Being Remarkable · e-commerce · Growth · The Amazon Effect

With Kenmore Deal Amazon Is A Winner. For Sears, Not So Much.

Investors reacted quite favorably to the news that Kenmore appliances will soon be sold through Amazon. For Amazon, it’s clearly an interesting opportunity. While online sales of major appliances are currently comparatively small, being able to offer a leading brand on a semi-exclusive basis gives Amazon a jump start in a large category where they have virtually no presence. On the other hand, for Sears, it smacks of desperation.

First, some context. Way back in 2003 I was Sears’ VP of Strategy and my team was exploring options for our major private brands. Despite years of dominance in appliances and tools, our position was eroding. Our analysis clearly showed that not only would we continue to lose share (and profitability) to Home Depot, Lowe’s and Best Buy, but those declines would accelerate without dramatic action. Unfortunately, it was also clear that very little could be done within our mostly mall-based stores to respond to shifting consumer preferences and the growing store footprints of our competitors. Kenmore, Craftsman and Diehard’s deteriorating positions were fundamentally distribution problems.  And to make a long story a bit shorter, a number of recommendations were made, none of which were implemented in any significant way.

Flash forward to today, and Sears leadership in appliances and tools is gone. While in the interim some minor distribution expansion occurred, it was not material enough to offset traffic declines in Sears stores and the shuttering of hundreds of locations. More important is the fact that Kenmore and Craftsman still aren’t sold in the channels where consumers prefer to shop–and that train has left the station.

So last week’s announcement does expand distribution, but it does little, if anything, to fundamentally alter the course that Sears is on. Simply stated, making Kenmore available on Amazon will not generate enough volume to offset continuing sales declines in core Sears outlets, particularly as more store closings are surely on the horizon. Selling Kenmore on Amazon does not in any way make Sears a more relevant brand for US consumers. In fact, it will give many folks one more reason not to traffic a Sears store or sears.com.

Since 2013 I have referred to Sears as “the world’s slowest liquidation sale”, owing to Eddie Lampert’s failure to execute anything that looks remotely like a going-concern turnaround strategy, while he does yeoman’s work jettisoning valuable assets to offset massive operating losses. Earlier this year, Sears fetched $900 million by selling the Craftsman brand to Stanley Black & Decker, one of the leading manufacturers and marketers of hand and power tools. So it’s hard to imagine that Sears did not try to do a similar deal with either a manufacturer of appliances (e.g. Whirlpool or GE) or one of the now leading appliance retailers. The Kenmore partnership with Amazon appears to have far less value than the Craftsman deal, despite being done just six months later–which speaks volumes to how far Sears has fallen and for how weak Sears’ bargaining position has become.

The cash flow from the Amazon transaction will do little to mitigate Sears operating losses and downward trajectory. In fact, it seems to be mostly the best way, under desperate circumstances, to extract the remaining value of the Kenmore brand given that no high dollar suitors emerged and Sears continues its march toward oblivion. Amazon, however, is able to take advantage of fire-sale pricing and create the valuable option to have Kenmore as a potentially powerful future private brand to build its presence in the home category.

Advantage Bezos.

dezhas8u0aac0fw

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.

Being Remarkable · Customer Growth Strategy · Retail

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.

 

 

Being Remarkable · Growth · Retail

Slow motion crises

In the world of retail it’s pretty rare that brands get into trouble over night–much less over a matter of months or even years.

What will turn out to be the deathblow for Sears started with Walmart in the 1980’s, and was followed by Home Depot, Lowes and Best Buy chipping away at Sears core tools and appliance business as these insurgents opened new stores and improved their offerings over many, many years.

The ability to deliver books, music and other forms of entertainment digitally (or shipped directly to the consumer) just didn’t pop up one day. Blockbuster, Borders and Barnes & Noble had years to respond. They just didn’t in any especially powerful way.

Starbucks initiated its rapid store growth more than 20 years ago. And the broader reinvention of the retail coffee business by local independents, along with forays by Keurig, Nespresso and others, is hardly a recent phenomenon. Yet it’s hard to point to anything particularly innovative that industry leaders Folger’s and Maxwell House have done during this extended period, despite their brands continuing to lose sales and relevance.

As Macy’s, JC Penney, Dillards and other traditional department store players garner lots of negative press about their current struggles, we should remember that the department store sector has lost relative market share for more than two decades. Their problems are not simply a function of the growth of e-commerce. And even if they were, the best in class players were investing heavily in e-commerce–think Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom–more than 15 years ago.

Crises created by unforeseen events are one thing. Slow motion crises only reveal that we took our eyes off the ball, were too afraid to act or both.

The way to avoid a retail slow motion crisis is as follows:

  • Understand where customer value is being created on a go forward basis
  • Dissect your most valuable customer segments to understand where your brand is vulnerable and where you have potential leverage
  • Figure out where you can compete by modifying your core business and where you need to innovate outside of your core
  • Don’t be afraid to compete with yourself
  • Consider acquistions as way to build new capabilities quickly
  • Embrace a culture of experimentation
  • Spend more time doing, than studying.

 

 

 

 

Growth · Luxury · Omni-channel · Retail

The bullet’s already been fired 

I’m fascinated by our capacity to get stuck, the many ways we craft a narrative in a vain attempt to avoid change, the stories we buy into as we hope to keep above the fray. Far too often, the power of denial seems endemic to individuals and organizations alike.

Go back to the 80’s and 90’s and ponder how a slew of successful retailers mostly did nothing while Walmart, Home Depot, Best Buy–and a host of innovative discount mass merchandisers and category killers–moved across the country opening new stores and evolving their concepts to completely redefine industry segments. Somehow it took many years for the old regime to realize what was going on and how much market share was being shed. For many, any acceptance and action came far too late (RIP, Caldor, Montgomery Ward, et al).

Witness how digital delivery of books, music and other forms of entertainment came into prominence while Blockbuster, Borders and Barnes & Noble spent years mostly doing nothing of any consequence. Two of them are now gone and one is holding on for dear life.

Starbucks revolution of the coffee business hardly occurred overnight. But if you were the brand manager of Folger’s or Maxwell House you apparently were caught unawares.

Consider how consumer behavior has been shifting strongly toward online shopping and the utilization of shopping data through digital channels for well over a decade. Yet many companies are seemingly just now waking up to this reality. And by the way, Amazon didn’t just spring out of nowhere. They will celebrate their 22nd anniversary this summer.

And lastly, examine how the elite players of the luxury industry have largely resisted embracing e-commerce–and most things digital–believing that somehow they were immune to the inexorable forces of consumer desires and preferences. Apparently they failed to notice, as just one example, Neiman Marcus’ rise to having 30% of their sales come from online and more than 60% of physical store sales now being influenced by digital channels.

More often than we care to admit, the bullet’s been fired, it just hasn’t hit us yet.

The good news is that while the pace of change is increasing in retail, we have a lot more time to react than we do in a gunfight.

The bad news is that the impact can be just as deadly if we are not prepared.

 

 

Customer Growth Strategy · Innovation

Small is the new interesting

It’s been at least 20 years now that most value creation in retail has been driven by big. Big stores–both physical and digital. Big assortments. Big advertising.

Walmart and Target. Home Depot and Lowes. Amazon and eBay. Best Buy, Ikea, Office Depot and on and on. Superstores, category killers and the “endless aisle” online guys have won big (heh, heh) on scale, efficiency and low prices.

There’s a lot to be said for pushing the frontiers of big. When your goal is to be the “we have everything store” your marching orders are pretty clear. When you have to be the winner in a price war, your focus is obvious.

The problem is that big has its limits. And a closer examination of many “winning” retailers’ strategies reveals that big is losing momentum.

It turns out that a strategy of big eventually faces diminishing returns. It turns out that most of the winners of the past decade or so are running out of new stores to build. It turns out that many of the mass promotions that drive incremental business lose money. It turns out that for most of these brands e-commerce growth is unprofitable. But mostly it turns out that big is boring. And consumers are starting to notice.

There’s no question that big is here to stay. There’s little doubt that for many consumers–and a vast number of purchase occasions–the quest for dominant product selection, convenience and great prices will remain paramount. But that doesn’t mean that’s where the future opportunities lie or that your strategy shouldn’t shift.

