SEMA NEWS - August 2009

By John Zinn
Illustration Colby Martin

Get Your Thinking And Strategy Headed Toward Efficiency And Accuracy

	Make sure that you always spell the same information the same every time you use it. Example: Chevy and Chevrolet. We all know each of these are the same, but the computer sees two distinct makes.

The list contained below should be used as a very basic litmus test as to the usefulness of your electronic product information. Correcting or addressing all of these issues does not equal standards compliance, but it will serve to get you headed in the right direction and redirect your overall thinking and strategy.

It will also increase the efficiency and accuracy with which your product information is made available to the consumer. If you haven’t done so, please take the time to read the other articles in this issue relating to product data/product information to better understand how absolutely critical it is that you take a good, hard, honest look at what you are currently calling your “product data.”

1. PDFs Are Not Data Files: PDFs, Word documents, read-only files of any type, heavily formatted Excel files (more on this in rule number two) and any other file format that is not “relational” should never be used for electronic product information distribution. The single most universally accepted and flexible format is .CSV (comma separated values). You should always have a copy of your product information in .CSV for immediate distribution.

2. Product Data Isn’t Pretty: This relates primarily to Excel files and is one of the most common errors made in data/product information formatting and distribution. The tendency to want to “dress up” the file with colors, fonts, graphics and otherwise mimic the appearance of a catalog page renders the information contained within that file virtually useless to anybody wishing to make electronic use of the same. Good product data isn’t pretty; don’t try to force it to be so. It’s okay to have a separate file for human consumption that is dressed up, but don’t ever send that to somebody asking for electronic product information.

3. Computers Aren’t Auto Enthusiasts: Never combine information in a single data field, even if you and everybody else in the industry know exactly what it means. Electronically, product information is stored, manipulated and displayed by leveraging simple relationships between data points. If you have any data fields that look like this…

…you are guilty of this critical error. A computer cannot possibly know which model belongs to which make. Each of these “relationships” must be firm and one to one. One make to one model. Period. Repeat this for the same part number as many times as it takes to keep a one-to-one relationship between all data points.

4. Spelling Counts: Make sure that you always spell the same information the same every time you use it. Example: Chevy and Chevrolet. We all know each of these are the same, but the computer sees two distinct makes. If this were imported into a website as is, for example, the vehicle selection drop-down menu would offer you both choices—Chevy and Chevrolet. Which do you choose? And each selection will display only the products listed with that spelling. So the customer or counter/phone salesmen won’t see everything that’s available regardless of his selection.

5. Asterisks, Footnotes and Caveats: You make a part that fits an F-150 but not the Harley-Davidson model. So you do the very human thing and list that part number thusly: “Make: Ford, Model: F-150*.” Then, someplace else in the file, you say: “*Does not fit Harley-Davidson model.” As with the spelling in rule number four and the relationships in rule number three, the computer has no idea what you mean. It only sees a new model—F-150*—and some extraneous data elsewhere that isn’t related to anything (the footnote). This logical error will either crash the program or simply drop the information as unusable/unrelated. All such qualifications, footnotes, etc., should exist in their own data field directly related to the part number that they reference.

Learn more about standards and find resources.

John Zinn is the senior vice president of Advanced Digital Strategies and the chairman of the communications subcommittee of the SEMA Business Technology Committee . He may be contacted via e-mail at jzinn@digstrat.com or via telephone at 949/528-6522.

SEMA NEWS - August 2009

By John Zinn
Illustration Colby Martin

Get Your Thinking And Strategy Headed Toward Efficiency And Accuracy

	Make sure that you always spell the same information the same every time you use it. Example: Chevy and Chevrolet. We all know each of these are the same, but the computer sees two distinct makes.

The list contained below should be used as a very basic litmus test as to the usefulness of your electronic product information. Correcting or addressing all of these issues does not equal standards compliance, but it will serve to get you headed in the right direction and redirect your overall thinking and strategy.

