Showing posts with label Kroger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kroger. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Strategic Planning Analogy #393: Laziness is Not Necessarily a Bad Thing


THE STORY
There are a lot of old fables and adages about the benefits of being active/industrious versus the pitfalls of being lazy. Aesop talks about this many times in his fables. And in the Bible, wise King Solomon said, “Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.” (Proverbs 10:4)

However, consider this. We tend to praise the industriousness of the worker bee. It is held up as something to be admired. Yet, the average worker bee lives only about one to four months. Similarly, the Mayfly is a very busy insect. Yet it only lives one day as an adult. It is a very busy no-nonsense day, full of a lot of flying around and mating, but it lasts only one day—then it dies.

By contrast, the three toed tree sloth is considered to be a rather slow and lazy animal. Yet it lives for about 30 to 40 years. The giant tortoise is also known for being rather slow and lazy. Yet it has lived up to 177 years in captivity.

In fact, the general rule in the animal kingdom is that the faster you live, the shorter you live. You can see this with the rate of metabolism in mammals. Generally, the faster the metabolism, the shorter the life. That is why squirrel-like rodents live about two to three times longer than mouse-like rodents. The squirrel-like rodents have a slower metabolism.

So maybe laziness isn’t such a bad thing after all.

THE ANALOGY
Many strategies are built around trying to go after the heavy user segment. Heavy users tend to be what I call “active” customers. They love (or are highly interested in) the category. It is important to them. They love to talk about it and think about it. They may consider themselves experts in the category. And most importantly, they tend to buy a lot of the products in the category, moreso than anyone else. Isn’t it a good thing to have customers who enjoy buying large amounts of what you have to sell?

Not necessarily. There are many reasons why capturing customers who are active in the marketplace buying a lot of product may be a terrible thing for a business’ profitability. Because they are really active in the marketplace and are highly interested in the product, active customers pay more attention to what is going on.

As a result, these active, involved customers may be giving us a lot of business because they have figured out how to beat our system. They know how to only buy our loss leaders. They only buy when on deep discount (and then buy a lot). In other words, they may provide us with a lot of sales volume, but volume without any margin.

Second, high active customers can also often be very demanding customers. They tend to be more involved in the negotiations. They may ask for additional services, special orders, return privileges, free delivery, volume discounts, customization, etc. All of the added costs to meet these demands can wipe out any profitability.

Third, because they are so demanding of discounts and added services, they may be quick to leave us when a competitor provides even more discounts and services. Their active involvement makes them more aware of competing offers and more prone to switch. Because of the large volumes they purchase, small differential benefits add up quickly. Therefore, they actively seek out better alternatives. This starts a downward spiral where we keep making our offer increasingly less profitable in an attempt to keep this customer “loyal.”

This is starting to sound like the animal kingdom. Just as active animals tend to live shorter lives, highly active, heavy user customers may have shorter loyalty. Their lives as a customer dedicated to us may be very short indeed if they find another who offers them more.

Compare that to the lazy customer. They may not consume as much as the active shopper. They may be a lot less interested in what we are selling. Yet, at the same time, they tend to be far less demanding and far less likely to seek out alternatives. Their life as a customer of ours may last a lot longer (and be a lot more profitable).

Therefore, instead of trying to create loyalty among the active heavy users, we may want to consider a strategy aimed at the lazy customer. The top line sales might be lower, but the bottom line return could be very high. And the lifetime value can be very large, because they stick around longer (a longer life).

THE PRINCIPLE
The principle here is not to confuse activity with profitability. Lots of sales from heavy users may just be increasing our losses faster. In fact, lazy customers may be preferable to active, high volume customers. Customers who are slow to move are slow to move away. And because they demand less, they are usually more profitable to serve.

HBS Article
I was reminded of this when reading an article published on the Harvard Business School Working Knowledge web site. The article, published May 16, 2011, looked at loyalty among bank customers. What they learned was that:

1) Banks focusing on offering high levels of service to high-end customers were most vulnerable to losing their clients to competition.

2) Banks rated lower on service were pretty much immune when new challengers entered the marketplace (especially new challengers entering on the high service side).

The Harvard researchers appeared a bit shocked by the results. They said, “Customers you might expect to be the most 'stuck' are the ones who are disproportionately vulnerable to service competition.”

