Taking Control of Ecommerce Today

  • 88 views
Uploaded on

On May 1st Digital BrandWorks, an INC 500 digital consultancy, and Greenberg Traurig, an international law firm, pulled together some of the best thought leaders in ecommerce strategy, policy and …

On May 1st Digital BrandWorks, an INC 500 digital consultancy, and Greenberg Traurig, an international law firm, pulled together some of the best thought leaders in ecommerce strategy, policy and execution to hold a panel discussion on the state of ecommerce today.


This event was the first in a series that will focus on how manufacturers and retailers can increase sales, protect margin, develop legal and comprehensive pricing policies to generally protect their brands online.


Joe Scartz, the CMO of Digital BrandWorks, spoke about the trends in ecommerce that impact every business. Specifically he covered:

How shopping has changed as ecommerce has continued to grow. Ecommerce is now 6% of total retail sales
The pain that bricks and mortars stores have experienced during this transition
The rise of Amazon as a preeminent retail player
Top Ecommerce categories
Brands selling direct
Mobile shopping growth
Showrooming and its impact on business
The growing trend of reverse showrooming
Omni-channel marketing and retailing and the future of retail
Tony Chvala, VP of Marketplace at Sears, spoke about tax issues facing etailers and tax nexus issues.


Irv Scher, Partner at Greenberg Traurig spoke about MAP policies and related ecommerce pricing issues. Specifically he covered:

Selecting customers and limitations placed on those customers
Resale price maintenance
Areas suppliers should stay away from when having pricing discussions
Promotional pricing
Minimum Advertised Price Policies
Pricing Incentive
Steve Wadyka, Partner at Greenberg Traurig spoke about Brand Enforcement Online. Specifically he covered:

Challenges facing brand owners in internet enforcement
Search engine and keyword advertising
Domain name registrars
Counterfeiting and fraud as related to auction sites, online marketplaces, web hosting providers, payment processors and social media
Rogue websites
Joe Scartz spoke about increasing online sales and protecting margin. Specifically he covered

Minding your brand
Knowing how to monitor your brand online
Review of a SKU Score which diagnoses problems related to product listing, pricing, sellers, product score, distribution on ecommerce retail sites
Selling direct as a manufacturer
Marketing and merchandising in the online channel
Managing online retailers to increase velocity
We’d like to thank everyone who attended the event and everyone that organized the event for making this an insightful and valuable gathering.

