Increasing Demand in a Flat-Growth Environment

Economic growth in the US continues to face many daunting challenges. Companies across a wide range of industry sectors are experiencing top-line sales growth that is anemic at best, and in many cases negative. Foodservice is no exception: belt-tightening by households certainly impacts the food away from home sector. In the absence of the natural demand increase provided by a growing economy, what can enterprises do to improve their top-line performance?

certain products go together

At Sentrana we believe that companies can increase sales, even in tough economies, by understanding their own demand environments at the most detailed level possible – in other words, to be able to predict what products to offer to what customers, and to use insights from available sales data to make targeted recommendations around pricing, promotional activities and timing. In foodservice hundreds of thousands of products pass through any given distribution channel every day to hundreds of thousands of restaurants and other operators. To meet this challenge effectively manufacturers and distributors need to contribute their respective insights about products and customers onto a common platform from which to obtain a full picture of demand. Recently this has motivated prominent industry players to collaborate in managing performance across key product categories.

Manufacturers and distributors approach the growth challenge in different ways. For distributors the goal is to grow sales in the category across all products and brands; while for manufacturers the key goal is to sell their own brands at the expense of those of their competitors. At first glance it may seem like these goals are at cross-purposes. If a collaborative category management program helps the distributor capture a sale that would otherwise have been made by a different wholesaler, then that distributor generates income it otherwise would not gain. From a manufacturer’s perspective, however, this may amount to little more than channel shift – the same case of tomato sauce, say, being sold by Distributor A rather than Distributor B, and thus not a net gain to the manufacturer’s own income statement.

Despite these different goals there is a way for category management to lead both manufacturers and distributors to direct financial benefits, not merely demand shift. Consider the case of tomato sauce we used as an example above. Now, at any point in time a single manufacturer – call it Manufacturer A – has a certain market share for each product it sells. The end customer – the foodservice operator – may be buying Manufacturer A’s brand or it may be buying a competing brand. Over any defined market (e.g. regional sales territory) the incidence of purchase of Manufacturer A’s brand should be equal to this manufacturer’s share of the market.

Let’s focus first on what is happening at the distributor level. The distributor’s goal – call it Distributor A – in this scenario is to create conditions by which an end customer will want to buy a certain product from Distributor A that the customer now buys from somewhere else. That is understandable in the abstract, but in the real world how is Distributor A supposed to know which customer to approach, which product to offer, and the terms at which to make the offer such that it will be attractive to the customer to shift purchase?

The answer to this involves a technical term – association and classification modeling – and a more reader-friendly explanation: certain products go together. The distributor’s sales data may identify 100 customers who have recently purchased prepared pizza crusts, tomato sauce and mozzarella. If the 101st customer recently purchased pizza crusts and mozzarella, it is a reasonable prediction that the customer is purchasing tomato sauce from somewhere else. The models we referred to above spot this opportunity and alert the relevant decision makers. We have homed in on which product to offer to which customer.

We still have a problem, though. We have identified the opportunity at the product level – tomato sauce – but do we know enough about the customer to understand his or her preferences within that product area? From the distributor’s perspective the answer is probably: no. The distributor’s job is to move product, not to be deeply familiar with the qualities and attributes of individual brands and SKUs. So now we must move the focus upstream to the manufacturer, who does possess that deep brand knowledge. Manufacturer A can tell us what product attributes may be most attractive to the customer to whom we are trying to sell the tomato sauce. This helps Distributor A move to a further level of granularity and identify which SKU/s, out of all the possibly hundreds that exist in the tomato sauce classification, may be the most likely to induce the customer to switch from their present distributor. Manufacturer A can even provide supporting sales collateral like recipes and usage suggestions to help Distributor A’s sales representatives close the deal.

Now we come to the real value proposition for the manufacturer. What has transpired in the scenario we described above is that a sale of any tomato sauce by any distributor has become a sale of a specific tomato sauce SKU to a deliberately targeted customer. The sale of “any tomato sauce” may have involved one of Manufacturer A’s brands or it may have involved a competitor’s brand – in aggregate, as noted above, this would be in proportion to Manufacturer A’s market share. For every instance where the customer would otherwise have purchased a competing brand, the sale of a targeted SKU through Distributor A results in incremental sales growth for Manufacturer A. Not demand shift, but real incremental growth.

