October 20, 2016

If You Want To Tick A Business Leader Off ...

... then tell the business leader that the business the leader manages is going through a "Losing Season".

Here's an example.
  • Last Year Net Sales = $75,000,000.
  • This Year Net Sales = $77,000,000.
  • This Year Pre-Tax Profit Percentage = 4.1%.
Using my equation, this equates to a 7-9 season.

This is a very common story in the world of catalog marketing. Several years of tepid co-op performance stunt long-term growth ... and tepid co-op performance leads to an expensive cost-per-new-customer and ultimately a low pre-tax profit percentage. The cataloger is too-married to the co-ops to get out from under the relationship ... and the relationship yields a 7-9 record ... and that's when business is good!!

In other words, the strategy is ultimately going to get the CEO fired ... just give it time.

You should hear what happens when I tell an Executive that they're performing at a 7-9 level.
  • "That can't be right! Sales grew! We're growing! We're winning."
  • "Look, I'm going to get an 80% bonus this year. We're fine."
  • "We're profitable. Lots of folks aren't profitable. Look at Sears, for instance."
  • "We haven't posted 10% pre-tax profit since 1993 - Amazon won't let you post 10% pre-tax profit because they took away all of our pricing power. It's their fault."
  • "Go back and re-score our business - we think we're an 11-5 team, and we think we have the metrics to convince you we are an 11-5 team. For instance, net promoter scores are high and customer engagement is high. Use modern metrics and you'll see that you are wrong."
Nobody wants to hear that they are failing.

But a 7-9 record is a failing record. Sure, you do some things well. But you do more things wrong.

And I get the Sears argument. So I scored Sears for the past decade. Are you ready for this? Grab a seat.
  • 2006 = 7-9.
  • 2007 = 5-11.
  • 2008 = 4-12.
  • 2009 = 4-12.
  • 2010 = 5-11.
  • 2011 = 2-14.
  • 2012 = 3-13.
  • 2013 = 3-13.
  • 2014 = 2-14.
  • 2015 = 2-14.
Oh. My. Goodness.

So, yes, your business isn't like Sears.

But your business isn't like Nordstrom, either. During the past ten years, Nordstrom posted 9 winning records, 7 playoff-caliber performances, and 1 championship-caliber performance (2006). That's borderline excellence.

An objective view of your business help set proper expectations. And for so many catalogers, we're rationalizing that 7-9 and 6-10 seasons are "good" seasons. They're not. Not even close. And we don't want to acknowledge what a 7-9 or 6-10 season means, because then we have to evaluate our role in producing a 7-9 or 6-10 season, and that's not much fun.

P.S. Hillstrom's Rebuild is available on Amazon - click here to purchase.

October 19, 2016

It Takes A While To Rebuild A Business

I sit here at the Corporate Headquarters of MineThatData, catching up on industry news. Every day, there will be an article headline that makes no sense.
  • "Six Ways To Turbocharge Your Instagram Strategy For Breakthrough Results, Number Six Will Stun You".
Then you read the article, and you see nonsense like this:
  1. Be authentic.
  2. Create great content.
  3. Engage your audience with imagery.
  4. Offer a discount to tickle the buying bone.
  5. Be Different.
  6. Never Give Up.
It's at this point that I bang my head against the purple walls that adorn the Corporate Headquarters of MineThatData. Lightly concussed, on-site medical staff determine if I have the strength required to read yet another article outlining Thought Leadership opportunities.

Here's the thing. It is really, really hard to Rebuild a Business.

Remember the won/lost data for Chico's, presented yesterday?
  • 2007 Record = 7-9.
  • 2008 Record = 3-13.
  • 2009 Record = 8-8.
  • 2010 Record = 9-7.
  • 2011 Record = 10-6.
  • 2012 Record = 10-6.
  • 2013 Record = 6-10.
  • 2014 Record = 6-10.
  • 2015 Record = 5-11.
When the business bottomed-out during The Great Recession, a new CEO was hired. It then took three years, yes, three years, to achieve a 10-6 record, a level I consider "playoff worthy" (sales growth was 11%, pre-tax profit was 6%). And once the business got to "the playoffs", the business began to fall apart. A new CEO was named in 2015, when the business suffered through a 5-11 season (sales fell by 1%, pre-tax profit was flat).

In other words, you don't turbocharge a business with an Instagram strategy. You work your rear-end off on 1,493 tiny details that all work together to create steady improvements in key metrics like net sales and pre-tax profit percentage.

