I really had not seen anything on Multichannel Compromise before; I suppose Multi Channel Cannibalization series in SemAngel was the closest thing to it - but it's not the same thing.

When do you deliberately cripple one marketing channel to benefit another? And is the outcome worth it?  I think Multichannel Compromise presents me with the feeling that it might not be.

In other words, you lose as much as you think your gaining, and in the case given below by Kevin, I don't think the gain was worth the losses.  Here's what I mean:

"..

Multichannel Catalog Results
	Phone	Web	Retail	Totals
Pre-Optimization	$3,000,000	$1,500,000	$500,000	$5,000,000
Post-Optimization	$2,250,000	$1,000,000	$2,250,000	$5,500,000
Increment	($750,000)	($500,000)	$1,750,000	$500,000

Telephone sales tank — they decrease by twenty five percent. Incremental online sales decrease by a third.

But retail sales sizzle, making store managers happy.

In total, the aspirational creative execution yields an increase in sales. The CMO agrees that this is the best direction for the brand, permanently changing course.

This decision drives a chain reaction of events. At the call center, a third of the associates are downsized, as catalog sales are less of a priority.

At the distribution center, job cuts also occur, though they aren't as deep due to all the online volume generated by online marketing activities.

In the creative department, employees feel demoralized, as they are now required to implement the creative treatment advocated by the ad agency.

Management is happy, because store expenses are being leveraged with the increased sales generated by the new catalog program. Management is also happy, because sales increased with the new strategy. Management considers this a "multichannel success story".

Have you experienced "Multichannel Compromise"? Was it beneficial for your business? Was it beneficial for your career?"

To me, the results don't really translate to a gain because they also generated a lot of ill will.  Somehow, if your going to have Multi Channel Compromise, it's should be a Win-Win for everyone.  In fact, I question if this strategy should even be called Multichannel Compromise …. I'd go with Multi Channel Sacrifice.  

My biggest gripe with this approach is more people are suffering than benefiting - and only the people at the very top see the money….everyone else seems to be suffering in Multichannel Compromise scenario.

Let's go with helping channels pay off each other and compete to be better than each other - I'm fine with that … and marketing channels do compete for funding, after all.  But..let's not cripple one channel in order to make another better - I just don't think that's a good way to go at all and even if the bottom line is more money - the price you pay in other directions, as Multichannel Compromise shows, is not worth it.

That's my two cents - and there's no compromise here.