It will also increase the efficiency and accuracy with which your product information is made available to the consumer. If you haven’t done so, please take the time to read the other articles in this issue relating to product data/product information to better understand how absolutely critical it is that you take a good, hard, honest look at what you are currently calling your “product data.”

1. PDFs Are Not Data Files: PDFs, Word documents, read-only files of any type, heavily formatted Excel files (more on this in rule number two) and any other file format that is not “relational” should never be used for electronic product information distribution. The single most universally accepted and flexible format is .CSV (comma separated values). You should always have a copy of your product information in .CSV for immediate distribution.

2. Product Data Isn’t Pretty: This relates primarily to Excel files and is one of the most common errors made in data/product information formatting and distribution. The tendency to want to “dress up” the file with colors, fonts, graphics and otherwise mimic the appearance of a catalog page renders the information contained within that file virtually useless to anybody wishing to make electronic use of the same. Good product data isn’t pretty; don’t try to force it to be so. It’s okay to have a separate file for human consumption that is dressed up, but don’t ever send that to somebody asking for electronic product information.

3. Computers Aren’t Auto Enthusiasts: Never combine information in a single data field, even if you and everybody else in the industry know exactly what it means. Electronically, product information is stored, manipulated and displayed by leveraging simple relationships between data points. If you have any data fields that look like this…

…you are guilty of this critical error. A computer cannot possibly know which model belongs to which make. Each of these “relationships” must be firm and one to one. One make to one model. Period. Repeat this for the same part number as many times as it takes to keep a one-to-one relationship between all data points.

4. Spelling Counts: Make sure that you always spell the same information the same every time you use it. Example: Chevy and Chevrolet. We all know each of these are the same, but the computer sees two distinct makes. If this were imported into a website as is, for example, the vehicle selection drop-down menu would offer you both choices—Chevy and Chevrolet. Which do you choose? And each selection will display only the products listed with that spelling. So the customer or counter/phone salesmen won’t see everything that’s available regardless of his selection.

5. Asterisks, Footnotes and Caveats: You make a part that fits an F-150 but not the Harley-Davidson model. So you do the very human thing and list that part number thusly: “Make: Ford, Model: F-150*.” Then, someplace else in the file, you say: “*Does not fit Harley-Davidson model.” As with the spelling in rule number four and the relationships in rule number three, the computer has no idea what you mean. It only sees a new model—F-150*—and some extraneous data elsewhere that isn’t related to anything (the footnote). This logical error will either crash the program or simply drop the information as unusable/unrelated. All such qualifications, footnotes, etc., should exist in their own data field directly related to the part number that they reference.

Learn more about standards and find resources.

John Zinn is the senior vice president of Advanced Digital Strategies and the chairman of the communications subcommittee of the SEMA Business Technology Committee . He may be contacted via e-mail at jzinn@digstrat.com or via telephone at 949/528-6522.

SEMA NEWS - August 2009

By John Zinn
Illustration Colby Martin

Get Your Thinking And Strategy Headed Toward Efficiency And Accuracy

	Make sure that you always spell the same information the same every time you use it. Example: Chevy and Chevrolet. We all know each of these are the same, but the computer sees two distinct makes.

The list contained below should be used as a very basic litmus test as to the usefulness of your electronic product information. Correcting or addressing all of these issues does not equal standards compliance, but it will serve to get you headed in the right direction and redirect your overall thinking and strategy.

It will also increase the efficiency and accuracy with which your product information is made available to the consumer. If you haven’t done so, please take the time to read the other articles in this issue relating to product data/product information to better understand how absolutely critical it is that you take a good, hard, honest look at what you are currently calling your “product data.”

1. PDFs Are Not Data Files: PDFs, Word documents, read-only files of any type, heavily formatted Excel files (more on this in rule number two) and any other file format that is not “relational” should never be used for electronic product information distribution. The single most universally accepted and flexible format is .CSV (comma separated values). You should always have a copy of your product information in .CSV for immediate distribution.