More in: Internet , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
88
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 10
  • 2. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 11
  • 3. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 12
  • 4. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 13
  • 5. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 14
  • 6. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 15
  • 7. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 16
  • 8. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 17
  • 9. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 18
  • 10. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 19
  • 11. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 20
  • 12. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 21
  • 13. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 22
  • 14. hh COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 23
  • 15. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 24            
  • 16. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 25
  • 17. The Antitrust Do’s and Don’ts of Product Distribution May 1, 2014 By: Irving Scher New York, NY
  • 18. 27 The Concept of “Agreement” Antitrust issues do not arise from independent conduct if the actor lacks “monopoly power.” Violations require “agreements.” An “agreement” subject to antitrust scrutiny does not have to be in writing. “Agreements” can be inferred from written or oral communications which may have led independent parties to engage in anticompetitive conduct -- “circumstantial evidence.”
  • 19. 28 Customer Selection Acting independently, a supplier has the right to select or terminate dealings with a particular customer or category of customers (e.g. internet retailers). However, the supplier cannot do so by agreement with any of its competitors. A supplier, acting independently, is free to do business with or terminate a customer for: • lack of a “brick and mortar” presence or sufficient locations • credit reasons • failure to adequately purchase or present the supplier’s products • reselling to the trade or otherwise diverting the supplier’s products. • selling or advertising below the supplier’s prices. (See Exhibits 1 & 2.)
  • 20. 29 Customer Limitations A supplier, acting independently, can determine to sell to a particular retailer at one or more locations, but not at other locations. It can also prohibit a customer from: • diverting its products to other locations or to the trade • reselling its products over the Internet, or it can place conditions on such sales. (See Exhibits 3 & 4.) Additionally, it can limit particular products to specific customers, or determine to sell a product line only to one or a few customers.
  • 21. 30 Resale Price Maintenance (“RPM”) While establishing a ceiling on a customer’s resale prices (“maximum resale price maintenance”) generally is lawful, establishing a floor (“minimum resale price maintenance”) remains very dangerous under the antitrust laws. A supplier is best counseled not to enter into agreements or understandings with customers as to the prices below which they may not resell the supplier’s products. Such agreements are absolutely prohibited under the laws of some states.
  • 22. 31 Resale Price Maintenance (cont’d) However, a supplier can suggest or recommend that customers resell a product at or above a specified price so long as the customer remains free to decide whether to follow the suggestion. (See Exhibit 1.) A supplier can talk to a customer in general terms about the profit enhancing reasons for its pricing recommendations, and the in-store services such prices support. But it should not go further.
  • 23. 32 Specifically, the supplier should not: • Pressure or coerce a customer to resell at the supplier’s suggested retail prices. • Increase wholesale prices or reduce discounts/allowances to a customer who has resold products below suggested prices. • Provide rebates only if a customer resells at or above suggested prices. • Refuse to sell particular items or threaten to slow down delivery to a customer who resells below suggested prices. • However, a supplier, acting independently, may establish the selling prices of agents or consignees selling products on its behalf. Pricing Don’ts
  • 24. Promotional Pricing Retailers should not need a supplier’s approval to promote the sale of its products. A supplier should not prohibit customers from reselling below the supplier’s promotional prices or beyond a suggested end date for a promotion. However, the supplier may require customers to pass promotional funds on to their customers as a condition of receiving such funds. • E.g., a retailer can be provided a $25.00 promotional rebate only if it has passed the promotional $25.00 through to its customers from its independently determined selling price for the item. 33
  • 25. Retailer Pricing Complaints If a supplier receives a pricing complaint from Customer A about Customer B’s selling or advertised prices, the supplier should respond as follows: • Customer B’s prices cannot be discussed. • A decision about action to be taken, if any, will independently be made by the supplier, and not reported back to Customer A. 34
  • 26. 35 Minimum Advertised Price (“MAP”) Policies “MAP” means “Minimum Advertised Price.” • It does not relate to selling prices. • It is a Policy providing that a retailer will: • only be reimbursed for advertising at or above MAP, • lose advertising support, • or sales of the applicable product will be suspended for a period of time if the retailer advertises below MAP. A MAP Policy is permissible if the supplier: • only withholds financial support from a retailer under a Co-op Advertising Policy for advertisements below MAP, so long as the retailer remains free to advertise below MAP at its own expense, and also is free to resell at prices it independently chooses.
  • 27. 36 MAP POLICIES (cont’d) The legality of a MAP Policy is unclear if it goes beyond just refusing to support below MAP advertisements, for example: • suspending financial support for a period of time if a retailer’s advertisement is below-MAP. • suspending sales of the product if a retailer’s advertisement is below-MAP. • terminating a retailer for failing to comply with the MAP Policy. (See Exhibit 5.) Legal counseling should be obtained for the development of a MAP policy.
