Luxury Retail: Turning Affluent Austerity into Retail Prosperity

lux_retailI got a call earlier this month from a freelance reporter who follows my beat – research on the affluent consumers and the luxury market. As she walked through the Time Warner Center on Columbus Circle on her way to the subway at midday, she found the halls and high-end boutiques unexpectedly empty. The only store seeming to do any business was Whole Foods. She wanted to know, “What’s up?”

I shared a similar experience visiting the Tysons Galleria, in McLean, Virginia, located in one of the nation’s highest-income counties. Walking through the mall on a weeknight, there was a remarkable lack of customers. The most active shop in the whole place that evening was the Starbucks café. [Read more...]

Apple Addicts Still Mainline Steve Jobs

X Japan Wax Figure UnveilingExcerpted from the New, New Rules of Retail
By Robin Lewis and Michael Dart

On January 9, 2007, on a big stage at the Macworld convention at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, Steve Jobs unveiled the first iPhone. With the already unprecedented cult following of Apple—and for that matter, of Jobs himself—this would be the first of many launches that would further fuel one of the most powerful brand-consumer connections ever.

This unveiling, of course, was merely the warm-up. Steve Jobs’ grandly staged presentation would trigger an intense anticipation among Apple “addicts” that would be satisfied only by the actual sales release of the iPhone itself.

This would happen at 6:00 PM local time on June 29, 2007, as the doors opened at Apple Stores nationwide to welcome hundreds of cult followers anticipating their fix, so to speak. Some media sources at the time were dubbing the iPhone the “Jesus phone.” In fact, in New York City the line started forming twelve hours before Apple’s flagship store opened and ended up winding around two city blocks, or roughly a quarter mile, with more than a thousand avid cultists in it. Some had even camped out overnight. Obviously the Apple addicts had learned that if they wanted the new phone, they had better be present when that door opened, or be forced to wait for weeks.

Apple’s connection with its consumers has gone way beyond the simply emotional. It has succeeded by actually connecting with their minds. In our updated second edition of The New Rules of Retail, released on August 12, 2014, we called this neurological connectivity. [Read more...]

Who Will Buy?

iStock_000006132565Medium

Uber.com

Millennials Opt In To a Rent-a-World

Who will buy this beautiful morning? What about renting it? What about renting it on Airbnb? What if you could rent this beautiful morning with clean sheets for $150 and be done with it?

It’s a Renter’s Market

Millennials have bypassed their small net worths through membership programs that rent them early access to nearly everything they could need. Never mind buying a second home when you can rent a chateau in France on Airbnb for $200. Why hire a chauffeur when they don’t come with an app that tracks their relative location to yours, like Uber? Even owning the latest album of your favorite band feels a lot less appealing when you can stream it immediately on and offline with a Spotify pro membership, without taking up any space on your hard drive. Music, transportation and hospitality aren’t the only industries being hit, of course; retail rental start-ups, including Rent the Runway and Bag Borrow or Steal are betting that you really don’t need to keep that evening gown or this season’s It designer purse at five times the price of a rental.

Tasting Over Consuming

A 2012 Atlantic feature calling Millennials “the less-owning generation,” cited a federal study in which the share of young people getting their first mort-gages between 2009 and 2011 is half what it was just 10 years ago. What’s more, the new renter’s market makes it more cost effective not to own, with the quality and quantity of rental goods and services surging. Start-ups focusing on work environments like NeueHouse, a workspace club whose membership caters to creative “solopreneurs” and businesses under 10 years old in New York’s Flatiron District, allow Millennials to rent studios, desks, and even just entry to the club. NeueHouse’s facilities and resources are distinctly more hospitality-driven than OfficeMax, and their membership is very selective. Concierges can as easily order a catered lunch for 10 as they can give you a shortlist of video producers for your 60-second product reel. NeueHouse plans to expand to Los Angeles and London this year, hoping to build up to 20 locations by 2020.

shutterstock_88227727

RenttheRunway.com

The digital version of this rentable luxury is SquareSpace’s highly designed, highly mobile, and hardly-any-assembly-required website templates that let small businesses get started online with their own websites and domains for a $16 monthly start. Surface magazine, a forerunner of Millennial fashion and design tastes, rents studio space in NeueHouse and has just moved their website to a SquareSpace template. Two for two, and counting.

