Does the everyone drive themselves to the big box stores to pick up what they want win out, or does the truck delivery to home system make for a more efficient system to deliver goods to the end users?
depends on many factors. A big one is how far you live from a big box/Wal Mart.
You are referring exclusively to efficiency in terms of energy use? In the theoretical sense, the most efficient system will deliver products at a higher density. For example, a train delivers carloads of products to a central delivery location, and then trucks load up and do point delivery to the users’ destinations.
But neither of these take into account other factors in the retail experience, such as shopping itself. People typically deliver themselves to big box locations to shop and compare products. If they pick one while shopping and can deliver it home in the same round trip, that’s more efficient than having it separately delivered.
I would say that if shopping is done online, then the Amazon model is more efficient. If shopping is done in person, which already entails travel by personal vehicles, than a big box store is more efficient.
Which ever system gets you the item to your home/place of use, more cheaply is the more efficient system.
Cheap to whom? One method may be cheaper to the end consumer but be less efficient if one of the midpoint sellers takes a lower cut.
Amazon: It involves Central Warehouses and Delivery Vehicles.
WalMart: Involves Central Warehouses, Store Locations, Delivery Vehicles, and Personal Vehicles.
I’m guessing the WalMart datacenter footprint is probably not all that smaller than Amazon’s either nowadays, so even counting the cost of the web infrastructure is a wash between the two.
Why is the midpoint seller taking a lower cut? If he’s making it up in volume than it counts as higher efficiency since the per item cost has decreased.
It depends if the person is buying other stuff and how much. I would guess the typical Walmart shopper buys alot more items at a time than the typical Amazon shopper. This would mean shopping at Walmart is more efficient. However if you are talking each item individually purchased then Amazon would be more efficient because they can locate their warehouses where land is cheap and Walmart has to locate their stores closer to where people live and thus land is more expensive for them.
Amazon also involves UPS/USPS sorting facilities. And a lot more packaging. Not only does it take resources to produce the packaging material (including the boxes), but it also means a Walmart delivery truck is packed much more tightly than a UPS truck leaving an Amazon warehouse. Just imagine the contents of a typical Walmart truck, and imagine packing every item into a separate box - it’d probably take several trucks to haul the pile of boxes.
Also consider the selection. Most of the stuff I mail-order is simply not available at any local big-box places.
I suspect the mail-order process is more efficient. The stuff has to be physically moved around, but with the mail-order it only has to be moved twice, once from the manufacturer to the warehouse then to the customer, and most delivery companies such as UPS have extremely efficient multi-stop delivery routes. Unlike random people driving to and from the big box store.
I strongly suspect that just measuring efficiency by how low the two different models can drive end-consumer costs, which means valuing the shopper’s time at zero, online+delivery will never be able to beat a big-box store. However, most people don’t value their time at zero, and online has already closed the efficiency gap enough that it’s generally better to buy most things online. Now, the reason to shop in person are if physical proximity gives you a better idea what item you want (common with apparel, for example) or you really need it right now. Online is closing the gap on those, too.