  • 28. 37 Pricing Incentives • A supplier can offer a customer better prices or higher discounts if a purchase from the supplier: • is increased in quantity (quantity discounts); • is at or above stated percentages of the customer’s requirements for products in a category (loyalty discounts); • is in an amount that approaches, equals, or exceeds the supplier’s market share (market share discounts); or • is for two or more different products (bundled discounts). • “Most Favored Nation” (MFN) provisions can assure a customer that the supplier will reduce the customer’s prices to a lower price that has been offered to a competing customer.
  • 29. ©2011. All rights reserved. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP  ATTORNEYS AT LAW  WWW.GTLAW.COM “The New Frontier” of Brand Enforcement on the Internet: A U.S. Perspective Steven J. Wadyka, Jr. Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP Washington, D.C. USA (202) 331-3105 wadykas@gtlaw.com
  • 30. Overview of Internet Brand Enforcement  Challenges/costs/benefits  Internet marketing, search engines and keyword advertising  Secondary liability for online service providers  Brand enforcement in social media  Remedies against “rogue” websites  Conclusions and predictions
  • 31. Challenges Facing Brand Owners in Internet Enforcement  Potential IP rights violators • Search engines selling trademarks as “keywords” (Google, Yahoo!, Bing) • Domain name registrars (GoDaddy) • Social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) • “Rogue” websites/online counterfeiters • Auction sites (eBay) • Web hosting providers/ISPs • Payment processors (PayPal)
  • 32. Challenges Facing Brand Owners in Internet Enforcement  Jurisdictional issues • How to subject offshore (and often anonymous) IP rights violator to the courts and laws of the U.S. and obtain relief that can be enforced against the violator?  Cost considerations • Private investigators • Monitoring/watching services • Legal fees  Efficiency and effectiveness • Identify and choose targets wisely  Deterrence and Return on Investment • Substantial relief may provide disincentive to would-be violators and help brand owner recoup losses and cost outlays
  • 33. Challenges Facing Brand Owners in Internet Enforcement  Secondary liability • Hold online service providers responsible for the infringing acts of others • Hold brand owners responsible for the actions of third parties • Two theories: – Vicarious infringement: Principal liable for acts of its agent – Contributory infringement: Analogous to aiding and abetting
  • 34. Search Engines & Keyword Advertising Rosetta Stone v. Google, 676 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 2012) Rosetta Stone sued Google for trademark infringement based on sale of keywords consisting of Rosetta Stone’s trademark to trigger ads for competitors’ and counterfeit products District court granted summary judgment for Google on Rosetta Stone’s direct and contributory infringement claims
  • 35. Search Engines & Keyword Advertising Rosetta Stone v. Google  Direct trademark infringement • Disputed issues of fact regarding Google’s intent; evidence showed that Google expected uptick in litigation due to AdWords policy change • District court ignored evidence of actual confusion as to sponsorship • Sophistication of consumers – internal Google study showed seasoned Internet users were confused by Google’s sponsored links • Functionality doctrine inapplicable – Irrelevant that Google’s computer program functioned better by use of Rosetta Stone’s mark
  • 36. Search Engines & Keyword Advertising Rosetta Stone v. Google  Contributory trademark infringement • Insufficient for service provider to have general knowledge that some percentage of purchasers use the service to engage in infringing activities • Must provide service to identified individuals that it knows or has reason to know are engaging in trademark infringement • District court improperly weighed conflicting evidence regarding Google’s allowance of known counterfeiters to bid on Rosetta Stone keywords
  • 37. Search Engines & Keyword Advertising  1-800 CONTACTS, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc., 722 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2013) • Lens.com used an “affiliate network,” managed through an aggregator, to assist with online marketing • Affiliates purchased keywords containing 1-800’s mark • Some impressions displayed 1- 800’s mark • 1-800 argued “initial interest confusion” • Sued Lens.com based on theories of vicarious and contributory infringement
  • 38. Search Engines & Keyword Advertising  1-800 CONTACTS, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc. • Relevant issue for consumer confusion is not what keyword was purchased, but what language was used in the ad generated by keyword • Likelihood of confusion existed as to impressions containing plaintiff’s mark • No vicarious liability  Affiliate had no authority to act on behalf of defendant and thus was not an “agent” • BUT, there was contributory liability  Lens.com could have stopped use of infringing ads by requiring its aggregator to send e-mail blast to affiliates forbidding such use
  • 39. Domain Name Registrars  Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) v. GoDaddy, 737 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2013) • A third party registered “petronastower.net” and “petronastowers.net” and used GoDaddy’s domain forwarding service to direct users to a porn site • Petronas sued GoDaddy for contributory cybersquatting under the federal anti-cybersquatting statute (ACPA) • Appeals court held that neither the plain text nor purpose of the ACPA supports a claim for contributory cybersquatting • Would saddle registrars with nearly impossible task of “divining the intent of their customers” • Issue may soon be before US Supreme Court
  • 40. Auction Sites & Online Marketplaces  Tiffany v. eBay, 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) • First U.S. case to apply contributory trademark infringement standard to online marketplace • Tiffany claimed that eBay was liable for contributory trademark infringement by supplying its services to sellers of counterfeit Tiffany goods while knowing or having reason to know that such sellers were infringing Tiffany’s marks • District court ruled in favor of eBay; Tiffany appealed