How do you link together the 1,493 tiny details that all must work together so that your business can go from a 6-10 record to a 10-6 record? Discuss.

P.S. Hillstrom's Rebuild is available on Amazon - click here to purchase.

October 18, 2016

Chico's Won/Lost Record: 2007 - 2015

Remember Chico's data from yesterday? I asked you to assign NFL number of wins/losses to each "season" from 2007 - 2015. How did you do?

In 2007, net sales grew by 4.5%, and pre-tax profit was 5.2%.

In 2008, net sales were -7.7%, and pre-tax profit was -1.2%.

In 2009, net sales were +8.3%, and pre-tax profit was +4.1%.

In 2010, net sales were +11.2%, and pre-tax profit was +6.1%.

In 2011, net sales were +15.3%, and pre-tax profit was +6.4%. 

In 2012, net sales were +17.5%, and pre-tax profit was +7.0%.

In 2013, net sales were +0.2%, and pre-tax profit was +2.5%.

In 2014, net sales were +3.4%, and pre-tax profit was +2.4%.

In 2015, net sales were -1.2%, and pre-tax profit was +0.1%.

Ok, here's where we get a bit geeky - you can check out and go read about eight tips for a successful engagement strategy or some other nonsense if you don't want to spend 18 seconds hearing about the geeky equation.
  • Step 1 = Measure the Net Sales Gain.
  • Step 2 = Measure Pre-Tax Profit Percentage.
  • Step 3 = Calculate Logit = -0.877 + 3.829*(Net Sales Gain) + 10.944*(Pre-Tax Profit Rate).
  • Step 4 = Calculate Winning Percentage = EXP(logit) / (1 + EXP(logit)).
  • Step 5 = Calculate Wins = 16 * Winning Percentage.
  • Step 6 = Calculate Losses = 16 - Wins.
Are you ready for the results? Yes? Good!
  • 2007 Record = 7-9.
  • 2008 Record = 3-13.
  • 2009 Record = 8-8.
  • 2010 Record = 9-7.
  • 2011 Record = 10-6.
  • 2012 Record = 10-6.
  • 2013 Record = 6-10.
  • 2014 Record = 6-10.
  • 2015 Record = 5-11.
Using this framework ...
  • A Championship Caliber Year = 12-4 or better.
  • A Playoff Caliber Year = 10-6 or better.
  • CEO Could Get Fired Year = 6-10 or worse.
You can see The Great Recession in 2008 - it's easy to see, isn't it?

Then the business embarked on a "rebuilding project" - no different than an NFL team. A new CEO was hired in 2009, coming off of a 3-13 "season". The new CEO rebuilt the company ... from 3-13 to 8-8 to 9-7 to a pair of 10-6 seasons in 2011/2012.

And then the wheels came off. In 2015, Chico's announced that a new CEO would be hired, and by late 2015, a new CEO was hired ... as the business finished up a 5-11 "season".

How did the CEO perform (2009 - 2015 ... 7 years).
  • 3 winning seasons in 7 years.
  • 2 playoff appearances.
  • 0 championship level seasons.
  • Overall record = 54-58.
  • Hired after a 3-13 year.
  • Employment term ended during a 5-11 year.
The methodology "works" for an apparel-centric retailer, don't you think? Did we not adequately reflect success at Chico's?

Tell me what is easier to understand?
  • Net Sales Gain = +3.4% and Pre-Tax Profit Rate = +2.4%.
  • A NFL Won/Lost Record = 6-10 (6 wins, 10 losses).
Now, this equation isn't going to work for discount retailers ... but it will work great for most catalog brands, e-commerce brands, and most retail brands.

And if the equation translates geeky numbers into easy-to-understand wins and losses, then the equation should help us understand if a "brand" is truly succeeding or not, right?

P.S. Hillstrom's Rebuild is available on Amazon - click here to purchase.

October 17, 2016

Define Winning

Here's what I know.

When I worked at Lands' End, 10% pre-tax profit was defined as "winning".

When I worked at Eddie Bauer, "Drive Sales Profitably" was defined as "winning" ... but sales gains always trumped profit gains.

When I worked at Nordstrom, comp store sales had to increase and pre-tax profit rates had to increase. When things were humming, we were posting 10% sales gains and 12% or 13% pre-tax profit rates. Try doing that today, my friends.

