June 30, 2013

Dear Catalog CEOs: Terrible Attribution or Matchback Reporting

Dear Catalog CEOs:

For the past ten years, you've been told to match back online orders to the catalog that "caused" them.  We conveniently ignored the "cause" portion of the statement - we just took every single online order and gave the catalog credit.  This is fun, of course, because it guarantees that we keep mailing catalogs, no matter whether the catalog had any impact or not.  In fact, if you mail every single customer in your database a catalog, then you will attribute every single online order back to the catalog.  You see this, often.  Of course it's nonsense.  But it keeps the vendor community employed, and it keeps those who love producing catalogs employed, so the behavior will not change.  I've railed against the behavior for the better part of a decade, few listened.  I cannot change those who do not want to change.

I can, however, point out nonsense in the reporting generated by the vendor community.

Too often, we see attribution mistakes so nasty that they should be pointed out, immediately.  And they aren't.

For instance, say your business possesses an average order value of $150.  You look at a distribution of average order values, and notice that only 10% of your orders are under $35.

Then your vendor produces a matchback analysis for you, by channel.  And you see something like this:

  • Catalog = 1,000 orders, average order value = $211.
  • E-Mail = 200 orders, average order value = $160.
  • Search = 200 orders, average order value = $160.
  • All Other Online Orders = 500 orders, average order value = $20.
  • Totals = 1,900 orders, average order value = $150.
What is wrong with this picture?

Well, the attribution routine completely butchers actual attribution, doesn't it?  We know this to be true, because only 10% of company orders are < $35, and yet, the attribution program says that 500/1,900 = 26% of company orders are attributed online, with an average of $20.

The data clearly indicates that this attribution vendor has no concept of reality.  None.  It simply doesn't matter that the vendor uses a "proprietary and sophisticated algorithm" ... the algorithm is simply and horribly wrong, and will cause you to make terrible business decisions.

I see this outcome, often.  Your reporting is just plain terrible.  Either you don't care, or you don't even look at the reports.

Do you even look at the reports?

Do you ever challenge your marketing team to actually think about the reports generated by their favorite matchback vendor?

It's one thing to outsource marketing attribution to industry experts, giving them the authority to know your business better than your own internal staff.

It's quite another thing to completely accept terrible, terrible reporting as truth.

And that's what too many of you you're doing.

June 27, 2013

RSS Subscribers: Please Move Your Subscription Immediately

As RSS readers already know, Google Reader is about to be shut down.

You know that you can't afford to miss any of the riveting content you enjoy on a daily basis.  You simply cannot afford to miss it!

So move your RSS subscription today, while you still have a couple of days left.

  1. Visit the blog home page (http://blog.minethatata.com) and follow via email.
  2. Use services like Feedly or Flipboard - you'll log into Google Reader, and then you'll be able to continue to enjoy your feeds (with, in my opinion, a more zippy interface).
Take 90 seconds and move your feeds RIGHT NOW!  You simply don't want to miss out on any of the riveting content you enjoy daily.

June 26, 2013

Out Of The Ordinary

In the real world, when we see something out of the ordinary, we take a picture of it.

What do we do when we see something out of the ordinary in business?

Curiosity is a gift.  Too often, we let software limit our curiosity.

I once asked an analyst if he calculated profit.  He told me that the systems weren't integrated well enough for him to incorporate profitability into his calculations.  He didn't possess the curiosity required to investigate if any data could be linked.

Another analyst produced a report that didn't tie out with the report the EVP possessed.  The analyst didn't have the curiosity to find out why the data didn't match, only offering that the data came from "different systems".

Or as I'm seeing a lot lately ... merchandise performance absolutely stinks, and somebody notices something odd in the data.  But ... and this is a big but ... "that's the responsibility of the merchandising team, it's simply not my job to analyze the performance of merchandise, that's the job of the merchandising team."



Terribly wrong.

When you see something out of the ordinary, document it (i.e. take a picture).  Then go figure out what the heck is going on.  Odds are nobody else is seeing what you are seeing, and even if somebody else is analyzing the issue, they aren't analyzing it the way you analyze it!

June 25, 2013

Doing The Opposite

Give this little article about keeping a newspaper alive a read:  http://flashesandflames.com/2013/06/20/reinventing-newspaper-groups.

What did you notice?

The argument is for doing the opposite of "multi-channel" or "omnichannel", isn't it?

Oh, I know, I can already hear the snide comments:
  • "That's the newspaper industry, we're Catalogers, we're Different.
  • "That's just one case, what about the thousands of newspapers who did exactly what the author suggested and failed, there's no case study about the morons who tried and failed, correct?"
  • "Multi-channel and Omnichannel are proven, just look at Macy's."
If we assume you're correct, then why is the catalog industry consistently the slowest growing of any in the Internet Retailer Top 500?  The industry followed the multi-channel playbook, fully integrating e-commerce with catalog operations, correct?  Well, we should have observed that catalogs were the fastest growing of any sector in the Internet Retailer Top 500 ... right?

In the past year, I consistently observe a "different customer" from the "core customer".  This customer is almost exclusively shopping online, and is buying different/unique merchandise.  It's almost like, magically, somebody is showing you a portal to the future, a path to long-term viability.

Take advantage today.  Ignore the omnichannel arguments that only benefit vendors and trade journalists.  Do what is right for your employees, your customers, and your business.

June 24, 2013

Put A Bird On It

Maybe you watch Portlandia ... and know of the skit called "Put A Bird On It".

Here, Carrie notices a "sad little tote bag" ... she puts a bird on it ... all better!

Marketers take different directions, don't they?  When faced with a product that isn't performing so well, there are choices.

  1. Ignore everything and hope the problem simply goes away.
  2. "Put A Bird On It" ... 30% off Plus Free Shipping, for instance ... that's puttin' a bird on it!
  3. Find out why a customer isn't buying something.
The marketer slaps a bird on the problem, then moves on.  Job well done.

There are so many reasons why merchandise productivity fails.

Sometimes, the price of newly introduced items is too high.

Sometimes, the number of skus are cut back, while the demand forecast at a customer level is unchanged, creating the perception that business stinks when, in reality, business is exactly where it is supposed to be when skus are reduced.

Sometimes, old products are dying faster than new product productivity accelerates.

Sometimes, a category that "feeds" other categories (i.e. an audio/video receiver feeds the need for speakers, speaker wire, HDMI cables, that kind of thing) is performing poorly, causing feeder categories to perform poorly.

Almost none of this information can be obtained via a web analytics tool, or print-based response reporting.  Sure, it's there, waiting to be mined, it's hiding in plain sight.  But we can't analyze it with the tools we have.

So we put a bird on it.  And we measure the performance of the bird.

Take some time this summer to analyze merchandise performance.  It's worth the effort.

June 23, 2013

Dear Catalog CEOs: Cataloging For Dummies

Dear Catalog CEOs:

Most of you have heard of the "... for Dummies" series.

The series covers the basics, the "best practices" if you will, to get you up to speed, quickly.

Maybe we should review some of the tidbits we're hearing:

Cataloging For Dummies:  Align all of your channels, the customer demands the same experience in all channels.

Real Advice For Smarties:  Aligning all channels results in two problems - the core audience is satiated, any other niche audience is alienated.  As a result, the customer file ages, rapidly, eventually separating the catalog brand from the future, enabling Amazon to capture 25% of all e-commerce transactions.

Cataloging For Dummies:  The best way to grow your business is to get your existing customers to buy more of your merchandise.

Real Advice For Smarties:  If this was true, then annual purchase frequency would increase by 10% a year, every year.  This never happens.  Your growth is almost entirely based, on a long-term basis, on new customer acquisition.  The smartest companies thoroughly understand this fact.

Cataloging For Dummies:  Wrap the cover and back cover with new content, keep the interior of your catalog the same, and remail the catalog to your best customers, you'll earn more business at minimal cost.

Real Advice For Smarties:  In a world where a customer can instantly obtain information on a hand-held phone with the computing power of a 2010 laptop, you're going to send the exact same marketing content via a mailbox six weeks later?  It's 2013.  At least afford the customer the luxury of a new creative experience.

Cataloging For Dummies:  Drive the customer online using print.

Real Advice For Smarties:  Do the opposite.  Calibrate your catalog for a 60 year old or older customer who doesn't want to go online.  Conversely, create a great online experience for customers age 40-59, and create a fantastic mobile/social experience for customers age 18-39.  Or just focus on one audience.  Do what's right.  Don't try to use one medium to force a customer to use another medium because your printer thinks that's a great way to keep the print industry alive.

Cataloging For Dummies:  All customers love catalogs.

