Skip to content
Search AI Powered

Latest Stories

After the rush: The complex dynamics of post-holiday electronics sales

January sales are a constant in the retail calendar. However, for consumer electronics brands, the key to cost efficiency lies in proactive holiday season strategies.

The holiday season shopping frenzy may be over, but savvy shoppers who are patient enough to wait and are not too fussed about getting the latest and greatest product know that January sales are likely to bring bigger bargains.

January sales are a completely different proposition to sales at any other time of the year. 


Throughout the commercial year, manufacturing brands and retailers will run sales latched onto traditional celebrations (Easter, Christmas, Diwali, Passover, Eid, etc.), work calendar milestones (summer holidays, back to school), or artificially created events (Amazon Prime Day or Black Friday) with the singular objective to drive revenue through increased sales volumes. In contrast, January sales are a corrective mechanism. They try to rectify hyped expectations and overstocking, aiming to help brands and retailers shift older products to make space for newer stuff. Because of that, January sales have a different feel for the consumer and a higher cost for the brands and their distribution chains. One of the sectors feeling the impact most acutely is consumer electronics. 

Impact for consumer electronics brands

Consumer electronics manufacturers face two buckets of costs related to January sales. The first bucket includes costs directly related to executing the January sales. The second bucket gathers all the costs to deal with the aftermath of the holiday season. 

One of the most immediate directly related costs is the reduced profit margin on each product. For an item originally intended to be sold at a 100% markup and then discounted by 30%, the manufacturer might see a direct revenue reduction of up to 15-30% on that item, depending on promotion agreements with retailers and the distribution model. If products aren't sold during the expected holiday rush, there's also a cost associated with holding onto that inventory. This includes warehousing costs, potential product depreciation, insurance, and other overheads that could push costs up by a further 2-5% (or more) if items stay in stock longer than anticipated. Moving excess inventory may require manufacturers to support retailers with advertising funds or promotional allowances, adding another cost for the manufacturer. These allowances can vary but might cost 1-3% of revenue, especially if manufacturers launch aggressive post-holiday promotions.

January isn't just a month of sales but also of returns. Returns can result in open-box items, refurbishment costs, and potential losses if the product can't be resold. Returned products often need to be more heavily discounted to leave the shelves. While this isn't a direct result of January sales, it is a cost associated with the post-holiday period. Whether discounted returns or excess stock, products sold in January have the same warranty and support obligations. If products are sold at reduced margins, but the post-sale support remains the same, this could represent an increased cost per unit sold. Handling returns, refurbishing, and offering post-sale support for items sold at lower margins might eat up another 1-5% of revenue. But holding onto older inventory is rarely an option. Doing so may prevent manufacturers from producing or promoting newer models, delay product launches, or lead to missed opportunities in the market. It is a fine balance between protecting future opportunities by clearing the shelves and protecting the current brand perception, as heavy product discounts can affect how consumers perceive a brand. Consumers might view a product as less valuable or of lower quality if it is constantly on sale.

In the long term, if there's a consistent pattern of overproduction leading to post-holiday discounts, manufacturers might have to adjust their supply chain strategies, which could involve renegotiation with suppliers, changes in production schedules, or even layoffs in extreme cases.

Aggregating the above, a very rough estimate might suggest that January sales and associated post-holiday factors could cost consumer electronics manufacturers 20-40% of the revenue generated from those specific sale items. (See Figure 1.)

Impact on consumer electronics distribution chain

Consumer electronics manufacturers typically navigate a series of distribution channels before reaching the end consumer. Some manufacturers sell their products directly to consumers, often through their own websites or brand stores. Apple, for example, has its own retail stores and online stores. The most common points of sale for consumer electronics are probably retailers, including both brick-and-mortar stores (like Best Buy or MediaMarkt) and online retailers (like Amazon). Smaller retailers and specialty boutique shops specializing in specific types of electronics (for example, high-end audio equipment) typically get the products from distributors and wholesalers. Some electronics products offered to consumers are equally applicable in a B2B environment. Value-added resellers (VARs) who bundle a manufacturer's product with software or services and provide a complete package are the more common sales routes in the business-to-business domain. The costs of January sales ripple through this entire distribution chain. 