Banking on Entitlement

Brands that truly understand the Millennial consumer are banking on the Next Gen’s fabled sense of entitlement, and are positioning themselves as connectors to lifestyle upgrades. Transportation industry disrupter Uber used this sense of entitlement and applied it to the experience of having a private driver with their “Everyone’s Private Driver” tagline, along with a stellar mobile interface and different price point options of taxi to black-car service. But the real coup in connecting to the private-driver experience was a payment-less exchange. Uber’s interface connects your beginning and end destinations and processes online payment without any further exchange with your driver; you just get out and get going.

The Standard of Living Hang-Up

This appeal to Millennials’ feeling of entitlement works particularly well because of dually negative and positive reinforcement. Negative reinforcement comes from the five years of wolf-crying from the press, damning Millennials to a lower standard of living than their Boomer parents. (Pew released a recent report on Millennials’ lag to rejoin the housing market and declare themselves heads of households.) Positive reinforcement of Millennials’ entitlement comes directly from, whom else, the first Generation Me: their parents, the Boomers. Their mantra is, “If I lived alone in the East Village in 1973, why shouldn’t you?” Never mind that 200% rent markup.

Standards still need to be maintained. Boomers say they need a set of white wine and a set of red wine glasses to entertain in that said apartment, right? Right. Boomers’ high earnings during their early bread-winning years have affected the current generation’s expectations of acquiring the same household goods, clothing, entertainment, and travel. Even with an almost 60% drop in net worth from Boomers in their twenties to Millennials in their twenties, Millennials’ expectations of a reasonable standard of living have changed very little. The real change has been in size reduction, asset reduction and the level of investment in expanding their access professionally, culturally, sartorially, even romantically. The Millennials’ standard of living is a pragmatic mash-up of owning, renting and third-party resources. And they are proud of it.

Tree house

Airbnb.com

Millennials Are Not Having a Possession-less Moment

The nature of the Millennial buyer was changed by the Recession and then morphed into a consumer whose net worth is low, yet whose standard of living is high.

But to misinterpret the Millennial renter phenomenon into thinking that Millennials do not value possessions would be a big mistake. It is not that Millennials value their earthly possessions less, it is that they value access to higher quality possessions and services more. To give it to you from my perspective: would you rather commute to work in a car every day or have a private driver pick you up twice a week? And let’s face it, how many possessions do you really need in a 400-square-foot micro-unit apartment? What Millennials are doing is leapfrogging from the traditional route of buying modestly in the beginning and then trading up as they become more affluent, to going for the gold out of the gate, even if they don’t own it outright.

The Retail Gap

Retail brands have really missed the opportunity of this trend by offering aggregated, high-quality rentable goods and services. Why do retail brands depend so heavily on dispersed outlet locations to unload this season’s collections when they could rent them? Why don’t more stores have a leasing program where you could, for example, change sunglasses every season? The concept of ownership is turning on its head, with Millennials leading the charge.

So who would buy? This preference towards immediate, temporary access is particularly enticing for luxury brands trying to acquire the Millennial. With rentable luxury goods, they can experience luxury and sample a whole range of products and brands, now. The companies that foster a sense of connoisseurship through offering these programs will earn our loyalty and trust. I encourage retailers to look at Rent the Runway, Uber, Airbnb, NeueHouse, Warby Parker, Spotify and SquareSpace as disruptive innovators who could very well reinvent the new rules of retail.

Q/A with William P. Lauder

William_Lauder-1We sat down with William P. Lauder, Chairman of The Estée Lauder Companies, the $10 billion global beauty juggernaut, and talked about the evolving retail landscape, the importance of knowing your consumer and the opportunities and challenges of globalization.

Robin: William, we’re living in what we believe is the biggest transformation of the industry in the history of retailing, and therefore in wholesaling and branding as well. Some CEOs are saying it feels like the Wild West. Others feel like they are living in the chaos of technology that is far ahead of our capabilities to totally understand and use it.

