Docstoc

zany brainy store

Document Sample
zany brainy store Powered By Docstoc
					The Price is Right, or Is It? Determining the Impact of Price on Sales

When Wharton professor Marshall Fisher and colleague Vishal Gaur did a controlled pricing
experiment in 18 stores belonging to the Zany Brainy retail toy chain, they came away with
a surprising result.



The experiment had been designed to measure how demand for three separate products – a
family center board game, a Phonics traveler and a headset walkie-talkie – varied with
price, and to determine the price at which profit is maximized.

Two of the products were downward sloping in price (they sold more units when the price
was lower). Surprisingly, however, demand for one product actually increased with price for
reasons that are described later in this article.

But Fisher, professor of information and operations management, and Gaur, operations
management professor at NYU‟s Stern School of Business, also demonstrated another point
with this experiment: That in-store testing can be a powerful tool for retailers trying to
determine price optimization, as long as the testing is done right.

Generally when retailers test, says Fisher, “they aren‟t systematic enough to insure accurate
results. One retailer I worked with found that half the time the products it tested sold better
at the higher price, an illogical result that led the company to conclude that the test was
invalid.”

Moreover, when Fisher, who is also co-director of Wharton‟s Fishman-Davidson Center for
Service and Operations Management, once asked 32 retailers whether they conducted price
testing, 90% of them responded „yes‟. “We then asked them to rate the effectiveness of
their testing on a 10 point scale, with 10 being the highest. The median score was about six
– not a stellar performance,” he says.

The unreliability of testing led Fisher and Gaur to design their Zany Brainy experiment in
such a way as to control for differences between stores and thus produce results that were
representative of the entire chain. Their methodology is described in a paper entitled, “In-
Store Experiments to Determine the Impact of Price on Sales.”

Precautionary Measures
In their experiment with Zany Brainy – based in King of Prussia, Pa., and owned by F.A.O. –
Fisher and Gaur took a number of steps to make sure that the stores they used in their test
were directly comparable. For example, the stores selected were similar in age and in size
(as measured by total dollar sales), and their geographical location was relatively isolated
from other stores in the chain (“to reduce the risk that a customer will visit two stores with
different prices).” A small subset of stores was used so that the experiment was cost-
effective and relatively easy to execute.

The experiment was conducted for a period of six weeks – “long enough to provide a
sufficient sample of data without creating any seasonal variations,” the authors write.
Precautions were taken to insure the “purity” of the experiment: For example, the labels did
not show the original list price so that customers would not perceive that a product was
marked up or marked down. Also, store managers were not informed about the experiment
in order to make sure they didn‟t treat the test products differently than they did other
products. Finally, sufficient inventory was kept in the experimental stores to avoid running
out of the targeted merchandise.

Fisher and Gaur tested the three products at three price-points in six stores, for a total of
18 stores (nearly one-third of the chain‟s 53 stores). The family game center price ranged
from a low of $19.99 to a medium price of $24.99 to a high of $29.99. The Phonics traveler
ranged in price from $24.99 to $29.99 to $34.99 and the headset walkie-talkie from $14.99
to $19.99 to $24.99.

The difference in prices for each item was “considered sufficiently large to cause an
observable change in demand,” the authors write. In addition, the products were “not
carried by the competition, so that the chances of comparison-shopping” were reduced.
Moreover, each item was “unique to avoid comparison with other brands in the same
category.”

Walkie-talkies and Wine
In analyzing the results of their experiment, Fisher and Gaur found that sales of the family
game center and the Phonics traveler were downward sloping in price – i.e. more of them
sold at the lower price than at the higher one. However, the walkie-talkie showed a different
pattern. It sold 74 units at the middle price point ($19.99), 47 units at the $14.99 price and
36 units at the highest price ($24.99.)

To understand the reasons for this behavior, Fisher and Gaur spoke with merchandise
managers at Zany Brainy and several other retailing firms. They came away with several
explanations. First, because the headset walkie-talkie is a complex electronic item,
consumers find it difficult to judge its quality. They therefore depend on price as an
indicator. Wine, the researchers note, is another example of a product where consumers –
most of whom are not wine connoisseurs – often use price to judge quality.

