Overconfidence and You

There is a psychological phenomena called the Dunning-Kruger effect.  It states that unskilled people may not know enough to figure out that they are below average.  Dunning et al recently wrote in Why People Fail to Recognize their Own Incompetence (Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6/23/16):

…people tend to be blissfully unaware of their incompetence. This lack of awareness arises because poor performers are doubly cursed: Their lack of skill deprives them not only of the ability to produce correct responses, but also of the expertise necessary to surmise that they are not producing them.

It may feel good to think about all those “unskilled people” who go through their lives blissfully confident and unaware that they are unskilled, but to do so misses the point.  By definition, half of us are below average and all of us are unskilled at some tasks.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is closely related to the overconfidence bias and self-serving bias. The overconfidence bias is the tendency for humans to be over confident about their skills, abilities and choices.  Self-serving bias is when we attribute success to our skills, and failures to external factors or other people.

Unfortunately, overconfidence can be the most destructive bias and is one of the most pervasive.  Everybody is overconfident, even you and me.  Daniel Kahneman who wrote the book about overconfidence said he believes he is still overconfident.  Self-service bias helps protect our self-esteem.   Frank Knight stated that sometimes it is the belief in our own luck, and this bias dates back to the bible when Adam blames Eve for his mistake in eating the apple.  Self-serving bias can be witnessed daily in the Wall Street conference call.

I cover these biases in my class on Behavioral Finance at Golden Gate University.  Given a stack of behavioral finance books and some time on the internet you will find that humans aren’t the rational beings we think we are and are frequently biased in certain directions.  The increasingly detailed definitions of biases seem to be primarily about generating academic papers, but the Dunning-Kruger effect is worth thinking about because it happens a lot in business.

Business leaders want to appear upbeat, positive and confident, and acting this way (see here) tends to make us confident.  This isn’t the same as “fake it to you make it” (which I recommend to my students) as you know when you are faking it.  Kahneman stated in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow that “An unbiased appreciation of uncertainty is a cornerstone of rationality— but it is not what people and organizations want.”  We want certainty in our leaders, not complexity.  There are no clear tests of business ability so it is easy for executives to be overconfident of their skills.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. Charles Darwin 

Hiring

I used to think I was a good picker of executive talent.  Of the five controllers I’ve hired, the majority have gone on to be CFO’s, and I’ve had successful hires for CIO’s, President, VP Human Resources amongst others.  I recently talked to Dave Arnold, a recruiter who has hired hundreds of CFO’s with success.   Dave interviews 20-30 candidates a week and used to teach interviewing skills to management teams.  My confidence in my interviewing skill was based on a small sample size and a comparison to other executives who may not have been great interviewers either.  There is a lot of evidence that interviews aren’t that helpful for many jobs, due to interviewer incompetence and candidate dishonesty (see here and here).

I once worked with a leading recruiter for a COO position who kept sending us candidates who lacked analytical skills.  Eventually after a long search the CEO hired someone. Within a year I was walking the new hire through their termination paperwork.  Conversations with the recruiter revealed that the CEO had been very specific and the “weak” candidates were exactly what was requested.  The recruiter knew that the CEO was wrong but eventually caved in.  CEO’s who express confident answers even while they lack knowledge is known in Silicon Valley as “Founderitis” or Founder’s Syndrome (see here and here) another form of overconfidence.

With a small sample size, you are especially prone to be overconfident about hiring skill.  All failures are blamed on the candidate, all success is attributed to management competence. Hiring a competent recruiting partner lowers risk and makes you smarter.

Investing

Private Equity fund managers are quite confident at investing in growth companies, even when evidence doesn’t support their confidence or skill. As a hedge fund analyst, I followed firms who kept growing even as signs of declining productivity and performance became overwhelming.  Rue21 in 2012 boasted that they were opening units in Paris (Texas), London (Kentucky), even while average volumes in new units were down double digits.  Apax Partners then paid $1.1b to buy this 877 unit chain in early 2013 and grew it to over 1,200 stores by the end of 2016.  Associated Press reports that Rue 21 is closing 1/3 of their units in 2017 to end back at ~800 stores.  To spend four years to end up where you started is a bad outcome.  The trends in the industry (e-commerce!) and in Rue’s numbers (declining ROI) have continued to the surprise of their investors.  And unfortunately, there is a significant chance this isn’t the last bad news out of Rue.

