X (cross) Refer and document via pictures, any changes that are planned for the pog with the shelf status.
One of ShelfSnap’s discoveries in this journey with clients is that once a plan is built and agreed upon by trading partners, changes to that plan are never documented! ShelfSnap’s experience with two of the top food marketers, with entries in both DSD and center store confirm the fact.
The ShelfSnap compliance service is very particular in delivering store by store discrepancies between what is found on the shelf and what is in the plan. We routinely ask the client to review the store by store lists at the field level and at the supervisory level.
· In one company no one could supply a list of approved trade-outs to the plan.
· In the other company we did manage to tease out the replacement products but no further approved changes could be documented.
Recommendation to achieve X-reference to the plan and documentation of agreed upon changes:
Whenever anyone makes a change to the section they need to take a picture of the entire 3-4’ segment(s) affected and send it to ShelfSnap.
Once uploaded to ShelfSnap the changes can be recorded, documented and incorporated into the current plan.
ShelfSnap would also record the person submitting those changes.
Using this method assures that agreed upon changes are documented in a way where they can be maintained. It further assures that the period audits via pictures, and the pre reset “Fresh Start” will identify all unauthorized changes to the plan.
The F.I.X. process leverages current personnel to capture the shelf. It takes very little time and almost no training to take and upload the pictures.
The process leverages available technology as everyone has a digital camera or PDA.
The process is primarily external to all current IT infrastructure for the retailer or the manufacturer with the exception of the direct feed into the POG software of client choice.
The process TCO is no more than other measurement techniques and yet it increases the probability that:
· the plan will reach the shelf,
· shelf changes will be documented and responsibilities identified
· the plan will actually be able to be measured for impact
Other substitute methods for achieving the measurements necessary to support the F.I.X. are certainly possible. Direct audits through surveys or hand scan methods have been available for years. They are expensive to conduct because they take too much time to warrant the use of the normal in-store personnel. They are difficult to record in a way that is accurate and does not involve some subjective collector judgment or even bias. Any further clarification of the results is impossible because the source of the collection, the shelf itself, is consumed in the collection act.
Another method is the use of POS scan data or delivery data to at least confirm assortment. This of course does nothing for position, size of set, facings and does surprisingly little for an accurate view of assortment.
These tools have been around for at least a decade. The use of these techniques has resulted in the compliance gap we have today. The new news, is the innovation of digital merchandising measurements brought about through ShelfSnap.
For a complete copy of this whitepaper, please email firstname.lastname@example.org