eBay is synonymous with online auctions. It created the category, so it’s an understandable perception of the brand that will be difficult to escape.

Recently it has been making a big push to be relevant in the bricks-and-mortar offline retail world through initiatives like the Here point-of-sale system, so the announcement it is partnering with an unnamed retailer to create a “pop-up” shop with a touchscreen window-front is not surprising. Late last week, eBay CEO John Donahoe said that retailers needed to “go to where your consumers are shopping.”

Where do you go to find shoppers? You go to the store, of course!

Human beings have been participating in commerce by going to the market for thousands of years. A couple of decades of technological advancement are not going to eliminate such a deeply ingrained social interaction. Most purchases are made in-store, and that is not changing any time soon.

The technology winners in retail are not going to be those that try to fundamentally change the shopping experience. They are going to be the ones that best enhance the real-world interactions a shopper is already using.

Online grocery shopping has continually failed because it removes the immediate, spontaneous, sensory and social components integral to grocery shopping while delivering little in the way of convenience or selection enhancement. Essentially it has been unable to find a model that fits into how people shop. Grocery retailers have had much more success with technologies like self-checkout and in-store mobile applications, which add value to the existing customer experience.

Shoppers are less likely to look at the retail experience in terms of online versus offline. To them, purchasing is about satisfying a need, and they will use the tools that best help them find the product that does so. The winning technologies will be those that enhance the retail experience by delivering one or more of six key enhancement opportunities:

• Extending Product Selection 
• Recommending Products 
• Comparing Products and Prices 
• Extending Purchase Opportunities 
• Simplifying or Enhancing Payment 
• Enhancing Post-Purchase Care

The success of online retail is largely because of its ability to deliver against these opportunities, and the logical extension is to bring the online tools to the physical store. eBay is setting itself up for success, keeping its focus within these opportunity areas, and it has “bet hard on mobile” to make it happen.

Donahoe said, “It’s not just to shop or make payments, but the whole flow.” Donahoe suggested a shopping experience that has the shopper using not only their mobile phone, but many digital touchpoints at different points in the experience.

Shoppers are already using the web pre-store to research product selections and are using their smartphones to compare price and product while in-store. A Deloitte study of consumers who used apps/websites in-store during their most recent shopping trip showed that 85 percent of shoppers surveyed actually made a purchase that day, compared to only 64 percent who used a third-party app or site.

The large touchscreen window-front may create the most buzz because of its novelty and flashy nature. It may very well be successful because it can be used to extend the product selection and provide purchase opportunities at times beyond the store hours. But the real hero will be the mobile device.

Shoppers are comfortable with their smartphones. They feel safe and in control with them. Most importantly they have already integrated them into their shopping experience. The more ways eBay can find to enable mobile devices to hit on the enhancement opportunities, the more successful it will be.

Beyond online auctions, eBay has been an innovator in the way people buy, sell and pay for products online. With the “pop-up” store it will have a showpiece that blurs the lines between the online and offline, creating a true unified shopping experience. It has the opportunity to break the perception of the brand as an online auction site and become known as a true retail innovator.

Frank Vrtar is Senior Designer, User Experience for Interbrand Design Forum.

As Brand rivalries go, Apple vs. Samsung has the makings of an epic one to watch. It’s the Ford versus Chevy of the age.

When I first heard of the Samsung Experience Shops that Best Buy plans to roll out in May, the easy judgment was that it’s yet another “me too” move on Samsung’s part. The comparisons are inevitable and differences will likely vary by degree. That this is a great move for Samsung and a possible shot of adrenalin for Best Buy is also undeniable.

Brands benefit when they can become experiences and retailers benefit when they get an exclusive leg-up with hot brands. the interconnectivity of mobile devices, TVs and content to a brand like Samsung could be further leveraged, and consumer experiences of aspects of what the brand offers today’s consumer broadened. An immersive experience with trained consultants is fast becoming a necessity to demonstrate innovation.

But is the bigger story the implication for Best Buy and how consumer electronics brands and retailers thrive together in the future?

Best Buy began as a category killer for electronics and an antidote for the hard sell commissioned sales experience of the day. When the rest of the electronics retail landscape was literally “showrooming” products, Best Buy was allowing shoppers to buy from inventory on the floor at great prices, with a helpful unbiased staff. There were no three-part invoices, no pick up counters and no salespeople who made you feel stupid. It was refreshing, lots of brands at great prices.

Interbrand Design Forum actually designed the second generation stores with Best Buy and it was an objective to communicate a breadth of brands, because selection was king. Best Buy was a hot concept and well capitalized, opening many stores to cover the market, so manufacturers clamored to get slotted on the shelves. In fact, Best Buy was the retailer where Samsung came into preeminence and ultimately stole Sony’s thunder in the consumer electronics category.

Brands were merchandised shoulder-to-shoulder and competed on price and features. It was a brand party that Best Buy hosted where the bulk of shoppers decided who was cool and who was not.

