Archives

All posts by theorangesheep

Recently a shopper asked this little sheep if I could explain “those ridiculous coupons Toys ‘R’ Us sends out.” Sounded like some ‘dead thinking’, so I sat down to learn more.

She explained to me that – as a mom and a rewards card holder – Geoffrey and his pals at TRU drown her in a veritable flood of coupons and email deals. On face value, these coupons offer decent deals like “20% off any* item”. That kind of deal could seriously save a mom or dad some cash, or maybe allow them to stretch to that extra special birthday gift.

‘Far from ridiculous’ I thought, but the devil, in this case, is most definitely in the detail – which is all tucked neatly behind that wee, little asterisk. The back of the coupon (or the multiple-screen footnote on the online version) are littered with a list of exclusions that would rival the inventory of most small toy stores. Most of the big name brands, and the popular categories (electronic learning toys, for example) are excluded.
20130304-215855.jpg

In part, I understand this strategy – but I’m equally baffled that TRU continues with it.

Let’s start with the part I understand: TRU is a business and needs to protect their margins to keep their stores open and keep people in jobs. I actually would never expect them to give a “20% off everything” blanket coupon. (As an aside, when I worked in the toy industry in the 90′s, the margin on game consoles was a little more than $1 – the profit was made later selling the games. So even in 2013, 20% off an Xbox probably still means a big loss for any retailer.)

TRU’s mistake, in my opinion, is in their choice of how to frame the communication of the promotion in the first place. Intentional or not, their ‘blanket discount, with exclusions’ approach wreaks of ‘the-ol’-bait-&-switch’. And that’s a tactic better left to shonky car dealers in velour suits and unscrupulous B&B owners that have never heard of tripadvisor.

The effect is, for many shoppers, worse than offering no deal at all:
– Mom gets a rush of dopamine from the thought of a big saving on that Little Tikes gym for the backyard;
- then she flips the coupon and gets swallowed into a pit of despair lined with a list of exclusions longer than a Lord of the Rings movie;
- in today’s world, that despair seeps over into her social media posts, and;
- BOOM! Before you know it, the comment thread on TRU’s own Facebook page becomes a public lynching of their own strategies.

To make the last point clear, here’s just a brief collection of comments from a recent 20% off coupon offered on Facebook:
@Pamela Evans: These coupons exclude EVERYTHING in the darn store- worthless.
@MaryEllen McKelvey Sweetman: Their coupons are a joke!!!
@Melissa Lee Schultz: Their coupons can’t be used on anything. I don’t understand why they even issue them!!!!!
@Jeng-and Xee Chang: Another toysrus coupon that excludes the whole store?? Who is the genius behind this????
@ Beatriz Reyna: Save space by stating in the fine print what counts for the coupons instead of writing the whole store that is not included.
@Rich Coehrs: I was going to to buy the $400 LEGO Death Star with this coupon, but I couldn’t because LEGOs are excluded. With tax and everything they would have made about $350 off of me. Amazon.com got my money instead. Stop excluding everything or you will not get my business.

Regardless whether TRU’s accountants have figured out that this strategy pays out in a ‘dollar sense’ (Rich’s comment might challenge that!), the writing is already on the wall for this strategy from a brand health perspective. No-one wants to be the retailer known for hollow promises and bait-and-switch gimmicks… especially not amongst that socially-powerful and high-value shopper segment they call “Mom”.

the orange sheep

Recently, there has been a considerable amount of (well-justified) “Penney-punching” in the business media: as US d-store JCPenney announced the ‘softening’ of a much-publicized pricing strategy employed earlier in the year.

The decision to backtrack (from a recently-adopted “hard-line EDLP” repositioning, to once again announce occasionally using sale prices) has been hammered in the trade press.  However, I’d say the flip-flop is a smart move: the experiment hadn’t performed to plan, so there’s no point throwing good money after bad, just to save face.

Penney’s strategy was definitely shopper-oriented, but it failed because it catered entirely to the ‘rational’ components of pricing, and neglected the emotional response that pricing often triggers in shoppers.

