0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
126 tayangan20 halaman
"Low-cost performers" refer to companies in the first quartile of the five process categories. Benchmarks suggest possible cost-reduction opportunities, which must be balanced against growth strategies. "Where will I get the most impact without negatively affecting our ability to serve the customer"
"Low-cost performers" refer to companies in the first quartile of the five process categories. Benchmarks suggest possible cost-reduction opportunities, which must be balanced against growth strategies. "Where will I get the most impact without negatively affecting our ability to serve the customer"
"Low-cost performers" refer to companies in the first quartile of the five process categories. Benchmarks suggest possible cost-reduction opportunities, which must be balanced against growth strategies. "Where will I get the most impact without negatively affecting our ability to serve the customer"
First-of-its-kind insights into retails store operations, general and administrative functions Global Benchmarking Center February 2010 2 1 Low-cost performers refers to companies in the rst quartile of the ve process categories. They are not necessarily best in class along other meaningful dimensions, such as quality, innovation, or customer/employee satisfaction. The benchmarks in this study suggest possible cost-reduction opportunities, which must be balanced against growth strategies. Dear Colleague: Managing through one of the deepest recessions of the past 30 years, retail executives are facing a market where reduced consumer spending has made cost-management initiatives more critical than ever. They are faced with many questions and challenges, such as: Where will I get the most impact without negatively affecting our ability to serve the customer or the customers experience? Where can I reduce costs without endangering our ability to drive growth quickly when the economy improves? Measuring store operations and general and administrative costs (SGA) and comparing them against low-cost performers can help retail executives in their efforts to identify and close competitive cost gaps that exist in their business. To develop a baseline of current, retail-specifc data that can be used to quantify SGA improvement opportunities, Deloitte has conducted a benchmarking study of core SGA functions in the retail industry: Store operations Merchandising Supply chain management Marketing Information technology Finance Human resources Support services We believe that in conducting this study and by identifying the spend amounts of low-cost performers, we can provide retail executives relevant data and practical insights about their organizations competitive positioning. We hope you fnd the results of our study helpful and instructive, and we invite you to contact us for further information about our research and how it may help your company. Sincerely, Stacy Janiak Vice Chairman & U.S. Retail Leader Partner Deloitte LLP John Rooney Principal National Retail Industry Deloitte Consulting LLP Richard T. Roth Principal National Benchmarking Leader Deloitte Consulting LLP All study data and statistics referenced and presented in this report, as well as the representations made and opinions expressed, unless specically described otherwise, pertain only to the participating organizations and their responses to the Deloitte Global Benchmarking Center study of retail process performance conducted in 2009. As used in this document, Deloitte means Deloitte Consulting LLP, a subsidiary of Deloitte LLP. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte LLP and its subsidiaries. Overall fndings ......................................................................................... 1 Key themes ................................................................................................ 3 Functional analysis .................................................................................... 5 Store operations ................................................................................. 5 Supply chain ....................................................................................... 6 Merchandising .................................................................................... 6 Information technology ...................................................................... 7 Finance ............................................................................................... 7 Looking forward ........................................................................................ 8 Study approach and methodology ............................................................. 9 Performance measures ............................................................................ 