November 5, 2007
Is At-Retail Marketing at Risk?
By GMDC
As suppliers turn more of their attention to at-retail marketing, they are colliding with merchants’ policies of operating an increasingly clutter-free shopping environment that calls for fewer displayers and more space, according to an IRI study on CPG trends.
The collision is putting some important issues on the table relative to what will work and what won’t in the future for in-store merchandising. Tried and true at-retail solutions appear to be seriously challenged, but new strategies, tactics and hardware do not yet seem adequate. At risk is the development of sales within the retail store.
Clean-floor retailing is indeed expanding. For example, according to IRI, the number of grocery store displays is down 10 percent over the last two years, and another 4.4 percent decline was posted at midyear. Additionally, IRI reports that the proportion of CPG categories in which only 30 percent of volume is supported by in-store merchandising of any kind expanded from 33 percent to 38 percent over the same period.
Retailers’ perspectives are starting to change, too. Retail executives are far more interested today in using a vast array of shopper insights than they were 10 or 15 years ago, and they are much more adept at using the data to identify high potential trips and specifically targeting them with innovative merchandising, promotional and assortment strategies.
At the same time, there is growing interest among marketers to field new technology in the at-retail marketing arena. For example, the IRI study quotes stats from an In-Store Marketing Institute study, which states that 44 percent of marketers interviewed believe that small digital shelf signs, which are non-intrusive on floor space, have the greatest potential to transform in-store marketing. Some 18 percent think that large network monitors at the store perimeter can do this while 24 percent believe that smart shopping carts are the way to go. And, at least one retailer is testing a shopping cart featuring a loyalty card scanner and a screen. The customer swipes the card and has several options to pick on the screen, including unadvertised specials in the department in which she is standing. The departments have RFID chips to provide the information.
Meanwhile, the IRI data seems to be saying that the traditional price, feature, and display are no longer as effective as they once were. In grocery, 72 percent of categories are experiencing reduced merchandising lift, while the figure for drug is 60 percent. And, says IRI, the percentage of categories reporting merchandising lift on the low end of the spectrum is increasing. The percentage of categories showing less than 50 percent merchandising lift was 28 percent in 2005; in 2007, the proportion has gone to 33 percent.
On the other hand, part of drugstores’ recent success in garnering share is based on traditional merchandising activity. For example, at drug stores 51 percent of vitamin volume was supported by some type of merchandising, compared to 41 percent in grocery. In hair color, 43 percent of drug volume was supported by merchandising compared to 29 percent in grocery. Drugstores have been folding such merchandising activity into total health & wellness strategies involving the whole store, based on shopper insights.
Discussion Questions: What is the future for in-store marketing as it pertains to General Merchandise and Health Beauty Wellness, especially in a clutter-free environment? Should the traditional tools be abandoned or severely limited? Do the metrics for measuring success have to be changed? What new technologies can be used to develop retail store sales in the future? How can such technologies be leveraged?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Mies Van der Rohe: “Less is more.” More upscale = less clutter. Look at Tiffany and Saks. When an upscale store has clutter, it all relates to a theme (Ralph Lauren). Target feels more upscale than Wal-Mart because the interior design is much more consistent. A hodgepodge of competing displays with no unifying theme = a key flag identifying a downscale retailer.
There are a number of competing issues. If 70% of consumers choose a brand when in the store, the merchandising is important. As more people shop less and have to process more information about more products, they don’t want more clutter. Since many consumers don’t like to shop and spend less time shopping–and more consumers shop online–retailers need to figure out what can be done to draw consumers to their outlets.
Obviously, there is no one answer that applies to all retail outlets. However, depending upon whether a retail outlet is in a mall, a strip shopping center or a stand alone store, what can be done to attract people to the outlet? What can be done to entice consumers to stay? What information helps consumers make choices?
Retailers will have to create guidelines and policies for what kind of promotional materials are appropriate in their outlet. If manufacturers can suggest ideas that attract consumers to the outlet or engage consumers once inside the outlet and promote specific products, there is a joint benefit that provides value to consumers. This solutions requires information and creativity.