Real Advice For Smarties:  Baby Boomers and Moms shopping for Children, they seem to appreciate catalogs.

Cataloging For Dummies:  Contribute your names to the co-ops, and reap the rewards of instant access to the names/addresses of your competition.

Real Advice For Smarties:  Diversify your portfolio of new customers, or risk the acceleration of acquiring a customer age 60 or older.

Cataloging For Dummies:  Mail all customers catalogs, you're a cataloger!

Real Advice For Smarties:  Minimize mailing of catalogs to mobile/social/search/email buyers.

Use the comments section to offer your version of Real Advice For Smarties.

June 19, 2013

Seeing The Future - New Items

You can't see what is coming on this road, can you?

Thank goodness the yellow sign tells you curves are coming, and you'll have to slow down to negotiate the curves.

In Merchandise Forensics, we can see the future, in part, by performing what is called a "Class Of" report.

In other words, we identify all items introduced in, say, the "Class Of" 2006.  Then we measure how much demand these items generate going forward.

  • 2006 (Introduction Year) = $800,000.
  • 2007 (First Full Year) = $1,000,000.
  • 2008 = $850,000.
  • 2009 = $720,000.
  • 2010 = $600,000.
  • 2011 = $500,000.
  • 2012 = $420,000.
Now, let's say that your merchandising team does an outstanding job, harvesting a bumper crop of outstanding new items.  In 2012, these new items generated $1,400,000 demand.

Downstream, we'll apply the same relationship to these items.
  • 2012 (Introduction Year) = $1,400,000.
  • 2013 (First Full Year) = $1,750,000.
  • 2014 = $1,487,500.
  • 2015 = $1,260,000.
Let's say that the average year yields $800,000 in new item demand.  These items will generate $2.6 million in demand in the next three years.

Your bumper crop of $1,400,000 in new items, under similar circumstances, will generate $4.5 million in demand in the next three years.

In a Merchandise Forensics project, with appropriate customer history, we can identify how future demand is impacted by historical new item introductions.  We can easily see how merchandising successes/failures lead to marketing gains/challenges over time.  Run your own "Class Of" report, and identify the impact of new product introductions on your business.

Contact me (kevinh@minethatdata.com) for your own, customized, Merchandise Forensics project.

June 17, 2013

Items That Fuel Future Purchases

All things being equal, you want to sell items that cause customers to purchase future items related to the original purchase.  Of course, you have to sell the original item, and that's not easy, but from a marketing standpoint, you want to capitalize on items that fuel subsequent loyalty.

In other words, the RV purchase leads to a need for add-ons, those add-ons generate incremental profit.

In Merchandise Forensics, I analyze items that foster subsequent add-on behavior.  These items accelerate customer loyalty.  The marketer advertises these items via landing pages and email campaigns.

How do I do this?
  1. Segment all items sold between May 1, 2012 and April 30, 2013.
  2. Identify all customers who purchased items sold during this timeframe.
  3. Identify all customers who repurchased between May 1, 2013 and May 31, 2013.
  4. Identify customer characteristics of customers buying items from 5/1/2012 - 4/30/2013.
  5. Aggregate dataset down to one row per item.
  6. Create model relating attributes of customers buying items to future repurchase rate of customers buying items.
  7. Index the results.
This gives you a rank-ordering of the items that cause customers to come back and purchase ... and it also identifies the items that squelch future customer purchases.

In your email marketing campaigns, be sure to feature items that cause customers to come back and purchase again.  Simple!

Contact Kevin (kevinh@minethatdata.com) for your own, customized Merchandise Forensics project.

June 16, 2013

Dear Catalog CEOs: Time In New England

Dear Catalog CEOs:

You already know I'll be in Vermont July 22-24, attending the Direct Gardening Association conference (click here please).  My schedule is full on the 23rd and 24th ... but there is still the possibility of a slot or two on the 22nd or the 25th. 

I'm buying plane tickets this evening (Monday), so if you still have interest in arranging a meeting, please contact me immediately (kevinh@minethatdata.com).


June 12, 2013


Have you heard this song?

I'll bet 9 in 10 of you have not heard it.

This song was released in May of 2012, by one of the best selling artists of all time.

A key tenant of a Merchandise Forensics project is "decay".  Basically, items don't remain best sellers forever.  Each item has a time in the sun, then performance begins to decay.

