June 12, 2011

Dear Catalog CEOs: The Catalog Is Who We Are

Dear Catalog CEOs:

I hear this quote several times a month, from many of you:
  • "I don't think you understand, Kevin.  The catalog is who we are."
This is common, and it is common across disciplines.  The e-mail marketing folks, in spite of maybe 5% of total sales, tell me that without e-mail marketing, all engagement is lost.  Social Media folks tell me that 88% of customers participate in Social Media before making a purchase, so they believe that without Social Media, business doesn't exist.  Mobile folks tell me that we will all be out of business in six months without a world class app.

When you hear the claims of e-mail marketers, or social media marketers, or mobile marketers, you are likely to scoff, right?  We know that the claims are foolish.

Back to our mantra:  "The catalog is who we are."

We're only going to have more channels in the future ... we haven't even addressed the problems that are likely to occur when Hologram Marketing arrives in 2016.

In the future, we need to define ourselves by what we sell, not by the method used to generate the sale.  Increasingly, I see a passion for the method we use to generate sales, while I fail to see passion for what we are selling.

Maybe the customer senses our lack of passion for what we sell.

June 09, 2011

Against Anything New?

From time to time, I am criticized for being against new trends and technologies.

Oh boy.

This couldn't be farther from the truth.

Allow me to amplify my position.

Here's what I am in favor of:
  • Constant strategic experimentation with new technology.
  • Innovation consistent with the preferences of your target demographic.
  • Innovation in new channels, aligned with the audience that uses new channels.
  • Sales increases that come without a significant loss in profitability.
  • Consistent profit increases.
  • Investment of a percentage of profit in new technology.
Here's what I am not in favor of:
  • Vendor hype.
  • Trade journal hype.
  • Research organization hype.
  • Blogger hype.
  • Twitter hype.
  • Social Media hype.
  • Mobile hype.
  • Strongly worded opinions not backed up by actual customer data.
  • Promoting strategies employed by individuals/artists as being able to scale enough to work at $100,000,000 brands.
  • Doing something that is trendy, but doesn't pay the bills.
  • Failure to embrace the future.
  • Discounts.
  • Promotions.
  • Lies.
  • Using new technology to force old solutions on customers.
So, if DirecTV is going to allow me to watch the Green Bay Packers play on my iPad when I am in Paris, then yes, I am an unabashed advocate of new technology.  You see, in this case, new technology solves a problem for me.


But if a smartphone allows me to scan a QR code to receive a 30% off promotion only if I "like" the brand on Facebook, well, that may not register very high on my tech-o-meter.  This does not solve a new problem.  This is simply a game that manipulates metrics associated with new channels to make the new channels look good.


Ok, time for your thoughts.  Am I biased against new technologies and new channels?  Does my lust for profitability blind me to a horizon filled with possibilities?  Are you for/against new technologies and methodologies?

June 08, 2011

Retailers and Tablets

You've probably research Catalog Spree, correct?  Click here to take a peek.

One of the mistakes we're likely to see in the next few years is the "put a catalog on a tablet and you've got multi-channel success" mistake.

Again, we have to look at the data.  Customers who love B2C catalogs are largely age 55+.

Customers who love tablet devices are largely 30-39 years old (yes, I understand, 23 year olds love tablets and 71 year olds sometimes love tablets, I get it).  And, yes, I realize that catalogers will say that we are "multichannel", that because we have a website we're not actually catalogers, and then we'll mention that 33 year olds shop the website, so tablet devices could work.  I get it.



Retail brands and catalog brands are, of course, applying "what we know" to tablet devices.  We did this in the late 1990s, remember CD-ROM?  "We will put the catalog on a CD and put the CD in the mail and the customer will love it!"  Remember?


I'm not saying that a catalog on a tablet device can't work, it certainly can, and in many cases, it will work.


I am saying that we aren't thinking through the problem in an adequate manner.


What problem does a tablet device solve?  How do we use the device to solve the problem?  Does our customer demographic even use tablets?


Odds are that placing a catalog on a tablet device doesn't solve a problem faced by a customer.  There are catalogs in print, there's our website, and now, a third way to buy the exact same item.  We need to solve a customer problem.

June 06, 2011

Multi-Channel Merchandise Productivity

Sometimes we go way too deep into our attribution activities.  We want to tie every sale to every marketing activity.

And when we do that, we lose sight of what matters.

What matters, of course, is whether an item generates profit or not.

I like to simplify things.  Roll your data up on a quarterly basis.  For instance, measure item performance from January - March.  Sum all of your catalog expense across each time the item was featured in a catalog.  Do the same thing for search, for e-mail marketing, for all other online marketing activities.

Run a profit and loss statement for each item, during the quarter.

In this case, item #2 did not generate the sales that item #1 generated, but item #2 did generate more profit.  This is the type of analysis we need, the type of analysis that is sorely missing in our channel-based, attribution-focused, tweeting-simple-kpi's world.

Focus on how merchandise performs across channels.  Spend less time focusing on channels!!  Merchandise can sell without channels.  Channels cannot exist without merchandise.

June 05, 2011

Dear Catalog CEOs: The Big Shift

Dear Catalog CEOs:

By now, you have read this newsletter from a reputable catalog vendor (click here to read the newsletter).  Yet another traditional catalog vendor is choosing, maybe because of economics, maybe because customer/clients require the shift in focus (how could I possibly know the reason), to move in a different direction, a direction away from catalogs.  I can't judge the tone or the message, I can only say that I've seen the story before ... a vendor demanding that catalogers plow paper into the mail later announces that they are initiating a process to ensure their future over the future of a catalog brand.

Here's the problem.

These vendors told you that the future was all about putting paper in the mail, paper that would cause customers to buy online.  For a decade or more, they made this promise to you ... if you were "multi-channel" the way they told you to be, your business would grow.

By and large, in the B2C world, your business didn't grow.  Is your business 30% larger today than it was in 2001?  If your answer is "yes", it means you only kept up with inflation, and did not truly grow.  A business needed to grow by 60% over the past decade to generate appreciable growth above and beyond inflation that results in an appreciable increase in profit.

In other words, "multi-channel" did not work.  At all.  Sure, there are more channels than ever before, but they don't work in a way congruent with the story told by the vendor community.  The channels sure didn't cause customers to spend more ... if anything, they simply spread out demand across channels.

The thing we never think about is the age of a customer.

It turns out that the age of a customer means an awful lot.

In other words, a large percentage of 65+ year old customers love receiving catalogs.  They thumb through the catalog, then they purchase merchandise over the phone ... not everybody, mind you.  But this is what we observe, over and over and over again.  Go ahead, overlay demographic data on your file, and you'll see this as well.

Your 55-64 year old customer was trained to receive a catalog, then shop online.  This is the "multi-channel" customer the vendor community trained us to harvest.

In other words, catalog marketing isn't dead ... among customers age 55+.  Catalog marketing is what it always has been to this audience.  In fact, run productivity reports among this audience ... you may observe minimal changes in productivity over time.

Then, the model breaks down.

Customers age 45-54 represent a transitional period.  This is where e-mail marketing thrives.  This is where search thrives.  This is the customer cohort most influenced by "Web 1.0", as the pundits say.  This customer was 30-39 when the internet burst onto the stage.  This cohort was weaned on Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, Netscape, AOL, and Amazon.  Catalogs can work among this cohort ... the key word is "can".

Customers age 35-44 are fundamentally different.  These customers are not likely to pick up a telephone.  This makes this audience much harder to track.  These customers are "multi-touch", they use numerous channels, combined with word-of-mouth, to purchase merchandise.  We have a hard time measuring "what works" across this audience.  The reality is that everything works, and nothing works.  Worse, these customers are not acquired by catalog marketing at the rates we're historically used to seeing.  This audience, by and large, is fueling the customer acquisition problems catalog marketers face.  We pay Abacus $0.06 for access to the name, but the name doesn't respond like a 55-64 year old customer.  Perform a demographic overlay, and look for yourself, you'll observe this trend, too.  The 35-44 year old audience is becoming the front-half of the "mobile generation" ... meaning they have earning power and they embrace technology in ways that customers age 45+ struggle to understand.  In many ways, this is the iPod/iPad generation.  This generation adores free shipping (think Zappos).  This generation bores easily.  This generation has a foot in both old and new, with a skew toward new.

