advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

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

May 16th, 2012

Disentangling this process is impossible, but more than that, it’s not what you want. Every-channel-everywhere seems to get customers spending more. You want them more entangled, not less.

That means the idea of closing stores to match a sales shift to online is all wrong. Sure, if a store’s foot traffic is demonstrably dropping, that’s one thing—empty aisles probably mean it’s time to close or at least radically rethink that store. But a rise in online sales doesn’t mean customers are abandoning stores, or even that they’ve stopped shopping there. They’ve just stopped buying there.

That’s a problem for big chains—almost all are bricks-and-clicks retailers, but most haven’t figured out how to match up sales with costs when bricks and clicks are entangled. If the store is a crucial part of the online selling process, how do you account for the costs? Online will always look lower cost. But if cutting an apparently low-producing catalog business hurts a highly productive online business, your selling model isn’t complicated enough.

And showrooming? Here are another few details from the report: Amazon, that deadly chain-crushing juggernaut that steals store sales by getting customers to shop in-store and buy at Amazon online, had only 10 percent of U.S. online sales in 2010 (the most recent numbers for that in this report), and online is still just 5 percent of total U.S. retail in 2012, according to Citi’s estimates. Even if you leave out food, health and personal care, online is still only 11 percent. That puts Amazon’s total share in the very low single digits (around 1.1 percent), and its share of sales via showrooming from brick-and-mortar retailers is tiny compared to the threat from other store-bound retailers.

That doesn’t mean showrooming isn’t a problem. But the big problem isn’t showrooming—it’s when those showroom-shopping customers walk out of your store and buy from someone else. When they’re actually drifting away from your brand, that’s a major problem. But if you’ve got them sufficiently entangled in your merged-channel brand that they buy from your chain in some other way—in other words, the right type of showrooming—that’s just an accounting problem.

That’s a good problem to have—except now you have to explain it to your CFO, who has to explain it to analysts, so they can explain it to investors. Good luck with that one.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

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!
advertisement

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...

StorefrontBacktalk
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.