Not every opportunity will be realized, of course. There will be plenty of occasions when, for whatever reason, the end customer is not convinced to make the switch and continues to buy through the current distributor. In our experience, though, robust predictive technology contributes a significant positive impact with the potential to enjoy success rates well in excess of traditional penetration campaigns. In foodservice, manufacturers and distributors are only just beginning to realize the potential benefits of collaboration and establish platforms to leverage their respective contributions. With the economic landscape continuing to look challenged for the near to intermediate term, the timing could hardly be more fitting for taking this collaboration to the next level.

Subscribe   |  

Working Back from the Point of Sale

Solving Three Key Challenges to Profitable Category Management

Managing product categories for optimal performance in foodservice presents three key challenges that category partners need to solve: how to manage data reporting and analysis, conduct effective selling logistics, and close the sale. This post examines these three problems and identifies practicable solutions for manufacturers in collaboration with their distribution partners.

Data Reporting, Management and Analysis

Manufacturers often do not have regular, dependable access to sales data. Transaction information typically resides downstream, so the manufacturer must negotiate with its distribution partners to establish a mechanism for information sharing. Assuming such agreement is reached, the process may give rise to a variety of data problems. Data integrity issues are prominent among these. It is unlikely that the manufacturer will receive specially prepared sales reports – information more probably will come in the form of raw data untreated for accuracy, correctness or clarity. Readers of these reports will find it hard to obtain insights in them from which to take action on a timely basis.

What needs to happen to remedy this problem is a deeper level of collaboration between the manufacturer and distributor where each side is able to contribute the insights it possesses – product attribute knowledge from the manufacturer, customer purchase habits information from the distributor – and share this information via a common data platform. Bringing this information together in a robust data environment can help manufacturers and their partners obtain intelligence from which to make decisions about the right products to bring to targeted customers.

Sales & Marketing Logistics

Once category partners deal with the data management problem and successfully come up with actionable insights, they then need to figure out how to get those insights through the channel. “How do we get the right products onto the store shelves?” is how this exercise typically goes in the retail industry. But in foodservice a different question must be asked: “How do we get the sales representatives in the field to know what products we want to offer to specific customers, and to call up that knowledge in real time when the opportunity presents itself?” That is a different challenge than the one commonly addressed by simple SKU rationalization.

Bear in mind that the typical sales representative or marketing associate (MA) in foodservice has a full plate of selling and administrative duties he or she must perform every day, and not much capacity left over for assimilating and processing new information. Bear in mind as well that this typical MA may need to have on tap individual SKUs from over 200 product categories to supply to the regional customer base as demanded. That is far more information at the product-customer level than the MA can be expected to keep in mind without the benefit of effective selling tools. However, the MA cannot be expected to readily go up a new learning curve each time a manufacturer comes along with a new sales tool to apply to one of those 200 categories. MAs must be spoon-fed with the simplest, least time-consuming methods to get the right recommendations through the pipeline to the right customers. That means relying on what is already familiar to them, rather than overburdening them with new methods and processes.

Closing the Sale

That brings us to the last of the three challenges. Having managed to get the right products to the right customers, there remains the task of convincing the customer to actually make the purchase. Two things can help improve the odds of getting to yes. The first is knowing what combination of price and promotional discounts to offer to encourage the customer to switch from its current provider. The second is being able to back up the offer with relevant, impactful product collateral to drive home the key advantages of the products you are trying to sell.

Now, remembering that the sales representatives lack the capacity to juggle lots of different sales tools, how is it possible to actually mobilize all this information – price and promotional terms and supporting collateral – link it, and bring it to bear at the point of sale?

The Benefits of Working Backwards

The key is to keep it simple, and the best way to do that is to work backwards from the point of sale. It pays to ask how the salesperson can make this sale, armed with the right information, with as much ease and as little extra expended effort as possible. In the course of their work salespeople will tend to make use of certain selling tools on a regular basis. When a salesperson already knows how to use a tool and understands why it delivers performance benefits, a big part of the challenge is solved by leveraging off that tool to deliver category management initiatives.