JCP’s strategy failed to cater to key emotional drivers – like ‘excitement and urgency’ – that are (knowingly or not!) tied up in the high-low strategies that pervade department store retailing today.

Yet Penney is just one example of emotional negligence in pricing. On the other extreme there are now a raft of retailers offering daily online deals which are, ironically, having almost the same effect on shopper feelings.

Let me back-track, and cover two important emotional drivers that I believe are often overlooked when evaluating pricing strategies.

  • One is ‘urgency’: in a high-low model there’s a level of excitement and anxiety to “buy today” because the price might go up again, or because the deal is so good, the item will sell out.  This is why Macy’s and others have ‘One Day Sales’ – they generate an emotional drive in shoppers to ‘buy it today’.
  • The other emotional driver in high-low which is even more overlooked is the ‘shopper success’ factor: that addictive emotional reward from being smarter than the retailer, smarter than other shoppers and timing my purchase at just the moment to snag the bargain. This is one reason why those ‘one day sales’ also have a preview event the day before – some people like to think they beat everyone else to the bargain!

With these two drivers in mind, let’s consider two example strategies that fail to make use of these critical emotional levers.

One of course is Penney: they basically said, “no need to come today – the price will always be this low!” and “everyone will get these prices, no matter how savvy they are at shopping”.  Two swings. Two strikes. No urgency. No special sense of satisfaction.

For the opposite extreme I could nominate any number of retailers using ‘daily online deals’ but (as it’s one I experience personally every day) I am going to choose GAP.

They still have sales in the traditional high/low sense – but they offer me something EVERY DAY.  And over time the discounts seem to get deeper and deeper.  So do I feel a sense of urgency? No… in fact tomorrow’s deal may be better if I wait.

And do I feel “savvy” if I take advantage of these “amazing” GAP offers?  No, because they’re so damned easy to get. They just land right there in my inbox… and probably that of millions of other people at the same time. No effort, no special access, no sense of reward.  It’s about as exciting as getting the free newspaper during your morning commute.

With either strategy, there’s no urgency and ‘no thrill of the chase’. In the end, I end up not buying from either of these retailers, because there’s no emotional incentive to ‘do it now’.

Worst of all, it’s well documented that emotion matters… A LOT! When you remove emotion, you have an exponential impact on your Customer Value Proposition. Modern concensus is that emotion is multiplicative in the CVP: so when you remove it, the result is divisive… and destructive. Price perception and benefit perceptions are actually both diminished when you don’t engage my emotions.

All in all, price strategists must not forget that pricing plays an emotional part in the shopper ‘courting ritual’.  To take that emotion out of the equation makes you sound boring and you might never get a first date – but if you give up frequent deals for free, you’ll just get used by a long string of the type of shoppers that you’ll never want to marry.

— The Orange Sheep

I am sure they did not have time to pull it together just because of my last post about poor apps in grocery retailing, but in a serendipitous piece of timing, Walgreens launched a great answer to that blog this past week with a truly helpful app.

Built on top of the usual retail app ‘standards’ (mobile coupons and digital circular) are some TRULY helpful features for shoppers, including some really useful features for managing prescriptions – like the scan & refill feature – plus a pill reminder, to make sure you remember to take those pills long after you leave the store. As a shopper marketer, I think this is a great step forward… but more importantly, as a shopper I see this really making a difference in my preference for where to fill prescriptions.

The pill reminder is a great example of adding a feature that is helpful to the shopper, even if the benefit to Walgreens is at best indirect (ie. if I remember to take them, perhaps I will refill more often).  Adding this feature says “we really do care that you feel better”, not just “we really do care that you buy your pills at Walgreens”.

Even better, Walgreens took a big step that few others have done: putting high-production-quality TV time behind ads for the app, letting shoppers know what it can do for them.  And why not… when you have a great app, you want it on as many phones as possible.

So congrats, Walgreens, for setting a new bar… and overcoming the dead thinking in so many other retail apps.

the orange sheep 

An interesting insight struck me when I was recently asked to comment on ‘the most useful apps for the connected shopper’: very few of the best shopping apps come from a grocery retailer or CPG manufacturer.