Take a look at US/Canada-based Album sales for Alanis Morissette (click here for more details):

  • Alanis, 1991, 100,000 copies (Canada Only).
  • Now Is The Time, 1992, 50,000 copies (Canada Only).
  • Jagged Little Pill, 1995, 14,820,000 copies (US).
  • Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie, 1998, 2,600,000 copies (US).
  • Under Rug Swept, 2002, 1,000,000 copies (US).
  • So-Called Chaos, 2004, 475,000 copies (US).
  • Flavors of Entanglement, 2008, 235,000 copies (US).
  • Havoc and Bright Lights, 2012, 70,000 copies (US).
Three things are happening here.
  1. Decay.  Each successive album sells fewer copies than the prior album.  This happens to your merchandise assortment, as well.  You must understand this dynamic, in order to understand why your marketing efforts succeed/fail.
  2. Channel.  As sales shifted from CDs to MP3s, measuring success via albums sold becomes futile.
  3. Awareness.  As the number of channels become nearly infinite, it becomes infinitely difficult to reach the audience necessary to create the awareness required to drive sales.
We tend to focus our efforts on (2).  We are all about the shift from old-school catalogs to e-commerce, and now, the shift from old-school e-commerce to mobile.

We spend too little time on (3).

And almost none of us focus on decay (1).

When decay is left unchecked, merchandise productivity falls.  When merchandise productivity falls, email performance and search performance and mobile performance and catalog performance all suffer.  When marketing performance suffers, marketers get fired.

You don't want to get fired.

So work hard to understand merchandise decay.  It's a critical element to understanding merchandise productivity - and merchandise productivity dictates marketing success.

June 11, 2013

When New Items Fail In The Short Term, Existing Items Struggle In The Long Term

Here's a simple query.

Freeze your customer file as of the end of the year.  Then, in the next twelve months, for a comparable group of customers (say 2x buyers in the past year), measure how much the customer spends on existing items, new items, and in total.

This example illustrates a business that has a serious merchandise productivity problem.  Customers spend as much as $34.29 in the next year, back in 2006.

Look at what happens when the recession hits.  In 2009, this business cuts way, way back on the number of new items (yes, it's expensive to develop new items).  Consequently, demand from new items drops, significantly.  Look at 2009 and 2010.  New item demand is way down, and existing item demand is basically flat.  Productivity, therefore, is down solely because of new product development.

In 2011 and 2012, existing item productivity is down, in large part because of two years of poor new item development.  Eventually, new items become existing items, and in this case, the problems of 2009 and 2010 yield sluggish existing item productivity in 2011 and 2012.

This is the most common problem I see when performing Merchandise Forensics work.  Merchant problems in prior years become customer productivity problems in subsequent years.

Contact me for your own, customized Merchandise Forensics project (kevinh@minethatdata.com).

June 10, 2013

Pot of Gold

You can't see a rainbow until after the storm passes.

Similarly, your head merchant doesn't really know if a new item is going to yield a pot of gold until the item has been offered to the customer.

There are at least two ways to drive new item productivity.
  1. Previous knowledge of the new items that are going to turn into a "pot of gold".
  2. Developing enough new items so that "x" percent of the new items will turn into a "pot of gold".
Here's an example.  In 2011, the merchandising leader created 200 new items.  Ten percent, or 20 of the new items, became "best sellers", generating a pot of gold.

In 2012, this same merchandising leader created just 140 new items.  The merchandising leader did an even better job of finding "best sellers", with twelve percent, or 17 items, becoming best sellers.

However, the merchandising leader paired back new product development.  As a result, next year, only 17 items graduate to best seller status, whereas the year prior, 20 items graduated to best seller status.

There are merchants you would trust to cut back on new product development, so long as the number of bests sellers remains constant.

For most merchants, however, it's way too difficult to know what "will work" ahead of time.  So it becomes really important to keep pushing on the new item gas pedal.  It is very common, in my Merchandise Forensics work, to identify new product development declines.  These declines hurt new items in the current year, and worse, the new items become existing items that fail to generate enough volume in the future.

Contact me (kevinh@minethatdata.com) for your own, customized Merchandise Forensics project.

June 09, 2013

Dear Catalog CEOs: Gravy

Dear Catalog CEOs:

This is called "Chicken Fried Steak", or, as your physician might call it, "a viable path to obesity".

