Do In-Store Sales Just Move Online? It’s Never That Simple

Written by Frank Hayes
May 16th, 2012

Is online-versus-in-store a zero-sum game? Retailers with E-Commerce experience know the answer, but financial analysts have a different view. In a report this month on online retailing, Citi hits the points you’d expect: Showrooming is bad; “omnichannel” is good. But one of the report’s “questions that remain” will likely raise your blood pressure: If, say, 12 percent of your sales are now online, “does that mean that bricks and mortar retailers need 12 percent fewer stores?”

It’s a question that makes perfect sense to stock watchers—but it completely misunderstands how merged-channel retail works.

The report, which was assembled by a team headed up by veteran Citi retail analyst Deborah Weinswig, isn’t naïve about what happens when business moves to online from in-store: The cost of each sale is lower (except in cases such as unlimited free returns). To the investor mind, the right thing to do is obvious: Move all sales online and close those expensive stores.

But an interesting detail from the report cuts the legs out from under that mindset: After JCPenney killed its paper catalog business early in 2011, online sales dropped. Why? The catalog business “was a major traffic driver for,” according to Weinswig.

Think that through. The paper catalog—which everyone agreed was dead meat, unsalvageable, useless—was actually delivering customers. It was just delivering them to the E-Commerce site, not the mail-order operation. In effect, it was the type of showrooming you want: customers using one channel to shop and a different channel to buy, but all from your channels.

Back to sites-versus-stores. Another useful bit of evidence from the Citi report is that retailers who jump hard into in-store/online integration get better same-store sales. Nordstrom, for example, got a 200-basis-point improvement in same-store sales the year after the chain went live with its single view of inventory for the site and the stores. That’s not sales moving online. That’s more sales in-store due to integration with online. (Online sales went up, too, of course.)

What’s increasingly clear is that this is no zero-sum game. (That’s what we always thought; it’s just nice to get some hard evidence of it.) Customers use catalogs to cut through the clutter online. They use online and mobile to compare product features and prices, and then buy in-store. They browse in-store, and then buy online, sometimes while standing in the store. They buy online, and then pick up in-store, where they buy impulse items they wouldn’t have thought of online.

Disentangling this process is impossible, but more than that, it’s not what you want.


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.