My list of great apps (that I use!) included Key Ring, Card Star, Fast Mall, Coupon Sherpa, Shopkick (etc…) with with nary a grocery retailer or CPG brand in sight.

To be fair to other retail channels, there’s quite a few useful apps in the general merch/ specialty retail space. But even on this list there’s a severe lack of grocery retailers (okay, Target made the list but their app isn’t really for grocery shopping).

There is NO shortage of retailer or CPG apps out there, and some are quite useful (like Meijer meal box, or Stella Artois’s bar guide) but the real ‘killer apps’ for grocery shopping tend to come from third party developers.  My best inference is that this phenomenon is another example of what I call a ’solution-looking-for-a-problem’.

Third party developers’ process probably starts with a comment like: “you know what would be helpful when I’m shopping? An app that <insert shopper need here>”. And then they apply their technology and design skills to building an app to meet that need.

However, I fear that too often the starting comment in grocery retailers or CPG companies is something more like: “We need an app! Everyone has one! We HAVE to have one, ASAP!”  We’ve all heard it said – or perhaps been the one that said it!   Then likely follows an inward-looking process focused on “what we want our app to do or say” and soon the inclusion of ‘brand building imagery’ and ‘on-brand messaging’ overtake the idea that this thing should do anything for shoppers.

I’d love to hear that I’m wrong, but that’s the distinct impression I’m left with after using many brand or retailer shopping apps.  They were made more for the aggrandizement of of the makers ego, than for the benefit of shoppers.

So, where Key Ring delivers against a valuable shopper need (two in fact!: gives me my all my loyalty barcodes on my phone plus aggregates all the coupons for those stores in real time) many grocery retailer apps still focus on minimally useful ‘benefits’ like telling me store locations and hours or directing me to their online stores. I have an app for that… my web browser.

The third party apps actually can be a useful flag for shopper need gaps to retail marketers, though – both for their own apps, and overall experience.  For example, there is a popular app now out to help New Yorkers calculate how much to add to their subway cards to make sure it rounds to a certain number of trips (without 35 cents left unspent) and shows them how to do that on the ticket machine.  For the subway authority , the fact that their passengers are using this app should flag a need for their buying experience (ticket machines) to be made easier in the first place (ie. offer cards by number of trips, instead of just by dollar value).

Thankfully for shoppers, where big business is falling short, independent appsters are filling the gap(p).

- the orange sheep

Still one of the most common topics in shopper marketing forums and share groups remains: “what’s the right structure for shopper marketing in our organization?”

I don’t claim to have the perfect answer, but it occurred to me recently that the first step may require you (unfortunately!) to drop a house on a witch. Let me explain further.

While most of the discussion seems to focus on “should this role live in Sales? or Marketing?” I think the first thing to focus on is having the right ingredients in your team.  Because if the ingredients are wrong, it doesn’t matter where you put them.  I am not talking about scouring CVs for some magic formula of X years of retail-side experience plus some insights background with dunnhumby data, and a sprinkle of leadership training. Those things are important, but I see three more important ingredients in the successful shopper marketing teams that I have worked with.

That’s where the Yellow Brick Road comes in. Just like Dorothy’s traveling companions, as I see it, what every shopper team is really in need of is brains, heart and nerve.

Let’s start with brains, which is really (apologies in advance for this pun) a no-brainer.  Smarts are essential, of course, and most shopper marketing teams are blessed with an abundance of this ingredient.  There are PLENTY of smart folks in our field – and we have more data, spreadsheets and powerpoint decks than our brains know what to do with. However, brains left to themselves can turn from a blessing to a curse.  Brains without heart lead to strategic mis-steps that look good on balance sheet projections but don’t play out well in real life (see this post for example).

Like the tin woodsman, what I see more often missing in shopper marketing teams is the “heart”.  Now shopper marketers are not heartless, by any means, but sometimes shopper marketing teams let the brains (and their data!) take charge and don’t have the shopper close to their heart.  The best organizations are deeply and intimately connected to shoppers needs, often by a shopper insights group, shopper ‘advocate’ or vocal field teams that ensure the shopper perspective is an integral part of team decisions.  A heart without brains can also lead things the wrong way, though – the trick is having both in balance.