And here is The Estée Lauder Companies, the undisputed leader in their space, right in the middle of it all. You served as CEO from 2004-2009, when you transitioned to your current role as Executive Chairman. During these ten years, the business has nearly doubled. So, I know you’re really smart, but is there also a bit of luck working here as well?

William: When I first joined this company in 1986, I perceived that my mission was to gain the experience to do what we needed to help the company be at the forefront of prestige aspirational beauty around the world. In 1996, more than half of our business was in North America. Now more than half our business is outside of North America. Emerging markets like China and Russia were very important, and we had a low share of market in those countries as well as in Europe, the UK and elsewhere. So, we saw a greater global opportunity where the pie was expanding, as opposed to our huge share of the US pie, which was static. [Read more...]

Tiffany Sues Costco! What’s Up?

Brands_in_Danger_FinalIn the land of the brand, the Holy Grail, surely, is building a brand that’s universally known and is in constant mention by consumers.

Or is it?

There’s such a thing as too much familiarity. There are more than a few instances of brand owners losing legal possession of their own brand because they became generic descriptors of the product, sometimes with dire consequences for its erstwhile owner.

Now, in an interesting lawsuit filed in US district court of the Southern District of New York, Tiffany is in legal battle with membership retailer Costco about the appropriation of the Tiffany name by Costco. There’s some reason to believe that while the facts would seem to strongly favor Tiffany & Co, it may not be the victor, at least not in a narrow legal sense.

But first, let’s take a look at how brands can evolve into popular vernacular, to the degree that their ownership is snatched from their creators.

Among a number of examples of brands lost in legal action are thermos, escalator, linoleum, videotape, and yo-yo. In the last instance, the Duncan Toys Co. went bankrupt when it lost control of its trademark. Also in the litany of lost brands is aspirin. That brand was once owned by Bayer, a German company, but it was awarded as war spoil after World War I. So it became a generic term in the US, the UK and France. In other parts of the world, Bayer still defends the use of its Aspirin brand. Curiously, Bayer also lost the right to its Heroin brand under the same circumstances. It hasn’t seen fit to defend it. Yet.

Numerous other brands are teetering perilously close to becoming generic terms, brands such as Scotch Tape, AstroTurf, Jacuzzi, Band-Aid, Frisbee, Hoover, Taser and Rollerblade. [Read more...]

A Hopeful Look at the US Department Store in 2014

Macy's Sign Herald Square ManhattanCreative destruction, change management, business transformation —call it what you will, but something’s underfoot in the department store channel. After decades of ceding market share to specialty formats and channel consolidation, has the worm finally turned?

In addition to economic and consumer malaise, mall traffic, and thus store traffic, is the problem. With the Internet’s 24/7 access, price transparency and free shipping, combined with a fruitless in-store search for a size, color or sales clerk, who needs a brick-and mortar-department store? It used to be a destination to see the latest trends in color and silhouette, interpreted by a bevy of national brands, and curated by retail buyers with a clear fashion sense as well as an understanding of their customer base. Nowadays, social media, Instagram and fashion bloggers are more personable than the average sales clerk. And that source of style and fashion curation is more robust. A trip to the mall has become a chore … and just so boring. [Read more...]

How Hearts on Fire Is Poised to Light the Fire of Millennials

“Millennials shop in a very next generation way for things like cars or tablets. But buying a diamond engagement ring is a tradition-bound, emotional purchase, which makes it unique. So Millennials’ shopping process becomes blended – 50 percent is ‘new age’ and 50 percent is tradition.” Rich Pesqueira, Vice President Sales and Business Development, Hearts On Fire

For each succeeding generation, or at least since 1947 when DeBeers’ told consumers that “A Diamond Is Forever,” buying an engagement ring has been a rite of passage in adulthood. Today’s prime target market for diamonds and bridal jewelry are the Millennials, the leading edge of which turns 34 this year. Yet shopping for that diamond in a jewelry store today is not all that different from the way it was for their parents’ Baby Boomer generation in the 70s and 80s, or their grandparents’ post-war generation in the 40s, 50s and 60s. Even in the best-of-the-best jewelry stores – whether it is Tiffany’s or Cartier’s, or the local family-owned jewelers down the block – jewelry stores are more similar than different. They are caught in a time warp.

