Density, Sparsity and the 4-Cs

Solving the micromarketing challenges of the Information Age

We live in the Age of Information, so we are told.  Never before has so much raw data existed bearing testament to every  pulsebeat of human commerce, every touchpoint between a customer and a good or service.  The problem for decision-makers, according to the conventional wisdom, is Information Overload – volumes more data to analyze than the human brain can easily digest.  But it is not that simple – there are deeper challenges below the surface.

Information is not always where you need it

While the conventional wisdom is right in the aggregate, the lush and dense information rainforest starts to turn remarkably arid and sparse as you drill down into the nuanced segments of your demand environment.  At the micromarket level, infrequent transactional activity in the long tail of customers and SKUs yields little insight to inform decision making.  Managers thus face challenges that go well beyond the simplistic construct of TMI (too much information).  They need tools for managing the real information problems in their micromarkets.  These tools need to address head-on the challenges posed by what we call the 4-Cs:

• Complexity: With near-limitless combinations – of customers, products, locations, messages and channels – managers need the ability to first aggregate and then disentangle how variables related to price, assortment, advertising & promotions, and sales mechanisms affect customer demand and thus impact firmwide performance metrics like market share or profit margin.  Not knowing what impacts sales or profits raises the risk of suboptimal performance. Advanced scientific methods can help fill in the gaps where data sparsity exists and extend the vision of key decision-makers far into the details of what moves their markets.

• Coordination: Marketing involves a series of decisions, all of which have an impact on each other – yet each decision often gets made in an organizational silo isolated from other decisions.  This can produce persistently suboptimal outcomes unless managers can overcome the limitations of organizational silos.  Holistic optimization tools that provide visibility across silos and facilitate “what-if” experimentation can help achieve a clear, coordinated understanding of each single decision in a more integrated context.

• Connection: Managers need to connect to what the market is telling them in real time.  Historical transaction data can only help so much in an environment of constant flux: customer tastes change and competitive threats emerge in a Petri dish of constantly evolving activity.  It is not enough for decision-makers to learn from their quantitative systems: the systems have to learn from them as well.  This is what it means to be market aware: intimately connecting human experience and judgment with machine-based algorithms for optimal decision guidance.

• Customization: Insightful managers know that there is no such thing as an “average” customer.  Marketing and sales messages that play to a perceived average will wind up being average themselves – in other words falling short of truly connecting in the best way with target customers.  The fact is that every enterprise’s customer base is unique – defined by a distinctive combination of tastes, wants, needs and propensity to spend.  This is true even if the product line is what most observers would view as commodities.  Customizing a value proposition down to the most granular level possible can unlock the power of micromarket monopoly and defend against the margin-eroding practices of cutthroat price competition.

If the Information Age were really all about combing through volumes of aggregate data to develop key marketing decisions for your average customers then the 4-C framework would not matter so much – you could price, advertise and sell based on their perceived wants, needs and spending propensities.  But that average customer doesn’t exist.  The more precisely you can gain the necessary insights into micromarket uniqueness, the more you can calibrate marketing and sales decisions to optimal advantage.

So, if you are a marketing manager in a highly competitive industry  like foodservices, consumer packaged goods or retail, what should you be looking for in business intelligence & analytical solutions to take on the 4-C challenges?  Ask yourself three questions:

1. Can the solution really cope with the complexity of my demand environment in a way that is commercially viable, i.e. that keeps up with the fast pace of my daily decision-making?
2. Is the solution seamlessly compatible with my company’s existing technology platform including existing ERP and other critically important business intelligence?
3. Can my sales reps continue to do their jobs effectively and impart their experience and judgment without compromising the integrity of the system’s recommendations?

We’re going to come back and explore each of these questions in subsequent postings.

Subscribe   |  

Physics Envy: Pervasive, But Not Incurable

Everywhere you look, it seems, people are talking about “physics envy”.  This derisive term mocks the attempt of economists and other social sciences practitioners to imbue their disciplines with the equations and mathematical rigor of physics – a rigor that many believe fails when applied to the messy environments of disciplines like sociology or economics.  It’s not a new term – economist Philip Mirowski contributed to the Finnish Economic Papers series way back in 1992 with a piece entitled “Do Economists Suffer from Physics Envy?”

kinetic energy, not supply & demand

Eighteen years later the answer from many observation posts along the byways of public discourse appears to be: yes, they most certainly do, and so do their fellow travelers, business and financial markets experts.  After all, we just barely survived the most devastating economic event of our times, deeper and more far-reaching than any downturn since the Great Depression, and all the high priests of the field can do is shake their heads and say “wow, I sure didn’t see that coming.”  Distrust of fancy math is rampant in all walks of business life.  That presents a real problem for enterprise decision-makers at a time when they need smart quantitative tools – yes, fancy math and all – more than ever.  Markets are more complex than at any time in human history.  Giant waves of transactional data inundate marketing managers with new information every day.  Managers need science to help them gain valuable insights into the markets for their products and services – but how do they know that the growing number and variety of scientific marketing tools out there aren’t infected with the nasty symptoms of physics envy? Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

A Beer on the Beach, and Other Mysteries of Fair Pricing

Businesses want us to view them as fair – there is arguably nothing more important than a reputation for fairness in the daily marketplace of commercial transactions. As business managers what can we do to ensure that decisions we make – about pricing or other actions that are clearly visible at the point of the customer-product interaction – will be seen as fair? Is fairness something absolute, immutable and precisely quantifiable?  Or is it situational, capricious and ever-changing?  The bad news, perhaps, is that ‘fairness’ is a very elusive notion to pin down with certainty – it’s hard to put fairness in a bottle and label it as such.  The good news is that fairness more than anything else is about perception and the relative judgments of your customers and potential customers in varying demand situations.  That’s good news because the better you understand the granular contours of your demand environment and the precise needs and propensities of your customers, the more likely you are to understand how to make decisions in that environment that are both fair to the customer and profit-optimizing to your business.

thirst-quenching - but is it fairly priced?

Here’s a test of fairness.  Imagine you are lying on the beach on a hot summer day and find yourself craving a cold, satisfying beer.  What price would you be willing to pay to quench your thirst?  Now imagine two alternative scenarios.  In one, the only place within walking distance to buy a beer is the poolside bar of a swanky five-star beachfront hotel.  In the other, there is a rather run-down beachfront grocery store that sells beer.  Imagine further that both the hotel and the grocery store sell the exact same brand and type of beer.  Does your maximum price point change depending on whether you think you are getting the beer from the hotel or the store?  Do you think it is fair for two different establishments to sell the same commodity for a different price? Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

Fair Price, Optimal Price

Businesses seek to maximize the value they can obtain from their revenue models.  Price is the key lever decision-makers can operate to influence revenue, and in recent years a growing number of businesses have sought to implement strategies for actively managing the price lever – strategies such as demand management and revenue optimization.  However businesses are also highly sensitive to the perception by individual consumers and the society at large that their prices are fair, in other words that they do not violate widely held individual or societal norms.  Fair pricing matters – it matters to me, and to you, and perhaps ever more so in a climate characterized by economic uncertainty, downward pressure on demand and a perceptible decrease in the citizenry’s trust of public and private institutions.

Fortunately for business decision-makers, fair pricing and optimal pricing are not at odds with each other but can comfortably coexist.  Over the course of the coming weeks my colleagues at Sentrana and I will be approaching the rich topic of fair pricing in a series of exchanges on this blog.

debating the age-old question of fair price

What is a fair price?  This question has perplexed humanity throughout history.  Leading thought output of the ages, from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics to the Summa Theologicae of  Thomas Aquinas, Pierre de Fermat’s probability proofs and Adam Smith’s classsical economics, have all weighed in with considered opinions on the fairness and justness of alternative ways to price economic goods and services, and the debate continues today.  A series of letters exchanged between Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat in 1654 is often regarded as a primal cause of the development of modern probability theory: this exchange was actually an attempt to establish a scientific basis for the notion of fair price.  In his paper “The Unity and Diversity of Probability” Rutgers professor Glenn Shafer shows how these letters created hypothetical games of value that we today can recognize as the application of probability methods to defend a price as ‘fair’ under conditions of uncertainty. Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

From 1.0 to 4.0 in 130,000 Years: Pricing’s Extraordinary Adventure from Haggling to Scientific Micromarketing

Pricing has evolved from the ancient art of haggling to the application of scientific methods to the micromarket.  In a sense we are going back to the unique knowledge of individual customers and products that existed in the old bazaars and town squares – but we’re armed with powerful technological tools of the 21st century.  The world of Pricing 4.0 is upon us.

But let’s start at the beginning.  In the beginning there was the trade, and the trade saved humanity.  Seriously.

