E-commerce sites have found that flash sales can be an effective way of getting rid of excess inventory. But setting the right price and forecasting the success of these sales is difficult. A new model may help.
The Journal of Business Logistics (JBL), published by the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), is recognized as one of the world's leading academic supply chain journals. But sometimes it may be hard for practitioners to see how the research presented in its pages applies to what they do on a day-to-day basis. To help bridge that gap, CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly challenges the authors of selected JBL articles to explain the real-world applications of their academic work.
Flash sales occur when an e-commerce site sells a set quantity of inventory at a discount for a short period of time or until the stock runs out. The technique forms the central business model for standalone sites such as Zulily, Rue La La, and Gilt Groupe in fashion, and Woot in electronics. It is also used as a sales mechanism for general retailers. For example, Amazon uses it during its Amazon Prime Day.Â
Flash sales have proven to be an effective way of getting rid of excess inventory, but it can be hard to forecast demand for these sales and determine the right price for the items. Companies that do not get these issues right in the first place, before the sales go live, may struggle to make a profit and may even incur losses.
According to AnnÃbal Sodero from the University of Arkansas and Elliot Rabinovich of Arizona State University, one factor that has a big impact on the speed and success of flash sales is consumer opinions or reviews of the product on online discussion forums. The two discovered that consumer opinion was a good predictor of how long it would take to sell out the inventory—and therefore how profitable the retailer would be. In order to effectively set prices prior to the selling period, companies should use forecast models that account for these interactions among shoppers, they argue. As an example of how to do this, Sodero and Rabinovich adapted a well-known demand forecasting model called the "Bass demand growth model" to incorporate online consumer discussion forum posts. To create the model, they drew on seven years of data provided by a major retailer that uses flash sales.
Sodero explained to Supply Chain Quarterly Executive Editor Susan K. Lacefield what he and Rabinovich discovered about flash sales markets (FSM) and how companies can apply these findings.
What was the impetus for this research?
The impetus for this research is twofold, both personal and professional. As a consumer, I get frustrated when my family and friends tell me about a good flash sales deal, and I cannot get it because the item sold out too fast. I want to be able to take my time to go to the website, read reviews, see what people are saying about the deal, compare prices, and then calmly make my decision—to buy the item or pass on the deal.
As a supply chain management scholar, I find the flash sales model fascinating. Online retailers can provide a lot of inventory liquidity in such short amounts of time and capture new consumers who are hunting for bargains. It is not surprising, therefore, that flash sales markets have become an integral part of online retailing. Just look at the importance of Amazon Prime Day and Alibaba's Singles Day. Those are their biggest selling days of the year! I was interested in understanding ways retailers could ensure that the flash sales deals will be available at the right price for the right amount of time so that consumers can take their time to make a decision. It is important not to alienate consumers, because, on the Internet, it is too easy for consumers to switch and never come back.Â
What makes forecasting and product pricing for flash sales so challenging?
The flash sales model is built on the principle of scarcity. If either inventory or time runs out, the deal is gone, and it may not come back. This generates "competition" among consumers, who will "fight" to get a good deal. So, it all depends on how strong these scarcity effects (that is, this competition among consumers) will be. It is very difficult to predict the strength of these effects, though. A price increase or decrease can significantly alter the market, driving consumers into it or out of it. And it becomes even worse when consumers interact with each other, not only by observing each other's purchases but also by chatting with each other on discussion forums. The conversation may or may not be very influential. Other sales models that hinge on social interactions among consumers do not display such strong scarcity effects because they usually involve inventory replenishment and offer consumers plenty of time to make an informed decision.
What is the Bass demand growth model?
The Bass demand growth model is a model of communication. It helps predict the diffusion of an idea, a product, or a service among a population. It divides the population into two groups, in terms of their susceptibility to be influenced to adopt the idea, product, or service. There are those people who are influenced by factors that are external to the social system, for instance, mass media communication and email blasts from retailers. And there are those who are influenced by factors that are internal to the social system, for instance, the ability to observe others making the adoption. It relates to flash sales because inventory sales, in this business model, usually follow a pattern that is typical in the Bass model; there will be those bargain hunters who will become aware of a deal from external sources and will buy the item first, and then there will be those latecomers who only get to know about the deal after observing those early purchases.
Why did you decide to focus on looking at how consumer sentiment affected demand in the flash sales market?
The traditional Bass model has a lot of predictive power but relies heavily on consumers' ability to observe other consumers' purchases. But what about the influence among consumers via discussion forum posts? If you read the conversation, you will find people displaying a huge interest in a particular deal. But you may also find others bashing that deal, for instance, saying that they can find the same product elsewhere at a much lower price or that they just hate that product. Research shows that online conversations may, or may not, be extremely influential, and that is something that was not captured well in the traditional Bass model.
Can you describe the data set that you used for creating your model?