During the 1980s there were a group of auditors out of Texas that used to celebrate the completion of a savings & loan audit with a party which featured drinking champagne out of their boots.  (I didn’t witness this, darn! I heard the story from an audit partner who’d paid a sizeable sum of money to settle the claims.) 

A couple of things you should know.  First, you ruin good champagne by pouring it in footwear, and secondly, wine is not particularly good for leather.  Auditors who think this is a good idea probably aren’t appropriately risk and control oriented. And investors in businesses that need risk management (like a S&L) shouldn’t hire champagne swilling auditors who can’t afford stemware.   The person who told the story considered himself a savvy businessman.  He put the blame for the eventual failure of the S&L and expensive legal claim down to bad management, the economy and regulators and none to the audit team or the firms’ lack of risk management.

Elizabeth Holmes dropped out of college to start Theranos at 19 with $6m in venture money.  This ballooned into an eventual $700m of private equity/mutual fund financing.  Ms. Holmes reportedly used to keep the office in the mid-60s so she could wear her signature outfit: black mock turtleneck, black pants and puffy black vest.  In January 2017, Theranos laid of 40% of the staff and in April 2017 agreed to leave the blood testing business for two years to avoid further sanctions by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Who invests in a company with a CEO who can’t figure out how to take off her vest?  Although Ms. Holmes wanted to be Steve Jobs, she didn’t get that even Steve Jobs wasn’t always Steve Jobs.

Nassim Taleb talks about Black Swan’s as unpredictable or unforeseeable events.  I’ve commented in the past (here) that “black swan” events decline as learning increases.  In this case, it appears that Silicon Valley VC’s didn’t participate in the funding of Theranos and most of the money was private equity and east coast VC funds.   Vanity Fair reported that Google Ventures staff had attempted to get a blood test using the proprietary Theranos Edison machine, and found instead of taking a pin prick, the test used the same samples used at any clinic. Google Ventures passed on the investment.  What did they know that $700m in capital and a board full of luminaries did not?  Why no medical expertise on the Board? Why was there no CFO?

Theranos was intensely secretive about its Edison technology which, based on the latest disclosures by the company, never really worked.  Probably smart keeping it a secret.  Every investment mistake isn’t due to overconfidence, of course, but these examples show that sometimes even the experienced are unaware of how unskilled they are.

Human Resources

There has been a litany of “bad behavior” stories in the paper recently with Uber, Snapchat, GitHub all being hit for sexual harassment and not following basic human resource standards (see here).  These companies have sufficient money to hire a senior HR executive but they didn’t think they needed one.  That was a bad choice. Between the bad publicity, the lawsuits and the costs to correct the problems, these firms and executives are learning the cost of ignorance.

Scaling a rapidly growing business isn’t easy.  Not all of it is renting space and hiring.  Being really good at technology or raising money or even having a terrific idea is helpful but it isn’t enough.  It takes a team of executives.  We shouldn’t be surprised however when we hear of these problems, Uber won’t admit that it has a CFO (see here) and Tesla and Github are both going through relatively rapid CFO changes (see here and here).   The CEO’s including Travis Kalanick (Uber), Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos) and Chris Wanstrath (Github) had no experience running any successful business prior to their startup.

Learning is at least partially about reducing unforeseen, unexpected and negative events.  There are techniques for overcoming our overconfidence and Dunning-Kruger (see here, here and here) and if practiced, can help.  We also can be amused at the unskilled and how they don’t realize how incompetent they are.  But we shouldn’t be amused without realizing that sometimes we are the unaware and unskilled.

***

Dr. John Zott is the Principal consultant at Bates Creek Consulting. John is the chair of the Careers Committee at FEI Silicon Valley, a senior adjunct professor at Golden Gate University and comments regularly on issues that affect consumer businesses.  If you are looking for a CFO for your e-commerce/retail/consumer company, or are a former student, colleague or would just like to connect – reach out.

Three challenges to E-commerce

I wrote earlier about product solutions and customer focus in my post about physical stores. Bricks & Mortar stores have the advantage of having the person physically present and able to try on merchandise, see how it might look in the home, gain ideas about additional items they may want. The perfect physical store. however has a built in barrier , too narrow a customer focus, there isn’t enough sales, too wide a focus and there is too much selection and there aren’t any profits.

E-commerce holds some hope for meeting our dream shopping experience. The e-commerce company has the same advantages as physical retail when it comes to buying and some distinct advantages in assorting product. Because they ship from a central location, they can have significantly greater selection stored efficiently in a warehouse. Web-sites can track preferences and construct a set of options that better match potential needs. However, they have there own challenges. Here are three I see.