Price and display are not as effective as they were in the past. This is apparent, as a software vendor, in the shifting retailer focus from store-side solutions to demand side solutions, like assortment planning and analytics tools.
These numbers fuel my optimism that grocery retailers are moving towards customer-centric approaches, by pooling customer data, running analytics and feeding advanced merchandising tools to offer an optimized merchandise offering that drives consumer traffic and purchase.
Marketers are learning two things from the recent interest in measuring the effectiveness of in-store marketing. The first is that it is both an effective and an efficient place to reach their consumers–during that phase of the purchase cycle we call “shopping.” The second is that, like everything else at retail, the stores place a value on exposure. Classic example: Slotting fees.
But there is a twist to this story that will send it in a very different direction than slotting fees and TPRs–at least to begin with. Retailers are now very aware of the fact that everything they do in the store affects the in-store shopping experience. And that experience is the major driver of whether a shopping trip is dedicated to Pathmark or Price Chopper. (Of course, that argument becomes more tenuous as the outlets achieve true format differentiation, say between Costco and CVS. But that is only because they are such different shopping experiences to begin with.)
The “twist” is exacerbated by retailers growing marketing acumen and shopper insights to use it on. And shoppers generally prefer cleaner, simpler presentations with the information that is available highly relevant and actionable.
Retailer impact? Less clutter and more high impact, targeted messages.
Manufacturer impact? Less in-store opportunities available and more expensive to buy when they are.
Bottom line? Marketers won’t be able to buy high impact in-store messaging as easily as they can buy shelf-space and TPRs.
The future? Retailers, aided and abetted by in-store marketing vehicle third parties, will invent the in-store equivalent of the “obituary ad” and the 10% TPR and sell the heck out of it.
I am very glad that this issue is getting some well deserved exposure. On the one hand, we have “the store as media” message skyrocketing in importance and even Madison Avenue ad agencies are jumping on board in droves. On the other hand, retailers are (rightfully) trying to exert better control over store communications to avoid a “media circus” within stores. This is one of the reasons why emerging technologies are so appealing–they make better use of store real estate by being able to offer multiple, targeted messages. Yet, they are struggling to garner the appropriate level of sponsorship value from the manufacturers! It’s a conundrum.
Measurement is indeed the key to this overarching debate. And, let’s face it, we are JUST now starting to make progress with in-store marketing measurement. Thus, we don’t need to be abandoning anything here. What we need to do is continue embracing the fact that shopper insights should drive in-store programs that are then measured for success. Only then can we determine what to abandon and what to further embrace. As we’ve discussed in the past, it’s a simple melding of great marketing and great merchandising practices…which has not truly been done in our retail pasts.
Regarding technologies, there are entirely too many to list here as viable. However, the one thing that they all have in common is that their successful use will be based upon each retailer’s unique business, brand and shoppers challenges and if they are activated appropriately to help solve them.
Barely, is the answer to what the retailers are doing and calling marketing in the outlet. Merchandising is a function of marketing! But, that’s another story….
More importantly, there is no transition from in-store marketing efforts i.e. merchandising, to the consumer marketing campaign’s USP! Or, why choose us?
Suppliers are also to blame for a nondescript/bland effort in separating themselves from their competitors. What happened to ambiance, warm lights and knowledgeable sales associates?
Store-within-a-store has become a blur! And few departments in a retailer’s outlet HIGHLIGHT the leading brand, newest product, or ‘best for the season’ offering.
Sad to say, stack it high, and clutter the floors with obscure signs. Not a pretty sight! Hmmmmmm
Let me propose a variation on the less is more theme. What we need is less clutter on the floor and more effective integration of promotional activity with store and shelf design and layout. One of the reasons shopping is a chore in the supermarket channel is that there is too much stuff to wade through. That’s why you have to have robotic end caps that snatch shoppers’ carts and won’t let them go until an item is purchased. However, if we did a better job in product assortment and inventory reduction and rethought fixturing, lighting and messaging, maybe we wouldn’t need all those intrusive displays, signs, flashing coupon dispensers, etc. etc. et nausea.
