Byron Sharp’s Post

View profile for Byron Sharp, graphic

Research Professor (Marketing Science), Director Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, Adelaide University of South Australia.

Oh wow, so the “strategic decision” to stop focussing on customer acquisition has (so far) led to a 19% drop in sales and “profits” going from minus 20m to 100m loss. “As it chases profitability”. I predict that they’ll do better next year based on the fact that they surely can’t do worse 🤞 https://lnkd.in/gneGBSAV

Bloom & Wild focuses on customer retention over acquisition as it chases profitability

Bloom & Wild focuses on customer retention over acquisition as it chases profitability

https://www.marketingweek.com

Vikram Korde

Founder | Director @ Silk Road | Management Consulting Expert

4mo

Byron Sharp - 😀 taking their logic to extreme levels, in the end, they should be very happy with just one lifelong customer - reducing marketing as well as fixed costs. On a serious note, reading though the article, it looks like they are hoping for scale though other “non flower” offerings in their portfolio.

Matthew Daniell

Expert in Brand Health Tracking

4mo

One of your best explanations was usage (loyalty) is a byproduct of customer acquisition. I've seen it so often, it's difficult to 'nudge' someone to purchase, but apparently its even more difficult to 'nudge' them to stay.

Jenni Romaniuk

Research Professor at Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, Author of Better Brand Health, Building Distinctive Brand Assets, How Brands Grow Part 2

4mo

Same story, different cast

Matthew Cooper

Senior Account Director at LOVE.

4mo

I'm not sure diversifying into different product offerings, whilst simultaneously looking to reduce marketing spend to provide efficiencies is going to help them much either. Feels like a case of dots not quite being joined up. If you're looking to broaden your offering, ideally you'd be telling people about it thereby potentially recruiting new consumers who didn't consider you previously as they couldn't get what they wanted from you. Presumably those who already buy from Bloom and Wild did so because they were happy with the service on offer.

Mike Biscoe FCIM

Brand & Marketing Consultant | Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) | Marketing Director | ex-Maserati

4mo

So less marketing spend means more profit - there's a logical conclusion to this... What could possibly go wrong?!

Andy Lane

Product Marketing Manager @ Microsoft UK

4mo

Surely in a market so competitive as floristry where loyalty is measured in how many options you have - which is a lot (I drive past 3 florists on the school run…) then you’re (re) acquiring customers for every transaction?? I know that the reason I’ve used the brand is a superior digital experience, the feedback I’ve had on their flowers (which are excellent) but primarily because their targeting of me with relevant offers always meant I wanted to use them. Fingers crossed they rediscover the right strategy as I genuinely love the brand and what they do.

Michael Hawkins

Chief Insights Officer @ Eureka AI | Marketing Analytics, Marketing AI, Sales Leadership, Data driven Decisions

4mo

Genuine question/thought: It always strikes me that the education issue here (ie in the company seemingly not getting the message on Double Jeopardy etc) is that people don't understand the definition of what is a "New" customer vs what is an "existing" customer. Obviously it is different for flowers vs for cars, or shampoo, but the flower delivery market is (i assume) a very infrequently purchased one, and buying even once a year (Anniversary, birthday, valentines) might make you a top 20%ile buyer vs some who might buy once every 5 years (funerals? apologies?) who is light? So should the (semantic) point be that they are investing on Category buyers rather converting non-category buyers?

Like
Reply
Sudarshan Bala

Regional Marketing Director | Consumer Brands, Digital Commerce Scale ups | Ex-GroupM, Omnicom, Ogilvy

4mo

1. Revenues in the year decline by 19% to £118m, compared to £145.5m in the year prior 2. Operating loss widened, from £20m in its 2022 financial year, to £100.2m in its recent financial year. 3. Its quest for profitability saw it cut marketing spend early in the year, which it says it saw the financial benefits of in the second half. 4. Adjusted EBITDA losses widened to £4.7m versus £4.2m in the year prior. 5. It hailed the “marked increase in profitability” in the second half and attributed this to the decision to reduce marketing spend and make operational efficiencies. Narrative above totally doesn’t add up.. “saw it cut marketing spend early in the year, which it says it saw the financial benefits of in the second half.” >> - Operating loss grew from 20m to 100m YoY! - Revenues declined 19% YoY! How can one hail profitability improvements from marketing spend reduction done early in the year (assuming reduced vs prior year spend) when top line and operating incomes are much worse YoY?! If indeed they reduced marketing spends early in year to presumably lesser level for year vs prior year, by focus on retention, then there are other bigger OpEx issues non-marketing spend related, making operating losses jump 5x!

Like
Reply
Alex Cosham

Director & Marketing Consultant | Image Experiential | Image Development

4mo

So many contradictory things seemingly in the mix. Best of luck to them, I'm actually quite fond of the brand, but only when I have a genuine need, typically gifting. Surely reaching more people, creating or accessing more 'needs', generating more awareness, opening more opportunities and more loyalty all go hand in hand. All of that whilst potentially entertaining brand/product extensions during cost cutting?

For just £20 I know of a book on Amazon that could help them with their “strategic decision”.

See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics