Friday, June 3, 2016

Thank you for coming to Please follow one of the links below:
Web Page: www.StoreReport.NET
LinkedIn Forum:
LinkedIn Forum: (under construction)

Address: StoreReport LLC, 205 David Sherman Rd, Newhebron, MS  39140

Office: 601-847-6209
Cell: 601-847-9480

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

C-Store Logic

Several years ago, I suggested to a supervisor who was in charge of a half-a-dozing stores, that she train her store managers to audit their own stores, and she just about busted a gut laughing.  I really thought she was going to have a seizure. I could swear the lady had tears in her eyes. The owner shook his head as if to validate her reaction.

As she gained her composure, she sputtered, “Why, that’s the most ridiculous thing I ever heard in my life. If they know what they have in their store, they can cover up shortages.” 

I waited for the laughter to subside, and the entire room had settled down, then I simply said, “How do they know what to order?”

Friday, June 15, 2012

Automated Store Replenishment – Volume XXVI

Suppliers have several major issues that will be obliterated by implementing an Automated Store Replenishment (ASR) relationship with their customers. Here are but a few, with a brief explanation of each:

Excessive Warehouse Stock:
I readily admit and humbly confess one of my previously, flawed assumptions. After years of watching excess inventory pour into stores, I naturally assumed suppliers were purposely contributing to overstock. A large majority of clients agreed with me. In my defense, presales people helped me to jump to that conclusion; nevertheless, I was wrong—dead wrong. Surely, some sales people are guilty of overstocking retailers to pad their commissions; however, if you go back to the source, to the suppliers themselves, they truly get it—overstocking retail stores is not in their best interest. Why? because overstock can be as damaging to wholesalers as out-of-stocks are to both of you. 

Not knowing what retailers have in their stores affects a supplier’s ability to forecast future needs, so they have to resort to stocking excessive amounts of inventory in their warehouses in the case their retailers might run short. As inventory piles up in warehouse, the tendency is to get rid of it as quickly as possible. If suppliers knew ahead of time what retailers would most likely be able to sell next week, next month, or six months down the road, taking into account seasons and holidays, they would not need to invest so much of their working capital in overstock. If you will demonstrate your willingness to help your suppliers cut costs, they will bend over backwards to help you.

Frequency of Deliveries:
Yes, I was wrong again. Common sense led me to believe more frequent deliveries would benefit retailers, as it would help reduce unneeded stock and make retailers lean and mean. However, while actually working in the stores and with their suppliers, I have seen the real world and it brought me to the opposite conclusion resulting in unseen advantages to both, but only if it is done with a high degree of accuracy. The reason I belabored for so long under the wrong assumption can be attributed to the vast amount of overstock present in most retail stores. Eliminate that and old assumptions become unsustainable.

It costs suppliers money to deliver inventory to your stores. By extending the period between deliveries and bringing to the store only what can be sold within 1.5 to two delivery cycles, there will be huge reductions in stock with longer delivery cycles, resulting in less delivery expense to suppliers, allowing suppliers to offer deeper discounts  to retailers, thereby giving both distinct competitive advantages.

If you have read my previous book, ‘Retail Is Detail’, you’re most likely familiar with my ideas regarding consigned inventory, based upon taking the wholesaler’s point of view that retailers are merely conduits to get their inventory into the hands of consumers. I explain in great detail, how it will double suppliers profits and increase retailers’ use of working capital by over 60%.

Suppliers can’t possibly get ASR to work while dealing with hundreds of different interface requirements used by a multitude of retailers. A third-party provider could easily be employed to standardize Retailer/Supplier integration providing overstock and out-of-stock solutions for both. And the cost? How about zero?

Automated Store Replenishment – Volume XXV

We have talked about 12 and 13-digit UPCs, but before leaving the issue behind, there is one other I would like to tell you about—the 8-digit UPC. This UPC is nothing more than a 12-digit UPC converted to a compact size to fix neatly on smaller items. Using our previous example, a Snickers UPC can be represented in one of two ways; as ‘040000001027’ or ‘04010207’. Both UPCs identify the same product and both are valid.

In our system, we found it more convenient to store only 12-digit UPCs, as it would be wasteful and unnecessary to have two UPCs for each item. Therefore, when encountered by our system, the system automatically converts 8-digits to 12-digits. All scanners can be programmed to perform this conversion as well.

Having a common repository of UPCs gives us the ability to share this information with every company who uses our system. Being on the Cloud, when one of our customers encounters a new UPC, it immediately becomes available to everyone else using the system. And since there is no global UPC database on the Internet that is trustworthy, having a master list that everyone can share saves everybody time and money. Our hope is to convince manufacturers to send us new UPCs as they are created.  