Problem 1 Freight and Time
The downside for e-commerce is the cost of freight as they are selling (and shipping) in each’s and the wait for delivery.  Cost and delay remain big reasons why e-commerce won’t end up with a 100% market share.

As much as UPS/FEDEX and the post office work at it, driving to the store and loading the trunk is still the cheapest and fastest way of home delivery. Shipping costs are very high for the last mile, but are pretty reasonable for the first 1,000 miles. You can have a container into the US for under $2,000 and it can hold 20+ tons of goods.

Amazon Prime offers free freight, not Fedex and UPS.  UPS posts operating margins of 3-4x Amazon’s merchandise division.  Amazon, I am sure has negotiated a great deal on freight, but freight is still 10-15% of the product price.  If you’ve received a package from Amazon, you know they don’t ship efficiently either – as most boxes are less than half full.

I was with an e-commerce furniture business (I was younger and much more comfortable slamming my head against a wall) and the freight issues were daunting. The product was hard to ship, had unusual shapes and had to be carried into the home. Every dent, nick, mark or spot had to be fixed, no matter how minor, either at delivery or in a second visit. Getting the goods from the factory to a store was inconsistent, and getting from factory to home was far worse. There is a reason why Ikea flat packs their furniture, it ships cheaper and any scratches you put in it are your own custom additions.

Amazon has taken steps with their lockers to reduce the cost and speed delivery, and other e-commerce sites have gotten better at packing items in bags which weigh less than boxes and ship cheaper. Drone’s won’t deliver packages cheaply, you’ve got to fight gravity, which until we invent flubber or mine unobtanium, is a loser game. Maybe driverless delivery vehicles will be an option, but realistically that is still a long way off.

The solution here is to better use the resources we have. Amazon has a same day delivery service, which is priced for prime customers at $5.99 for up to $35 and free over $35.  So an order for $25 comes with a 24% shipping charge.  Without prime the delivery charge is $8.99 + $0.99 an item.  If the average order is $50 and three items, then the freight is also about 24%.   An option, but not a cheap one.

Amazon recognizes we are still going to visit a grocery store and the Amazon lockers are nearby. The US Postal Service visits each house 6x a week, so lighter packages can use this cost-effective option. Amazon is considering a bricks and mortar store where after ordering on-line, they pick and pack your goods and you drive by and they load your trunk.  This eliminates the delivery issue.

The freight and delay problem is physics, time, weight and distance.  For bulky or heavier goods, or perishables this problem won’t ever go away.

Problem 2 Seeing vs Seeing & Touching & Tasting & Smelling and Hearing

If you know what you want, e-commerce is great.  One copy of a book is the same as another copy.  If what you want has smell, can be touched, sampled or tried on, it is a barrier to an online sale.

My wife is a knitter and my favorite socks are hand knitted.  These socks are made with self striping yarn (the yarn is colored in lengths such that you naturally get stripes).  Although there are a lot of on-line yarn shops, most yarn is sold in person, because knitters will be spending a lot of time holding the yarn and the feel is important.

Knitters buy a lot of yarn, but given the collection my wife has, each purchase decision is unique. Some online knitting stores offer sample skeins, lavish descriptions, or a lot of detail  to help you make up your mind.  All of these steps work to lower the barrier to a sale.

The catalog industry dealt with this issue for years, and J. Peterman probably does the best job of romanticizing a mundane product like a t-shirt (this one $29).

On the banks of the Seine, lots of students and tourists hoping to be mistaken for natives, lots of blue-and-white striped shirts… but that deckhand over there, throwing a hawser out to a tour boat, he’s wearing this shirt.

E-commerce has an advantage, you can show multiple pictures, multiple colors add pages of information that you couldn’t fit in a catalog.  However lots of products still lack key information.  This t-shirt at Walmart.com is under $6 and although the prose lacks the background story of the J. Peterman version, it is still a lot of copy.  The missing piece is the fabric blend which apparently uses X-Temp technology.  By the way J. Peterman doesn’t share that information either.

E-commerce companies can focus on goods that either don’t appeal to the other senses (i.e. books) or they can sell goods that you already know and enjoy and are rebuying.  When they get into goods that have other sense parameters, they need creative strategies to help close the sale.

