Tag: Jay H. Baker Retailing Center

J.C. Penney’s New Old CEO

JCP_Header_logoWith the company’s stock price tanking (12% yesterday), sales falling (25% for the year) and store traffic dropping off, J.C. Penney’s board decided on Monday to replace CEO Ron Johnson with former CEO Myron Ullman. Johnson, a retailing whiz at Apple before he moved to Penney, failed to get mileage out of a new strategy that eliminated coupons, cut out hundreds of brands and introduced a new boutique-type store-within-a store concept.

Was the board’s move a surprise? Long overdue? And what lies ahead for Penney given the retail sector’s ongoing challenge to persuade consumers to keep buying?

“It was clear that there were problems. The issue was how long the board’s patience would last,” says Wharton marketing professor Barbara Kahn, director of the school’s Jay H. Baker Retailing Center. “Ron Johnson asked for a full two years to test his ideas; [the board] didn’t grant him that…. He burned through money, no question. So from a business point of view, the ouster might be considered long overdue.”

If Johnson had been given more time, could he have made his new strategy work?

“That’s the big question,” says Kahn, who wrote a blog post about Penney before Johnson’s ouster. “Johnson says ‘yes’. Most in the industry say ‘no’. They say he didn’t test his strategies; he didn’t understand the customers; he didn’t understand his employee base. The margins are quite different in this business than at Apple — significantly lower at JCP – and he didn’t seem to appreciate that.”

His biggest mistake, she adds, is that he “didn’t test any of his ideas to see customers’ response and understanding. There is no question that his pricing strategy was flawed. Originally, the new pricing strategy was too confusing. The initial advertising was negative, and telling customers that they were stupid to adhere to the old price promotions is not effective or smart advertising. A few more pricing mishaps later, and finally JCP was back to coupons – which the customers demanded. And why did they demand the coupons? Because they provided a reason for the customer to come into the store. Because having a discount price provides a reference price, and we know customers base value on relative pricing strategies.”

Furthermore, in bad economic times, Kahn notes, “JCP customers needed even more incentive to go shopping. The coupons provided all of that. But by the time Johnson understood this, it was too late, and even the coupons were not effective.”

Kahn, however, also offers praise for parts of Johnson’s merchandising strategy: “It is creative and has potential. Whether there are the resources and time to implement it now is questionable.” She points to his proposal for “stores-within-stores on a ‘street’ around a ‘town center.’ The street would encourage people to linger in the store, surf the net, drink coffee. The town center would feature events. Both would increase the in-store retail experience and the initial response was good…. But there were too many stores-within-stores planned, and it was too difficult to get them implemented quickly enough. And the trouble with Martha Stewart … didn’t help at all.” Macy’s sued Penney last year after Johnson partnered with Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia to sell Stewart’s housewares in Penney stores, despite the fact that Macy’s has an exclusive contract with Stewart for certain housewares categories.

As for Ullman, “he came back out of loyalty for the store and the brand. He’s in a very tough position,” Kahn says. “There is a possibility that the store will have to go through bankruptcy to get out of the mess.” In addition, “it should be noted that some of these problems were exacerbated by a customer base that was likely hit hard by the recession. Many stores suffered during this time, although none as badly as Penney.”

Wharton marketing professor Stephen Hoch wonders why Johnson took the job in the first place. “It was a career move from hell, and I’m not sure why he wanted to leave Apple. More importantly, I never could understand his enthusiasm for ‘reinventing’ the moderate-[priced] department store,” which Hoch considers a flawed concept.

Ullman, he says, “is a seasoned retailer so he will do okay. But he was responsible for where they were when Johnson took over, and that [situation] obviously needed fixing.” Johnson’s pricing approach, Hoch adds, “was obviously not going to work, and he should have known that from his pre-Apple days.” The company has “suffered a tremendous body blow in terms of lost sales and a huge cash drain. It will not be easy for them to get back into the thick of things and succeed. The brand name is not that strong and never has been.”

Wharton management professor John R. Kimberly says Johnson’s ouster “came sooner than I expected. It was clear that his magic hadn’t transferred from Apple, but boards typically are slower to move.” And while the huge drop in sales no doubt played a role in the board’s decision, “it’s more about what was behind the drop that shook the board’s confidence, particularly the waffling on the ‘no sales’ policy and the Martha Stewart mess.”

Kimberly doesn’t think giving Johnson more time to execute his strategy would have worked. “Penney’s customers were not Apple’s customers, and it’s hard to imagine that you could really turn a JCP store into an Apple store. The whole ‘customer experience’ in the two rests on fundamentally different bases.” One of Johnson’s mistakes, he adds, is that “he may not have understood the roots of his success at Apple; he may have drawn the wrong lessons from his experience there. Certainly it wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened when a senior executive transitions from one industry to another.”