Even with heart and brain working together, a shopper marketing organization can still get stuck in the mud and senior management might start to question ROI. (Sound familiar?)  That’s where the third ingredient kicks in… who provides “the nerve” – the courage to make bold decisions, propose revolutionary new ways to connect with shoppers and push big initiatives through with management?  Obviously, the leader of the team needs to have this quality in spades.  As a relatively new part of most organizations, though I see this as a bit of a weak spot, too – shopper marketers can be a bit shy of being too bold or pushing their agenda to hard as the new kid on the block.

So, if you are still struggling with structuring your shopper marketing organization (or hiring to add to it), or just evaluating your own perfromance, take one moment to put aside the usual evaluation criteria and imagine instead: how well balanced are you on “brains, heart and nerve”?  You might find a quick trip to see the wizard is just what you need.

the orange sheep

Check out this great manifesto by Mike Brown (@brainzooming) on why strategic thinking is lacking, how we might overcome the gap, and a few tools that might help next time you are entering a ‘think tank’.

http://brainzooming.com/brainzooming-a-strategic-thinking-manifesto/585/

the orange sheep

‘SKU Rationalization’ is fine – if it is truly a process of ‘rationalization’.

Despite a career spent using all forms of traditional research, I maintain that the best way to learn about shoppers is to get into an old-fashioned conversation with one.  Let me share a story a shopper told me this past week which will illustrate how revealing one conversation can be.

For the sake of anonymity, let’s call the shopper “Eva”. Eva is a new mother and her baby daughter has just started eating solid food. Eva’s done her homework and wanted to feed her little one Earth’s Best, a popular organic brand that was well rated by other mothers online (there’s the ZMOT at work!).  So she went shopping…

In her close & convenient Walgreens, Eva found the brand… but only the “2nd foods” varieties (for babies 6+ months). Eva needed “1st foods” for her 4-month-old, who is just starting on solids.  So off to the small-chain local supermarket.

No baby food at all. Or at least Eva couldn’t find it, if it is there. (That store just reinforced her perception that they are unreliable and disorganized!)

Long-story-short: Even after traipsing to CVS and TWO local ‘organic’ stores, the same problem: everyone had Earth’s Best ’2nd’ and ’3rd foods’… but no ’1st foods.  So five stores missed a sale that day, or from the manufacturer perspective, Earth’s Organics struck out five times and lost an ‘intending trialist’.

Eva’s question to me was: “Why would ALL these stores start at Stage 2?” They didn’t even have a space on shelf for Stage 1, so it wasn’t just out of stock. It made no sense to her. And with good reason!

I told her that, although I am not working with these stores, I can make a reasonable guess as to the culprit: something category managers call ‘SKU Rationalization’ (or ‘SKU Rat’ for short). Then I explained why I think SKU Rat might be the cause of Eva’s plight.

You see “1st foods” are made for 4- to 6-month old babies, aka ‘supported sitters’. However, some babies might not start on them until 5 months, or even later. So, they are in the average baby’s repertoire for 1, maybe 2, months at most.  By comparison, ”2nd & 3rd foods” each have a full 3-month window to sell to moms, and babies at those ages tend to eat a bigger quantity, so the jars are bigger and cost a little more.

So, when most retailers start ‘rationalizing SKUs’ in baby food, they focus on sales (and, in connection, profit) at a SKU level and ‘rationalize’ (read ‘eliminate’) the bottom of the list.  One can assume that “1st foods”  - with their smaller sales window, and lower value – vanishes first (perhaps only after some awful flavor option that NOBODY wants!!).

The flawed logic here is that Stage 1 represents a critical category entry point for a shopper like Eva. If you don’t carry Stage 1, you force every ‘Eva’ – and their substantial future spending on their babies! – to look elsewhere. Or worse! In Eva’s case, she went home and ordered a steamer and hand blender online – abandoning Earth’s Best and the baby food category altogether! (Score one more to Amazon!)

Walmart famously had to reintroduce 8,500 ‘previously-rationalized’ SKUs in 2011, after recognizing they may have made some ‘irrational’ choices that alienated shoppers like Eva.  Cases like this can be easily avoided, if retailers start putting a little of the ‘rational’ back in ‘rationalization’.  That means considering criteria other than unit or dollar sales for a particular SKU before saying “off with it’s head”.

