In case some of you missed it, there was a wonderful column in the August issue of Home Accents Today by Jenny Heinzen York.

The subject was the decision by Moe's Home Collection to open retail stores. The editorial discussed this direct-to-consumer approach by a vendor, along with direct-to-consumer Web sites operated by vendors. She challenged the industry to answer the question as to whether these kinds of efforts are the wave of the future and how can independents compete with these efforts.

First, even though I don't really know him, I must say I think Moe Samieian is a brilliant guy. He recognizes that consumer's spending habits are changing, he understands marketing, and he's not afraid to challenge the status quo. These are the type of entrepreneurs who, later in life, more times than not are offered the title of visionary.

Let's examine the root causes of why vendors and retailers are naturally in conflict over the consumer's dollars.

What vendors want is to see their lines — their entire lines — properly displayed and offered to the public. Very few retailers are ever willing to do this. The vast majority of them cherry-pick a line, and buy a relatively small percentage of the SKUs offered, thereby ensuring the vendor's products will never reach their potential in that area.

Retailers, on the other hand, often feel that it is fundamentally wrong for vendors to sell directly to the public — that consumers are their “piece of the action.”

Unfortunately, this relationship between vendors and retailers ignores two critical issues in today's world. Consumer buying habits are changing radically, and branding is more important than ever.

Therefore, at the end of the day, if this industry doesn't give people what they want, in the way they want it, then everybody fails to get the business we all so richly deserve.

So, why is it that history automatically sets us up to be opponents in getting merchandise into the hands of consumers instead of uniting together to give all of us maximum profitability?

The two underlying reasons for this are old fashioned turf wars and the basic human defense mechanism to resist change.

I have long been on record, very publicly, of supporting independent retailers. I have never been a fan of big box stores, not because I ignore the fact they can move large quantities of product, but because it is so difficult to make a profit selling to them and they always dramatically shorten the life cycle of any product.

Unfortunately, there is no denying the fact that independent stores as a category are starting to dwindle in numbers, and it is increasingly difficult for many of them to make an acceptable profit for their owners.

So, what's the answer to Jenny's question? How can independent retailers survive moving into the future?

I would ask you to consider a radical change in thinking. I would ask you to take a deep breath, and consider what possibilities could await us if we all worked together as partners, instead of being fearful of each other as competitors.

This industry has long been recognized as one of the most creative out there, but that compliment has pretty much always been directed toward product development. Frankly, we have never been seen as a cutting-edge or particularly savvy group when it comes to technology or creative business models.

Let's change that. Let's focus that creativity on working together to be more successful. Let's consider some “what if's”:

On the bricks and mortar side…

What if vendors sought out highly successful retailers, and after an approval process, offered to partner with them in business? Sharing expenses, sharing floor space, adequately displaying entire product lines and sharing in the profits. I'm not talking about franchises here, I'm talking about real partnerships where vendors use their product expertise to make sure the lines are on trend, and retailers focus on operating a great store. In this instance, both parties would be responsible for their core competencies.

What if vendors, instead of continuing to give away promotions such as free freight and show discounts, actually started using that money to pay for events at stores to help build traffic? The real problem in independent stores today is not that they don't have good product or good values. Lack of traffic is the problem, and vendors could use a lot of the free dollars they give away today to help build traffic into the stores.

What if vendors, under the right circumstances, could simply help pay for the floor space they take up in a store? Vendors in this industry regularly pay enormous sums of money for showrooms in marts, which are only open a few days a year. Is it unreasonable to think that some of their money may be better spent helping to defray the costs to a retailer of space in stores? If retailers and vendors could get together, agree on an acceptable amount of space, and the SKU package that would be displayed in the store, surely an equitable arrangement would benefit both parties.

On the technology side…

Google and Yahoo have made billions of dollars by driving traffic to company's Web sites. They are usually paid “by the click” or some sort of commission basis. Should our retailers consider actually helping to drive traffic to a vendor's consumer site, as long as they are fairly compensated for the effort? The business model of the past has been for retailers to buy product, assume the risk of owning it and hope to sell it. In this day and age, shouldn't we at least consider a new model that would encourage retailers to drive traffic to a company's entire line, as long as they are paid to do it?

What if we used the power of technology to drive traffic, both to the physical store and Web sites? Cross marketing is an easily accomplished feat and it should be possible to develop marketing and promotion ideas that would drive consumers who are in a store to Web sites for additional sales, and then drive the consumers who are on the Web sites back to the stores for more even opportunities to buy.

What if we simply decided to work together as an industry to use technology and a combined approach, happily agreed to by both vendors and retailers to be a one- two punch delivery system of this industry's products into the consumer's hearts, minds and wallets?

I am not trying to “sell” any of these specific ideas above. Indeed, all of these may be crazy, unsuccessful or both. That's OK; I've had to make a lot of mistakes over the years to find a few ideas that really worked. What I know for certain is that success does not come without a willingness to change and an acceptance of risk of failure. That's the price of progress.

By the way, some of the ideas above are already being tested in a limited way throughout the industry. It would be better if everyone could brainstorm together on how to create situations where everybody wins in an open atmosphere of cooperation. The point of this article is not to decide on any specific idea, but to simply get these issues into the open.

I want to encourage all of you to work hard to answer Jenny's question. She was smart to ask it, for it is the key to this industry staying healthy. Let's all get creative and come up with fresh ideas in a new century to live long and prosper.

To comment on this article, click Talkback and leave a comment. Randy Eller can be reached at reller@ellerent.com and Jenny Heinzen York at jheinzen@reedbusiness.com.