We are entering a period where multiple changes are putting pressure on traditional approaches to in-store promotions. From the consumer standpoint, over promotion is making shoppers desensitized and in some cases, dissatisfied with the “in your face” approach to promoting. Brands, especially in fixed consumption categories, are seeing that over promotion is eroding their brand equity and commoditizing their brands. And finally, retailers are increasingly becoming brand builders (their store banners and private labels) and less willing to prostitute their floor space.
Emerging out of this are more creative approaches to promotion that are designed to enhance the shopping experience and build brands. Permanent, well designed and strategically placed digital signage at the store parameter, department and category level can eliminate the promotional “patchwork” of displays, shippers, and other in-and-out promo vehicles while offering a fuller and more entertaining experience for the shopper.
However, screens can be clutter too, so there are a number of common mistakes that need to be avoided.
1. Do not over-screen a store. Judiciously utilize media to inform, entertain and promote for categories that need it such as general merchandise and health beauty wellness categories.
2. Keep the mind-set of the consumer top-of-mind! Time starved shoppers in a supermarket can benefit by short quick messaging, not long story lines, whereas a shopper in a drugstore buying a complex skin care product may not mind a 15 – 30 second product description.
3. Create media that fits the environment and speaks to the specific needs of that store’s consumer. With in-store digital signage content the key is relevance!
4. Lastly, retailers need to be the media owner. The model needs to be driving customer satisfaction first. If you accomplish that, loyalty and larger shopping baskets will follow. If it is just a media model to show ads and derive ad dollars, shoppers will vote with their feet…taking their dollars and eyeballs elsewhere.
We say that in a multi-channel environment, it’s all about point of contact, not point of purchase and therefore, “measurement” is fluid and in-store is just one link in the chain (and not necessarily the last). I find that many manufacturers stay locked in “show me the ROI” mode which is why retailers have difficulty garnering support for less obvious marketing investments, such as brand/product presence on retailer websites. Measurement tools are advancing; however, not everything that matters can be definitively measured; at least, not right away. Co-developing integrated, actionable marketing plans with each retailer is critical to success.
P.S. Check out the womb-like beauty beta at Wal-Mart’s Pleasant Crossing store (Rogers, AR) for a great example of how clean, clutter-free and non-distracting can be achieved in the mass environment. It’ll slow you down and get you shopping!
It’s very important to realize that the report is focused on CPG retailers, which as someone else pointed out, is characterized by a lot of impulse buys. For CPG, even if the consumer knows before they arrive at the store what categories they are going to buy, a lot of the brand choice is more spontaneous, which is why manufacturers like to invest heavily in in-store marketing–thereby the clutter. From the retailers’ perspective, there is only so much space and they have started to ask manufacturers to provide analytic justification for additional in-store marketing resources and are especially inclined to support products that the manufacturer can show has a category expanding effect. As both retailers and manufacturers become increasingly analytically savvy, the game is bound to get more sophisticated.
Retail stores are communications environments for brand messages. Within those environments, shopper media must compete for shopper attention with each other and with more traditional forms of messaging, ranging from product labels, to price-offs, to displays.
The media sage Marshall McLuhan taught that new media forms seldom replace old ones. Rather, new media displace old media, sometimes relegating them to the status of art forms. (Think of the evolution of pen-and-ink writing technology to calligraphy today.)
In the retail environment, the traditional roles of display and price merchandising are being displaced by newer, digital messaging systems that compress multiple messages and deliver them near the point of decision. The explicit messages (the ads and offers) delivered by these channels inject more information to the shopper’s decision process and therefore can influence behavior.
But there are also implicit messages carried by the mere presence of these new channels within the retail environment. So far, the new shopper media are “bolt” on, intrusive systems–not integrated into the shopping experience. The implicit message this sends may feel like an assault on the shopper–or it may be perceived as a welcome form of help. Who knows? The issue hasn’t been studied yet.
