A really bad time to be boring · Being Remarkable · Omni-channel · Reinventing Retail · Retail

Upcoming webinar: “Omni-channel is dead. Long live omni-channel.”

Please join me next Wednesday February 14th at 1pm US Eastern for a free 30 minute webinar on the future of omni-channel retailing. I’ll be joined by Rob Poratti from IBM Watson Commerce. You can pre-register here.

In other news, I’ll be heading to Melbourne, Australia at the end of the month for InsideRetailLive.

I’ve also recently added two new keynote speaking gigs, both in Chicago. I’ll be sharing thoughts from my forthcoming book “A Really Bad Time To Be Boring: Reinventing Retail In The Age Of Amazon.”

June 13-15   Shopper Insights & Activation Conference 

November 7-9   eRetailer Summit

For more on my speaking and workshops go here.

Webinar_Omnichannel-Dead_1-12-2018 (2)

Convergence · Omni-channel · Retail

The reinvention of retail demands new metrics

This post was co-written by Brent Franson and Steve Dennis

Recent retail earnings, as well as various industry reports, continue to support three continuing and profound trends. First, those retailers stuck in the vast and largely undifferentiated middle (think Macy’s, JC Penney, Gap and Sears) continue to struggle and, in some cases, face existential crises. Second, physical store traffic remains down almost entirely across the board, with little prospect of reversing. Third, e-commerce continues to gain overall market share at the expense of brick & mortar.

Given this new reality, this new retail world order, it’s time re-think what future success looks like and develop a set of new metrics.  Same store YoY as the metric of choice is a decision to hold onto the past, to refuse to accept that the metric was built for a world in which we no longer live. Retailers who refuse to change, to evolve to this new reality, further their risk of irrelevance.

While the future of retail will be unevenly distributed, it’s clear that the shopping process for both industry and consumers is evolving rapidly and is far more nuanced than many realize. While the growth of online shopping seems to get the most attention, the far more important dynamic is the degree to which most consumers’ shopping journeys start via a digital channel, regardless of where the ultimate transaction is rung. Retail brands as diverse as Target, Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus indicate that more than 60% of physical store sales are influenced by a digital channel. Data from Deloitte not only bears this out more broadly, but also affirms the rapid pace of change.

As much as we commonly talk about brick and mortar retail and e-commerce as if they are two distinct concepts, the fact is increasingly this is a distinction without a difference. The demarcations between channels has been blurring for years. Consumers no longer go online – they live online. Smart devices are increasingly constant companions in the shopping process, serving to blur the lines further.

With few exceptions, there really is no such thing as pure e-commerce any more, it’s all just commerce. For most brands, online drives offline, offline drives online, and most customers are active in multiple channels, often during the process to buy just one item. The key now is to execute a channel-agnostic, one brand, many channels strategy.

Traditional retail metrics have worn out their usefulness.

Given all this, most traditional retail metrics are increasingly irrelevant. While some focus on same-store sales is helpful, for most omni-channel retailers the historical relationship between store traffic and sales rung up in that location is irretrievably broken. For many retailers, traffic growth will never return, yet conversion and transaction value tend to be rising. This is often because customers are more intentional in their store visits, having done their research first in a digital channel. Yet at the same time, customers may traffic a store for research purposes – only to buy the product later online. As BOPIS (buy online pick-up in store) expands and more retailers take online returns at their brick & mortar locations, the store plays a critical role in overall volume and operating efficiency, even though the store may not get direct credit for improving the customer experience and overall economics.

Even if retailers knowingly temper their expectations for comp store performance, thinking about a store as a distinct economic entity is fraught with peril. Labeling a store as a poor performer because of declining sale productivity and/or low or even negative four-wall contribution can backfire. Leaders should view the store as the hub of a brand’s performance in a given trade area (i.e. the zip codes that account for the majority of a particular store’s volume). It’s a place where, yes, sales are rung up, but also top-of-mind awareness is created and e-commerce sales are generated. Instead, the instinct for many is to close a store, after concluding they will improve financial performance when actually in many cases it only make matters worse. Closing a store almost always harms e-commerce performance in that trade area, just as add adding a brick & mortar location tends to grow online sales in the geography served by a new outlet.

Thinking about e-commerce as a distinct concept is similarly unhelpful. The impact of a retailer’s website and mobile presence on store performance – plus traffic and marketing engagement – is far greater than converting customers to online transactions. Focusing entirely on online shopping centric measurements like conversion rates and average order value greatly undervalues digital’s role in brick & mortar success. Too many companies measure online as a separate P&L and push siloed and isolated performance measures that cause brands to underinvest. It’s therefore not at all surprising that retailers that have failed to evolve are also laggards in omni-channel performance and are desperately trying to catch up.

Further exacerbating these issues is the tendency for many retailers to manage their store organization and digital operations as distinct entities. Siloed organizations, data, performance metrics and financial incentives create huge barriers to becoming customer-centric and keeping pace with evolving customer dynamics. Silos belong on farms and any CEO who doesn’t see his or herself as the “Chief Silo-busting Officer” isn’t stepping up as they should.

