One standard, however many banners.
Different fascias, different formats, different systems, and usually an acquisition or two that never quite got absorbed. Clarity runs the same item-level record across all of it, so you can compare stores that were never designed to be comparable.
Comparable numbers from incomparable stores.
The hard part of a portfolio is not the reporting. It is that each banner counts differently, so the numbers were never the same thing.
One method
The same counting process across every banner, so an accuracy figure from one fascia means what it means in another.
Format flexibility
Flagship, high street, concession, and shop-in-shop all run the same platform, configured per format rather than forked per banner.
Absorbing acquisitions
A new banner is brought onto the stores you already run, rather than added as a parallel system somebody has to reconcile later.
Local control
Role-based permissions and per-store settings, so standardization does not mean taking judgment away from the people running the site.
- Scope
- Multi-banner, multi-market
- Standard
- One record, many formats
- New sites
- Repeatable package
- Comparison
- Like for like
Standardize the measurement, not the retailer.
Banners are different on purpose. What has to be the same is how you count, because that is the only way a portfolio conversation is about performance rather than about methodology.
What the other teams need to know.
An RFID program touches four other teams, and each arrives with a different question. These are their answers.
Start with the banner that hurts most.
One or two of the stores you are least confident about will tell you more than a portfolio-wide review ever could.