10 Representative participant list.................................................................. 13 About the Global Benchmarking Center .................................................. 14 Contents Executive Summary SGA book of metrics for retail 1 As consumers spend less and save more, retailers face continued pressure to improve bottom-line perfor- mance even after previous cost-cutting initiatives. We project that US consumer spending will rise in the next several years at a slower rate than the GDP due to tighter credit conditions, slowly recovering home equity, and slow recovering employment. Facing this, what should retail executives keep in mind as they take steps to reduce additional costs now? The customer experience is often a critical competitive differentiator among retailers, making cost-reduction efforts tricky. For many, improvement benets come not from reducing costs, but reallocating them more effec- tively. We believe that reducing or reallocating costs while achieving sales growth and maintaining strong brand value requires retailers to view cost improve- ment opportunities through a customer-experience lens: How would this action impact my customers? How can we adjust our cost structure to achieve improvements and preserve customer loyalty? This study compares store operations and general and administrative functions (SGA 1 ) against median and Overall fndings Figure 1: Total SGA function cost as a percent of sales 35.9% Information technology Finance Human resources Support services Store operations Merchandising Supply chain Marketing 24.9% Retail median Retail low-cost performer Information technology Finance Human resources Support services Store operations Merchandising Supply chain Marketing Private label Non-private label Figure 2: Total SGA function cost as a percent of sales (median) 46.8% 38.4% low-cost performers in the benchmark group. The results show gaps that point to signicant potential for strategic cost reductions, not only for short-term relief during this economic downturn, but also for the long-term process efciencies needed to jump start growth upon recovery. The study also shows that retail low-cost performers have created distinctive characteristics over their median counterparts by: Allotting more staff to shopper-facing areas Transforming their advertising mix for an enhanced return on investment Reverting to in-house supply chain options to improve cost performance Reducing store operations cost by managing their assortment to a smaller number of stock-keeping units (SKUs) without negatively impacting sales Investing strategically in IT Reducing costs in traditional back-ofce areas to the point where they can focus on improving new areas of spend, such as marketing, IT and supply chain 1 This studys reference to SGA should not be confused with the traditional selling, general and administrative function. Were dening SGA in a wider, expanded sense to also include store operations, merchan- dising and supply chain. SGA book of metrics for retail 2 As expected, according to the study, the median allocate more than 70% of SGA to store operations dwarng other functional cost areas (Figure 1). This area continues to represent a key opportunity for all retailers in our study: Apparel, private label 2 , other/ specialty and non-private label (Figure 2). Our analysis included an examination of cost gaps between median and low-cost performers in the study by function and by sector. We compared metrics such as cost and full-time equivalents (FTEs) against a dened set of retail peers to identify cost gaps. This analysis is signicant; while a metric is a useful number on its own, a cost gap measured in pure dollars identies opportunities for improvement. In other words, companies looking to move from the median to low-cost performer level will see what that means to them in actual cost savings. Information technology Finance Human resources Support services Store operations Merchandising Supply chain Marketing Retail overall Apparel Other/ Specialty 36.8% Figure 3: Total SGA function cost gap from median to low-cost performer per $1 billion in sales by subsector ($US M) 109.9 62.3 108.7 Our study found that the apparel sector has a lower cost-improvement opportunity than the other/specialty retailers. Merchandising is the only retail-specic front- ofce function where apparel has a larger opportunity than the other/specialty retailers (Figure 3). Overall, weve found that the gap between the median and low-cost performers is smaller in typical back-ofce functions (i.e., nance, human resources, support services) and higher in areas such as marketing, infor- mation technology and merchandising. This is likely because retailers, in our experience, have prioritized cost-reduction efforts on the back-ofce functions rst, viewing the other functions as more strategic. 