Shift happens. And it’s a shift away from mass marketing to becoming more personalized. Away from overwhelming assortments to editing and curation. Away from products that everybody has to items and experiences that the consumer creates. Away from the seemingly inevitable regression towards the mean to a deliberate choice to eschew the obvious and explore the edges.

Many brands will have a hard time breaking out of the pursuit of big. They are too vested in building scale, too scared of Wall St.’s reaction to a strategy pivot, too addicted to mass advertising.

Of course, therein lies our opportunity. Maybe it’s time to embrace small while the rest of those guys continue to flog big.

back-to-the-1970s-lets-get-small

Retail

The alternative reality of retail “sales improvement”

According to many, including management, sales at JC Penney improved in the just reported quarter. They were down 12%.

Sales improved at Best Buy too, declining 0.4%.

Of course what they really mean is that the negative trend improved. Things are bad. Just not quite as much as last time.

But improvement in the sense of growing market share, being more relevant to consumers, having more money to pay the bills–you know that sort of trivial stuff–the cold splash of reality is that it’s still not happening.

So if you are on a plane hurtling toward the earth, you might take some comfort in learning that the dive is no longer so steep. More time to pray, more time to reflect on your life and more time for the pilot (hopefully!) to pull out before you smash into the ground.

If you are trying to lose weight you might be somewhat happier that this week you “only” gained two pounds, rather than last week’s five. But no matter what you tell yourself, you are still further away from your goal.

Or if your 401K was down 25% last year and you are only down 12% this year, you might feel just a bit less badly about your needing to work until you’re 80  (until you realize that it will take a 47% gain just to get back to even–which, coincidentally, is the same increase that Penney’s need to get back to the start of the Ron Johnson era).

Don’t get me wrong, obviously when a trend has been relentlessly negative, an improvement in that decline sure beats the alternative. And a less steep descent provides the promise of a potential ascent.

Just don’t confuse better with good.

And don’t forget as long as you are growing more slowly than your best competitor, you are still losing ground.

Your boat may not be drifting as badly, but you are still miles from the shore.

 

 

Omni-channel · Retail · Winning on Experience

Blaming the hole

None of the top 10 retail profit leaders in 1970 remain on the list today, and only half are still around at all.

Leading brands like Best Buy and Barnes & Noble, that just a few years ago were building stores as fast as good sites could be found, are dramatically shrinking their store base and scrambling to re-imagine the customer experience.

Smart phones and tablets, that barely existed 5 years ago, are putting unprecedented power in the hands of consumers and blurring the lines between the physical and digital worlds.

More and more people are finding that what worked for them in the past isn’t getting the job done today. Sometimes painfully so.

That feeling of being a round peg in a square hole isn’t going away. Call it the “New Normal” or whatever you want, but it’s here to stay.

You can scream that this isn’t fair, or you can accept that there is no such thing as fairness. There is simply reality.

You can hang on to the illusion that you can control the way the universe unfolds, or you can get to work on the things that matter than you can actually affect.

You can stop blaming the hole.

Holes are going to change in size and number and complexity. New holes will emerge all the time. And probably at a faster rate than ever imagined.

But let’s be clear. If you find yourself being a round peg in a square hole, it’s the peg that’s the problem.

 

Customer Growth Strategy · Customer-centric · Omni-channel · Retail

The end of e-commerce

We’ve gotten pretty used to talking about e-commerce and brick & mortar retail as if they were two entirely separate things operating in parallel universes. In fact, industry commentators often treat the “on-line shopper” as some sort of new species.

Yet more and more the notion of e-commerce as a channel unto itself is collapsing. A distinction without a difference.

Yes, some on-line only businesses like Amazon will continue to thrive, and no doubt we will continue to see purely digital retailers launched. Some will carve out profitable niches.

But with few exceptions, the real action–and the biggest source of future growth–lies with omni-channel retailers, that is, those brands with a compelling presence in brick & mortar and on the web (and mobile, and social, etc.).

When the media quotes the rapid growth of e-commerce, don’t forget that much of that growth is fueled by the digital operations of traditional brick and mortar players such as Macy’s, Best Buy and Neiman Marcus.

