1705402954
I read your article on the subject of self-service checkouts with great interest and notice that you are rather skeptical about these modern technologies. Your arguments are well presented, but I suspect they lack a little of the “juice” of practical experience that can only be gained from actually using these devices or from practice in the workshop.
With a smile on my face and a little sarcasm in my heart, I decided to conduct a little experiment so that my comments were based not only on theoretical considerations, but also on concrete data. Right there, in a normal supermarket, I set myself the task of buying just one item to see how quickly I could be served at a conventional checkout compared to a self-service checkout.
As part of my little experiment, I decided to purchase onions, which was a simple but symbolically significant decision. Onions, known for their ability to bring people to tears, were the perfect item to ironically highlight the potential frustration people can experience while waiting in line at traditional checkouts. Many of you, including Mr. Hrdina, will probably have tears in your eyes because of the measured results.
The methodology I used for my experiment was simple but effective. First I visited the Lidl supermarket, where I selected my desired product – onions – and queued at the traditional checkout. The timing began when I joined the last customer in line and ended when I successfully paid by card. After I finished shopping at Lidl, I went to the rival supermarket Billa, where I made the same purchase, but this time at the self-service checkout. Again, the time was measured from the time I joined the last customer in the queue. But there was no line here, so I beeped the timer, went straight to the cashier and waited for the card transaction to complete. This approach allowed me to directly compare the time spent at the checkout for both checkout types.
As part of my experiment to compare waiting times at different types of checkouts, I experienced very different situations. At Lidl I waited 2 minutes and 27 seconds at the traditional checkout with a rather unpleasant salesperson, which is below average as I was lucky in today’s measurement that there were no queues and considering I normally wait until the 17th Waiting in line for minutes, so I know very well what I’m writing about. This purchase wasn’t my first wait time measurement, so I already had an idea of the normal wait times at this store.
Photo: Mrazodrak
Lidl invoice
An interesting aspect of shopping at Lidl is the bonus program, which offers customers a CZK 50 discount. However, my personal experience with this program is not entirely positive. However, I know from personal experience that it is not that easy to get this discount. The regular cashier will not give you a discount, but requires the presence of a manager. This can mean another 5 to 10 minutes of waiting, during which the executive appears to be somewhere nearby but is mysteriously unavailable. This wait for a manager not only increased the overall time at the checkout, but also caused tension among the other customers in line. Additionally, I have to make sure I have enough time and courage to approach the discount, which can be uncomfortable or stressful for some customers.
Another factor was the need to defend the right to a discount. When the executive finally arrives, it’s not easy to get the discount on the first try. There are many times when I have to defend my right to a discount or argue about what the store’s intention is – obviously a psychological strategy to minimize the number of discounts given. This situation is intended to make it inconvenient for customers to apply for a discount.
In comparison, my self-checkout experience at Billa was significantly different and more efficient. There I completed my purchase quickly and in less than 17 seconds. This experience showed how smooth and hassle-free the shopping process can be, in contrast to the waiting times and bureaucratic processes I experienced at Lidl. These differences in the shopping experience clearly illustrate how store policies and the method of checkout can significantly impact a customer’s overall shopping satisfaction.
Photo: Mrazodrak
Bill’s receipt
Insights into social interaction and socialization in stores, especially from the salesperson perspective, are very important. The day-to-day work of supermarket cashiers can often be demanding and stressful, an aspect that is often overlooked in discussions about automation and self-checkouts.
Cashiers often sit at the cash register for hours and not only have to serve customers, but also have to deal with the constant beeping of the cash register and various difficulties in communicating with customers. Some customers can be not only demanding, but also confrontational or aggressive, which places great demands on the psychological resilience of employees. However, they are still expected to remain calm, friendly, helpful and smiling, even though their inner feelings can be very different. This dynamic shows that the role of a cashier is not just about the technical handling of money and goods, but also about managing complex social interactions. In some cases, interacting with a cashier can be an important social experience for some customers, especially for older people or those living in isolation. For these customers, a conversation with a cashier can be one of the few face-to-face interactions they have throughout the day. On the other hand, this interaction can be a source of stress and exhaustion for cashiers, especially when they are faced with demanding or rude behavior – which is quite common.
In this context, it is interesting to observe how the role of the cashier changes with the introduction of self-service checkouts. While these systems can reduce the physical strain and stress associated with serving large numbers of customers, they also limit opportunities for face-to-face interaction between customers and employees. This can have both positive and negative effects on both sides. The challenge for retail chains is therefore to find a balance between introducing technological innovations that increase efficiency and reduce workload, and maintaining the personal touch that is important to many customers. This requires a sensitive approach to designing the shopping environment and training employees to effectively manage both the technical and social aspects of their work.
The economic aspect of self-checkouts is crucial for both customers and stores. The technology of self-service checkouts, especially those that only allow cashless payments, proves to be less maintenance and more efficient in terms of operating costs. This efficiency is increased by the fact that these cash registers are usually only operated by one person, which reduces personnel costs.
On the other hand, traditional tape registers require more frequent and complex maintenance. In addition to technical maintenance, there is also a need for more employees to operate the cash registers, which leads to higher operating costs for the store, including staff capacity.
In terms of capacity, self-service checkouts usually limit the amount of goods that customers can process at the same time. However, it depends on the type of self-service checkout. Here, for example, Globus stands out in a good light. What’s interesting is that express checkout, which used to be common for purchases of up to 5 items, is no longer as widespread, partly due to some customers ignoring the rules.
The argument that self-checkouts increase the risk of theft seems strange, especially today when stores are equipped with extensive camera systems with AI detection. In reality, the difference between the staff at classic and self-service checkouts in terms of theft prevention is minimal. Classic checkouts, but also self-service checkouts, are unable to prevent incidents such as the consumption of pastries or drinks in the store or the hiding of goods in the inner pockets of customers’ clothing.
However, from a psychological perspective, it is interesting to observe how checkout type preferences differ between customers. Those who have a positive attitude towards technology often prefer self-service checkouts. These customers are generally more open to new technologies and adapt to innovations in their everyday lives.
On the contrary: those who have an aversion to learning new things and do not have a positive attitude towards technologies such as cell phones or computers often prefer the classic cash register. This group of customers often falls victim to various scams, which may be due to a lack of knowledge, interest or trust in modern technologies. Many of these people do not have mobile banking or internet banking, although they do have debit cards and bank accounts. Their preference for classic cash registers may reflect their general attitude towards technology and changes in the world, in which they prefer more traditional, familiar forms of interaction.
This breakdown of preferences and behavior provides interesting insights into the way different demographic groups deal with technological changes and innovations in their daily lives and how this affects their purchasing decisions.
Personally, I avoid traditional checkouts like hell, and I also avoid chain stores that don’t have self-service checkouts. I also completely avoid places where cashless payments are not possible. The reason for this is the value of my time – I don’t want to waste it waiting in long lines. My preference for quick and efficient shopping is strong and has a significant influence on the choice of stores I visit.
So, dear Matouš Hrdina, I hope that you do not take my comment as contempt or an attempt at defamation. My intention is not to freeze the smile on your face, just as the sad clock in the opening image of this comment is not intended to evoke melancholy, but rather to provoke thought. I wanted to present a different perspective that wasn’t just based on practical experience from the business environment.
With great respect for both you and all readers…
#Comment #article #Conclusion #Selfservice #checkouts #trap