AMR: Retail Software Sales To Top $10 Billion by 2011

Written by Evan Schuman
November 9th, 2007

A retail community with aging merchandising applications and the need to quickly strengthen merged channel technology will fuel a sharp growth in retail software purchases for the next few years, according to a new report from AMR Research.

Retail software sales last year were $7.3 billion, with a compound annual growth rate of 7 percent through 2011, "catapulting the market to $10.4 billion," the report said.

These kinds of analytic marketshare and marketsize studies are nothing if not list-passionate and this report didn’t disappoint. The top dozen application types, by 2006 revenue, were (from Number One through Number 12): POS/Checkout. $398 million; corporate financials, $291 million; business intelligence, $231 million; merchandise planning, $166 million; human resources, $155 million; merchandise management, $150 million; customer intelligence/loyalty, $123 million; lifecycle pricing, $114 million; demand replenishment, $115 million; sourcing/PLM, $99 million; workforce/task management, $86 million; and E-Commerce platform, $77 million. (Trivia answer: the lowest of the 21 items listed was perishables and fresh item management, $15 million.)

Those also ran lots of lists of the software vendors who collectively got all of that money, starting with SAP ($210 million) and Oracle ($205 million), both with roughly 9 percent of the market; Microsoft, $161 million, seven percent; NCR, $117 million, five percent; Retalix, $77 million, three percent; SAS, $67 million, three percent; Activant, $56 million, two percent; Hyperion, $44 million, two percent; DemandTec, $36 million, two percent; Cognos, $35 million, two percent; JDA, $31 million, one percent; Aldata, $29 million, one percent; Torex, $27 million, one percent; PCMS Group, $26 million, one percent; Microstrategy, $25 million, one percent; Escalate, $23 million, one percent; Soft Solutions, $20 million, one percent; Kronos, $19 million, one percent; NSB Retail, $18 million, one percent; Manhattan Associates, $17 million, one percent; Business Objects, $15 million, one percent; Epicor/CRS, $15 million, one percent; Micros, $14 million, one percent; Taleo, $12 million, less than 0.5 percent; and PTC, $10 million, less than 0.5 percent.

"Many retailers have outgrown existing merchandise planning and management systems as they can no longer be extended enough to support new channels, banners, geographies, or processes," the report said.

"The good news for application and service providers is that retailers are shifting from a build-it-ourselves approach to commercial software, thus fueling growth in the retail market. Still, many vendors lack the out-of-the-box functionality that retailers require, which has led to retailers delaying selections or partnering for codevelopment," AMR reported. "As software matures over the next five years and vendors deliver referenceable accounts and improve integration among modules, we see the buying floodgates opening up further."


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.