A sleep-tracking game now wants to do your shopping. Not point you to a shop. Do the shopping. That small, slightly absurd promise is the clearest picture yet of where retail is heading, and most retailers are not looking at it.
The app in question is a gamified sleep tracker, and the enthusiasm came from one of its users, a poster who wrote that they “absolutely love that my sleep app is now smart enough to be my own personal shopping assistant” and that “we shouldn’t have to close our game to go buy the things we need to sleep better.” The pitch, in their words: the cute AI agent can “figure out what we need, find the perfect cozy product, and buy it for us right inside the app.” The industry has a drier name for it. Agentic commerce. The user preferred “magic.”
Strip away the glowing shopping bags and the mechanism is stark. The app has your data, the app has your attention, and now the app proposes to have your wallet. Meta is building the same shape at the other end of the scale, with Muse, pitched as a personal AI agent to “get more done” across everyday tasks. A sleep game and a trillion-dollar platform are converging on one idea: the software that sits closest to you should also be the thing that buys for you.
Here is why it matters, and it is not the novelty. For thirty years the contest in retail was for the shelf, then for the search result, then for the feed. Each was a fight to be seen by a human who would then decide. The agent removes the human from the middle of that sentence. The sleep app does not show its user a page of pillows and mist diffusers to browse. It picks one. The moment of truth, the instant an impression becomes a purchase, moves from a shopper’s eye to a model’s judgement. And the model was trained, tuned and paid for by whoever owns the app.
Follow the incentives, because they are the story. When an agent buys “the perfect cozy product,” who defined perfect? The brand that optimised its product page for machine reading, as sellers on the ecommerce forums are already asking how to do. The brand that struck a commercial deal with the platform. The platform’s own private label. Perfect is a slot, and slots get sold. The retailer’s old question was how to rank on the shelf. The new question is what the agent believes about you, and what it costs to change that belief.
There is a harder edge underneath the cosiness, and it deserves naming. To buy for you, an agent needs your payment details, your address and standing permission to spend. One engineer, writing about giving an AI agent shell access, put it plainly: the agent “has everything you have because it is you” as far as the system is concerned. A sleep app that can charge your card while you sleep is a convenience and a surface for things to go wrong, in exactly equal measure. The trust you extend is not to a brand you chose. It is to an intermediary that chose for you.
China worked this out first, as it usually does. Alibaba and JD.com spent a decade collapsing discovery, payment and delivery into a single tap inside a super-app, so the distance between wanting something and owning it shrank to nothing. The West is now arriving at the same destination by a different road, through the AI agent rather than the super-app. The lesson is identical. Whoever owns the last decision owns the margin.
What to watch. Watch for the first agent that buys against its user’s stated wish, quietly steered by a commercial arrangement the user never saw. That is the moment the debate stops being about magic and starts being about disclosure, and it is coming sooner than the glowing shopping bags suggest.
The Roth Read. If you run a brand, stop optimising the page a person reads and start optimising the answer a machine gives. Your next buyer does not have eyes, a budget it can be tempted past, or a reason to remember you fondly. It has permissions, a checkout, and whatever the platform told it about you last.
The most interesting thing at IFA Berlin this week is not a robot. It is a legal document, three thousand miles away, that decided which robots you will be allowed to buy.
On the show floor at Messe Berlin, Chinese humanoid makers arrived in force. MagicLab, a Suzhou company founded in January 2024, opened its first major European trade show with the MagicBot X1, a 31-degree-of-freedom humanoid standing 180cm tall, and reports on its own unaudited figures more than 12,000 units shipped and an order book above RMB 1.1 billion, roughly £120 million. Galbot ran a fully autonomous store from Booth 160. Zeroth showed off the W1, a tracked home robot that carries 110 pounds. All real, all working, all drawing the longest stares in Hall 25.
And all, as of five weeks ago, barred from the United States. On 28 July the US Federal Communications Commission added foreign-produced robots to its Covered List, classifying any mobile robot over 4.4 pounds that senses, connects and navigates as posing, in the FCC’s words, “an unacceptable risk to US national security.” The definition, as K&L Gates set out on 3 August, catches nearly every machine on that Berlin runway. Washington shut the door. The TechTimes coverage notes more than 930 Chinese companies have pivoted toward Europe in the wake of it.
