The Amazon-Walmart Showdown That Explains the Modern Economy
A. With Amazon buying the high-end grocery chain Whole Foods, something retail analysts have known for years is now apparent to everyone: The online retailer is on a collision course with Walmart to try to be the predominant seller of pretty much everything you buy. Each one is trying to become more like the other—Walmart by investing heavily in its technology, Amazon by opening physical bookstores and now buying physical supermarkets. But this is more than a battle between two business titans. Their rivalry sheds light on the shifting economics of nearly every major industry.
B. That in turn has been a boon (福音) for consumers but also has more worrying implications for jobs, wages and inequality. To understand this epic shift, you can look not just to the grocery business, but also to my closet, and to another retail acquisition announced Friday morning.
C. Men's dress clothing, mine included, can be a little boring. Like many male office workers, I lean toward clothes that are sharp but not at all showy. Nearly every weekday, I wear a dress shirt that is either light blue, white or has some subtle check pattern, usually paired with slacks and a blazer. The description alone could make a person doze. I used to buy my dress shirts from a Chinese tailor. They fit perfectly, but ordering required an awkward meeting with a visiting salesman in a hotel suite. They took six weeks to arrive, and they cost around $120 each, which adds up fast when you need to buy eight or 10 a year to keep up with wear and tear (破损). Then several years ago I realized that a company called Bonobos was making shirts that fit me nearly as well, that were often sold three for $220, or $73 each, and that would arrive in two days.
D. Bonobos became my main shirt provider, at least until recently, when I learned that Amazon was trying to get into the upper-end men's shirt game. The firm's 'Buttoned Down' line, offered to Amazon Prime customers, uses high-quality fabric and is a good value at $40 for basic shirts. I bought a few; they don't fit me quite as well as the Bonobos, but I do prefer the stitching (针脚). I'm on the fence as to which company will provide my next shirt order, and a new deal this week makes it interesting: Walmart is buying Bonobos. Walmart's move might seem a strange decision. It is not a retailer people typically turn to for $88 summer weight shirts in Ruby Wynwood Plaid or $750 Italian wool suits. Then again, Amazon is best known as a reseller of goods made by others.
E. Walmart and Amazon have had their sights on each other for years, each aiming to be the dominant seller of goods—however consumers of the future want to buy them. It increasingly looks like that 'however' is a hybrid of physical stores and online-ordering channels, and each company is coming at the goal from a different starting point.
F. Amazon is the dominant player in online sales, and is particularly strong among affluent consumers in major cities. It is now experimenting with physical bookstores and groceries as it looks to broaden its reach. Walmart has thousands of stores that sell hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of goods. It is particularly strong in suburban and rural areas and among low- and middle-income consumers, but it's playing catch-up with online sales and affluent urbanites.
G. Why are these two mega-retailers both trying to sell me shirts? The short answer is because they both want to sell everything. More specifically, Bonobos is known as an innovator in exactly this type of hybrid of online and physical store sales. Its website and online customer service are excellent, and it operates stores in major cities where you can try on garments and order items to be shipped directly. Because all the actual inventory is centralized, the stores themselves can occupy minimal square footage. So the acquisition may help Walmart build expertise in the very areas where it is trying to gain on Amazon. You can look at the Amazon acquisition of Whole Foods through the same lens. The grocery business has a whole different set of challenges from the types of goods that Amazon has specialized in; you can't store a steak or a banana the way you do books or toys. And people want to be able to make purchases and take them home on the spur of the moment.
H. Just as Walmart is using Bonobos to get access to higher-end consumers and a more technologically savvy way of selling clothes, Amazon is using Whole Foods to get the expertise and physical presence it takes to sell fresh foods. But bigger dimensions of the modern economy also come into play.
I. The apparel business has long been a highly competitive industry in which countless players could find a niche (商机). Any insight that one shirt-maker developed could be rapidly copied by others, and consumer prices reflected the retailer's real estate costs and branding approach as much as anything. That helps explain why there are thousands of options worldwide for someone who wants a decent-quality men's shirt. In that world, any shirt-maker that tried to get too big rapidly faced diminishing returns. It would have to pay more and more to lease the real estate for far-flung stores, and would have to outbid competitors to hire all the experienced shirt-makers. The expansion wouldn't offer any meaningful cost savings and would entail a lot more headaches trying to manage it all.
J. But more and more businesses in the modern economy, rather than reflecting those diminishing returns to scale, show positive returns to scale: The biggest companies have a huge advantage over smaller players. That tends to tilt markets toward a handful of players or even a monopoly, rather than an even playing field with countless competitors.
K. The most extreme example of this would be the software business, where a company can invest bottomless sums in a piece of software, but then sell it to each additional customer for practically nothing. The apparel industry isn't that extreme—the price of making a shirt is still linked to the cost of fabric and the workers to do the stitching—but it is moving in that direction. And that helps explain why Walmart and Amazon are so eager to put a shirt on my back.
