This is page 2 of:

Catalogs Are Better Than Social Media? Wait, Didn’t We Dump Catalogs For Social?

January 9th, 2013

But the effect Baynote spotted is clearly a lot bigger and more widespread than most retailers have assumed. As Darnell pointed out, catalogs have advantages beyond the fact that they’re large and glossy and provide a different experience than shopping on a screen. A catalog arrives in the mail (no spam filter), and even just to throw it out a customer still has to handle it, which means looking at a colorful cover. If that customer turns the first page, the catalog has done its job.

As for teenagers sitting and paging through catalogs—yeah, we’ve seen that, too. The transition from paper to screen hasn’t been nearly as clean as everyone thought. Or maybe it has just doubled back on itself.

Unfortunately, how exactly retailers can make use of this insight about catalogs is unclear. If catalogs (especially apparel catalogs) are such good influencers because of their beautiful design, does dropping in clunky-looking QR codes make any sense? If it’s the high-touch look and feel of process printing that makes the difference, is there any point in smartphone or tablet apps that act as “enhanced” viewports: hold the device over the page and see a less colorful, slightly grainier but possibly interactive image? That’s edging away from what makes paper different.

Turns out that turning pages is still a powerful marketing mechanism. And trying to over-link it to loyalty or E-Commerce could be as counterproductive as dismissing paper entirely, especially because customers already are doing a good job demonstrating how counterproductive typical retail-chain catalog strategies have been.

The core problem is still that customers will do what they do. Retailers want them to shop in-store or online; customers shop both places, with paper catalogs, social media, ads and other media also in the mix. Then they buy where they please—which can include behaviors like filling a shopping cart while shopping with a smartphone, then not completing the transaction but instead using it as a shopping list for buying in-store or in front of a PC screen, where they perceive the security to be better for sending along payment-card information.

(Never mind whether it’s actually more secure. If some customers perceive it that way, that’s what matters.)

Some vendors are trying to take the catalog and modernize it for a mobile world, but it looks like the dead-tree versions have a wee bit more life left in them than we thought.

That leads us to one of the questions we wish the Baynote study had asked but didn’t: How often do customers switch channels between shopping and buying? That type of behavior really muddles channel metrics, because it doesn’t fit into the channel models that retailers expect. But it’s the ultimate, inevitable destination of merged-channel.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.