Focus On: Eric K. Clemons

Press “Print” and I’m Yours

Remember the first color printers? Take your project to Kinko’s and then watch some well-trained techie struggle with the machine for a quite a while before your job was done.

Today, 3D printers are about at the same place that color printers were 15 years ago, says Wharton practice professor David Robertson. Yet, you can’t really say 3D printing is an up and coming technology because “it’s already here.”

Want to print out dental caps for deteriorating teeth right in the dentist’s office – thereby removing the need for a temporary cap or a return visit? It’s being done routinely right now in many offices. This technology is ideal for producing tailor-made products because it destroys some traditional manufacturing economics, which dictate that the first unit one makes of anything carries high overhead costs and high risk when it comes to its chances for success. With 3D printing, the costs of producing the first unit are low. That destroys traditional manufacturing barriers, Robertson says.

This disruptive technology could change manufacturing – and retailing – the way Amazon shocked the book business and Apple’s iTunes changed the music world, Robertson says.

Already, some companies – like LEGO – could be vulnerable. For one-tenth of the cost of a LEGO version of Frank Lloyd Wright’s famous Fallingwater masterpiece, Robertson’s son has built a similar structure using the video game Minecraft (which uses a digital form of building blocks). He then linked to a program that turns the Minecraft struture into a 3D model and sends it off to a company that does 3D printing as a service. What’s more, Robertson points out, one could change or customize the Wright design in any way. “You could decide to add Frank Lloyd Wright’s guest house to the project, if you wanted.”

But that’s just fun and games compared with potentially much bigger disruptions. It’s not hard to imagine 3D printing overtaking manufacturing in China one day – for certain products, Robertson, says. By eliminating shipping and other overhead, and automating much of the labor, costs can melt away fast.

“3D printing technology coupled with a reduction in energy prices could absolutely lead to an upswing in U.S. manufacturing,” Robertson says. “Wherever there’s disruption, there’s often a change in the dominant firms in an industry. Whether the new leaders are going to be in the U.S., Germany, Japan or China remains to be seen. But the manufacturing skills, design techniques, capital investments and marketing practices will all be different.” 

Not only can many products be made cheaply using 3D printing, but like Fallingwater, they can be endlessly customized. Want a salt shaker in the shape of your head, with your face on it?  Robertson’s teenage son (and his friends) already have them. Want to swap out the black frames on your glasses for a blue pair today to match your top? That shouldn’t take long.

You can also print out coffee lids shaped like your girlfriend’s lips.“Kind of sweet. Kind of creepy” writes Robertson on his blog. You can print out a gun (creepy and scary), a bicycle (a work in progress, but it works), choclolate and specialized cell phone covers.

And while 3D printing has been around for a while, what’s different today is that it is getting cheaper. Some effective units now sell for just $2,200. “They keep getting better and cheaper,” says Robertson. “3D printing is absolutely going to be disruptive. The rate of change is dramatic — there have been three major announcements in as many months of new printers, each with major improvements in capability at very low price points. So it’s becoming cheaper and faster to produce custom parts in small volumes.” The era of desktop manufacturing has arrived.

And the design apps are getting better too. That will change what consumers demand, according to the so-called Long Tail theory. As this  Knowledge@Wharton article noted, that theory “suggests the Internet drives demand away from hit products with mass appeal, and directs that demand to more obscure niche offerings.” Sales of once-obscure books did better on Amazon than in the old bricks and mortar days. “The Long Tail theory suggests that, as the Internet makes distribution easier — and uses state-of-the-art recommendation systems that allow consumers to become aware of more obscure products — demand will shift from the most popular products at the ‘head’ of a demand curve — as charted on an xy axis — to the aggregate power of a long ‘tail’ made up of demand for many different niche products.”

 Interestingly, the Long Tail theory was developed in 2004 by Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief of Wired magazine, who has a new article out on 3D printing – “The New MakerBot Replicator Might Just Change Your World.”