So when we talk about “clean store” policies, that begs the question, “What do we mean by that?” And further: How many overhead video screens are too many? How many at-shelf devices? Are smart carts just more clutter or a welcome shopper aid? Will paper signs become obsolete (or just art forms)?
Retailers will need to acquire an understanding of how the new shopper media impact upon the shopping experience–and soon. How else to know whether the sales bump from an at-retail message comes at the expense of long-term customer equity? Until we get serious and start studying shoppers’ behavior and interactions with in-store messaging systems, we have very little standing to argue over the value of in-store impressions. Don’t let the glowing screen fool you. This is not TV.
The landscape is certainly changing, but the upside is that the data is getting closer to actually uncovering insights. Those manufacturers who are willing to use insights to help drive categories are still having success with retailers. As I’ve said before, much of the thinking/strategizing opportunity comes down to the opportunity that can be created when true data and insights are being shared. Speaking as an agency executive with 20+ years in shopper marketing, we are oftentimes the bridge between the two parties and therefore able to really achieve insights-based strategies and communications ideas that we help our clients sell in and execute. Make no mistake, when a big idea is presented, the in-store messaging to support it is a critical part of the success of the program. The key is to match the message to the medium in an appropriate manner.
General merchandisers in particular are paying closer attention to store design and display as part of their overall marketing message. If they don’t provide consistency in-store with their merchandise content, pricing, service and advertising, they are missing a big piece of the puzzle. If this means less vendor collateral and “stuff” in the aisles, so be it.
The smart vendor is one who sees the strategic aim of his/her store partner and adapts his own strategy accordingly. Good signage, shelf talkers, endcap merchandising ideas and other tools will go a long way toward accomplishing everyone’s goals and–most importantly–satisfying the store’s mission of a cleaner, easy-to-navigate experience.
“Survival of the fittest” is as applicable inside the store as it is anywhere else. It doesn’t matter how tried and true individual marketing strategies are, if they no longer work inside the store, they’re going to lose ground to other methods that do. If removing clutter to focus on a cleaner aesthetic, forcing vendors to participate in an integrated marketing strategy, or using digital signs to cycle through multiple messages in a smaller footprint yields better results, then those strategies will become dominant until something better comes along.
I don’t agree with “Mies Van der Rohe”, especially when it pertains to GM. Shoppers go into Saks & Tiffany’s for a purpose. Those outlets don’t need to have displays on the floor. Look at the SKU count vs. the sq. footage.
The supermarket trip is a chore. Shoppers come in with a list. Very little GM if any is on that list. Therefore, supermarkets must tweak that impulse nature of the shopper – via shippers and other means of displays.
Don’t get me wrong; it shouldn’t just be thrown all over the floor but it should be controlled clutter. As for creating a theme, yes it can be done, e.g. White Sale, Home Org sale, but on an everyday basis, it can be hard when you’re promoting floor care, bakeware & batteries in this week’s ad.
Grocery floorspace is gold to retailers, and studies found that 70% of all brand purchase decisions are made in the product aisle. These two facts compete against each other. I believe that the ideal time to target brands is when consumers are creating their shopping list. A customer’s shopping list with “Bounty Paper Towels” is more effective than a list with “Paper Towels” as an entry.
If a customer can log onto a store’s website from home and create a shopping list from the store’s product database, then when a customer selects bottled water, up pops coupon offers for Nestles Bottled Water and Lipton On-the-Go, and a comparison of other brands. It is more effective to promote a brand when they are actually creating the list than while they’re walking down the aisle.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Mies Van der Rohe: “Less is more.” More upscale = less clutter. Look at Tiffany and Saks. When an upscale store has clutter, it all relates to a theme (Ralph Lauren). Target feels more upscale than Wal-Mart because the interior design is much more consistent. A hodgepodge of competing displays with no unifying theme = a key flag identifying a downscale retailer.
There are a number of competing issues. If 70% of consumers choose a brand when in the store, the merchandising is important. As more people shop less and have to process more information about more products, they don’t want more clutter. Since many consumers don’t like to shop and spend less time shopping–and more consumers shop online–retailers need to figure out what can be done to draw consumers to their outlets.