I began writing my system in 1978—thirty-four years ago. I don’t have to tell you; a lot of changes have occurred since then. However, the one advantage we had that most others did not, was that programs written decades ago are still usable today; even with the latest operating systems. There is one disadvantage as well, and I will talk about that now.

When I wrote our initial system, I designed it for my first customer. When I took on a second one, I had to redesign it to address the new customer’s requirements. As I added more clients, fewer and fewer rewrites were needed. Somewhere in 1986, having modified the system for forty clients, it became apparent that I had covered practically everything that might come up in the near, foreseeable future. 

In 1989, a major change occurred in data processing and it became advisable to redesign our system to take advantage of the new and more powerful IBM computers. By then, we had about 360 different companies using our system, and we rolled changes we had made during the previous three years into the new design. In 1992, we added our Satellite system and in the year 2000, we put everything on the Cloud. In 2004, we began working on our POS service. By then, the system was at least 10-times larger than what I had in the early days and probably 20% was just hanging out there with nothing to do.

This is a common problem with all computer software. We have it, our competitors have it, you have it, and your suppliers MOST CERTAINLY have it. If you do not stay on top of the situation, after a period of years, as old programmers leave and new programmers arrive, you end up with what the data processing industry calls, ‘spaghetti code’. If anyone denies it, they are either lying through their teeth, or they have not been in the business long enough to face reality. The purpose of software versions are an attempt at cleaning up spaghetti code and introducing efficiency and new functionality, but unless you throw everything out and start over again from scratch, spaghetti code will continue to grow and continue to have a negative impact on the efficiency and functionality of any system.

Most of your suppliers have software systems that are decades old. The term ‘legacy code’ does not even begin to express the real mess they have to deal with. They designed their systems to control their warehouses, their offices, and to send retailers a bill. Adding functionality to support Automated Store Replenishment has never been high on their list—UNTIL NOW!

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Automated Store Replenishment – Volume XXIV

(Continued from previous page)

Two items wrapped together to make a single product is not as common as it used to be, because retailers learned the hard way, in many cases, the clerk can never figure out which of the three barcodes to scan.

Occasionally, suppliers will use part of the UPC code to create a VIN. For example, some cola vendors strip off the first and last digits and use the middle ten digits to identify the product. Some vendors just make up one that is not a valid UPC code at all. This is a common occurrence with shippers. Trapping all the possible errors is a nightmare, and it has taken us years to figure out how to catch them all. Still, we get a new situation every now and again.

We worked with one vendor that striped the check digit off the UPC (the last number), and used it to signify the pack size using their own cryptic system. For example, a valid UPC for a single Snickers candy bar is ‘040000001027’. The carton the Snickers come in is something entirely different, but the vendor would change the check digit of the single bar to ‘1’ to signify a carton, ending up with ‘040000001021’ which is not a valid UPC at all. Of course, if the check digit on the product was already a ‘1’, they would chose a different number. We can always strip off the check digit and generate a valid one, but how they ever kept things straight always amused me.

I’ve even had suppliers try to convince me that the first and last digits are superfluous information. They obviously have never tried to use a scanner to identify a product. If you’ve ever been in a check-out line at the grocery store and the clerk had to scan and item four or five times before the system accepted it, it was usually because the scanner read the check digit incorrectly and they had to scrape the ice off the ice cream container to get it to scan properly.

Some items arrive in stores with a UPC number that eludes all efforts of figuring what they meant to put there. In this case, we resort to calling the supplier and obtaining the correct information. European/Asian 13-digit UPC’s occasionally get into a store. For a time, the accepted solution to convert a 13-digit UPC to 12 digits was simply to ignore the first digit altogether. This method stopped working when ‘0’ was not the first digit, because the absence of the first digit (being non-zero) made the check digit invalid. In America, products with 13-digit barcodes are seldom re-ordered, because they will generally outlive the store. Up until European and Asian markets decided to expand the UPC to 13 digits, they were reserved as ISBN numbers for books, but because it is no longer possible to convert 12 digit UPCs to 13 digits, we may have to learn to live with it.

The first digit of twelve-digit American bar codes were originally meant to denote packaging and is often referred to as the ‘preamble’, but that position has been hi-jacked by manufacturers and now they are just part of the other digits. The last (12th)  digit is the ‘check digit’, and determined by running the first eleven numbers through a computer algorithm. If any of the first eleven digits are changed, the check digit will change. The 2nd through the 6th digit are reserved for the manufacture’s code. Referring to our example above, for Snickers ‘040000001027’, ‘0’ is the preamble, ‘400000’ is reserved for the Mars Candy Company, the next five numbers ‘00102’ signifies Snickers and the last digit ‘7’ is the check digit. Manufacturers may change UPC codes permanently or temporarily without notice. The usual reason is to track items sold by geographical areas. To us, we have no alternative but treat it as a brand new item. As of today, we have recorded 40,652 unique UPCs in our system.