> Penney will use whole figures when pricing items. In other words, you won't see jeans with a price tag of $19.99, but rather $19 or $20.
is actually my favourite part of the whole thing. Taken together, it's a major overhaul that says, hey, sorry, over decades we'd gotten wrapped up in all these little marketing tricks to increase our sales and bottom line, but we decided it was time to treat y'all like grownups for a change.
My favorite as well. I've found myself in discussion with many on this logic for some time but rarely does it go mainstream. On a logical stance, all these moves represent honesty and no BS. Similar to when General Motors launched the Saturn line of cars with flat pricing. We owned a few in my family growing up and I remember my dad telling me one of the biggest reasons he bought it was because he knew no one else paid a dime less than he did for the same car.
That's a very good point. Four-square (the car sales strategy BS not the site) is one of the most dishonest tactics ever devised to subvert the buying process. Why should I have to deal with a gauntlet of crap that has been tilted so much in the favor of the seller due to decades of salesmanship trial and error? The basis of a good deal is mutual benefit, which can't be reached without honesty.
In addition to the four-square article above, Edmunds has the fascinating account of a writer who went undercover as a car salesman. It includes the four-square technique, and tons more:
I've brought a financial calculator to these kinds of negotiations before, that cut through a degree of BS. Those guys are pros though, they found other things to work on and in part, succeeded.
"Similar to when General Motors launched the Saturn line of cars with flat pricing"
And we all know now how well THAT worked out. Haggling, whether successful or not, gives the impression to the customer that they are in control and are 'saving' money.
In the early days people loved the flat pricing and no haggling, and their Saturns. It wasn't until 96-97 when Saturn became just another Lego set GM marque, complete with haggling, that it all went down hill.
My guess would be they will haggle if the buyer wants to haggle. They aren't going to give up a sale. But, I've never shopped CarMax so I don't really know.
I had a roommate years ago that worked as a salesman at CarMax. He had about the authority to haggle as the kid taking your order at McDonalds. I think the volume is so high that if you don't want it at the marked price, someone tomorrow will. Of course, that was years ago at one lot. YMMV.
What do you mean by flat pricing? That everyone travelling between two cities pays the same fare? Because that certainly doesn't (or shouldn't) happen anywhere. Airline tickets are substanially different from standard goods (be that cars, clothing or whatever else)
Why shouldn't it happen anywhere? What makes airline tickets so different? I think you're confusing the fact that airlines have gotten their operations so screwed up that they have to resort to crazy, opaque pricing with some idea that it's necessary.
I mean, sure, fuel prices go up and down, so it's not like prices should remain static from even day-to-day, but doesn't it strike you as absolutely weird that two people on the same flight may have paid wildly different fares?
For airlines travelling to China: Demand is different depending on whether it is close to Chinese New Year or not. Chinese people travel far from their homes to work and every Chinese New Year they return home to celebrate. There are going to be so much more demand then than most other months. As the demand changes but supply remains relatively constant, the price must change to accommodate.
I wasn't making the argument that prices should remain static regardless of demand, day of the week, or any other factor.
My point was that the airlines have created a pricing system so opaque that it can actually become a deterrent to travel. Why do people sitting next to each other on the same flight pay wildly different fares?
It's the same with clothing. Demand for fashion is extremely fickle, but the supply is relatively fixed- the stores order their inventory ahead of time and what they don't sell they have to put on clearance, send to TJMaxx, etc. And like flights, that trendy four-button blazer has a "shelf-life."
This could work in their favor in an interesting way. Shoppers often consider higher priced items to be more desirable merely due to cost. People perceive a $50 bottle of wine to be better than a $10 bottle, for example. So this could be a way for JCP to improve perception of the quality of their merchandise without actually putting it out of economic reach of their customers.
I would expect the opposite to happen. What you just described is exactly why sales work. An item is perceived as being better because of it's price, but hey look, I've been lucky enough to get it for less than it's worth. I imagine this will just bring them down into more of a budget clothing line.
On the other hand, it could be that the JC Penny name will retain it's feel of being worth X, while costing X*0.6 so consumers really will feel like they're always getting a deal at JC Penny.
One of my favorite aspects of that is that they're actually going to make a ton more money while making us feel like they're treating us like adults. Don't kid yourself: it'll be $20 rather than $19. So they make an extra cent, which isn't much, but if you multiply that by all the product lines and each sale every day ... at JCPenney's scale, that's significant.
I'm not criticizing it at all: I think it's better all the way round.
this is the kind of confused reasoning that has people thinking that if they "just do a little" then "it will add up to a lot". the basic problem is that you forget to shift frames when evaluating the significance of the sum.
for example, you might have heard that if everyone would "just" unplug their phone chargers (when not in use) then we'd save millions (or whatever it works out as) of watt-hours a year and so help avert global warming. and it is indeed true that if everyone does something tiny and trivial (relative to a household's total consumption) like that it will add up to an amount that is much more than one household's consumption. yay! but to estimate the significance you need to compare it to the total energy consumption of the entire country. and then it becomes tiny and trivial again, and will clearly make no significant difference to global warming.
similarly here - the total is way more than $20. gosh. but if you compare it to total turnover then it is a tiny percentage, which makes no real difference to the company.
in short: big changes on a global scale require big changes on a local scale.
.0005% difference in margin. People's brains interpret $19.99 as significantly cheaper than $20, but as a marketing iniative, whole digit pricing may intice people looking for honest, straight forward pricing.
But don't kid yourself, adding a penny per transaction is not going to benefit the bottom line in the way your thinking.
"People's brains interpret $19.99 as significantly cheaper than $20"
Is this really true though? Is there some study that supports this? To me it seems simpler for the brain to round up to $20 when thinking about the price. I certainly wouldn't remember if something was $18.99, $19.95, or $19.99. They're all just $20 to me.
Yes, there are a ton of psych and neurological studies that back up this practice. It is one of those blind-spots in your brain. You peg on the $19 part of $19.99. If you stop to rationally consider things then $19.99 and $20 are effectively the same, but for most casual purchasing decisions you do not actually apply a significant amount of intellectual rigor. You may think that you consider $20 and $19.99 to be the same, but study after study shows that what you think that you are thinking about and what your brain is actually doing are not the same.
Interesting, I always feel like 19.99 = 20, but that is probably because of how my Dad taught me to add and multiply quickly by doing so rounding first then backing off from there.
This is referred to as the "fast fashion" business model. H&M and Zara in Europe has been doing it for quite a while already. Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_fashion
It's not so surprising that they go for this business model, since "fast fashion" retailers have an average profit margin of 16%, compared to 7% for typical retailers, at least according to this source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&#...
Basically it's "just-in-time" production coupled with "agile"-type response with regards to fashion trends and customer wants.
Not sure if that's entirely accurate. JCP is a mall anchor/dept store, not an H&M or a Zara. They sell other makers' labels. And this announcement seems relegated to the pricing domain, haven't read anything about them changing their production/distribution model.
I would expect a significant part of costs to be rent, as stores typically are in relatively expensive locations. And there's also considerable loss due to unsellable excess inventory, which is what the "fast fashion" business model tries to reduce.
I could see this being hugely successful. The only question is whether people have been conditioned for the sale season. Growing up in a household full of women who buy clothing and accessories all the time, they particularly save up for when holidays approach.
Johnson pointed out that last year, JC Penney had 590 promotions, which made it seem that everyone was always on sale in some form or another. Honestly, that's tremendously confusing for consumers, as you basically can't keep track of what's on sale. The net result is they were selling everything at such a low price, that a 40% cut puts it only higher than the average sale price with those near-600 promotions.
"“So customers ignored us 99 percent of the time,” he said. “At some point, you, as a brand, look desperate if you have to market that much.” He will move to monthlong promotions, on which Penney will spend $80 million a month, he said, which is a decrease from Penney’s current marketing spending level, which is more than $1 billion a year. And instead of mailed fliers, the company will send shoppers a 96-page catalog each month with a more magazinelike presentation."
72% of JC Penney's revenue came form products sold at a 50% or higher discount. So a 40% across the board reduction on SKU prices still increases their ASP. Apparently from between 2002 the 2011, their average cost per item sold stood around the same, yet even as the average price tag rose from $27 to $36, JC Penney's margin never increased due to the 590 promotions a year. "Now most things are on 60 percent markdown, and every time we do that, we're discounting Penney's brand".
So less trickery around pricing, far fewer promotions at regular schedules with long intervals that consumers can actually respond to, and an attempt to increase the overall ASP of products. Sounds like a good change from their promotion-driven, brand-devaluing death spiral.
Johnson pointed out that last year, JC Penney had 590 promotions, which made it seem that everyone was always on sale in some form or another. Honestly, that's tremendously confusing for consumers, as you basically can't keep track of what's on sale.
I agree. I wanted to buy a sports jacket at Macy's, but their continuous sales made me wait for a long time. Every time I would just peek into the store; and then convince myself to wait till the next big "sale" came along.