2. Product Data Isn’t Pretty: This relates primarily to Excel files and is one of the most common errors made in data/product information formatting and distribution. The tendency to want to “dress up” the file with colors, fonts, graphics and otherwise mimic the appearance of a catalog page renders the information contained within that file virtually useless to anybody wishing to make electronic use of the same. Good product data isn’t pretty; don’t try to force it to be so. It’s okay to have a separate file for human consumption that is dressed up, but don’t ever send that to somebody asking for electronic product information.

3. Computers Aren’t Auto Enthusiasts: Never combine information in a single data field, even if you and everybody else in the industry know exactly what it means. Electronically, product information is stored, manipulated and displayed by leveraging simple relationships between data points. If you have any data fields that look like this…

…you are guilty of this critical error. A computer cannot possibly know which model belongs to which make. Each of these “relationships” must be firm and one to one. One make to one model. Period. Repeat this for the same part number as many times as it takes to keep a one-to-one relationship between all data points.

4. Spelling Counts: Make sure that you always spell the same information the same every time you use it. Example: Chevy and Chevrolet. We all know each of these are the same, but the computer sees two distinct makes. If this were imported into a website as is, for example, the vehicle selection drop-down menu would offer you both choices—Chevy and Chevrolet. Which do you choose? And each selection will display only the products listed with that spelling. So the customer or counter/phone salesmen won’t see everything that’s available regardless of his selection.

5. Asterisks, Footnotes and Caveats: You make a part that fits an F-150 but not the Harley-Davidson model. So you do the very human thing and list that part number thusly: “Make: Ford, Model: F-150*.” Then, someplace else in the file, you say: “*Does not fit Harley-Davidson model.” As with the spelling in rule number four and the relationships in rule number three, the computer has no idea what you mean. It only sees a new model—F-150*—and some extraneous data elsewhere that isn’t related to anything (the footnote). This logical error will either crash the program or simply drop the information as unusable/unrelated. All such qualifications, footnotes, etc., should exist in their own data field directly related to the part number that they reference.

Learn more about standards and find resources.

John Zinn is the senior vice president of Advanced Digital Strategies and the chairman of the communications subcommittee of the SEMA Business Technology Committee . He may be contacted via e-mail at jzinn@digstrat.com or via telephone at 949/528-6522.

SEMA NEWS - AUGUST 2009

By Wayne Peterman
Illustration Colby Martin

How Lack of Standards and Poorly Supplied Information Can Cost Sales

	Almost every company is losing some level of sales because of this issue. Those that address it head on will be the first to reap the rewards.

About seven or eight months ago, a successful retail chain with a 20-year, 10-location brick-and-mortar history decided that it was time it competed on the web with a full e-commerce solution. The chain identified 200 product lines as mission critical for the launch of the site and set out to gather the necessary data.

An internal standard was created that was made as simple as possible to accommodate the known and massive variety of data formats expected to be returned. Calls were made, e-mails were sent and the waiting began. The data started to arrive in every possible format—PDFs, Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, .CSV files and even, in one case, a PowerPoint presentation.

It quickly became clear that the internal staff was not equipped to manage and normalize this massive and growing undertaking simply to get the product information up on the website. They sought alternatives, and data providers were contacted, WDs were contacted and manufacturers were re-contacted. In most cases, the solutions offered were cost prohibitive, restrictive and/or impractical. The process dragged on with little success.

After six months, the original 200 mission critical vendors were reluctantly reduced to 35 for launch—based not on the top 35 relative to sales potential but on the 35 that could reasonably be turned into usable data in the shortest amount of time. Six months and still nothing on the website; therefore, no website. Six months, now bleeding into the prime summer sales season, that this company could have been selling products for 200 different companies. Instead it was selling nothing, and the short term included opportunities for only those 35 that provided something relatively useful. Today, the chain is still fighting to go live.

This isn’t limited to just the web. More companies than not are using some form of electronic product information internally, as well, for counter sales, accounting, inventory, etc.

