Could The Retail Industry Save Itself Using Game Theory?

In my previous post on whether the Christmas Sales have destroyed hopes of a retail recovery, I discussed how retailers have exhibited classic non-cooperative behaviour. By focusing only on individual interest and survival, their collective actions have likely damaged their entire industry's market size. By encouraging people to spend their liquidity faster through low prices in over-competitive price wars, people now facing redundancies will run out of spending ability much quicker, and retailers give themselves no time to be able to adapt to reducing market sizes and changing consumer need.

Retailer actions thus suggest a basic lack of understanding of collective strategic options. Even just a basic group recognition of Game Theory might have helped. Game theory attempts to model behavior in strategic situations, where players interact and make decisions to maximise their returns based on each others choices - arguably leading to optimal behaviour for all. The classic example is the 'Prisoner's Dilemma' which involves two participants who can either benefit together or suffer together. However this is a zero sum game and rational behaviour in this model is self-interest, so consequently the optimal solution is never chosen.

In a normal situation the retail space would probably be modelled as a non-zero sum game. One firm's success does not necessarily mean losses for everyone else, because that success may increase the general size of the market to mean success for all players. However in the current economic climate, it looks more like there is a finite and decreasing amount of money that people have to spend, and therefore a limited resource available to all players, bringing the situation closer to a zero sum game.

For retailers, what Game Theory therefore suggests is that the players can either try and maximise their own gain, in which case some will come out well while others do badly, involving high risk for everyone; or they can all cooperate strategically to all do a little less well but significantly minimise each player's risk of severe failure.

What retailers should have done, is considered working together to keep prices sensible, and thus manage both the market and their ability to stay alive long enough to change with the environment. On balance, all companies who aren't over-leveraged, would benefit and be better off as a group.

Trying to gain maximum benefit for themselves however, probably means that many will end up with little or no benefit at all as their behaviour helps ensure the market collapses. Unfortunately we must accept that historical competitive and non-collaborative behaviour means that there's very little realistic chance of retailers co-operating like this even now, so we should probably start preparing for further insolvencies and more job losses.

Have the Christmas Sales Destroyed Hopes of a Retail Recovery?

It is finally January and the industry is slowly recovering from the Christmas frenzy. The smoke is clearing to leave retailers facing the start realities of 2009, and the January slowdown is giving businesses time to reflect on the follies of collective price-slashing hysteria.

Personally, I have a feeling that the unprecedented reductions in the 2008 Christmas sales are going to accelerate the bankruptcy of most retailers, rather than saving them. I believe this for two reasons.

1. Slashing prices might mean that stock continued to be shifted even under the heavy shadow of the credit crunch, but there were no margins to be made, and consequently most retailers suffered heavy losses. When the next quarterly rent comes round, many of these retailers are now going to have even fewer funds to cover their payments. With the banks still not lending, we should expect an explosion in businesses going into administration.


2. The crazy prices encouraged people to throw their money at all sorts of products they didn't need, and will thus have significantly reduced consumer liquidity. In early December, the credit crunch was only just beginning to effect people outside the financial industry. After a few years of boom time, with life carrying as usual for most people, the buying figures show a distinct lack of prudence on consumer behalf. As the above businesses go under, many more 'common' people are going to lose their jobs. When they do, any spending buffers they might have had will have disappeared with their Christmas extravaganzas. For the retailers that survive the next quarterly rents, this means that their sales are going to drop even worse than they could normally have expected. This in turn could see many of the early survivors go down too.

Long and short of it is that by indulging in short termist price wars, retailers have simply dug their own graves.

Is The Future Of Business Going To Be Telepathic Technology?

Let's kick off 2009 with a bit of exciting futurism! Here's an interesting talk on advances in cyborg technology and what it might mean for business.

Is the future of business going to be telepathic technology? Will people be able to pay for stuff simply by connecting electrodes? Are we going to need computer screens or will we shift to 3D or sensory electronic shopping? What will it mean for web or ecommerce design? Will it mean the end of the mobile phone if we can simply receive signals internally? Have a listen and see what Kevin Warwick thinks...