The reasons for this are simple. Consumers think brand first, channel second. Consumers use multiple touch points on their purchase decision journey. More and more, consumers value the unique convenience of on-line shopping, but often will appreciate the unique benefits of a physical store.

Forward thinking omni-channel retailers like Nordstrom have stopped breaking out the sales of their e-commerce division and their brick and mortar stores because they accept the idea that the distinction is increasingly meaningless. More importantly, they act on this insight and have worked hard (and invested mightily) to eliminate shopping friction and make their brand available anytime, anywhere, anyway.

So forget e-commerce and brick & mortar. Stop with the separate P&L’s, non-sensical incentives and channel-centric customer analysis.

Put the customer at the center of everything you do, and build from there. Rinse and repeat.

 

 

 

 

 

Bricks and Mobile · Customer Growth Strategy · Digital · Growth · Innovation · Omni-channel

The endless aisle and the world’s smallest parking lot

When I was in business school, one of the major consulting firms was notorious for asking interviewees the question: “what if energy were free?”  The short answer, of course, is “just about everything.” But the point of the question was to see if candidates could understand what a driving factor energy costs were in most businesses and consumers lives and whether the interviewees could quickly sort out the profound implications of no longer having that constraint.

I’ve been in retail about 20 years and for most of that time physical space has been the huge driving factor and constraint.

Retailers spend millions of dollars investing in stores and filling their shelves with millions of dollars in inventory. A lot of time and energy goes into visual merchandising and store display standards. Companies invest in planning and allocation software to optimize precious retail selling space and flow merchandise through their supply chains. You worry about things like “parking ratios” (the number of spaces you need per thousand of square feet).

And all along, Wall Street keeps you obsessively focused on comparable store sales growth, productivity per square foot and growth in square footage.

What would be different if most, if not all, of that did not matter anymore?

For more and more consumers, digital marketing and e-commerce has made the aisles endless and physical display meaningless. And the store is always open. Their parking lot is their desk chair, their couch, the smart phone or tablet in their hand. And your physical store is starting to look more and more like a showroom.

It won’t be long before most established retailers won’t be able to economically add any more net physical square footage. And if you are Barnes & Noble, the Gap, Sears or Best Buy, congratulations. You are already there.

If you are a multi-channel retailer where more than 10% of your sales are done through e-commerce and that channel is growing at double-digit rates, focusing on comparable store sales growth is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Comparable customer segment growth is far more meaningful.

If you have a lot of capital invested in physical stores and a large and growing percentage of your customers engage with your brand digitally before coming to your store, chances are you need a radical re-think about how you will drive brick and mortar productivity in an increasingly omni-channel world.

In a world of endless aisles and the anytime, anywhere, anyway consumer, just about everything is different. Or soon will be.

So the question is: are you?

 

 

Being Remarkable · Bricks and Mobile · Digital · Omni-channel

Shrinkage. Be prepared for more cold water.

Yesterday Best Buy announced its plans to shrink its U.S. big-box square footage by 10% to compete more effectively with Amazon and other digital competitors.

Expect to hear more announcements like this–at least from those retailers who get how hard the winds of change are blowing for brick and mortar retailers. Physical retail is not going away, but the assortment and prices advantages of pure play e-tailers are overwhelming for more and more consumers.

For retailers that do not offer a compelling omni-channel strategy the writing is on the wall.  They have too many stores and the stores they have are too big. They risk becoming showrooms for consumers that ultimately will buy on-line or from more price competitive and more convenient brick and mortar competitors.

For some, all is not lost. Smart investments in a seamless cross-channel “bricks and mobile” offering can allow them to capture customers regardless of which channel they prefer. Instead of investing in building more and bigger stores, they should invest in making the stores they have more relevant and differentiated, taking advantage of the unique capabilities of a physical location. There are plenty of customers willing to shop in stores with great design, great service and an overall remarkable experience.

For others, the future is bleak. For them, I’m reminded of the memorable line from the movie The Sixth Sense.

“I see dead people.They only see what they want to see. They don’t know they’re dead.”