Without evaluating how innovation, promotions, and pricing interact across the entire portfolio, well-intentioned decisions can quietly erode value and profitability
This is exactly why we build our analytics platform to seamlessly transition across questions about assortment, merchandising, and pricing all from the same underling modeling engine and data.
We know that all models are wrong, but some are useful. By offering a unified approach, you remove debate about whose model is more inclusive or which has more up-to-date data. Instead, portfolio teams can focus on the trad-off inherent in the results of different scenarios (either AI recommended or human generated).
At the same time, Middlegame wanted to ensure that all of the stakeholders can evaluate those assortment, merchandising, pricing, or the combination of these from a point of reference. Therefore we include the impact on all the SKUs in the competitive set in those scenarios ... the manufacturer portfolio and the retailer portfolio simultaneously.
Our team is always interested in feedback from pros like you. We have the ability to include media assessment in the AI/ML framework too which aligns with you background. Check us out at: https://middlegame.ie/ and let me know what you think.
One of the oldest drivers of decisions in marketing was separating transferred demand from true incrementality.
As we moved away from a customer-centric representation of the data and to a product-centric approach that seems to have been lost. We try to use the same product data to bring back part of customer-centricity by reconsidering sales to actually represent shopper choices.
Revenue Growth Management that leaves transferred demand out of the financial equation sadly dominates the market and leads to lots of inefficient (subpar) plans.
Without evaluating how innovation, promotions, and pricing interact across the entire portfolio, well-intentioned decisions can quietly erode value and profitability
Thanks Petar!
This is exactly why we build our analytics platform to seamlessly transition across questions about assortment, merchandising, and pricing all from the same underling modeling engine and data.
We know that all models are wrong, but some are useful. By offering a unified approach, you remove debate about whose model is more inclusive or which has more up-to-date data. Instead, portfolio teams can focus on the trad-off inherent in the results of different scenarios (either AI recommended or human generated).
At the same time, Middlegame wanted to ensure that all of the stakeholders can evaluate those assortment, merchandising, pricing, or the combination of these from a point of reference. Therefore we include the impact on all the SKUs in the competitive set in those scenarios ... the manufacturer portfolio and the retailer portfolio simultaneously.
Our team is always interested in feedback from pros like you. We have the ability to include media assessment in the AI/ML framework too which aligns with you background. Check us out at: https://middlegame.ie/ and let me know what you think.
Cheers
Todd
A very thoughtful, considered read - really liked the explanations around transferring demand, and innovation requiring subtraction not just addition!
Thanks Pollyanna!
One of the oldest drivers of decisions in marketing was separating transferred demand from true incrementality.
As we moved away from a customer-centric representation of the data and to a product-centric approach that seems to have been lost. We try to use the same product data to bring back part of customer-centricity by reconsidering sales to actually represent shopper choices.
Revenue Growth Management that leaves transferred demand out of the financial equation sadly dominates the market and leads to lots of inefficient (subpar) plans.
Cheers
Todd