RSR Research: Death to Payroll as Percent of Sales

Commentary by Nikki Baird, Managing Partner
Through a special arrangement,
presented here for discussion is a summary of an article from Retail Paradox,
Retail Systems Research’s weekly analysis on emerging issues facing retailers.
Assigning
labor budgets based on payroll as a percent of sales is bad and should be reconsidered.
One of RedPrairie’s innovative customers (who shall remain nameless) presented
their pilot at RedShift and their move away from the rationale and they made
a believer out of me.
The first issue with payroll as a percent of sales is that
of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Have you ever been in an airport early in the
morning to find a coffee stand that is staffed by one poor employee, hounded
by mobs of angry people anxious to buy coffee before getting on a plane? In
this case, sales have been ‘okay’ at the stand in the morning hour, but not
because of demand – it’s because the employee simply can’t serve any more customers!
How much greater would sales be during that morning rush if there were two
employees? Or three? That retailer may never know.
Now the reverse issue is a store firing on all thrusters,
but using labor it didn’t need. The example given during the session was selling
one $1 million item vs. selling one million $1 items. Which requires more labor?
So
what should you use instead? This retailer, together with a partner, developed
a method for budgeting labor based on minutes per traffic, or MPT. It’s dependent
in part on measuring foot traffic and subsequently, conversion. Measurement of
these two metrics can be controversial but it shouldn’t stop you – it’s the trend
that’s important, not the absolute numbers. Once you know how many customers,
and how often you convert per labor minute investment, you can figure out the
optimal number of minutes per traffic that should be invested in order to convert
a sale.
I have a strong feeling that this number is going to differ significantly
depending on the retailer and the category of goods sold. But the analysis
is pretty straightforward. Just look at your stores’ history of traffic, sales,
and labor hours. Plot minutes per traffic (how long an employee spends on average
with a shopper, based on labor hours divided by traffic) against conversion
rate and you get a good idea of which stores are good at making sales – good
investors of payroll – and which ones are not. You can also see a trend line
that will let you know what you should be expecting in terms of optimal minutes
per traffic to get optimal conversion.
So, as consumer spending returns, I know there are a lot of
retailers out there that suspect they are under-investing in labor and that
it might be hurting sales. Try this. Your payroll as a percent
of sales may increase in the short term, but the visibility and control that
you will have over stores’ effective use of their labor will pay you back in
spades.
Discussion Question: What do you see as the pros and cons of basing labor
budgets on traffic counts rather than sales?
Join the Discussion!
16 Comments on "RSR Research: Death to Payroll as Percent of Sales"
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I worry that delinking labor from financial gain would lead to all sorts of bad incentives, and therefore bad actions. For one, where is the incentive to convert?
The very best way to set labor levels is to examine the _marginal_ return on labor investment, rather than the standard _average_ labor productivity. It isn’t simple, but large retailers who are analytical in their view of operations run tests of increasing labor above/below the norm and measure the effect on sales. Then, they see how the effect varies by store characteristics (often store size, demographics, and competition are big drivers). With that knowledge, they understand marginal labor productivity, by store, not just to sales but to flow-through profit.
We used this with a coffeehouse client quite successfully and I profile it in my new book. Nikki is right on to suggest abandonment of the labor as a percent of sales. Fewer people on the floor due to fewer customers on the floor leads is a direct result of giving up. Number of transactions per hour over a period of a few months often can predict when the business most needs the help.
I like using a combination of traffic, sales, and conversion rate to set payroll hours. I think the biggest mistake is setting payroll hours on the same week’s metrics. I recently spoke to a store manager who feels that if she’s short of goal three or four days into the week she has to cut payroll and then has no chance of achieving her sales goal. It’s better to set the payroll budget based on a four or six week trend than on the same week’s actuals. While this might lead to higher payroll in some weeks, it also gives the store the best chance to maximize their customer opportunities and exceed goal.
A friend of mine says it’s a lot easier to work on growing sales than cutting costs in a way that doesn’t hurt your sales. So true.
There is an “invisible ceiling” on sales that is only partially effected by staffing, although that is the first issue that should be solved because inadequate staffing is a direct cause of a poor shopping experience and sets off a death spiral with bad word of mouth.
Simply adjusting store hours to traffic or sales volume is better than ignoring them but still only a shot in the dark. Charting sales to identify the invisible ceiling reveals the problem that detailed analysis and in-store observation can lead to the specific causes. Other factors that this analysis may identify include parking, cash register effectiveness, availability of shopping carts, in-stock position, etc.
The title of the RSR article is a little dramatic. But there is a great deal of truth in the article. The most important metric in planning labor is traffic. The second most is conversion rate. The third is planned non-selling activities. The fourth is minimum coverage. The fifth is the margin after selling costs per hour. The sixth is anticipated promotional uplift. The seventh is weather. The eighth is mall traffic. The ninth is recent trend of traffic conversion rates for day of week or hour of the day.
Way down on the bottom of the list is store associates costs as a percentage of sales.
The trouble of course is that point solutions like labor forecasting tools are very limited in what they can model. A better approach is to load as many of these metrics into a data warehouse and to model store labor based on the complete picture.
The one best way for scheduling labor is the one that works the best for a particular area given the season. All the above have a right place and right time. Nonetheless, Mr. Marek, direction the marginal return on incremental tends to reveal the most accurate information. Test your assumptions in the microcosm of the deli at a grocery store. A few items require little to no labor and others require substantial labor. Think you got it right? Wait until the seasons change. If your model doesn’t automatically change with the season, you are in trouble.
It’s about time the payroll as a percent of sales metric is abandoned! I’ve seen it used as the whipping tool for so long, yet it more often than not doesn’t begin to tell the much needed story. With the advent of cost effective traffic counting/conversion rate measuring solutions retailers now have the ability to properly and more effectively manage labour productivity, not with just an eye to cost containment but instead, with a more global approach to providing a great customer experience.
Most of the discussion points above (in particular, the author’s) are very valid. Keeping this discussion front and centre with retailers, regardless of the new model they choose, will pay huge dividends for customers and the bottom line!
It’s refreshing, if not in fact quaint, to think that any thinking at all goes into staffing decisions; to judge from the comments most frequently offered (both on this board and others) one would think that most companies have made the ultimate simplification: sales > 0, optimal staffing level = 0.
Let me be a bit of a contrarian here. I would never recommend using payroll as a percent of sales as a tool for scheduling labor. I concur completely with the techniques that have been described by others above. But at the end of the day, payroll as a percent of sales cannot be ignored if you want to hit bottom line cash flow requirements.
Perhaps the best way to think of it is this. The techniques being described above are all pretty much bottom-up methods at arriving at optimal staffing levels for any particular block of time. When you roll that up, however, you may find that it exceeds levels that the revenue base and margin structure can profitably sustain. So payroll to sales ratios serve as an essential top-down check on the bottom-up analysis.
Labor as a percent of revenue has been utilized since the dawn of time, however, we shouldn’t be too swift to throw it away. I believe this can be a key metric that is used in combination with other metrics, such as revenue per employee, operational expense per employee, etc. There are myriad ways to measure effectiveness, and keeping payroll dollars as a percent of sales sustains the ability to measure apples to apples versus industry peers.