2 The private label peer group includes study participants with a high percentage of sales from private label products; the median, or midpoint value, of private label sales as a percent of total sales is 98% of the peer group. Note: Retail overall includes apparel, other/specialty and other subscribers. See page 13 for details. 3 Key themes Low-cost performers spend much more on visual merchandising and online advertising than traditional print and TV/radio advertising Retail low-cost performers consistently place a higher percentage of their advertising spend on below-the-line (BTL) vehicles targeting customers more directly through loyalty programs, community via event sponsorships, in-store displays and messaging, or online. In contrast, the median spends more proportionately on above- the-line (ATL) vehicles, which include more traditional mass advertising through print, TV and radio (Figure 4). This validates the strong industry case for BTL being more cost-effective while delivering better results. We also note an increase in customer research spending for low-cost performers. Figure 5: Total SKUs per retailer 121,478 Retail median 79,104 Retail low-cost performer Low-cost performers benet from targeted investments and simplied SKUs When it comes to the operations-specic elements of merchandising, low-cost performers within a given sector e.g., apparel rely on targeted investments and a smaller assortment of SKUs for their advantage over the median. They manage 35% fewer SKUs (Figure 5), providing the necessary product variety customers demand without the complexity of overextended inventory. In addition, through further correlation analysis, we found that low-cost performers spend 84% more on store operations technology, which contributes to lower process costs. Note: Total SKUs per retailer includes all SKUs, i.e., styles, colors, sizes, etc. Print advertising TV/Radio advertising Sponsorship advertising Visual merchandising Online advertising Other advertising Figure 4: Advertising spend allocation Retail median Retail low-cost performer SGA book of metrics for retail 4 Retail overall Figure 7: Occupancy, depreciation, and maintenance as a percent of total SGA cost (median) 29.1% 39.0% 22.4% 35.5% Apparel Non-private label Other/ Specialty 20.8% Private label Within functions, the top ve costs represent 65% to 70% of total SGA cost for each of the subsectors We probed costs within functions and, not surpris- ingly, found that store operations dominates the cost categories (Figure 6). In our experience, retailers have typically brought store real estate costs down by rene- gotiating leases, standardizing maintenance policies, and reducing usage costs by incorporating efcient energy and maintenance technologies. Also, we believe that increased productivity and innovation have helped low-cost performers decrease merchandising store activities and advertising spend. Store size has a direct impact on cost per square foot Occupancy costs generally represent 20-35% of overall SGA cost, and apparel and private label retailers tend to have higher occupancy spend. As expected, store size directly impacts cost per square foot, with larger stores driving lower per-square-foot costs (Figures 7-8). Average square footage per store Figure 8: Occupancy cost per square foot $80 60 40 20 0 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Store operations: Occupancy, depreciation, maintenence Store operations: Merchandise and sell goods Store operations: Manage and plan store operations Store operations: Miscellaneous other cost Marketing: Advertising spend Figure 6: Top ve costs as a percent of total SGA (median) 29.1% 15.5% 10.0% 8.9% 5.7% 5 Functional analysis Store operations: Retailers focus staff on shopper-facing functions to ensure a brand-building customer experience that supports growth Retailers focus staff on shopper-facing functions to ensure a brand building customer experience that supports growth As expected, more than 84% of staff resides in store operations, with store labor costs as a percent of sales being relatively consistent between the median and low-cost performers. However, its interesting to note that low-cost performers can maintain their overall low-cost ranking while still spending 6% more on store operations staff per billion in sales than the median; through this, we can infer that the low-cost performers focus their spend in customer-facing areas and achieve cost reductions in non-customer-facing areas. While both median and low-cost performers are employing process and technology innovations to help reduce staff require- ments in heavy transactional areas, such as nance and HR, low-cost performers are doing a better job of ensuring they have the necessary higher-level staff. In addition, apparel low-cost performers have 