The ghost of David Ogilvy must be near: this feels perfectly ripe for an A/B split test. (http://sixrevisions.com/user-interface/an-introduction-to-website-split-testing/). My understanding is that Amazon (and other big online retailers) regularly use split testing to optimize messaging, page layout, etc. And I'd guess the winner will depend on the category, the brand, whether it's your brand or not, your level of confidence in the category, etc.

There are lots of reasons not to rank products by popularity (the biggest being it's a pain to track and change assortments all the time). But the amazing ubiquity of this type of sort online suggests a big miss in brick & mortar. The profitability point is a good one, and often the way to maximize profits is not by making things easier or better for shoppers.

Yes! "If it's moving off the shelves, it must be good." But even with a properly faced shelf, people use number of facings to gauge what product is the most popular. If Heinz has 20 facings and Hunt's has 4, it's a good guess that Heinz is more popular.

Lovely observations. Where manpower is abundant and affortable, this makes massive sense. Where technology actually works, that can be the solution. And a lot of it comes down to infrastructure. Los Angeles, for instance, may never have a great home delivery solution because it's over 500 square miles and everyone drives. Mumbai is around 175 sq mi and pedestrians and bikes are abundant.

Good points, Ian. Indeed, design is more than being pretty. And great design is about solving problems. Perhaps I should've said illustration instead, or graphic design. I'm actually a big fan of those "ugly" full-page commemorative-coin US-Mint ads in National Geographic. I figure they're probably very effective, in part because they're "ugly": they're designed perfectly for their audience.

This makes me think of this great essay: http://ifindkarma.posterous.com/pandas-and-lobsters-why-google-cannot-build-s Social networks are about being absorbed in other peoples' lives. I wonder, is shopping (for many people) more utilitarian or more entertainment? Probably a bit of each.

Nice follow-up, Erin. Even with e-commerce, the receipt in the package is usually a buzz kill. Now, not everything needs to be 'on brand' and designed and delightful, but sheesh, you'd think more retailers would add a bit more love to their last shopper contact.

From a business standpoint, they "should" do whatever they can to increase their leverage over suppliers, consumers, energy providers, whomever. They're already generating their own power (I think they're the biggest solar power producer in the US). And they might be right that they can do it more efficiently--their ops skills are their chief strength. From a cultural or moral standpoint, I'm not a big fan of their cutthroat business practices, but I don't know all the consequences of this move.

I love the clear need: "I just threw out my fancy lotion!" Two other great examples serving obvious-in-hindsight needs: Rollasole: cheap ballet flats sold around night clubs for women who want to take off their heels. (http://www.rollasole.com) And Quiksilver selling limited edition boardshorts and bikinis poolside at The Standard hotels. (http://blog.quiksilver.com/?p=5295)

While this science is in its infancy, I'm excited to see where it leads. Some things will probably turn out to be cultural (what the color gold symbolizes to a group). Some will be evolutionary (a box covered with spider photos will catch people's attention). And other things will turn out to be biological (older people can't distinguish gold from yellow as their corneas discolor). How does our visual field impact our ability to shop an aisle? Are angles and curves processed differently in the brain? How about colors vs grayscale? At some level it's photons and molecules.