Imagine instead starting with a mindset of “why should we keep this SKU?” rather than “why should we kill it?”, just to start. I mean really considering all the ‘rationales’ for keeping a SKU. Like the roles it plays in establishing variety; locking in a unique group of shoppers; providing a value- or time-based entry point to the category… and countless more.

Maybe then shoppers like Eva will see your decisions as a little more ‘rational’.

the orange sheep

Happy New Year! May it be a New Year full of New Thinking!

Here in the greener pasture, we’re calling 2012 the ‘Year of AND’: forecasting that the big trends in shopper marketing will be defined by ‘additive thinking’ – doing away with some of the divisive definitions of the past.

Here’s the top 3 reasons we’re going to hear the word AND a lot in 2012.

#1: ‘Online AND offline’ rather than ‘online OR offline’

Multi-channel retailing was a high-trending buzz topic of late 2011, and will surely keep gaining momentum.  This little sheep is looking forward though, to a more pronounced shift in the discussion from “online versus offline” to a paradigm in which we see more retailers adopting an “online AND offline” (‘clicks & mortar’) approach to satisfying shoppers.  

Bricks & mortar retailers have started to take online more seriously, and with Amazon running holiday circulars and eBay opening high-street shopfronts, the new world seems to be upon us.  The message should be clear: if you’re a retailer betting on a wholly online OR wholly offline strategy, I don’t expect to see you amongst the big movers & shakers in 2012.

#2: Value AND Quality AND Convenience, OH MY!

With the mass-customization and shopper-to-shopper sharing enabled by online retailing and social networking, and an economy (at least in the developed world) putting new pressure on shoppers in 2011, more and more have realized that with a little more homework, they don’t need to make trade-offs between value, convenience, quality and shopping experience any longer.

Retail banners like Trader Joe’s are delivering quality, perceived value AND a fun shopping experience and growing rapidly.  Morrison’s in the UK has promised that their new small-format convenience fascia will NOT charge a premium over their supermarket prices: they want to deliver convenience AND value.  And retailers everywhere are diversifying to offer hyper AND super AND smaller formats to satisfy different shopper missions.

In 2012, shoppers will have their cake AND eat it too!

#3: More FMCG’s to treat Shopper as ‘Sales AND Marketing’ 

So many shopper marketing fora still discuss the question of “should shopper marketing/insights live in Sales OR Marketing?”.  I’ve simply started answering this question with “No”.  It should most definitely be alive and well in both parts of your company, and it should be driving both sales AND brand health.

Sure, it’s messier organizationally, and means some people might initially get pushed from pillar to post, but if more FMCG / CPG companies can get beyond the internal tugs-of-war and get some cross-disciplinary teams working on shopper marketing initiatives, I believe we can see some really fantastic programs in our stores and online that benefit shoppers AND brands AND retailers.

And so, we commence “The Year of AND” – hopefully the year that Shopper Marketing hits its straps and proves it is no fad, and  makes the retail world a better place for all.

To my readers and twitter followers, I hope that 2012 is a great year for you all, full of happiness AND prosperity for you AND your families.

Happy New Year!
the orange sheep 

A common thread in the online discussion that sparked my previous post was that (to varying levels, depending on the opiner) “all, most or some” shoppers just want to “get in and out” of their grocery, drug and convenience stores.

This insight is undoubtedly true, but the typical reaction of shopper marketers highlights another “common nonsense” we need to overcome: an innate ability to focus on a symptom rather than dig deeper to understand root cause.

Let’s take it as a given that time is a decreasing commodity these days, and that people really need to save a few minutes each day.  There’s a dozen activities they could shave that time from: they could save the four minutes (and more than a few bucks!) spent waiting for their “grande-three-pump-caramel-soy-latte-with-no-whip”; or could walk the four extra blocks to catch the express train and save fifteen. So, why are people so focused on the time “wasted” while in their grocery store?

