In my role, I speak with clients and potential clients all day. A recurring trend I’ve seen is companies “riding out” their contracts for systems and tools that just aren’t working out for them. Whether it’s the result of a mistrust in model outputs, a lack of field user input, data in silos, or simply a poorly executed implementation, companies unhappy with their tools feel stuck with them through the contract term.
While this may seem normal and understandable, we’re primarily dealing here with real estate and research teams, who routinely buy out leases to close underperforming stores. The cost to do so is significant, but it’s a normal course of business when it ultimately makes the most sense long-term.
So why not apply this thinking to the tools you use? I would think that the tools you use to choose sites and make high-investment decisions would also be a means for ROI.
If your tools are underperforming, why ride out the “lease” or contract? You could potentially save millions of dollars through better decision making by buying it out and finding tools that work for you. It’s probably costing you more to keep subpar tools than it would to just write them off and get something that works.
When real estate decisions cost millions, and systems generally cost a fraction of that, why not make the move? These tools and systems are supposed to be designed to give you significant return on your investment. If they’re not doing that, it’s time to cut your losses and move on.
As we’ve unfortunately seen all too often, retailers that make too many poor choices can face dire consequences. So why not expect more, and invest more, in the tools used to make those decisions?