Problem 3 Personalizing and Privacy

The promise of e-commerce was to make stores more personal. They are better but are still failing.

To be the perfect store, the shop keeper needs to know you like a personal shopper does. Currently, too many sites still don’t get the reality of being human. No matter how much I like a pair of shoes, if they aren’t in size 12 (or 12.5), I can’t buy them. Humans have height, width, shapes, and we exist in a physical
space. A lot of sites have improved, but it is still maddening to pick out something and find out that the only size available is XS. The implication of not being directed to search by size is that the store has all sizes in stock. When they don’t they’ve broken a promise.

Amazon comes the closest to my fantasy perfect store. They generally suggest similar goods to what I have bought before. The algorithms are still weak and often what they push seems more important than what I want. Recently on my home page from Amazon I was shown an introduction to innovative products that included a very nice set of women’s shoes. I don’t buy women’s shoes. My wife buys shoes, but not on my Amazon account and not these.

They also featured a Tim McGraw & Faith Hill album. I don’t like Tim McGraw or Faith Hill, so wrong again.

My landing page always includes a pitch for a Kindle Fire, although I own one already (and two kindles, and yes, it is a disease). At Christmas I often buy my wife the knitting books she has placed in her wish list. Then for the next four months I am inundated with offers for more knitting books without the option to remove them from my recommendations.

Amazon’s dash button is helpful, again because so much of buying is rebuying.  Once we pick a solution (for toothpaste, soap, batteries or footwear) we tend to reorder that product until we grow dissatisfied or hear of something better. So far, I’ve yet to use a dash button.

Privacy remains a big issue. Amazon’s approach is more than a little creepy as they use your searches to change the home page. However, many sites, even after logging in, offer no personalization, which is uncaring but obviously way less creepy. I don’t mind that the waitress at my local breakfast place knows my breakfast preference. I don’t mind that my favorite cashier knows my name. However, neither of them will start asking about what I am shopping for on other sites or keep a detailed record of my browsing history.

Ideally, we’d own our preferences, and share what we wanted when we arrived at the site. Our avatar would include what we normally buy, size and color preferences. And when we leave, our avatar would leave with us. That is the way it works in the real world (until they start this from Minority Report or this from real life). Until we come up with some portable way to manage our preferences and control who sees them, then we will suffer with e-commerce retailers knowing a bit too much about us for comfort.

I think all three barriers can be dealt with in time.  The equilibrium between physical and virtual retail will be based on the problems, relative costs and benefits.  The US Department of Commerce has e-commerce at about 12% of retail sales, which based on my experience will end up closer to 20%.

*  *  *

Dr. John Zott is the Principal consultant at Bates Creek Consulting. John is the chair of the Careers Committee at FEI Silicon Valley, a senior adjunct professor at Golden Gate University and comments regularly on issues that affect consumer businesses.  If you are looking for a CFO for your e-commerce/retail/consumer company, or are a former student, colleague or would just like to connect – reach out.

Zombies reach a Dead End

 Sandeep Shroff recently wrote about burn rate zombie companies.   I’ve worked with Sandeep and he is a very sharp guy. He defines a #burnratezombie as a firm that lacks the cash to go through the process of raising capital.  A firm reaches this point when the burn rate is so high and the time left is so short that the company will have to sell itself or go bust.  These companies are dead but don’t know it yet.

A zombie company is normally known as one that can pay interest, but doesn’t generate enough cash to pay off the loan balance.  Their loans don’t go away and they survive by holding off the debtors.   These firms aren’t dead yet, and they aren’t really alive.

The Economist in January 2017, wrote about the productivity slowdown due to zombie companies which have large amounts of invested capital, but don’t generate much profits.  The invested assets should probably be liquidated and the business recapitalized, but instead they limp along, making enough to keep the doors open but not enough to upgrade the equipment. A company that is just covering marginal costs can price lower than a company that is seeking to make a profit.  That competition lowers return on capital and limits new entries into the market.   These zombies don’t eat people – they slime the market.

I think there is another class of zombie firms that isn’t spoken about often.  I call these Dead End Zombies.

Dead End Zombies consist of firms that are stuck. Like a driver lost in suburbia they’ve turned into a cul-de-sac, and they can’t continue forward.  Their returns are under the cost of capital so they can’t attract investment and grow their way out of the problem.  The only good strategic direction is backwards.  The invested capital in the business has to be restructured and the business has to be pared back to the profitable core.

