Confusing necessary with sufficient

We’re told we have to embrace all things omni-channel, yet Macy’s and Nordstrom, two of the acknowledged leaders in this arena, have yet to move the dial much on market share and profitability.

We’re told we have to digitally enable most dimensions of our business, yet Sears, which has been a pioneer in many aspects of e-commerce and digital innovation for more than a decade, looks to be in the midst of the world’s slowest liquidation sale.

The excellent and provocative work by L2 on companies “digital IQ” frequently ranks brands on the top end of the scale that are laggards on many key performance metrics.

Some will tell you that this proves that embracing a digital first strategy is over-rated or that investing heavily in omni-channel is a mistake.  They are mostly wrong.

The error comes in confusing necessary with sufficient.

There are few brands, especially in retail, that can ignore an aggressive move into frictionless commerce. The customer experience must become more unified.

More and more, mass marketing strategies are dying and it’s becoming extraordinarily difficult to break through the clutter. Letting go of one-size-fits-all strategies in favor of creating more personalized programs is becoming increasingly important.

And we can’t keep interrupting customers with largely irrelevant messages at the wrong time and out of context. Deeper customer insight, coupled with an understanding that smartphones and tablets allow the customer to be untethered and addressable at the moment of need, puts a premium on marketing that is localized.

We are entering an era where a high level of competence in the above three principles is necessary just to stay in the game, to be even marginally relevant, to have a crack at the customer’s consideration.

You can be leading edge on all of these dimensions and it’s still not enough.

What we offer the customer needs to be amplified–that is, it must be truly unique, intensely relevant and remarkable in the purest sense of the word. This is where Sears falls incredibly short and where Macy’s struggles to break out from the sea of sameness that characterizes much of the department store world.

Unfortunately too many companies vaguely embrace all things digital and start gulping down the omni-channel Kool-Aid while ignoring this last critical piece.

At the end of the day, if the dust ever settles, they’ll have spent a ton of time and money on merely keeping pace and not enough on the things that ultimately matter.

PurpleCow

Pretending it’s new

When some leaders wake up to reality, when they slowly start to notice that things are in fact meaningfully different from how they were before, we often witness a self-absorbed, I’ve just found Jesus and I need to tell you all about it, kind of thing take over.

“Consumers who shop multiple channels are more valuable than single channel customers” they breathlessly announce at conferences.

“Stop thinking about e-commerce as a channel” becomes the title of a newly released white-paper.

“We need to differentiate ourselves on experience” the CEO implores a group of assembled executives.

Suddenly everything is about “seamless”and “omni-channel” and “the single view of the customer.”  Their sentences start to include a disquieting use of “integration”, “customer-centric” and “relevance.” Investor presentations and annual reports turn into games of buzz-word bingo.

I hate to drag you out of your pink cloud, but just because you took a long time to notice, doesn’t mean it’s a recent phenomenon. Responding energetically to a totally foreseeable crisis does not make you a great leader.

Pretending it’s new may prop up our ego or cast ourselves in a better light. Better late than never, huh?

Pretending it’s new may buy ourselves some time with a less than savvy Board. What they don’t know can’t hurt them, right?

Much of what passes for insight today has in fact been known for years if only we had taken the time to become aware, confront its import and accept the implications. It’s not new and we shouldn’t pretend it is. Of course, neither is this.

Now obviously we can’t go back and fix all the should of’s and could have’s.

But we can ask ourselves what of potential importance might we be missing right now?

We can go into understanding what our fear causes us to avoid.

We can accept that often our pretending creates the illusion of keeping us safe.

All about that base?

When politicians start a campaign one of the first questions they ask is how they can appeal to the base. Mainstream candidates lock into the usual suspects for rally turnout and fund-raising. The reformers struggle for voter attention and ways to tap into the key PAC’s and the Koch’s and Soros’ of the world.

Traditional brand marketers usually start here as well. We focus on more and better ways of activating existing consumers where the investment to acquire them is sunk and where we already know that they like us and buy often. It seems like a perfectly logical place to concentrate our efforts.

Except where those cohorts are aging out of maintaining their spending. Think Sears.

Except where their needs have shifted and we are no longer their brand or store of choice. Think Barnes & Noble.

Except where a new disruptive model has come along and is doing things we can’t while gobbling up our core customers’ share of wallet. Think Warby Parker and LensCrafters.

Except where we are not replenishing defectors or downward migrators with enough new profitable customers. Think JC Penney.

Good customer analysis always starts with the base. Better customer analysis is focused on a deep understanding of the leverage and limitations inherent in our core segments and yields the insight required to know where to go next and how urgent and powerful any shifts need to be.

It’s all about that base, until it isn’t.

 

 

Living in an A/B world

It’s a common practice for e-commerce sites to engage in so-called “A/B testing.” A typical A/B test randomly presents a brand’s current website design against an alternative which might improve results (most often conversion rates).

A variant of this approach has been employed by direct mail practitioners for years. To improve campaign response rates a “challenger” mailing is pitted against the current best performing offer (“the champion”). Database analysis is then used to help evolve the marketing strategy.

For years, structured test and control experiments have been narrowly employed and, for the most part, the province of relatively sophisticated marketing organizations.

Yet in a world where the battle for share of attention is fierce, where relevance is increasingly hard to come by and where whoever gets closest to the customer wins, every organization, big and small, needs to embrace a test and learn mentality.

Sure, it’s desirable to have beautifully designed experiments and statistically relevant sample sizes. But don’t estimate the power of continually presenting your customers with a stream of alternatives and seeing how they react.  “Here’s A, here’s B, what do you think?” is sometimes all the protocol you need.

You don’t need Ph.D statisticians. You don’t need complex campaign management software. You don’t need expensive consultants.

What you do need is a willingness to try. And to fail. And to try again.

The discount ring

I’m amazed that Wall Street analysts are “surprised” that as hot brands get bigger (think Michael Kors, kate spade), their level of discounting increases. Apparently they were all sleeping during their first year economics course when supply and demand was covered.

Target_market_bullseye

 

 

 

 

 

Whether it’s Walmart or Chanel, at the center of any brand’s customer bullseye will be customers who don’t need a discount (or any extra incentive) to buy. This is what I referred to in my recent obsessive core post. As we move out in the rings, away from the center, we encounter customer segments that are less and less intrinsically loyal and thus more in need of extra incentives to buy.

Since Walmart’s value proposition is largely about price–whereas Chanel’s rests on a high percentage of full-price selling–the composition and dynamics of these various customer segment rings will obviously be quite different. But the fact remains that as a brand grows by casting a wider net for customers it will, at some point, develop a discount ring.

As the name implies, customers in the discount ring don’t buy unless they get a deal. In fact, most brands will have multiple discount rings. There will be a ring that needs only minor or modest incentives to pull the trigger. Others only come off the sidelines when prices hit a much deeper level of markdown (or some other incentive).

Unless we are examining a brand that has decided strategically to shun price discounting completely–or assessing certain companies early in their life-cycle–the existence (and relative growth) of a discount ring should surprise no decent analyst.

The real question for anyone trying to understand the validity of a brand’s long-term customer growth strategy is whether the company has a firm grasp of the dynamics within each of these rings and is intelligently balancing the portfolio of these different customer segments.

Coach is a brand that in recent years lost its grip on its customer portfolio and pushed too far on the discount ring. They have paid a steep price and are now trying to rebalance.

In Michael Kors’ case, there are only so many customers willing to pay at or close to full-price for their core offering. Sustaining growth means appealing to more customers. And that means they will need to become more reliant on more price sensitive customers.

Ultimately the point at which the discount ring becomes meaningful is mostly a matter of brand maturity and math. If you get shocked by that it just means you’re not paying attention.

The starting point–the pivotal matter of strategy and intelligent customer development–is to build a level of deep insight about each relevant customer segment. Then we must become intentional about how each plays into the brand’s long-term growth. Having a discount ring emerge is not automatically a matter of good or bad. How it plays out over time is a strategic choice.

Choose wisely.

Let’s get physical

Amidst all the breathless pronouncements about the inexorable decline of brick and mortar retail emerges an interesting phenomenon: some of the fastest growing and most exciting internet-only brands are opening stores.

Recently, Bonobos raised $55MM largely to accelerate its foray into “Guideshops.” Other e-commerce innovators such as Warby Parker, Trunk Club, Nasty Gal and Bauble Bar are all expanding into physical store fronts. Expect more announcements soon, not only from earlier stage companies, but from larger direct-to-consumer brands as well. This seemingly counter-intuitive trend reflects a few realities.

First, most of these venture capital funded darlings have thrived in their first few years by exploiting a highly specific customer niche and leveraging the heck out of the advantages of a direct-to-consumer model. Alas, the number of customers who are willing to buy product sight unseen, without working directly with a sales person and lacking the instant gratification that physical stores provide, is comparatively small when it comes to product categories where fit, material quality and fabrication are important. For these brands to continue to grow–and have a chance for material profitability–physical locations aren’t a nice-to-do, they are a necessity.

Second, brick and mortar retail is different, not dead. In most product categories, for many, many years to come, the overwhelming majority of sales and profits will continue to come from, or be influenced directly by, physical locations. Regardless of whether a brand started as an actual store or as a virtual entity, the ones that will ultimately win will offer a tightly integrated experience across their various channels and touch-points. They will eschew traditional mass, one-size fits all strategies and embrace more personalized missions. There remains plenty of business to be done in brick and mortar locations–if you have something remarkable and meaningfully customer relevant.

Finally, when we think about the market or the customer we inevitably get it wrong. Global pronouncements about industry dynamics or the “typical” consumer are rarely particularly illuminating and almost never sufficiently actionable. The brands that are winning–the ones that are stealing share from you–go beyond the averages and the mega-trends. They understand how to apply technology to create frictionless commerce. They delve into data and apply customer insights that inform stronger acquisition, growth and retention tactics. They are committed to experimentation. They treat different customers differently. And on and on. None of this is fundamentally rooted in how a brand started or whether trends tend to favor its success.

Of course it’s far from certain that these previously web-only brands will successfully transition to an omni-channel world. Some will stumble mightily. A few will fail completely. Others will see their growth stall at only a handful of profitable locations.

The one thing for certain is that for quite a lot of customers, the benefits of physical shopping are here to stay. For traditional players the rush to close and down-size their store base may have some merit. But it’s equally likely the problem isn’t just the real estate portfolio.

 

A lot of oysters, but no pearls

It’s worth remembering that “big data” in and of itself does not automatically lead to useful nuggets of actionable insight.

It’s worth remembering that having a lot of customers doesn’t mean you have a core group of profitable and loyal ones willing to advocate for your brand.

It’s worth remembering that generating lots of ideas doesn’t guarantee a good one will magically emerge.

It’s worth remembering that you can be plenty busy and not necessarily be working on the few things that truly make a difference.

Sure, sometimes you need a lot of oysters to be certain you will find a pearl. And maybe that kissing a lot of frogs thing helps some folks find their prince.

Most of the time, however, if we constantly remind ourselves that our goal is more pearls not more oysters, we can save ourselves a lot of time, energy and distraction.

 

HT to Counting Crows for the title inspiration.