So here is the thing worth saying plainly. America did not make a technology decision. It made a data decision. The robots are excellent. The question the FCC asked was not “can it fetch the item from the shelf” but “where does what it sees go next.” A humanoid working a pharmacy shift or patrolling a home is a sensor package on legs: cameras, microphones, a floorplan of your store, a map of your customers’ movements, a feed uploaded to a cloud. And China’s National Intelligence Law obliges Chinese firms to assist state intelligence work when asked. That obligation travels with the device, GDPR or no GDPR.
This is the retail read, and it is uncomfortable. The store estate is about to fill with autonomous machines, and the best ones, on price and capability, are Chinese. A retailer weighing a fleet of shelf-scanners or greeters is no longer just buying labour. It is buying a data posture. Every aisle those robots walk becomes a question about who else, ultimately, can see it. That is a boardroom conversation, not a procurement one, and most boards have not had it.
The China lesson here is not the scare. It is the speed. Washington’s ban did not slow these firms; it rerouted them, and within weeks they were on a Berlin catwalk. That is the structural advantage the West keeps underrating: manufacturing scale and iteration velocity that turn a closed market into a redirected one overnight. While Brussels debates a framework, Suzhou books a booth. One vendor, AiMOGA, has already cleared the EU’s EN 18031 standard, certified by TÜV Rheinland. The compliant path exists. Most exhibitors simply have not walked it yet.
Which leaves Europe with the decision America has taken off its own table. Copy the ban and lose access to the best hardware on the market. Wave everyone through and inherit the exposure. Or do the harder thing: build the standard, insist on it, and buy on proof rather than fear.
What to watch. Watch certification, not spectacle. The number that matters over the next year is not units shipped or backflips performed. It is how many of these machines carry an independently verified European compliance credential. That badge, dull as it sounds, is about to become the most valuable thing a robot can wear onto a Western shop floor.
The Roth Read. If you are putting robots in your stores, stop asking what they can do and start asking where what they see goes. Insist on a data layer of your own or an independent one that does not leave your jurisdiction. The demo will dazzle you; the data flow is the deal. Buy the robot that can prove its answer, not the one that gives the best show, because your customers will not forgive you for the map you handed away.
Civilization's need to write things down, make a list, keep a record, categorize data and thereby pay taxes, goes back to the earliest times. The first system of writing used to record this information (that is known to us) is called 'Cuneiform script'.
Cuneiform used pictorial symbols set out in columns on clay tablets, using a blunt reed for a stylus. The blunt reeds left a 'wedge shaped' impression, and this is where the name cuneiform comes from, the Latin for 'wedge'.
This writing system began in Sumer, in Mesopotamia, as long ago as 3300 BC. The early tablets were in their simplest form principally used for record keeping – agrarian inventories for grain, animals and equipment.
But as the ancient world increasingly urbanized, these writings took on a more commercial form and were employed to record bargains sealed, ships' cargoes, and lists of manufactured goods.
Early Sumerians used cuneiform to list the clay tokens they used to exchange and store their agricultural and manufactured goods. The clay tokens were put in clay containers and then impressed onto the sealed containers, one picture for each token inside the container. As time passed, it became a standard practice for the major cities to date documents by year, names, and their respective kings. It also became a way of calculating how much people should pay in taxes.
These early writings in turn led to their use for everyday purposes, not least in shopping. Dr Irvine Finkel, of the British Museum and noted Cuneiform scholar, has established that some of the earliest tablets he has examined are shopping lists!
Contribution to Retail History
Cuneiform tablets highlight our shopping journey from the ancient world to modern times. The shopping bag and the shopping list have survived the journey of time and civilizations. Both have been in use for millennia and whilst we have little evidence of an ancient bag, it is interesting to see from the many clay tablets that have survived, that the ancients wrote out their lists just as we do today.
About the series.The History of Retail in 101 Objects is compiled and edited by David Roth, CEO of The Store WPP and Chairman of WPP BAV. It tells the story of retail through the objects that shaped it, from the cave to the connected store, organised across the historical periods in which each innovation made its mark. As David puts it, the history of retail is the history of mankind, and of retail’s vast contribution to society. A new object appears here every Monday.
The consumer wants to pay less. That is mathematics, not strategy.
Jaume Miquel Naudí, Chairman & CEO, Tendam · recorded at the World Retail Congress, Berlin 2026.
Ask a retail chief executive what all their fragmented, unpredictable, endlessly-segmented consumers still have in common, and most will reach for a trend. Jaume Miquel Naudí reaches for arithmetic. “They want to pay less. That’s mathematics.” You can do whatever you want, he says, but the number bends one way.