New metrics are needed to better reflect retail’s new reality

Clearly not all traditional metrics need to be jettisoned. Net Promoter Scores and other measures of customer acquisition, engagement and loyalty can be extremely helpful. The same holds true for lifetime value calculations. But a select group of new metrics can shed light on what’s really going on in a digital-first, omni-channel world.

  • Same (comparable) trade area sales-growth. Given the growing influence of online and the store’s role in supporting e-commerce, combined year-over-year sales growth in a defined store trade area best measures the overall health of the brand and whether share is being gained or not on a location by location basis (as well as for the chain overall). It may well be the case that sales literally rung in a brick & mortar location may be down a bit, but the overall market area may be up given the strength in online shopping, assisted by a visit to the store. It would also be relatively simple to measure trade-area profitability, making it easier to determine which stores merit closure.
  • Same (comparable) customer segment growth. Actionable customer segmentation is at the heart of being more customer-centric and companies that are committed to this path should have specific acquisition, growth and retention goals for each of its major customer cohorts (or personas), in total and by sales channel. Being able to dissect performance by stage of engagement, by channel, and overall is enormously beneficial in unpacking overall performance drivers.
  • Customer journey performance levers. While this will vary depending upon category dynamics, retailers need to map out the customer journeys for key customer segments and major purchase occasions to gauge performance at key moments that matter across the journey. This needs to be married with an understanding of places where retailers could eliminate friction or amplify performance to be truly relevant and remarkable.

In conclusion

The role of the store is changing. Forever. Brick and & mortar locations must complement digital channels. And, in turn, digital must add value to the physical experience. Stores must be more than a place to simply buy things, to execute a transaction efficiently at the lowest price. Instead they must be remarkable and relevant. They must deliver the best of what shopping entails: a differentiated experience, a product playground, an interactive billboard, a social connection, a relationship.

The best retailers will deliver a harmonized experience that eliminates pain-points and amplifies special qualities along the customer journey. The best retailers will deliver intensely personalized experiences based upon a deep understanding of customer needs, wants and desires. The best retailers will see sales associates not as costs to be reduced, but assets to help move a brand from boring to remarkable and intensely relevant. The best retailers will organize around the customer, not product categories or sales channels.

It’s not easy. Yet advances in technology are making it more cost effective and simpler to execute. The retail brands that will not only survive, but thrive, are those that will aggressively and confidently leap into a world of retail reinvention.

My co-author Brent Franson is the CEO of Euclid (full disclosure: a client of mine). 

A version of this story appeared at Forbes, where I am a retail contributor. You can check out more of my posts and follow me here.  

For information on keynote speaking and workshops please go here.

amazon_go_stock_1.0

Being Remarkable · Digital-first · Omni-channel · Retail

A baker’s dozen of provocative retail predictions for 2018

2017 was one of the most transformative years for the retail industry that I can remember. 2018 is likely to be just as wild and woolly, albeit in somewhat different ways. Here’s my attempt to go beyond the obvious and go out on the limb just a bit.