Working backwards is not intuitive to everyone. Too often, when thinking about the implementation of a new performance system, decision makers create pages and pages of process work flows and front-end requirements and organizational change management specs, without asking themselves how it is going to work, realistically, in practice. A better approach is to envision how, at the point of sale, the salesperson can (a) know the right products to sell to certain customers, (b) be armed with pricing and promotional offers to increase the odds of inducing the customer to purchase from him or her, and (c) have appealing and persuasive collateral at our fingertips to close the deal. What can category management partners do to most effectively accomplish this given the constraints on the salesperson’s time and information capacity? Working backwards can offer a higher likelihood of both partners getting an impactful, measurable return from category management collaboration.

Subscribe   |  

Category Management: An Antidote to Trade Spend

Trade spend outlays continue to dominate the sales & marketing budgets of foodservice manufacturers. This is despite a persistently high level of dissatisfaction with the cumbersome administrative burdens of trade spend programs and the lack of measurable results. Manufacturers want a clearer understanding of how targeted trade promotions influence downstream demand, but instead they become enmeshed in unproductive administrative paperwork such as resolving and processing duplicate claims.

The current trade spend paradigm also does not work in the best interests of distributors. While they do benefit in the short term from the financial impact of the trade dollars they receive from their suppliers, distributors do not obtain insights from current trade spend practices that could help them more effectively grow demand across products and categories. Of more benefit would be product and assortment education from their suppliers, enabling them to identify tangible ways to tap into new sources of sales growth.

Category management, a standard practice in many retail sectors that is now gaining currency in foodservice, can be a way to attain this knowledge, use it to effectively drive growth for both manufacturers and distributors, and ultimately to phase out the unproductive aspects of the current trade spend paradigm.

Category management in foodservice can offer the following value proposition:

•    A collaborative platform between manufacturers and distributors based on shared investment of time and resources, as opposed to the general mistrust that permeates trade spend relations
•    Combining knowledge about products, customers and assortment from the manufacturers with transaction-specific insights about timing, location and volume from the distributors to create a holistic view of demand at the micromarket level of every product and every customer
•    Advanced technology to facilitate in-depth analysis and predictive recommendations around all key demand levers e.g. pricing, promotions, assortment, and purchase timing

From “Pay to Play” to “Category Captain”

The common view today in foodservice is that trade dollars are for all intents and purposes a “pay to play” ante required for manufacturers to get their products through distribution channels into the establishments of restaurants and other foodservice operators. These trade dollars are the biggest line item expense after COGS on manufacturers’ income statements, and thus comprise a commensurately large revenue item for their distribution partners. While the conventional wisdom may be that the current system is too entrenched to change, the fact is that a well-executed collaborative category management program can be far more effective than traditional trade spend in identifying the best uses of promotional budgets and delivering on them. Here the manufacturer is not simply cutting a check for some loosely-defined trade campaign and hoping for the best, but instead is taking a more active role in educating, guiding and supporting the distribution partner to increase sales. The vehicle through which the manufacturer can take on this active role is that of category manager, also known as category captain.

In taking on the role of category captain the manufacturer is essentially investing its own time and resources into helping the distributor achieve stated performance objectives. Distributors face a significant challenge in improving category performance. They lack the in-house knowledge about products, customers, and assortment that can help match the right products and offers with the right customers. Manufacturers can supply this knowledge along with supporting tools, including engaging and informative product collateral, suggested product uses, recipes and so forth to help meet objectives such as: increasing demand among existing customers; identifying new customers; and improving sales turn with higher velocity products.

Scalable Category Management

When scaled widely across multiple product categories over time, this approach can ultimately prove to be a more sustainable form of revenue than traditional trade spend dollars. One important difference is that the results delivered by an integrated, data-driven category management program can be measured against quantitative performance targets. Unlike trade spend, where unsystematic and non-automated processes make any kind of ROI analysis problematic or outright impossible, category management puts hard numbers into the hands of decision makers and executives so that they can evaluate how effective the initiatives have been.

The advantages of category management do not just accrue to the distributors. Here again this approach offers up compelling advantages as compared to traditional trade spend. Manufacturers will gain more from their investment of resources into category management than they do from their funding of trade activities. They will have access to a downstream view of demand, supported by actual daily transaction data that has traditionally proven elusive. They will have a much better sense of the timing, quantity and logistical details of customer transactions – and they too will be able to quantify this value with performance measurement tools.

In the prevailing economic climate foodservice is likely to experience strong headwinds to achieving sustainable growth and profitability. Trade spend dollars – which account for about 18% of every sales dollar manufacturers generate – are a dead weight on an industry sector that cannot afford such waste. Replacing the current paradigm with a more efficient, data-driven collaboration model such as category management offers a potential path for industry players to improve their own profitability and that of their industry partners.