In 10 years local Best Buy stores could look like mini Consumer Electronics Shows. With the advent of Apple Shops, Samsung Experience Shops and likely more shops to come from other brands, what is Best Buy’s role now? The current (old) model provided a shopper experience like a grocery store where shoppers navigate from store, to category, to subcategory, to brand. With the proliferation of branded shops, the shopper experience is shaken up.

The implication is that shoppers must navigate by brand first and foremost. This means that the role of Brand in the shopper decision is amplified and brands will need to aggressively clarify what they offer and their propositions. Brands will need to divert marketing dollars to retail experiences and Best Buy, likely led by consumer insights, will need to arbitrate and define which brands make sense to have experiences and which do not.

Ultimately Best Buy could evolve into a confederation of branded experiences with fewer and fewer opportunities to define their own value proposition in the mix, like a convention center for branded product experiences. Traditional retailers too have been playing with the in-store individual brand experience, including Macy’s, JC Penny and Target, featuring celebrity brands such as Martha Stewart and large branded displays for brands such as Starbucks, a retail giant in its own right.

Best Buy may likely be held hostage by the needs of the brands to use their venue to tell their stories as much as close sales. The implications could be huge for Best Buy and retail. Demand creation will change, shopper experiences will change, business models will change, marketing budgets will be reallocated and retailers will redesign their organizations around this new Brand Experience focus. That is how I see what appears to be a benign rivalry massively influencing the bigger consumer electronics landscape.

Bill Chidley is SVP, Executive Consultant, Interbrand Design Forum.

Whole Foods is said to be planning a health resort near its Austin Texas headquarters. If you just read that sentence and didn’t immediately say “why?” to yourself, then Whole Foods just passed the test as a lifestyle brand.

Personally, I know that I didn’t ask why when I saw the news. I thought it seemed perfectly logical, even exciting. I had a similar response to the news of an Ikea Hotel.

So how does a brand get to this rarified place where they can stretch into a business that would seem illogical or foolish for competitors? For companies who aspire to be lifestyle brands, it is the power of what you don’t do that unleashes the power of what you can do.

Lifestyle brands march to a different drummer. They have a clear and distinct point of view, are outspoken, and inherently polarizing. For many brands this polarizing affect is very risky, but for brands seeking to be disruptive in mature categories or sectors, it can be the path to huge success and bear great dividends. Whole Foods is a textbook case.

When brands have a clear, distinct point of view it forces choices that may forfeit short term gain for long term benefit. It is a conscious decision to invest in the brand. The values of the brand permeate the behavior of the organization, the customer experience and, ultimately, public opinion. The result is a very powerful appeal to a much smaller audience.

Often delivering on an unarticulated need, these lifestyle brands thrive on creating an emotional connection based on shared values and beliefs. They become a part of how their customers define themselves and enrich their lives.

In the 1990s the fast food concept from southern California called Baja Fresh had a simple white interior design with this message on the wall: “No can openers. No microwaves.” This was a brilliantly simple message about their values and iconoclastic attitude in a market where competitors like were synonymous with “fast food.”

What they didn’t do defined them and made their product more desirable and valuable to those with fast food anxiety. There is an element of “resisting temptation” that makes the idea of abstention a powerful communication platform and creates respect for a brand.

So when Whole Foods rejects all but organic produce and meat, and doesn’t carry mainstream products from brand giants because they are antithetical to their point of view on health, nutrition and supply chain, it defines them. Competitors can introduce organic sections and add natural food brands to their assortments, but it is seen as mere opportunism with Whole Food brand loyalists.

In the end a Whole Foods health resort may fail because of location or execution, but not because of brand. In fact there was a spa, called ReFresh - The Everyday Spa at Whole Foods Market, which had been located above a Whole Foods store in Dallas and is now closed.

The idea of Whole Foods' impassioned customers accepting and possibly embracing the brand offering a health resort experience is legitimate because of how they have consciously edited what their brand does, and what it does not. Whole Foods stands for making great choices in food that promote a healthy lifestyle. A health resort stands to be a way to purely deliver that experience.

Bill Chidley is SVP, Executive Consultant, Interbrand Design Forum.

Whole Foods is ranked #34 among US retail brands in Interbrand's newly released Best Retail Brands 2013 report. To read the entire global report and learn more about our methodology, please visit bestretailbrands.com.

Almost exactly 10 years ago I had the surreal experience of touring a Kmart store in Michigan with Martha Stewart. We were engaged with Kmart doing strategic work on their retail prototype design, and collecting Martha’s input on the current state of affairs was a required part of the process.

As I read the coverage of her court testimony in the Macy’s/JC Penney/Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia proceedings, I am not at all surprised by Martha’s apparent nonchalance in casting off or minimizing her current retailer relationship. Now, as was 10 years ago, Martha is focused on execution and bringing her brand experience to life in the most controlled way, regardless of the consequences or the retailer's needs.