Beyond the aggravation of spending hours and money to format somebody else’s data— something that can create bitterness on the part of the retailer/distributor because its staff is having to work so hard just to sell your products—there are questions of accuracy and completeness in the absence of standards. When faced with thousands upon thousands of lines of data to sort through and/or create, a project can permanently stall when every part number raises questions. The retailer/distributor folks are faced with problems such as, “They only list ‘F-150’ as an application, but I’m pretty sure this doesn’t fit the Lightning sub-model.” So, more often than not, they guess. They simply cannot make a phone call or send an e-mail for every question. Guessing, of course, leads to errors and lack of confidence and, therefore, fewer sales and higher returns. If there are enough of these types of questions, errors and omissions, the retailer/distributor may decide it simply isn’t worth the effort—not right now, at least. They’ll stick it on the bottom of the stack and move on.

The bottom line is that addressing all these issues takes time, and time is expensive. It costs the vendor up front to pay the person converting the data, but the real cost comes from the delays in getting the products exposed to millions of potential buyers across the nation and the world. The good news is that there are people and resources to help. Almost every company is losing some level of sales because of this issue. Those that address it head on will be the first to reap the rewards.

Learn more about standards and find resources.

Wayne Peterman is the database/customer service manager at Foster, Babcock & Associates. He may be contacted via e-mail at wayne@fosterbabcock.com or via phone at 816/283-3355.

SEMA NEWS - AUGUST 2009

By Wayne Peterman
Illustration Colby Martin

How Lack of Standards and Poorly Supplied Information Can Cost Sales

	Almost every company is losing some level of sales because of this issue. Those that address it head on will be the first to reap the rewards.

About seven or eight months ago, a successful retail chain with a 20-year, 10-location brick-and-mortar history decided that it was time it competed on the web with a full e-commerce solution. The chain identified 200 product lines as mission critical for the launch of the site and set out to gather the necessary data.

An internal standard was created that was made as simple as possible to accommodate the known and massive variety of data formats expected to be returned. Calls were made, e-mails were sent and the waiting began. The data started to arrive in every possible format—PDFs, Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, .CSV files and even, in one case, a PowerPoint presentation.

It quickly became clear that the internal staff was not equipped to manage and normalize this massive and growing undertaking simply to get the product information up on the website. They sought alternatives, and data providers were contacted, WDs were contacted and manufacturers were re-contacted. In most cases, the solutions offered were cost prohibitive, restrictive and/or impractical. The process dragged on with little success.

After six months, the original 200 mission critical vendors were reluctantly reduced to 35 for launch—based not on the top 35 relative to sales potential but on the 35 that could reasonably be turned into usable data in the shortest amount of time. Six months and still nothing on the website; therefore, no website. Six months, now bleeding into the prime summer sales season, that this company could have been selling products for 200 different companies. Instead it was selling nothing, and the short term included opportunities for only those 35 that provided something relatively useful. Today, the chain is still fighting to go live.

This isn’t limited to just the web. More companies than not are using some form of electronic product information internally, as well, for counter sales, accounting, inventory, etc.

Beyond the aggravation of spending hours and money to format somebody else’s data— something that can create bitterness on the part of the retailer/distributor because its staff is having to work so hard just to sell your products—there are questions of accuracy and completeness in the absence of standards. When faced with thousands upon thousands of lines of data to sort through and/or create, a project can permanently stall when every part number raises questions. The retailer/distributor folks are faced with problems such as, “They only list ‘F-150’ as an application, but I’m pretty sure this doesn’t fit the Lightning sub-model.” So, more often than not, they guess. They simply cannot make a phone call or send an e-mail for every question. Guessing, of course, leads to errors and lack of confidence and, therefore, fewer sales and higher returns. If there are enough of these types of questions, errors and omissions, the retailer/distributor may decide it simply isn’t worth the effort—not right now, at least. They’ll stick it on the bottom of the stack and move on.

The bottom line is that addressing all these issues takes time, and time is expensive. It costs the vendor up front to pay the person converting the data, but the real cost comes from the delays in getting the products exposed to millions of potential buyers across the nation and the world. The good news is that there are people and resources to help. Almost every company is losing some level of sales because of this issue. Those that address it head on will be the first to reap the rewards.