Austrian business cycle theory says that low interest rates increase borrowing and investment.  Too low of rate, too much borrowing and too much investment or “mal-investment”.  Easy capital is invested too quickly and there is a correction because the resulting profits are just too low.  The correction causes firms to restructure and reallocate the cash to better investments.  If the capital isn’t reallocated and stays stuck in these underperformers it becomes “dead” money and a Dead End Zombie.

When I think about businesses that have low profitability I apply Seldon & Colvin’s approach from “Angel Customers & Demon Customers” and split the business into customer deciles.  Some segment of the customer base generates good return – the top 10%.  This implies there is some segment that is at low and perhaps negative profitability.  These are Seldon & Colvin’s devil customers and one cause of the poor returns.  For a CFO, marginal operations that don’t add to profits end up just driving down the return on capital.   Recognizing this, cutting overhead and trimming marginal operations isn’t easy and it isn’t popular.  For management, a shrinking operation means a less staff, lower pay and less power.  Sales declines also upset boards and shareholders.

Private Zombies

Dead end zombies can be public or private, both have challenges.  A private firm that is at a dead end stage has to conserve capital to execute the transition out of non-performing assets.  Selling assets can be an option.  However, cutting overhead may not be possible.  A recent client had half of their assets invested in low return operations with weak profits.  However, even minor profits helped since they helped cover overhead.  The incentive was to “extend and pretend” rather than fix, since the fix basically meant lower paychecks for the CEO and the management team.

Public Zombies

Public Dead End Zombies are usually small caps and are under followed. There is a discount due to liquidity (ability for larger investors to buy and sell shares), so they suffer a low stock price too.   Small stocks without a following are called “orphans”.

As I have noted before here, G. Bennett Stewart classified firms by ROIC and growth options.  Low ROIC firms, that return less than the cost of capital, Stewart titled “X-Minus” firms.  The proper valuation for a firm that earns its’ cost of capital is 1x book value (or a market/book ratio of 1.00).  If the firm is an X-Minus, then they are valued at less than book value.  Each additional $1 the management team invests in the business is discounted in the market.  So the company invests $1 and the shareholder receives 80¢.

In a public dead end zombie, the shareholders and management aren’t on the same team.  As long as there is cash in the business the management team will hold on and continue to re-invest hoping for better results.  Public Dead End Zombies can’t grow out of their predicament, they can’t buy back their shares, and often they can’t decrease the sales or the management team would be fired. They are stuck.

There are a lot of these firms.  I looked on the Mergent database and found that there are ~2,650 public firms (not including finance, insurance, real estate) with sales of $10m or more, and 38% earn less than 4% return on equity. The smaller the market cap, the greater the odds it has low return on equity, with more than half of the firms with less than $75m market cap have sub 4% ROE’s.

The direction forward for a lot of these firms is restructuring.  In a different time we’d have seen investors buying these companies with borrowed money. Unfortunately, after the banking meltdown and the beating the bankers received, there isn’t much money chasing these opportunities.  This is a very big opportunity for the right investor, and the LBO will come back as value is discovered lurking in these dead end firms.

*  *  *

Dr. John Zott is the Principal consultant at Bates Creek Consulting. John is the chair of the Careers Committee at FEI Silicon Valley, a senior adjunct professor at Golden Gate University and comments regularly on issues that affect consumer businesses.  If you are looking for a CFO for your e-commerce/retail/consumer company, ora former student, colleague or would just like to connect – reach out.

Two Ideas to Improve Bricks and Mortar Retailing

The Perfect Store

Imagine you are visiting your perfect store. Each item is carefully and thoughtfully selected for you. Everything from your favorite foods to clothing that fits your style, that fits your body and your budget. There are also things you need around the house, books, movies, technology all carefully and thoughtfully selected and displayed for your potential purchase.  Maybe there would be a section of new items that an expert has suggested you’d enjoy.  Customer service would be like an old friend saying hello.

Compare that vision with shopping today. The stores are vast and the portion that is “yours” is very small.  We call it a “treasure hunt” as product is crammed in around narrow aisles and you are left searching through racks for your size.  Customer service (if found) consists of “Can I help you find something” which speaks to the level of disorganization that even the staff recognizes you will need help finding what you want.

Why aren’t Bricks & Mortar stores like my perfect store? 