Well, if growing sales causes a brand to "win", and increasing the pre-tax profit rate to north of 10% causes a brand to "win", then I can look at any year a company has, and determine if the company "won", right?

Let's look at Chicos as an example. Their numbers are freely available in their annual reports.

In 2007, net sales grew by 4.5%, and pre-tax profit was 5.2%. Was this a winning year?

In 2008, net sales were -7.7%, and pre-tax profit was -1.2%. Was this a winning year?

In 2009, net sales were +8.3%, and pre-tax profit was +4.1%. Was this a winning year?

In 2010, net sales were +11.2%, and pre-tax profit was +6.1%. Was this a winning year?

In 2011, net sales were +15.3%, and pre-tax profit was +6.4%. Was this a winning year?

In 2012, net sales were +17.5%, and pre-tax profit was +7.0%. Was this a winning year?

In 2013, net sales were +0.2%, and pre-tax profit was +2.5%. Was this a winning year?

In 2014, net sales were +3.4%, and pre-tax profit was +2.4%. Was this a winning year?

In 2015, net sales were -1.2%, and pre-tax profit was +0.1%. Was this a winning year?

At Lands' End, we'd have flunked every single one of those years.

At Eddie Bauer, we'd have considered 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 to be winning years.

At Nordstrom, we'd have had a spirited discussion about whether 2010, 2011, and 2012 were winning years or not.

Average those three observations, and we have a framework for thinking about what "winning" is, right?

Here's what I did. I pretended that each year was an "NFL Season". In the National Football League, each team plays 16 games. If you want to win a Super Bowl, you probably have to go 12-4 (12 wins, 4 losses). If you want to make the playoffs, you probably have to go 10-6 (10 wins, 6 losses). If you are an average team, you go 8-8 and you do not make the playoffs. If you are a bad team, you go 6-10 and your coach is on the "hot seat". If you are an awful team, you go 4-12 and your coach gets fired.

Look again at Chicos ... from 2007 - 2015. If you had to assign "wins" to each season, how many wins would you assign?

Here's your homework assignment for tomorrow. Assign wins/losses to each season at Chicos, from 2007 - 2015. Tomorrow, I will share with you the equation I created to assign wins and losses.

P.S. Hillstrom's Rebuild is available on Amazon - click here to purchase.

October 16, 2016

How Do You Know If A Business Is Winning?

Early in my career, I worked for an accountant responsible for running a direct marketing department. Anytime I performed an analysis of customer behavior, the individual asked me a simple question.
  • "How much profit do we generate because of the behavior?"
After saying "I don't know" three or four times, I figured out that I was an idiot, and I'd go get the information that allowed me to calculate profit. Then, I'd present my numbers, and the accountant would ask me a simple question.
  • "Are you sure that Finance gave you the right metrics, because something doesn't look right?"
Eight times in ten, Finance made a mistake, or I made a mistake interpreting what the Finance team gave me.

People would come out of these meetings in tears. I recall a circulation analyst being yelled at because the gross margin percentage was something like 45% when it should have been 45.5% ("don't you get it, we can mail more catalogs and generate more profit with a half-point of gross margin in our pocket, now go back and re-work everything and have it on my desk in two hours").

Some at Lands' End were obsessed with achieving 10% pre-tax profit. That was our holy grail. You might only achieve this level of profit once every five years, but that was what was considered "championship-level" performance. Bonus payouts maxed-out if we hit 10% pre-tax profit ... and garden-variety analysts earning $28,000 per year (hint - me) earned a bonus. Does your lowest paid salaried employee earn a bonus if your company achieves a decent level of pre-tax profit? Do you?

For five years, every analysis and every discussion ultimately came back to profitability ... were our decisions causing customers to generate more profit? And we knew what "winning" was ... we were "winning" when we hit 10% pre-tax profit.

Then I went to Eddie Bauer - "winning" at Eddie Bauer was a term called "Drive Sales Profitably". Our decisions had to increase sales, and had to increase profit. You had to do both. My SVP always said "you don't take profit percentage to the bank". While the CEO always harped on "Driving Sales Profitably", the rest of the culture liked to grow sales regardless of profit. Out came the discounts and promotions! Winning centered around growing the top line. And nobody could define what "winning" was ... every employee had a different interpretation of "winning". Not surprisingly, that business had a harder time achieving success.