The family board center, however, is easily understood by the customer, “so that price need
not be used as an indicator of quality.” As for the Phonics traveler, because it is a branded
item made by a recognized manufacturer, consumers don‟t rely on price to judge the item‟s
quality. “You might buy a $10 walkie-talkie from Sony because you know and trust the
brand,” says Fisher. “But a consumer might worry that a $10 walkie-talkie with an unknown
brand would be a piece of junk.” (The walkie-talkie at Zany Brainy is not branded.)

In their paper, Fisher and Gaur also cite outside research suggesting that consumers
“uniformly perceive a stronger association between price and quality for durable products” –
such as microwaves and televisions – than for non-durable products, such as paper towels,
orange juice and detergents. This is most likely because consumers make fewer purchases
in the durable goods category and have greater difficulty evaluating the products‟
complexity.

Second, the $19.99 price point is more popular for gift purchases than $14.99, the authors
note. Because consumers may like the headset walkie-talkie as a gift item, the unit sales at
$19.99 exceeded those at $14.99.

The researchers also fit demand curves to the two products with downward sloping demand
– the family game center and the Phonics traveler – to estimate the price elasticity of
demand and to identify a price that maximizes profit. They found that the optimal prices for
the Phonics traveler and family game center were $35.65 and $22.58 respectively
(compared to existing prices of $29.99 and $24.99). “The increase in expected gross profit
from moving to the optimal price is 3.8% for the Phonics traveler and 0.9% for the family
game center,” the paper notes.

History Lessons
In explaining the background behind the Zany Brainy experiment, Fisher notes that people
tend to separate pricing into markdown pricing and regular pricing. Much of the world‟s
economy is transacted in markdown pricing; indeed, department stores may sell more than
half their volume at markdown prices. “Prices are very fluid, and often change multiple
times as stores try to (sell out) their inventory,” Fisher says.

Regular pricing generally includes the consumer packaged good segment (food products,
soda, paper towels, etc.). Research typically tends to center on pricing strategies as well as
quantification – trying to estimate what demand would be at different price levels and then
choosing an optimal price. In doing their research on pricing, companies look at past history
showing how the price has varied over certain selling periods (controlling for factors that
drive sales, like seasonality).

In the Zany Brainy experiment, however, Fisher and Gaur took a different approach to
testing. “If your goal is to measure price elasticity – how consumers respond to differences
in price – the advantage of our test is you can control everything, compared with using
whatever natural variations there were in history,” Fisher says.

On the other hand, the advantage of relying on history is that it doesn‟t require the effort
involved in consciously running a test, he adds. “Retailers are so action oriented that they
often have a bias against testing. It‟s not going to help you make this quarter‟s numbers; it
takes time and energy; and you know that if you are testing three different prices, two of
the prices will be wrong. That will hurt your numbers a little. So there is a cost to testing.”

Fisher recommends a blended approach, and has started an analytic software company
called 4R Systems to do this. “We are working with one retailer to help it optimize its exit
from inventory at the end of product life. Price is our main weapon. Our approach is to use
history to get the best estimates we can, but if the history is inadequate or if it is a very
high-stakes decisions, we will use selective experimentation to buttress historical data as
needed.”

Fisher would argue, however, that there are obvious advantages to pure price testing, or in-
store testing, as long as the stores chosen for the testing meet the strict criteria used in the
Zany Brainy experiment. “Our methodology is useful not just for finding consumer reactions
to different price points but also to test the effects of different types of assortments and
store-push levers such as „item of the week promotion,‟ large shelf space display and
salesperson push,” he says.

In-store experiments are also valuable scientific tools for studying the impact of store
environmental variables - such as music, lighting, employee behavior and store design - on
purchasing decisions.



“By doing these types of experiments on price,” says Fisher, “you are learning about
consumer behavior. In essence you are learning for the future.”
Published: November 5, 2003

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags: zany, brainy, store
Stats:
views:392
posted:1/8/2009
language:English
pages:3