Subscribe   |  

Analytics for Intelligent Category Management

Collaboration between distributors and manufacturers is the cornerstone of category management in foodservice. For a given product category a manufacturer is selected to be category captain, with responsibility for improving category performance. This post addresses some key data and analytical issues with which manufacturers should expect to deal as category captains.

So you have been asked by your most important foodservice distribution partner to be a category captain. What happens next? As captain you are tasked with managing the assigned category for optimal performance. That entails the following:

•    Analyze all products across the category (not just your own brands)
•    Augment the data provided by the distribution partner with your own internally generated insights
•    Provide structured, actionable recommendations based on intelligence obtained from the data

These recommendations relate to product assortment, pricing policies, promotional activities and other important demand levers for driving profitability. At the same time you need to educate your distribution partners, both at corporate headquarters and in the field, about the product characteristics that can help increase demand. This requires an intelligent approach to data analytics.

What insights about products can help drive category sales?

What might a good analytics model for category management look like? Let’s consider the key tasks we identified in the previous paragraph.

Analyze All Products Across Category

Category management is driven by analytics. As category captain you will receive transaction data from your distribution partner to form the basis of your insights and recommendations. The first issue with which you will likely have to deal is the quality and completeness of this information. Bear in mind that foodservice distributors are typically not used to sharing sensitive sales data with their suppliers, and may lack effective internal processes for making it available. Robust data management solutions like Sentrana’s MarketMover™ help collaborative category partners overcome this challenge by providing timely access to clean, customer-level data.

The next order of business is to map out the analytical processes that can best support your distribution partner’s objective to improve category demand. This may be best approached through posing a series of questions. For example:

•    What intelligence can we derive from the data to help identify ways to improve product demand among existing customers?
•    What patterns and associations will provide us insights about products that current customers are not buying from our distribution partner but could be enticed to buy?
•    How can we improve sales turnover by encouraging customers to switch from lower-to higher-velocity SKUs?

Augmenting Data with Internally Generated Insights

In answering those and similar questions one of your most important activities is to augment the data your distribution partner provides with your own unique insights about the products in the category. An important example of this are the product attributes that drive demand among certain customer types. Perhaps you are charged with managing baked goods and you need to figure out what the right use of shelf space will be for muffin products. Your distribution partner’s objective is to increase total muffin sales – for example along the lines of one of those three questions posed in the previous paragraph. As a manufacturer you can provide your own deep knowledge about what features and attributes drive sales among certain customers.

A critical data challenge, therefore, is to have the ability to map specific attributes to specific products. Category managers should be able to access the product database and establish product groupings and categories based on like attributes. Using the above example, for every product you can assign a  quantitative attribute metric. “Butteriness” may be an appropriate attribute for muffins, and you can rank all applicable products along the lines of “very / moderately / not very buttery”. This can facilitate more rational product groupings within the category that better enables you to analyze and evaluate assortment trade-offs, pricing strategies and promotional approaches.

This kind of product administration capability brings up in turn a whole series of issues around how to create standardized attribute definitions for each relevant subcategory and product set. By allowing category mangers to create new product and subcategory groupings, it becomes likely that these categories will not map directly to those of the distributor. A category administration functionality is required that will manage the interface between the distribution taxonomy and the specific product and attribute groupings mapped by category managers at the manufacturer.

Supporting Analytics

As you map out these processes you can get a better sense of what the analytical capabilities may look like. For example, what data exploration functionalities can help you analyze effectively? To orient your own understanding of the structure of subcategories and products to its organization in your distribution partner’s data records you need a mechanism for guided drill-down and drill-up within products, as well as in regard to customers, sales territories and other key information. There should be a filtering mechanism that allows you to view products along a number of descriptors: for example, all the SKUs currently stocked at a particular operating company of your distribution partner, or all products with the item description “frozen”.

Visualization and editing capabilities are also important components of analysis. How do you want to see the information and organize it into compelling formats for your targeted readers? You will probably want to have a variety of formats and the tools to manipulate data into different visual representations to underscore the insights about customers and products you wish to communicate. You will also want to be able to easily access and modify the reports and formats you use most frequently, and to share reporting and editing capabilities with others working on the same projects.

