Return On Investment (ROI) In Direct Marketing

Click on the image to enlarge it.

We hear a lot of talk about ROI, or "Return On Investment", when evaluating direct marketing programs.

Catalogers know that paper drives more total sales, and more total profit, than any other form of direct marketing.

E-Mail marketers know that e-mail drives the best "ROI", measured as "total profit divided by total cost". E-Mail marketing has almost no cost associated with it, making it a tool marketers must use, and use properly.

Paid Search marketers know that they reach customers at a "time of need", thereby providing the most "efficient" form of advertising known to-date. No other form of advertising cuts out the waste of uninterested shoppers like paid search ... except I guess for natural search, which has no cost associated with it.

Portal marketers know that they make the brand known to customers who have not purchased previously. They know their investment is best measured on a "lifetime value" basis ... short-term metrics are not appropriate for portal advertising.

In the table attached to the top of this article, each form of advertising has various strengths and weaknesses. Your job is to evaluate your advertising objectives.

Objective: Drive large volume of sales/profit from existing customers.
Solution = Catalogs.

Objective: Precisely target merchandise to existing customers.
Solution = E-Mail, Paid Search.

Objective: Precisely target merchandise to customers in-need.
Solution = Paid Search.

Objective: Make your brand aware to potential customers.
Solution = Portal Advertising.

Objective: Acquire new customers.
Solution = Catalog, Portal Advertising, Paid Search

I didn't even talk about affiliate marketing or shopping comparison marketing, which also fit into this story.

Obviously, there are many different objectives and solutions, my list above is abbreviated and short. Strategically, consider what you want to accomplish, and allocate your advertising mix on the basis of total sales, total profit, and your objectives.

Don't be swayed by folks who tell you that one form of advertising is "better" than another. Each type of advertising has a purpose. Each type of advertising excels within one specific set of metrics.

Return On Investment When Business Is Good

If you're one of the lucky folks managing online or catalog marketing at a company that is "winning", you have an interesting opportunity.

Let's say that this profit and loss statement represented what you expected to happen in April.

Demand	$100,000
Net Sales	$85,000
Gross Margin	$42,500
Less Marketing Cost	$25,000
Less Fulfillment Expense	$10,200
Operating Profit	$7,300
% of Net Sales	8.6%
Ad to Sales Ratio	29.4%
Average Order Size	$85.00
Number of Purchasers	1,176
Cost Per Purchaser	$21.25
Profit Per Purchaser	$6.21

You expected to generate $7,300 profit, and 1,176 new customers.

You execute this marketing plan, and observe these actual results for the month of April:

Demand	$115,000
Net Sales	$97,750
Gross Margin	$48,875
Less Marketing Cost	$25,000
Less Fulfillment Expense	$11,730
Operating Profit	$12,145
% of Net Sales	12.4%
Ad to Sales Ratio	25.6%
Average Order Size	$85.00
Number of Purchasers	1,353
Cost Per Purchaser	$18.48
Profit Per Purchaser	$8.98

Courtesy of the magic of your merchandising team, customers loved what you offered them, spending 15% more than expected.

Here's the challenge. If you believe that during the month of May you will see similar results, you can pocket a similar level of sales and profit.

Or, you can increase your advertising, and acquire more names, while still generating the same level of profit you promised to your CFO. This example shows what could happen, if you boosted your advertising spend:

Demand	$143,635
Net Sales	$122,090
Gross Margin	$61,045
Less Marketing Cost	$39,000
Less Fulfillment Expense	$14,651
Operating Profit	$7,394
% of Net Sales	6.1%
Ad to Sales Ratio	31.9%
Average Order Size	$85.00
Number of Purchasers	1,690
Cost Per Purchaser	$23.08
Profit Per Purchaser	$4.38

This is one of those unique mysteries that complicate the lives of those of us who manage profit and loss statements for online or catalog channels.

Choice number one allows us to pocket an additional five thousand dollars of profit.

Choice number two allows us to achieve our budgeted profit, but grows the top-line by an additional $28,000, and adds an additional 337 customers that contribute to future sales and profit.

I've always advocated spending more money when times are good, and spending more money when times are bad (to liquidate merchandise, but not at liquidation prices) --- holding to the marketing budget when business is close to plan.

What would you do? Would you pocket the profit today, or, would you spend more to acquire more customers, customers that deliver future sales and profit? Your thoughts?

Is An Item Profitable?

So many of us in multichannel retailing are asked to quantify how individual marketing activities perform.

