Charles de gruchy strategy doc toys r us

1
RESTRUCTURED
RFP RESPONSE EVALUATION
FOR
MARKETING DATABASE MANAGEMENT,
MARKETING AUTOMATION AND
ANALYTICS SERVICES
BASED ON:
1. STRATEGY
2. DATA MANAGEMENT
3. ANALYTICS
June 16, 2008
CEM 4.10.7

2
1. Background:
1.1 The re structured RFP
1.2 Objectives
1.3 Purpose of restructured RFP
1.4 Gaps within the RFP as a result of the re structuring
1.5 Revised evaluation stages and process
1.6 Restructure RFP content
2. Evaluation:
2.1 Point of view behind the participant scoring
2.2 The scoring system
2.3 Participants overall scoring:
2.3.1 Strategy
2.3.2 Data Management
2.3.3 Analytics
2.4 Short list recommendation based on the restructuring
2.5 Short list recommendation
2.6 Short list detailed performance
2.7 Harte-Hanks recommendation
3. Next Steps
Appendix
(A) Evaluation approach
CONTENTS

4
1.1 THE RE STRUCTURED RFP
The RFP content and submissions have been re structured into three
categories of response as follows:
1. Strategy and account management
2. Data management
3. Analytics

5
1.2 OBJECTIVES
The revised objectives for development of a category based RFP are:
1. To identify ‘best of breed’ within each functional category
2. To understand capabilities
3. To award TRU/BRU marketing database management based on
category expertise

6
1.3 PURPOSE OF THE RE STRUCTURED RFP
The purpose of re structuring is to
1. Summarize the response submissions based on a performance
criteria within a more tightly defined set of criteria
2. Apply that criteria to identify strengths and weaknesses,
3. Identify ‘best of breed’ within each performance category, and
4. Evaluate vendor capabilities with the intent of offering out the
business to more than one vendor by category of expertise.

7
1.4 GAPS WITHIN THE RFP AS A RESULT OF THE RE STRUCTURING
As a result of the re structuring of the RFP the analytics category
fails to deliver an in-depth exploration of vendor capabilities as well
as a complete review of industry ‘best of breed’ practitioners.
Recommendations are provided to build out this RFP category to
meet the review objectives.

8
1.5 REVISED EVALUATION STAGES AND PROCESS
Stage 1 – Completed initial scoring of the 7 participants and recommended
short list of three
Stage 2 – Re structure initial scoring by category and make
recommendations regarding:
A. participants
B. RFP questions and focus by category
Stage 3 – Identify and select additional vendors to receive the enhanced
category RFP.

9
1.6 RE STRUCTURED RFP CONTENT
The re structured RFP is divided into 14 sections as follows:
SECTION NAME SECTION # QUESTION
2.4.5 Customer Segmentation and Modeling
2.4.6 Strategy and Enablement
2.7 Client Service
2.9 Training methodologies
2.3 Data warehouse management
2.4 Marketing automation services and reporting
2.4 Campaign management
2.4.2 Reporting, software installation and
maintenances
2.4.7 Facilities and data safeguarding
2.5 Technology
2.6 Implementation & migration
2.8 Testing methodology
2.4.3 Reporting
2.4.4 Analytical leadership
DATA MANAGEMENT
ANALYTICS
STRATEGY

10
1.4 SUBMISSIONS
Seven participants responded:
 Acxiom
 Allant
 Epsilon
 Equifax
 Harte Hanks
 Merkle
 Rapp Collins
The Forrester Wave, Database marketing Services Providers Review
(November 2, 2007) included all the TRU/BRU RFP participants in their
evaluation. Forrester results are referenced following.