Obviously, there is no one answer that applies to all retail outlets. However, depending upon whether a retail outlet is in a mall, a strip shopping center or a stand alone store, what can be done to attract people to the outlet? What can be done to entice consumers to stay? What information helps consumers make choices?
Retailers will have to create guidelines and policies for what kind of promotional materials are appropriate in their outlet. If manufacturers can suggest ideas that attract consumers to the outlet or engage consumers once inside the outlet and promote specific products, there is a joint benefit that provides value to consumers. This solutions requires information and creativity.
Price and display are not as effective as they were in the past. This is apparent, as a software vendor, in the shifting retailer focus from store-side solutions to demand side solutions, like assortment planning and analytics tools.
These numbers fuel my optimism that grocery retailers are moving towards customer-centric approaches, by pooling customer data, running analytics and feeding advanced merchandising tools to offer an optimized merchandise offering that drives consumer traffic and purchase.
Marketers are learning two things from the recent interest in measuring the effectiveness of in-store marketing. The first is that it is both an effective and an efficient place to reach their consumers–during that phase of the purchase cycle we call “shopping.” The second is that, like everything else at retail, the stores place a value on exposure. Classic example: Slotting fees.
But there is a twist to this story that will send it in a very different direction than slotting fees and TPRs–at least to begin with. Retailers are now very aware of the fact that everything they do in the store affects the in-store shopping experience. And that experience is the major driver of whether a shopping trip is dedicated to Pathmark or Price Chopper. (Of course, that argument becomes more tenuous as the outlets achieve true format differentiation, say between Costco and CVS. But that is only because they are such different shopping experiences to begin with.)
The “twist” is exacerbated by retailers growing marketing acumen and shopper insights to use it on. And shoppers generally prefer cleaner, simpler presentations with the information that is available highly relevant and actionable.
Retailer impact? Less clutter and more high impact, targeted messages.
Manufacturer impact? Less in-store opportunities available and more expensive to buy when they are.
Bottom line? Marketers won’t be able to buy high impact in-store messaging as easily as they can buy shelf-space and TPRs.
The future? Retailers, aided and abetted by in-store marketing vehicle third parties, will invent the in-store equivalent of the “obituary ad” and the 10% TPR and sell the heck out of it.
I am very glad that this issue is getting some well deserved exposure. On the one hand, we have “the store as media” message skyrocketing in importance and even Madison Avenue ad agencies are jumping on board in droves. On the other hand, retailers are (rightfully) trying to exert better control over store communications to avoid a “media circus” within stores. This is one of the reasons why emerging technologies are so appealing–they make better use of store real estate by being able to offer multiple, targeted messages. Yet, they are struggling to garner the appropriate level of sponsorship value from the manufacturers! It’s a conundrum.
Measurement is indeed the key to this overarching debate. And, let’s face it, we are JUST now starting to make progress with in-store marketing measurement. Thus, we don’t need to be abandoning anything here. What we need to do is continue embracing the fact that shopper insights should drive in-store programs that are then measured for success. Only then can we determine what to abandon and what to further embrace. As we’ve discussed in the past, it’s a simple melding of great marketing and great merchandising practices…which has not truly been done in our retail pasts.
Regarding technologies, there are entirely too many to list here as viable. However, the one thing that they all have in common is that their successful use will be based upon each retailer’s unique business, brand and shoppers challenges and if they are activated appropriately to help solve them.
Barely, is the answer to what the retailers are doing and calling marketing in the outlet. Merchandising is a function of marketing! But, that’s another story….
More importantly, there is no transition from in-store marketing efforts i.e. merchandising, to the consumer marketing campaign’s USP! Or, why choose us?
Suppliers are also to blame for a nondescript/bland effort in separating themselves from their competitors. What happened to ambiance, warm lights and knowledgeable sales associates?
Store-within-a-store has become a blur! And few departments in a retailer’s outlet HIGHLIGHT the leading brand, newest product, or ‘best for the season’ offering.