We measure the effectiveness of an e-mail campaign. We prove that catalogs and direct mail drive business to the online channel.

Congratulations, we demonstrated that advertising works! Maybe.

Now it is time for us to measure how advertising influences the sales of individual items. I don't sense that our industry is doing the best job of measuring the profitability of an individual item, after factoring in the effect of advertising.

At the end of this post, I include a template for measuring the overall profitability of a specific item. In this case, we advertise the item through catalogs, through e-mail campaigns, and through online advertising (search, portals). During the course of an eight week period of time, we total the sales of the item, both online and over the phone. We also sum all advertising of that item.

What follows is a multichannel profit and loss statement for an item. This exercise should be replicated for every item sold by your business. Yeah, that's a lot of work. But how else are you going to know what sells, what sells because it is advertised, and what doesn't drive profit?

Quite honestly, the advent of the online channel has reduced our industry's zeal to understand the profitability of items. In catalog, it is easy to measure profitability. We need to have a passion for understanding which items truly work, across all channels.

Here, then, is a mocked-up template for the multichannel profitability of a single item. If you work for a business that also has a retail channel, simply add an additional section to the template for the retail channel.

Multichannel Merchandise Profit And Loss
Catalog Metrics
Catalogs Mailed		1,000,000
Total Pages in Catalog		124
Total Book Cost	$1.00	$1,000,000
Percent of Page Allocated		33.0%
Cost To Advertise This Item		$2,661
Total Responses		225
Response Rate		0.02%
Response per 000 Pages		0.07%
Units per Order		1.15
Total Units Sold		259
Price per Unit		$65.00
Total Demand		$16,819
Fulfillment Rate	88.0%	$14,801
Return Rate	25.0%	$3,700
Net Sales	66.0%	$11,100
Online Metrics
Total Visits To The Website		1,483,005
Total Visits, This Item		4,593
Total Website Cost, Non Adv.		$800,000
Cost Allocated To This Item		$2,478
Placed In Shopping Cart	25.0%	1,148
Total Responses	55.0%	632
Units per Order		1.08
Total Units Sold		682
Price per Unit		$65.00
Total Demand		$44,334
Fulfillment Rate	94.0%	$41,674
Return Rate	25.0%	$10,418
Net Sales	70.5%	$31,255
Multichannel Profit And Loss Statement
Multichannel Net Sales		$42,356
Gross Profit	48.0%	$20,331
Less: Book Cost		$2,661
Less: Website Cost		$2,478
Less: E-Mail Cost		$1,500
Less: Online Marketing Cost		$3,550
Less: Pick, Pack, Ship	11.5%	$4,871
Variable Operating Profit		$5,271
Profit as a % of Net Sales		12.4%

Multichannel Catalog Advertising Strategy

Over the past ten years, I have been very pessimistic about the future of catalogs. Catalogs as a true sales driver have become relegated to an audience over the age of forty-five. Younger consumers increasingly use search, e-mail, and social media to complete their direct-to-consumer transactions.

Recently, I've been able to envision a future for a catalog that is purely advertising-related. As multichannel retailers move from mass media (television, radio) to more accountable forms of marketing, catalogs have the potential to drive sales in a more productive way than mass media. It is in this manner that catalog may have a future.

Between the past and future of catalogs is this quirky time known as 2006-2007. You'll continue to see multichannel retailers change circulation strategies. Page counts have to decrease over time, as the catalog becomes nothing more than a targeted advertising vehicle. When page counts decrease, it is possible to increase circulation.

The multichannel retailer could test these strategies in 2007, to understand the sales impact on the business as catalogs evolve from sales drivers to targeted advertising vehicles. Most likely, the evolution to smaller page counts will result in decreased sales. The multichannel retailer can increase reach, save expense, and potentially drive increased profit. For instance, a 160 page catalog mailed to 500,000 customers might drive $3,900,000 across channels, yielding $1,120,000 expense and $128,000 profit. A 48 page catalog mailed to 1,000,000 customers might drive $2,900,000 across channels, yielding $580,000 expense and $343,000 profit (send an e-mail if you want to see the spreadsheet outlining the simulation). The smaller catalog strategy, mailed to more households, could yield increased profit. Over time, multichannel retailers will figure out how to calibrate creative in order to better drive sales across all channels. It's time to start testing!

Blue Nile, Chicos, PetSmart and NASCAR

A few tidbits from recent investor conference calls, courtesy of 123Jump.