11
RE STRUCTURING THE CURRENT
EVALUATION

12
2.1 POINT OF VIEW BEHIND THE PARTICIPANT SCORING
The participant scoring rewards participants who delivered on the following:
 Added value
 Integrated service offering
 Integrated channel view
 Flexible account structure
 Flexible services organization
Participant performance levels (ranking and scoring within each of the RFP
categories) reflect the degree to which the participant answered the
following questions in the body of their answer.
1. How well did the answer address the stated needs of TRU/BRU?
2. Did the participant answer the question?
3. Was the content directly, or indirectly, relevant to the question
asked?
4. Did the answer meet or exceed the standard set by the other
participants?

13
2.2 THE SCORING SYSTEM
The design of the RFP questions provides for two types of answers. The first
type answers the question “what”, and the second, is more “open ended”*.
The scoring system is the same for each type of question and is based on a
three part score of 1-3-9 with the following interpretation assigned to “what”
questions:
 A score of ‘9’ for high or added value performance
 A score of ‘3’ for medium or met the performance minimum standard
 A scored of ‘1 for low, or were below the relative standard established
by the other participants.
And, with the following interpretation for the “open ended” questions:
 A score of ‘9’ equals exceeded the requirement
 A score of ‘3’ equals partial, either incomplete or unclear
 A scored of ‘1 equals either an answer was not given or the answer
was not relevant.
* See appendix (A) for examples

14
While all participants performed strongly Allant, Equifax and Merkle emerged
as the three strongest contenders.
Despite their overall leadership, each firms response raises further questions
that need exploration, as follows:
 Migration process
 Client service integration with analytics services
 Integrated analytics services (on and off line)
 Work flow management and TRU/BRU resources
 Ability to scale to service a business the size of TRU/BRU
 Questions regarding geography and travel
VS
TARGET
SCORE VS
TARGET
SCORE VS
TARGET
SCORE VS
TARGET
SCORE VS
TARGET
SCORE VS
TARGET
SCORE VS
TARGET
SCORE
All COMBINED TOTAL 72% 771 82% 870 73% 776 89% 950 74% 787 88% 932 75% 798
VENDOR PERFORMANCE
ACXIOM ALLANT EPSILON EQUIFAX HARTE-HANKS MERKLE RAPP COLLINSSECTION NAME
2.3 PARTICIPANTS OVERALL SCORING RESULTS
1 23* See scoring detail document for more information

15
2.4 SHORT LIST RECOMMENDATION
Allant, Equifax and Merkle emerged as the three strongest contenders
among the seven participants based on providing a consistently high
level of understanding of the processes and steps/stages required to
meet TRU/BRU stated objectives and service delivery levels. It is
recommended that they form the short list.
Out of a total potential of 1,065 points all three achieved over 80%.
VS
TARGET
SCORE VS
TARGET
SCORE VS
TARGET
SCORE
All COMBINED TOTAL 82% 870 89% 950 88% 932
VENDOR PERFORMANCE
ALLANT EQUIFAX MERKLESECTION NAME

16
2.5 SHORT LIST RECOMMENDATION AND FORRESTER
The selected contenders – Allant, Equifax and Merkle – were also
identified by Forrester as “leaders” within their evaluation
However, Forrester’s conclusions are consistent with this evaluation in
noting the following gaps even among the leaders:
 poor project management
 Limited integration of on and off line capabilities
 Relative degrees of proactive service
Merkle, alone among the evaluated companies, achieved 7 measures
with scores over 80%, notably account and analytical services were two
of the categories.
See chart following