HeartsOnFireTo make matters worse for the diamond buyers, couples have to do a significant amount of research before they even dare to approach the retail counter to look at rings and stones. Like their grandfather and father before them, today’s Millennial diamond buyer must get indoctrinated into the mysteries of the 4Cs used to grade diamonds – carat, cut, clarity and color. The whole diamond buying experience, while it should be a joy that celebrates the coming wedding, can be such an ordeal for the customers that it can forever turn them off from crossing the threshold of a jewelry store. [Read more...]

The Coming Crash of Michael Kors…Take it To The Bank

MK_Blog_graphic-01Michael Kors, the brand, is becoming ubiquitous, and that’s the kiss of death for trendy fashion brands, particularly those positioned in the up-market younger consumer sectors. Its distribution is racing towards ubiquity, wholesale and retail (online, its own stores, outlet stores and internationally). Even worse, a rocket-propelled accelerant to ubiquity is its expansion into multiple product categories and sub-brands, so they can compete at all price points. Some would argue all of those segments will simply end up competing with each other, thus cannibalizing the top end of the spectrum. [Read more...]

Chico’s Reviving and Disrupting

Chicos_Volunteer_Day_Giving_Day_006My closet is filled with a variety of on-sale purchased high-end designer clothing and shoes, nearly all black and suitable for almost every New York occasion, but not for the trip to Israel I was planning in March, 2014. I consulted my chicest, best-dressed friend, a long time fashion industry executive and insider who’d taken a similar trip a year earlier. “What clothes did you wear?” I asked, searching for wardrobe clues. “Chico’s, I think. Mostly black, matte jersey.” Chico’s!!! I couldn’t quite believe it. This is a woman who is a fashion icon, but clearly not a fashion snob. So, I followed her lead and headed to Chico’s in search of clothes that would be comfortable, suitable for multiple occasions, seasonless, packable and, dare I hope, fashionable.

What I found surprised me.

[Read more...]

Go Disrupt Yourself!

Panel logosSo Says a Disruptive Seminar Panel

Please don’t take offense. “Go disrupt yourself” is not a euphemism for that other, often used R-rated suggestion. This is a serious directive for so-called disrupters themselves, as well as for all businesses operating traditional models who incorrectly believe disruption is defined only by fundamentally new models or game-changing concepts. Today’s disrupters are typically spun out of the thin air of “Siliconville,” which often define them as tech-driven and Internet enabled.

This not-so-clear concept of self-disruption was one of the major points that I filtered out of the spirited panel discussion at the recent Robin Report and Fashion Group International forum, “Disrupters vs. Disruptees.” And I believe with some elaboration, the conversation is highly instructive for both upstarts and traditional businesses.

The forum presented a panel of “Disruptive” CEO’s including Warby Parker (Neil Blumenthal), Rent the Runway (Jennifer Hyman), and Shapeways 3D printers (Peter Weijmarhausen). These new kids on the block had a robust discussion with the “Disruptee” CEOs of HSNi (Mindy Grossman) and The Ascena Retail Group (David Jaffe), whose portfolio consists of Lane Bryant, Dress Barn, Catherine’s Justice’s and Maurice’s. Paul Charron, former CEO of Liz Claiborne and Chairman of Campbell Soup was our moderator. Yours truly set the tone with an overview of the principles and perils of disruption.

2014_Retail_Disrupters_012Upon reflection, it occurs to me that since most of the au courant disruptive new business models are really just new marketing concepts made possible by the tools of technology and the Internet — they can be knocked off in a nanosecond. Both Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos understood this from day one at Apple and Amazon. Their mantras, “the next big thing” and “get big fast,” respectively, were loud and clear marching orders for self-disruption, day in and day out. Whether breakthrough new products from Apple, or entirely new marketplaces from Amazon, implicit to their vision is to preempt copycats by becoming so big, so fast, that knock-off artists would find it nearly impossible to catch up.