Holding onto unsold inventory can tie up capital for distributors and retailers. Plus, unsold holiday inventory takes up retail space that could be used for new products. January sales help free up cash and clear shelf space, but at the cost of reduced margins that increased volumes can't always offset. For specialty stores, constantly discounting products can impact the premium image these stores might be trying to maintain. If retailers can't move inventory, they might return it to distributors, especially if there's a return agreement in place, which can impact the distributor's bottom line. For VARs, if the hardware part of their bundle is on discount, it might force them to discount their entire package, affecting their service or software margins. However, holding onto outdated bundled hardware is rarely a good option, as it can make their service/software package less attractive. 

While January sales help move inventory and generate revenue, they come at the expense of reduced profit margins for almost every entity in the distribution channel, not just manufacturers.

Using incentive strategies to reduce the impact

Manufacturers and their distribution chain fully accept that consumers have come to expect sales in January for electronics products, especially older models. However, there are ways to minimize the impact, and they all revolve around maximizing sales before January to reduce the amount of stock ( and older stock) left unsold.

Evidence suggests that consumers expect retailers to offer sales starting earlier and lasting longer than they did traditionally (see Figure 2). 

Manufacturers can use various incentives like back-end rebates, SPIFs (sales person incentive fund), and market development funds (MDF) to enable and motivate channel partners to sell more during those extended sales periods, reducing January leftover stock.

By offering rebates for reaching certain sales thresholds, manufacturers shift the focus from front-end price cuts to back-end rewards. They move away from devaluing product stock through discounts to motivating partners to sell higher volumes earlier, reducing the need for January sales. 

Manufacturers can ensure salespeople promote their products more aggressively and ahead of competitor brands by rewarding them through SPIFs for pushing specific offers. Again, this strategy can reduce overstock that might end up in January sales. The SPIF needs to be substantial enough to drive the desired salesperson behavior.

Market Development Funds provided by manufacturers to channel partners to support marketing activities such as in-store displays, online marketing campaigns, or other promotional activities are also an effective strategy. Such funded activities can boost the visibility and desirability of the products during the peak selling season, reducing leftover inventory post-holidays.

A successful strategy would likely combine all three elements and follow five key steps: 

Step 1—Prioritize products: Manufacturers should identify which products are most at risk of becoming overstocked post-holidays and target incentives accordingly.

Step 2—Collaborate with partners: Engage with channel partners to understand their challenges and tailor incentives to address them.

Step 3—Monitor and adjust: Keep a close eye on sales data and feedback from channel partners. Adjust incentive programs as needed to ensure they're effective.

Step 4—Combine incentives: Use a mix of back-end rebates, SPIFs, and MDFs to motivate different parts of the distribution chain. For example, use a MDF to boost overall brand visibility, back-end rebates to incentivize retailers, and SPIFs to motivate individual salespeople.

Step 5—Clear communication: Ensure all channel partners understand the incentive programs and how they stand to benefit.

January sales are a constant in the retail calendar. However, for consumer electronics brands, the key to cost efficiency lies in proactive holiday season strategies. By smartly balancing the expenses of November and December promotions with partner marketing activities and rewards, brands can effectively manage post-holiday costs. Employing strategic incentives and promotions allows these manufacturers and retailers to significantly reduce unsold inventory after the holiday rush, thereby minimizing the financial impact of January sales. This approach ensures a more streamlined and cost-effective transition into the new year.

Sources:

Holiday spending statistics: 2023 Holiday Outlook: PwC

Holiday 2022: Online sales rose 3.5%, boosted by discounts (cnbc.com)

Recent

More Stories

digital chain links

How to evaluate blockchain for your supply chain

In 2015, blockchain (the technology that makes digital currencies such as bitcoin work) was starting to be explored as a solution for supply chains. It promised cost savings, increased efficiency, and heightened transparency, among other benefits. For that reason, many companies were happy to run pilots testing blockchain for themselves. Today, these small-scale projects have been replaced by large-scale enterprise adoption of blockchain-based supply chain solutions. There are plenty of choices now for blockchain supply chain products, platforms, and providers. This makes the option to use blockchain available now to nearly everyone in the sector. This wealth of choice does, however, make it more difficult to decide which blockchain integration is best (or, indeed, if your organization needs to use it at all). To find the right blockchain, companies need to consider three factors: cost, sustainability, and the ultimate goal of trying new technology.

Choosing the right blockchain for an enterprise supply chain begins with the most basic consideration: cost. Blockchains work by securely recording “transactions,” and in a supply chain, those transactions are essentially database updates. However, making such updates has varying costs on different chains. If a container moves locations, that entry is updated, and a transaction is recorded. Enterprises need to figure out how many products, containers, or pieces of information they will process daily. Each of these can be considered a transaction. Now, some blockchains cost not even $1 to record a million movements. Other chains can cost thousands of dollars for the same amount of recording. Understanding the amount of activity you will need to record against the cost of transactions is the first place for an enterprise to start when considering blockchain. Ask the provider which blockchain their product is built on, and its average transaction cost. This will help you find the most cost-effective product or integration.