  1. Physical retail isn’t dead. Boring retail is. A lot of stores closed in 2017. Often forgotten is that a lot opened as well. Many stores will close in 2018. Many will open as well. By this time next year roughly 90% of all retail will still be done in physical stores, so please can we shut up already about the “retail apocalypse.” The train left the station years ago on products that could be better delivered digitally. What’s happened most recently has everything to do with a long over-due correction of overbuilding and the collapse of irrelevant, unremarkable retail. The seismic changes in retail have laid waste to the mediocre and those that have been treading water in a sea of sameness. Great retail brands (Apple, Costco, Ulta, Sephora, TJX, etc.) continue to thrive, despite their overwhelming reliance on brick & mortar stores. Ignore the nonsense. Eschew the boring. Chase remarkable.
  2. Consolidation accelerates. In many aspects of today’s retail world, scale is more important than ever and this will continue to drive a robust pace of mergers and acquisitions. In some cases, capacity must come out of the market to create any chance for decent profits to return. The department store space is a great example. Moreover, large, well capitalized companies will take advantage of asset “fire sales” or technology plays to complement their skills and accelerate their growth.
  3. Honey, I shrunk the store. Small is the new black in many ways. Many chains will continue to right-size their store fleets to better align with future demand. Others will reformat or relocate to smaller footprints to better address the role of online shopping. We can also expect to see more small format stores as a way to cost effectively extend customer reach and further penetrate key customer segments.
  4. The difference between buying and shopping takes center stage. Buying is task-oriented, more chore than cherished, and is typically focused on seeking out great assortments, the lowest price and maximum convenience. This is where e-commerce has made the greatest inroads. Increasingly, Amazon dominates buying. Shopping is different. It’s experiential, it’s social, tactile–and the role of physical stores is often paramount. The trouble is when retail brands don’t understand the distinction and invest their energies trying to out-Amazon Amazon in a race to the bottom. And, as Seth reminds us, the problem with the race to the bottom is you might win. Or worse, finish second.
  5. Amazon doubles down on brick & mortar. For Amazon to continue it’s hyper-growth–and eventually make some decent profits–it needs to go deeper into the world of shopping vs. buying (see above). And this means greater physical store presence, particularly in some key categories like apparel and home. In addition to opening its own stores I expect at least one major acquisition of a significant “traditional” retail brand.
  6. Private brands and monobrands shine. A key part of winning in the age of Amazon and digital disruption is finding ways to amplify points of differentiation. Most often this can be done through product and experience. With the over-distribution of many national brands and the ease of price comparison, more and more smart retailers are looking for ways to differentiate on unique product. For some–including Amazon–deepening their commitment to private brands can be a source of competitive advantage. Well positioned monobrand retailers like Uniqlo, H&M, Primark and Warby Parker also will continue to steal share from less compelling multi-brand stores.
  7. Digital and analog learn to dance. As much attention as e-commerce gets it turns out digital channels’ influence on brick & mortar shopping is far more important for most brands. In fact, many retailers report that more that 60-75% of their physical store sales are influenced by a digital channel, hence the rise of the term “digital-first” retail. Side note: anyone who has adopted this term in the last 12 months has simply informed us that they were paying no attention to what has been going on in retail for nearly a decade. Regardless, clearly in-store technology must evolve to support this rapidly evolving world. Yet as much as technology can enhance the shopping experience the role of an actual human being in making the customer experience intensely relevant and remarkable should not be forgotten. Many retailers would be wise to see sales associates as assets to invest in, not expenses to be optimized.
  8. The great bifurcation widens. And it’s death in the middle. It’s been true for some time that the future of retail will not be evenly distributedWhat became abundantly clear in 2017 is how different the results have been between the industry’s have’s and have not’s. At one end of the spectrum retailers with a strong pricing story, from dollar stores to off-price to Costco and Walmart, did well. At the other end of the spectrum, many luxury brands and well focused specialty retailers continued to thrive. Meanwhile the fortunes of Sears, Macys, JC Penney and others who failed to get out of the undifferentiated and relentlessly boring middle diverged markedly. This will end badly.
  9. Omnichannel is dead. Digital-first, harmonized retail rules. Too many retailers chased being everywhere and ended up being nowhere. The search for ubiquity led to disjointed, poorly prioritized efforts that fattened the wallets of consultants but often did little to create what most customers want and value. The point is not to be everywhere, but to be relevant and remarkable where it matters, to understand the leverage in the customer journey and to root out the friction and amplify those elements of the experience that make the most difference. Most customer journeys will start in a digital channel (and more and more this means on a mobile device) and the challenge is to make all the potentially disparate elements of the shopping experience sing together as a harmonious whole.
  10. Pure plays say “buh-bye.” With rare exception, so-called “digitally native” brands were always a bad idea. Despite venture capitalists initial enthusiasm–and Walmart’s wet kiss acquisitions–only a handful of pure-play models had any chance to scale profitably. And many arrogantly declared they’d never open stores (I’m looking at you Bonobos and Everlane) when anyone who understood the high cost of returns and customer acquisition saw a physical store strategy (or bankruptcy) as inevitable. We’ve already seen some high profile blowups and more are surely on the way (Wayfair? Every meal delivery company?). This year the shakeout will continue and it will become clear that for the brands that survive most of their future growth will be driven by brick & mortar stores not e-commerce.
  11. The returns problem is ready for its close up. Product returns were the bane of direct-to-consumer brands well before e-commerce was a thing. Lands’ End, Victoria’s Secret, Neiman Marcus and many others regularly experienced return rates in excess of 30% from their catalog divisions. When you could actually charge for delivery this was a problem, but not necessarily the achilles heel. The near ubiquity of free returns & exchanges may be a consumer bonanza, but it drives a lot of expensive behavior and makes much of e-commerce unprofitable. Customers regularly order multiple colors and/or sizes of the same item hoping that one of them will fit or be to their taste. The retailer then eats the expense of some or all of the items coming back, including handling costs and often additional merchandise markdowns (which can be especially ugly for seasonal or fashion items). The disproportionate growth of e-commerce means outsized growth and expense for retailers. It’s not sustainable. Consider yourself warned.
  12. “Cool” technology underwhelms. There is plenty of incredibly useful technology that continues to transform retail, notably around mobile, predictive analytics and the like. There is also a lot that ranges between gimmicky and not yet ready for prime time. Augmented and virtual reality? Wearables? IotT? Blockchain? Digital mirrors? Someday, maybe. 2018? Not so much.
  13. The search for scarcity and the quest for remarkable ramps up. As most things came to be available to just about anyone, anytime, anywhere, anyway, access to great product was no longer scarce. As various marketplaces, peer-to-peer review sites and various forms of social media made data about product quality, reliable alternatives and pricing universally available, information was no longer scarce. As various tools emerged to put the customer in charge, the retail brand’s advantages were diminished and the power of the channel started to evaporate. It’s really hard to get folks to pay for what is widely available for free. And it turns out the moat that protected a lot of brands has dried up and been paved over. Good enough no longer is. The brands that will not only survive, but actually thrive in 2018 and beyond, will deliver consistently and remarkably on things that are highly valued by customers, can be seen as scarce and can be made proprietary to that brand. It’s not easy, but frankly, more times than not, it’s the only choice.