Miquel is Chairman and CEO of Tendam, the Spanish fashion group whose loyalty clubs count more than 27 million members. That last figure is not a footnote. It is the whole thesis.
He frames the next few years as a film with all the spicy elements: fear, tension over pricing, the eruption of AI, and consumers seeking truth. But the discipline underneath the drama is where the value sits. Loyalty clubs are 75 per cent of Tendam’s business, so that is where the money goes. Not cost savings, which he will take but does not prize. Investment in what makes the business different: consumer behaviour, personalisation, pricing. On technology he refuses the single big bet, running instead a pyramid: infrastructure at the base, some 25 quick wins in the middle to keep the organisation excited, and the strategic projects on CRM, demand forecasting and margin optimisation whose payback comes later. “Momentum is important,” he says, and he means it as an operating principle, not a mood.
Then the human turn. Push everything to pure science, he warns, and you land in a world of one product, one car, one microchip. The job is to serve the dream as well as the infrastructure.
For any brand owner, the lesson is uncomfortable and clarifying. Know your one consumer, forget the rest, and earn the right to charge for the dream by first being true.
The Roth Read. If your customer wants to pay less and buy less, price is not your problem to solve, it is the condition you build inside. Decide today which one difference justifies your margin. If you cannot name it, your shopper already has: it is the price.
David Roth In Conversation is a series of conversations with the leaders shaping the future of retail, recorded at the World Retail Congress, Berlin 2026 in association with the World Retail Congress. A new conversation is published every Friday.
Written in a personal capacity. This is commentary on brand strategy, not investment research, and it is not advice to buy, sell or hold any security. I hold no position in any company named here. Trading and financial figures are as reported by the Financial Times, Reuters and CNBC and in Shein’s listing documents, as at 3 September 2026.
A share price that needs its own bank to hold it up is not really a price. It is a bid. Whether Shein’s has been one is a question the market cannot answer until October.
Shein listed in Hong Kong on Tuesday at HK$48.56, raising about $1.7 billion and arriving at roughly $26 billion. It fell as much as 10 per cent within minutes, then closed near the offer price after a rush of late buying. On Wednesday it closed nearer HK$46. On Thursday it fell as much as 10 per cent again, touching HK$41.24 and taking the company down to about $22 billion, before recovering to close at HK$42.00, worth about $23 billion. Goldman Sachs underwrote the listing and is also its stabilisation agent, a permitted and disclosed role that allows the bank to buy shares in the market to steady the price after a float. Whether it has actually bought any is not public yet. Reuters reported that the first day’s late rally was the result of stabilisation, on the reasonable ground that a stock which falls 10 per cent in the morning and closes at its offer price has usually had help. Alicia Garcia-Herrero of Natixis, quoted in the Financial Times, summed the week up in four words: “Basically it’s a disaster.”
There was a second signal on day one that got less attention. Hong Kong’s exchange launched options on the stock immediately and allowed investors to take short positions. Three days into its life as a public company, one of the liveliest questions in the market about Shein is how to bet against it.
None of which is a solvency story, and it is worth saying so plainly. Shein told investors it holds $15 billion in cash and short-term securities. It can afford to be unloved for a very long time. The question is not whether it survives. The question is what it is worth while it does.
On that, the answer keeps shrinking. Shein was valued at close to $100 billion privately in 2022 and $66 billion in the round after. It has arrived on the public market at about a quarter of its high, and spent its first week below even that. In Shanghai this year, the chipmaker CXMT and the robot maker Unitree both rose more than 400 per cent on their first day. Investors are not cold on Chinese listings. They are cold on this one.
The obvious explanation is cost, and it is a real one. Shein’s 2025 revenue was $41.8 billion, up about 8 per cent, but profit fell almost 39 per cent to $2.1 billion and the margin halved from 8.7 per cent to 4.9. The first quarter of this year produced a $99 million loss. America scrapped the rule that let parcels under $800 enter duty free, Europe closed its own €150 version on 1 July, and goods that used to arrive untaxed now carry tariffs of between 10 and 87.5 per cent. US revenue fell in 2025 and dropped 14 per cent in the first quarter. Europe, which is 35 per cent of the business, went from 33 per cent growth to 9, and then to 2.
The second explanation on offer is that shoppers everywhere are getting weaker, and that investors have lost interest in consumer companies altogether while they chase technology. There is something in that. But it does not survive the obvious test. Inditex, which owns Zara, sells clothes to exactly the same weakening consumer, and set a record market value above €180 billion last month. A tired shopper does not explain why one clothing company is at an all-time high while another falls as much as 15 per cent below its own offer price in three days.
