Newsagents the world over are told by some existing and would-be suppliers: you will win because this product / service will drive foot traffic. We know from our own basket analysis data in Australia this is not true for transport ticket top-up, newspapers, lottery products and bill payment. They are all inefficient in terms of basket mix yet suppliers continue to beat the foot traffic boost drum.
Newsagents in the UK are concerned about foot traffic (footfall) in their current challenges with the PayPoint bill payment and parcel service according to an article at BetterRetailing. The article is interesting as it puts data on the table in analysing the knock-on benefits of PayPoint in a business.
Where newsagents are asked to take on low margin products or services there needs to be more than a claim by a supplier about foot traffic. They need to back the claim with evidence and to agree or a reasonable KPI below which the fee they pay increases to make offering the service financially viable to newsagents. That said, my preference is that from the get go the fee paid represents fair compensation for costs of servicing the transaction including labour, prime space costs and opportunity cost relevant to what else could be achieved with that space – plus a margin.
Foot traffic of itself is not useful for any business. The traffic must be relevant to the business. Newsagents ought to be wary of a foot traffic benefit claim where there is no analysis of the deeper value of the specific traffic expected to be generated.
Valid points Mark. I reckon phone topups, transport tickets, and newspapers to a lesser extent are very inefficient for getting extra basket depth, or even just getting a relationship going with the customer. Almost invariably they are rushing in to get a transport ticket, topup on their way somewhere. Lotteries is a bit better because you can get a happy conversation going and form the relationship. Definitely needs to be more commission on that other stuff.