As for Penney’s chances of surviving in this increasingly difficult market, Kimberly acknowledges it will be tough. “They have some formidable competition, and they were already losing market share, which is why they [hired] Johnson in the first place. They are now even further behind. I can’t imagine investors are going to be thrilled, and it’s a stretch to imagine how they will win back customers. It will take a turnaround executive with a cast iron stomach and Teflon outerwear to rescue this one.”

Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today | Also tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why ‘Fashion Star’ Is a Win for Retailers

“Fashion Star,” NBC’s new fashion reality show, debuted to so-so ratings on Tuesday, netting 4.6 million viewers. As a marketing exercise, however, Wharton experts say it’s a likely hit for retailers facing ever-increasing pressure to differentiate themselves from the pack and stay ahead of rapidly changing trends.

Designers on the show compete to have their wares purchased by a panel of buyers who represent Macy’s, H&M and Saks Fifth Avenue. The buyers bid, auction-style, on pieces they want to carry in their stores. All of the winning pieces are available for purchase the next day. Those designers who don’t have garments purchased by the buyers face elimination by “celebrity mentors” Jessica Simpson, Nicole Richie and menswear designer John Varvatos.

“The show rolls a whole bunch of concepts into one,” says Erin Armendinger, managing director of Wharton’s Baker Retailing Center. “There’s the voting aspect of ‘American Idol’, aspects of ‘Project Runway’, aspects of reality TV and the idea of immediacy. Retailers are always trying to sell through their inventory, and this is creating built-in, pent-up demand from the night before.”

Even though the show isn’t an out-of-the-gate hit, so far it seems to be generating sales for the three retailers. On Wednesday, H&M’s online store was out of designer Sarah Parrott’s mini-dress with a cutout back, although the retailer said on its Twitter feed that the garment, which generated a winning bid of $80,000 on the show and costs $19.95, is available in select stores. The Saks Fifth Avenue website had only size extra small left of the sequined convertible mini-skirts designed by Orly Shani. The buyer from Saks offered $80,000 for the skirts, which sell for $350 each. Macy’s website was sold out of Nikki Poulos’s long-sleeved caftans, which were purchased for $50,000 and priced at $89 each.

“Retailers are looking for exclusives, and oftentimes the merchandise is in short supply – such as Stella McCartney’s and Karl Lagerfeld’s lines for H&M,” notes Wharton marketing professor Stephen Hoch. “The limited supply reduces the downside risk for the retailer and the designer. This gimmick sounds the same except that it uses amateurs, who are a lot cheaper.”

“Fashion Star” is, above all, a marketing exercise for the three retailers, Armendinger points out. “I don’t think their financial position in the show is that large. It’s not moving the needle one way or another on their inventory.” If they were able to come away having discovered an untapped talent with staying power, “that would be like kismet,” she adds. “If this person was a phenomenal designer and nobody had discovered [him or her] before now, that would be a very tiny cherry on top of a very large sundae. This is really about marketing to ‘X’ number of viewers who are watching the show.”

While Armendinger wonders if some high-end shoppers might turn up their noses at buying garments at Saks that had been featured on “Fashion Star,” she thinks most viewers won’t have a problem with the blatantly commercial aspect of the show. “This is authentic — nobody is pulling any punches here. [Selling the clothes is] part of the show.”

And in the end, the show’s failure to catch on would likely be more of a problem for NBC than for any of the retailers. Says Hoch: “If the show is a flop, it will be gone before anyone notices.”

Featured Professors:
Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today, Marketing | Also tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Hey There! (It’s a Paint, not a Greeting)

Synergy, Hey There!, Rejuvenate, Tornado Watch and Old World Romance: One might be forgiven for not knowing that these names refer to paint colors. According to a recent New York Times article, non-descriptive naming is a popular concept that may help boost sales in a sluggish economy. Yet the idea is hardly new. Manufacturers of nail polish, ice cream, sports drinks and crayons have used inventive color and flavor labels for some time, and with some success.

Why is this non-descriptive naming concept effective? A common explanation cites emotions as the reason: Color and flavor labels evoke positive associations and thus increase consumers’ likelihood to purchase. But what about less cheerful names such as Dead Salmon, Mud, Turbulence, or Arsenic (all of them paint colors) which seem to sell well despite their names? Research by Barbara Kahn, director of the Jay H. Baker Retailing Center, and co-author Elizabeth Miller sheds light on the link between a surprising flavor or color label and a positive response by consumers. It is the increased cognitive effort in processing an atypical, ambiguous color or flavor name that causes the preference.