A version of this story appeared at Forbes, where I am a retail contributor. You can check out more of my posts and follow me here.  

For information on keynote speaking and workshops please go here.

Being Remarkable · Omni-channel · Reinventing Retail · Retail

My top ten Forbes posts of the year

Earlier this year I had the honor of joining Forbes as a retail contributor.

As is my tradition, I’ll publish my top ten list from my blog right after the New Year. For now, here are my most popular articles on Forbes during 2017. One thing is for sure: folks were interested in hearing me opine about Sears. I have a feeling that window is closing.

  1. Sears Must Think We’re Stupid Or Gullible: Here’s Why
  2. Sears: Is The End Finally In Sight For The World’s Slowest Liquidation Sale?
  3. Here’s Who Amazon Could Buy Next And Why It Probably Won’t Be Nordstrom
  4. The Inconvenient Truth About e-Commerce: It’s Largely Unprofitable
  5. Omnichannel Is Dead. Long live Omnichannel.
  6. Sears March Toward Bankruptcy: Gradually, Then Suddenly
  7. Sears: Dead Brand Walking
  8. Reports Of JC Penney’s Death Are Greatly Exaggerated 
  9. Luxury Retail Hits The Wall
  10. With Kenmore Deal Amazon Is A Winner. For Sears, Not So Much

And this one goes to 11: Hype-y Holidays: Black Friday And Other Nonsense

Thanks for reading and engaging this past year.

A most happy and peaceful New Year to all!

Top.Ten_

 

e-commerce · Omni-channel · The Amazon Effect

Here’s who Amazon could buy next, and why it probably won’t be Nordstrom

Since the Whole Foods deal, more than a few industry analysts and pundits have weighed in on which retailers might be on Amazon’s shopping list.

Various theories underpin the speculation. Some say Jeff Bezos wants to go deeper in certain categories, so Lululemon or Warby Parker get mentioned. Foursquare (is that still a thing?) crafted its own list from analyzing location data. The Forbes Tech Council came up with 15 possibilities. The always provocative, and generally spot-on, Scott Galloway of L2 and NYU’s Stern School of Business believes Nordstrom is the most logical choice.

Obviously no one has a crystal ball, and Amazon’s immediate next move could be more opportunistic than strategic. Given Amazon’s varied interests, there are several directions in which they could go. And clearly they have the resources to do multiple transactions, be they technology enabling, building their supply-chain capabilities out further, entering new product or service categories, or something else entirely. For my purposes, however, I’d like to focus on what makes the most sense to expand and strengthen the core of their retail operations.

Before sorting through who’s likely to be right and who’s got it wrong (spoiler alert: Scott), let’s briefly think about the motivating factors for such an acquisition. From where I sit, several things are critical:

  • Materiality. Amazon is a huge, rapidly growing company. To make a difference, they have to buy a company that either is already substantial or greatly accelerates their ability to penetrate large categories. This is precisely where Whole Foods fit in.
  • Fundamentally Experiential. There is an important distinction between buying and shopping. As my friend Seth reminds us, shopping is an experience, distinct from buying, which is task-oriented and largely centered on price, speed and convenience. Amazon already dominates buying. Shopping? Not so much.
  • Bricks And Clicks. It’s hard to imagine Amazon not ultimately dominating any category where a large percentage of actual purchasing occurs online. Where they need help is when the physical experience is essential to share of wallet among the most valuable customer segments. They’ve already made their bet in one such category (groceries). Fashion, home furnishings and home improvement are three obvious major segments where they are under-developed and where a major stake in physical locations would be enormously beneficial to gaining significant market share.
  • Strong Marginal Economics. We know that Amazon barely makes money in retail. What’s not as well appreciated is the inconvenient truth that much of the rest of e-commerce is unprofitable. Some of this has to do with venture-capital-funded pure-plays that have demonstrated a great ability to set cash on fire. But unsustainable customer acquisition costs and high rates of product returns make many aspects of online selling profit-proof. An acquisition that allows Amazon access to high-value customers it would otherwise be challenged to steal away from the competition and one that would mitigate what is rumored to be an already vexing issue with product returns could be powerfully accretive to earnings over the long term. Most notably this points to apparel, but home furnishings also scores well here.

So pulling this all together, here’s my list of probable 2018 acquisition targets, the basic rationale and a brief word on why some seemingly logical candidates probably won’t happen.