Self-disruption and rapid preemptive growth require two ingredients: perpetual innovation into new product or market spaces and huge capital investments to fuel such growth. While these two legendary examples of continuing marketplace disruption are obvious by their success, it was largely due to the tenacity and audacity of their visionary leaders as “first-movers” who leveraged technology and the Internet to catapult their product and marketing ideas into dominant positions.

Many early movers later, we are now witnessing a deluge of innovative ideas (some more disruptive than others), still facilitated by technology and the Internet. In fact, many of them, including Warby Parker and Rent The Runway, were launched on the Internet.

2014_Retail_Disrupters_021The continuing challenge of all disrupters is to be the de facto, sustainable solution with new product innovation and distribution. They will need to continue to dominate market share from competitors. And the hugest threat of all is that the giant traditional companies can easily copy these upstarts and have the financial clout to steal and own the space.

With the ease of entry into this technological and Internet-based space, another challenge facing these “later movers,” so to speak, is that their fundamental value propositions are easy to copy. For Warby Parker, the model is making and selling trendy eyewear online (and now in stores) for low prices. Their charitable program donating glasses to kids in need hits spot-on with Millennials’ sense of social justice. The fundamental proposition for Rent The Runway is renting apparel, and they have found themselves in the dry cleaning business along the way to ensure that their quick turnaround rentals are guaranteed clean. In Warby Parker’s brilliantly conceived, innovative eyewear space, there are now several copycats: Classic Specs; Eyebobs; Lookmatic; Mezzmer; and Made Eyewear — offering frames, sunglasses and readers. Likewise, the world that Rent The Runway launched has some wannabes, including Lending Luxury, Girl Meets Dress (in the UKL, and Wish Want Wear.

2014_Retail_Disrupters_050It’s important to note that while these may be copies of the core value proposition of Warby Parker and Rent The Runway, they are not necessarily marketing the model and delivering it in precisely the same way. How these models are executed of course, will determine their success or failure. Nevertheless, the copycats did enter the same space pioneered by these two initial disrupters. Such is the compliment and challenge of innovators.

Shapeways, while not the creator of 3D printing technology (earliest versions launched in the 1980s), they also face a different challenge. Shapeways 3D printing is on an industrial scale (unlike MakerBot home 3D printing) and is still in pursuit of a scaled-up market to serve. They are ahead of their time in the sense that the potential of 3D printing to disintermediate the accessories business, for example, is still nascent.

A major point to be made is that the three Disrupter panelists are faced with the almost daily challenge of stealing market share in their categories and sustaining growth. They must also understand the concept of self-disruption as envisioned by two of the most powerful disrupters of our time: Jobs and Bezos. They must be relentless in churning out the “next big thing” and to “get big fast” (now more difficult among a sea of knock-offs). Each of these young CEOs seem determined to do so.

2014_Retail_Disrupters_059Have We Over-Glamorized Marketing 101?

Now step back for a second and reflect on these business concepts. Are today’s winning principles any different than they have ever been? You innovate and come up with a new product or service or retail concept that targets a segment of consumers who need or want your offering and the way in which you provide it. You then brand the business and invest heavily in marketing it for growth. And you keep innovating new ideas into your model to continually add value to keep your existing customer loyal and to entice new customers.

Today the only difference and change from the past are the full-on advancements of technology, the Internet, and the all-enabling smartphone. However, they are simply tools to achieve a greater understanding of, and connection with, consumers and provide more efficient and effective marketing and distribution. These tools are only as useful as the human minds that envision their optimal capabilities for their specific business models: Jobs, Bezos and hopefully our three Disrupter panelists leading the perpetual stream of new upstarts.

So are the Traditional Giant Brands and Retailers “Chopped Liver?”

In closing, I’m sorry to have to break it to many of these young upstarts that while they may be disruptive in the way they are using the new tools, those same tools are available to the 800- pound gorilla brands and retailers that are already big, some in fact, enormous. And as traditional retailers wake up one morning to understand how to use those same tools, they won’t be disrupters, they will be serial destructors.