The researchers point out two cognitive processes to explain this phenomenon, which they observed in a set of experiments on consumers’ preferences for jellybean flavors and sweater colors. The flavor and color names varied in how typical and specific they were. Typical flavors/names include pine green, cherry red and baby blue while atypical ones include rainslicker yellow and cookie monster blue. Specific flavors/names include lemon yellow, Florida orange and chocolate brown vs. non-specific ones like lucky brown, moody blue and monster green.

The first cognitive process is the mental effort to interpret the surprising flavor or color name. Consumers’ successful solving of this “mental puzzle” creates satisfaction and thus a positive attitude towards the product. The second cognitive process is the mental elaboration undertaken to make sense of why the manufacturer uses an uninformative label. Consumers presume that marketers want to convey a positive message and thus infer favorable product attributes. Both processes increase consumers’ favoring of the product.

“The New York Times article certainly implies that the paint industry is trying to differentiate their products with this tactic,” notes Kahn, especially since “the housing market, and therefore the paint industry, is particularly vulnerable in this soft economy…. Basically, as the market gets more competitive, anything that can give [a product] a differential advantage is worth a try. However, in other categories, we see the tough economy leading marketers ‘back to basics.’ If a consumer is going to buy a product, she wants it to last, to be classic, which would argue against atypical names.”

Non-descriptive naming can backfire in two ways, Kahn adds. “First, if consumers see it as a gimmick, they may try the product, but if it is only a gimmick and the product doesn’t deliver, then we wouldn’t see the repeat. Second, as I implied above, if the consumer feels conservative and is seeking ‘real value’, she may shy away from trendy items and stick to the basics.”

Kahn and Miller’s research paper is titled, ”Shades of Meaning: The Effect of Color and Flavor Names on Consumer Choice.

 

Featured Professors:
Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today | Also tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Will Fewer Choices Reap Higher Profits for the Girl Scouts?

Fans of Dulce de Leche and “Thank U Berry Munch” Girl Scout cookies, we have some bad news for you.

When Girl Scouts hit the streets (and Mom’s or Dad’s office) with order forms over the next few weeks to sell the organization’s iconic treats, many will do so with a scaled-back selection that omits newer varieties added in recent years in favor of focusing on the tried-and-true brands, including Thin Mints, Samoas (also called Caramel deLites) and Tagalongs (aka Peanut Butter Patties).

According to a story in The Wall Street Journal, Girl Scouts of the USA decided to test a more limited cookie menu in a dozen regions this year in an effort to cut costs, increase profits and retain customer interest in tight economic times when $4 sounds like a lot for a box of cookies. Cookie sales bring in more than $700 million each year for the Girl Scouts, or up to two-thirds of many of the 112 councils’ annual budgets, the Journal reported.

The reasoning behind the strategy is evident in a breakdown of cookie sales: Varieties like Thank U Berry Munch (a cookie with cranberries and white fudge chips) and Dulce de Leche (flavored with milk and caramel chips) have failed to gain much of a following. Neither did sugar- or trans-fat-free flavors designed to attract the health conscious.

Figures from the Girl Scouts show that Thin Mints account for a quarter of all sales, followed by Samoas at 19%, Tagalongs at 13%, Peanut Butter Sandwich cookies (aka Do-si-dos) at 11% and Shortbread Trefoils at 9%. The other flavors combined for the remaining 23%.

The new strategy — which also includes seminars and “cookie colleges” to teach girls business skills — makes sense to Wharton marketing professor Patricia Williams, who notes the efficiencies that come from fewer varieties to produce and easier inventory to manage.

She also points to research suggesting that there is such a thing as too many choices. “Consumers are attracted by a wide variety, but are less likely to buy from a big choice set and less likely to be satisfied with their choice when they get it home.” On the other hand, when consumers pick from a smaller number of options, “they know what they like best…. The question for the Girl Scouts will be, ‘What is the right amount of choice?’”

Williams and Barbara Kahn, a Wharton marketing professor and director of the Jay H. Baker Retailing Center, also have some ideas about why consumers didn’t flock toward healthier varieties of Girl Scout cookies. According to the online health website Calorie Count, two Tagalongs have 150 calories and eight grams of fat — enough to earn them a D-plus grade for nutrition. But as Kahn notes, “There’s something magical about Girl Scout cookies,” because they’re only available once a year and, in many families, selling the treats is a tradition handed down through generations. “It’s kind of like when you’re on vacation, food shouldn’t have calories. When it’s a Girl Scout cookie, that’s not the time you want to be reminded about low fat.”

Williams and a doctoral student did some research for the student’s dissertation that showed “when consumers want to indulge, they want to indulge.” They are uninterested in cookies minus the fat — or in Coke or ice cream infused with vitamins. “You meet the lower fat or lower sugar goals by not eating cookies. But it’s the sinful aspect of the cookie that makes it a cookie.”

Featured Professors:
Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today, Marketing | Also tagged , | 2 Comments