Learn more about standards and find resources.

Wayne Peterman is the database/customer service manager at Foster, Babcock & Associates. He may be contacted via e-mail at wayne@fosterbabcock.com or via phone at 816/283-3355.

SEMA NEWS - AUGUST 2009

By Wayne Peterman
Illustration Colby Martin

How Lack of Standards and Poorly Supplied Information Can Cost Sales

	Almost every company is losing some level of sales because of this issue. Those that address it head on will be the first to reap the rewards.

About seven or eight months ago, a successful retail chain with a 20-year, 10-location brick-and-mortar history decided that it was time it competed on the web with a full e-commerce solution. The chain identified 200 product lines as mission critical for the launch of the site and set out to gather the necessary data.

An internal standard was created that was made as simple as possible to accommodate the known and massive variety of data formats expected to be returned. Calls were made, e-mails were sent and the waiting began. The data started to arrive in every possible format—PDFs, Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, .CSV files and even, in one case, a PowerPoint presentation.

It quickly became clear that the internal staff was not equipped to manage and normalize this massive and growing undertaking simply to get the product information up on the website. They sought alternatives, and data providers were contacted, WDs were contacted and manufacturers were re-contacted. In most cases, the solutions offered were cost prohibitive, restrictive and/or impractical. The process dragged on with little success.

After six months, the original 200 mission critical vendors were reluctantly reduced to 35 for launch—based not on the top 35 relative to sales potential but on the 35 that could reasonably be turned into usable data in the shortest amount of time. Six months and still nothing on the website; therefore, no website. Six months, now bleeding into the prime summer sales season, that this company could have been selling products for 200 different companies. Instead it was selling nothing, and the short term included opportunities for only those 35 that provided something relatively useful. Today, the chain is still fighting to go live.

This isn’t limited to just the web. More companies than not are using some form of electronic product information internally, as well, for counter sales, accounting, inventory, etc.

Beyond the aggravation of spending hours and money to format somebody else’s data— something that can create bitterness on the part of the retailer/distributor because its staff is having to work so hard just to sell your products—there are questions of accuracy and completeness in the absence of standards. When faced with thousands upon thousands of lines of data to sort through and/or create, a project can permanently stall when every part number raises questions. The retailer/distributor folks are faced with problems such as, “They only list ‘F-150’ as an application, but I’m pretty sure this doesn’t fit the Lightning sub-model.” So, more often than not, they guess. They simply cannot make a phone call or send an e-mail for every question. Guessing, of course, leads to errors and lack of confidence and, therefore, fewer sales and higher returns. If there are enough of these types of questions, errors and omissions, the retailer/distributor may decide it simply isn’t worth the effort—not right now, at least. They’ll stick it on the bottom of the stack and move on.

The bottom line is that addressing all these issues takes time, and time is expensive. It costs the vendor up front to pay the person converting the data, but the real cost comes from the delays in getting the products exposed to millions of potential buyers across the nation and the world. The good news is that there are people and resources to help. Almost every company is losing some level of sales because of this issue. Those that address it head on will be the first to reap the rewards.

Learn more about standards and find resources.

Wayne Peterman is the database/customer service manager at Foster, Babcock & Associates. He may be contacted via e-mail at wayne@fosterbabcock.com or via phone at 816/283-3355.

SEMA NEWS - AUGUST 2009

By Wayne Peterman
Illustration Colby Martin

How Lack of Standards and Poorly Supplied Information Can Cost Sales

	Almost every company is losing some level of sales because of this issue. Those that address it head on will be the first to reap the rewards.

About seven or eight months ago, a successful retail chain with a 20-year, 10-location brick-and-mortar history decided that it was time it competed on the web with a full e-commerce solution. The chain identified 200 product lines as mission critical for the launch of the site and set out to gather the necessary data.

