Off The Fairway

I read a sad article this past week and it’s the topic for our Foodie Friday Fun today.  Fairway is one of my favorite markets.  In addition to having a huge selection of groceries and produce, both organic and non-organic, the prices for most things are reasonable.  The store began as a fruit and vegetable stand in the early 1930’s and has grown into a chain of fifteen stores spread across the New York Tri-State area.  That expansion, however, didn’t begin until the mid-1990’s, and really only took off after the chain was purchased by some private equity folks.

Fairway Market

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

According to the article I read from Grub Street, the chain is in dire straits.  It has a huge amount of debt and, as the article says:

Almost everyone agrees that a confluence of issues — including an overly aggressive and poorly executed expansion plan and rising competition in the quality-produce business — are the reasons Fairway is now in crisis. “It was a perfect storm,” says a former executive for the company.

Those are lessons for any business.  First, the systems that support one or two stores were inadequate to support many more.  The chain is having issues managing its inventory, and as any retail business knows, inventory management can make or break the operation.  The Point Of Sale system was antiquated, further compounding the inventory problem (how can you manage supply when you don’t have an accurate picture with respect to what’s selling?).  Most importantly, the market changed.

One of Fairway’s primary appeals was the availability of unique ingredients and products.  They have extensive meat and fish departments that often provide hard to find cuts at good prices.  The problem is that others are now doing the same and Fairway rested on their laurels rather than pushing to stay ahead of the pack.  All of those issues might be found in any business that allows success and rapid expansion to disrupt the processes and execution that brought that success in the first place.

It’s easy to think that it can’t happen to your business, and it won’t as long as you continue to attract talented, knowledgeable staff (Fairway couldn’t find enough to keep up with expansion), pay attention to your systems, execute well, and listen to the market (and your customers).  Easy to say, I know, but that’s why they call it work!

Leave a comment

Filed under Helpful Hints, Huh?

No There There

You’re probably familiar wth Gertrude Stein‘s quote about Oakland – “there’s no there there.” Putting aside the meaning of the statement (nostalgia and not a diss of Oakland), it came to mind when I read about Obsessee. This offering, as reported by WWD, will cover fashion, culture, music, beauty, food, shopping and relationships for the 14- to 22-year-old set. What’s unusual about it is that the brand will exist only on social media platforms. No website, no app of their own. In other words, no home base. No there there.

Accession Number: 1979:4010:0001 Maker: Alvin ...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It will be interesting to see how this works. One thing many companies forget about social and other non-owned media platforms is that your brand is at the mercy of the landlord. When the landlord decides to change the terms of the lease or to raise the rent, you’re sort of screwed. Won’t happen? I’ll tell you what – go look in your Google Analytics for all the keywords used to come to your website via Google search. They’re all (not provided) Google decided to change their policy. It’s just as easy for any of the social platforms to do the same, and we have many instances of Facebook changing both their policies and their algorithm in ways that require any brand in the platform to rethink how and why they’re using it.

What happens when you become wildly popular and, as with some other analytics, Facebook decides to charge you if you want full data in your Insights reports?  Maybe I’m too much of a control freak, but it seems that without a home base that’s completely under a brand’s control, there is no alternative but to sign up for whatever terms and conditions the non-owned platforms decide will be how you operate.  Moreover, you never really own the customer. What are your thoughts?

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, Huh?

Blocking My Goodwill

One of the things I’ve done consistently throughout my life is to subscribe to the NY Times. I can remember a representative of the paper coming to my elementary school class to show us how to fold it for easy reading and to explain how newspapers are written and printed. 50 years later, I’m still a reader.

The New York Times uses an unusually large hea...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You might have read that the NY Times is following the lead of several other publications and shutting down access to those people who use ad blockers. Instead, readers who visit the Times site will see, as Digiday reported, the following:

“The best things in life aren’t free,” the pop-up reads.”You currently have an ad blocker installed. Advertising helps us fund our journalism,” then points readers to two options: purchasing a subscription option, which doesn’t strip the site of ads, or to whitelist the Times, which disables the ad blocker.

It’s the value exchange – we give you content, you give us attention. I’ve written about this paradigm before and I came to the conclusion that there really isn’t any one correct answer for publishers when it comes to ad blockers. Cutting off access does little for most publishers since not many publishers can claim to provide truly unique and valuable content and readers can go elsewhere. The Times, however, can make that claim. The issue is that with upwards of 40% of US readers using some sort of ad blocking, curtailing access also means fewer page views that can be sold, lower time one site, higher bounce rates, etc. Still, given their success in digital, I’ll give them a “wait and see” on this. Except for one thing: They’re cutting off access for subscribers as well.  As a spokesperson put it:

Ad blockers do not serve the long-term interest of consumers. The creation of quality news content is expensive and digital advertising is one way that The New York Times and other high-quality news providers fund news gathering operations.

Want to know what really doesn’t serve consumers’ long-term interests?  Greed. My bill for home delivery, which includes online access, is around $150 a month.  I daresay that the Times has gotten full value out of me, just as I’ve gotten great value out of their content. I access the Times site as a logged in user, so it really shouldn’t be too difficult to identify me as a subscriber and not to hassle me about ad blocking.  Hopefully, they will.

To the extent it can, any business needs to treat each customer as an individual.  There are very few rules that can apply to prospects and customers equally, and not every customer is the same (the pesky lifetime value computation we need to do!). Asking a customer to pay for access and then asking that same customer to endure a barrage of ads as a condition for continued access seems like nothing more than greed and insensitivity.  What do you think?

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, digital media, Huh?