Not Nordstrom, Saks or Neiman Marcus

Scott Galloway is right that Nordstrom (and to a lesser degree Saks and Neiman Marcus) has precisely the characteristics that fit with Amazon’s aspirations and in many ways mirror the rationale behind the Whole Foods acquisition. Yet unlike Whole Foods, a huge barrier to overcome is vendor support. Having been an executive at Neiman Marcus, I understand the critical contribution to a luxury retailer’s enterprise value derived from the distribution of iconic fashion brands, as well as the obsessive (but entirely logical) control these same brands exert over distribution. Many of the brands that are key differentiators for luxury department stores have been laggards in digital presence, as well as actually selling online. Most tightly manage their distribution among specific Nordstrom, Saks and Neiman Marcus locations. If Nordstrom or the others were to be acquired by Amazon, I firmly believe many top vendors would bolt, choosing to further leverage their own expanding direct-to-consumer capabilities and doubling down with a competing retail partner, fundamentally sinking the value of the acquisition. While Amazon might try to assure these brands that they would not be distributed on Amazon, I think the fear, rational or otherwise, would be too great.

Macy’s, Kohl’s or J.C. Penney 

Amazon has its sights set on expanding apparel, accessories and home but is facing some headwinds owing to a relative paucity of national fashion brands, likely lower-than-average profitability (mostly due to high returns) and a lack of a physical store presence. Acquiring one of these chains would bring billions of dollars in immediate incremental revenues, improved marginal economics and a national footprint of physical stores to leverage for all sorts of purposes. All are (arguably) available at fire-sale prices. Strategically, Macy’s makes the most sense to me, both because of their more upscale and fashion-forward product assortment (which includes Bloomingdale’s) and because of their comparatively strong home business. But J.C. Penney would be a steal given their market cap of just over $1 billion, compared with Macy’s and Kohl’s, which are both north of $8 billion at present.

Lowe’s

The vast majority of the home improvement category is impossible to penetrate from a pure online presence. Lowe’s offers a strong value proposition, dramatic incremental revenues, already strong omni-channel capabilities, and a vast national network of stores. The only potential issue is its valuation, which at some $70 billion is hardly cheap, but is dramatically less than Home Depot’s.

A Furniture Play

Home furnishings is a huge category where physical store presence is essential to gaining market share and mitigating the high cost of returns. But it is also highly fragmented, so the play here is less clear as no existing player provides a broad growth platform. Wayfair, the online leader, brings solid incremental revenue and would likely benefit from Amazon’s supply chain strengths. But without a strong physical presence their growth is limited. Crate & Barrel, Ethan & Allen, Restoration Hardware, Williams-Sonoma and a host of others are all sizable businesses, but each has a relatively narrow point of view. My guess is Amazon will do something here — potentially even multiple deals — but a big move in furniture will likely not be their first priority in 2018.

As I reflect on this list (as well as a host of other possibilities), I am struck by three things.

First, despite all the hype about e-commerce eating the world, the fact remains that some 90% of all retail is done in physical stores, and that is because of the intrinsic value of certain aspects of the shopping experience. For Amazon to sustain its high rate of growth, a far greater physical presence is not a nice “to do” but a “have to do.”

Second, the battle between Amazon and Walmart is heating up. While they approach the blurring of the lines between physical and digital from different places, some of their needs are similar, which could well lead to some overlapping acquisition targets. That should prove interesting.

Lastly, the business of making predictions is inherently risky, particularly in such a public forum. So at the risk of stating the obvious, I might well be wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time, and it surely won’t be the last.

But why not go out on a limb? I hear that’s where the fruit is.

A version of this story appeared at Forbes, where I am a retail contributor. You can check out more of my posts and follow me here

For information on keynote speaking and workshops please go here.

Bricks and Mobile · Mobile · Omni-channel · Uncategorized

A very mobile Christmas?

It’s no secret that mobile is becoming increasingly important in consumers’ shopping journeys. Retail brands as diverse as Target and Neiman Marcus have alluded to the pivotal role that digital plays in driving both their online and physical store sales. And of course when we say “digital,” often we mean mobile. In fact, for many retailers, mobile is becoming the front door to the store.

If a just-released study by Adobe Analytics proves to be correct, an important milestone will be reached this holiday season. For the first time ever, more U.S. shoppers will visit a retailer’s site using a mobile device than a desktop computer. Because conversion rates remain higher on “traditional” devices, the amount of actual purchases made on desktops will still exceed those made on a smartphone or tablet. But that’s not likely to be true very much longer.

This shift is profound, and mirrors what other studies have shown about the growing integration of mobile devices across all dimensions of retail. For example, Deloitte has been tracking digital’s influence on physical store shopping, and their research shows that in 2016 some 37% of all brick & mortar sales were influenced by a mobile device. It seems certain that number will easily surpass 40% this year.

The reasons this year’s holiday numbers are so important are twofold. First, and most obviously, it’s the busiest shopping time of the year, so shifts in customer behavior are amplified. Second, for consumers seeking great gift ideas, in many cases they’ll be visiting new or infrequently trafficked sites. A poor (or even less than remarkable) experience can have a significant impact on customers’ future buying intent.