Notes Robertson: “The Wired story was great, but only half the story. The other half is the revolution in design technologies. The ability to create, scan and/or transform a 3D model is also changing dramatically. It is now easy to use a laser pointer, a Kinect (game) or a simple digital camera to capture the shape of a 3D model and send it out for printing. But you can also send it to someone who can make you custom orthotics, a better fitting bra or a bobblehead doll that looks just like you.”

 In two to five years, says Robertson, expect to see a “democratization of retailing.” Consumers will be able to make their own jewely, toy or bicycle accessory design, put it up on a web site and make it available for consumers to easily print out themselves or through a service bureau. “What is the value of Walmart or Target if I’m able to get more interesting designs from people on the web. At that point, there is no benefit to mass production anymore. One area that is ripe for transformation: the aftermarket for automobile and motorcycle products.

It’s a big jump, and not everyone agrees it’s coming. Eric K. Clemons, a Wharton professor of operations and information management, says that “3D printers are mostly for making one-off copies fast of single-material objects from computer representations. Not exactly a cheap way to make multiple copies, or a cheap way to make objects from multiple materials. For now I do not think these are really relevant to much of manufacturing. It’s sort of like, ‘Did computer printers replace color magazines’? Not exactly.”

Featured Professors: ,
Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today | Leave a comment

Digging Below the Surface of Microsoft’s Tablet Strategy

With the introduction earlier this week of the Surface tablet, most observers seem to agree that Microsoft got a lot of things right, launching a well-designed product with features lacking in its chief competitor — Apple’s iPad — including a cover that functions as a keyboard and the ability to run desktop software programs.

But the presentation also left many unanswered questions, including the exact price, release date and battery life of the device. Perhaps more importantly, it is still unclear what the Surface offers beyond hardware — and if Microsoft can leverage successful offerings such as its Xbox gaming system and Office productivity suite to create a vibrant ecosystem to rival that of the iPad.

“At first glimpse, Microsoft appears to have gotten a lot right with the Surface tablet,” Wharton new media director Kendall Whitehouse says. “Including an integrated keyboard with the Surface is a great idea. More importantly, however, is that the Surface runs Windows 8. In this regard, Microsoft has leapt ahead of the competition. This is the eventual direction for tablet and mobile products: To close the gap between the mobile/tablet environment and the desktop/laptop environment.”

Whitehouse adds that making Windows 8 the operating system for the Surface is a “big bet” for Microsoft. “But I admire their courage in going ‘all in’ with their new OS. And, if they can pull this off by successfully implementing a consistent user experience across desktop, laptop, tablet and mobile phone devices, they could be back in the game in a big way.”

The move is also reflective of a growing trend in the tech sector, with companies focusing more on offering a full range of hardware and software similar to the Apple ecosystem, says Wharton marketing professor Eric Bradlow. “Every portal is trying to get into the device game,” he notes. “They are worried that someone else taking over the device market will create a friction cost so that the other portals are ‘harder’ to use. I treat Microsoft the same way. They are trying to develop a portal that will keep the Windows 8 platform and the Microsoft suite of products top of mind.”

According to Wharton operations and information management professor Eric Clemons, the iPad is “nearly perfect” as an entertainment device. But it is lacking in the area of productivity, which is where the Surface may be able to make inroads with consumers.

“Providing the Surface with twice the memory of an iPad was a nice move. Adding a USB port was even smarter. Providing Office was smarter still,” Clemons notes. “Until now, when I travel, I need three devices: I need an iPhone. I need a MacBook Pro. And I need an iPad for the plane ride itself. Now I can get away with only two devices, at least on shorter trips…. And a Surface would allow me to write real documents, send real e-mails and view my camera photographs — I mean from a real camera, a Nikon Digital SLR, not a camera phone picture.”

Clemons suggests that sales of the Macbook Air and the iPad could be threatened by the Surface “except that I expected this some time ago from a Microsoft platform, and I bet Apple did, too. So look for an iPad … that runs Office and has a USB port very soon.”

Featured Professors: ,
Posted in Managing Technology | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Facebook and Instagram: How Much Is a Picture Worth?

Consider this unlikely snapshot: A recent startup with less than a dozen employees distributes a free app that allows consumers to retouch photos on their mobile phones and share them easily with others on social network platforms. The company has no real revenue stream, but the app has 30 million users and the firm was valued at $20 million last year during a venture capital funding round. Enter Facebook, which offers the startup — Instagram — $1 billion as a purchase price.