At Nordstrom, we were supposed to take care of the customer. For Management, bonus payouts clearly communicated what "winning" was ... grow sales, and grow profit as a percentage of sales. As long as customers could handle paying more at comparable gross margins, both metrics improved and everybody was happy.

My consulting business is nearly ten years old. Can you believe that?

And during that time, it has become more and more common for Analysts, Managers, Directors, Vice Presidents, CEOs and Owners to stare blankly when asked what "winning" means to them. Few people can tell me the percentage of sales that flow through to profit, and few people know how profitable their business is. In the half-generation I've been running my own business, it is obvious that our focus on metrics caused us to stop focusing on the metrics that matter - metrics that define what "winning" is.

Tomorrow, we'll go deeper into this topic.

Today, please think for a moment ... what does "winning" mean to your company? Is your company "winning", and how would you know if your company is "winning"? Discuss.

October 13, 2016

In The Simulations, How Much Is The Customer Worth?

When you run a Lifetime Value Simulation (#LTVS), you learn how much downstream demand customers generate.

The curves frequently look similar to the curve depicted here - more downsteam demand happens in year one, then the rate of demand downstream flattens a bit.

In our example:
  • Cumm Through Year 1 = $59.36.
  • Cumm Through Year 2 = $92.69.
  • Cumm Through Year 3 = $121.69.
  • Cumm Through Year 4 = $149.47.
With the fitted relationship, we can estimate what happens even further down the road, right?

Then, you multiply demand by your profit factor and then you subtract ad cost, and all of a sudden, you have lifetime value by year. Let's assume the following:
  • Year 1 = Ad Cost of $12.00, Profit Factor = 35%.
  • Year 2 = Ad Cost of $9.00, Profit Factor = 35%.
  • Year 3 = Ad Cost of $7.00, Profit Factor = 35%.
  • Year 4 = Ad Cost of $5.00, Profit Factor = 35%.
This yields an annual view of Lifetime Value.
  • Year 1 = $59.36*0.35 - $12.00 = $8.78.
  • Year 2 = $33.33*0.35 - $9.00 = $2.67.
  • Year 3 = $29.99*0.35 - $7.00 = $3.15.
  • Year 4 = $27.78*0.35 - $5.00 = $4.72.
And the annual view is translated to a cumulative view.
  • Year 1 = $8.78.
  • Year 2 = $11.44.
  • Year 3 = $14.59.
  • Year 4 = $19.31.
This is where things get interesting.

Let's say you have your Paid Search program. You generate 100 clicks at a cost of $0.50 each - you obtain 2 orders at $40 each, with a 35% profit factor.
  • Demand = $80.00.
  • Profit Factor = $80 * 0.35 = $28.00.
  • Ad Cost = $50.00.
  • Profit (Loss) = ($22.00).
  • Profit (Loss) per New Customer = ($22.00) / 2  = ($11.00).
You lost $11.00 acquiring the customer (you measure Profit per New Customer and not Marketing Cost per New Customer ... right ... RIGHT?).

It will take two years to make up the money you lost acquiring the customer.

Do you acquire the customer?

This is where you need your Five Year Customer Simulation ... taken down to variable profit. Do sales and profit meet the expectations of your Chief Financial Officer? If the answer is "yes", you acquire the customer. If the answer is "no", you don't.

You need the Lifetime Value Simulation (#LTVS) to determine how much profit the customer generates downstream.

You need the Five Year Customer Simulation to illustrate to your CFO how much demand and profit your strategies generate.

You need the partnership of your CFO.

And then, you can apply your tactics to all marketing channels and bask in your customer development brilliance.


October 12, 2016

Attacking Recent Buyers? Not Much Better

I know, I know, you didn't like yesterday's example. The numbers don't tie out with what your vendor showed you regarding lapsed buyers.

I'm not saying you can't generate profit by focusing on lapsed buyers. It may well be more profitable to target lapsed buyers ... so have at it!!! Don't stop, please. 

But you don't solve the long-term problem you have, do you? The customer file remains virtually unchanged. In my simulation of 100,000 new customers, you end up with 800 more customers four years later. That's nothing.

What happens if you increase the probability of a subsequent purchase when recency is equal to one/two/three months? In other words, what happens if you focus all of your energy into the timeframe when the customer is most likely to purchase again?
  • My base case had 66,917 inactive customers four years later.
  • Targeting lapsed buyers yielded 66,197 inactive customers four years later.
  • Targeting 1-3 month recency buyers yielded 65,753 inactive customers four years later.
That's a whole lotta nothin'.

