed that the reader of the piece will be sympathetic to what Koss is describing. However, Koss’ take is somewhat glib and superficial. It is too easy to describe Amazon as Satan;a thinking person will not subscribe to Koss’s depiction. Furthermore, Koss uses colloquialisms like “we recite the roll of the dead” when describing the long list of retailers that have expired. But her use of terms like “sinister,” “hell,” “lost souls,” “Satan,” and “the damned” just indicates that she is looking to provoke more of a dramatic or visceral effect than a literal, or even logical, one.
The tone of Koss’s piece is gothic and romantic. It begins by describing a mall as a deserted structure like an old ruined castle where “lost souls” wander and where Satan has cast his pall. The evidence that Koss presents is entirely anecdotal—all of it is witnessed first-hand. Her piece is more a personal narrative than it is a research article. She provides no hyperlinks to other web pages or sources of information to support her claims. She simply states her observations and how she perceives them. For example, she reports visiting the mall, encountering all the closed shops, and conversing briefly with a saleswoman who explains that everything must go because her store is closing soon. The metaphor that Koss utilizes is that Amazon is the Devil that has given people everything they want with just the click of a button. The price is that retailers are dying. Booksellers are losing hope. Everyone is shopping online and losing their humanity. The author does not supply much ethos but instead jumps into pathos and uses imagery to appeal to the reader’s emotions. Does it work? On a superficial level, yes—but there is more to understanding the nature of commerce in the Digital Era than what Koss is able to divine.
Still, Koss makes some attempts to utilize logos and, when she does, the article works best. In a succinct series of paragraphs she is able to summarize the basic appeal of Amazon and, by extension, that of e-commerce as a whole. Shoppers can find almost anything they want online. If they do not particularly like what it is they can see, they can readily find another to replace it. Thus, there is a selection which is difficult to match in physical retail stores. The writer also directly addresses the immediacy with which purchases are made and customers are satisfied, in addition to the pricing benefits. This logos reinforces the fact that even detractors of e-commerce readily acknowledge its benefits, despite the fact that they might be upset about them. Nonetheless, the supernatural connotations with which Koss describes the transition from shopping in physical stores to doing so online lessens her credibility, as well as that of the editorial in general. Koss delivers a solid piece of creative writing loosely based on reality, a fact which ultimately hampers her editorial.
Not everyone is completely upset about the recent shopping transformation. As a matter of fact, some assert a more positive approach to the new landscape of the 21st century, where not only consumers but also laborers are confronting change. The New York Times editorial, “As Retail Goes, So Goes the Nation” by Allan Thompson on April 21, 2017, addresses this change within the context of lost retail positions. Thompson directs his ire in a different direction, however. Instead of critiquing e-commerce companies, he critiques public policy and actually advocates for change, urging members of the U.S. government to act—namely, current President Donald Trump. Thus, his article is much more neutral than Koss’s is, which provides a greater advantage to the non-partisan reader simply trying to research the facts about e-commerce and traditional retail shopping. He acknowledges the transition of the latter to the former, and presents a number of viable options to make it much more beneficial to society as a whole.
The article begins by illustrating the life of the average worker, how jobs are being lost and the impact that e-commerce has had on retail. Thompson acknowledges that while technology is not bad in and of itself, the resulting job landscape is changing drastically with unemployment being a particularly nasty ramification. Suggested solutions or the “strong safety net” for displaced workers include continuous health care coverage and unemployment benefits. Thompson’s editorial is not presented as a rant but rather as a plea—a plea for more positive solutions to a changing world. His editorial is not only heralding the shift in shopping trends but also looking to capitalize on it. In this respect, it become clear that the overall impact of e-commerce on physical retail shopping is not necessarily noxious. Rather, the author’s work suggests that it is more transformative in nature, begetting new opportunities and avenues of fulfilling customer expectations. This fact is critical to understanding the dynamics between these two shopping methods. It also implies that in some ways, e-commerce can actually extend its benefits to the world of physical retailers.
The tone of the New York Times piece is rather serious and informational, though it also adopts a pessimistic tone to convey the urgency of the situation. Namely, the editorial advocates for government assistance to keep workers afloat during hard times as they look for new employment since they lost their retail jobs to e-commerce businesses. Thompson does not suggest alternatives; he simply claims that government subsidies are in order. Ultimately, Thompson argues that to ensure a smooth transition in the modified job market, the government must act—like a good nanny—to ensure that American workers are not left chronically unemployed. The premise may be sound, but the conclusion is unlikely to appeal to all—especially to those who do not believe that more government is the solution to anything. Thompson’s tone is critical to understanding this article and the issue of physical retail shopping versus e-commerce because it illustrates that there are some options for the former, despite the growing ascendence of the latter.
Thompson deftly applies ethos, logos and pathos in the article. For one, the piece is evidential, meaning that every claim or statement is supported by a fact, and the facts are given via hyperlinks. Thus, it relays ethos. Thompson also asserts his credibility by supplying so many sources that the reader will surely agree that the piece is well-researched and full of facts that cannot be dismissed or argued. Additionally, Thompson uses logos by indicating that e-commerce will not put people out of work for long—there will always be new jobs that surface. He states that approximately the “same number of people” who lost jobs in retail earned employment in warehousing and transportation, channels created by the e-commerce boom. This point is definitely one of the more pivotal ones which Thompson makes. It hints at the future of retail in the U.S., as well as its lasting effect on economics. E-commerce is not sounding the death knell as some other articles might try to have people believe. Instead, it is simply spearheading a transition to a different type of economy, one which is more focused on warehousing and transportation as opposed to working with customers in physical locations. Granted, there is still a need to work with customers in that capacity and there likely always will be one. However, e-commerce is impacting the economics of retail in such a way that it is simply transitioning.
One of the final points which Thompson makes is that what is needed is short-term assistance, which appeals to pathos and the emotional side of the reader who wants to help. Utilizing phrase, such as “grim work lives” or “angry-working class voter,” Thompson very much demonstrates feeling for the affected laid-off worker and not only hopes the reader exhibits a similar reaction, but also intends for him or her to act on said emotion. What is noteworthy about this manifestation of ethos is that it is not disproportionate in terms of its contrasts with logos and ethos. There is still enough logic and sense in this article. However, the author realizes that the loss of any jobs is difficult for an employee and for his or her family. He conveys these points to the reader with diction that is somewhat emotional and definitely demonstrative of pathos to emphasize this reality. However, he is able to contextualize that reality within a greater understanding of some of the positive affects of the shift from e-commerce to physical locations. That shift is shutting down some jobs, but it is also creating them in other industries outside of retail. Thus, the overall impact is not one which is wholly negative or wholly positive, but one indicative a transformation in the way the economy functions. So, although the physical retail industry is losing certain facets of its market share to e-commerce, it is doing so in a way that denotes gains in other industries. Most importantly, those gains can affect the same people who lost jobs in retail, which was one of Thompson’s more astute points.
The final article reviewed in this paper is even more optimistic about the effect of e-commerce is having on commercially viable industries in America. The underlying motif is that popular opinion about e-commerce’s impact—and some of its perceived negativity, has suffered from a decidedly partisan approach. This premise, of course, has been verified by the first two editorials analyzed herein. Nonetheless, the Wall Street Journal article “Bricks, Mortar—and Experiences” by Daniel Freedman published on August 20, 2017 begins by announcing that the retail scare has been overblown—that Amazon is not going to put everyone out of business. Freedman expresses so much confidence about this point that his article proceeds to suggest that all retailers have to do to stay competitive and attract business is simply to adapt. Specifically, retailers must accept the fact that in the digital era, consumers want brick-and-mortar stores to provide more than just goods (which they can get online) but to offer experiences.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of this notion is that it yields some insight into just what the future of physical retail outlets is going to be. In this respect they are projected to deliver an increasingly personalized experience in order to compete with the instant gratification of e-commerce. What Freedman alludes to (as does Koss, interestingly enough) is that the principal way retail outlets can continue to survive is through specialization. Physical shopping experiences will likely become much more specialized as a way of creating the sort of personal, interactive experiences which will still attract people away from their computers and mobile devices to engage in physical retail. This fact could very well be the saving grace of traditional retail outlets, and is one of the reasons why Freedman’s article indicates that the purported end of such shopping experiences has been highly exaggerated, to say the least.
In light of this fact, Freedman’s editorial is much more positive than the other two are regarding the future of conventional shopping outlets. His tone is upbeat, bright and caters to an audience that appreciates wit, reason and logic. He writes at a quick clip; sentences vary in terms of length and structure, so the writing is interesting. Additionally, Freedman employs colloquial phrases consistently like “cracking smiles” and “flipped the script.” Coupled with factual statements, these phrases allow for variation and an overall enjoyable read. That enjoyment reinforces the positive attributes he ascribes to both physical retail outlets and their common future. His tone is decidedly at variance with that of the other two authors, who seemed much less assured of the propagation of this facet of the retail market than Freedman is. His confidence is apparent from his deployment of colloquialisms and factual evidence to buttress this viewpoint. If Freedman’s goal is to convince the reader that everything is going to be okay and that there is no need to worry about big, bad Amazon blowing anyone’s house down, his use of tone and phrases help do just that.
Freedman fruitfully interweaves the elements of ethos, logos and pathos into the editorial as well. First, he uses ethos to establish his credentials, early on making assertions that he supports with quick one-two punches of facts. For example, directly after stating the value of in-person interactions, he provides a brief account of how most venture capitalists remain in Silicon Valley, home to many start-ups, to stay updated with its happenings and founders’ projections and missions. In other words, Freedman does not just state person-to-person interaction is not extinct, he shows this reality, and backs it up with fact. Freedman also illustrates how tech giants Apple and Amazon both have collectively constructed over 500 physical stores, despite their substantial business ventures in the software and e-commerce industries. More stores mean more retail jobs.