Look at the gravy.  Heck, you can't even make out the steak, can you?  Who knows if the steak is truly chicken fried or not?

That's what we've done to the merchandise we sell.  We spent the past decade coating our merchandise in gravy.

What are examples of gravy?
  • 30% Off.
  • Free Shipping.
  • Loyalty Programs.
  • Credit Programs.
  • Loyalty Programs Implemented Via Credit Programs.
  • Credit Programs Implemented Via Loyalty Programs.
  • Sweepstakes.
  • Gifts With Purchase.
  • Pins.
  • Likes.
  • Followers.
  • Viral Videos (because, be honest, who wants to create videos that do not go viral?)
  • Catalogs designed to interest you, then drive you online, where you comparison shop and ultimately buy comparable merchandise from somebody else.  Woo hoo!
  • QR Codes.
  • Podcasts.
So many of us are now disconnected from the merchandise we sell.  Heck, we're disconnected from the merchants we used to call "co-workers".

You are the CEO of your company.  And as time goes by, your marketing employees are gravitating more to the vendor community they have outsourced most of your marketing activities to.  They are gravitating away from the employees responsible for the merchandise you sell.  Only you can re-integrate merchants and marketers.  You won't do this by "tearing down silos".  You'll do this by forcing your marketing team to understand how merchandise productivity influences marketing productivity.

The more your marketing team understands merchandise, the less they have to dazzle themselves with credit programs, percent off sales, and sweepstakes.  Your marketing team will care less about pins/likes/followers if they learn to care about the merchandising team responsible for the success of your company.

Contact me (kevinh@minethatdata.com) for your own, customized Merchandise Forensics project.

June 05, 2013


This is Miller Park, in Milwaukee, home of the Milwaukee Brewers.

It's also home of the sausage race.

The races are popular among fans.  The races sometimes make Sportscenter on ESPN.

Then the races were copied.

In Pittsburgh, they race Pierogies (click here please).

In Washington, they race Presidents - heck, you can even have a meet and greet before the ballgame, like the one enjoyed by this youngster.

In other words, when you hit on something interesting, others quickly copy what you are doing.  They "knock off" your product.

Do you sell products that are easily copied (or are branded), and are sold by those whom you compete with?

This is where you need a "decay" analysis, part of a typical Merchandise Forensics project.

It's common to observe a "decay rate" among products.  This is the relationship you'll see:
  • Year 1 = $18,000.
  • Year 2 = $56,000.
  • Year 3 = $45,000.
  • Year 4 = $36,000.
  • Year 5 = $29,000.
  • Year 6 = $23,000.
  • Year 7 = $18,000.
  • Year 8 = Discontinued.
As you can see, this item has an approximate 20% "decay rate".  Each year, you lose 20% of the volume, as the item ages into obscurity.

When the competition "knocks off" your product, you'll observe an aberration in the relationship.
  • Year 1 = $18,000.
  • Year 2 = $56,000.
  • Year 3 = $31,000.
  • Year 4 = $21,000.
  • Year 5 = $14,000.
  • Year 6 = Discontinued.
Do you see what happened in Year 3?  The item dropped off much faster than the normal decay rate (by more then 40%).

It's really important to know what your average "decay rate" is.  By knowing the average "decay rate", you can identify items that are potentially being "knocked off" by the competition.

June 04, 2013

Just Create Great Content!

It's the number one phrase you hear from the social media elite:
  • "Just create great content!"
As if it were that easy.

I imagine that the social media elite would agree that if they write 100 "great" articles, only one or two resonate.

But that's the secret, right?  One or two resonate, while more than ninety-eight percent simply fall flat.

But those ninety-eight percent keep readers coming back.  They're not excellent, they'll never be excellent.  But they keep readers coming back.

Same thing in Merchandise Forensics.

The vast majority of the items you sell generate very little volume.

A handful of items are "great".  They generate forty or fifty percent of sales.

But without the other ninety percent or more of items, customers don't have reasons to purchase.

Run a Merchandise Forensics analysis on the items that are not popular.  You're likely to learn that those items are needed, or your best customers will walk away.

June 03, 2013

Trouble Brewing - Mobile

This is a picture of Mt. St. Helens.  As many of you know, this active volcano blew, way back in 1980, long before people could live-tweet horrific events.

During the past thirty-three years, the lava dome is "on the grow".  Given time, it will fill the crater.  And then, it is likely the volcano will blow once again.