An internal standard was created that was made as simple as possible to accommodate the known and massive variety of data formats expected to be returned. Calls were made, e-mails were sent and the waiting began. The data started to arrive in every possible format—PDFs, Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, .CSV files and even, in one case, a PowerPoint presentation.

It quickly became clear that the internal staff was not equipped to manage and normalize this massive and growing undertaking simply to get the product information up on the website. They sought alternatives, and data providers were contacted, WDs were contacted and manufacturers were re-contacted. In most cases, the solutions offered were cost prohibitive, restrictive and/or impractical. The process dragged on with little success.

After six months, the original 200 mission critical vendors were reluctantly reduced to 35 for launch—based not on the top 35 relative to sales potential but on the 35 that could reasonably be turned into usable data in the shortest amount of time. Six months and still nothing on the website; therefore, no website. Six months, now bleeding into the prime summer sales season, that this company could have been selling products for 200 different companies. Instead it was selling nothing, and the short term included opportunities for only those 35 that provided something relatively useful. Today, the chain is still fighting to go live.

This isn’t limited to just the web. More companies than not are using some form of electronic product information internally, as well, for counter sales, accounting, inventory, etc.

Beyond the aggravation of spending hours and money to format somebody else’s data— something that can create bitterness on the part of the retailer/distributor because its staff is having to work so hard just to sell your products—there are questions of accuracy and completeness in the absence of standards. When faced with thousands upon thousands of lines of data to sort through and/or create, a project can permanently stall when every part number raises questions. The retailer/distributor folks are faced with problems such as, “They only list ‘F-150’ as an application, but I’m pretty sure this doesn’t fit the Lightning sub-model.” So, more often than not, they guess. They simply cannot make a phone call or send an e-mail for every question. Guessing, of course, leads to errors and lack of confidence and, therefore, fewer sales and higher returns. If there are enough of these types of questions, errors and omissions, the retailer/distributor may decide it simply isn’t worth the effort—not right now, at least. They’ll stick it on the bottom of the stack and move on.

The bottom line is that addressing all these issues takes time, and time is expensive. It costs the vendor up front to pay the person converting the data, but the real cost comes from the delays in getting the products exposed to millions of potential buyers across the nation and the world. The good news is that there are people and resources to help. Almost every company is losing some level of sales because of this issue. Those that address it head on will be the first to reap the rewards.

Learn more about standards and find resources.

Wayne Peterman is the database/customer service manager at Foster, Babcock & Associates. He may be contacted via e-mail at wayne@fosterbabcock.com or via phone at 816/283-3355.

SEMA NEWS - AUGUST 2009

By Wayne Peterman
Illustration Colby Martin

How Lack of Standards and Poorly Supplied Information Can Cost Sales

	Almost every company is losing some level of sales because of this issue. Those that address it head on will be the first to reap the rewards.

About seven or eight months ago, a successful retail chain with a 20-year, 10-location brick-and-mortar history decided that it was time it competed on the web with a full e-commerce solution. The chain identified 200 product lines as mission critical for the launch of the site and set out to gather the necessary data.

An internal standard was created that was made as simple as possible to accommodate the known and massive variety of data formats expected to be returned. Calls were made, e-mails were sent and the waiting began. The data started to arrive in every possible format—PDFs, Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, .CSV files and even, in one case, a PowerPoint presentation.

It quickly became clear that the internal staff was not equipped to manage and normalize this massive and growing undertaking simply to get the product information up on the website. They sought alternatives, and data providers were contacted, WDs were contacted and manufacturers were re-contacted. In most cases, the solutions offered were cost prohibitive, restrictive and/or impractical. The process dragged on with little success.

After six months, the original 200 mission critical vendors were reluctantly reduced to 35 for launch—based not on the top 35 relative to sales potential but on the 35 that could reasonably be turned into usable data in the shortest amount of time. Six months and still nothing on the website; therefore, no website. Six months, now bleeding into the prime summer sales season, that this company could have been selling products for 200 different companies. Instead it was selling nothing, and the short term included opportunities for only those 35 that provided something relatively useful. Today, the chain is still fighting to go live.