We looked at thousands of deals offered over seven years in the FSM of one of the leading online retailers in the United States. For each deal, we had the amount of inventory that was sold, how fast it was sold, if it sold out, and its price. We also had the consumer posts in the discussion forum associated with that deal. We used a proprietary software that rates the posts as conveying either a negative, positive, or neutral sentiment. (There are many tools available out there, so one must be very careful when choosing one to ensure that they are getting a good measure of sentiment.) We asked three people to also rate a fraction of the posts' sentiments in our data set and compared their measures with the measures provided by the software to ensure the measures we were using were reliable. We then modified the traditional Bass model to accommodate a parameter (the consumer sentiments). Our intervention predicts a growth pattern that deviates from the one you would get by shifting the demand (the sales are expected to move slower or faster depending on how negative or positive the consumer sentiments are).
How can this research be used by practitioners?
We provide practitioners with a tool to calibrate a forecasting model for their flash sales. They already have their sales data. All they need to do now is to measure sentiments, using one of the numerous tools that are available out there, and then enter the data into our model. We recommend that practitioners monitor their flash sales in real time, including capturing consumer sentiments, and calibrate a growth model early in the sale. That model can assist them in making adjustments to their prices. For instance, if a flash sales deal is not selling well and the consumer sentiments are too negative, then it may be necessary for them to make deep price cuts. If sentiments are not that negative, though, drastic price cuts might not be a good idea because that might cause the flash sale item to sell out too fast. In short, there is this interesting interplay between sentiments and pricing, with which practitioners should become more familiar.
What would you say is the key takeaway message of the research?
There is a way to make FSM (and similar business models) much more efficient and effective by leveraging the power of social media information. In our case, that would be information from consumer sentiments conveyed through discussion forum posts.
Companies in every sector are converting assets from fossil fuel to electric power in their push to reach net-zero energy targets and to reduce costs along the way, but to truly accelerate those efforts, they also need to improve electric energy efficiency, according to a study from technology consulting firm ABI Research.
In fact, boosting that efficiency could contribute fully 25% of the emissions reductions needed to reach net zero. And the pursuit of that goal will drive aggregated global investments in energy efficiency technologies to grow from $106 Billion in 2024 to $153 Billion in 2030, ABI said today in a report titled “The Role of Energy Efficiency in Reaching Net Zero Targets for Enterprises and Industries.”
ABI’s report divided the range of energy-efficiency-enhancing technologies and equipment into three industrial categories:
Commercial Buildings – Network Lighting Control (NLC) and occupancy sensing for automated lighting and heating; Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based energy management; heat-pumps and energy-efficient HVAC equipment; insulation technologies
Manufacturing Plants – Energy digital twins, factory automation, manufacturing process design and optimization software (PLM, MES, simulation); Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs); energy efficient electric motors (compressors, fans, pumps)
“Both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) continue to insist on the importance of energy efficiency,” Dominique Bonte, VP of End Markets and Verticals at ABI Research, said in a release. “At COP 29 in Dubai, it was agreed to commit to collectively double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements from around 2% to over 4% every year until 2030, following recommendations from the IEA. This complements the EU’s Energy Efficiency First (EE1) Framework and the U.S. 2022 Inflation Reduction Act in which US$86 billion was earmarked for energy efficiency actions.”
Economic activity in the logistics industry expanded in November, continuing a steady growth pattern that began earlier this year and signaling a return to seasonality after several years of fluctuating conditions, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index report (LMI), released today.
The November LMI registered 58.4, down slightly from October’s reading of 58.9, which was the highest level in two years. The LMI is a monthly gauge of business conditions across warehousing and logistics markets; a reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
“The overall index has been very consistent in the past three months, with readings of 58.6, 58.9, and 58.4,” LMI analyst Zac Rogers, associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University, wrote in the November LMI report. “This plateau is slightly higher than a similar plateau of consistency earlier in the year when May to August saw four readings between 55.3 and 56.4. Seasonally speaking, it is consistent that this later year run of readings would be the highest all year.”
Separately, Rogers said the end-of-year growth reflects the return to a healthy holiday peak, which started when inventory levels expanded in late summer and early fall as retailers began stocking up to meet consumer demand. Pandemic-driven shifts in consumer buying behavior, inflation, and economic uncertainty contributed to volatile peak season conditions over the past four years, with the LMI swinging from record-high growth in late 2020 and 2021 to slower growth in 2022 and contraction in 2023.
“The LMI contracted at this time a year ago, so basically [there was] no peak season,” Rogers said, citing inflation as a drag on demand. “To have a normal November … [really] for the first time in five years, justifies what we’ve seen all these companies doing—building up inventory in a sustainable, seasonal way.
“Based on what we’re seeing, a lot of supply chains called it right and were ready for healthy holiday season, so far.”
