How back-of-mind backrooms rob retailers of profits
There's a significant cost associated with taking the backroom for granted. Taking the time to re-evaluate a variety of relevant factors can help companies operate a more efficient, cost-effective backroom.
Chris Caplice is the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center for Transportation & Logistics and the founder and director of the MIT FreightLab.
When designing the layout of their stores, retailers understandably pay close attention to the front spaces—the places where consumers purchase goods and interact with staff. The dynamics of these customer-facing areas are relatively well understood. Backroom spaces, on the other hand, tend to attract less attention and are not as well understood, especially in the context of their impact on store performance.
Article Figures
[Figure 1] Relationship between backroom space and store profitability Enlarge this image
However, our research shows that retailers have a substantial opportunity to increase revenue and improve customer service by increasing the efficiency of backroom operations—especially at a time when the rise of online sales and omnichannel business models is redefining the functionality of retail outlets.
This makes sense, as the backroom is the vital link between the store and the complex supply chain that supports it. Consequently, it's important that retailers allocate the optimum amount of space to meet a store's needs and manage that space as efficiently as possible. Neglecting these demands can exact a high price in terms of store profitability and service levels.
Space and profitability
Backroom spaces make a major contribution to store profitability. If the amount of inventory held in the backroom is too low, the retailer can lose sales because product is not available when customers wish to make a purchase. Too much inventory in the backroom, however, loads the store with excessive costs and waste, which eats into profit margins.
A clear picture of the relationship between backroom space and store profitability is depicted in Figure 1. The chart shows how the annual profit achieved in a 1,500-square-foot retail store changes as the available backroom space changes.
Initially, increasing the backroom space allocation increases product-related profit because the larger space carries more inventory (a 1,500-square-foot store can reap nearly $300,000 more profit annually when the backroom space is increased to 150 square feet from 75 square feet, or from 5 percent to 10 percent of the total store space). A smaller and hence a more congested backroom space could also potentially lead to larger in-store logistics cost (for example, labor costs), which have not been included here.
However, these gains disappear when the backroom reaches a certain size threshold. At this point, the amount of revenue that the store can earn is limited by the demand observed at the store. Additionally, too much backroom space cuts into the amount of square footage devoted to the front room—the demand-generating part of the store that has a direct impact on maximum revenue potential.
Previous research indicates that backroom operations can have a significant impact on a store's costs. In-store operations can account for up to 50 percent of total costs in a retail supply chain,1 and the backroom is responsible for a major portion of those costs. For example, organizing and managing the backroom—especially a smaller, and hence a more congested, space—incurs labor costs, and there are inventory holding costs associated with backrooms. Equipping backrooms represents another cost, which can be especially significant in businesses such as food service that handle perishable items.
Researchers have identified inadequate backroom organization and planning (how backrooms are configured and how stock is arranged to meet the needs of the front space) as a major source of store stockouts.2 In the food-service business, the impact on customer service can be even more pronounced, because backroom spaces also function as production areas.
In short, the way backrooms are configured and managed influences their ability to supply the product that is sold in the store, and hence the store's sales performance. Retailers therefore need to pay more attention to the amount of front and backroom spaces that will yield the maximum profit potential and how backrooms are managed to support the store's demand profile. Currently, store design practices give priority to front-of-store spaces, which is understandable since this is the customer-facing portion of outlets. However, more detailed analyses of how backrooms impact store performance and profitability is needed, and these factors should be given more weight when stores are designed or refurbished.
Retailers would benefit from analyzing their backroom operations and tackling the root causes of poor performance. These analyses should study the way backrooms operate in relation to the demand for product, and then pinpoint key factors that influence the efficiency of back-of-store operations.
Three critical factors: size, profit margin, and importance
Many factors affect the allocation of backroom storage space. Three that are especially important to consider include the size of the packs that are stored, the revenue yield of each individual item, and the importance of the item to the store's operation. First we will introduce these factors, and then will discus how, when considered together, they influence store profitability.
Pack size. The size of the packs received by stores from suppliers might seem like a relatively mundane detail. However, pack size can have a big impact on the backroom's ability to function effectively; the size of the units stored determines how much inventory can be shelved and how accessible the items are.