L. Already, retailers need to figure out how to manage sophisticated supply chains connecting Southeast Asia with stores in big American cities so that they rarely run out of product. They need mobile apps and websites that offer a seamless user experience so that nothing stands between a would-be purchaser and an order. Larger companies that are good at supply chain management and technology can spread those more-or-less fixed costs around more total sales, enabling them to keep prices lower than a niche player and entrench their advantage.
M. These positive returns to scale could become even more pronounced. Perhaps in the future, rather than manufacture a bunch of shirts in Indonesia and Malaysia and ship them to the United States to be sold one at a time to urban office workers, a company will have a robot manufacture shirts to my specifications somewhere nearby.
N. If that's the future of clothing, and quite a few companies are working on just that, apparel will become a landscape of high fixed costs and enormous returns to scale. The handful of companies with the very best shirt-making robots will win the market, and any company that can't afford to develop shirt-making robots, or isn't very good at it, might find itself left in the cold.
Traditionally, Amazon is popular among consumers in big cities while Walmart is widely located in rural areas.
F
由题干中的in big cities和in rural areas定位到原文F段。F段提到,亚马逊备受大城市的富有人群喜爱,而沃尔玛更受郊区和农村的中低收入人群钟爱。题干中的in big cities和in rural areas分别对应定位句中的in major cities和in suburban and rural areas,故选F。
Bonobos is selling shirts to the author in a relatively lower price than the Chinese tailor.
C
由题干中的Bonobos和Chinese tailor定位到原文C段最后四句。定位句指出,作者过去经常在中国裁缝处购买衬衫,每件花费约120美元,而Bonobos公司的衬衫每件仅需73美元,即后者比前者的价格低。题干中的in a relatively lower price是定位句中两者价格的对比结果,故选C。
Walmart bought Bonobos in that it will help Walmart overtake Amazon.
G
由题干中的help Walmart和overtake Amazon定位到原文G段。由G段第四句可知,Bonobos公司的线上销售和线下销售结合得很好,而由该段第六句可知,沃尔玛对其收购的原因就是要在与亚马逊的竞争中处于有利地位。题干中的bought和overtake对应定位句中的acquisition及gain on,故选G。
The tendency of markets being occupied by big companies indicates that small companies have no advantages.
J
由题干中的big companies和advantages定位至原文J段。J段指出,现代经济中,规模化显示出积极收益,即大公司相比小公司更有优势。市场倾向于集中,甚至于垄断。题干是对该段的概括总结,故选J。
Nowadays, clothes are probably produced in developing countries and then transported back to the US for the white collars.
M
由题干中的produced和the US定位至原文M段。M段指出,规模效益显著。当前,在印度尼西亚和马来西亚等国家生产的服装被运到美国后卖给城市中的办公室职员。题干中的developing countries是对Indonesia和Malaysia的概括;white collars对应原文中的urban office workers,故选M。
With available high technologies providing a seamless user experience, retailers can get more potential buyers.
L
由题干中的providing、a seamless user experience和potential buyers定位至原文L段。L段指出,零售商需要通过移动手机应用程序和网站提供用户体验,实现买家与订单的无缝连接。题干中的available high technologies是对定位句中mobile apps and websites的概括总结;potential buyers对应原文中的a would-be purchaser,故选L。
Despite intense competition, the apparel industry can still discover opportunities.
I
由题干中的competition和apparel industry定位到原文I段第一句。定位句指出,服装业长期以来竞争激烈,而且无数的参与者都能从中发现商机。题干中的intense competition对应原文中的highly competitive;discover opportunities是对原文中find a niche的同义转述,故选I。
Robots making clothes would compel the clothing companies unable to develop robots well to face difficulties.
N
由题干中的robots making clothes和develop robots定位到原文N段。N段指出,在未来,服装业固定成本高,规模效益显著。拥有制衣机器人的公司将有优势赢得市场,反之,无足够资金研发制衣机器人或不擅长这方面的公司则极有可能被淘汰。题干中的robots making clothes和face difficulties分别是对原文中shirt-making robots和find itself left in the cold的同义转述,故选N。
The price for a shirt depends on many factors, including the cost of fabric and the labor force.
K
由题干中的price、a shirt和the cost of fabric定位到原文K段。K段将服装业与软件业的相同趋势进行类比,同时指出,制衣的价格与面料及制衣工人的成本相关。题干中的the labor force对应原文中的the workers to do the stitching,故选K.
Amazon's acquisition of Whole Foods shows that the online retailer is now beginning to focus on physical stores.
A
由题干中的Amazon's acquisition、Whole Foods、the online retailer和physical stores定位到原文A段。A段指出,亚马逊公司收购高端食品连锁店全食超市,这将对沃尔玛造成冲击。二者越来越趋同,沃尔玛大力投资技术,亚马逊不仅开了实体书店,而且又在收购实体超市。题干是对亚马逊决策行为的概括总结,故选A。