The decision to acquire Instagram did not come out of the blue, since “one of Facebook’s key values is helping people share pictures with friends and family,” notes Wharton operations and information management professor Kartik Hosanagar. “What surprised me is the price.”

What does Facebook get for a billion dollars? According to Hosanagar, in addition to taking out a potentially big competitor in photo sharing, the company will gain “a firm hold in the mobile environment where it is more vulnerable” — and was therefore probably more willing to pay a high cost now “rather than later when the cost could be even higher.” Wharton operations and information management professor Eric Clemons adds that “Facebook needed some of Instagram’s functionality, and Instagram is worth much more to Facebook than it is alone. It makes sense for Facebook to add this capability. It is probably worth hundreds of millions to [them].”

“Clearly, Facebook as well as the Instagram founders felt that the market opportunity was big,” Hosanagar says. “At the end of the day, Instagram’s bankers and management did a great job, and I suspect that they probably created a nice bidding war for [the company].” Still, he views Instagram as “a novelty today. For me, it was unclear how long it would last and how it would be monetized. So I feel the price was just too high.”

Clemons points out that although the price may seem high, Facebook paid much less than it appears. “A lot of the purchase price is paid for in equity, and this purchase helps ‘substantiate’ the rather inflated share price that Facebook is trying to claim before its IPO. If it were really paying $1 billion, the deal would make no sense. Facebook would simply have developed the code themselves.”

Instagram is one of many apps that allow for creative alteration and sharing of images. So what sets it apart? Simplicity is one element: It enables users to apply instant filters to accomplish effects that would take considerably more effort using other programs. “The product is unique,” Hosanagar says. “Lots of consumers take pictures on their mobile devices, but the share rate for those pictures was low because these pictures … looked mundane. Instagram changed that by making these pictures novel and a better candidate for sharing. They addressed the [fact] that people like to share pictures of where they are, but want to share something that looks worthy of sharing.”

“Increasingly, young Facebook users are blurring the distinction between a real camera and an iPhone camera,” Clemons notes. “If you shoot with a digital SLR, you process your photos in photoshop before you upload to Facebook. But if you shoot with an iPhone and upload directly, then you can’t do any processing. Instagram lets you process your photos, and Facebook is a logical owner.

“Google+ will certainly match” what Instagram does for Facebook, he adds. “And at a cost of $995,000,000 less. They will simply code something up themselves.”

Featured Professors: ,
Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today, Managing Technology | Leave a comment

Taxes for Thee, but Not for Me

The news about sales taxes for online retailers, such as Amazon, has usually been about how states were struggling, largely unsuccessfully, to pull that e-business into the sales tax net. But in a new twist, Amazon is holding out a carrot to New Jersey: If the state foregoes, at least temporarily, the right to collect sales taxes on residents, Amazon will create 1,500 jobs by building distribution centers in the state.

Meanwhile, other states, such as Arizona, are pushing to eliminate an ineffective and unenforced law requiring the state’s residents to report and pay sales taxes on their online purchases.

Under a 1992 Supreme Court ruling, online retailers do not have to collect state sales taxes unless they have a physical presence in a state. So, with Amazon considering opening distribution facilities in New Jersey, it would trigger the requirement to collect sales taxes on online sales to residents. Amazon is working to cut a work-around deal to delay any tax collection until next summer in return for creating those 1,500 jobs and investing $130 million.

While consumers love the idea of lower priced goods, bricks-and-mortar retailers, naturally, object to any special treatment for their online competitors. The 4% to 9% in foregone sales taxes can give the online retailers a significant price advantage when they also offer free shipping. The ranks of the bricks-and-mortar retailers are often joined by state and city officials across the U.S., who are still hurting from lower sales tax receipts because of the poor economy and other factors. Last year, sales tax collections, which have been near historic lows, increased by only 1.2%, despite a 4.7% rise in consumer spending. Those local officials often have close ties to the local merchants, who already pay property and income taxes to the states, and thus the two groups should make natural allies against exemptions for online sellers.

Yet, the general anti-tax sentiment sweeping much of the country appears to trump all of that for now, to the advantage of the online retailers. In Arizona, for instance, state legislators are pushing to do away with a state law requiring consumers to pay state sales taxes on all annual online purchases when they file their state income tax returns. As it is, practically everyone ignores the law.

The anti-tax sentiment also appears to overwhelm the fact that the tax advantages allowed for online retailers means bricks-and-mortar retailers are less likely to expand or hire more workers. Some will even be put out of business.

“Of course Amazon destroys more small business sales jobs than the number of warehouse and shipping jobs it creates,” says Wharton’s Eric Clemons, a professor of operations and information management.  “That’s what economies of scale and operational efficiencies do.” The real question is whether or not online businesses should be exempt from sales taxes at all, he adds.

According to Clemons, “We really need to decide: (1) that online giants like Amazon need to be subject to sales tax regardless of where they are headquartered and regardless of where they have commercial facilities; or, (2) sales tax needs to be eliminated. It’s not a decision about whether sales taxes are still necessary revenue sources, but rather whether they are still feasible revenue sources. Anything that systematically places small local businesses at a competitive disadvantage is probably no longer part of a rational fiscal policy.”

Wharton management professor Stephen J. Kobrin points out two conceptually separate issues: “First, N.J. Is using tax relief to attract an investment and presumably the jobs that come with it.  That is standard practice among states and municipalities, although this is quite different as it is not an income tax abatement on a specific facility located in the state.  Furthermore, incentives whether they take the form of tax relief or infrastructure (new roads or facilities), usually provide a competitive advantage to the firm that receives them.”

At the same time, this case is very different.  “There is a fundamental principle in play here:  Whether on-line retailers should be subject to sales tax in a given state, whether or not they have physical facilities in that state,” Kobrin says. “I believe that the clear answer is ‘yes.’  There is absolutely no reason that they should pay sales tax and not doing so provides an unfair competitive advantage.  So, Amazon is not merely seeking an incentive to locate in N.J., but basically is arguing that their sales should not be taxed as a matter of principle. In this case, I suspect the fact that they are building a distribution center is a convenient fig leaf which allows N.J. To back away from taxing Amazon without appearing to give on the underlying principle.”

 

 

 

 

 

Featured Professors: ,
Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today, Law and Public Policy | Leave a comment

What’s Next for T-Mobile USA – and for AT&T?

Following the crash-and-burn ending to AT&T’s questionable quest to acquire Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA, one of the more interesting questions is, what will happen to the U.S. wireless carrier now?

T-Mobile is a tough case to figure out, says Gerald Faulhaber, an emeritus professor of business and public policy at Wharton. Other wireless carriers – such as Clear mobile broadband and Cricket Wireless – are getting into the market, under-pricing T-Mobile, and “these new guys seem to be able to grow.… How come T-Mobile can’t see what’s going on? T-Mobile looks like a basket case, and it does not have to be. What would happen if Deutsche just sold T-Mobile off publically?”

Faulhaber suspects there is a potential good fit between T-Mobile USA and an acquirer, perhaps a Japanese company or entrepreneur committed to aggressively turning the company around. “We’ll probably see new interest in T-Mobile.”

David Hsu, a Wharton management professor, points out that the recent winners in this burgeoning era of data communications “seem to be some of the smartphone hardware and software developers instead of the carriers.” One reason: Acquiring spectrum rights and installing equipment is capital intensive, as is advertising and payments to smartphone hardware companies like Apple.

“Everything takes place on a large scale with only limited information about demand and competitor offerings, and largely without experimentation,” adds Hsu. “The carriers seem to compete based on coverage, quality of service and, to a limited extent, on pricing and data plans. They do not have control over the same platform to shape the consumer experience akin to Apple, including inducing developers to contribute to the value of iOS [Apple] devices via the App Store.”

Thus, AT&T’s inability to follow through on the T-Mobile merger “reinforces the sense that the carriers have only limited avenues to control their own destiny,” Hsu notes. “Maybe it is time for the carriers to explore investments in different directions outside of their traditional lines of business and ways of operating.”

Had AT&T acquired T-Mobile USA, it would have become the largest wireless company in the U.S. with 130 million customers, surpassing number one Verizon, which has about 96 million wireless customers. T-Mobile USA’s parent, Deutsche Telekom, itself has 130 million customers at present.

More generally, AT&T’s move for T-Mobile has been difficult to understand from the start, Faulhaber says. AT&T’s case for the acquisition was roundly criticized as unconvincing, and many observers – including apparently the Justice Department — saw it as a raw grab for customers that would make it the top carrier. It got a huge reaction from Congress and from the public, and the Justice Department immediately filed suit to block the deal.

Faulhaber further notes that AT&T’s key justification for the action nominally was that it wanted to acquire more spectrum to support business expansion, which would allow it to reach 93% of all U.S. wireless customers. But that “did not make a whole lot of sense” given that the T-Mobile acquisition came with customers who were already using much of that spectrum, Faulhaber says. “This was not empty spectrum.

“AT&T has a very sorry record on mergers … and when they announced this, I thought, $39 billion? Are they crazy? The reasons they gave for the move did not add up to $39 billion to me.” No one could make a solid business case for the deal, unless it was a bid to “get tremendous market power,” Faulhaber says. “Merging from number two to number one is suspicious. I firmly believe the [wireless] market as constituted is pretty competitive. Others don’t think so. But this deal had the potential to damage that competitiveness.” So, “no one believed” AT&T’s arguments about spectrum acquisition or the other reasons given for the merger. “They just could not make the case.”

But it gets worse. Not only did AT&T lose out on the deal, it paid a record $3 billion in penalty costs to Deutsche Telekom and also gave up a significant amount of spectrum valued at about another $1 billion, the very commodity the firm said it was hoping to expand in the deal.

ATT will “stumble along,” says Faulhaber, and it will remain the number two carrier. “AT&T is basically a solid company.” But there is “no question it will have to get better,” and part of that will involve getting more spectrum. He pointed to rival Verizon Wireless’s recent move to spend $3.6 billion on new wireless spectrum acquired from cable companies, led by Comcast, as an innovative direction.

Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today, Law and Public Policy, Managing Technology, Strategic Management | Leave a comment

Will the Kindle Fire Burn the iPad?

Amazon became a serious player in the tablet wars yesterday with the unveiling of the Kindle Fire, a $199 device that many expect to be the first to seriously take on Apple’s iPad, which still leads the sector.

The Kindle Fire features a touch screen, Wi-Fi capability and access to Amazon’s content library of e-books, movies, TV shows and music. It will become the anchor of Amazon’s hardware offerings, which are expanding to include a $149 Kindle with touch screen and 3G capabilities, a $99 Wi-Fi-only touch screen version and a $79 classic Kindle.

While introducing the Kindle Fire, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos called the device an “unbelievable value” — it is $300 cheaper than the least expensive version of the iPad, which is $499. But will the Fire’s combination of price and performance be enough to succeed where others have failed?  Hewlett-Packard recently unloaded its remaining TouchPad tablets at fire sale prices after deciding to discontinue the device. Meanwhile, Research in Motion’s shipments of the BlackBerry PlayBook tablet during the most recent quarter was half of what Wall Street expected.

“The Kindle Fire will definitely be the most serious competitor thus far to the iPad,” says Wharton operations and information management professor Kartik Hosanagar. “Given Amazon’s experience with the Kindle, and its experience with content and overall execution, I fully expect the Fire to be a terrific device.”

Price is a “very important” part of that equation, according to Hosanagar. “Amazon did not just come out with a device that is $40 or $50 cheaper than the iPad…. At its current price, the Fire will put significant price pressure on the iPad. I expect Apple to revise its pricing for the iPad soon.”

Wharton operations and information management professor Eric Clemons takes a slightly different view. Clemons notes that the Fire is targeted toward entertainment, such as games or streaming movies. Rather than challenging Apple’s device, he predicts it will force the iPad to include things that “should have been … supported long ago,” such as word processing or spreadsheet programs. “This will just force the iPad to be more like a netbook sooner.”

Creating a lower-priced suite of Kindles represents a change in Amazon’s strategy, according to Clemons. “I did not buy a Kindle years ago because I thought either the Kindle should be free and the content priced like paperbacks or the Kindle should be priced like an entertainment device and the content should be priced at Amazon’s marginal cost (the author’s royalties plus some payment to the publisher).  I think this is a move toward pricing the Kindle at marginal cost and pricing the content like books.”

The stripped-down Kindle is not meant to take on the tablet sector, he says. “This creates a market for Kindles for people who just want to read content. But it will not compete directly with the iPad any more than a Schwinn competes with a Harley or a Honda.”

Featured Professors: ,
Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today, Managing Technology | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Apple Without Steve Jobs: How the New CEO Can ‘Think Different’

When people think of Apple, in addition to thinking of now-iconic products like the iPhone, iMac and iPad, they think of Steve Jobs, standing on a stage in his ubiquitous black turtleneck and jeans unveiling the latest in a string of innovative products from the company he co-founded in 1976.

On Wednesday, Jobs announced his resignation as CEO, ending a 14-year run that brought the company back from the brink of bankruptcy and reshaped the personal technology industry. Although Jobs, who has been on medical leave since January, will remain as chairman of the board, Apple chief operating officer Tim Cook will take over the day-to-day running of the company — and the daunting task of becoming the new face of Apple.

“There are few companies where the top person has had as much of an impact [as Jobs has had] at Apple,” Wharton management professor Michael Useem told Knowledge@Wharton for a 2009 story about Apple’s succession planning strategy.

But Apple’s success is due to more than Jobs alone, says Wharton operations and information management professor Eric Clemons. “Apple leadership has been brilliant,” he notes. “The team, clearly led by Jobs, but clearly more than Jobs alone, has become the best technology style house in the world. We pay a premium for Apple products because of how they look and how they feel foremost, and then how easy they are to use and to integrate into the rest of our technology and into our lives.”

Among Jobs’s biggest strengths were the ability to determine what the customer wanted and the will to force through “bold decisions that ultimately proved to be correct,” Clemons says. “In some ways he was indispensible. But he was never the whole story.”

Cook, who joined Apple in 1998 after stints at Compaq and IBM, also ran Apple during Jobs’s previous medical leaves. As COO, he oversaw the launch of Apple’s online store, fine-tuned its manufacturing process and revamped its customer support arm. Although Cook has appeared at least once in Jobs’s trademark black turtleneck and jeans, Wharton management professor Peter Cappelli says it would be a mistake for him to adopt a leadership style that copies Jobs. “A copy of anyone is going to come off looking bad. It will never be as good as the original, and people will spend their time focusing on the differences,” Cappelli notes. “I think [Cook] should be himself.”

But when it comes to Apple’s business strategy, Cappelli says it would be unwise to depart in any significant way from the path set under Jobs. “I think a ‘steady as she goes’ approach is a good idea, and also about the only option at this point.”

Apple shares fell 7% when news of Jobs’s departure broke Wednesday night, but the drop had narrowed to 2% by this morning. Most analysts expected the company to remain strong in the post-Jobs era, although Deutsche Bank cautioned that “risk is more likely to be centered around Apple’s three-to five-plus year product plans if/when Jobs permanently departs,” the Wall Street Journal reported.

And JMP analysts put a rare “hold” rating on the stock, noting that “it is not immediately evident to us how Apple replaces the irreplaceable and we are maintaining our neutral stance on the stock until it becomes clear — either that innovation and operational efficiencies will continue unabated under new management or that they are breaking down.”

According to Clemons, Cook must emphasize that, although Jobs is no longer at the helm, the design and strategic teams behind Apple’s success will remain intact. He says Cook could also buy back stock if the price drops temporarily. “The fundamentals of Apple as the premier high-tech design house and the premier integrated consumer technology company have not altered.”

For more on the evolution of Jobs’s career at Apple, see:

Encounters with Steve

Job-less: Steve Jobs’s Succession Plan Should Be a Top Priority for Apple

The Succession Question at Tech Firms: When’s the Right Time to Go?

Posted in Leadership and Change, Managing Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

An End to Online Retailers’ Immaculate Tax Exception?

Most people probably don’t take the absence of  sales taxes into account when they buy online. Shipping costs often offset at least some of the tax savings, bringing costs more in line with neighborhood-based competitors. But for higher-priced items – say, a laptop computer — the $50 or $60 in foregone online sales tax starts to affect purchase decisions. Who wouldn’t want to pocket that money, or use it to buy some extra frills for the laptop?

Multiply that savings by millions of buyers and it becomes easy to see why revenue-starved states want to scotch what they see as a blatant tax loophole – their inability to tax sales made to in-state consumers. Some estimates show states lose about $23 billion in online sales taxes annually. California alone, now suffering a huge budget hole, loses about $1.5 billion a year. But now it’s not just some states that want to level the sales tax playing field. Big bricks-and-mortar retailers like Walmart, Target and Best Buy are lobbying Congress, saying they are tired of their online competitors enjoying an unfair advantage. They want the sales taxes equalized for all.

At present, no U.S. interstate commerce laws require online retailers to collect sales taxes, although seven states now try to do so and about a dozen others are considering similar laws. A 1992 Supreme Court decision ruled that online retailers should collect sales taxes, but only in states where they maintain a physical presence. So, Best Buy, for example, collects taxes for online purchases in states where it has stores. Dealing with 50 complicated state tax codes was deemed too onerous for strictly online retailers. Now, some federal lawmakers are pushing legislation that will streamline the regulatory process to make sales tax collection easier.

Ebay continues to oppose efforts towards online taxation, arguing it would hurt its many small business partners. Amazon, the 800-pound gorilla of online retailing, could lose $653 million, or 2.7% of its North American revenues for this year if sales taxes were imposed, according to Credit Suisse. Amazon has also fought state sales taxation efforts ferociously, but now suggests it would support federal rules for more even-handed sales tax treatment so long as they are applied fairly and are not too complicated.

But the issue of complicated rules is a straw man, says Wharton management professor Stephen J. Kobrin. The technical challenges around online taxation are “not insurmountable” and will notput small businesses at a disadvantage.”

He points out that “aside from the small number of transactions paid in cash or by check, every purchase on the web is cleared, one way or another, through a credit card company. There are a finite number of tax jurisdictions in the U.S., and setting up a procedure to add the tax as the payment is processed and then remitting it to the appropriate jurisdiction would not seem to be rocket science.” At the same time, “while pure digital purchases may pose more of a problem,” like music downloads, for example, “all physical goods are delivered to an address that is within a given tax jurisdiction.”

More generally, however, “avoiding legitimate taxes is not a valid reason for preferring to purchase online,” Kobrin says. So, in some ways the question of online sales taxes is one of fairness. “This is not about whether or not buyers should pay state sales tax on goods ordered online; rather, the question is whether buyers should be allowed to continue avoiding paying these taxes.”

As for big retailers like Amazon, Wharton’s Eric Clemons, a professor of operations and information management, says that “Amazon has a great business model, one that is definitely not based largely on avoiding state sales tax and one that will survive any change to state sales tax laws. Instead, Amazon’s attraction lies in price competitiveness, a seamless online ordering process, a reputation for standing behind products and the more general convenience of ordering online.

“I understand the proposed change, but it seems quite arbitrary, and ultimately the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) may indeed need to get involved as a regulator of interstate commerce,” Clemons adds. “The most natural change, of course, would be to treat online sales as if they were physical sales, and impose the sales tax of the selling state upon all online purchases. This would result in taxes of 6.5% for Amazon and 6.86% for Zappos. Although this would be the simplest change to explain in the courts, it would be especially embarrassing for eBay. With a state sales tax of 8.25%, among the highest in the nation, eBay might have to rethink its location. It might want to move to New York, as long as it avoided New York City or Utica.”

Most observers say, however, that implementation of any new sales tax rules would take at least a couple of years.

Featured Professors: ,
Posted in Business Ethics, Knowledge@Wharton Today, Law and Public Policy | Tagged | Leave a comment