I was not shocked at all. High-end banking customers tend to be “active” customers. Banking is an important part of their life and they are highly interested in it. They like getting involved in the banking process. Because they tend to be highly demanding, they are drawn to those banks specializing in high levels of service catered to them.

Of course, because they are active, high end banking customers will also be most aware of what is going on in the competitive space. And because this is important to them and they want the best, they will be among the first to see the benefits of switching when they find something better.

By contrast, low service banks tend to cater to more of the “lazy” customer. Banking is not their passion—just a necessary evil. They want to think about it as little as possible. They don’t want to be coddled—they want just get their banking business done and over with, with the least amount of hassle.

As a result, they are not actively looking for a better banking experience. Switching is a lot of work and a hassle to them—it makes them have to think more about their banking. As a result, they tend to stay put and not leave the comforts of the old routine.

Other Examples
This point also seems to be behind recent moves at the Kroger supermarket company. Kroger is quietly phasing out their practice of double-couponing—where Kroger would discount the retail price by double the value of the manufacturer’s coupon (at Kroger’s expense). Double-couponing appeals most to the active grocery shopper. These are the people who enjoy the challenge of trying to “Beat the System” and win at the game of getting the absolute lowest prices on their food. Of course, when these active shoppers “win,” the retailer typically loses, since there is little to no profit margin in the transaction.

All the blogs dedicated to active grocery shoppers are angry at Kroger for doing this. But Kroger’s job is not to help active customers beat the system. It is to make money.

Kroger’s new emphasis is on emphasizing having the shortest check-out lines. They are claiming leadership in helping you get your shopping trip done faster than anywhere else. This is an appeal to the lazy shopper. The lazy shopper doesn’t see grocery shopping as a game where you try to beat the system. No, to them it is an awful chore—to be minimized as much as possible. Nothing would make them happier than to get out faster—so they will love the shorter checkouts.

And since lazy shoppers are less into cutting the coupons and reading the ads and all that other active-shopping stuff, their purchases tend to have higher profit margins. And they are less likely to switch.

There are lots of business opportunities in the lazy shopper space. Just find people who view a category as a necessary evil and help them avoid having to deal with it. For example, there are people who hate shopping and are willing to pay lots of money to have someone else be their personal shopper. There are people who hate having anything to do with paying taxes and will gladly turn it all over (at a healthy profit) to someone else. There are people who hate having anything to do with maintaining their house (either inside or outside). It just isn’t important to them. They will outsource it to others without blinking an eye.

In all of these cases, the lazy customers are far less demanding than those highly interested in the topic, which usually makes the lazy customer more profitable to serve. And they are less likely to leave, because leaving is too much work.

This also works in the industrial space. A manufacturer may be highly interested in the procurement of a few key components in the process, but much less interested in some of the minor components. This could cause the manufacturer to get actively involved on procuring the key components (aggressively trying to extract they lowest possible price), but gladly outsource procurement of the minor components to someone who will take all of the hassle off their hands. Hence, a manufacturing supplier might make more money serving the minor needs than the major needs.

SUMMARY
Heavy users are not necessarily your best customers. Heavy users tend to be active customers in that segment. Their activity tends to make them more demanding and more likely to leave. This can make them less profitable, in spite of their large volume. By contrast, the lazy customer may buy less, but be more profitable to serve and less likely to leave. So when developing your strategy, consider the appeal to the lazy customer.

FINAL THOUGHTS
Rather than admiring the busy worker bee, maybe we should be admiring the lazy tree sloth.

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Let's Go Krogering

It’s the weekend, so it’s time to analyze a particular retailer. Today, we will look at Kroger.

By almost any measure, Kroger is riding a wave of success. This past week Kroger announced a 36% jump in fourth-quarter profit. Same store sales are up an impressive 5.6% (5.3% excluding gasoline). Kroger is currently gaining market share against its rivals. Full year earnings per share were projected by Kroger to be up by around 9 to 12% compared to last year.

Kroger’s stock is up over 45% since the start of 2005. Kroger forecasts that the good times should continue (pending labor contracts up in 2007). In fact, Kroger is pumping out so much cash that it runs the risk of being gobbled up by some deep pocketed private equity firm.