History repeats itself.

In direct marketing, history is in the process of repeating itself.  It's called "mobile".

In the late 1990s, you'd run merchandise forensics on the online channel.  It was small, it was growing like a weed, and the merchandise that early adopters purchased was different.  When I was at Eddie Bauer, we knew that the early adopters were men - they were purchasing mens apparel at rates far greater than in the catalog, or in stores.

As e-commerce matured, the experts demanded that e-commerce be "integrated" with the rest of the business.  This stripped e-commerce of many of the unique benefits it possessed - it became the low-cost, free shipping, promotional channel that everybody enjoys until they compare themselves to Amazon.

It's happening again.

Now it's common to hear that 10% of e-commerce sales come from mobile (well, it really isn't mobile - it's the iPad, but that's splitting hairs).

Have you conducted a full Merchandise Forensics analysis on your mobile channel?

Why not?

You're highly likely to be selling different merchandise in your mobile channel than you are in e-commerce.  And if you don't demand that mobile become fully integrated with the rest of your brand (hint - that's boring), well, then you'll quickly see what convenience-based, on-the-go customers need.  That need will be different than the needs of the traditional e-commerce customer.

Ready to see what mobile buyers are purchasing?  Contact me (click here) for your own, customized Merchandise Forensics project.  Just like Mt. St. Helens, direct marketing is going to blow up again.  Get ready!

June 02, 2013

Dear Catalog CEOs: Aquafresh

Dear Catalog CEOs:

You probably don't sell Aquafresh ... it's not exactly a "catalog must have", is it?

Imagine if you did sell Aquafresh in your catalog.

How, in the name of J. Peterman, would you be able to compete with Amazon?

Once I paid my $79 fee to Amazon for Amazon Prime (or whatever the heck I paid, I don't even care anymore) I essentially get everything delivered to my house, for free, in two days.  A simple list of must-have necessities can be plopped into a cart with a click, purchased with a click, and delivered in two days for free.  Omnichannel cannot compete with simplicity and low prices.

Meanwhile, over in catalog land, we're offering free shipping with $100 orders - sometimes - otherwise, it's $12.95 for shipping with a $2.99 handling fee (customers love that), and we can't price match Amazon or we'll be bankrupt in no time.

In 2013, I'm analyzing a meltdown of merchandise productivity, across the board - this is something I haven't witnessed in a very long time.  Increasingly, it's Amazon that is to blame ... we can't offer new items because Amazon will knock 'em off and sell 'em cheaper ... or one of our competitors will sell the item online (and on Amazon, for good measure), so the number of new items introduced annually are being scaled back.  Scale these items back for three or four years, and you don't have as many winners left to generate profit.  When you don't have many winners left to generate profit, customers get bored ... and move on to ... wait for it ... wait for it ... AMAZON!

Well, at least that's what Jennifer does.

Did you know that Amazon accounts for something like 25% of total e-commerce sales?  They didn't employ a catalog / retail / e-commerce multi-channel model to dominate the world, did they?

Call this the "Aquafresh Effect".

We could have seen this coming a decade ago - but we invested in multichannel instead.  We now know that didn't work, while we researched the link between a printed catalog and an e-commerce transaction, Amazon figured out what customers wanted, mulching us in the process.  It's too late, now.  Amazon won.

There are varying levels of competition with Amazon.
  • Crutchfield ... you're battling 'em head-on.
  • Cuddledown of Maine ... any innovation can be knocked-off instantly, sold on Amazon, cheaper.  Frustrating.
  • Paula Young ... sell something unique and different, something Amazon doesn't care about ... until you visit Amazon and realize they sell comparable products too, oh boy.
We lived through the "Aquafresh Effect" in retail ... the mom 'n pop store (or Kresges or Gimbels or Montgomery Wards) dominated downtown retail until Wal-Mart brought low prices to the Interstate Highway interchange.

We're going to live through the "Aquafresh Effect" in e-commerce, on two fronts.
  1. Amazon / Jennifer
  2. Mobile / Jasmine.
Our job is to think ahead, and to plan a response.  It's time to start planning, don't you think?

Merchandise Forensics, of course, is a good place to start.  Click here to contact me for your own, customized project.

Speaking of That Community You've Grown ... Known As Your Email List

I'm analyzing a business, and here's what I see. 27% of the sales come from items selling below the historical average price point o...