This isn’t limited to just the web. More companies than not are using some form of electronic product information internally, as well, for counter sales, accounting, inventory, etc.

Beyond the aggravation of spending hours and money to format somebody else’s data— something that can create bitterness on the part of the retailer/distributor because its staff is having to work so hard just to sell your products—there are questions of accuracy and completeness in the absence of standards. When faced with thousands upon thousands of lines of data to sort through and/or create, a project can permanently stall when every part number raises questions. The retailer/distributor folks are faced with problems such as, “They only list ‘F-150’ as an application, but I’m pretty sure this doesn’t fit the Lightning sub-model.” So, more often than not, they guess. They simply cannot make a phone call or send an e-mail for every question. Guessing, of course, leads to errors and lack of confidence and, therefore, fewer sales and higher returns. If there are enough of these types of questions, errors and omissions, the retailer/distributor may decide it simply isn’t worth the effort—not right now, at least. They’ll stick it on the bottom of the stack and move on.

The bottom line is that addressing all these issues takes time, and time is expensive. It costs the vendor up front to pay the person converting the data, but the real cost comes from the delays in getting the products exposed to millions of potential buyers across the nation and the world. The good news is that there are people and resources to help. Almost every company is losing some level of sales because of this issue. Those that address it head on will be the first to reap the rewards.

Learn more about standards and find resources.

Wayne Peterman is the database/customer service manager at Foster, Babcock & Associates. He may be contacted via e-mail at wayne@fosterbabcock.com or via phone at 816/283-3355.

SEMA NEWS - AUGUST 2009

By Wayne Peterman
Illustration Colby Martin

How Lack of Standards and Poorly Supplied Information Can Cost Sales

	Almost every company is losing some level of sales because of this issue. Those that address it head on will be the first to reap the rewards.

About seven or eight months ago, a successful retail chain with a 20-year, 10-location brick-and-mortar history decided that it was time it competed on the web with a full e-commerce solution. The chain identified 200 product lines as mission critical for the launch of the site and set out to gather the necessary data.

An internal standard was created that was made as simple as possible to accommodate the known and massive variety of data formats expected to be returned. Calls were made, e-mails were sent and the waiting began. The data started to arrive in every possible format—PDFs, Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, .CSV files and even, in one case, a PowerPoint presentation.

It quickly became clear that the internal staff was not equipped to manage and normalize this massive and growing undertaking simply to get the product information up on the website. They sought alternatives, and data providers were contacted, WDs were contacted and manufacturers were re-contacted. In most cases, the solutions offered were cost prohibitive, restrictive and/or impractical. The process dragged on with little success.

After six months, the original 200 mission critical vendors were reluctantly reduced to 35 for launch—based not on the top 35 relative to sales potential but on the 35 that could reasonably be turned into usable data in the shortest amount of time. Six months and still nothing on the website; therefore, no website. Six months, now bleeding into the prime summer sales season, that this company could have been selling products for 200 different companies. Instead it was selling nothing, and the short term included opportunities for only those 35 that provided something relatively useful. Today, the chain is still fighting to go live.

This isn’t limited to just the web. More companies than not are using some form of electronic product information internally, as well, for counter sales, accounting, inventory, etc.

Beyond the aggravation of spending hours and money to format somebody else’s data— something that can create bitterness on the part of the retailer/distributor because its staff is having to work so hard just to sell your products—there are questions of accuracy and completeness in the absence of standards. When faced with thousands upon thousands of lines of data to sort through and/or create, a project can permanently stall when every part number raises questions. The retailer/distributor folks are faced with problems such as, “They only list ‘F-150’ as an application, but I’m pretty sure this doesn’t fit the Lightning sub-model.” So, more often than not, they guess. They simply cannot make a phone call or send an e-mail for every question. Guessing, of course, leads to errors and lack of confidence and, therefore, fewer sales and higher returns. If there are enough of these types of questions, errors and omissions, the retailer/distributor may decide it simply isn’t worth the effort—not right now, at least. They’ll stick it on the bottom of the stack and move on.

