Pondering the Results of the Gladson Study
on Data Accuracy

As our readers know we recently published a study on Data Accuracy.  It focuses on operational data accuracy from the demand chain angle, rather than the supply chain.  Thus, we look at the accuracy of product item level dimensions, size, UOM and labeling information rather than information about case level inaccuracies.

In the course of reviewing the empirical results of the actual test data, study co-author Dave King , Gladson senior executives Paul Waldron, Cyndi Metallo and I began to debate which of the dimensional errors, height, width or depth were most harmful to retailers and which to manufacturers (indicating if nothing else, that we need to find more interesting hobbies).

Errors in product height measurements affected 77% of the over 200,000 products tested in the 1,000 planograms we reviewed from key retailers and manufacturers.  Some of those errors were small, but about 20% of the products varied by 25% or more from the actual height of the product!

In some ways product height dimension errors can be the most immediately vexing for the folks charged with pulling off a category reset.  In the pressure-cooker environment of trying to get a category reset done, with too few hands, complex planogram outputs, last minute product adjustments and toe-tapping customers impatient to get through the aisles, correct shelf height adjustments are critical.  Following the planogram precisely only to find, half way through the set, that a shelf needs to be a half inch higher in order to accommodate a miss-measured product is darned expensive.  It can add a third to the time spent on the reset, depending on what point the error was uncovered.

While in many cases the burden of this additional cost falls most directly on manufacturer and broker personnel helping the retailer do the reset, the effects on the retailer are not inconsequential.  Time spent on such a miss-queue must be “paid for” out of the time budgets that manufacturers and brokers have allotted for the total reset plan for that retailer, thus other reset tasks scheduled later in the year must be postponed or go undone.  Further, the longer a category is “closed for business” the more customers are inconvenienced and the more sales are impacted.  And, of course, the categories most often reset are the categories with the most consumer interest and excitement.  So while the manufacturers and the brokers may be the ones spending the additional hours rectifying the issue, the retailer also suffers in less measurable but no less meaningful ways.

And, let’s not ignore the consumer suffering from product height dimension efforts!  While visiting my eldest daughter recently in Austin, we ran out to one of her favorite grocery stores to fetch some picnic supplies.  This particular daughter has had only one minor fault (said the proud dad) involving nail-biting.  She had proudly quit the habit and was sporting some newly grown nails.  In a reset of a snack category, a height dimension error had been “overcome” by tucking the top package fold down and squeezing products, too tall for the shelf, onto that shelf.  The act of retrieving the product left my girl with some scraped knuckles and a sad, broken nail.  Interestingly, she blamed the manufacturer for poorly designing its package!

Needless to say the debate about which dimension errors most significantly affect retailers and manufacturers continues.  Let us know what YOU think!

Contact us at Newsletterinfo@gladson.com
View the Gladson Newsletter Archives