Providing Guidance and Recommendations

Category managers need to consider how best to translate analytical insights into actionable recommendations for their partners. For example, developing strong promotional content around products for the distributor’s sales force can be an important way to execute against category performance targets. A system for uploading, managing and exporting product-related content is thus an important functionality to consider. Another valuable feature could be scenario analysis capabilities to map out alternative approaches to pricing decisions, promotional opportunities and assortment trade-offs. Finally, manufacturers need to consider how to incorporate data from their own market sources: for example sales information at the total market level rather than just the share occupied by their distribution partner.

Collaborative category management can evolve into a long-term relationship that will improve category performance for distributors and improve overall product sales for manufacturers. Over time the scope of a category management program may expand to include enhanced predictive initiatives and a fuller set of demand levers. Building a good foundation with the right data analytics is a good place to start.

Subscribe   |  

Before You Build, Ask the Right Questions

An Approach for Robust Data Management

Building a robust data management environment is in many ways like building a house. There are three components to building a good house. First of all, there are some fundamental questions you need to ask before doing anything. Why are you building the house in the first place? What are the important goals and benefits you want to enjoy? What other things are you willing to trade off to realize those benefits? Asking and answering those questions will help with the second component: building a model, or architectural blueprint. There are many different ways to build a house (or a data management system). Not all of them will be right for the needs you have in mind. There are efficiencies to designing and building in certain ways – and, as always, there are trade-offs with any given choice. Finally, once you have established a workable model, it’s time to build out the infrastructure. That starts with the plumbing. Nothing else in the house is going to work well without good plumbing which, seamlessly and unobserved, harnesses the flow of water (or data, in our analogy) to efficient uses as and when needed. Then comes the foundation – the platform to support the house according to your model. Think of the plumbing and the foundation as the transmission pipes, the controls to regulate the flow of information, the storage repositories and the other critical supports for your data management platform.

robust systems need good blueprints

Asking the Questions that Matter for You

It’s hard to imagine that someone would build a home without first asking and answering some basic questions about what purpose the home is meant to serve. But all too often enterprise managers think of their data intelligence needs in terms of generic, one-size-fits-all products and solutions. They may be driven by the perceived urgency of getting immediate results, so they do not put the extra time into thinking through all the details that have to be in place in order for a solution to best meet their targeted needs. They build up organizational IT resources but fail to adequately integrate these resources into business decision-making processes so that business goals and technological capabilities are aligned. By not asking the right questions up front, managers increase the likelihood that their IT investment will fail to achieve the specified goals. Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

Doing More With Less: A Scientific Approach to Holistic Trade Management

For foodservice manufacturers trade spend is typically the largest expense line item, apart from cost of goods sold, on their income statements. Despite its oversized economic importance, however, trade spend is hard to pin down as an organizational function. Traditional sales and marketing activities like pricing, advertising and sales force management tend to have clear organizational mandates, departmental structures and dedicated resources. Not so trade spend, which is less a singular discipline than it is a hodgepodge of activities scattered across different departments. The lack of a holistic approach to the many divergent strands of trade spend activity can make for suboptimal results, duplication of efforts, and inability to measure and evaluate the performance of trade spend decisions.

To be more effective, managers need to break down the organizational barriers, bring their diverse trade activities, information and processes onto a common platform, and mobilize the vast amount of data available from their purchase history records to the task of analyzing opportunities for more precisely targeted trade campaigns with a higher likelihood of success. This can provide the foundation for a holistic approach that helps foodservice enterprises achieve that objective much talked about but not often achieved – turning trade spend into trade investment.

Trade spend needs to target the right products and the right customers

This holistic approach starts at the beginning, with a broad-based trade budget which managers plan across different product platforms, trade vehicles and customer types. How is the budget initially divided up? As a practical matter there is a fundamental problem here: manufacturers often end up sending most of their trade dollars to their largest customers – who are often the ones who need these dollars least – rather than the ones who could potentially grow their business and expand their product sales more aggressively. A better way to spend trade dollars is through disciplined quantitative analysis and economic scenario testing that ultimately reaches a very granular level of detail: what combinations of products and customers are likely to be the most receptive to trade initiatives? The goal is then to build a trade program that can effectively reach these target audiences, to execute campaigns with precisely defined messages and incentives, and to measure the results so as to have a plausible quantitative measure for return on trade investment (ROTI). Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

The Changing Landscape of the Foodservice Industry – Part 1

This is the first installment in a two-part series on major changes taking place in the US foodservice industry. In this installment we look at some of the key challenges, stemming from current industry practices, that  impede optimal performance by manufacturers, distributors and operators in the sector. The second installment will examine converging technologies that are poised to challenge the industry status quo, and present an opportunity to benefit through improved sales and marketing analytics for those who are prepared.

It's a new world for FAFH, but the industry remains stuck in unproductive practices

The foodservice industry, comprised of the food prepared away from home (FAFH) sector of the food & beverage market, accounts for about 46% of all consumer dollars spent on food and beverage products in the US. Over the past twenty years this business has changed considerably as American lifestyle habits, choices and spending propensities have evolved with regard to food and beverage consumption. Yet manufacturers, distributors and operators in the foodservice industry have in many ways been slow to adapt their sales and marketing practices to better serve the evolving preferences of the end consumer. As a result there are considerable inefficiencies up and down the value chain resulting in suboptimal performance for all parties. Trade spend management, campaign marketing and other critical activities suffer from an absence of data-driven input for decision-making, as well as the inability to effectively monitor and evaluate performance. Relations between trade partners are often characterized by mistrust and a lack of willingness to work together for win-win outcomes. Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

4-Cs Series: Connecting to your Demand Signals in Real Time

In introductory college microeconomics classes students are exposed to the concept of price elasticity – that is, the predicted response of a buyer in terms of quantity demanded when a seller raises or lowers the price of a certain good or service.  In the real world, companies in competitive industries are continually trying to extend insights about elasticity and other behavior-response metrics across thousands of customers and products.  The problem with this is that real-world business problems bear very little resemblance to the theoretical examples contained in Microeconomics 101 textbooks.  First of all, customer behavior is very hard to pin down.  Numerous variables affect every translation.  How can we say with a high degree of confidence that a price change was the main cause of a change in demand?  Why not something else – perhaps an especially strong and persuasive effort by the salesperson to make the sale? Or something completely outside our control, like the weather that day?

a unique processing system

Modern business intelligence systems are rising to meet this challenge by encompassing more explanatory variables into their algorithms.  But even so there is still a problem.  These models are still confined to looking backwards, to past events, to formulate guidance about what to do in the present and future.  Sales & marketing decision makers need to complement their insights from historical data with an approach that can work in the constantly changing environment of their markets in real time.  That approach has to draw on the processing capabilities of a system uniquely suited to the ambiguities and constant flux of dynamic markets: the human brain. Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

4-Cs Series: Customizing Sales & Marketing Guidance with Micromarket Precision

What marketing decisions are most critical for your organization?  Are these priorities predictable or do they fluctuate with day-to-day changes in your market?  Do you have the right data, tools and support systems at hand to make the best decisions on an ongoing basis?  Is your organization wired to optimally deploy these tools to enable different organizational silos with access to  a common view of your demand environment?

Unique challenges require customized solutions

Increasingly, sales & marketing decision makers find themselves in need of highly customized solutions to the problems that are specific to their organizations and their place in the value chain.  Manufacturers of food and beverage products may primarily be concerned with making more productive trade spend decisions, while CPG producers might focus on shoring up brand equity for premium products facing competition from substitute offerings.  Wholesalers may prioritize increasing the value of each transaction basket by inducing customers to purchase products from them that they currently purchase from competitors.  And retailers might want to better understand how their promotional campaigns resonate with target customers and what they can do to earn a better return for each campaign dollar. Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

4-Cs Series: Pricing and the Coordination Challenge

In large organizations pricing is everybody’s problem, but everybody looks at the problem in a different way.  Salespeople earn a livelihood by offering their customers prices that result in completed sales.  Account managers have to keep track of tens of thousands of price rules governing products, brands and customers.  Bean counters in the finance department are concerned about the relationship between prices and costs.  C-suite executives are motivated by how price contributes to the market share, revenue growth and profitability numbers they have to report to their shareholders every quarter.  And somewhere in the organization somebody is clamoring for a “just this once!” exception to some pricing policy in order to achieve an immediately pressing milestone.

These are all valid concerns.  The problem is that the decision makers are sitting in different parts of the organization, their objectives are often in  conflict with each other (or at the very least require trade-offs and compromises), and they are not armed with sufficient information to understand the broader impact of each price decision on firmwide performance. Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |