<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Convenience at a cost</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lifebeyondcode.com/2006/12/24/convenience-at-a-cost/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lifebeyondcode.com/2006/12/24/convenience-at-a-cost/</link>
	<description>Personal and professional development for technology professionals.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:11:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.lifebeyondcode.com/2006/12/24/convenience-at-a-cost/comment-page-1/#comment-1315</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:10:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.lifebeyondcode.com/2006/12/24/convenience-at-a-cost/#comment-1315</guid>
		<description>Interesting discussion. The service time of more than 10 items shopper will improve - if folks with less than 10 items move to a different checkout. What are your thoughts?

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting discussion. The service time of more than 10 items shopper will improve &#8211; if folks with less than 10 items move to a different checkout. What are your thoughts?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.lifebeyondcode.com/2006/12/24/convenience-at-a-cost/comment-page-1/#comment-1314</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Dec 2006 01:45:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.lifebeyondcode.com/2006/12/24/convenience-at-a-cost/#comment-1314</guid>
		<description>Hi SS,
First of all, thank you for your kind words there.
I thought about your perspective. Here was my reasoning for why I thought &quot;20 items or more person&quot; was a better customer.
1. The fact that they are buying 20 items or more shows that they  trust this supermarket for their shopping needs. A person who buys only a few items may have just stopped by because he wanted something in a hurry and MAY go to another place to buy more items.
2. One way to look at the value of a customer is the total sales made through that customer and the cost of getting those sales. In the &quot;20 items or more case&quot; it is 20 items worth of sales for the cost of one transaction. In the case of customer who buys one or two items at a time, the cost of sales are high as there are multiple transactions.
My $.02 of course.
Best,
Raj

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi SS,<br />
First of all, thank you for your kind words there.<br />
I thought about your perspective. Here was my reasoning for why I thought &#8220;20 items or more person&#8221; was a better customer.<br />
1. The fact that they are buying 20 items or more shows that they  trust this supermarket for their shopping needs. A person who buys only a few items may have just stopped by because he wanted something in a hurry and MAY go to another place to buy more items.<br />
2. One way to look at the value of a customer is the total sales made through that customer and the cost of getting those sales. In the &#8220;20 items or more case&#8221; it is 20 items worth of sales for the cost of one transaction. In the case of customer who buys one or two items at a time, the cost of sales are high as there are multiple transactions.<br />
My $.02 of course.<br />
Best,<br />
Raj</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.lifebeyondcode.com/2006/12/24/convenience-at-a-cost/comment-page-1/#comment-1313</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Dec 2006 23:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.lifebeyondcode.com/2006/12/24/convenience-at-a-cost/#comment-1313</guid>
		<description>Raj, I see your point, but I am not fully convinced that the &#039;20 items or more&#039; shopper is your best customer, I feel its the other way around. People purchase things that were never on their shopping list when they actually visit a store (unlike an online store, where we go in with the intent of purchasing a specific item and exit once we are done buying it). Chances of an impulsive purchase (often a high cost item)  are much higher for a customer who visits the store frequently;  i.e the &#039;less than 10 item&#039; shopper. The guy who comes in  for a can of milk but picks up a bottle of wine anyway because it is on sale. And this guy will be back in a day or two when he runs out of milk and buy something else. The &#039;greater than 20 item&#039; shopper is the more organized customer who will be well stocked for the next two weeks and will not come back for a while.  As a retailer, I am more interested in the &#039;quick&#039; shopper and will allocate my resources accordingly. Perhaps, I am getting into the consumer behavior realm here, but just wanted to share my thoughts.
Btw, I am a frequent visitor to your blog here and have found it to be very insightful to say the least. keep up the good work - SS

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Raj, I see your point, but I am not fully convinced that the &#8216;20 items or more&#8217; shopper is your best customer, I feel its the other way around. People purchase things that were never on their shopping list when they actually visit a store (unlike an online store, where we go in with the intent of purchasing a specific item and exit once we are done buying it). Chances of an impulsive purchase (often a high cost item)  are much higher for a customer who visits the store frequently;  i.e the &#8216;less than 10 item&#8217; shopper. The guy who comes in  for a can of milk but picks up a bottle of wine anyway because it is on sale. And this guy will be back in a day or two when he runs out of milk and buy something else. The &#8216;greater than 20 item&#8217; shopper is the more organized customer who will be well stocked for the next two weeks and will not come back for a while.  As a retailer, I am more interested in the &#8216;quick&#8217; shopper and will allocate my resources accordingly. Perhaps, I am getting into the consumer behavior realm here, but just wanted to share my thoughts.<br />
Btw, I am a frequent visitor to your blog here and have found it to be very insightful to say the least. keep up the good work &#8211; SS</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.lifebeyondcode.com/2006/12/24/convenience-at-a-cost/comment-page-1/#comment-1312</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Dec 2006 16:21:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.lifebeyondcode.com/2006/12/24/convenience-at-a-cost/#comment-1312</guid>
		<description>I agree with you there. I don&#039;t have anything against &quot;10 items or less&quot; lanes. My point is that if you are taking care of people buying &quot;10 items or less&quot; why are you not taking care of people who are buying &quot;20 items or more&quot;?
Best,
Raj


</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you there. I don&#8217;t have anything against &#8220;10 items or less&#8221; lanes. My point is that if you are taking care of people buying &#8220;10 items or less&#8221; why are you not taking care of people who are buying &#8220;20 items or more&#8221;?<br />
Best,<br />
Raj</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.lifebeyondcode.com/2006/12/24/convenience-at-a-cost/comment-page-1/#comment-1311</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Dec 2006 16:13:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.lifebeyondcode.com/2006/12/24/convenience-at-a-cost/#comment-1311</guid>
		<description>You bring up an interesting observation. But if one were to observe carefully, there are more &lt; 10 item shoppers than &gt; 10 item shoppers. Therefore the two segments are quite comparable in terms of sales volume. Secondly, a shopper who had to wait twenty minutes to purchase two items is unlikely to come back to that store - you are losing a potential 50 item shopper. I think, a two item frequent shopper is as valuable (if not more) as a 50 item one-time shopper. - Just a thought

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You bring up an interesting observation. But if one were to observe carefully, there are more < 10 item shoppers than > 10 item shoppers. Therefore the two segments are quite comparable in terms of sales volume. Secondly, a shopper who had to wait twenty minutes to purchase two items is unlikely to come back to that store &#8211; you are losing a potential 50 item shopper. I think, a two item frequent shopper is as valuable (if not more) as a 50 item one-time shopper. &#8211; Just a thought</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