Pack-size policies tend to be set at a corporate level, yet backroom space constraints and customers' buying patterns vary from store to store. Retailers need to work with store personnel and suppliers to determine which pack sizes are the most efficient for the configuration of particular backrooms and in light of the product demand in individual stores. This information can be used to better align store replenishment systems with demand.
As they conduct this analysis, companies need to look at two pack sizes: order and "storable" (also known as "intrapack"). Order size refers to the size of the units delivered by suppliers, and this affects the quantity of individual sellable units that the store has on hand. Storable, or intrapack, size pertains to the way the contents of larger units are often packed. A coffee shop might receive cases of 36 croissants that contain nine inner packs, each holding four pastries. Typically the outer pack will be discarded and the inner packs are held in inventory. These inner pack sizes and configurations impact the space occupied by the inventory in the backroom, and hence the availability of sellable items in a multiple stock-keeping unit (SKU) setting where SKUs are competing for space in a constrained environment.
Profit margin per item. Our research also highlights the importance of optimizing for profit—rather than simply minimizing cost—when modeling for backroom space allocation, owing to the close and direct links between store backroom and front-room areas. For example, devoting too much backroom space to items that have a very low revenue yield can undermine the overall profitability of a store. For this reason, when a retailer determines how much space is allocated in the backroom for a particular item, it should consider the item's revenue yield—along with the costs associated with it. For example, if the value of the end item sold to customers is low, retailers need to ask themselves whether the amount of revenue generated by the item (or its ingredients) is too low to warrant the amount of space it is allocated in the back room. The revenue generated by an item might not meet the targets set by management, for instance.
For a food-service retail store, there is an additional factor that should be considered in regard to profit margin per SKU: the distinction between (i) sellable items that go directly to the consumer's hands and (ii) the SKUs that are used in some combination to produce the former in the store. Hence, the profitability of an SKU is a function of the number of sellable items that incorporate it, the quantity of that SKU that is used in each item, and the complementarity between the SKU and other SKUs (that is, all the SKUs required for the sellable item must be available to produce it).
Importance of the item. The relative importance of items also needs to be considered when configuring a backroom space for a new or refurbished store or revamping an existing space. Some items—cups in a coffee shop, for example—are essential; the store can't deliver the product without them. Another reason for deeming an item essential is that it is a signature item that is being promoted by corporate. Other ingredients are less important because they are not an essential part of products, and therefore should be allocated less backroom space in a constrained environment.
Influence on profits
The way a retailer weighs these various factors and builds these weightings into the operation of a backroom can have a huge bearing on the profitability of the store. For example, a store might be making space-allocation decisions based only on the profit margin per item and the importance of the item but without considering the item's pack size. By failing to balance all three factors, the store could be creating an inefficient backroom operation that could inhibit its profitability.
The research on retail backroom performance described in this article was carried out in collaboration with a major U.S. food retailer. In addition to completing extensive desk research, the project team analyzed backroom operations in 126 stores around four large U.S. cities—Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, and New York City—and visited 20 outlets. The research sample was chosen to reflect different product mixes.
One of the many findings was that having smaller storable packs within an order pack can lead to better space utilization and increased profitability for the same amount of space utilized in the store. Store-level data from our industry partner revealed that reducing the storable pack size by 15 percent for 30 percent of the top-performing SKUs (that is, those that contribute the most to store revenue) increases profit per unit of refrigerated, freezer, and ambient equipment by 4 to 10 percent. Imagine the potential returns if every SKU in every store was analyzed in this way.
Rethinking backrooms in the omnichannel age
Allocating and managing backroom space is more complicated than it might first appear, and neglecting the factors that impact performance can exact a high price in terms of store profitability and service levels. There is also a price to pay in the upstream supply chain. For example, supplier delivery schedules based on flawed store ordering practices can increase costs and exacerbate customer service issues.
As part of our research with the food-service provider, we have developed a tool that helps retailers to understand the impact of factors such as pack size on inventory levels and a store's ability to meet customer demand. The tool enables retailers to create a database of the factors that are critical to the performance of backrooms and to analyze those factors in relation to store profitability. It can be used to evaluate existing backrooms and to integrate the optimum allocation of backroom space into the design of new outlets.