And of course our other two panelists were anything but “chopped liver,” comfortably reinventing self-disruption, perfecting and maximizing the use of the technology and Internet tools, and reframing their business models. HSNi and the Ascena Retail Group are both multi-billion dollar businesses that got huge over time and are now envisioning how to get bigger faster by seamlessly integrating their enormously complex business models with the Internet and all of the advanced operating and information technologies available. And guess what? They don’t have to lurch from one round of funding to another.

Talk about self-disruption. Mindy Grossman commented: “In the past eight years we have disrupted our business model at least four times. We created a culture where risk-taking is encouraged and failing fast is encouraged too.” HSNi has an advanced innovation group tasked with finding the next big thing., They disrupt the status quo and innovate reflecting changes in consumer behavior, tasked with primarily raising whatever bar necessary to provide a boundary-less shopping experience, wherever, whenever and however the consumer wants it.

David Jaffe, with about 4000 stores under five nameplates, is also using the new tools to seamlessly integrate the omnichannel concept and to provide shopping interchangeability both online and off. He closed by saying: “We believe the convenience and sociability of shopping gives us a head start over the Internet startups.”

Indeed, there is great truth in that statement as Warby Parker, Rent The Runway and many other e-commerce startups are now opening physical stores. Apple, of course, understood the synergy long ago.

So, the great news for all of commerce is the tsunami of young entrepreneurs who understand how to use the new technologies and the Internet to create disruptive and innovative ways to engage and delight consumers and to integrate operational systems to more efficiently and effectively market and distribute their value.

The challenge and tough news for these entrepreneurs is three-fold: first, self-disrupt with a continual innovation process; second, build a management and operational infrastructure for sustainable growth; and, finally, invest heavily to “get big fast.”

A final ironic twist may very well be that while the young upstarts, as well as Amazon, Apple and others disrupt the market with innovative ways to use the new tools, the world of billion dollar legacy brands and big retailers may end up being the real copycats. And if I were Warby Parker, I would not want Luxottica as a copycat. If I were Amazon, I would not want Walmart knocking me off.

It could all end badly, more like a knock-out.

Fabric Substitution Needles Home Textile Shoppers

Preference for Cotton Remains Paramount

Click to See Chart Full-Sized

Click to See Chart Full-Sized

Housing starts and existing home sales are not only good economic indicators, but they are also strong predicators of future growth in other areas like home textiles. As the turnaround in the housing market gains steam, the home textiles market benefits – but consumers are increasingly paying higher prices for lower quality and less cotton-rich items, and they are not satisfied.

Textile World recently reported that housing starts could increase by as much as 15 to 20% over the course of 2014, despite the harsh winter, leading to potentially brisk business for the home textiles sector. While January building permits were 5.4% below the December rate, they were still 2.4% above the January 2013 estimate, according to the Department of Commerce, hinting at an upswing in the industry that could carry over to home textiles.

Cotton remains the favored fiber for home textiles like bedding and sheets; more than eight in 10 (81%) consumers prefer their sheeting to be made from cotton and cotton blends, and 75% of consumers prefer their bedding to be made from cotton and cotton blends, according to the Cotton Incorporated Lifestyle Monitor™ Survey. But that’s not always evident at retail. [Read more...]

Your Local Fruit Stand is a Bellwether

IMG_0139On the corner of 7th Avenue and 12th Street in Manhattan is a fruit and vegetable cart. Others just like it are scattered across New York City. They tend to be run by hardworking immigrants willing to stand up all day and put up with whatever weather comes their way. I’ve passed this stand thousands of times as I walk to and from work. Last fall, I stopped for the first time noticing that the same blueberries and blackberries that have now become my breakfast staples were cheaper than in the grocery store down the street; the same box and brand, but 25% less.

In retrospect, it makes perfect sense since my grocery store pays more in rent than the street vendor does. It wasn’t just that the berries were cheaper; when I actually compared the other fruit and vegetable prices, everything else was too. I started buying avocados, eggplant, onions and melons. Not only was it cheaper, but it was more convenient. Yes the selection was narrow, but it met my needs. The vendor was friendly, and his name was Ali. [Read more...]