The teaser ads that JCP is running on TV show people getting mad and screaming at piles of coupons as they fall out of mailboxes, newspapers, clippings, etc and then missing the sale when they get to the store, or after the fact:
Just yesterday I was looking for shirts at a top3 US retailer and encountered something I'd never seen before:
- there were six rows (shelfs) and about 7-8 columns
- there was a maybe 14x10" "70% OFF" sign at eye level
- HOWEVER, there were two qualities/brands contained in the cells
- one brand had the clearance 70% off marked on their tags
- the other brand DID NOT and was marked full price
- the clearance and full price cells were randomly placed
It probably wouldn't work everywhere but JC Penny's is a little weird with their sales, it generally seems like at any given time about a third to a half of their stock is "on sale." I don't know about the everyone else but at this point in my life sales at JCP don't even register.
"The new jcpenney logo, which combines the elements that have made jcpenney an enduring American brand, by evoking the nation’s flag and jcpenney’s commitment to treating customers Fair and Square."
Soo.. they made it look almost exactly like the US flag and made is square. Design genius. Personally I think the new logo is pretty crappy, wouldn't scale well and would lose most of it's appeal printed in B&W. Alas this debate should be saved for another thread.
I haven't read a printed newspaper in years. Having said that, it's true that a good logo should still be recognizable without color. The new logo passes that test.
Knowing that I can pop in at any time and get a fair price is much better for than wondering if I'm getting screwed that particular day. Maybe it's an American thing - it seems that the rest of the world loves to haggle.
Is there a website where I can go to see when normal retailers have had sales in the past, so that I might predict the arrival of the next one?
Better yet, imagine this data set: the price of every consumer good sold in retail stores, as a function of store and time.
What would be the impact of such a database, if it became widely available, say, from a company whose mission is to organize the world‘s information and make it universally accessible and useful?
"What would be the impact of such a database, if it became widely available, say, from a company whose mission is to organize the world‘s information and make it universally accessible and useful?"
One thing to keep in mind is that this cheapens the brand. It's one thing to buy a $10 t-shirt at Gap and another - a $30 T at 60% discount at Banana Republic. They might be identical, but the perceived value of latter is higher.
This is a very ballsy move for the company. Must be desperate times.
Thank you OP (kennethologist) for fixing the title of this article. The nymag title is "JCPenney Permanently Cuts All Prices by 40 Percent" which is certainly not true. Copy editor Bill Walsh writes:
The company meant "permanent" in the sense of regular prices as opposed to sale prices. It’s lowering regular prices and cutting back on sales in a strategy that may or may not work. If the strategy doesn’t work, the company has every right to change course -- and if it does, a bunch of news outlets will be revealed as big, fat liars.
Not sure if he was at Johnson's press event or not, but he has pictures from it and explains in detail Johnson's new strategy for JCPenny. Looks like a good bet to me.
A long time ago I read a book called "The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing" [1] and one of them was don't get caught up with couponing (i.e. sales). They are like drugs: they quickly increase revenue, but now you are dependent on them to get revenue. I like how this exec thinks. (I also like how they'll round up prices to the nearest dollar)
It doesn't appear terribly novel to me, hasn't big box retailers done this for a long time? I don't recall IKEA doing out-right sales for an example (they have continuous clearances and promotions, of course, but not an "everything is cheaper in January" type sale).
For instance, jewelry and Valentine's Day gifts would go on sale in February, while Christmas decorations would be discounted in November.
Isn't the point of "seasonal sales" to clear stock? So Christmas stock goes on sale in January, Valentines stock goes on sale 15 Feb?
Just informally talking with the women in my household, they all seem to hate the idea of not having sales. I told them that JCP will still have sales (Christmas, Valentines Day, etc.) but they were nonplussed on the whole idea. The first thing my wife did when she got her new JCP catalog was look for coupons and she was sorely disappointed.
I think it's hard-wired into some people's (read: women's) brains to not purchase anything unless its on sale. Every single one of them said it was a bad idea.
I agree with this fully. I know many people who wouldn't buy a pair of boots for $100, but would buy the same boots if labeled "Uusually $400, but on sale for $200!"
People don't understand the shopping experience. It's about going there, trying the clothes, getting good deals. The whole shopping experience starts at the parking lot: find the spot closest to the main entrance.
For some reason I read the headline as saying that an Apple exec got pissed and drunk after being fired then stumbled into a random JC Penney and demanded that all prices be slashed 40%.
> Penney will use whole figures when pricing items. In other words, you won't see jeans with a price tag of $19.99, but rather $19 or $20.
is actually my favourite part of the whole thing. Taken together, it's a major overhaul that says, hey, sorry, over decades we'd gotten wrapped up in all these little marketing tricks to increase our sales and bottom line, but we decided it was time to treat y'all like grownups for a change.
I hope it works out for them.