This trend which Freedman highlights is of considerable value and adds to the conversation of the future of retail outlets in an extremely meaningful way. The intersection of physical locations and e-commerce is one which is mutually beneficial to both of these shopping options. Apple is one of the main purveyors of computing equipment, mobile devices, and smart watches which enable people to eschew shopping in physical locations—if that is what they truly wanted to do. What Freedman is explicating is that even these technologically savvy companies know the value in traditional retail shopping. That value is an enduring one, as indicated by the burgeoning presence of Apple and Amazon in brick-and-mortar locations. It would seem this fact alone is enough to show illustrate more than a little hope to physical retailers. The ethos Freedman uses to illustrate this point actually correlates with elements of logos as well, because both Apple and Amazon are providing a concrete example of the worth of physical shopping. By elucidating this part of these companies’ business, the author is supporting his contention that retail shopping is not a relic of the past.
In addition to his utilization of ethos, Freedman is also able o rely upon the use of logos equally effectively, as the entire piece is logical from start to finish. Plus, he provides sound reasoning to suggest how retailers must adapt to the world that Amazon has changed. Freedman states that retailers must make shoppers feel a part of the action—likening them to a “spectator”—an experience that one simply cannot purchase online. Finally, Freedman uses pathos in a way that is surprising because the op-ed goes to an unexpected place: the argument that people are still people and e-commerce hasn’t changed that. All retailers must do is work on providing consumers with an enjoyable experience because people are still going to want to get out and socialize. Still, there is not much evidence beyond this understanding of human nature to suggest that retailers can provide the types of experiences described in the piece, which is why the turn of argument at the end is rooted more in pathos than in logos. Nonetheless, it is effective in dispelling the doom-and-gloom that many of today’s consumers and job seekers perpetuate.
The rapid rise in e-commerce has inevitably propelled a variety of opinions, as illustrated among these three editorials. Each piece is different; Koss’ is more dramatic, Thompson’s is more factual and Freedman’s is more forward-looking. None of them have the same tone, nor do any of them make use of the same evidence. For example, Koss strictly employs observations to support her claims, while Thompson and Freedman cite hyperlinks to uphold their credibility. Their structures are similar—namely, all are short, start off by introducing a theme and build on that—and the language of each is simple enough that the level of writing does not substantially differ. Each piece provides different purposes. Koss’ piece acts like a dirge and is a lament for our lost humanity. Thompson’s work is forthright and aims to have the reader hold accountable public officials. Freedman’s editorial is optimistic and embraces the changes brought about by Amazon. It celebrates the innovation that retailers must adapt to in order to provide consumers with the human experience they will still pursue.
Among the three articles, I felt that “Bricks, Mortar—and Experiences” is the most effective in persuading me to support the e-commerce position. It tackles head-on the controversial topic of e-commerce, never displaying a hint of shying away. Acknowledging the current success of e-commerce and decline of retail, it provides a solution for retail that also employs online shopping. The fusion of the two mediums for shopping allows for an optimistic tone that believes neither must die. In fact, Freedman believes that in the future they can both coexist in a fruitful manner.
Moreover, the tone of the Freedman editorial is upbeat, witty, and enjoyable to read. The author varies his sentence structure and approach by mixing facts with colloquialisms and taking a contrary position to the present crisis. It uses anecdotes and colorful imagery to ease the fears and concerns of the reader, delivering a more uplifting sense of the future that is rooted ultimately in the facts. In a world dominated by doom and gloom headlines, it is refreshing to hear a voice that not only welcomes the Amazonian giant but sees just how David can claim his rightful place alongside Goliath.
Overall, it appears that it is not necessary to lament the end of physical retail locations simply because of e-commerce. As Freedman has revealed, the most competitive in these spaces are adapting an approach which is “symbiotic”, utilizing the best of both online shopping and physical shopping. The consumer will continue to go to retail locations for personalized, as well as specialized shopping experiences. The key to these experiences is the sort of human interaction which has always been at the core of the shopping experience. Online shopping has not supplanted this need. Instead, it has merely changed it to one which is more tailored to the desires of the consumer.
In summary, the analysis of the three editorials within this document shows that there is a substantial amount of hype alleging the demise of brick-and-mortar location. A thorough analysis of the tone, pathos, logos, ethos, and content of these editorials indicates these allegations are not true. If anything, e-commerce has signaled the end of retail shopping as it has previously existed. Instead, it has heralded its transition to one in which displaced workers are finding employment in different industries. Moreover, it heralds a transition in which shopping in physical locations becomes more fun, and much more of a specialized experience according to the particular business domain of the store solicited.
Works Cited
Durden, Tyler. “Amazon Soars On Report Of ‘Unbelievable’ Online Sales As Channel Checks Show Store Traffic Down 1%.” ZeroHedge, 27 Nov 2017. Web.
Freedman, Daniel. “Bricks, Mortar—and Experiences.” Editorial. Wall Street Journal 20 Aug. 2017. Web.
Koss, Amy. “Amazon.com is a 21st century deal with the devil.” Editorial. LA Times 5 Jun 2017. Web.
Thompson, Allan. “As Retail Goes, So Goes the Nation.” New York Times 21 Apr 2017. Web.