The reason why physical stores aren’t perfect, is that narrow market segments (like an individual or family) don’t buy enough to justify the investment in inventory, real estate and staffing for a store.  The store of today is not that much different than the market of 4,000 years ago. Retailers add value by buying in bulk, then ship it locally and sell the items in each’s.   The merchant provides convenience, selection and a lower cost of freight.

Retailers have to appeal to a broad enough audience to achieve a certain level of gross margin dollars per square foot to pay the bills make a return on their investment.  The executives may talk about the customer, but the reality is they buy thousands of the exact same thing in a range of sizes and colors.   They are focused on a market segment.  The retailer used to be able to add selection of add-ons with rich margins.  E-commerce has ended that.   Customers can comparison shop, order and pay before they leave the aisle in your store, faster and easier than standing in line at your store.  E-commerce has the same dilemma if they don’t have unique products.  Competition is only a click away.

The reality of physical retail is that in any single shopping trip the majority of merchandise in a store is irrelevant to you.   I recently went to Home Depot for cabinet hinges. First, I was accosted by the solar guy (they must have some incentive plan) while passing by plumbing, light bulbs, paint, tools and hot water heaters. All of this selection was without value to me, I just needed hinges to hang my cabinet doors.    It was worse when I was in the boating industry.  The parts you need for a Hobie Getaway (my boat) are pretty different than a 32’ sailboat and are completely different than a fishing boat or a big cruising powerboat.  Of the 20,000 sku’s we could cram into a store, we’d be lucky if 1,000 applied to a single customer.  At least at Home Depot, I may need some of that stuff, sometime.

Physical retailers have an advantage; the customer is there in person.  Here are a couple of ideas that retailers can use to better compete against the encroachment of e-commerce.

Sell Solutions, not Products.

Customers shop to solve a problem and retailers that solve problems rather than supply product will get more sales and win.  Personal shoppers already do this.  Selection can be a way to provide answers but this will require different selection strategies and different ways to display merchandise.

My favorite wine store in Pacific Grove was run by a former catering manager (now unfortunately retired) at a big Pebble Beach venue.  He assorted his wine by the food it paired with – sections for fish, beef, chicken, deserts, cheeses.  We don’t buy wine that way (anywhere) as we are focused on the the varietal, the age, the label.  However, when we select wine to drink or serve we try to pair it with what we are serving.  Wine stores rarely offer that advice.  Someday I hope find wine that is sectioned by my real needs, like this for your brother in law, this for your book club, this for when the boss visits. Now that would be useful!

Ikea is a showroom where they solve the problem of living in a smaller space but staying organized and neat.  Each vignette is designed around a hypothetical family.  They are brilliant at flat packing their products and giving ideas on how to solve household problems.  The furniture store in town has a sea of couches and chairs.  Few are shown in a normal pattern you’d see in a home.

Focus on a Customer 

Retailers who focus on product too much lose focus on the customer.  Product focused firms think of buying and selling product before they thinking of serving a customer need.  I think focusing on a customer segment is not as good as focusing on a single person with a problem.  We are empathetic to individuals, not to classes of people.

Best Buy implemented a customer focus program called customer centricity by coming up with a series of archetype customers.  Each store was then focused on one archetype (a married woman with two children who needs appliances, a college professor who likes high end stereo music, a 15 year old video game player).   This was a huge step forward for Best Buy, but in the end it had to change, because to be successful they needed to address pretty much all of these segments in every store.  The key point was they went from selling laptops and dishwashers to thinking about what customers needed and then rethought the store layout and service plan.

Auto parts retailers carry a lot of parts.  But because of state licenses and registrations, they can buy registration information by area.  They know which cars are located where, which autos are at the age where they break down, and what parts are most likely needed.  Auto parts stores are focused on their customer – the owner of the 6+ year old car.  When they stock parts, they stock based on the local need, and they stock all the parts for the job.  They want you to leave with everything you need to get your vehicle working again.

Ikea’s hypothetical families focus their merchandise team on solving real world problems for real people.  They are selling a way of living as a part of selling their furniture.  They use names and have pictures of happy families (models?) supposedly living in these tiny apartments.

I think there is still life in physical retail. People like to touch, view, compare and try on goods, an experience that e-commerce can’t provide.

*  *  *

Dr. John Zott is the CFO for Carlson Wireless Technologies, and Principal consultant at Bates Creek Consulting. John is the chair of the Careers Committee at FEI Silicon Valley, a senior adjunct professor at Golden Gate University and comments regularly on issues that affect consumer businesses. If you are a former student, colleague or would just like to connect – reach out.