In a sentence, Penney’s problem is that its strategy is nothing more than pedestrian merchandising hidden behind glossy advertising wrapped with some damn fine hype.
The pricing plan was never explained or substantiated. Nobody knows what the real price of products should be at any store, not just Penney’s, which means there’s always going to be a suspicion or expectation that they can (or should) go lower. The “no sale” strategy was opaque on this fundamental issue when it could have established a new approach to support its prices with clearer explanations of costs, more transparency on suppliers, even aggressive attacks on the competitions’ pricing. The ads Penney ran on its pricing were idiotic to the point of being irrelevant. So consumers missed sales because they were never given a reason to embrace the alternative.
It was simply a marketing ploy when it could have been a real business change strategy. Imagine if Penney had established new rules for its buyers that it could point to as proof of its claims. It could have created new financing and lay-away policies that communicated value, and used social media to create meaningful communities of consumers who wanted to track and participate in conversations about prices. Employees could have been recruited and trained to offer a fundamentally new customer experience based on integrity — after all, James Cash Penney started out at a store called “Golden Rule” before buying and renaming the company — perhaps coming up with novel ways to incentivize them.
Alas, no. None of it was promoted because none of it happened or, worse, maybe it is underway, but the company’s brand experts feel that such operational substance isn’t important. But news about operations gets out anyway, so instead we’ve learned that suppliers are questioning the company’s cash position and employees are leaving the place in droves…while the brand squanders millions on marketing that tells us nothing.
And all those grandiose promises about the merchandising! Ever tidbit of bad news has been countered with claims that the company is transforming its stores into aggregations of brand boutiques, centered on bistros and offering other experiential stuff that would make them destinations again.
The Apple store was bandied about as a directional hint due the the CEO’s past experience. I’m surprised analysts didn’t challenge this nonsense sooner. Not only was it not proprietary or unique in any way, but it was wholly disconnected from the blather about prices. What retailer doesn’t sell branded merchandise? It ‘s an old, pedestrian idea made current by nothing more than spin and the world’s willingness to withhold judgment. I was hopeful, even though I knew that any brand that gets compared to Apple is probably doomed, or at least woefully misunderstood.
Well, it’s a new year, and I say the time for promises is over. Somebody who understands retailing — and isn’t already bought and paid for by a securities firm that makes markets for the sector, or a ‘research firm’ that relies on fees from the companies upon which it issues reports — needs to ask J. C. Penney really blunt questions.
For the rest of us, I say we already know the answer, and it’s an important one for every brand: the days of marketing a ‘there’ without a there there are over. Smoke and mirrors aren’t worth it, whether or not they’re on sale.
www.forbes.com
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario