RSR Research: Cross-channel, Omni-channel, Any-channel – Maybe It’s Time to Let Them Go
Through a special arrangement, what follows is an summary of an article from Retail Paradox, RSR Research’s weekly analysis on emerging issues facing retailers, presented here for discussion.
I’ve started a little side gig blogging for Forbes.com. This has caused me to adjust my writing style and topic choices to suit a more general audience. I can’t assume they’re techies or retailers. They’re readers.
One week I planned to write a piece about cross-channel retailing. I thought I was being clever by avoiding "The O Word," omni-channel. I decided to go with the seemingly plain vanilla "cross-channel." A casual chat with a long-time friend made me realize that even that term was lost on much of the non-retail world. When I said, "I’m going to write about cross-channel retailing," she replied "What’s that?" Oops. She’s no dummy and knows a lot of my lingo, but the term was lost on her.
Shortly thereafter I spoke with a friend who had been to a large retailer’s website looking for patio cushions (to pick up in the store). The website she went to showed inventory for some, but not all their patio cushion SKUs. She called and asked, "What the heck is wrong with these people?"
This really got me thinking. Here are some of my conclusions:
The consumer really doesn’t care about our problems. She expects consistency, not a science project, when she goes shopping. I have to say a retailer would be better served not showing any in-store inventory in a particular category if it can’t show all of it (or at least a "call to check" note). We don’t get any credit for showing "some numbers" since they may not be the numbers the customer wants.
I think the "treasure hunt" metaphor is getting tired. The argument used by retailers who differentiate online from in-store inventory is that it’s a customer treasure hunt and customers like it. I’m not buying it anymore. Treasure hunting is a hobby and consumers don’t have time to play. If H&M can afford to show their products online, so can any retailer (grocers excluded). I’ll guarantee very few have lower price points.
So, for the purpose of general conversation, I’m retiring terms like cross-channel, omni-channel, any channel, converged channel and any other term that customers won’t understand. We’re retailers. We sell stuff. And we’ll have it wherever and whenever you want to buy it. That’s what retailers do. Shopper expectations are high — we’ll have to meet them. And while I’m very aware when I’m lapsing into "geek," it turns out I’m far less conscious of retailer insider terms and notions.
Discussion Questions
Is the terminology and channel-silo thinking working against both organizational and technological advances toward creating a seamless shopping experience? Does retail need to change its focus to a more unified view of its business?
Yes! Next question.
Call it what you want, but what the consumer fundamentally wants is a seamless experience and one where the retailer can integrate a view of the customer’s activities regardless of where they shopped (online vs store.)
When we are unable to reflect on our customer’s interactions, and add value to the experience via relevant communications and offers based on what we know, then we have failed to deliver an “omni-experience.”
Perhaps we should stop focusing on channels and start really thinking about what makes sense from a customer perspective?
I do think the terms are important, if only to help a retailer define their current state. The consumer is driving all retailers (grocers excluded) to be omni-channel retailers. It is the same item online or in-store, and same price. Not always available in every store but sellable in every store or online. All the other terms, cross-channel, mulit-channel, silo channel, all means that the retailer has work to do to meet the expectations of the customer. Any item, any where, same price. If they come into your store to buy something, shame on you for not selling it to them, even if not in the store that day.
Amen, Paula. As a shopper, I’m tired of working so hard to see if I can buy from you. Even though it costs more, I stick with retailers like Nordstrom—service is great and the website is obviously designed by a shopper for a shopper.
Paula is so right. The terminology reflects a silo way of thinking that is hurting retailers from making the most of the changing trends. They MUST look at their business as a single entity. They MUST not care if a product is sold in a store or online. If fact, online provides the best business model for any retailer and they MUST approach their business that way. Make online primary and think showroom for brick and mortar.
Brilliant Paula…and a long overdue correction for us all. Of course it’s not just retailers who get caught up in their own “exclusive” language. Every profession from clergy to lawyers to technology types and—yes—even psychologists get caught up this desperate need to be “special” as Church Lady used to say.
Acronyms and multi-vowel words are generally nothing more than an attempt to be defined, to be admired as knowing things others don’t know, to reassure oneself that ‘I have value’.
The irony is that while we use language to make ourselves unique and special, that same language builds impenetrable walls between ourselves and those whose love and admiration we seek.