Former Kmart CEO Joseph Antonini had “discovered” Martha and enabled her persona and eventual brand to flourish there, yet during our store tour she was not sentimental. Instead she focused entirely on the way her brand was being positioned, merchandised and operationally supported. She was visibly frustrated that she had to abdicate control to Kmart where the experience of her brand mattered most- in the store.

I can respect why Martha Stewart saw Macy’s as a better fit for retail experience, shopper demographics, margins and overall creative extension of her brand’s potential as a style leader than Kmart. But the pesky issue of control has apparently lingered, and when Ron Johnson offered MSLO a shop concept at JC Penney, this represented the Holy Grail. The opportunity to create an in-store brand boutique, a pure Martha Stewart experience, inside of more than 1000 JC Penney locations wasapparently worth any risk of agitating Macy’s.

I can imagine the possible creative logic as well; this could potentially be good for Macy’s too. Perhaps if Martha could create a clear vision of her brand idea and grow demand for her merchandise, both JCP and Macy’s could benefit long term. The ends justify the means: better brand experience and brand clarity, with equal or maybe even additional points of distribution.

Regarding brands, it seems that Martha and Macy’s are misaligned on a core view of their respective businesses that is not uncommon at retail. Martha Stewart (and MSLO) thinks fundamentally as a brand and Macy’s thinks fundamentally as a merchant. One focuses on creating demand and the other on fulfilling it. Is Macy’s a brand? Absolutely. Is Martha Stewart a merchant? Sure. This is about bias, not polarity.

Retailers see brands such as Martha’s as potential assets that drive traffic, or share of wallet, in highly brand-driven categories like fashion and home where style authority is important. Unique merchandise and exclusive brands can tip the scale with shoppers and add up to retailer preference at holidays and other peak selling seasons.

On the other hand, brands see retailers as points of distribution that ideally align with their target audience, delivering a steady stream of shoppers who will recognize their value, appreciate their design, and are willing to pay for it. But alas, over time each party desires more from the relationship.

Retailers want to leverage the traffic-driving power of the exclusive brands to expose shoppers to their own private label variants to maximize margins. Brands seek more control of the experience and merchandising to differentiate and sustain a premium. Brands such as Martha Stewart’s, which need the initial distribution that an exclusive deal promises, ultimately desire more distribution and, in Martha’s case, more control of their brand experience to create value for investors.

Often a brand’s desire for distribution results in an erosion of the brand’s value and accusations of being a “sell out” from its fans. Other times a brand that aggressively seeks additional retailer distribution will see a once friendly exclusive retail partner turn on them and introduce new competitors, or private label alternatives that co-opt their unique brand propositions.

For those of us in the branding world, Martha Stewart’s plight is a conundrum. It appears that her desire to move to JC Penney is not necessarily about distribution, but about being a better brand marketer and potential revenue.

Martha on Macy's: "A $300 million business is not enough to sustain a company like ours..We want to grow our business."

— Stephanie Clifford (@stephcliff) March 5, 2013

Unfortunately Martha’s public profile and a society quick to judge via the media may do more damage to her brand than just a punitive settlement on the balance sheet. This could be one of those rare situations where a desire to drive brand could backfire dramatically.

So the plight of Martha Stewart and her brand leave us with a great illustration of the tension point between the need of a business to get distribution and the need of a brand to successfully manage the retail experience. Martha Stewart and her larger than life public persona is certainly a polarizing factor in this particular case and will cause a temporary setback for the brand that it will need time and commitment to overcome.

If this same scenario was playing out for a Brand like Calphalon, Swatch or Coach, would we be as focused on the ethics? Or would we be applauding them for trying to better manage their brand experience?

Bill Chidley is SVP, Executive Consultant, Interbrand Design Forum.

There was some fascinating research from Communispace revealed last month on DDB’s blog. In essence, the research suggests that today’s consumer, equipped with a level of information that makes it so much easier to make an informed purchase decision, now blames him or herself, as opposed to the brand (retailer or product), in the event of a duff buy.

This make sense to me. It’s easy to see how consumers today feel that there really is no excuse for failing to get to the best, whether that is in terms of price, quality, experience, or whatever is driving purchase. And there are some interesting consequences for brands –  especially larger ticker items like high end consumer electronics, cars, even mortgages – which, with this insight in mind, may need to focus more on addressing the post-purchase self-doubt that seems to be a product of today’s shopping environment. Brands that fail to do this may find themselves associated with a sense of disappointment and “could do better,” or, even worse, a feeling of being ripped off.

A.G. Laffley, formerly of P&G talked about the first (in store) and second (at home) moments of truth. I wonder if we need to start thinking of a third period of truth: the time when the initial purchase excitement dies down and the consumer reassesses and, potentially, regrets. Looking forward, social media activity focused on post-purchase sentiment feels like a smart place for brands to focus their loyalty building.