Customers age 18-34 are, again, fundamentally different.  Catalogs have very little relevance here, on a mass scale ... perform the demographic overlay and run your productivity reports, you'll see what I'm talking about.  This is the "Web 2.0" generation ... no, not the 56 year old who tells us about the "social customer", but the 26 year old who actually uses social tools to behave in a fundamentally different way than other customers behave, fusing social and mobile in ways that a 56 year old marketer cannot leverage in a way that allows a business to "scale".  It's this infinite number of micro-channels across a diverse array of potential customers that frustrates traditional marketers (i.e. catalogers).  The cataloger wants to rent 2,000,000 names for $120,000.  This audience seemingly cannot be reached by "one size fits all" message ... unless, of course, that message is delivered though channels embraced by this audience.  By and large, catalogs are not embraced by this audience.

The big shift in the past decade is the abandonment by customers age 18-44 of the catalog business model.  We focused on using the catalog to drive a customer online, and by doing so, we attracted a 45-74 year old audience.  A decade later, we cut the 18-44 year old audience out of our business.

We aren't getting these customers back by working harder.

We can say that the customer "changed", like some in the vendor community suggest.  This is the easy way out, it allows us to, once again, make incorrect predictions about the future, it allows us to purse new technologies tethered to old business models (i.e. catalog on iPads).  This strategy has a low probability of success.

Customers haven't changed.  Demographics changed.  Baby Boomer kids now dominate the 18-29 year old demographic, and are about to enter prime earning years.  Baby Boomers dominate the 45-64 year old demographic, and are heading toward retirement.

In other words, it is my opinion that we need two business models.

We need a catalog business model calibrated to a 55+ audience.  This model will undergo consistent and frequent budget cuts, increased targeting, maximization of the "organic percentage", harvesting of profit, and a general wind-down over the next decade as the 55+ audience becomes a 65+ audience.  We optimize profit, then we exit the business model at some point.

We also need a business model calibrated to an 18-44 year old audience.  This model is not likely to include a traditional catalog strategy, though print can be used from time to time.  This model requires fundamentally different thinking.  It is my opinion that we must invest in this audience, this audience assures our future.

Right now, "The Big Shift" is steamrolling us.  We are essentially addressing the 55+ audience, and wondering why our businesses are eroding?  We must begin investing in the 18-44 year old audience, if we want to remain relevant in 2020, while optimizing profitability from catalog mailings to the 55+ audience.

June 02, 2011

Groupon SEC Filing Tidbits

By now, you've had an opportunity to thumb through the Groupon SEC Filing (click here to read it).

I want for you to digest this for a moment:
  • 2010 Annual Revenue = $713,365,000.
  • 2010 Annual Loss = $413,386,000.
  • 2011 Q1 Revenue = $644,728,000.
  • 2011 Q1 Loss = $113,891,000.
  • Customers like Groupon.  Groupon loses money.  Retailers, on average, lose money.  Oh boy.
Now, I'm no Carnac the Magnificent.  But this seems to be headed in one of three directions.
  1. Groupon blows up like Amazon.com, becoming a social commerce institution, redefining online and physical retail in the process.
  2. Groupon blows up like Pets.com, and is talked about for a decade or more as a symbol of the social commerce bubble.
  3. Groupon is blitzed by rampant competition, becoming something that didn't scale, but didn't fail, either (this is my guess).