It’s time to put aside the symptom (“takes too long”) and focus on the actual disease: why do people find time spent in grocery stores so irritating? Why do grocery stores suck so much that the two-minute wait in line is considered more painful than the seven- minute wait (out in the cold, mind you!) at their favorite lunchtime food truck?

Some stores seem to get it, and people seem to linger longer and complain less.  As one shopper shared with the world on shopping blog Beth’s Journey“I could spend a couple of hours in a place like Whole Foods”.  On the other hand, ground-breaking location analytics start-up Locately wrote a great article about just how much people complain via social media while in Walmart – and tend to focus their tyrades on the long lines. Not so much the time that is, as the fact that Walmart is subjecting them to lining up.

In short: experience matters.

Kotler, Mehrabian and Russell started productive discussion in the ’70s showing the influence of the store atmosphere on shopper perceptions and, ultimately, behavior.

So, when the experience is poor, simply quickening a bad experience is not the way satisfy shoppers.  A swift hand might work for a doctor giving a child his shots, but it’s not the answer for retailers. (And heck, even the doctor gives out candy to finish the experience on a good note!)

In fact, this focus on shaving time off a bad experience is a veritable death spiral – the shopper will always still want you to shave more, and there’s only so quick you can make the whole experience. But worse, a lot of the ‘solutions’ for making things faster make the process even more abhorrent. (There’s a reason some chains are removing self checkout already!)

Imagine instead what we might do to make people love (instead of loathe) those 12 (or 17, or 36…) minutes in store.  Or just the 3 minutes in your own aisle, CPG category managers. Shoppers don’t have to jump for joy – just find the time ‘well-spent’.

Perhaps if we can focus on creating 12 enjoyable minutes – instead of cutting it down to 10-minutes that still suck – we’d be treating the root cause, not the symptom, and then will have a better platform to truly connect with shoppers.  Or else we can stick to rushing them out the door ever-and-ever quicker… with a sore arm and no candy.

the orange sheep

Sometimes I wonder whether shopper marketers in the US actually want to move forward.

Today, I spotted a RetailWire article that really captured my attention: about a Finnish retailer and university, partnering together to test the idea of a ‘slow lane’ at the checkout.  For me this was a “hallelujah!” moment – as you read the article, the team has identified that older customers and customers with disabilities often find the check-out to be a high-pressure, stressful end to what is otherwise a great experience in the store. So they flipped conventional thinking and saw an opportunity. Bravo!

But my bleat today is not to simply re-hash the RW article: rather to express disappointment on the comments that you will find below the article.  A majority of RW commenters have quickly dismissed that this idea could work in the USA.  Just like that- poof! – new thinking strangled by dead thinking!

Comments like “I could be wrong but the whole purpose of the checkout is to be the high pressure, high impulse area of the store. Yes, it’s a hurried experience because the customer wants to get out of there as soon as possible” just highlight the myopia that too many shopper marketers suffer, and the lack of insight into the varying needs of different shoppers, and different shopping missions.

The fact is that some (sure, many!) shoppers, on certain missions, want speed – but others want a more pleasurable experience, and still others just plain NEED more time.  This reality is hit home by one commenter (writing as a shopper & arthritis sufferer, not a shopper marketer!) who reinforces that a slow lane, which allows her to check-out at her pace, would be an idea she would not only reward with trips, but also would trumpet loudly in the social media.

Plus it is not just the elderly or disabled that I can imagine taking advantage – I would use the lane when I have my little lamb in the stroller. And how about the person with a bunch of coupons to use – or a question for the clerk – but is nervous of slowing down the next person and earning their wrath?

Imagine instead, couldn’t a slow lane actually help ‘speed up’ the ‘fast lane’ for the rush-rush-rush Americans described by so many commenters?  Wouldn’t it be beneficial to the ‘speed shoppers’ to have the ‘slow shoppers’ over in the metaphoric ‘right-hand lane’… out of their way? (Kudos to Bernice from RW for also pointing this out!)

So perhaps before we shoot down a new idea, we need to put aside our old assumptions, and re-imagine our view of the perfect shopping experience: we just might find a ‘crazy idea’ addresses a bunch of problems that our rational planning has never been able to solve.

the orange sheep