Normally when a retail company is doing so well, one can point to a particular area of excellence that they own in the mind of the consumer. The retail consultants at McMillan Doolittle call it the EST strategy. In other words, they claim most successful retailers are either:

- Cheap-Est
- Big-Est
- Hot-Est
- Easy-Est; or
- Quick-Est

However, when you compare Kroger to its competition, it falls short on all of these factors. For most of the properties Kroger owns, someone else owns these attributes. Wal-Mart Supercenters are bigger and cheaper on an everyday basis. Usually there is someone in the market that has the hotter image with the upscale crowd, be it a Whole Foods or some other operator. Aldi’s and Save A Lot are quicker to shop and have lower prices. Convenience stores are also quicker. Kroger tends not to have the reputation for the best produce department or meat department in a market, either. It is very difficult to come up with an attribute where Kroger excels over its competition.

So what gives here? What’s Kroger’s secret?

THE TENNIS RACKET APPROACH
I call it the “tennis racket” approach. If you want to get the most effortless swing from your tennis racket, you aim to have the tennis ball it the string bed in its “sweet spot.” This is the spot that creates the least vibration and least resistance to your physical efforts.

There’s a lot of complicated physics behind this, but the thing to understand here is that this sweet spot is not located at the extremes of the racket. Instead, it is located near the center of the string bed, usually just a few centimeters closer to your hand (your source of power) than dead center. This spot is called the COP or Center of Percussion.


If you try to hit the tennis ball near the extreme edges, it creates a lot more vibration in the racket as well as creating greater negative force of resistance against your hand and wrist. Between the vibration and resistance, using the extreme edges of the tennis racket makes it virtually impossible to have an efficient swing at the ball. Effort gets wasted.

Kroger seems to understand this principle. It knows that if it moves too far in any extreme, it loses a lot of efficiencies. It takes a lot of effort to have the absolutely lowest prices, or the absolutely best meat department, or the absolutely finest produce department. And the further you move in the direction of that extreme, the faster the costs and complexities rise. The incremental return on the increasingly tougher investment starts working against you if you move too far in the extreme. And ultimately, that extra effort has to be paid for, either in higher prices or lower profits.

Rather than strive to be the absolute best, Kroger seems to strive “not to disappoint.” If you can eliminate all of the negatives, you can do pretty well, even if you have no area in which you excel.

It’s not about creating maximum consumer satisfaction, but maximum efficiencies (the most benefit for the least effort). If you can become efficient enough, you can provide a reasonable experience and still keep your prices in line. There are two kinds of efficiencies here. There are the efficiencies in lowering costs and the efficiencies in getting extra sales.

Kroger lowers costs by not overinvesting in infrastructure, labor or amenities. Departments are sized “just big enough” with just enough labor not to disappoint. Kroger then efficiently gathers extra income by adding just enough high margin non-grocery products to skim off the best (in most of its stores). It gathers extra income from the pharmacy, its floral departments and a small general merchandise area. The general merchandise area is not so large that it makes the store a challenge to shop, but large enough to gather in some good impulse sales.

To counter the everyday low pricers, Kroger uses a rather efficient high-low strategy. The high and low extremes are kept relatively narrow, so the prices are never too high to gouge a customer, yet never so low as to attract hoards of cherry-pickers who will drain you dry by only buying the low items. And usually, the lows will be lower than the everyday low prices of the big box stores.

It’s a delicate balancing act between pushing for profits and not turning off customers. But just as tennis players practice so that they usually hit the sweet spot, Kroger has practiced long and found its sweet spot—just a little better than average in the direction of their strength.

So instead of trying to beat the supercenters at their own game, Kroger’s approach is to be more efficient than the other conventional operators. There will always be people and occasions when customers do not want to put up with the hassles of a supercenter to save a little money. For these people and occasions, Kroger positions itself the most reasonable alternative, because its cost and sales efficiencies mean that it can typically afford to offer better prices and fewer disappointments than the other conventionals in the market.

As a result, when the sales volume of the supercenters force a few operators out of business, what they have done is eliminated some of Kroger’s closest competition. And that is how Kroger is gaining market share.

Kroger’s efficiencies from playing in its sweet spot have been good enough at lowering costs and raising incremental high-margin sales, that Kroger last year was able to lower its prices. The gross margin % went down a bit, but the gross margin $ went up quite a bit. The strategic approach is working. It appears that people are picking up on the old slogan that says, “Let’s go Krogering.”

FINAL THOUGHTS
Elimination of a negative can sometimes be more powerful in appealing to a customer than adding a differentiating positive…and it can often be less expensive to do so. Rather than having a goal of excellence that results in merely creating higher expectations by the customer, just try to live up to their current expectations better than anyone else.