Coffee is for closers

Coffee may be for closers, but that’s about all the rewarding we should do. The relentless focus on transactions, conversion rates and closing statistics is well past its expiration date.

Sure you could get married on a first date, but I’ll wager that’s not the best idea.

Today the shift must be toward building relationships–and that starts with earning attention and establishing trust, not making a quick deal.

In a new model of retail KPIs we start first with awareness, which is mostly about breaking through the noise and achieving share of attention. We then focus on engagement that is intensely relevant and remarkable in the truest sense of that word. And we accept that one transaction doesn’t count for much, particularly if it’s achieved through uneconomic and unsustainable discounting. What does matter is continued engagement and interaction that, overtime, leads to loyalty (not mere frequency) and brand advocacy.

Brands that adopt this mindset and plan of action will be far better positioned for a digital-first, customer-in-charge world.

For everyone else, well, enjoy the steak knives.



Pure play e-commerce’s fantastic (and unsustainable) consumer wealth transfer

“Retail disruption” has been a popular buzz phrase for several years now. In fact, most of the retail brands that have received out-sized mentions in the business press–and commanded the adoring attention of industry conference attendees–for the past 5 years or so are somehow or other leveraging digital innovation to fundamentally re-work the consumer experience, gobble up market share and attract truckloads of venture capital.

Amidst this transformative reshaping of the retail landscape three things are clear:

  • Consumers have benefitted substantially from the introduction of new business models through more convenience, greater product access and lower prices.
  • This profound shift in the consumer value equation has put enormous pressure on industry incumbents that lack either the cost structure or agility to respond effectively.
  • A dramatic rationalization is gaining momentum as traditional players are being forced out of business or pressured to close and or shrink the foot-print of their stores, make huge investments in “omni-channel” capabilities and lower costs across the board.

Unfortunately what is lost in tales of this evolution is that most of the “disruptive” pure-play e-commerce brands have completely unsustainable business models and mostly what is happening is that venture capitalists (and other investors) are funding a transfer of wealth to the consuming public. So, on behalf of my fellow consumers, thanks venture capitalists.

Alas, this is unlikely to last much longer.

While many people think digital retail is some sort of license to print money, it’s becoming clear that e-commerce is virtually profit proof in categories with low transaction values, owing primarily to the substantial supply chains costs (particularly when brands offer free shipping and returns). Moreover, while it can be relatively easy and cheap to build an initial following online through public relations,  social media and other forms of peer-to-peer marketing, scaling an e-commerce only brand turns out to be extremely costly. Many of the buzziest pure-plays are now investing heavily in expensive branding efforts (as well as opening their own stores) in the hopes that size engenders profitability. Accordingly, initial expectations of break-evens are now being pushed out several years.

As the ROI of these efforts starts to come into sharper relief, my bet is many funding sources will lose their patience.

I’ve been an on-the-record skeptic for several years now, going back to when I called into question the sustainability of the flash-sales market well before the meltdown. More recently, I’ve been pointing out E-commerce’s pesky little profitability problem. So I’m not suprised that recent valuations of several once high flying players have collapsed. And more folks are starting to take notice. Professional smart guy (and noted wise ass) Scott Galloway agrees and has been on the “pure play doesn’t work” train for some time. Expect more to join us.

To be clear, a few digital-first brands will likely emerge as sustainable value creators. Brands with high enough average order values to overcome high delivery costs are better positioned (though Net-a-porter’s inability to make money after all these years underscores how difficult this is). Those that deftly merge online and offline experiences–think Warby Parker and Bonobos–also improve the odds (though, side-note, don’t be misled by the high productivity of their initial locations and comparisons to other brands’ productivity stats. We need to understand the four-wall profitability of these new stores and make comparisons to traditional retailers averages in like locations, not overall chain averages).

Mostly, however, we need to be careful to declare a brand successful without defining what we mean by success. If we define success as having grown revenues quickly and having been able to raise gobs of capital from investors to enable subsidizing consumers on a massive scale, than clearly Amazon and dozens of others are wildly successful. If we define success as creating enormous pricing pressure and raising the cost of doing business so as to push traditional players into a double-bind than, yes, mission accomplished.

But if we determine success as having demonstrated the ability to deliver a new and better customer experience AND earn a risk appropriate return on capital than I’m not sure any pure-play E-commerce player of any size is yet successful.

I will go on the record as saying far more pure plays will go bust in the next three years (or get sold at valuations well below their most recent funding) than will emerge as truly successful.

Until then, enjoy the low prices and the free shipping, and if you get some time, send the nice folks funding and others a sincere and heartfelt “thank you” note.