Homo neanderthalensis – Neanderthal man – had been occupying the planet for about 200,000 years when our ancestral gene pool, Homo sapiens, showed up on the scene (both species evolved from a common ancestor Homo habilis that had begun to make and use basic tools about 2.5 Ma (million years ago), but their evolutionary paths diverged some 600,000 Ma).  Despite what would seem to be a solid first-mover advantage thriving in the harsh Ice Age climate of Europe and Western Asia, Neanderthal man vanished from the face of the earth sometime around 30,000 years ago while the progeny of H. sapiens went on to give the world the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Magna Carta and How I Met Your Mother.  In 2005 academicians Richard Horan, Erwin Bulte and Jason Shogren presented a well-researched argument for why this happened: trade.  According to their paper “How Trade Saved Humanity from Biological Extinction: An Economic Theory of Neanderthal Extinction” it appears that our ancestors had particularly honed skills in organizing specialized activities such as tool-making, and trading their goods between different social organizations.  As the Ice Age melted and populations grew and migrated, the skills of free trade became an evolutionary competitive edge. Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

Why Pricing Must Be a Continuous Process (Part 1)

At some point, every homeowner learns an important lesson about how to save money on air conditioning during the hottest part of the summer. Generally speaking, it costs less to keep your house at a relatively even, tolerable temperature, then to turn off the unit entirely during the day and blast the A/C in the evening when you are home. The process of re-cooling the entire house each time wastes a lot of energy to get to a comfortable temperature again.

Multiple optimal prices can exist for a product, even in transparent markets. Note that all of the prices in this image apply to the exact same HP printer.

The lessons of efficiently cooling a home can be applied to many scenarios. In business, having a system in place for tweaking procedures continuously is easier to manage over time than are prolonged periods of stasis followed by dramatic transformations. Transformations are complicated. They are often expensive. If too much time passes between transformations, the organization’s inertia coefficient (a 100% made-up term) passes a critical threshold. After that point, two outcomes are the most likely, with a few shades of gray in between: (1) transformation projects mushroom from merely “expensive” to “expensive and painful”, or (2) the company is too lethargic to change, effectively dooming the business to eventual defeat or absorption by more innovative rivals. For the sake of comprehensiveness, I have to acknowledge that for a fortunate few, “federal bailout” must now be added to this list as a third possible outcome. However, in a few years we will see if my suspicion that outcome three eventually finds its way back to outcome two turns out to be correct. Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

The Price You Pay for Not Changing Price

The WSJ ran a story on 3/10/09 on the financial success of McDonald’s Corp. throughout the present recession. Since the company is one of only two DJIA members (the other being Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) to have ended 2008 by posting a gain for the year, it is perhaps only fitting that the Journal devote a few inches to McDonald’s. The only student to pass a difficult exam rightly deserves a gold star. But amidst the discussion of McDonald’s zeal for succession planning, controlled expansion and keeping a lid on costs in the face of the last year’s commodity price swings, one item deserves more attention than it received: McDonald’s is encouraging individual locations to experiment with prices.

Restaurants sit at the crossroads of both cost and demand volatility. Much to their detriment, companies such as McDonald’s often buffer both their customers and their upstream suppliers from feeling the financial impact of this volatility. Now McDonald’s is at least hinting that it wants out of this arrangement, and our experiences working with multi-billion dollar partners in the food distribution industry points to this being a wise move. We have long observed significant daily fluctuations in food prices across all categories. Couple this with the effect that a strong dollar can have on McDonald’s overseas business, and it quickly becomes clear that understanding how much a customer is truly willing to pay for a menu item is of huge value for a company so proud of its billions and zillions served.

The real question is why don’t more restaurants (or any number of businesses for that matter) treat their price as the valuable asset that it is? It is not overly difficult for a restaurant to approximate a schedule of demand and create several different menus with prices tailored to different Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) environments. For a restaurant grossing $500,000 in revenues annually, every 1% increase in sales corresponds to a $5,000 improvement to the top line (subtracting the printing costs later). In our experiences in food distribution, a 1-2% increase in the organization’s top line can translate into a bottom line improvement of over 8% – an observation that we have seen replicated in numerous industries. Projecting forward a few years, I would be willing to bet that the majority of companies with the highest valuations among their industry peer groups will also be the ones that are trying to actively shape demand through their pricing strategies.

Subscribe   |