If we all spoke simply, the tax code would be six pages long, loan documents would be one page, most books 19 pages, policy manuals written on a sticky note and well you get the idea. Great religions would be summed up in a single sentence: “Love God and your neighbor as yourself.”
Thanks Paula, one of the most real pieces I’ve read in some time.
Hurray for Paula! It is absolutely true that we let our quest for flashy new acronyms and wonky terminology obfuscate our fundamental understanding of what we do for a living. We sell stuff. Period.
Whether retailer, manufacturer/brand marketer or service provider, we love to invent new terms and definitions for what we do. It impresses our colleagues and makes us feel secure in our professional status.
After years of corporate success being a master of these skills, I finally came to lose my tolerance for the task. The emperor had no clothes, and it was damned obvious.
One day someone asked me to discuss marketing strategy and I threw out my standard “the essence of strategy is the reduction of complexity to simplicity” line. The person asked “gee, is that the most important thing you learned at Kellogg?”
I thought about it for a second and replied, “No, the most important thing I learned at Kellogg was that no one would pay me to say that the way I originally learned it — which was, ‘Boy, if the answer ain’t simple, it’s probably wrong!’”
The terminology my grandfather used in teaching me that simple life lesson wasn’t any less correct or meaningful than my Kellogg inspired adaptation. And if I had maintained that terminology, I think I would have been a better businessman, though probably not as successful an executive.
Great, Paula! You hit a home run here. Consumers only want to know the retailers can serve them. And they want the experience to be pleasant and navigable.
Couldn’t agree more, Paula. I think there is only ONE channel to consider—the CUSTOMER channel. The rest is semantics.
Consumers care about the channel they are on at the time of consideration, either by technology or in person. Retailers unfortunately for operational reasons have to silo their operations for efficiency and logistics reasons. To create a seamless shopping experience for consumers it is a trade-off for retailers how much they want to balance operations needs and customer experience from a financial basis.
Santa Claus without toys is ultimately a bummer. His red suit and beard, while cool, mean nada if he doesn’t deliver. Santa needed Rudolph on that foggy night!
Now fast forward to when the merchant prince was replaced by the supply side—we lost Santa and became Rudolph-Driven. Paula is right: it’s about the love of a child on Christmas morning but let’s not forget that it also includes a good help desk and returns policy on December 26th. It takes many talents, it takes omni-talents—Amazon understood this when the tapped Walmart’s Rick Dalzell early in its history. Let’s do the same! Who are the great designers we can steal from the web centric firms?
First of all, congratulations on the gig, Paula! They are fortunate to have your voice.
I have more of a problem with the term “channel” which immediately brings silos and barriers to (my) mind. It has been used to describe everything from retailer segments (the drug, grocery, mass channel)to marketing and/or transaction touch points. These days, you can throw in digital channels (in-store digital network channels, YouTube channels, etc.).
The prefixes are becoming increasingly irrelevant as well since most mean “many” when simultaneous is the reality.
I use yet another term, primarily with clients and in presentations, since I can provide additional context in those settings. With others, I hold my nose and use multi or omni-channel. Back to Paula’s point, sometimes it’s just easier to stick with the current vernacular (or at least to attempt to determine what that might be)!
Retire the omni-channel buzz phrase? Watch out, the marketing types will be swinging into hyperdrive to invent the next big thing. Perhaps we can all vote this time?
I like Anne Howe’s comment that Nordstrom is ‘designed by a shopper, for a shopper’. We are all shoppers and know what we want as consumers in terms of the shopping experience (whether it be off or online, we don’t care). However, it’s surprising that despite this, so often eCommerce executives and those that design the ‘omnichannel’ experience don’t get what it means to deliver a seamless retail experience.
However, we are not yet at a place where channel convergence is mature enough for the industry to forget about terminology like multichannel, cross-channel and omnichannel. We still have scenarios where bricks and mortar store managers are compensated for their revenue only, and are fighting against the eCommerce folk, at the expense of the customer.
And this is why ‘omnichannel’ describes the problem and the future vision well. It takes a different approach to ‘cross’ and ‘multi’; thinking about the customer experience holistically regardless of what the channel is, with the core goal of a seamless retail experience for the customer, and a consistent brand representation for the retailer. It strives for the avoidance of the fight between online and offline, and avoids the over-reliance upon the latest and greatest of devices and channels.
When the customer buys, she doesn’t think of channels, she thinks of fulfilling her needs at the best value, so yes retailers need to think in a more unified way.