The models we have developed are now being extended to include a more sophisticated valuation of front-room spaces. The idea is to help retailers capture the trade-offs between allocating backroom and front-room square footage and to achieve the optimum balance between the two.
Looking ahead, the need to rethink approaches to backroom strategies is more urgent than ever, as new retailing models such as the use of stores to fulfill online orders increase in importance. Typically, backroom spaces in retail stores have been perceived as places for "overflow inventory." In the emerging competitive environment, however, this approach is no longer tenable, and it is important to recognize the untapped opportunities of the space.
More research is needed on how backroom formats and management practices impact the upstream supply chain. Also, the retail industry needs to explore new, innovative back-of-store configurations, such as the concept of multiple stores sharing a hub backroom space.
Meanwhile, retailers can improve the performance—and hence profitability—of their outlets by recognizing that backroom spaces represent a critical link in the retail supply chain rather than an appendage to front-of-store spaces.
Just 29% of supply chain organizations have the competitive characteristics they’ll need for future readiness, according to a Gartner survey released Tuesday. The survey focused on how organizations are preparing for future challenges and to keep their supply chains competitive.
Gartner surveyed 579 supply chain practitioners to determine the capabilities needed to manage the “future drivers of influence” on supply chains, which include artificial intelligence (AI) achievement and the ability to navigate new trade policies. According to the survey, the five competitive characteristics are: agility, resilience, regionalization, integrated ecosystems, and integrated enterprise strategy.
The survey analysis identified “leaders” among the respondents as supply chain organizations that have already developed at least three of the five competitive characteristics necessary to address the top five drivers of supply chain’s future.
Less than a third have met that threshold.
“Leaders shared a commitment to preparation through long-term, deliberate strategies, while non-leaders were more often focused on short-term priorities,” Pierfrancesco Manenti, vice president analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a statement announcing the survey results.
“Most leaders have yet to invest in the most advanced technologies (e.g. real-time visibility, digital supply chain twin), but plan to do so in the next three-to-five years,” Manenti also said in the statement. “Leaders see technology as an enabler to their overall business strategies, while non-leaders more often invest in technology first, without having fully established their foundational capabilities.”
As part of the survey, respondents were asked to identify the future drivers of influence on supply chain performance over the next three to five years. The top five drivers are: achievement capability of AI (74%); the amount of new ESG regulations and trade policies being released (67%); geopolitical fight/transition for power (65%); control over data (62%); and talent scarcity (59%).
The analysis also identified four unique profiles of supply chain organizations, based on what their leaders deem as the most crucial capabilities for empowering their organizations over the next three to five years.
First, 54% of retailers are looking for ways to increase their financial recovery from returns. That’s because the cost to return a purchase averages 27% of the purchase price, which erases as much as 50% of the sales margin. But consumers have their own interests in mind: 76% of shoppers admit they’ve embellished or exaggerated the return reason to avoid a fee, a 39% increase from 2023 to 204.
Second, return experiences matter to consumers. A whopping 80% of shoppers stopped shopping at a retailer because of changes to the return policy—a 34% increase YoY.
Third, returns fraud and abuse is top-of-mind-for retailers, with wardrobing rising 38% in 2024. In fact, over two thirds (69%) of shoppers admit to wardrobing, which is the practice of buying an item for a specific reason or event and returning it after use. Shoppers also practice bracketing, or purchasing an item in a variety of colors or sizes and then returning all the unwanted options.
Fourth, returns come with a steep cost in terms of sustainability, with returns amounting to 8.4 billion pounds of landfill waste in 2023 alone.
“As returns have become an integral part of the shopper experience, retailers must balance meeting sky-high expectations with rising costs, environmental impact, and fraudulent behaviors,” Amena Ali, CEO of Optoro, said in the firm’s “2024 Returns Unwrapped” report. “By understanding shoppers’ behaviors and preferences around returns, retailers can create returns experiences that embrace their needs while driving deeper loyalty and protecting their bottom line.”
Facing an evolving supply chain landscape in 2025, companies are being forced to rethink their distribution strategies to cope with challenges like rising cost pressures, persistent labor shortages, and the complexities of managing SKU proliferation.