Other Notes:
  • 83,000,000 subscribers to-date, only 28,100,000 Groupons sold ... and only 15,800,000 customers (meaning about 2 sold per customer, weighted down by Spring 2011 blitz).
  • Maybe $25 revenue per Groupon sold.  Keep doing the math ... about $50 per customer, to-date.  That's not a lot of cheese, folks.
  • Company spent $241,000,000 in marketing in 2010.
  • Company spent $179,000,000 in marketing in Q1-2011.  Just think about that one for a moment.  That's called "buying scale".
  • If Groupon sends an e-mail every day to a subscriber, and there were a weighted average of 65,000,000 subscribers in Q1-2011, and 28,094,000 Groupons were sold, then the conversion rate of an e-mail campaign is (28,094,000) / (65,000,000 * 90) = 0.48% ... or one in 208 subscribers buy a Groupon.  In other words, that's a rate that is fairly consistent with many e-commerce brands, except that the AOV is, by definition, much lower.
  • Gross Profit in Q1-2011 is about 41%.  It was about 39% last year.  That's less than the 50/50 share that is widely publicized.
  • Pay attention to the marketing channels used by Groupon:  Search, Social Networking, Portal Ads, E-Mail Marketing, Affiliates, Television, Radio, and Print.  It's amazing how the social commerce mudheads cheerlead their channel, and yet, look at the traditional advertising channels used to drive a prospect to a social commerce brand.  Primary ad channels were Search and Social Networking, by the way.
  • In Q1-2011, the company is spending about $8 in marketing cost to generate each Groupon sold.
  • Marketing is 32% of revenue in Q1-2011 ... that number is a bit beefy, folks, though not terribly unusual (yes, social commerce experts, I get it, they're "ramping up" in an effort to "scale" prior to going public).
  • 46% of revenue from North America.
  • Customers are consistently around 20% of the subscriber base.  Keep that metric in mind, and pay close attention to it, going forward.  Subscribers will tap out in the next few years, in all likelihood, so growth must come from an increase in the conversion rate, or from complimentary products.
  • If it truly costs $6 to $9 of marketing expense to acquire a customer, then it will take just one Groupon sold, plus/minus, to pay for marketing costs, after accounting for gross margin ... that's not unreasonable, folks.

June 01, 2011

Profit Models

I get to see a lot of different business models.  Each model has a clear path to profitability.

There are businesses that have high return rates.  These businesses require high levels of customer productivity, in order to generate profit.


Demand
$5,000,000
Net Sales 75.0% $3,750,000
Gross Margin 55.0% $2,062,500
Less Marketing Cost
$750,000
Less Pick/Pack/Ship 10.0% $375,000
Variable Operating Profit
$937,500

Many businesses do not have a returns problem, meaning that customers keep what they purchase.  When that happens, customer productivity doesn't need to be as great in order to generate profit ... in our case, productivity is twenty percent less, and yet, profit is the same.



Demand
$3,905,000
Net Sales 96.0% $3,748,800
Gross Margin 55.0% $2,061,840
Less Marketing Cost
$749,760
Less Pick/Pack/Ship 10.0% $374,880
Variable Operating Profit
$937,200


I work with a lot of businesses that are struggling.  You can tell that the business had to manufacture profit via efficiency ... it becomes obvious when looking at the metrics.  Take a look at this one:



Demand
$2,540,000
Net Sales 90.0% $2,286,000
Gross Margin 65.0% $1,485,900
Less Marketing Cost
$457,200
Less Pick/Pack/Ship 4.0% $91,440
Variable Operating Profit
$937,260


Productivity is really, really low in this case.  However, the business managed to optimize gross margin dollars, and are running an efficient distribution center.  As a result, the business generates a healthy amount of profit on low productivity.


The internet world loves business models that "scale" ... meaning that you generate profit on low margins and high volume.  Here's an example:



Demand
$14,525,000
Net Sales 90.0% $13,072,500
Gross Margin 15.0% $1,960,875
Less Marketing Cost
$500,000
Less Pick/Pack/Ship 4.0% $522,900
Variable Operating Profit
$937,975


This is a very different business model, isn't it?  You need a high level of demand, a high level of marketing productivity, and an efficient expense structure.  Combined, you end up with the same level of profitability that you obtained via the other business models.


The pundits will tell you what kind of business model you have to employ ... hint ... they really like one that "scales", one with low margins and high volume.


The reality is that there are many ways to generate profit.  Chart your own course.

Content Creation

Here's the link . I realize many of you are stymied by creating content for your customers. Some of you would say the video above is poi...