This is why I continually harp on low-cost / no-cost customer acquisition programs. All of the targeting and loyalty and lapsed buyer work you do makes terribly little difference. You might generate profit, sure, and that's a good thing, so keep doing it.

But it doesn't change the trajectory of your business.

Here's how the number of customers change by frequency count.

There are 100,000 customers in the simulation. 8,943 purchase 5+ times in the base simulation. 10,173 purchase 5+ times by targeting the 1-3 month audience and obtaining a 10% lift, assuming that were possible.

But look at what actually happens - just getting a 10% lift among the 1-3 month recency audience results in a 13% increase in 5x+ buyers over four years. So you do everything right ... you get a 13% increase in "loyal" buyers ... but it's just a net increase of 1,230 customers out of 100,000.

That's it!

Think of all the effort you go through to "develop" a customer ... it's probably 80% of your job if you are reading this. All that effort ... to move 1,230 customers out of 100,000 to "more" loyal status.

Instead of going to all that effort ... all that effort ... why not simply find more new customers? Why not invest your efforts there?

I know, I know. You are going to tell me I'm wrong.

Please run the simulations yourself - run 'em on first time buyers for your business. Ask your analyst to run the simulations for you. Tell me what you learn.

And if you aren't running the simulations ... ask your staff why they aren't running them, ok?

October 11, 2016

Let's Just Attack Those Lapsed Buyers!!

Let's pretend you have a magic elixir that can get any customer > 12 months of recency to purchase at a rate 10% better than what you currently experience. Ohhhhhhh Boy, one might think you've just changed the equation, right?

Let's pop that into my Lifetime Value Simulation (#LTVS) and see if it makes a difference.

In my initial run, 66,917 of 100,000 simulated customers did not repurchase after four years.

But by #targeting lapsed buyers (those with recency > 12 months), a magic 10% increase in response yields a scenario where 66,197 of 100,000 simulated customers did not repurchase after four years ... I'll spare you the details.

Let's just round the results.
  • By working our tails off to #reactivate lapsed buyers we prevent a case where 67,000 of 100,000 customers do not purchase again during a four year period of time ... and instead, we face a scenario where 66,000 of 100,000 customers do not purchase again during a four year period of time.
If you want copies of the two tables, send me an email message (kevinh@minethatdata.com) and I'll share the results with you.

The problem, my friends, is we wait until it is nearly too late to do anything. Why wait until the customer lapses before acting?

Why not act when the customer is active ... in the first three months after a purchase?

More on that tomorrow.

October 10, 2016

An FAQ On Developing Customers

FYI - Hillstrom's Rebuild is available on Amazon .. click here to purchase.

You read the post yesterday. You think I'm an idiot. You have questions. I have answers.