At Blue Nile, management states that it measures market productivity by summing sales in a market (San Francisco), and dividing sales by the number of people living in the market. In markets like San Francisco, they claim to generate $2.00 sales per person. In rural markets, they claim to drive maybe $0.30 per person.

At Chicos, management discussed a change in advertising strategy, yet another one that benefits compiled databases, and spells doom for television and magazines. A quote, "the company was not able to quantify any real positive effect from television advertising". Management also states that coupons are the number one driver of sales for the company.

At PetSmart, the business generated 5.5% EBIT on sales of just over $3 billion dollars, through nine months. Management stated that they spend 2.4% of sales on marketing. That sounds small until you realize that, though nine months, the total is over $60 million dollars.

Ever wonder if NASCAR is a cash cow? International Motorsports, which owns many of the tracks NASCAR races at, earned $182.4 million in operating income on net sales of $544.9 million, through nine fiscal months. My goodness. How do I get a job there? That's simply stunning.

What Is More Important, Sales Increases Or Increased Profit?

In a recent comment, Ray S. asked if it is acceptable to have an advertising campaign that increases net sales, but does not increase profit.

Let me pose two scenarios to you.

Campaign Result, Scenario #1: Net Sales increase by $100,000 verses last year's campaign. Profit is flat, compared with last year's campaign.

Campaign Result, Scenario #2: Net Sales decrease by $100,000 verses last year's campaign. Profit increases by $25,000, compared with last year's campaign.

Ok, you are the CEO of this company. Which of the these two scenarios is preferable to you?

Business Review: PC Connection

PC Connection significantly improved the profitability of its business during the past year. Let's take a look at some of the key findings from their most recent 10-Q statement.

Through nine months, net sales increased by fifteen percent to just over $1.2 billion dollars. Earnings before taxes dramatically improved, from $7.8 million last year to $14.7 million this year.

• Small Businesses and Consumers = $655.6 million dollars sales and $4.3 million dollars profit. Sales improved seven percent, profit improved by $1.4 million dollars. Gross Margin was 13.5% in 2006 verses 12.5% in 2005.
  
• Large Accounts = $350.0 million dollars sales and $17.6 million dollars profit. Sales improved by a whopping forty-nine percent, profit improved by $5.2 million dollars. Gross Margin was 10.9% in 2006 verses 10.3% in 2005.
  
• Public Sector = $197.8 million dollars sales and a loss of $7.2 million dollars. Sales were essentially flat, while profit improved by $0.3 million dollars. Gross Margin was 12.3% in 2006 verses 11.5% in 2006.
  

By product offering, sales improved nicely across all merchandise divisions.

• Notebooks and PDAs = +7% (the largest merchandise division, $210,000,000 YTD).
  
• Desktops and Servers = +12%
• Storage Devices = +14%
• Software = +20%
• Net/Com Products = +19%
• Printers and Supplies = +11%
• Video, Imaging & Sound = +25%
• Memory & System Enhancements = +8%
• Accessories & Other = +23%

Management makes several interesting observations in this report.

• Small business sales increased among businesses, but decreased among consumers.
• Increases in online sales were offset by decreases in telephone sales.
• The number of catalogs mailed were decreased verses 2006, focusing instead on more diverse strategies to drive sales among businesses.
  
• Large accounts benefited from inclusion of sales from Amherst sales representatives, and a twelve percent growth in organic sales.
• Gross margins were improved by vendor considerations.

I enjoy reading about businesses that I am not familiar with. Specifically, I have generally worked for businesses with gross margins in the forty to sixty percent range, businesses that largely developed their own products.

In this case, PC Connection largely sources merchandise from vendors who can and do sell their own merchandise through their own distribution channels, or through other channels. For instance, HP computers can be sold via HP's website, or through businesses like Best Buy. Competitively, PC Connection would have to differentiate itself in some manner, so that customers choose their business. In my case, I buy from PC Connection because merchandise is shipped in a rapid and inexpensive manner.

As you can see, PC Connection faces challenges managing a business with gross margins in the twelve percent range. Downturns in business can cause the business to not leverage fixed expenses. Large accounts appear highly profitable, as sales and margin leverage a minimal expense structure. The majority of the profit generated by PC Connection is generated by only 87 employees. More than four hundred employees manage the small business segment.

It will be interesting to see if PC Connection can continue to drive sales and profit increases at a time when margin pressure increases in the computing industry. What do you think about the prospects for PC Connection?