RKG Logo 434-978-4300

Al Bessin over at Lenser presents a case study this week looking at customer value by channel. His data are from one specific anonymous catalog client. (An old fashioned client at that: the firm Al describes still receives 18% of their orders by postal mail.)

Al doesn’t represent the specific findings of this study as universally applicable, as they aren’t.

But two of Al’s points do apply to all multichannel retailers:

  1. “How you first met a customer” is different from “how the customer first purchased from you.” Al uses the phrases “Channel of Demand Generation” (eg catalog, email, paid search, natural search, etc) vs. “Channel of Transaction” (web, phone, mail, fax). My former colleague Dave Dierolf used to use more succinct tag for this key concept: “Web as Media” vs. “Web as Medium”. As Al states,

    All too frequently, we multichannel merchants refer to channels as Catalog, Web, and Storefront to describe marketing efforts. In fact, this is really a mix of marketing and transaction terms, and any generalization made with respect to this mix of channels can be somewhat misleading.

    Too true.

  2. All multichannel merchants should be calculating customer value (12 month, 24 month), repurchase rates, average order values, and channel preferences by both demand channel and transaction channel. Calculate these metrics each month. Look for changes. Look for differences. When you find differences, ask “why?”. Ask “what’s the marketing implication?” And look beyond simple averages to distributions (that is, plot histograms).

When I was marketing VP for a large consumer catalog, we noticed higher average order values on the phone that on the web. (That was a few years back and may no longer be the case there.) Why might this be, we asked. Looking more closely at the order size distributions by transaction channel, we noticed that above a certain threshold order size, a buyer was almost certain to order by phone versus the web. (Al describes this same phenomenon with his client.) Chopping off the right tail of the web order size distribution necessarily drives up the phone AOV.

There’s also a selection bias: customers with simple orders — often lower ticket items, often single item orders — can self-serve by buying online, and many choose to do so. Customers with complicated orders — multiple items, more pricey complex items — want the assistance of a human, and so opt to call in. Again, a higher phone AOV results.

Such analysis generates ideas, which in turn lead to marketing tests. Compare the number of items per order between the web and call center. Who’s better at adding accessories or additional items to an order — the machines or the humans? If the web lags, consider better upsell and recommendations on the site. If the call center lags, consider more training or better this-goes-well-with-that call center apps.

If you’re not tracking key customer metrics by both demand channel and transaction channel, make that analysis a priority for this month. It will certainly spark ideas and likely reveal possible opportunities.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

If you like this post, consider subscribing to our RSS feed. You can also have new posts sent to you via email.


Related Posts

    • Multi-Channel Impact on PPC How much does movement away from "last touch" allocation impact the perception of PPC marketing? Does it help PPC, or hurt? Find out what we've...

Comments

  1. Kevin Hillstrom, January 18, 2007:

    Well said!

  2. Allan D., January 23, 2007:

    I also agree – as an online seller of niche-market items of various costs and complexities we see this in action every day.

Your Comment

Trackback

http://www.rimmkaufman.com/rkgblog/2007/01/17/demand-channel-vs-transaction-channel/trackback/

Email Updates

Categories

Recent Comments

  • George Michie: If they keep hearing the same message, and seeing evidence in the data to back it up, something will have to give. There is hope on...
  • Tomas: I’ve been having the same argument with Google for months now and in the end there does seem to be a feature in the algorithm that...
  • George Michie: Doesn’t have to be, it can be intra-adgroup as well.
  • Josh: George – I take it you’re referencing a scenario where your exact-match keywords are not listed as negative exact match keywords...
  • George Michie: Melissa, you’re right, it’s always happened to varying degrees, particularly since the advent of extended broad match....
  • Mel66: I don’t think this is a bug. It’s been happening for years. It *is* impossible to manage, and I can’t help but wonder if...
  • George Michie: Thanks Matt, Sometimes humor serves a purpose.
  • George Michie: Ken, sadly, as Jim stated above, too few people look under the hood and raise Cain. We’re very fortunate to have great reps on...
  • Matt: This is great! I started out reading this with the same anger that I feel everyday I spend unnecessary amounts of time optimizing to get...
  • Ken Truman: Right on, George. This is yet another one of the vagaries of broad matching that continues to drive smart advertisers mad. Your post...
  • George Michie: Interesting idea, Mark. The question might be: would advertisers know someone’s Twitter handle? Most require an email, but I...
  • @markthijssen: What if you would ask a consumer about his experience with the product some days/weeks/months after the sale via twitter. This might...
  • George Michie: Thanks Kenny, Another particularly annoying variation on the theme involves flashing the brand ads around on general searches. The...
  • Kenny: I’ve seen this happen too – very annoying, especially when the broad match ad that is served is specific to a particular...
  • George Michie: Jim, I think you’re right on that last piece. To me, Google doesn’t have to see this as either/or, by simply offering...

Blog Stats

  • Posts: 948
  • Words: 451,089
  • Comments: 2,865

Administration