Keep ReadingShow less

Featured

A series of blocks. The first block is balanced on the edge so that it shows both "glob" and "loc" the rest of the blocks read "alization" to create the sense of both "globalizaiton" and "localization."

Balancing global sourcing and local availability can improve supply chain resiliency and sustainability.

Prazis Images via Adobe Stock

“Glocalization”: The path for navigating a volatile global supply chain

Over the last two decades, globalization became more intense, and with it, competition among companies and their supply networks. The constant fight for new sources of raw materials at a more competitive cost, the development of suppliers in low-cost countries, and the ability to manage logistic chains have become part of the routine of strategic sourcing.

In today's economic environment, companies are continuously pressured to reduce costs to combat slower growth; to offset increases in material prices, energy, and transportation; and to counterbalance various other pressures, such as inflation. Despite these issues and the economic instability worldwide, companies must continue to differentiate themselves and find growth opportunities to compete in the global marketplace. For example, in order to boost revenues and fuel growth, many companies are now under as much pressure to reduce product life cycles and speed-to-market as they are to find savings and reduce operational costs.

Keep ReadingShow less
A rusty blue chain crosses in front of blue, red, and yellow containers.

Labor strikes can stop supply chains in their tracks unless companies take steps to build up resiliency.

huntspy via Adobe Stock

Strikes and labor negotiations highlight need for resilient supply chains

Strikes and potential strikes have plagued the supply chain over the last few years. An analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Economics Policy Institute concluded that the number of workers involved in major strike activity increased by 280% in 2023 from 2022. Currently, the U.S. East Coast and Gulf Coast ports are facing the threat of another dockworker strike after they return to the negotiating table in January to attempt to resolve the remaining wage and automation issues. Similarly, Boeing is continuing to contend with a machinists strike.

Strikes, or even the threat of a strike, can cause significant disruptions across the global supply chain and have a massive economic impact. For example, when U.S. railroads were facing the threat of a strike in 2022, many companies redirected their cargo to avoid work stoppages and unhappy customers. If the strike had occurred, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) estimated that the economic impact of a railroad strike could have been $2 billion per day.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a campaign button that says, "Supply Chain Issues" lays on top of a U.S. flag.

Supply chain professionals should be aware of how the different policies proposed by the U.S. presidential candidates would affect supply chain operations.

Jon Anders Wiken via Adobe Stock

Assessing the U.S. election impact on supply chain policy

For both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, the revival of domestic manufacturing is a key campaign theme and centerpiece in their respective proposals for economic growth and national security. Amid the electioneering and campaign pledges, however, the centrality of supply chain policy is being lost in the shuffle. While both candidates want to make the supply chain less dependent on China and to rebuild the American industrial base, their approaches will impact manufacturing, allied sectors, and global supply chains much differently despite the common overlay of protectionist industrial policy.

Both Trump’s “America First” and Harris’ “Opportunity Economy” policies call for moving home parts of supply chains, like those that bring to market critical products like semiconductors, pharmaceutical products, and medical supplies, and strengthening long-term supply chain resilience by discouraging offshoring. Harris’ economic plan, dubbed the “New Way Forward,” aims to close tax loopholes, strengthen labor rights, and provide government support to high-priority sectors, such as semiconductors and green energy technologies. Trump’s economic plan, dubbed “New American Industrialism,” emphasizes tariffs, corporate tax cuts, and easing of regulations.

Keep ReadingShow less
AMRs and a drone operate in a warehouse environment. Overlaid are blue lines and data indicating that they are all connected digitally.

Future warehouse success depends on robot interoperability.

Image created by Yingyaipumi via Adobe Stock.

The Urgent Call for Warehouse Robotics Interoperability

Interest in warehouse robotics remains high, driven by labor pressures and a general desire to further automate distribution processes. Likewise, the number of robot makers also continues to grow. By one count, more than 50 providers exhibited at the big MODEX show in Atlanta in March 2024.

In distribution environments, there is especially strong interest in autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) for collaborative order picking. In this application, the AMR meets pickers at the right inventory location, and the workers then place picks in totes on the robot, which then moves on to another location/picker or off to packing, greatly reducing human travel time.

Keep ReadingShow less