Why are american supermarkets putting the dust under the carpet?
American supermarkets are undergoing a digital makeover, but beneath the surface, something isn’t quite right. Electronic shelf labels (ESLs), often hailed as a symbol of innovation, are being rolled out in thousands of stores across the country. They promise efficiency, accuracy, and modernity. But are they truly modernizing retail, or simply concealing the industry's persistent flaws in demand planning?
To understand this change, it helps to look outside the grocery sector. The airline industry has long used dynamic pricing as a cornerstone of its business model. Ticket prices fluctuate constantly, adjusting according to factors such as seat availability, demand, time of day, seasonality, and booking behavior.
A flight to the same destination might cost €50 one day and €200 the next—not because of chance, but because data and algorithms are doing the math in the background. For airlines, this strategy isn’t just about maximizing revenue—it’s about filling every seat in the most efficient way possible.
When used properly, ESLs provide an advanced method to handle a logistical nightmare: updating thousands of price tags across long aisles in real time. What used to take numerous hours and teams of workers can now be completed with a few clicks. Promotions are updated instantly, prices are more accurate, and staff members have more time to concentrate on operational and customer service duties.
More and more, ESLs are not just tools for convenience; they are becoming tools of compensation. Many supermarkets are using ESLs as a reactive patch rather than improving demand planning procedures, which include anticipating sales patterns, synchronizing stock levels, and improving category strategies. Not because the demand was well predicted, but rather because it wasn't, prices are adjusted every day, even on an hourly basis. Instead of encouraging "plan it better," ESLs are fostering a culture of "fix it later."
The real damage starts at this point. Supermarkets are using price increases as a cover rather than addressing the underlying problem of stockouts and insufficient shelf availability. Products sell out more quickly than anticipated, and some retailers just boost prices instead of improving supply chain responsiveness or restocking systems.
This is not a fair trade-off. Stockouts should lead to better systems, not higher margins. When products run low, using ESLs quietly boosts prices, giving the idea that the business is more concerned with making money from scarcity than with avoiding it. And the damage is done once they begin to believe that you are deceiving them. With fewer profits, fewer full baskets, and a rising inclination towards rivals who don't engage in price manipulation, it vanishes without a trace.
Even worse, this tactic often hits the most basic products like milk, bread, eggs, pasta, etc. Customers don't anticipate fluctuations in prices for these items based on daily demand signals. Technology should not be utilized in that manner just because it is possible.
The missing product isn't the true issue. It's the decision to conceal it through pricing instead of addressing the source of the problem. Technology ceases to be innovation and becomes evasion the instant it is used as a substitute for responsibility. This process can be a useful instrument for improving retail strategy, but only if it complements planning rather than takes its place.
American supermarkets (such as the US multinational Walmart), should be using these tools to reduce food waste, enable faster promotions, and increase operational efficiency, not to quietly shift costs onto the customer when the system breaks down. The hidden question also gets louder every time a customer sees fewer products at a higher price: why should I pay more if the store can't properly stock it?
The long-term risk is that customers won’t just feel annoyed, but also they’ll feel manipulated. And it's difficult to reverse once the idea becomes imprinted. Customers will search elsewhere for honesty as well as cheaper costs. They will give preference to retailers who employ technology to add value rather than cover up issues, communicate honestly, and prepare more effectively.
ESLs aren’t the villain. The concept underlying the screen has flaws, not the screen itself. Proper planning is replaced with dynamic pricing, which results in an illusion rather than innovation. Furthermore, no illusion remains forever. Supermarkets would lose control of their shelves as well as the trust that attracts and retains customers if they continue to use smart labels to cover up poor systems.
You can’t build the future on shortcuts. And you can’t hide broken operations behind blinking prices. The dust isn’t gone. It’s just been swept under a digital rug.
Sources
Samuels, B. (2024, March 12). Walmart quietly begins rolling out electronic shelf labels across stores. Grocery Dive. https://www.grocerydive.com/news/walmart-electronic-shelf-labels-ESLs-grocery-retail/718442/
Elliott, C. (2025, July 1). Kroger’s facial recognition and digital pricing spark backlash amid surge pricing fears. The Times. https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/kroger-facial-recognition-supermarket-surge-pricing-vlfrt0dxl
Baker McKenzie. (2024, February 19). Electronic shelf labels pose myriad risks for retailers. Connect On Tech. https://connectontech.bakermckenzie.com/electronic-shelf-labels-pose-myriad-risks-for-retailers/
Anderson, M. (2024, June 30). Electronic shelf labels bring digital prices — and controversy — to grocery aisles. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/electronic-shelf-labels-supermarket-prices-digital-132ef73fbbe2eb13a8c724b55fb458d1
Aggarwal, C. (2024, June 18). As retailers like Walmart roll out digital price tags, fears of surge pricing grow. Modern Retail. https://www.modernretail.co/technology/as-retailers-like-walmart-roll-out-digital-price-tags-fears-of-surge-pricing-grow/