  • 41. Auction Sites & Online Marketplaces  Tiffany v. eBay • Affirms judgment in favor of eBay • For contributory trademark infringement, a service provider must have more than a general knowledge or reason to know that its service is being used to sell counterfeit goods  Some contemporary knowledge of which particular listings are infringing or will infringe in the future is necessary  Tiffany’s generalized allegations of counterfeiting failed to provide eBay with the required knowledge • eBay’s extensive anti-piracy efforts – Trust & Safety Dept., fraud engine to detect listings for counterfeit goods, VeRO Program providing rights owners with “notice and takedown” remedies – all were critical to a finding of no liability
  • 42. Web Hosting Providers  Louis Vuitton v. Akanoc Solutions, 658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011) • Defendants provided web hosting services to sites that sold counterfeit Louis Vuitton products • LV made several demands that defendants either remove infringing content or require their customers to do so; No response from defendants; sites continued to operate • LV sued for contributory trademark infringement  Argued that defendants had actual knowledge of sites’ activities, knowingly avoided learning full extent of those activities, and deliberately disregarded LV’s demands, thereby knowingly enabling the infringing conduct by hosting the sites • Jury found for LV, awarded statutory damages totaling $31.5 million
  • 43. Web Hosting Providers  Louis Vuitton v. Akanoc Solutions • Affirmed on appeal as to liability • Issue: Whether defendants exercised direct control of third party’s “means of infringement” • Defendants: The websites selling counterfeit goods were to sole means of infringement • Appeals court held that defendants physically host websites on their servers and route Internet traffic to and from those sites • “The Internet equivalent of leasing real estate.” • Defendants had direct control over the “master switch” that kept the sites online and available • Reduced statutory damage award to $10.5 million
  • 44. Payment Processors  Theory of liability • Contributory infringement  Intentional inducement  Actual knowledge or willful blindness, while having sufficient control over the instrumentality used to infringe  Divergent case holdings • Perfect 10 v. Visa, 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007)  allegation that credit card processors can decide to stop processing payments to sites dealing in counterfeits was insufficient to state a claim (Judge Kozinski dissenting) • Gucci v. Frontline Processing, 721 F.Supp.2d 228 (SDNY 2010)  “control” sufficiently alleged because credit card processing services are a necessary element for the transaction of counterfeit goods online; “knowingly provide a financial bridge between buyers and sellers of counterfeit products”
  • 45. Social Media  Presents opportunities and challenges for brand owners • Opportunities:  Build brand strength/loyalty by creating official company page and fan page  Register usernames consisting of your company’s brands  Use social media pages commercially to provide new ways to reach consumers  Spread branding message instantaneously across numerous platforms
  • 46. Social Media • Challenges:  Improper suggestions of affiliation/sponsorship – Brand appears in usernames pointing to sites containing false information about the company’s products  Counterfeiting - Username points to sites selling counterfeit goods  “Username squatting” - New FB account created solely to take advantage of grabbing a username  Dilution - Blurring and tarnishment  Imposters - Possible parody defense; permissible on Twitter provided parody is clear
  • 47. Social Media  Enforcement strategies in social media sites • Assessment of infringing activity  Balance the need for brand protection vs. potential alienation of customers – Must always be mindful of duty to police your marks – How much of an issue does the activity create for your business? – Does it interfere with any ongoing advertising or promotional campaigns? – Is it an isolated, ephemeral instance or a concerted attack?
  • 48. Social Media  Enforcement strategies in social media sites • Consider free speech issues and potential public backlash of enforcement effort – First Amendment to U.S. Constitution grants broad protection to political speech/commentary/criticism, less protection to commercial speech – Keep in mind that cease and desist letter may well be posted on social media sites to generate negative exposure for the brand » Adjust tone of enforcement depending on whether infringer is willful or simply innocent or misguided
  • 49. Social Media  Enforcement strategies in social media sites • Become familiar with the site’s Complaint and Takedown Policies, Community Guidelines, and Terms of Use • Develop takedown strategy and assess requirements  Copyright Infringement (DMCA)  Trademark Infringement  Unauthorized Impersonation  Repeat Offenders  Harassment, defamation, theft of confidential material • Keep in mind that policies and requirements my change over time
  • 50. Social Media  Enforcement strategies in social media sites  Expand your internal monitoring program to include social media sites  Develop consistent monitoring and enforcement procedures  Use search engines to find infringing/harmful content – Google.com/alerts (generates alerts for use of company names and brands on the Web, blogs, news, discussion groups)  Consider vendors and software tools with social media monitoring capability  Keep tabs on what is being said about your brand in “real time”
  • 51. “Rogue” Websites  What is a “rogue” website? • A site that traffics in stolen movies, TV shows and music, or counterfeit goods • Located throughout the world • Appear legitimate by featuring brands and advertising of reputable companies and accepting major credit cards • Enable site operators to profit from brands and other IP they had no role in creating • “A Web site that is set up to spread a virus, collect names for spammers or for some other illicit or repugnant purpose” (PC Magazine Encyclopedia)
  • 52. “Rogue” Websites  What type of threat do they present to brands? • The counterfeit business model is shifting toward use of “rogue” websites  Seizures by U.S. Customs & Border Patrol jumped 24% in 2011, but overall value of goods seized decreased by 5% from previous year  Proliferation of rogue sites in part responsible  Difficult to stop counterfeit goods from entering US if purchased through rogue website  Hard to locate or identify operators of sites  Lack of any lasting remedy since sites are easily re- established