It would appear that there is no going back in the move to mobile. As the folks at Google like to say (full disclosure: a recent client), we no longer go online; we live online. More and more, our smart devices are a constant companion in the shopping process. Whether it’s for product research, checking prices, locating the nearest store, downloading a coupon or making a transaction, employing mobile technology to enhance the customer experience is moving from novelty to habit.

The growing challenge for retail marketers therefore is to win these mobile moments that matter by being relevant and remarkable throughout the critical aspects of the shopping journey. Here the increasing role of mobile presents many important opportunities, most notably the chance to leverage context awareness in consumer engagement. But the limitations of mobile are apparent as well and must be navigated carefully.

A few things seem certain. Mobile will play a much larger role this holiday season and that momentum is likely to carry forward into 2018. Brands that have a compelling mobile presence will reap great benefits. For those where that is not the case, they can expect a big lump of goal in their stockings.

Shopping-Apps

A version of this story appeared at Forbes, where I am a retail contributor. You can check out more of my posts and follow me here

For information on speaking gigs please go here.

Omni-channel · Reinventing Retail · Store closings

Are mass store closings the start of an inevitable downward spiral?

At the recent inaugural ShopTalk Europe event in Copenhagen, Hudson’s Bay Company CEO Gerald Storch posited that retailers risk hastening their demise by taking an axe to their store counts. Clearly there are many factors that contribute to a brand’s march to the retail graveyard, yet there is mounting evidence that Storch’s observation is on the money. As I’ve said many times, show me a retailer that is shuttering a large number of outlets and chances are the intrinsic problem is not too many stores but that the brand is not sufficiently relevant and remarkable for the stores it has.

I first surfaced this concern more than four years ago in my post “Shrinking to prosperity: The store closing delusion” and revisited it more recently with an updated Forbes post. While in many cases store counts need to be rationalized to address the overbuilding of the past two decades and to optimize store footprints given the shift to e-commerce, with rare exception, the retailers that are closing a large number of stores are working on the wrong problem.

When physical retail still accounts for 75-90% of a category’s volume, it’s hard to understand how radical cuts in store counts help address a brand’s ability to maintain, much less grow, market share. When we know for a fact that brick & mortar locations are key to supporting a viable and growing e-commerce business (and vice versa), mothballing dozens (or even hundreds) of stores only serves to undermine a retailer’s ability to meet customers’ evolving omni-channel demands. When we recognize that it is often far cheaper to acquire and serve customers through physical stores, reducing store counts substantially can worsen a retailer’s long-term cost position. And, as Storch points out, mass store closings erode purchasing power and can send consumers a signal that a retail brand is on its way to oblivion, serving only to make matters worse.

In fact, I cannot come up with a single major retailer that has closed 20% or more of its stores and is now considered truly healthy. On the other hand, I can easily name many that went through multiple iterations of down-sizing that have either liquidated or are currently in bankruptcy proceedings–Sears Canada being the most recent example. I can also list many that seem to be in perpetual store closing mode (Sears US for one) that thus far have been spared a visit from the grim reaper yet continue to see their operating results deteriorate with little hope for resurrection. For many, sadly, it’s dead brand walking.

We should also ignore any analysis that tries to estimate the number of store closings that a retailer must undertake to get back to prior store productivity levels. First, anchoring success on past store productivity metrics is largely irrelevant as it ignores a store’s contribution to online volume growth. Minimally, we need to understand the growth and profitability of a trade area and incorporate both e-commerce and physical store performance. Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus–just to name two powerful examples–have seen their historical store productivity numbers weaken, yet they still have healthy financial performance overall. Second, any such analysis is merely a rote arithmetic exercise that erroneously assumes that massive store closings don’t have any adverse impact on e-commerce, nor make a brand less relevant and competitive in consumers’ minds nor serve to de-leverage fixed costs.

Ultimately, I don’t see a scenario where store closings will be the silver bullet that troubled retailers need to get back on track. They may be a key piece in a needed reinvention, but the critical work centers on taking the required actions to make these troubled brands sufficiently relevant and remarkable such that they can stem the share of wallet loss that got them into trouble in the first place.

Said differently, if sales are the problem, working on the cost side will never help breathe a dying retailer back to life.

A version of this story appeared at Forbes, where I am a retail contributor. You can check out more of my posts and follow me here

For information on speaking gigs please go here.

Being Remarkable · Digital · Omni-channel

The End Of E-Commerce? These Days, It’s All Just Commerce

Given the continued rapid growth of online shopping, it might seem crazy to suggest that the era of e-commerce is coming to an end. Yet while we are used to talking about e-commerce as a separate thing — and isolating statistics for digital transactions versus brick-and-mortar same-store sales — it’s increasingly clear that these are becoming distinctions without much of a difference. For consumers, it’s simply “commerce,” and retailers that want to thrive, or survive, need to fully embrace a one brand, many channels strategy.

I recently attended shop.org, the annual conference historically focused on digital commerce. What struck me most (beyond the dwindling attendance) was that speakers mostly ignored online shopping as a stand-alone concept. Instead, many emphasized the importance of brick-and-mortar stores in delivering a remarkable customer experience. Moreover, the majority of technology providers in the expo offered solutions that were very much anchored in online/offline integration or leverage, not e-commerce optimization, as was true in the past. Rather than buying into the retail apocalypse narrative and seeing brick-and-mortar stores as liabilities, most were clearly in the camp of believing that stores were (wait for it) assets. Physical retail might be different, but it clearly is not dead.

Notably, Mark Lore from Walmart/Jet spoke of the need for retailers to be channel agnostic and highlighted how Walmart’s stores give the brand a distinct advantage. TechStyle CEO Adam Goldenberg showcased statistics on how Fabletic’s overall brand performance has been enhanced through the opening of stores and on how the merging of cross-channel data gives them an edge. Kohl’s spoke of the role of mobile as a constant companion in the shopper’s journey from online to offline (and vice versa). While using somewhat different language, numerous other speakers acknowledged that customers shop everywhere and the best retailers need to meet them where they are. Clearly, more and more, it’s just commerce now.

Of course, the lines have been blurring for years, and study after study shows that a well-integrated shopping experience across channels (what some call “omni-channel” and what I prefer to call “harmonized retail”) is what customers desire and what often determines a brand’s ultimate success. The increasing investments in physical stores byAmazon and other digitally native brands serve to underscore this growing reality. Those of us who are familiar with retailers’ customer data know that, typically, a brand’s best customers are those who shop and/or are heavily influenced in both digital and physical channels. We also know that opening stores drives increases in e-commerce in that store’s trade area, just as closing a store often leads to dramatic declines in online shopping. It’s all just commerce.

This realization does not negate the fact that a meaningful percentage of shopping occurs in a purely digital fashion (particularly downloading books, music and games). It does not minimize that Amazon has achieved a total share of retail rapidly approaching 5% almost entirely without a physical presence. But as we move ahead, it’s important to realize the significant contributions to what we label “e-commerce” that are derived from traditional retailers’ online divisions. It’s important to recognize that Amazon will struggle to maintain outsized growth without deepening its investment in brick and mortar. It’s critical to grasp that digitally influenced physical-stores sales far exceed sales rung up online.

And ultimately it’s essential to realize that it is rarely an online-vs.-offline battle, but a struggle that is won when we accept that it’s all just commerce and strive to bring the best of offline and online together on behalf of the customer.

A version of this story appeared at Forbes, where I am a retail contributor. You can check out more of my posts and follow me here

For information on speaking gigs please go here.

Being Remarkable · Omni-channel · Retail

Reports Of JC Penney’s Death Are Greatly Exaggerated

The last several years have not been kind to JC Penney. Not only have they been swept up in the long-term decline of the moderate department store sector, but they also hemorrhaged huge amounts of market share during Ron Johnson’s failed re-boot. Under current leadership, the picture has not improved much. In fact, last week shares sank again after a disappointing earnings report. The stock is off nearly 90% in the past five years and some 40% year to date.

Many observers have concluded that Penney’s is on a slow slide to oblivion. And while I agree that much more needs to be done to right the ship, I am cautiously optimistic. In fact, full disclosure, I bought some Penney’s shares last week. While investing in the company is clearly not for the faint of heart, I believe there are a few reasons to conclude that the news on Penney’s going forward is more likely to be positive than not.

Store closings muddy the picture. The biggest reason for the miss on gross margin was from unusually high markdowns. Both Penney’s own store closings and those of competitors put pressure on pricing as stores liquidate merchandise. While clearly the industry is facing a great deal of promotional intensity, margin pressures should subside a bit as the pace of store closings slows.

New initiatives are gaining traction. Penney’s continue to expand its partnership with Sephora, opening 32 new locations and expanding 31 others. The beauty category is key to driving incremental traffic. The company also is growing its appliance showrooms and seeing positive sales momentum. The repositioning of its critically important apparel business also seems to be going well, with most categories seeing positive comps despite a difficult market.

Gaining share in a down market. Wall St. is overly focused on same-store sales growth, which I continue to deem retail’s increasingly irrelevant metric.  With nearly 20% of sales in Penney’s core categories occurring online it’s more important to understand combined e-commerce and physical store performance on a trade-area by trade-area basis. If Penney’s closed a bunch of stores but overall sales grew, it suggests that they gained omni-channel share, which speaks to their improving digital commerce capabilities. While there is considerable room for improvement, that’s still encouraging. And unlike some, Penney’s seems to get that stores drive e-commerce and vice versa–and they are acting accordingly and wisely.

Well-positioned to gain from Sears demise. While Sears may still technically survive as a holding company for intellectual property, it seems obvious that most of their mall-based department stores will be shuttered within the next year or so. That will give Penney’s a crack at hundreds of millions of dollars of home and apparel business, not to mention solid upside from their expanding appliance presence.

Maybe Amazon buys them? Amazon clearly has its eyes set on growing market share in traditional department store categories. And the reality is a physical store presence is going to be required to access the majority of the business. Both Macy’s and Kohl’s market caps are around $7b. Penney’s is under $2b. You do the math.

