SGA Book of Metrics for Retail:

2009 Executive Summary

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