The bottom line is that addressing all these issues takes time, and time is expensive. It costs the vendor up front to pay the person converting the data, but the real cost comes from the delays in getting the products exposed to millions of potential buyers across the nation and the world. The good news is that there are people and resources to help. Almost every company is losing some level of sales because of this issue. Those that address it head on will be the first to reap the rewards.

Learn more about standards and find resources.

Wayne Peterman is the database/customer service manager at Foster, Babcock & Associates. He may be contacted via e-mail at wayne@fosterbabcock.com or via phone at 816/283-3355.

SEMA News - August 2009

By Bob Moore
Illustration Colby Martin

Bringing the Possible Into the Real World

	”I can dream about a SEMA data pool loaded with complete, standardized and accurate data that gets updated into my system automatically every night,” said Bob Moore.

Yesterday, when I unlocked the door to my store, there was a line of people waiting. Fortunately, my two counter people were on time and waiting behind the counter. One was at a point-of-sale terminal, and the other was at the Internet order pick-up desk. Six customers came through the door, and four cued up for Internet pick-up. Nathan, my lead counterman, immediately approached the attractive female and asked if he could help (typical) while I waited on the male customer.

The male said that he was interested in finding a basic running board for his F-150. I asked him what color it was, and he pointed to a black pickup in my parking lot. I stroked a few keys on my computer and then turned the monitor so that my customer could see an image of his black F-150 equipped with an opening-price-point running board.

He leaned in to study the image and said, “Cool.” Before he could ask how much, I said, “If you like that, check this out.”

Again I stroked the keys and showed him a totally tricked out running board with a brushed-gunmetal finish and running lights.

His eyes lit up and he said, “Sweet.” I took this as a buy signal.

A couple of more key strokes, and I let him know that a really great installer down the street had a 3:30 slot open and could install the part on his truck that afternoon. I didn’t bother to tell him that I didn’t have the item in stock, because I knew from my system that our WD could deliver it to the shop by 2:00 p.m.

After I sent the kid on his way with the product ordered and en route to the installer who was holding the appointment, I asked the others how they had done. Nathan had sold the pretty woman a bike rack for her Prius. He told me, “She was impressed when I showed her the installation instructions to illustrate how easily she could install it herself, and the additional information detailing how environmentally friendly the manufacturing process is sealed the deal and she bought right away.”

Eric told me that he had no problems with the Internet-order pick-ups and added, “I was able to sell a kit with that carburetor. The manufacturer’s demo videos and related product tools make it easy to show why using the kit makes the installation easier.”

I did the math in my head. More than $7,500, and I hadn’t even been open an hour yet.

That’s when I woke up and quickly realized that I had to face another day of begging and pleading with my suppliers to get me some product data in a format that I might use to sell their products.

All those things I was dreaming about are so doable, but not without vendors providing me with usable data.

As I sat on the edge of the bed, elbows on knees, shaking my head, I wondered why in the world it is so hard to get suppliers to understand how important this information is. But what frustrates me the most is they have it but keep giving it to me in ways that are unusable. I feel like the shipwrecked guy dying of thirst: Data, data everywhere, and not a byte to use.

Do I have to beat them over the head with a 2x4 to get them to understand? Sending me a PDF with lots of pictures and snappy marketing doublespeak is not data. Giving me an Excel spreadsheet with application information in the description field doesn’t cut it. Why don’t they understand that calling it a Chevy in one place, a Chevrolet in another and a GM in a third only makes my life miserable?

I lay back down on the bed and thought to myself: “Maybe if I go back to sleep, I can dream about a SEMA data pool loaded with complete, standardized and accurate data that gets updated into my system automatically every night.”

Well, I can dream, can’t I?

Bob Moore is the president of Bob Moore & Partners, a consulting company that specializes in the automotive aftermarket. He is also a member of the SEMA Board of Directors and a monthly columnist in Aftermarket Business magazine. He can be reached at bob@aftermarkethink.com.