Hold the two side by side, because the comparison is the whole argument. In the same money, Inditex sold about $46 billion of clothes last year and Shein sold $41.8 billion. Near enough the same. Inditex made about $7.2 billion of profit against Shein’s $2.1 billion, and the market values it at about $203 billion against Shein’s $23 billion. The same sales, three times the profit, nearly nine times the value.
The same clothes. A ninth of the value.
Shein against Inditex, the owner of Zara. Each row is drawn to its own scale.
InditexShein
Inditex figures are its 2025 full-year results and its market value, converted from euros at 1.16. Shein’s are its 2025 accounts as filed in the listing prospectus, and its market value at the close of its third day of trading.
That difference is not manufacturing. Shein’s supply chain is the more remarkable machine by some distance. The difference is what people think of the name on the parcel.
WPP BAV data puts numbers on it, and the shape is the same in all three of Shein’s biggest Western markets. Every figure below is a ranking against all the brands measured in that country, so 90 means only ten brands in a hundred score higher.
At the top for fashion. Near the bottom for regard.
Shein’s ranking against every brand measured in that country. 100 means top of the market, 0 means bottom.
Seen as fashionableAdmired, by peopleAdmired, by the AIA local rival, admired
WPP BAV, most recent full study in each market, so the UK and the US are 2026 and Germany is 2025. The AI reading is Aura, June 2026, which asks the same questions of the large language models rather than of people. The rival in each market is a mainstream clothing or general retailer, shown on the same admired measure and left unnamed.
In Britain this year, Shein is the single trendiest brand in the country. No brand BAV measures there is seen as more of the moment, and 96 brands in a hundred are seen as worse value. Then the other half. On trustworthy it beats only 13 brands in a hundred, on high quality six, on authentic three. Its esteem, which is simply how much a brand is admired, sits in the bottom tenth of the market. After more than fifteen years and $41 billion of sales, that is a remarkable thing to be true.
The tempting reply is that this is just what cheap looks like. It is not. A discount clothing chain selling to the same British shoppers is admired at 59, on the highest relevance and awareness in that market. Selling inexpensive clothing does not require being held in low regard. It is an outcome a business can influence, a quarter at a time, and nothing in Shein’s numbers suggests it tried.
One more reading is worth having, because it shapes the next decade rather than the last one. BAV now fields the same brand survey at the large language models as well as at people, through a product called Aura, since a growing share of shopping journeys now starts with an AI answer rather than a shop window. In June, the machines put Shein’s esteem at or near the floor in all three markets. At the same time they know the brand extremely well, ranking its familiarity around 70 in each. Familiarity is not the problem. Whatever benefit of the doubt a shopper might give a bargain, the machine is not giving it.
So the price on the screen this week is not yet the settled one, and this is where the calendar matters. Shein’s own listing announcement puts the end of its stabilisation period on 26 September, and within seven days of that the stabilising agent has to publish what it did: whether it bought at all, the range of prices it paid, its last purchase, and how much of the over-allotment option it took up. That document, not the daily chart, is the one to read. Before it lands, Shein joins the Hang Seng Composite index at the close on 14 September, which obliges every fund tracking that index to buy whether it wants the shares or not. One of those is support and the other is obligation. Neither is demand. The number worth writing down is the one that settles after both have gone.
The Roth Read. Shein has proved that you can build the fastest supply chain in fashion, sell as much clothing as the company that owns Zara, and still be worth a ninth as much. The market is not discounting the clothes. It is discounting the brand, and it is doing so in every market at once. So the question for anyone running on price is not whether your costs are competitive. It is whether, when the discount stops working, there is anything left that people would still choose you for. Shein spent fifteen years being wanted and never got round to being trusted. Wanting is rented. Trust is owned. Only one of them shows up in the valuation.
Three REST endpoints. Twenty million SKUs. And, if you are not careful, the run of your entire home directory.
The promise being sold for agentic commerce this week is that your shopping bot has a brain and now needs hands. Nobody is putting on the slide what those hands can reach.
The brain-and-hands line comes from CloudStore AI, whose promotion promises to turn any shopping agent into what it calls “a doer”: catalogue, checkout and logistics across 400-plus merchants and 20 million-plus SKUs through three endpoints. It arrives in the same month that Cloudflare launched, on Fortune’s reporting, a permanent identity and wallet for AI agents, with optional guardrails: spending limits and a whitelist of merchants where your agents are allowed to shop. Cloudflare’s own executive told Fortune the first wave will be developers and AI firms buying data, with ordinary consumers a second wave still to come.