68% lower process costs than the median in managing and planning store operations, representing about $30 million in opportunity per $1 billion in sales. Meanwhile, the difference is much lower within the other/specialty subsector, where low-cost performers spend 22% less than the median on process costs. Figure 9: Manage and plan store operations process cost per $1 billion in sales ($US M) 4.44% 1.43% 2.22% 1.74% 4.8 Low-Cost Performer Median Apparel Other/Specialty SGA book of metrics for retail 6 Supply Chain: Low-cost performers continue to manage many of their supply chain operations internally While low-cost performers have 22% lower total supply chain costs than the median, only a very small portion of their operation incorporates outsourcing (Figure 10). Retail low-cost performers achieve this ranking, we believe, by in-sourcing areas such as warehouse operations, transportation and fuel management (part of the other component). On the other hand, the median resorts to outsourcing without necessarily fully eliminating the internal cost related to the outsourced functions (stranded costs). This is not to say that the low-cost performer supply chains are more competent it simply means they are more cost effective. Figure 10: Supply chain cost as percent of sales Technology Other Labor Outsourcing Retail median Retail low-cost performer 2.80% 2.19% Merchandising: Talent remains an important part of merchandising success Retailers overall have maintained their heavy focus on merchandising labor, as its likely viewed as a key success driver (Figure 11). While labor is often the typical culprit for high cost, low-cost performers still spend 32% less than the median on merchandising. In addition, they benet from a technology spend thats 83% lower than the median. Figure 11: Merchandising cost as percent of sales Technology Other Labor Outsourcing Retail median Retail low-cost performer 1.13% 0.80% Figure 10: Supply chain cost as percent of sales Technology Other Labor Outsourcing Retail median Retail low-cost performer 2.80% 2.19% Figure 11: Merchandising cost as percent of sales Technology Other Labor Outsourcing Retail median Retail low-cost performer 1.13% 0.76% 7 Information technology: Surprisingly, outsourcing is not driving lower IT costs While low-cost performers have a 36% lower IT cost per end-user relative to the median, its not because they outsource much more, as is often thought (Figure 12). Low-cost performers in our study achieve their cost savings through a lower labor and technology spend than the median. This nding supports the belief that outsourcing rarely provides cost savings unless additional factors are taken into consideration: Sound management of the effort, clear and effective communication, effective processes, high-quality deliverables and explicit service-level agreements. Finance: Process innovation gives low-cost performers an edge over the median Low-cost performers spend 27% less than the median on nance, with labor and technology being the largest sources of the cost gap (Figure 13). In our experience, highly effective retailers have done a good job of developing the nance process innovations that help lower costs and increase productivity. They make use of efcient technologies and shared services to reduce transaction costs and labor requirements. Figure 12: IT total cost per end-user ($US) Technology Other Labor Outsourcing Retail median Retail low-cost performer $2,567 $1,652 Figure 12: IT total cost per end-user ($US) Technology Other Labor Outsourcing Retail median Retail low-cost performer 2,567 1,652 Figure 13: Finance cost as a percent of sales Technology Other Labor Outsourcing Retail median Retail low-cost performer 0.57% 0.78% SGA book of metrics for retail 8 Looking forward More than ever, retail executives need timely, relevant, industry-specic data to make effective business decisions, to assess priorities and to develop a plan for improvement in the areas that matter most. Through benchmarking, executives can: Identify and quantify potential improvement opportunities, Set reasonable, attainable performance goals and analyze trends from one year to the next, Establish targets that make sense and evaluate the accuracy of forecasts, and Perform competitive analysis that leads to fast, meaningful improvement. By comparing their organizations performance against measures like those found in our study, retail executives can get help in making fast, effective decisions based on relevant, objective information not anecdotal experi- ence or estimates. The answer isnt always to be lowest cost in every area; rather, the goal should be to nd the position that makes the most sense for the organizations overall business strategy. Hence, cost-reduction initiatives should not necessarily be aimed at reaching the low-cost performer level across all functions. Organizations should determine what percentage is achievable and what tactics could potentially reduce the opportunity gap. Of course, some reduction initiatives are tactical and immediate; others are strategic and long-term. Cost reduc- tions should reect a balance of short-, mid- and long-term objectives so executives can effectively lead their companies forward during challenging business cycles. 