17
2.5 SHORT LIST RECOMMENDATION AND FORRESTER
CURRENT OFFERING
SCORE
TARGET
VS TARGET SCORE VS TARGET SCORE VS TARGET SCORE
Account management & service delivery 5 77% 3.85 78% 3.88 84% 4.20
Strategy services 5 80% 4.00 70% 3.50 73% 3.63
Data and data sourcing services 5 62% 3.10 66% 3.28 87% 4.35
Database management 5 56% 2.80 62% 3.10 70% 3.50
Data processing 5 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00
Analytical services 5 91% 4.55 53% 2.65 93% 4.65
Creative services 5 0% 0.00 20% 1.00 73% 3.65
Execution 5 51% 2.55 14% 0.70 84% 4.20
Measurement 5 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00
Technology capabilities 5 76% 3.80 88% 4.40 96% 4.80
Integrated services 5 65% 3.25 75% 3.75 90% 4.50
Other capabilities 5 62% 3.10 56% 2.80 62% 3.10
Midmarket capabilities 5 48% 2.40 88% 4.40 36% 1.80
Industry capablities 5 49% 2.43 57% 2.85 88% 4.40
Sales channel capabilities 5 49% 2.43 0% 0.00 0% 0.00
Contracts and pricing 5 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00
TOTAL 80 48% 38.26 45% 36.31 58% 46.78
MERKLE
FORRESTER VAVE EVALUATION, November 2007
ALLANT EQUIFAX

18
2.6 SHORT LIST DETAILED PERFORMANCE, CASE STUDIES
RFP 2.2 Case studies -- were relevant to the TRU/BRU RFP focus
and illustrated how they would add value to the TRU/BRU business
(s).
Allant’s TWEEN BRANDS case specifically addressed points
relevant to the TRU/BRU business, for example, data quality, timely
information, access to data, etc.
SCORE
TARGET
2.2
TOTAL CASE
STUDIES,
REFERENCES
99 100% 99 100% 99 82% 81
SECTION NAME ALLANT EQUIFAX MERKLE

19
2.6 SHORT LIST DETAILED PERFORMANCE , DATA WAREHOUSE
RFP 2.3 Data Warehouse Management -- All three presented strong,
detailed and believable data management cases and descriptions.
In addition, each participant presented a flexible, “we’ll work with
you” point of view.
SCORE
TARGET
2.3
TOTAL DATA
WAREHOUSE
MANAGEMENT
315 78% 247 84% 265 82% 257

20
2.6 SHORT LIST DETAILED PERFORMANCE, AUTOMATION
RFP 2.4 Marketing Automation -- Allant articulated the issues related
to the integrated TRU/BRU marketing environment best, followed by
Equifax and Merkle.
Each response was a positive set up for the following section –
campaign management.
SCORE
TARGET
2.4
TOTAL MARKETING
AUTOMATION
SERVICES
9 100% 9 100% 9 100% 9

21
2.6 SHORT LIST DETAILED PERFORMANCE , CAMPAIGN MANAGEMENT
RFP 2.4.1 Campaign Management – While Allant is clearly capable
of delivering a high level of support their response was not as well
articulated as Equifax and Merkle and the overall impression created
not as strong.
SCORE
TARGET
2.4.1
TOTAL CAMPAIGN
MANAGEMENT
117 57% 67 88% 103 88% 103

22
2.6 SHORT LIST DETAILED PERFORMANCE, SOFTWARE
RFP 2.4.2 Software – Equifax presented the strongest integration
story with current TRU/BRU technologies.
The understanding of upgrades costs and ongoing upgrades needs
to be built more clearly into the go forward.
SCORE
TARGET
2.4.2 TOTAL SOFTWARE 72 75% 54 92% 66 89% 64

23
2.6 SHORT LIST DETAILED PERFORMANCE, REPORTING
RFP 2.4.3 Reporting – While the staffing models outlined by each
participant are clear the report creation process will need leadership
that none of the participants is offering to provide. Allant, Equifax and
Merkle are looking for leadership from TRU/BRU and the
identification of a project leader for the migration.
Equifax and Merkle offer the most flexible staffing approach.
SCORE
TARGET
2.4.3 TOTAL REPORTING 27 70% 19 100% 27 100% 27

24
2.6 SHORT LIST DETAILED PERFORMANCE, ANALYTICS
RFP 2.4.4 Analytical Leadership – Analytics services are offered on a
project basis with commitment of senior analytics staff on a
permanent basis to the business. Staffing needs to be clarified within
the scope of work and specific individuals identified together with
their allocation.
A key question is how this function will be coordinated between TRU
and BRU. Each participant has expressed concerns re: workflow
management.
SCORE
TARGET
2.4.4
TOTAL ANALYTICAL
LEADERSHIP
72 100% 72 92% 66 81% 58

25
2.6 SHORT LIST DETAILED PERFORMANCE, SEGMENTATION
RFP 2..4.5 Segmentation – It is Unclear how analytics is built into the
staffing model relative to project work.
Merkle presented the clearest structure and options but all
contenders need to be more specific, e.g. who will lead; how will
analytics be integrated into the account function; what are the work
flow issues, etc.
SCORE
TARGET
2.4.5
TOTAL CUSTOMER
SEGMENTATION
AND MODELING
27 78% 21 78% 21 100% 27

26
2.6 SHORT LIST DETAILED PERFORMANCE , STRATEGY
RFP 2.4.6 Strategy and Enablement – The Equifax response did not
present a confident description of how strategic services, including
analytics, would be enabled. Example provided did not help.
Allant and Merkle provided a stronger staffing story with Merkle
leading.
SCORE
TARGET
2.4.6
TOTAL STRATEGY
AND ENABLEMENT
18 67% 12 67% 12 100% 18

27
2.6 SHORT LIST DETAILED PERFORMANCE, FACILITIES
RFP 2.4.7 Facilities – All of the participants provided security
solutions within acceptable frameworks. Merkle provided added
security options not provided by the others.
SCORE
TARGET
2.4.7
TOTAL FACILITES
AND DATA
SAFEGUARDING
99 94% 93 94% 93 100% 99

28
2.6 SHORT LIST DETAILED PERFORMANCE, TECHNOLOGY
RFP 2.5 Technology – All participants recommended a dedicated T1
line for communications management and all participants anticipate
large data transfer volumes.
A key question that is not answered clearly by Merkle is how they will
integrate the full scope of the TRU/BRU business while maintaining
stated levels of service and support.
SCORE
TARGET
2.5
TOTAL
TECHNOLOGY
63 86% 54 86% 54 76% 48

29
2.6 SHORT LIST DETAILED PERFORMANCE, IMPLEMENTATION
RFP 2.6 Implementation– the issues related to a potential transition
appear to be best understood by these three contenders.
More specifics need to be provided on how the transition will be
managed and examples of successful transitions of the scale under
consideration.
SCORE
TARGET
2.6
TOTAL
IMPLEMENTATION
AND MIGRATION
36 100% 36 100% 36 83% 30

30
2.6 SHORT LIST DETAILED PERFORMANCE, CLIENT SERVICE
RFP 2.7 Client Service – Merkle presented the most coherent client
service case although all participants did poorly describing the
migration strategy. Further detail needs to be provided client service
structure and day-to-day operating practice.
SCORE
TARGET
2.7
TOTAL CLIENT
SERVICE
93 85% 79 94% 87 100% 93

31
2.6 SHORT LIST DETAILED PERFORMANCE, TESTING
RFP 2.8 Testing – Testing protocols are consistent across all three
contenders.
SCORE
TARGET
2.8
TOTAL TESTING
METHODOLOGIES
153 100% 153 88% 135 92% 141

32
2.6 SHORT LIST DETAILED PERFORMANCE, TRAINING
RFP 2.9 Training – Training methodologies are not all equal with
Merkel presenting the most customized and flexible point of view,
e.g. they will work with TRU/BRU to develop the optimal program and
will provide individual training sessions which the others did not
mention.
SCORE
TARGET
2.9
TOTAL TRAINING
METHODOLOGIES
45 60% 27 87% 39 100% 45

33
2.7 HARTE-HANKS RECOMMENDATION
Harte-Hanks ranking relative to the other participants was surprisingly
low in light of their long tenure on the business.
Their presentation of facts was weak in the following areas:
a) Migration process – this was not clearly defined
b) Staffing – e.g. how will the proposed structure address
current deficiencies.
c) Client support structure, e.g. what will be different now
vs. the current structure (integration issues)
d) Training – a self service option was not defined
Based on their incumbency it is recommended that they be included in
the short list based on addressing the gaps above.