Question: Kevin, we all know it costs eight times as much to acquire a new customer as it costs to retain an existing customer. Your data has to be wrong. Why is your data wrong?
  • We are looking at the data differently. You cherry-picked your good customers and looked at all the profit they generate and concluded that you shouldn't spend money on new customers. Point of inquiry ... how do you suppose you found those "good customers"? Oh, at one time, you had to "acquire" them, didn't you? In other words, you don't get "good customers" unless you have a robust "customer acquisition" program ... you have to spend the money to acquire the customer to enjoy having a good customer.
Question: Kevin, I looked at my own customer file, and we have a ton of loyal customers. Why does your simulation show so few loyal customers?
  • I am looking at what happens to a cohort of customers. Almost none of the customers become loyal. You acquire customers every month ... and have been for thirty or forty years. So yes, you have loyal customers. But divide the number of loyal customers you have by the number of customers you've ever acquired over forty years, and tears will come out of your eyes.
Question: Kevin, if we just work harder at email marketing and get customers to open more emails, or if we overlay web data on our file, or if we #engage with customers on social media, or if we do a better job with paid search, or if we do a better job with natural/organic search, or if we partner with Pinterest, or if we pay Facebook more, or if we can get more than 7 in 10,000 to click on a retargeting ad, or if Amazon stopped hurting us, then the data you are sharing would look different, right?
  • You have thousands of channels today ... you had dozens of channels in 1995. How has your annual repurchase rate changed in 21 years? It's similar? Or worse? Then what did all of those channels do for you in the first place? The channels made vendors money, that's for sure!! Maybe that's why you hear vendors constantly talking about channels. Think about it for a moment.
Question: Kevin, if we really dig into lapsed buyers, then we can change the dynamic ... we can flip the script, can't we?
  • Tomorrow, I will show you that it's in the first three months after a customer purchases that we can make improvements ... by the time the customer lapses, you aren't able to fundamentally change the long-term trajectory of the simulation ... you can't change it, because the probability of subsequent purchase is simply too low.
Question: Kevin, your data makes it seem like we should almost ignore trying to get customers to become more loyal and instead focus all our efforts on finding new customers. Am I reading you correctly?
  • Yes. Yes you are. 
Question: Follow-up question, Kevin. What you are suggesting goes against all best practices in our industry. You have to be wrong. Wisdom of the crowds, Man!!
  • Did you watch the movie "The Big Short"? A handful of people bet against the housing market. They analyzed the situation, they realized that everybody was wrong, and when the housing market crashed, they got no credit for being right. I have hundreds of client data points, billions of purchase records spanning two decades, and more than a million lines of computer code I've written to study this dynamic. The story is consistent. If you double your customer acquisition counts, you'll eventually double your loyal buyer counts. Now, if you have a million+ lines of code you can forward me that prove the opposite, by all means, I'll publish your findings.
Question: Another follow-up question, Kevin. Customer acquisition is terribly expensive. We'll go broke finding new customers before we double the number of new customers.
  • That's not a question, that's a statement. More important - I've spent the past year asking you to implement low-cost / no-cost customer acquisition programs. I've given you hundreds of examples. How many of the examples have you implemented? I'm more than twenty-eight years into my career ... there are two truths I've learned over time ... first is that low-cost / no-cost customer acquisition programs are critical to business success ... and second is that new merchandise development is critical to business success. Yup, nail those two and you can retire.

October 09, 2016

Developing Customers

FYI - my new booklet ... Hillstrom's Rebuild ... is now available on Amazon (click here).

When you run a Lifetime Value Simulation (#LTVS) of first-time buyers, you quickly face an uncomfortable reality. Here's the reality you face.
  • "Wow, most of these customers just kind of drift off into oblivion."
Yes. Yes they do.

Now, if you work at Starbucks or Wal-Mart or Target or Nordstrom, different rules apply.

But you don't work for those companies. I know that to be true. I look at my visitor analytics and email metrics. Your company sells Widgets, and let me tell you, the rules are different if you sell Widgets.

Here are the results of a recent simulation for an average of businesses with a 37% annual repurchase rate ... the kind of repurchase rate that is AVERAGE across my entire client base. The simulation tracks the progression of first-time buyers for the next four years. I am going to present you with a series of tables of 100,000 simulated newbies, showing you how many end up in different recency/frequency cohorts.

Ready to be disappointed? Good!

Here's the table for the 0-12 month file, four years after 100,000 customers were newly acquired.

Look at the counts, my friends. Look at the number of customers with 10+ purchases four years after being acquired. The number is virtually zero!

Oh, I know, your are told there is a pot of gold with lapsed buyers. Here's your 13-24 month file.

Again ... there's a hundred thousand customers in this simulation.

Your 25-36 month file, enjoy!


Through the start of month 49.

Look at the lower right portion of the table ... read across LTD Orders = 1 ... read across to RECENCY = 49 (49 Months) ... what do you see?

You see 2/3rd of the original purchase cohort sitting there ... idle ... inactive.

You aren't going to #engage these customers ... you aren't going to execute a #campaign chocked full of #relevancy and #personalization either ... they're inactive. They bought, their need was met, and they've moved on.

How many life-to-date purchased did these customers place?
  1. 66,917 (out of the original 100,000 mind you).
  2. 14,756.
  3. 5,980
  4. 3,404
  5. 2,431
  6. 1,595
  7. 1,249
  8. 911
  9. 724
  10. 541
  11. 412
  12. 295
  13. 253
  14. 171
  15. 122
  16. 79
  17. 45
  18. 46
  19. 20
  20. 21
  21. 17
  22. 6
  23. 3
  24. 2
In fact, 2,033 of the original 100,000 first time buyer purchased 10+ times in four years.

That's it.

This is why I repeatedly talk about what a waste of time it is to give discounts and promotions to move customers up the loyalty chain. It is Fool's Gold. Given the opportunity to spend money, double the number of new customers - you'll have twice as many loyal buyers in five years.

Tomorrow, an FAQ on this topic.