The two sides of ‘good enough’

It can be quite dangerous to believe that you are better than the competition when the customer evaluates your product offering in isolation and out of context. When I was at Sears our research regularly told us that our target consumers viewed us as the best provider of appliances and tools. Yet we continued to leak market share.

As it turns out, once customers checked out the appliance or tool offering at Home Depot and Lowes they learned that, while the product assortment wasn’t quite as good as ours, the prices were often better. And if they were doing a DIY home improvement project they could get everything they needed in one trip. Plus, having to jump back in the car and deal with the hassle of shopping in the mall added to the “cost” of buying from us. For many customers, at the moment of truth, Home Depot and Lowes were good enough.

The opposite side of good enough involves brands that managed to thrive for many years despite their mediocrity, despite their peddling rather average products for average people.

When consumers had few alternatives, little access to information about their options and weren’t all that demanding, they had little choice but to settle. Those days are rapidly disappearing. Today, in most instances, folks are faced with a virtually infinite amount of choice, information and access. This reality lays bear the deficiencies of any brand for all to see.

Good enough no longer is.


Retail’s museums of disappointment

The retail graveyard is already quite full. Sports Authority is on its way there and surely the Sears and Kmart that we used to know can’t be too far behind. They’ll hardly be the last.

In fact, considering the rapid shift in customer behavior and the blistering pace of retail disruption, one could readily argue that far more brands will disappear in the next decade than in the last one.

And it’s not just that brands are going away entirely. Malls, Main Streets, strip and power centers, are already littered with empty boxes, big and small. Some locations quite old and dated, others still bright and shiny, opened a mere few years ago, their carcasses now hollowed out, the result of a merger or, more likely, plain and simple irrelevance.

Maybe we can blame Amazon or the failed economic policies of the Bush administration. Perhaps we can put it all on Obamacare. Maybe some totally unanticipated event came out of left field. Maybe we were just unlucky. Maybe.

More often than not, by the time a brand is buried, there are few who truly will miss it. By the time the final padlock is secured after a store closes, most folks are hardly surprised.

Irrelevance rarely happens overnight. Most often, the brand and their stores have been disappointing customers for years.

Blame Amazon, blame the government, heck, blame Canada (NSFW). Just know that the reality is the symptoms of creeping irrelevance are almost always there if you actually pay attention and if you are willing to act upon what you see and learn.

Whether our stores and malls will become exciting destinations or simply museums of disappointment is, when all is said and done, nine times out of ten, a choice.


Sears: The one thing that could have saved them

As much fun as it is to call out Eddie Lampert on his misguided, selfish and seemingly delusional decade-plus leadership of Sears Holdings, when the world’s slowest liquidation sale is ultimately complete–I’m guessing, for all intents and purposes, by this time next year–we should acknowledge that Sears fate was probably sealed well over 20 years ago, when Crazy Eddie was not even involved.

First a bit of context. I worked at Sears from 1991-2003 and my last job was head of strategy reporting to then CEO Alan Lacy. I also led the Lands’ End acquisition integration team. During my tenure, in addition to various operating and marketing assignments, I was either the #1 or # 2 strategy guy when we implemented the “Softer Side of Sears”, created and piloted The Great Indoors and Sears Grand concepts and launched or accelerated the growth of free-standing Sears Appliance and Sears Hardware stores. I worked on or led teams that evaluated the acquisition of Kmart, Lowes, Best Buy, Circuit City–and Builder’s Square and Eagle Hardware when they were still around. We also seriously assessed turning all Sears mall locations into home only stores (among other concepts) and, in 2003, analyzed selling Kenmore and Craftsman to Home Depot or Lowes. So it’s safe to say I have more than a passing knowledge of how Sears evolved (or more accurately devolved) over an extended period of time.

With the benefit of that experience (and a good amount of hindsight) my conclusion is this: the only thing that would have given Sears a chance to thrive–not merely survive–was to have either launched their own home improvement warehouse concept or to have acquired Home Depot or Lowes’s at a time when they were realistically affordable–and that’s probably prior to 1995.

The reasons are simple. First, well before Amazon was even a thing it was becoming abundantly clear that the moderate department store space was structurally challenged and that Sears weird mix of hardlines and apparel was not a winning formula. Even if the soft home and apparel business got significantly better that was neither a particularly good nor a sustainable outcome. Second, far and away what Sears had that WAS relevant, remarkable and highly profitable were its appliances and home improvement categories. Importantly, Sears also had several leading market share brands- Kenmore, Craftsman and Diehard–that were only available at Sears.

Yet by the early 90’s it was becoming increasingly clear that Home Depot and Lowes were transforming those categories by winning on more convenient locations, better pricing and the ability to serve a broader set of purchase occasions. As they rolled out their stores Sears share (and profits) in those markets dropped precipitously. And it was also clear–or should have been–that Sears could not mitigate those competitive advantages through its mall-based locations.

