This is not a joke question.
From CNet earlier this month:
After an executive at Frontline Robotics informed me that Wal-Mart is eyeing robot technology, I called Wal-Mart for confirmation.
Wal-Mart representative Christi Gallagher, the company's spokeswoman on supply chain and technology issues, took my call. She also happens to be the media point person on labor relations and employment litigation.
As soon as I mentioned robots, Gallagher seemed eager to end the call. "We are not looking into robots in any way, shape or form," she said abruptly. I tried probing for more, but she had nothing further to offer.
Then the reporter explains why this is another example of Wal-Mart's spokespeople messing up:
The response was curious because, when a public relations person is faced out-of-the-blue with questions on a random topic like robots, he or she would typically pause, jot down some notes, and say something along the lines of, "Gosh, I have no idea about that, but I'll check into it for you."
The reporter then goes on to explain the obvious advantages of this from Wal-Mart's point of view:
So why is Wal-Mart so touchy about robots? My hunch is that Wal-Mart's interest in robots goes far beyond helping the visually impaired shop. I think it's intrigued by the notion of using robots in its warehouses, distribution centers and stores to monitor and check inventory -- a job mostly done by people today, as one Frontline Robotics executive noted.
"After hours, robots could run around stores in a systematic pattern and take a complete inventory of all the shelves," said Rob Richards, chief operating officer of Frontline. "We have people now that do that."
I have another idea, Wal-Mart could fire all its workers and replace them with Oompah-Loompahs! I hear they'll work for cocoa beans.
Seriously, assuming the implications of this story are true, I would actually see this as a sign of desperation. You claim to have "always low prices." You've wrested every last bit of efficiency out of your supply chain and you have the most efficient distribution system in the world (at least according to Tom Friedman). Yet, your competitors still manage to compete with you on price. Part of this is your un proclivity to keep more for yourself. Part is that improvements in distribution have diminishing returns once you've implemented enough of them.
How do you keep shaving costs? Cut labor costs with robots? Invent a time machine? But you know what? There is still an intrinsic value to all goods sold at Wal-Mart (even if it's a very low value). The company will eventually hit that wall of distributional efficiency and they'll have to find some other way to distinguish themselves. Low-quality merchandise, ugly buildings and long lines at the register won't cut it.
Perhaps that time is coming sooner than we think.
JR