35
3. NEXT STEPS
1. TRU/BRU internal review of this evaluation.
2. TRU/BRU confirmation (or change) of short list candidates.
Meanwhile, consultant will
1. Complete detailed side-by-side cost comparison of short list
candidates. (A top line review indicates that the contender’s
approaches are consistent with an “all in” approach to fees).
2. Develop business problems/questions for in-person presentation
by short list contenders.

37
(Appendix A) EVALUATION APPROACH
The questionnaire design presents limitations to the application of a
single evaluation approach:
Example 1: Provide client success story that best highlights your ability
to handle requirements, section 2.2
Comment: Because the question focus is broad answers from the
participants range from a marketing problem/solution (Harte Hanks) to
more specific database marketing examples (Merkle). As a result
measurement of participant performance is rated based on both the
relevance and strength of the case study.

38
Example 2: Describe the process to prepare data for specific uses by the
marketing automation tools, section 2.3.14
Comment: The question did not clearly indicated that an answer is
required or that it optional to defer an answer to the discovery stage post
hire. As a result some participants did exactly that (Allant, Epsilon) versus
the others who clearly described the process (Epsilon, Equifax, Merkle)
or addressed a specific within the process (Harte-Hanks, Rapp Collins).
As a result non responders or those not addressing broader process
issues were penalized in review.

39
Example 3: Describe in detail, assignment of a household key based on
assigned individual key, section 2.3.17
Comment: The questions in this section were specific and well defined.
The participants, as a result, had a clear framework in which to specify
their answers. Evaluation of the outcomes was straightforward based on
the degree to which the participant detailed the process and the outcome.
For example, appending of key demographic/lifestyle data Acxiom
provided the most detailed description with a clearly defined outcome.
The other participants while describing the process did not add further
value. Axciom was rated high and the other participants medium in
performance.

40
Example 4: Describe how your organization will provide the same
customer data that is required for domestic customers and international
customers.
Comment: Because this questions was very broad it left too much
discretion to the participants to define the outcome. The result was that
Acxiom focused on their credentials without “describing” and scored
medium. Allant, Epsilon and Harte-Hanks provided very literal answers
and scored high. Merkle and Rapp Collins didn’t address the question
completely and were ranked low.

41
1.3 CONSIDERATIONS
• What is a successful database marketing service vendor today?
Marketing database service providers, to be successful, must exceed price
of entry levels of service and performance:
A. Price of Entry: The design, build and management of marketing
databases is no longer the baseline for performance it was five years
ago.
B. Point of Difference: With the trend to integration of the on and off line
channels of sales together with rapid growth and diversification of
alternative medias in driving retail, marketing database providers must
deliver:
 High value service
 Flexibility
 Proaction
 Integrated delivery*
*source: Forrester Wave, Database marketing Service Providers, 11,02,07

42
1.3 CONSIDERATIONS
• What is the optimal service combination?
All providers deliver a similar suite of services including:
 Strategy and planning
 List and data sourcing
 Database management and processing
 Analytics
 Measurement and insight
The service suites in themselves are clear. It is how they are offered that
causes confusion and mixed expectations.

43
1.3 CONSIDERATIONS
• How should those services be structured?
An integrated offering (and strategy and analytics) is preferred by marketers
and, based on the multi channel/multi brand structure of TRU/BRU business
model this is the only way that will work to meet marketing objectives and
service support requirements.

Charles de gruchy strategy doc toys r us

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Charles de gruchy strategy doc toys r us

Similar to Charles de gruchy strategy doc toys r us (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Charles de gruchy strategy doc toys r us