For one thing, tills mean queues. Research has shown that 51% of UK shoppers refuse to even enter a store if they spy a queue.  There are also studies that allude to the increasing redundancy of the till. According to Deloitte research, for instance, three in five smartphone owners who use their devices to shop have done so while shopping at the store. 

Some famous retailers have already questioned the future of the till point. ‘Cash registers could join the ranks of pay phones and typewriters sooner than you think,’ said Ron Johnson, CEO of JC Penny. A similar sentiment was echoed by Danielle Vitale, COO of Barneys New York, when she said, ‘The traditional cash register is heading toward obsolescence. What is more, some of these well known retailers are already experimenting with new systems. Coach is piloting the suitability of iPod Touch payment devises for its 350 retail stores. Sephora is increasingly operating mobile point of sale (POS) devices. While at Barneys there is no cash register in the jewellery section, just mobile-only payments. 

Mobile, contactless payment systems will certainly continue to liberate the payment process and give retailers the opportunity to develop a range of customised experiences – to the benefit of some customers (‘74% of UK consumers believe the mobile wallet is an appealing new concept’). But to remove the finality of the traditional payment system, these and other retailers must develop strategies for their future ‘farewell experience’. In doing this, they should shift the payment experience away from being one predominantly centered on the transaction to one that is personalised and memorable. 

Once liberated from the conventional till point, retailers are free to customise their approach to the payment process. A very functional payment process could involve customers scanning product codes with an app on an NFC enabled mobile device which then debits the customer’s bank account directly - essentially building on the now familiar supermarket self-service tills. Hointer, a new American jeans retailer, has a totally mechanised store. Customers use the brand’s app to scan product codes for information and pay for the garment without any staff involvement in the process.

A more personalised, concierge-type payment experience could take place anywhere in the store. Removing tills will allow retailers to use the space more imaginatively. Staff could be trained to do more than just process payments and hand over goods. It could take the form of a lounge with coffee, or an area for demonstrations (eg kitchen products). This could be where you see ‘behind the brand’, meet the experts, experience craftsmanship and sample goods (think handbags, chocolate, jewelry). This could also be a ‘collect experience’ where customers pick up on-line orders, or where products are gift wrapped and personalised. It is also where retailers could take the opportunity to ‘up-sell’.

Whatever the approach taken, it is crucial that retailers avoid approaching their 'farewell experience' from a purely technology-driven stand point. Rather, they should be responding to the fast changing retail landscape and new customer expectations. This is about re-inventing the whole notion of the store and how it will survive in the new ‘omni-service’ world. Fresh approaches to payment will have serious implications on the store - nowhere more significantly than on staff recruitment and training. 

Removing the till will not necessarily mean greater automation and loss of jobs. The very survival of retailers will depend on their ability to recruit and train staff to connect with customers, to be ‘in the conversation’, to narrate the brand story and to co-create with them. Ultimately, the future success of stores will not solely depend on sales per square metre: retailers need to think about delivering surprise per sqm, senses per sqm, ideas per sqm, even smiles per sqm!

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited (EIU) or any other member of The Economist Group. The Economist Group (including the EIU) cannot accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this article or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in the article.