Sad to say, stack it high, and clutter the floors with obscure signs. Not a pretty sight! Hmmmmmm
Let me propose a variation on the less is more theme. What we need is less clutter on the floor and more effective integration of promotional activity with store and shelf design and layout. One of the reasons shopping is a chore in the supermarket channel is that there is too much stuff to wade through. That’s why you have to have robotic end caps that snatch shoppers’ carts and won’t let them go until an item is purchased. However, if we did a better job in product assortment and inventory reduction and rethought fixturing, lighting and messaging, maybe we wouldn’t need all those intrusive displays, signs, flashing coupon dispensers, etc. etc. et nausea.
We are entering a period where multiple changes are putting pressure on traditional approaches to in-store promotions. From the consumer standpoint, over promotion is making shoppers desensitized and in some cases, dissatisfied with the “in your face” approach to promoting. Brands, especially in fixed consumption categories, are seeing that over promotion is eroding their brand equity and commoditizing their brands. And finally, retailers are increasingly becoming brand builders (their store banners and private labels) and less willing to prostitute their floor space.
Emerging out of this are more creative approaches to promotion that are designed to enhance the shopping experience and build brands. Permanent, well designed and strategically placed digital signage at the store parameter, department and category level can eliminate the promotional “patchwork” of displays, shippers, and other in-and-out promo vehicles while offering a fuller and more entertaining experience for the shopper.
However, screens can be clutter too, so there are a number of common mistakes that need to be avoided.
1. Do not over-screen a store. Judiciously utilize media to inform, entertain and promote for categories that need it such as general merchandise and health beauty wellness categories.
2. Keep the mind-set of the consumer top-of-mind! Time starved shoppers in a supermarket can benefit by short quick messaging, not long story lines, whereas a shopper in a drugstore buying a complex skin care product may not mind a 15 – 30 second product description.
3. Create media that fits the environment and speaks to the specific needs of that store’s consumer. With in-store digital signage content the key is relevance!
4. Lastly, retailers need to be the media owner. The model needs to be driving customer satisfaction first. If you accomplish that, loyalty and larger shopping baskets will follow. If it is just a media model to show ads and derive ad dollars, shoppers will vote with their feet…taking their dollars and eyeballs elsewhere.
We say that in a multi-channel environment, it’s all about point of contact, not point of purchase and therefore, “measurement” is fluid and in-store is just one link in the chain (and not necessarily the last). I find that many manufacturers stay locked in “show me the ROI” mode which is why retailers have difficulty garnering support for less obvious marketing investments, such as brand/product presence on retailer websites. Measurement tools are advancing; however, not everything that matters can be definitively measured; at least, not right away. Co-developing integrated, actionable marketing plans with each retailer is critical to success.
P.S. Check out the womb-like beauty beta at Wal-Mart’s Pleasant Crossing store (Rogers, AR) for a great example of how clean, clutter-free and non-distracting can be achieved in the mass environment. It’ll slow you down and get you shopping!
It’s very important to realize that the report is focused on CPG retailers, which as someone else pointed out, is characterized by a lot of impulse buys. For CPG, even if the consumer knows before they arrive at the store what categories they are going to buy, a lot of the brand choice is more spontaneous, which is why manufacturers like to invest heavily in in-store marketing–thereby the clutter. From the retailers’ perspective, there is only so much space and they have started to ask manufacturers to provide analytic justification for additional in-store marketing resources and are especially inclined to support products that the manufacturer can show has a category expanding effect. As both retailers and manufacturers become increasingly analytically savvy, the game is bound to get more sophisticated.
Retail stores are communications environments for brand messages. Within those environments, shopper media must compete for shopper attention with each other and with more traditional forms of messaging, ranging from product labels, to price-offs, to displays.
The media sage Marshall McLuhan taught that new media forms seldom replace old ones. Rather, new media displace old media, sometimes relegating them to the status of art forms. (Think of the evolution of pen-and-ink writing technology to calligraphy today.)