Of course, even if my prognostications prove accurate, I know other risks exist. JC Penney’s is highly leveraged. The Amazon Effect remains real. The off-price sector continues to steal share away from department stores. The full effect of retail consolidation is yet to be realized

However, the broader “retail apocalypse” narrative is nonsense and the notion that mall-based retail is doomed is overblown. Physical retail is different but far from deadMost malls are not going away. And recent earnings reports from many “traditional” retailers suggest the broader market is beginning to stabilize. Either way, more capacity needs to come out of the market before any of the struggling retailers have any shot at significantly improved performance. For Penney’s in particular, they need further work to make their assortments and experience more relevant and remarkable, while right-sizing their store fleet for optimal performance. They need to reduce their debt burden.

Perhaps it’s wishful thinking on my part, but I think they are fundamentally pointed in the right direction. Only time will tell.

A version of this story recently appeared at Forbes, where I am a retail contributor. You can check out more of my posts and follow me here.

e-commerce · Omni-channel

Many unhappy returns: E-commerce’s Achilles heel

It’s a common misconception that e-commerce is inherently more profitable than brick & mortar retail. The fact that very few online dominant brands’ profit margins exceed those of “traditional” retailers is one clue that this isn’t true. But a better way to understand the longer-term outlook is to look at the underlying economic drivers.

Above a basic level of scale, online retail is largely a variable cost business, whereas physical stores succeed by driving sufficient revenue to leverage their mostly fixed costs. At the risk of oversimplification, this means that to make money online gross profit/order needs to exceed the variable costs associated with that order. The reason that many eCommerce companies (or the e-commerce divisions of “omni-channel” retailers) don’t make money is that the marginal cost of acquiring a customer, plus the supply chain cost of fulfilling that order, exceeds the gross profit (essentially, revenue less the cost of goods).

The challenges of profitably acquiring customers online is an article for another day. But even where that hurdle can be overcome, e-commerce is often unprofitable due to high supply chain costs–and a huge driver is the high rate of returns. Consider this quote from Michael Kors’ CEO John Idol in a 2016 Bloomberg story: “Unfortunately today, e-commerce generates a lower operating profit for us than four-wall, brick-and-mortar. We think over time that will reverse itself but…when the consumer requires free delivery, free return, wonderful packaging, plus there’s a new trend that people are buying multiple sizes of things to try them at home and then return them, that all is a negative headwinds for us.” Bear in mind, this comes from a brand with significant consumer awareness, a sizable online operation and a high average transaction value.

While returns are not an issue for products that can be delivered digitally–or for many commodity items–in categories like apparel, accessories, footwear and home furnishings, where fit, coloration, fabrication and the like determine whether the consumer ultimately keeps the product, return rates between 25 and 40% are often the norm. When retailers pay for free shipping & exchanges handling costs can quickly erode any chance for a profitable transaction. We must also consider that returned or exchanged product often cannot be sold at the original gross margin, either because it is shop-worn (or otherwise “defective”) or because by the time it comes back the retailer has taken seasonal markdowns.

Some analysts have taken certain retail brands to task for their failure to aggressively invest in e-commerce. Yet many dragged their feet (or were rather deliberate about how they invested) quite intentionally because they understood that aggressive online growth was detrimental to their profitability. The fact is that unless returns rates can be mitigated significantly and/or the cost of handling returns can be lowered dramatically, some retailers will continue to suffer from what I call “omni-channel’s migration dilemma.”

While outside observers may gloss over this phenomenon, brands that face this growing profitability menace are taking action. One trend flies in the face of the retail apocalypse narrative. It turns out that physical stores can be incredibly helpful in lowering both the rate of returns and supply chain costs. While it is not the only reason that formerly digital-only retailers like Bonobos, UNTUCKit! and others are opening stores, it is a key driver. Large omni-channel brands have also tried to make it easier to return online orders in their brick & mortar locations. Not only are handling costs typically lower, but–surprise, surprise!–driving store traffic often leads to incremental sales.

Another avenue for taming the returns monster is using new technology and processes. TrueFit is a venture-funded company that uses artificial intelligence (among other tools) to help consumers choose the right product during the ordering process. Happy Returns is a more recent start-up that has also attracted solid VC funding. This expanding brand focuses on reducing consumer friction in the returns process and helping lower the cost of eCommerce returns for brands by operating “return bars” in major malls. The malls may also benefit by seeing incremental traffic.

Clearly e-commerce will continue to grow at much faster rates than physical retail. And with Amazon and newer disruptive brands helping drive the share of apparel, accessories and home furnishings that is sold online, the impact of high returns rates will become a bigger and bigger issue for many brands. Industry analysts would be wise to dig into this more deeply. Consumers can continue to enjoy the free ride until some rationality takes hold. Retailers would be well served to not gloss over this growing problem.

Taj Sims

A version of this story recently appeared at Forbes, where I am a retail contributor. You can check out more of my posts and follow me here.