| This is interesting and indicative of a bigger problem. Why isn't it most profitable for the stores to provide the best experience for customers in order to be most profitable? Suppose there are two stores: - Store A. Offers decent experience for the customer. - Store B. Offers much better experience for the customer. One would naively expect and hope that, given those two choices, more people would prefer to go to the better Store B and hence it would be more profitable. Hence the stores would try to do their best to serve the customer interests. Why is it instead more optimal for stores not to optimize for the happiness of its customers? Could it be because customers are not adept at recognizing which stores offer better experience for them, _and rewarding_ such stores by preferring them over other stores? |
1) The most important criterion for me when looking for a store, is walking distance. I don't want to bike, or drive to the store. So the closest store is almost guaranteed to win my business.
2) The second most important criterion is the price. I'm still a student so I'm a bit careful with my spending. So if a store is much much cheaper, and not too much further, then I might go there when I have big errands to run.
3) I am pretty much insensitive to the layout of the store. I'm already walking 10-15 minutes to get there, so 30 seconds between milk and bread is no problem really
Anyway, my point is that in my case, the reason why the "better" store doesn't win is that I don't really care about the criterion used to define it as "better". So going back to your point, a store doesn't have anything to do to serve my interest other than being close to my apartment and lowering the prices. The rest is almost totally irrelevant to me.