Amazon Still Doesn’t Understand Brick-and-Mortar Retail. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Oversimplification

Reducing a complex situation to a simple, often one-dimensional explanation.

1) Title and thesis framing: "Amazon Still Doesn’t Understand Brick-and-Mortar Retail" 2) Early analogy: "this moment read to me as the perfect analogy for why the online behemoth needed Whole Foods: Amazon was good at many things, but it didn’t know a thing about the food business." 3) Later conclusion: "The problem seems to be that Amazon spent more time injecting its cost-cutting ethos into Whole Foods than it did absorbing Whole Foods’ expertise as a leading food retailer." These statements compress a multi‑year, multi‑format retail strategy (Fresh, Go, Whole Foods, supercenter plans, delivery innovations) into a single narrative: Amazon fundamentally "doesn’t understand" brick‑and‑mortar and "didn’t know a thing" about food. The article itself cites some evidence of learning and experimentation (e.g., 40‑fold growth in perishables delivery, new formats, conversion of stores to Whole Foods), which complicates the absolute framing.

4 suggestions

Qualify the headline and thesis to reflect nuance, e.g., change the title to: "Amazon Still Struggles With Brick-and-Mortar Retail" or "Amazon’s Brick-and-Mortar Strategy Still Has Major Gaps."

Modify the analogy sentence to avoid absolutes: instead of "didn’t know a thing about the food business," use "had limited experience in the food business" or "lacked deep expertise in grocery retail."

Rephrase "The problem seems to be that Amazon spent more time injecting its cost-cutting ethos..." to acknowledge multiple factors, e.g., "One major problem appears to be that Amazon prioritized injecting its cost-cutting ethos into Whole Foods over fully absorbing Whole Foods’ expertise as a leading food retailer, among other strategic missteps."

Add a brief acknowledgment that some aspects of Amazon’s physical retail and grocery efforts may have worked or shown promise, even if the overall strategy is underperforming.

Appeal to authority

Relying on the opinion of an authority figure as primary evidence, without sufficiently examining data or counterarguments.

1) Heavy reliance on a former Whole Foods executive who left before much of the Amazon integration: "‘They’re admitting that they don’t get (brick-and-mortar) retail,’ says Errol Schweizer, one-time head of grocery at Whole Foods who left the company in 2016. ‘I don’t think they understand the human aspect of it.’ Last year, he described Amazon Fresh stores on his Substack ‘The Checkout’ as soulless, neutered and radically unimpressive — what he imagined a store would be like if it was designed and managed by artificial intelligence." Schweizer’s quotes are used as strong support for the thesis that Amazon "doesn’t get" brick‑and‑mortar, but his perspective is not balanced with current Amazon leadership, neutral analysts, or customer data. 2) Self-citation: "As I wrote at the time for Fortune: The very thing that makes grocery delivery hard—that food goes bad—is the reason it’s so desirable to a company like Amazon." The author cites her own prior framing as support for the strategic logic, which is reasonable in an opinion piece but still functions as an appeal to her own authority rather than new evidence.

4 suggestions

Balance Schweizer’s criticism with perspectives from current Amazon executives, independent retail analysts, or recent customer satisfaction data on Amazon Fresh, Go, and Whole Foods.

Clarify Schweizer’s potential biases and time frame, e.g., note that he left before many of the Amazon-era changes and that his view is one of several possible interpretations.

When referencing the author’s prior work, add external corroboration (e.g., industry data on grocery purchase frequency, market research on delivery habits) rather than relying primarily on self-citation.

Explicitly frame quoted opinions as one perspective among many, e.g., "Schweizer argues that…" followed by "Other analysts, however, point to…"

Biased language

Use of loaded or emotionally charged wording that nudges readers toward a particular judgment.

1) Describing Amazon Fresh stores via a critic’s language: "soulless, neutered and radically unimpressive — what he imagined a store would be like if it was designed and managed by artificial intelligence." Although attributed, these highly charged descriptors are presented without counterbalancing perspectives or data. 2) Characterization of Amazon’s ethos: "The problem seems to be that Amazon spent more time injecting its cost-cutting ethos into Whole Foods than it did absorbing Whole Foods’ expertise…" "Injecting" and "ethos" together carry a negative, almost invasive connotation, subtly framing Amazon’s actions as harmful rather than neutrally strategic. 3) Dismissive phrasing about performance: "which translates roughly into a not very impressive 4% a year on average." "Not very impressive" is evaluative language without context (e.g., industry benchmarks, inflation, pandemic effects).

4 suggestions

Retain critical quotes but contextualize them and add balance, e.g., "Schweizer, a vocal critic of Amazon’s approach, has described Amazon Fresh stores as…" and then note whether customer surveys or sales data support or contradict this view.

Replace "injecting its cost-cutting ethos" with more neutral phrasing such as "applying its cost-cutting focus" or "implementing its efficiency-driven operating model."

Instead of "not very impressive 4% a year," provide comparative context: "about 4% a year on average, which is modest compared with [industry average X% / inflation / peers]."