So what Sears missed (or more accurately, was unwilling to act on) was that the only way to meaningfully counteract the inevitability of the dominance of the home improvement warehouse (and preserve or grow the value inherent in their proprietary brands and strong customer relationships) was to become a leader in that format. Instead, Sears spent the past 25 years wringing out costs (when it mostly had a revenue problem), vainly trying to grow its off-the-mall presence with too few (and way too mediocre) formats, investing in cool digital stuff while starving their physical stores to the point of irrelevance and embarrassment and, apparently, hoping that the Kardashians could somehow turn around an apparel business that has struggled for more than a decade to consistently get to a 30% gross margin and $100/sf in many stores (or what I like to call the “lame brand instead of name brand” strategy).

To be sure, one can argue that there were any number of things Sears could have done over the past 25 years to have meaningfully altered its course. Certainly had Sears not run its catalog into the ground they would not only have had more money to invest in the core business but would have been beautifully positioned to benefit from the dramatic rise in direct-to-consumer commerce. Without a doubt, virtually all of the new formats that were rolled out could have been much better executed. And some of the fantastic consumer interest created by the Softer Side of Sears campaign was not fulfilled by store and merchandising execution. The Lands’ End deal, while strategically sound and potentially transformative, was botched by a too aggressive store-rollout and mishandled marketing. And on and on.

Of course, we will never know for sure. But ultimately, from where I sit, it would all probably just have been lipstick on the pig.

In my view the real fault lies at the leadership all those many years ago that was too busy diversifying Sears into insurance, real estate and mutual funds, while taking their eye off of the customer and the core business and, thereby, letting Home Depot and Lowes (and to a lesser degree Best Buy) gain an insurmountable lead. And that’s a real shame, not to mention a heartbreaking disservice to all those men and women who worked so hard to make Sears a retail icon.

Dead brand walking.



An audience or a customer base?

As we become more data-driven having an accurate, complete and actionable customer database is certainly worthwhile. Of course many brands struggle even to get the basics of this right. And that’s a problem.

Yet even when we get this mostly right simply having someone in our database isn’t necessarily all that useful. Many people we label “customers” haven’t bought in quite some time and often we have no idea why that is. Others aren’t the least bit loyal, only buying when we give them an incredible deal. Still others prefer us for only one specific thing and the potential to grow share of wallet with them is nil. Chances are there are also quite a few names in our file that were acquired through some gimmicky email promotion and those folks actual interest in our brand is non-existent. And that’s a bigger problem.

Contrast that with an audience.

Audiences actively follow what we’re up to. We’ve earned their share of attention. They eagerly await our next release. They quite willingly sign up to hear from us. They share our interesting stuff with their friends. They are engaged, not passive. Sometimes they even sing-along.

Ideally, the size of our audience is not so big that we dilute the possibility of sustained relevance, nor so small that it borders on meaningless. Done intentionally and with care, it’s just right.

Could it be we’re spending too much time building our databases and not enough time curating and growing an audience?


h/t to Austin Kleon for the continued inspiration.

Growing share is retail’s new black

Nearly two years ago I wrote about what I saw as Retail’s zero-sum game.

My hypothesis was that, for the foreseeable future, top-line growth across most retail sectors was likely to be tepid at best. I also hinted at an upcoming slowdown in the once resilient luxury segment. Looks like I was being optimistic.

Today’s dismal earnings announcement from Macy’s featured a quarterly sales decline of more than 7%. It’s yet another in a series of lackluster–and often frightening–reports from established retailers across just about every segment of the market. It certainly won’t be the last. Fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

The reality is that there are profound shifts in consumer behavior and the underlying economics of omni-channel retail that go way beyond Amazon’s impact or what’s rapidly becoming a digital-first retail world.

In case you haven’t noticed your customers now have the upper hand. More and more, consumers are valuing experiences over products, renting over buying, trading down instead of trading up, holding out for the best price and on and on. None of this bodes well for an expanding pie or a rising tide that raises all ships.

Your job then–plain and simple–is to gain share; to get more out of the same sized (or even shrinking) pie. And thus there are two things you need to be really, really good at: acquiring (and then retaining) customers at a disproportionate rate from your competitors and growing share of wallet among those existing customers that have the best potential for long-term profitability.

You can go on and on about bold omni-channel plans, your seamless shopping experience and your really cool Instagram strategy. But if you can’t articulate how you are going to be remarkable and relevant for your best customers and prospects at the point of acquisition and customer growth chances are you are focused on the wrong things.

And if you aren’t busting your hump to get those ideas into action, you had better step on the gas.