Out-of-Stocks Cost Retailers $93 Billion

A new study from RIS News and IHL Group concludes retailers are losing $93 billion in sales annually as a result of being out-of-stock on the products consumers are looking to buy in their stores.
According to the companies, retailer could increase store sales by an average of 3.7 percent if they could manage to keep in-stock.
RIS News and IHL came up with their figures after surveying 124 retailers who operate more than 85,000 stores and generate $460 billion in annual sales.
The two biggest reasons given by respondents as to why stores run out-of-stock are buyers making planning mistakes and store management failing to execute.
All channels have a large upside opportunity if they can maintain stock levels. The vertical with the biggest upside is specialty retail, which could increase same-store sales performance by 7.1 percent if it could optimize assortments and keep product on the floor.
Discussion Question: Why have out-of-stocks remained such a big issue in retailing for so many years with so little apparent progress? What has to happen to finally make this a minor if not a total non-issue?
[Author’s commentary] For nearly 35 years working in and around the retailing business, we’ve always heard about the frequency of out-of-stocks and how they damage merchants’ top and bottom lines. The story hasn’t changed. Why is that?
Join the Discussion!
16 Comments on "Out-of-Stocks Cost Retailers $93 Billion"
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Allocation has always been an issue. Let’s say that hot and trendy out of stocks (Wii’s PS3’s iPods etc) are the fault of the manufacturer and there is really nothing that can be done from a manager’s point of view.
But stores should implement a ‘never-outs’ program that managers must maintain through out the business day. Depending on what the retailer sells would determine what is on the ‘never-outs’ list. When there is a structured procedure for dealing with stock levels, the manager can deploy resources as necessary to make sure the shelves are full.
Obviously, if it’s a distribution issue, that must be addressed corporately. On a store level, the ‘never-outs’ program is the best way for managers and section captains to fill those holes and maintain service levels.
Because “managing” out of stocks implies “controlling their impact.” It’s a microcosm of the macro TQM philosophies. In our traditional business system, we target and report “99% Complete and On Time.” We do not target “Zero Defects.” We still do not believe that “Quality is Free”….
It’s a balancing act between low out-of-stocks and high inventory. Most would agree that zero out-of-stocks is not practical or affordable. Each retailer must decide what level they can afford to provide to their customers and how that will compare to their competitors. The retailers that guess right will be the most successful and the ones that don’t will disappear.
Customers will probably tolerate higher OOS if they are paying lower prices or have some other tangible benefit to offset it somewhat. Having a large assortment with replacements for the OOS items will also help.
Frankly, having visited some grocer backrooms of late, I think that we have a problem today w/BOTH high Out-Of-Stocks and high inventory…unfortunately, we often talk about these as ‘independent’ metrics but isn’t an out of stock really just a ‘negative’ inventory position? Clearly there are opportunities for improvement in store execution, ordering, planning, supplier product availability, etc. However, high OOS and high inventory are simply indicators that the entire ‘supply chain’ through to the retail shelf does not yet work very well.
Why? I attribute much of it to the lack of ‘total system’ alignment of rewards and costs.
Manufacturers and retailers choose to minimize their costs, often negatively impacting the other and within both the manufacturer and retailer silos, various functions strive to minimize their own costs, always at the expense of other ‘silo’s’. The fact that we have talked about out of stocks and excessive inventories for years is indicative of the monumental challenge that needs to be solved.
I’m coming at this from the apparel sales floor. I get customers who’d like a particular size or color my location is out of, and I know another of our stores must have it, yet getting a fellow employee who will not only pick up the phone but follow through is a tremendous effort sometimes.
I understand why there’s resistance–doing a send truly can take about a half hour from the time we find the item, fill out all of the paperwork in triplicate, pack it, call the customer for confirmation, get credit card approval, and take the item two floors away to the shipping area. This inefficiency loses us money, service quality, and customer loyalty every day; meanwhile, management focuses on gimmicky markdowns and promotions to get some sales happening….
Even with the best buying practices, the most complex of automated algorithms, space planning, perfected shipping and receiving processes and ongoing in-store training, we have found that we will never be able to accurately anticipate the human element to key in errors, put the product on the shelf in the wrong place, steal the product from the shelf, or the traffic accident that prevented the truck from getting to the store on time.
Additionally, all of the algorithms in the world can not continually accurately forecast the complexities of historical product sales data due to ever changing demographics and psychological shopping habits of individuals within store regions.
Unfortunately, stock outs are simply a reality.
It would seem that the trick is to tweak the processes within the supply chain area by area to strike a balance that will diminish the out of stock percentage to a number that is acceptable to each retailer.
At Fleming we called out-of-stocks “missed sales,” and I suspect many other retailers did and do the same. We found that OOS items were usually sale or featured items, and we had the back rooms to accommodate sufficient backup stock. Back rooms are smaller or even non-existent today. “Densing up,” the practice of storing backstock on racks above the display shelves, also has become somewhat popular, but sometimes needs the wider aisles and stronger floors necessary to handle forklift traffic.
Shoppers don’t like to substitute, even though retailers may think it’s a wonderful alternative. It isn’t. Rainchecks aren’t a wonderful alternative, either. Many of my independent retailers at both Fleming and SuperValu used a “walk the ad” program. Periodically throughout the day, an assistant manager would personally inspect the shelf condition of every ad item, which are the biggest OOS offenders. This accomplished two objectives: It identified and solved OOS, and it got the manager out of the checkstand where many of them love to “hide.”
I’m not sure how much space planning is really done with OOS in mind. More often, we’re looking at assortment mix and layouts rather than a planogram designed to keep key items in stock at all times.
I agree with many of the points Jamie Tenser made above. Adding additional layers of inventory can be very expensive, without any guarantees that out-of-stocks will decline. The way to move from 98% in-stock to 99% is in the coordinated execution throughout the organization, from the buyer right through to store ops.
There are many models out there for improving execution and organizational effectiveness, but it generally comes down to core values. Those retailers who have made execution a core value, and central to the whole culture of the organization, are the retailers best positioned to minimize out-of-stocks. As Jamie pointed out at the end of his comment, it’s not about another software package. It’s about an unwavering attention to detail, accompanied by an acute sense of urgency.
The old adage, “You can’t sell what you don’t have,” is still at the heart of the issue. And, retailers exhibiting denial about the problem are simply avoiding the awful truth. Products may theoretically be in the store or on the shelf, but if they haven’t found the correct location on the shelf where consumers expect to find the item, plain and simple, it’s out of stock!
Planogram departments that don’t consider the OOS issue may be missing a huge opportunity. Truly managing the category requires looking at every aspect (profit, retail price, adjacencies, new items, and, yes, stocking levels).
This problem will always exist. But denying it is an issue is no way to work toward resolving it.
Centralized buying and variable trade area demographics contribute to out of stock conditions. Local store management, who are most familiar with the demographics of their trade area, have not been included in the buying process. Fix this and a large part of the in-stock problems will be reduced.
There is no system or individual that can centrally manage all of the variables that exist within any city, state or across the USA without input from the management of an individual retail store.