Where evaluative adjectives are used, pair them with specific metrics or comparisons so readers can judge for themselves.

Unbalanced reporting / Selective use of sources

Presenting mainly one side’s views or selectively choosing sources that support a predetermined conclusion.

The article consistently foregrounds critical perspectives and downbeat interpretations of Amazon’s brick‑and‑mortar efforts: - Former Whole Foods executive’s negative assessment ("soulless, neutered and radically unimpressive"). - Emphasis on store closures and underwhelming Whole Foods growth. - Interpretation that Amazon "spent more time" imposing its ethos than learning from Whole Foods. By contrast, Amazon’s own explanations and any positive or mixed evidence are brief and underdeveloped: - Amazon’s statement: it hadn’t "yet created a truly distinctive customer experience with the right economic model" is mentioned but not explored in depth. - The 40‑fold growth in perishables delivery and 30‑minute delivery tests are acknowledged but quickly framed as "the kind of thing that Amazon does best" without considering how these might inform or complicate the claim that Amazon "doesn’t understand" brick‑and‑mortar. - No customer satisfaction data, store‑level performance breakdowns, or analyst commentary that might show partial successes or regional differences are included.

5 suggestions

Include Amazon’s detailed rationale for closing Fresh and Go stores (if available), such as statements from earnings calls, investor presentations, or press releases, and summarize their strategic explanation.

Add perspectives from independent retail analysts on Amazon’s brick‑and‑mortar performance, including any areas where Amazon has shown competence or innovation, even if the overall verdict is mixed.

Incorporate any available customer data (surveys, NPS scores, foot traffic trends) for Amazon Fresh, Go, and Whole Foods to ground the critique in more than anecdotal or insider opinion.

Explicitly acknowledge uncertainties and mixed evidence, e.g., "While store closures suggest significant missteps, some analysts note that Amazon has succeeded in…"

Clarify that this is an opinion column and briefly restate that the analysis reflects the author’s interpretation of incomplete public information.

Hasty generalization

Drawing a broad conclusion from limited or non-representative evidence.

1) From a single anecdote to a broad claim: "this moment read to me as the perfect analogy for why the online behemoth needed Whole Foods: Amazon was good at many things, but it didn’t know a thing about the food business." A light, somewhat humorous anecdote about Jeff Wilke mislabeling blueberries as vegetables is used as a "perfect analogy" for Amazon’s lack of food expertise. This is rhetorically effective but logically weak as evidence. 2) From store closures and modest growth to a sweeping conclusion: "there’s a big question as to whether more than eight years later it has really learned much of anything from Whole Foods — not just about food but about how to run an actual physical store…" The article uses the closure of 72 stores and modest Whole Foods growth to suggest Amazon has "not learned much of anything" about food or physical retail, without systematically examining other learning indicators (e.g., operational improvements, tech integration, regional performance, or lessons applied to new formats).

4 suggestions

Reframe the anecdote as illustrative rather than definitive, e.g., "It was a telling moment about the cultural gap between Amazon and Whole Foods" instead of "perfect analogy" for total ignorance.

Qualify the learning claim: "there’s a big question as to how much Amazon has actually learned from Whole Foods" or "whether Amazon has learned enough from Whole Foods to succeed at scale in brick-and-mortar retail."

Add more varied evidence before making broad claims: for example, discuss specific operational missteps, customer feedback, or comparative performance versus other grocers.

Explicitly separate rhetorical devices (anecdotes, analogies) from empirical claims, signaling to readers when something is illustrative rather than evidentiary.

Framing effect

Presenting information in a way that emphasizes certain aspects and downplays others, influencing interpretation without changing the underlying facts.

1) Framing Whole Foods growth: "Amazon says Whole Foods’ sales have grown by more than 40% since the acquisition, which translates roughly into a not very impressive 4% a year on average." The framing emphasizes "not very impressive" without providing context such as industry growth rates, inflation, or the impact of the pandemic on grocery sales. Depending on those benchmarks, 4% could be weak, average, or relatively strong. 2) Framing store closures as evidence of fundamental misunderstanding: "Now as the company plans to shut down its 57 Amazon Fresh and 15 Amazon Go stores… there’s a big question as to whether more than eight years later it has really learned much of anything from Whole Foods." Closures are framed primarily as proof of failure to learn, rather than also considering alternative frames (e.g., portfolio optimization, strategic pivot, or experimentation costs).

4 suggestions

Provide comparative benchmarks for Whole Foods’ growth: industry averages, key competitors’ growth, and inflation over the same period, then let readers see how 4% compares.

Acknowledge multiple possible interpretations of the store closures, e.g., "The closures could signal either a failure to crack the format or a strategic decision to refocus on more promising models."

Use more neutral language when interpreting numbers, e.g., "modest" or "in line with" plus data, instead of "not very impressive" without context.

Explicitly note that the column is choosing a particular interpretive frame and that other analysts might read the same facts differently.