1. Optimize labor productivity and costs. Forward-thinking businesses are leveraging technology to get more done with fewer resources through approaches like slotting optimization, automation and robotics, and inventory visibility.
2. Maximize capacity with smart solutions. With e-commerce volumes rising, facilities need to handle more SKUs and orders without expanding their physical footprint. That can be achieved through high-density storage and dynamic throughput.
3. Streamline returns management. Returns are a growing challenge, thanks to the continued growth of e-commerce and the consumer practice of bracketing. Businesses can handle that with smarter reverse logistics processes like automated returns processing and reverse logistics visibility.
4. Accelerate order fulfillment with robotics. Robotic solutions are transforming the way orders are fulfilled, helping businesses meet customer expectations faster and more accurately than ever before by using autonomous mobile robots (AMRs and robotic picking.
5. Enhance end-of-line packaging. The final step in the supply chain is often the most visible to customers. So optimizing packaging processes can reduce costs, improve efficiency, and support sustainability goals through automated packaging systems and sustainability initiatives.
That clash has come as retailers have been hustling to adjust to pandemic swings like a renewed focus on e-commerce, then swiftly reimagining store experiences as foot traffic returned. But even as the dust settles from those changes, retailers are now facing renewed questions about how best to define their omnichannel strategy in a world where customers have increasing power and information.
The answer may come from a five-part strategy using integrated components to fortify omnichannel retail, EY said. The approach can unlock value and customer trust through great experiences, but only when implemented cohesively, not individually, EY warns.
The steps include:
1. Functional integration: Is your operating model and data infrastructure siloed between e-commerce and physical stores, or have you developed a cohesive unit centered around delivering seamless customer experience?
2. Customer insights: With consumer centricity at the heart of operations, are you analyzing all touch points to build a holistic view of preferences, behaviors, and buying patterns?
3. Next-generation inventory: Given the right customer insights, how are you utilizing advanced analytics to ensure inventory is optimized to meet demand precisely where and when it’s needed?
4. Distribution partnerships: Having ensured your customers find what they want where they want it, how are your distribution strategies adapting to deliver these choices to them swiftly and efficiently?
5. Real estate strategy: How is your real estate strategy interconnected with insights, inventory and distribution to enhance experience and maximize your footprint?
When approached cohesively, these efforts all build toward one overarching differentiator for retailers: a better customer experience that reaches from brand engagement and order placement through delivery and return, the EY study said. Amid continued volatility and an economy driven by complex customer demands, the retailers best set up to win are those that are striving to gain real-time visibility into stock levels, offer flexible fulfillment options and modernize merchandising through personalized and dynamic customer experiences.
Geopolitical rivalries, alliances, and aspirations are rewiring the global economy—and the imposition of new tariffs on foreign imports by the U.S. will accelerate that process, according to an analysis by Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
Without a broad increase in tariffs, world trade in goods will keep growing at an average of 2.9% annually for the next eight years, the firm forecasts in its report, “Great Powers, Geopolitics, and the Future of Trade.” But the routes goods travel will change markedly as North America reduces its dependence on China and China builds up its links with the Global South, which is cementing its power in the global trade map.
“Global trade is set to top $29 trillion by 2033, but the routes these goods will travel is changing at a remarkable pace,” Aparna Bharadwaj, managing director and partner at BCG, said in a release. “Trade lanes were already shifting from historical patterns and looming US tariffs will accelerate this. Navigating these new dynamics will be critical for any global business.”
To understand those changes, BCG modeled the direct impact of the 60/25/20 scenario (60% tariff on Chinese goods, a 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico, and a 20% on imports from all other countries). The results show that the tariffs would add $640 billion to the cost of importing goods from the top ten U.S. import nations, based on 2023 levels, unless alternative sources or suppliers are found.
In terms of product categories imported by the U.S., the greatest impact would be on imported auto parts and automotive vehicles, which would primarily affect trade with Mexico, the EU, and Japan. Consumer electronics, electrical machinery, and fashion goods would be most affected by higher tariffs on Chinese goods. Specifically, the report forecasts that a 60% tariff rate would add $61 billion to cost of importing consumer electronics products from China into the U.S.