9 Approach and methodology Taxonomy This report is the result of a Deloitte Global Benchmarking Center study of store operations, general and admin- istrative process performance. We gathered scal-year 2008 data across 40 process categories in eight functions. By following a strict taxonomy, the researchers generated apples-to-apples comparisons necessary for meaningful performance measures: Store Operations Merchandising Supply Chain Management Marketing Manage store-level inventory Merchandise and sell goods Manage and plan store operations Manage customer services Manage and plan store real estate Merchandise buying, vendor management, and category performance Plan, allocate and replenish merchandise Develop and manage pricing strategies Manage store presentation (planogramming and layout) Develop and source private label Warehousing management Merchandise distribution Transportation management Manage supply chain performance Advertising Promotions and events Develop visual merchandising Manage customer research Information Technology Finance Human Resources Support Services Application development and management Controls and risk management Infrastructure technology management Planning, strategy and services Transaction processing General accounting/ nancial reporting Controls Tax and treasury Performance management Transaction processing Rewards administration Talent management Strategy and program design Aviation Communications services Environmental health and safety Executive ofce Legal Mergers and acquisitions Non-merchandise procurement Strategic planning Travel management SGA book of metrics for retail 10 Key denitions and methodology Data normalized by: Sales for store operations, merchandising, supply chain, marketing, nance, support services End-users for information technology Employees for human resources Driver analysis: Examined select drivers in highest cost categories to identify what factors impact them the most Peer groups: Retail overall (all participants of study) Apparel subsector Other/Specialty subsector (retailers offering a specic product type, such as toys or sporting goods) Private label peer group (participants with a high percentage of sales from private label products; the median, or midpoint value, of private label sales as a percent of total sales is 98% for this peer group) Non-private label peer group Low-cost performers: Participating companies in the rst quartile of the eight functions* Median: Midpoint value of participants Total SGA cost at the companies in the study: Labor: Fully loaded labor cost (compensation and benets) of employees, contractors and temporaries Outsourcing: Services provided by third-party vendors Technology: Hardware, software, license fees, and the related support Other: Facilities, supplies, travel, training Process cost: Cost of labor plus outsourcing at the companies in the study *Low-cost performers are not necessarily best in class along other meaningful dimensions, such as quality, innovation, or customer/employee satisfaction. The benchmarks in this study suggest possible cost-reduction opportunities, which must be balanced against growth strategies. All study data and statistics referenced and presented in this report, as well as the representations made and opinions expressed, unless specically described otherwise, pertain only to the participating organizations and their responses to the Deloitte Global Benchmarking Center study of retail process performance conducted in 2009. 3-year revenue CAGR Total sales Other/Specialty Apparel Gross margin Employees Stores Min 1st Quartile Median 3rd Quartile Max Retail banners Average square footage per store $59M $46.8B $2.6B $1.3B $7.0B 14 6,351 689 352 1,196 1 20 2 1 4 -8.4% 26.2% 2.1% -0.1% 11.0% 511 324,000 19,552 6,925 43,328 34% 23% 27% 44% 67% 3,126 129,000 11,822 4,531 38,779 Prole of participants 11 Performance measures The following is a list of sample metrics available to participants: Demographics Total sales Three-year revenue CAGR Employees End-users Domestic sales as % of total sales Gross margin % Number of retail banners Number of stores Average square footage per store Baseline Total SGA cost distribution by cost component Total SGA cost distribution by function Total SGA staff distribution by function Executive summary Total SGA cost as a percent of sales by function Total SGA cost gap to low-cost performer