In the retail environment, the traditional roles of display and price merchandising are being displaced by newer, digital messaging systems that compress multiple messages and deliver them near the point of decision. The explicit messages (the ads and offers) delivered by these channels inject more information to the shopper’s decision process and therefore can influence behavior.
But there are also implicit messages carried by the mere presence of these new channels within the retail environment. So far, the new shopper media are “bolt” on, intrusive systems–not integrated into the shopping experience. The implicit message this sends may feel like an assault on the shopper–or it may be perceived as a welcome form of help. Who knows? The issue hasn’t been studied yet.
So when we talk about “clean store” policies, that begs the question, “What do we mean by that?” And further: How many overhead video screens are too many? How many at-shelf devices? Are smart carts just more clutter or a welcome shopper aid? Will paper signs become obsolete (or just art forms)?
Retailers will need to acquire an understanding of how the new shopper media impact upon the shopping experience–and soon. How else to know whether the sales bump from an at-retail message comes at the expense of long-term customer equity? Until we get serious and start studying shoppers’ behavior and interactions with in-store messaging systems, we have very little standing to argue over the value of in-store impressions. Don’t let the glowing screen fool you. This is not TV.
The landscape is certainly changing, but the upside is that the data is getting closer to actually uncovering insights. Those manufacturers who are willing to use insights to help drive categories are still having success with retailers. As I’ve said before, much of the thinking/strategizing opportunity comes down to the opportunity that can be created when true data and insights are being shared. Speaking as an agency executive with 20+ years in shopper marketing, we are oftentimes the bridge between the two parties and therefore able to really achieve insights-based strategies and communications ideas that we help our clients sell in and execute. Make no mistake, when a big idea is presented, the in-store messaging to support it is a critical part of the success of the program. The key is to match the message to the medium in an appropriate manner.
General merchandisers in particular are paying closer attention to store design and display as part of their overall marketing message. If they don’t provide consistency in-store with their merchandise content, pricing, service and advertising, they are missing a big piece of the puzzle. If this means less vendor collateral and “stuff” in the aisles, so be it.
The smart vendor is one who sees the strategic aim of his/her store partner and adapts his own strategy accordingly. Good signage, shelf talkers, endcap merchandising ideas and other tools will go a long way toward accomplishing everyone’s goals and–most importantly–satisfying the store’s mission of a cleaner, easy-to-navigate experience.
“Survival of the fittest” is as applicable inside the store as it is anywhere else. It doesn’t matter how tried and true individual marketing strategies are, if they no longer work inside the store, they’re going to lose ground to other methods that do. If removing clutter to focus on a cleaner aesthetic, forcing vendors to participate in an integrated marketing strategy, or using digital signs to cycle through multiple messages in a smaller footprint yields better results, then those strategies will become dominant until something better comes along.
I don’t agree with “Mies Van der Rohe”, especially when it pertains to GM. Shoppers go into Saks & Tiffany’s for a purpose. Those outlets don’t need to have displays on the floor. Look at the SKU count vs. the sq. footage.
The supermarket trip is a chore. Shoppers come in with a list. Very little GM if any is on that list. Therefore, supermarkets must tweak that impulse nature of the shopper – via shippers and other means of displays.
Don’t get me wrong; it shouldn’t just be thrown all over the floor but it should be controlled clutter. As for creating a theme, yes it can be done, e.g. White Sale, Home Org sale, but on an everyday basis, it can be hard when you’re promoting floor care, bakeware & batteries in this week’s ad.
Grocery floorspace is gold to retailers, and studies found that 70% of all brand purchase decisions are made in the product aisle. These two facts compete against each other. I believe that the ideal time to target brands is when consumers are creating their shopping list. A customer’s shopping list with “Bounty Paper Towels” is more effective than a list with “Paper Towels” as an entry.
If a customer can log onto a store’s website from home and create a shopping list from the store’s product database, then when a customer selects bottled water, up pops coupon offers for Nestles Bottled Water and Lipton On-the-Go, and a comparison of other brands. It is more effective to promote a brand when they are actually creating the list than while they’re walking down the aisle.