Hold those two next to a quieter one. A developer, writing up an afternoon of paranoia, described running a shell tool for his coding agent and only then stopping to ask what “give your AI agent a shell” means at the level of the operating system. His answer, in his own words: the tool “has everything you have because it is you.” SSH keys, cloud credentials, the whole writable home directory, no audit trail. The post is titled, plainly, “AI Agent Has Root”.
Put the three together and you have the real shape of agentic commerce. Not a smarter shopper. A new account holder at the checkout who is not a person.
I have given that instant a name: the Machine Moment of Truth. P&G’s A.G. Lafley gave us the First Moment of Truth at the shelf in 2005. Google’s Jim Lecinski gave us the Zero Moment of Truth at the search results in 2011. Both belonged to the shopper. A hand on the pack, eyes on the ten blue links. The Machine Moment of Truth is the first one that does not. The machine hands the buyer no menu to judge. It returns a verdict, delivered with certainty, and the buyer takes it as the answer. It is the moment the buyer stops choosing and the machine chooses for them.
That is why the hands matter more than the brain. For more than a century the shopper on the other side of your checkout was a human being with a human’s frictions: a moment of hesitation, a second thought at the payment screen, a weakness for a well-placed offer. Retail was built to work on that hesitation. The agent has none of it. It does not linger, it does not take the extended warranty, and it does not forgive a clumsy returns policy. It executes. Every pound spent on persuading a person at the point of sale is aimed at a moment that is quietly moving out of reach.
Now follow the incentives, because that is where the story always lives. Whoever issues the wallet and holds the identity sits between the shopper and every merchant on the whitelist. That is not a payments feature. That is the introduction, owned. Cloudflare is not building a shop. It is building the thing that decides which shops an agent is even permitted to enter. The merchant that is not on the list does not lose the sale. It never gets asked.
The security point is not a footnote. It is the commercial risk. A retailer taking agent traffic is accepting orders from software that, on the developer’s own account, may be running with the full permissions of whoever deployed it. A compromised agent does not abandon a basket. It empties one, at machine speed, across every merchant it can reach, and the fraud desk built for stolen card numbers has never seen that pattern. The limits and the whitelist are not consumer niceties. They are the seatbelts, and they are optional.
Watch who gets to sit in the wallet layer, because that is the new gatekeeper. Watch, too, whether the standards emerging in the West borrow anything from China, where Alipay and WeChat Pay proved long ago that whoever holds identity and settlement holds the ecosystem. The West is about to relearn that lesson through a bot instead of a person.
The Roth Read. Stop asking whether your store is ready for AI shoppers. Ask the colder question: when an agent arrives at your checkout carrying your customer’s credentials and possibly root on its own machine, do you know whether it is friend or foe, and who told you so. The Machine Moment of Truth is already happening, in answers you cannot see, at a speed you cannot interrupt. The hands are here. Decide now whose keys they hold, because the merchant who waves them through blind will not lose a sale. They will lose control of the counter.
A car company does not raise nine hundred million dollars for a robot because the robot is ready. It raises it because the car has stopped paying, and everyone in Shenzhen can read the same balance sheet.
This week Xpeng’s robotics unit raised more than $900 million at a post-money valuation above $6.3 billion, in a round led by IDG Capital with Tencent, Alibaba and Gaorong Ventures alongside. The company calls it the largest single private financing ever recorded in China’s embodied AI industry. It is not alone. AiMOGA, the robotics arm of Chery, is reported by Reuters to be preparing an IPO. BYD has unveiled a humanoid called Xiao Di. Changan, GAC, Li Auto, SAIC and Seres are all, per industry reports, building humanoids of their own.
The Western press files this as China chasing Tesla. Read the quote that matters instead. Michael Dunne of Dunne Insights, a man who has spent his career inside this market, told TechCrunch why Xpeng’s founder moved: “He sees razor-thin profit in cars on the near horizon. Robots look much more promising.” That is not ambition talking. That is a man doing arithmetic.
Now the part worth arguing with. A car is not naturally a commodity. It became one for these companies because they let it become one. A brand is a feeling, a badge, a way of being read at the school gates, and every point of that feeling is a point of price you do not have to give away. In China’s EV war some manufacturers gave it away anyway, quarter after quarter, until the only ground left to fight on was cost. Once a company reaches that ground it is no longer a carmaker. It is a contract manufacturer of batteries, motors and control systems on wheels, and a humanoid is the same components in a different shape. Which is exactly Dunne’s point: “They have all the hardware to get the job done.” Batteries, actuators, motors, the control stack, all of it flows straight out of a mature EV supply chain that the West does not have and cannot conjure in a quarter.
So the structural lesson is this. When your product is treated as a commodity you cannot defend the margin, so you move the factory to the next product that still has one. The supply chain turns out to be the asset and the vehicle was only its current shape. A country that owns the batteries and the motors can change that shape far faster than a country that owns only the software.
But look at what a brand actually buys in that story. It buys the choice to stay. The manufacturers whose badge still commands a premium are not scrambling into robotics, because their cars still pay them. Brand is the thing that stops a category collapsing into cost, and it is the cheapest insurance a manufacturer will ever hold. The Chinese groups now pivoting are not proof that brand stopped mattering. They are proof of what it costs when you stop investing in it.
The other gap cuts both ways. Dunne names it plainly: the question is whether they can catch Tesla, and by extension the American labs, “on the AI side of the equation.” Hardware is China’s, for now. The brain is still contested. But notice which problem is easier to buy your way out of. You can hire researchers. You cannot hire a decade of battery plants.
For anyone running a store, the read is sharper still. The moment a humanoid works on a shop floor or in a stockroom, the retailer’s biggest line of cost stops being staff and starts being units. That is not a labour story you can hand to an HR memo. It is a question about what your store is for when the person who once greeted the customer is a leased machine amortised over three years. The answer is the same one it has always been. People go where they are known, and a machine on the floor only frees your people to do the part a machine cannot.
What to Watch The IPO, not the demo. AiMOGA filing to go public is the real signal, because a prospectus forces the question every backflip video dodges: where does the money come from, and when. A robot that can dance is a hobby. A robot with a revenue line is a business. The market is about to make several of these companies write the number down.
The Roth Read. Stop watching China’s robots and start reading China’s balance sheets, because the carmakers already have. The humanoid is rarely the threat. It is the tell: somebody with a better cost base is about to enter your category wearing a new shape, and they can only do it because that category let its brands become interchangeable. So ask which of your rivals owns the supply chain. Then ask the harder question. If your badge came off your product tomorrow, would anyone still pay more for it? That answer is the margin you are actually defending, and it is the only one nobody can build a factory to take from you.
Balance scales were in use in Mesopotamia as early as around the year 4000 BC. They were probably derived from the principles of a yoke, whereby two equal weights would balance if suspended either side of a central beam.
Early balance scales measured relative weight (as opposed to actual weight). Measures were calculated by putting the object measured on one plate, and stones (the counterweight) on the other, until equilibrium was reached.
In around 1770, a way to measure absolute weight was developed by Richard Salter when he invented the spring scale. This calculated the weight of an item by measuring the pressure it registered when hung by a hook attached to the spring.
In 1897, one of the first commercial price-indicating scales was being developed in America. A weighed cursor, graduated vertically into prices per pound, was slid along a steelyard, which is a device with a short arm taking the item to be weighed, and a long graduated arm along which a weight is moved until it balances. The price of the goods could be read off the chart at the point where balance was achieved. Slow to actually provide a reading, it failed to catch on.
From the 1940s, scales were incorporating electronic devices to make them more accurate. Today, the traditional balance scales so associated with grocers, butchers, confectioners and a myriad of other retailers, have been replaced almost entirely by digital scales. These scales not only weigh to a tenth of a gram, but by communicating with the retailer's pricing system also print labels, instantly giving the weight and associated price of each weighed purchase. Scales are also integrated into supermarket checkouts, greatly streamlining the process.
Contribution to Retail History
Scales are one of civilizations most important developments. For centuries, traders have bought and sold goods according to weight and today all trade depends on having a fair system of weights and measures controlled by law. The food we eat and many of the products we use will have been weighed and measured – probably many times – in their journey through the supply chain. Without the ability to measure weight and ascribe a value to it, commerce would not have progressed beyond the basic bartering system. Thus, the scales became the principal way of determining the cost of an item, and a cornerstone of retailing as we know it.
About the series.The History of Retail in 101 Objects is compiled and edited by David Roth, CEO of The Store WPP and Chairman of WPP BAV. It tells the story of retail through the objects that shaped it, from the cave to the connected store, organised across the historical periods in which each innovation made its mark. As David puts it, the history of retail is the history of mankind, and of retail’s vast contribution to society. A new object appears here every Monday.