by function Eight largest cost gaps across all cost categories Cost as a percent of total SGA cost Total process cost as a percent of sales Staff per $1B in sales by function Store operations Store operations cost as a % of sales (labor, outsourcing, technology, other) Store operations cost allocation (labor, outsourcing, technology, other) Store management cost allocation Process category cost as % of sales Store operations process category cost allocation Total store operations FTEs per $1B revenue Store operations fully loaded labor rate Store operations total cost per store operations staff Store operations total cost per store Occupancy cost per store Store operations process cost per store Sales per sq ft selling space Store operations cost per sq ft selling space Sales per labor hour (SPLH) Store associate turnover % Inventory shrink % Total shopper returns as % of total sales Loss prevention process cost as a percent of sales Merchandising Merchandising cost as a % of sales (labor, outsourcing, technology, other) Merchandising cost allocation (labor, outsourcing, technology, other) Process category cost as % of sales Merchandising process category cost allocation Total merchandising FTEs per $1B revenue Merchandising fully loaded labor rate Sales per buyer Average number of SKUs managed per buyer Number active vendors Number of purchase orders generated % goods sourced domestically Private label sales as % of total sales % direct sales (online, catalog, phone) as % of total sales % sales promoted % sales on markdown Supply chain Supply chain cost as a % of sales (labor, outsourcing, technology, other) Supply chain cost allocation (labor, outsourcing, technology, other) Process category cost as % of sales Supply chain process category cost allocation Total supply chain FTEs per $1B revenue Supply chain fully loaded labor rate Inventory turns Cartons picked per labor hour (pick function only) % merchandise returns to warehouse Vendor compliance offset $ as % of total revenue Transportation cost per inbound carton Transportation cost per outbound carton Import order cycle time days Import shipments routed via airfreight as % of total shipments SGA book of metrics for retail 12 Marketing Marketing cost as a % of sales (labor, outsourcing, technology, other) Marketing cost allocation (labor, outsourcing, technology, other) Process category cost as % of sales Marketing process category cost allocation Total marketing FTEs per $1B revenue Marketing fully loaded labor rate Advertising spend allocation Customer loyalty spend as % of total sales Information technology Information technology cost as a % of sales (labor, outsourcing, technology, other) Total IT FTE per $1B revenue Total IT cost as a % of sales (net) Total IT cost per end-user (labor, outsourcing, technology, other) Total IT cost allocation (labor, outsourcing, tech- nology, other) IT process category cost per end-user IT process cost (labor, outsourcing) cost allocation IT FTEs per 1000 end-user IT fully loaded labor rate Finance Finance cost as a % of sales (labor, outsourcing, technology, other) Finance cost allocation (labor, outsourcing, technology, other) Finance process category cost as % of sales Finance process category cost allocation Total nance FTEs per $1B revenue Total nance FTEs per company sales Finance fully loaded labor rate Cycle time - Number of business days from cut-off of rst sub-ledger to GAAP general ledger close # days payable outstanding (DPO) Human resources HR cost as a % of sales (labor, outsourcing, technology, other) Total HR FTE per $1B revenue Total HR cost per employee HR cost allocation (labor, outsourcing, technology, other) HR process category cost per employee HR process category cost allocation HR FTEs per 1000 employees HR function fully loaded labor rate Support services Support services cost as a % of sales (labor, outsourcing, technology, other) Support services cost allocation (labor, outsourcing, technology, other) Support services process category cost as a % of sales Support services process category cost allocation Total support services FTE per $1B revenue Support services function fully loaded labor rate 13 Representative participant list Abercrombie & Fitch Co. Academy Sports & Outdoors, Ltd. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. Aeropostale, Inc. AnnTaylor Stores Corporation Army and Air Force Exchange Service Bealls, Inc. Best Buy Co., Inc. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited Carrefour SA C.I. Hermeco Corporation Coldwater Creek, Inc. Cost Plus, Inc. Decathlon SA Dicks Sporting Goods, Inc. The Dress Barn, Inc. The Finish Line, Inc. Food Lion, LLC Foot Locker, Inc. The Gap, Inc. Groupe ADEO (France) Guess?, Inc. The Gymboree Corporation Harris Teeter, Inc. Additional participant categorization Private label, 41% Non-private label, 35% hhgregg, Inc. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. Kibe Kmart Corporation (Sears) Limited Brands, Inc. The Liquor Control Board of Ontario Maurices Inc. The Mens Wearhouse, Inc. Navy Exchange Service Command Nordstrom, Inc. Ofce Depot, Inc. Pacic Sunwear of California, Inc. Payless ShoeSource PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. Sears Holdings Corporation Sears Canada, Inc. - Sears Domestic, Inc. - Lands End, Inc. - Sephora USA, Inc. Shoe Carnival, Inc. The Sports Authority, Inc. Toys R Us Holdings, Inc The Wet Seal, Inc. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. The Yankee Candle Company, Inc. Participants by industry subsector Apparel, 41% Other/Specialty, 35% Other subsectors, 24% SGA book of metrics for retail 14 About the Global Benchmarking Center Deloittes Global Benchmarking Center (GBC) was established to provide executives with industry-relevant metrics and insight. The GBC delivers this information through annual benchmark studies in areas such as sales, general and administrative (SG&A), nance and accounting, supply chain, information technology, human resources, and operations. The GBC has conducted studies in more than 600 global organizations since 2005. These studies are uniquely designed to provide industry-specic insight relevant to multiple functions. Financial Services Banking - Securities - Insurance - Life Sciences and Health Care Health Care Provider - Life Sciences - Health Plan - Public Sector Federal - State - Local - Technology, Media and Telco Media - Telecommunications - High Technology - Consumer and Industrial Products Aerospace and Defense - Automotive - Process & Industrial Products - Consumer Products - Retail Apparel - Other/Specialty - Private Label - Tourism, Hospitality and - Leisure Energy and Resources Oil and Gas - Mining - Power and Utilities - Water and Waste - Management Industry Store Operations Merchandising Supply Chain Marketing Information Technology Finance Human Resources Support Services Retail Functions 15 Authors Richard T. Roth Principal National Benchmarking Practice Leader Deloitte Consulting LLP Atlanta, GA +1 404 942 6719 riroth@deloitte.com Rod Sides Principal Retail Operations Excellence Leader Deloitte Consulting LLP Charlotte, NC +1 704 887 1505 rsides@deloitte.com Contributors Mark E. Daniel Global Benchmarking Center Deloitte Consulting LLP Atlanta, GA +1 404 631 2688 medaniel@deloitte.com Jean-Michel Fally Senior Manager Deloitte Consulting LLP Irving, TX +1 469 417 3191 jfally@deloitte.com Andrew Simpson Global Benchmarking Center Deloitte Consulting LLP McLean, VA +1 703 251 1197 ansimpson@deloitte.com Participation in this study is open to all retailers. For information, visit www.deloitte.com/us/SGA4Retail, or contact: Global Benchmarking Center Deloitte Consulting LLP +1 866 897 4413 benchmarking@deloitte.com To learn more about our Retail practice, visit us online at www.deloitte.com/us/Retail. Here you can access our complimentary Dbriefs webcast series, Deloitte Insights podcast program, innovative and practical industry research, and a lot more about the issues facing retailers from some of the industrys most experienced minds. Stacy Janiak Vice Chairman & U.S. Retail Leader Deloitte LLP Tel: +1 312 486 5391 sjaniak@deloitte.com John Schefer Partner & U.S. Assurance Leader, Retail Deloitte & Touche LLP Tel: +1 415 783 6827 jschefer@deloitte.com John Rooney Principal & U.S. Consulting Leader, Retail Deloitte Consulting LLP Tel: +1 215 446 3600 jrooney@deloitte.com Lawrence Hutter Partner, Deloitte UK & Global Consumer Business & Transportation Industry Leader Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Tel: +44 20 7303 8648 lhutter@deloitte.com Nancy Wertheim Partner & U.S. Tax Leader, Retail Deloitte Tax LLP Tel: +1 617 437 2722 nwertheim@deloitte.com Sandra Viola Director of Marketing Deloitte Services LP Tel: +1 212 436 3058 sviola@deloitte.com For information about Deloitte LLPs Retail services, contact: This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of Deloitte practitioners. Deloitte is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, nancial, investment, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualied professional advisor. Deloitte, its afliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this publication. Copyright 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved. Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
ChatGPT Side Hustles 2024 - Unlock the Digital Goldmine and Get AI Working for You Fast with More Than 85 Side Hustle Ideas to Boost Passive Income, Create New Cash Flow, and Get Ahead of the Curve
Summary of The Subtle Art of Not Giving A F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life by Mark Manson: Key Takeaways, Summary & Analysis Included