The LMI has remained in the mid to high 50s range since January—with the exception of April, when the index dipped to 52.9—signaling strong and consistent demand for warehousing and transportation services.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
"After several years of mitigating inflation, disruption, supply shocks, conflicts, and uncertainty, we are currently in a relative period of calm," John Paitek, vice president, GEP, said in a release. "But it is very much the calm before the coming storm. This report provides procurement and supply chain leaders with a prescriptive guide to weathering the gale force headwinds of protectionism, tariffs, trade wars, regulatory pressures, uncertainty, and the AI revolution that we will face in 2025."
A report from the company released today offers predictions and strategies for the upcoming year, organized into six major predictions in GEP’s “Outlook 2025: Procurement & Supply Chain.”
Advanced AI agents will play a key role in demand forecasting, risk monitoring, and supply chain optimization, shifting procurement's mandate from tactical to strategic. Companies should invest in the technology now to to streamline processes and enhance decision-making.
Expanded value metrics will drive decisions, as success will be measured by resilience, sustainability, and compliance… not just cost efficiency. Companies should communicate value beyond cost savings to stakeholders, and develop new KPIs.
Increasing regulatory demands will necessitate heightened supply chain transparency and accountability. So companies should strengthen supplier audits, adopt ESG tracking tools, and integrate compliance into strategic procurement decisions.
Widening tariffs and trade restrictions will force companies to reassess total cost of ownership (TCO) metrics to include geopolitical and environmental risks, as nearshoring and friendshoring attempt to balance resilience with cost.
Rising energy costs and regulatory demands will accelerate the shift to sustainable operations, pushing companies to invest in renewable energy and redesign supply chains to align with ESG commitments.
New tariffs could drive prices higher, just as inflation has come under control and interest rates are returning to near-zero levels. That means companies must continue to secure cost savings as their primary responsibility.
Specifically, 48% of respondents identified rising tariffs and trade barriers as their top concern, followed by supply chain disruptions at 45% and geopolitical instability at 41%. Moreover, tariffs and trade barriers ranked as the priority issue regardless of company size, as respondents at companies with less than 250 employees, 251-500, 501-1,000, 1,001-50,000 and 50,000+ employees all cited it as the most significant issue they are currently facing.
“Evolving tariffs and trade policies are one of a number of complex issues requiring organizations to build more resilience into their supply chains through compliance, technology and strategic planning,” Jackson Wood, Director, Industry Strategy at Descartes, said in a release. “With the potential for the incoming U.S. administration to impose new and additional tariffs on a wide variety of goods and countries of origin, U.S. importers may need to significantly re-engineer their sourcing strategies to mitigate potentially higher costs.”
Freight transportation providers and maritime port operators are bracing for rough business impacts if the incoming Trump Administration follows through on its pledge to impose a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% tariff on China, analysts say.
Industry contacts say they fear that such heavy fees could prompt importers to “pull forward” a massive surge of goods before the new administration is seated on January 20, and then quickly cut back again once the hefty new fees are instituted, according to a report from TD Cowen.
As a measure of the potential economic impact of that uncertain scenario, transport company stocks were mostly trading down yesterday following Donald Trump’s social media post on Monday night announcing the proposed new policy, TD Cowen said in a note to investors.
But an alternative impact of the tariff jump could be that it doesn’t happen at all, but is merely a threat intended to force other nations to the table to strike new deals on trade, immigration, or drug smuggling. “Trump is perfectly comfortable being a policy paradox and pushing competing policies (and people); this ‘chaos premium’ only increases his leverage in negotiations,” the firm said.
However, if that truly is the new administration’s strategy, it could backfire by sparking a tit-for-tat trade war that includes retaliatory tariffs by other countries on U.S. exports, other analysts said. “The additional tariffs on China that the incoming US administration plans to impose will add to restrictions on China-made products, driving up their prices and fueling an already-under-way surge in efforts to beat the tariffs by importing products before the inauguration,” Andrei Quinn-Barabanov, Senior Director – Supplier Risk Management solutions at Moody’s, said in a statement. “The Mexico and Canada tariffs may be an invitation to negotiations with the U.S. on immigration and other issues. If implemented, they would also be challenging to maintain, because the two nations can threaten the U.S. with significant retaliation and because of a likely pressure from the American business community that would be greatly affected by the costs and supply chain obstacles resulting from the tariffs.”
New tariffs could also damage sensitive supply chains by triggering unintended consequences, according to a report by Matt Lekstutis, Director at Efficio, a global procurement and supply chain procurement consultancy. “While ultimate tariff policy will likely be implemented to achieve specific US re-industrialization and other political objectives, the responses of various nations, companies and trading partners is not easily predicted and companies that even have little or no exposure to Mexico, China or Canada could be impacted. New tariffs may disrupt supply chains dependent on just in time deliveries as they adjust to new trade flows. This could affect all industries dependent on distribution and logistics providers and result in supply shortages,” Lekstutis said.