  • 53. A Rogue Website Case Study: Tory Burch An example of how brand owners can combat the sale and distribution of counterfeit goods through “rogue” websites under current U.S. laws
  • 54. A Rogue Website Case Study: Tory Burch  Tory Burch brought suit in Dec. 2010 in SDNY against an interrelated group of anonymous counterfeiters  Defendants established over 200 websites to sell counterfeit Tory Burch products  The sites were in English, accept major credit cards, copy Tory Burch marks, designs and photos  Sites established at URLs containing the Tory Burch marks so they would rank highly web searches for “Tory Burch” name  Defendants used multiple fake names and addresses and submitted false WHOIS data to avoid detection  New sites quickly set up once existing sites disabled
  • 55. A Rogue Website Case Study: Tory Burch
  • 56. A Rogue Website Case Study: Tory Burch  Court granted Tory Burch’s motion for default judgment and permanent injunction (Order dated May 13, 2011) • Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants based on their operation of fully-interactive websites through which they sold Tory Burch counterfeits  Recent 2d Cir. case upholding jurisdiction over nonresident counterfeiter based on sale/shipment of at least 1 counterfeit handbag into NY and its operation of highly-interactive website (Chloe v. Queen Bee (2d Cir. 2010)) • Found that defendants “went to great lengths to conceal themselves and their ill-gotten proceeds from Tory Burch’s and this Court’s detection by using multiple false identities and addresses as well as purposefully deceptive contact information” • Permanently enjoined 3rd party service providers (ISPs, registries, registrars, online marketplaces) from providing any services to defendants • Awarded Tory Burch $164 million in damages
  • 57. A Rogue Website Case Study: Tory Burch  Court also granted ongoing injunctive relief tailored to suit the unique challenges presented by the anonymity of defendants and ease by which they are able to establish new sites  Order enables Tory Burch • to disable additional rogue sites as they are established by defendants and discovered by Tory Burch • To freeze and recover any additional newly-discovered financial accounts used in connection with defendants’ operation, such funds to be applied toward satisfaction of $164 million judgment • To obtain transfers of additional domain names associated with any newly-discovered rogue sites  Ongoing mechanism avoids the need to institute a separate action each time a new rogue site is established
  • 58. Conclusions and Predictions  The legality of using trademarks in keyword advertising is still unsettled  Greater challenges for brand owners in seeking to hold online service providers liable for trademark infringement, creating greater need for remedies against direct infringers, wherever located  Competitors will become more aggressive in marketing through social media sites, resulting in trademark disputes that will test adequacy of traditional trademark law in the social media context  Rogue websites will become more sophisticated in their operation and more difficult to identify
  • 59. ©2011. All rights reserved. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP  ATTORNEYS AT LAW  WWW.GTLAW.COM Questions?
  • 60. ©2011. All rights reserved. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP  ATTORNEYS AT LAW  WWW.GTLAW.COM Thank You!
  • 61. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 71 Be Prepared to protect your brand with strong policies – MAP, retailer agreements, etc Strengthen retail partnerships by enforcing agreements and address distribution concerns Start with knowing where you stand online Consider selling direct to offset irregularities in the marketplace which degrade your brand Marketing and Merchandising within the online channel Manage online retailers differently - its not “set-it-and- forget-it”
  • 62. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 72
  • 63. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 74
  • 64. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 75
  • 65.        COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 76
  • 66. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 77
  • 67. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 78
  • 68. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 79
  • 69. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 80 Work with your team to establish quantitative benchmarks and goals related to the program and an initial demand plan. Additionally, develop a dynamic dashboard specific to your business goals that can be regularly updated. As needed, develop inventory management set up, payment and inventory reconciliation. Work with a creative team that will update imagery, product detail page copy and other assets in accordance with your brand guidelines. At the conclusion of development, deploy your brand into the marketplaces and establish a roadmap that highlights key milestones and initiatives related to your program.
  • 70. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 81 Actively manage your products and overall online presence. Monitor your brand and competitors, manage marketplace logistics, upload content refreshes, regular benchmark key KPIs and continually optimize your presence to ensure we are meeting established goals. Actively pursue merchandising value ads and paid opportunities Perform inventory management and payment reconciliation related to the marketplaces where your brand is present. Provide regular reporting on sales, competitors and channel metrics along with analysis and recommendations on how to optimize to meet your goals.
  • 71. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 82
  • 72. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 84 • Stakeholder interviews • SWOT analysis • Product training & education • Asset audit & needs identification • Retailer and competitive online audit • Asset optimization • Demand forecasting • Content management system integration with retailers • KPI identification & development • Management dashboard development • Daily maintenance • Maintain listings & collateral material • Facilitate price, inventory & order management • Plan & coordinate marketing promotions • Assist in communicating new product initiatives & education • Marketing asset development • Sales & trends analysis item breakdown • Sales & merchandising management
  • 73. COPYRIGHT 2014 DIGITAL BRANDWORKS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 85