The retail and wholesale business models, separately and in conjunction with each other, are collapsing. Along with their demise, the actual terms, retail and wholesale, will literally cease to exist. In fact, as I write this article, major traditional wholesale brands such as The North Face, Timberland and other VF Corporation brands, along with PVH brands, Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, among many other giant wholesale brands, are achieving faster and more profitable growth in what they are referring to as their DTC (direct to consumer, including e-commerce) business, than through their traditional wholesale to retail to consumer model. Essentially the DTC model that these wholesale brands are adopting is simply the branded apparel specialty retail model that was launched by the Gap, Esprit and other brands in the 1960s. A phrase often used to describe the model is “the brand on the door is the brand in the store.” Likewise, and to some degree in response to their branded wholesale vendors’ accelerating focus on the DTC model, traditional retailers — from Nordstrom and Macy’s to Walmart –- and across all retail sectors, will be forced to transform their business models to better control and accelerate their own brands’ direct engagement with consumers. In fact, Nordstrom and Macy’s, to cite two examples, are proactively beginning to transform their models. [Read more...]
In all likelihood, only Novak Djokovic logs more court time than the corporate counsels of beauty brands in possession of a true rarity; an original idea. Breaking ground in a new category of product? Be prepared to spend your days fending off a slew of increasingly shameless copycats.
Flashback to 2006: An obscure “hair oil” – created not by an A-list coiffeur, but by under-the-radar Montreal salon owner Carmen Tal – starts trickling into the public consciousness. It’s derived from the nuts of argan trees, which are indigenous to Morocco, and is laced with hair-soothing fatty acids. Sure, argan oil is good for other stuff, like preventing heart attacks. But who cares about that when it can deliver livelier, lusher locks? [Read more...]
Or Wall Street’s Magical Leprechaun
Jeff Bezos does have that “Leprechaunish” look about him. Wall Street certainly bought into the fable that Mr. Bezos (symbolically toiling over his “shoe making”) would deliver a pot of gold at the end of some yet to be defined rainbow. For 17 years, the Street has believed in his magic ever since he wrote in his SEC filing in 1997: “The Company believes that it will incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future, and that the rate at which such losses will be incurred will increase significant from current levels.” He also stated that he wouldn’t run the company to make profits, rather he would pour investment into growing the business to “get big fast.” Wall Street took a deep breath and bought into his strategy, hook, line and sinker. The Street believed that at some unknown distant point in time, and at the end of some rainbow, the Leprechaun would magically deliver his pot of gold.
Well, talk about “substantial operating losses” (which Amazon has lived up to for these past 17 years), this recent second quarter earnings report, revealing a net loss of $126 million, takes the cake. Worse, Amazon rather flippantly, with no explanation as to why, says it will lose between $410 and $810 million in the current quarter. Pot of gold? It’s more like a pot of coal. [Read more...]
Michael 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...]
And the Internet is not the Only Culprit
A lot has been written and spoken recently about dying malls, my participation included. Well, here’s another one. In the middle of this protracted conversation, I discovered an interesting irony. As originally defined, the term, “mall anchor,” is now an oxymoron. Major retailers defined by mall and shopping center owners as “anchors” for their ability to generate traffic, now feel as though they are literally anchored to the mall, not able to cut loose as its Titanic-like host is going under. So the term “mall anchor” has now converged figuratively and literally.
With the exception of a hundred or so A malls, the B, C, and D malls are learning the hard way what they should have anticipated and acted upon a decade ago. Instead of the heavy dependence on their anchors for generating traffic and profitable growth, mall developers should have realized that nothing stays the same forever. As the Internet loomed larger by the minute, it didn’t require a rocket scientist to predict that technology would drive a fundamental transformation across the entire industry and threaten to the very existence of retailing, as we knew it.
With every mall and store in the world resting comfortably in consumers’ pockets or in their living rooms, who needs to spend the time and effort to actually go to, and shop through the mall when they can let their fingers do the walking and can shop virtually for an unlimited selection in a matter of minutes? All while sipping coffee.
Had mall owners foreseen the devastating plunge in traffic and the waning drawing power of their anchors, they would have proactively collaborated with their tenants to come up with a strategic transformation to unshackle from the anchor model. However, they didn’t. Therefore anchor positions have become an albatross around the necks of both successful retail anchors who now want a more compelling location, and the failing anchor stores who just want to get the hell out.
The Internet is Not the Only Culprit
While the Internet, rocket-fueled by the smartphone, has been the big disrupter, many malls have become irrelevant aided and abetted by three other major drivers:
1. Millennials Are Replacing Boomers as the Largest Consumer Segment
Aging Boomers, the largest consumer group ever, are retiring or starting to die off. And those among the living are downsizing, trading big homes for smaller ones, or renting in urban areas where they find more freedom in less burdensome and maintenance free apartment living. They just don’t need or want more stuff. “Stuff” expenditures for this group are now being transferred to purchasing experiential travel, leisure, and entertainment, as well as health and wellness. The Great Recession has changed shopping behavior, and whatever lesser amounts Boomers are still spending on stuff is being spent more online as opposed to a fatiguing and annoying trip to the local mall.
Millennials, who are replacing the Boomers to become the largest consumer segment (projected to account for about 30% of all retail sales by 2020), are also shaping a different lifestyle. Currently about 80% of the US population lives in urban areas. That number is growing due to Millennials preference for urban living, further influenced by the fact that many cannot afford to buy a home. Some are burdened with paying down school loans, and many of them still struggling to find decent paying jobs commensurate with their college-grad degrees. So renting an apartment is more often than not, their only choice.
Other lifestyle characteristics of this generation do not bode well for the future of massive suburban malls and shopping centers. Less is more for Millennials, and quality of lifestyle is desirable over big quantities of everything. Smaller, intimate and interesting environments trump giant stores and massive choice. High-tech and even higher-touch experiences are requisites. Ostentation is eschewed for the understated. Special-just-for-me, highly personalized brands beat out over-exposed badges of luxury. And social gathering places don’t always need physical spaces. But when they do, these places are not going to be impersonal, mega-scaled shopping centers.
Millennials are shopping differently, largely due to the fact that they were born into, and are using the full empowerment of the Internet and technology. They continue to accelerate their use of the Internet, fueling its double-digit growth rates. Therefore the shopping mall, unless it has a compelling enough reason for these young people to hang out, is being replaced by local grass-roots gathering places where the Next Gen can be with their friends to shop as well as work on their personal projects assisted by their smartphones and MacBook Airs. Mall-based teen specialty brands are struggling because they haven’t changed their models and store designs accordingly.
On the other hand, if Millennial shoppers do seek a more mall-type experience, they prefer clusters of smaller, freestanding stores in local neighborhoods or in mixed-use “village lifestyle centers.” These new public plazas offer a more compelling social and community experience, with streets of shops, outdoor cafes, restaurants, movie theatres, bakeries, and the like. Developers are keyed into this seismic shift, as many of these villages are designed with offices or apartments located above the shops.
2. Cash-Strained, Lower Income Consumers
The rich are getting richer. The A malls that largely cater to them will likely survive, although, they too, must elevate the shopping experience. However, many of the B, C and D malls catering to lower income consumers, many of whom are getting poorer, will either close altogether or be repurposed as walk-in medical clinics, health and wellness centers, video game complexes, movie theatres, etc. These cash strained consumers are reducing the number of visits to the mall to save on gas. At the same time, the dollar stores opened thousands of small, freestanding stores in lower income neighborhoods, more accessible and convenient for these paycheck-to-paycheck shoppers. Furthermore, Amazon offering rock bottom prices on just about everything, has stolen huge share of market from all the brick-and-mortar discounters serving this segment.
To throw more fuel on the fire that’s burning up mall traffic, both Walmart and Target are fighting back to regain some of their market share moving away from the mall and accelerating their small-store neighborhood strategies to compete with the dollar and convenience stores. The big-box guys are also aggressively increasing their omnichannel capabilities to better compete with Amazon.
Two other culprits are JC Penney and Sears. They are anchor tenants in roughly half of the mainstream US malls. The tale of these two retailers is not a happy one. JCP is struggling to right its ship after losing roughly a third of its business, which will require them to close many of those mall locations. Sear’s tale is one of a slow and painful death (in my opinion), which means they will ultimately close or sell the locations they own. Whatever small amount of traffic these former giants are still generating for the malls will continue to decline.
3. Outlet Malls On Fire
As retailers from luxury to mainstream continue in the value race to the bottom, in which price has become the weapon of choice, outlet stores are actually just another ruse to discount. Since the overhead for running these operations is much lower than full-line stores, the opportunity for faster and more profitable growth is intoxicating for all retailers who have been drastically slashing prices in their full-line stores, thus decimating margins.
Saks Off Fifth, Nordstrom Rack, Bloomingdale’s The Outlet Store, and Neiman-Marcus Last Call are all aggressively opening new outlet stores while they have few, if any new full-line openings planned. Even mainstream Macy’s is opening an outlet, and will probably find that it’s a highly-effective distribution channel for new growth. Just by example, upscale Coach generates 70% of total revenues from their outlet stores. Chico’s, Gap, even J Crew, are all opening more outlet stores, along with many others.
Of course, the elephant in the room is how this type of discounting is going to have on the credibility of the brands over the long term.
What’s an Anchor to Do?
If you happen to be a retailer “anchoring” dying malls, you need to determine how you can get the heck out of there without paying huge penalties. Then craft a new, smaller neighborhood store strategy that can be freestanding or as a part of one of the new lifestyle “villages” mentioned earlier.
And if you’re one of the dying mall owners, you have to figure out how to repurpose your space or simply close it down entirely. If you do, please take it down with the wrecking ball. These abandoned malls with their piles of cracking cement, broken windows, and huge empty parking lots, are horrible blights that devalue the whole area.
Repurposing examples abound. A laundry list of ideas: walk-in medical clinics, health and wellness centers, video game complexes, bigger Cineplex theaters with more Imax screens, university extension schools, 3D printing centers, gun ranges, aquariums, gyms, go-cart tracks, maker faires, community theatres, bowling alleys, day-care facilities, indoor parks, community centers and churches. And a huge opportunity; conversions to ethnic, culturally thematic malls such as the Fiesta Mall in Atlanta, totally focusing on Latino customers and all of the things they enjoy as they spend the day shopping with their families.
So the message to the anchor-store mall owners or anchor-retailers, un-anchor yourselves and embrace the revolution. Disrupt yourselves and “bite the bullet” on whatever financial hit you must take to change your business model. Quickly. As they say, “sink or swim.”
‘Made in America’ is quite the hot topic right now, grabbing up headlines left and right; from the backlash about Ralph Lauren’s 2012 Olympic uniforms (the company quickly learned its lesson—the 2014 ones were made in the US) to retail beast Walmart’s declaration to increase its purchase of American-made goods by $50 billion during the next 10 years. It’s a hopeful story—fostering patriotism while supporting the return of jobs to US soil.
There are those who say that domestic manufacturing is simply not feasible at certain price points, while others have found a significant shortage of skilled workers as a blocking point. Despite these obstacles, will apparel manufacturing sprout again in the US?
Our take is yes.
Companies are manufacturing clothing in the US today and have been for a long time. Take Martin Greenfield Clothiers, for example. The menswear company offers fine, hand-crafted tailored clothing including made-to-measure suits and tuxedos, made 100 percent by hand in its Brooklyn, New York factory. The company’s customers aren’t too shabby either—Presidents, Ambassadors, major motion pictures, the list goes on.
You may be saying, well of course a company that produces such high-end garments can charge a premium and not worry about paying extra for production. And we agree. But many companies are finding success producing in the US at all different price points. In fact, according to a recent study by Boston Consulting Group on the shift in global manufacturing, China’s manufacturing cost advantage over the US has shrunk to less than five percent, while Mexico currently has lower manufacturing costs than China. This shift highlights how American companies can now consider their home turf as a viable manufacturing option, keeping production closer to the end consumer.
Brand names like Ralph Lauren, Club Monaco, Frye and Brooks Brothers are now producing a percentage of their pieces on home turf as well. Designers like Nanette Lepore are outspoken on the topic; she organizes Save the Garment Center rallies and is vocal with lawmakers in Washington to support the American fashion industry.
America’s Research Group found that approximately 75 percent of consumers would pay more for American-made goods, up from 50 percent in 2010. Thus, people are seeing this as a business opportunity, evident by the rise of startups dedicated to US manufacturing. Look at American Giant, a direct-to-consumer apparel company that makes high-quality, affordable basics, including hoodies, t-shirts and sweatpants. After a December 2012 Slate article declared the company’s best-selling sweatshirt as the “greatest hoodie ever made,” there was a months-long waiting list. American Giant pledges to never outsource jobs overseas.
An important element to consider is the fact that this ‘repatriation’ movement isn’t unique to the US. There is also a push for ‘Made in Britain.’ British companies were dealing with the same challenges—wage increases in China, higher transportation costs, hard to control supply chains; there was also a wave of patriotism following the Olympics and the Jubilee. Many companies have been able to spark an onshoring resurgence, with Mulberry, Marks & Spencer, Topshop, Christopher Nieper and John Smedley being just a few examples.
The moral of the story is: if other higher wage countries are successfully moving toward domestic production, there’s no reason the US can’t follow suit.
We may end up eating crow because of our stance on this topic as only time will tell.
Remember the phrase “innovate or die?” Well, it died. Taking its place today is “disrupt or die.”
Disrupt this, disrupt that. We’re in the throes of it. As I write, another disruptive concept is being born. And if you don’t see it coming and don’t adopt or adapt to it, you may get mowed down in its path. In fact, the true winners are disrupting and transforming themselves before an outside disrupter gets to them. The chic label of disruption aside, I would argue that innovation and disruption could be synonymous in their commercial results.
It’s all happening fast, faster, and like a pinwheel, and still accelerating in a whirling blur. It’s a new liftoff every day, rocket-fueled by venture capitalists that have invested close to $30 billion in 2013, a 7% increase over 2012. So if you’re in the game, don’t find yourself standing still on the launch pad. Get a blast on it.
The perpetrators of much of this disruption are 20- and 30-somethings, many of them now nearly-overnight billionaires. And by the way, do you remember the term “burn rate,” before the dot.com crash (how much cash one would burn through in a month)? It was the measure of success. Now the badge of honor is the “round of funding” one is on. I guess in the end, it’s pretty much the same thing. Just ask veterans Jeff Bezos, the Google boys, and Mark Zuckerberg — and new darlings, Brian Acton and Jan Koum
So What is Disruption?
One handy definition of these disrupters comes from us — our columnist for The Robin Report, Warren Shoulberg. In our upcoming print issue Warren says a disrupter is “the guy who comes into your market and screws up your business by doing something different.” That works for me.
However, “doing something different,” can “screw” up your business or market in three different ways. Furthermore, most of the disruption or innovation we see today is due to the technology era, including the Internet, providing the new tools for disruption. Note I said “tools,” precisely because that’s all they are — tools to facilitate innovative or disruptive ideas.
And this technology era is now in its third retail iteration: first, its boost to efficiency and speed from factory floor to the warehouse; second, from the warehouse to the store; and, now, in its final iteration, with the smartphone as its accelerant. The Internet and technology are driving the part of the value chain that connects with the consumer with incredible, fundamentally game-changing and disruptive new ways that also empower them with unlimited and instantaneous access to whatever, wherever, whenever and however, their little hearts desire.
So, what are the three levels of disruptive intensity that are meant to “screw up” your business or market?
First is an incremental innovation, which some would argue is not really a disruption. Lululemon, Whole Foods, and Gilt Groupe, in my opinion, are incremental innovations. They are easily knocked off, which we have seen happening more than once. How long it takes to “copycat” the model varies. But while they are dominating the new space, they have first-mover pricing power, until of course, competition enters and that power gets leveled.
The second and third disruptive levels consist of fundamental innovations, either changing the game, or creating a whole new game. These disrupters are not easily copied. Starbuck’s changed the coffee shop model and consumers’ behavior along with it. Facebook created a whole new game, as did Twitter. Uber is changing the taxi model as Amazon changed the game of distribution. Since they are all ultimately able to be duplicated by other clever entrepreneurs, only time will tell if these icons will have the sustainable dominance to have created a whole new game in which new competitors may enter later, but will never share the number-one space.
Speed rules in this disruption game. Why do you think Jeff Bezos’ mantra from “Day One” as he called it, has been “get big fast,” and he has built on that mantra every year to get big faster. And we all know he has a complicit Wall Street behind him, willing to go along with his top line “get bigger faster” mantra at the expense of making nothing on the bottom line.
I believe a lot of the disrupters in tech world, many with truly unbelievable valuations, are benefiting from an Amazon-like growth strategy — to say nothing of round after round of insatiable funding. The challenges are enormous for last century’s business models to adopt and adapt technology and the Internet as tools to disrupt themselves to achieve the new century’s measures of success, all without Wall Street’s complicity.
However, if a business sees “disruption” coming their way, they can avoid being “screwed up,” or worse, decimated, by acting fast and embracing whatever the disruption is that’s headed for their space. Furthermore, in many cases, “disruptees” may very well gain a competitive advantage by adopting disruptive concepts that fit their models and leveraging these innovations to their already powerful brand and customer base. And watch out! They have the potential to turn around and disrupt the original disruptor. And so it goes in the never-ending spiral of disruptive innovation.
At the end of the day, if we are not creating new today, we will be gone tomorrow.
The “Great Disruption”
Finally, the “Great Disruption” is yet to come. At some point along the way, retail and wholesale models will cease to exist (along with their increasingly irrelevant terms), as technology will enable goods and services to be seamlessly and instantaneously transferred from creator to consumer. And in another wave of disruption, creator and consumer may just be the same person.
The Second City has racked up something novel. For the first time, the city has come together to fulfill a mission of sustainability, urban beautification, and economic development through creating flower gardens specifically for use in a fine fragrance.
Tru Blooms is a fragrance initiative designed to transform Chicagoland’s green spaces into growing spaces, and cultivating flowers that are harvested and bottled into a limited edition perfume.
Capitalizing on the trends of urban farming, locally-grown produce, and the overall “farm-to-table” vibe, Tru Fragrance, based in Willowbrook (just west of Chicago), and with offices in New York and Denver, saw an opportunity to do something completely different in the perfume space.
The brand DNA was not only based on the flowers grown locally in the Windy City, but it was also infused with an artisanal touch, and defined by community and purpose. Over 60 people have been trained and employed to plant and maintain more than three acres of flowers located across the city, ranging from the high profile and highly trafficked Grant Park, to many of the small neighborhoods that Chicago is known for.
Tru Blooms is a brand based on community gardening with a perfume evoking an olfactive image of a fountain cascading with overgrown with roses. Our goal is to produce a scent that is as authentic as the spirit of the community of gardeners. [Read more...]
For those of you out there who think the Millennials are the “next big thing” for your business, think again. They may not be as big as you had hoped. And for the likes of the three “As,” (A&F, American Eagle Outfitters and Aeropostale), and others who primarily target this cohort, you better start strategically repositioning your brands and your messaging to adapt to the “double trouble” of dying malls (which used to be huge teen hangout destinations) and Millennial shopping behavior, which is shop-until-you-drop…but don’t buy.
As I pointed out in my recent article The Great Retail Demassification, there are several reasons mall traffic is suffering, directly impacting store traffic, particularly in the B and C malls:
- Every store in the world is literally in Millennials’ pockets; they can hang out with their friends, sip lattes and shop online – all at the same time. So why spend all the time and effort traveling to, and traipsing through, big, old, largely boring malls with a limited number of cool stores that don’t offer any great experience in the first place? [Read more...]
I described Amazon a while ago, as “PacMan,” gobbling up everything in sight, including big chunks out of Walmart. Well, that’s about to change. Walmart can literally crush Amazon. Or at least it can put a lid on Jeff Bezos’ mantra: “get bigger faster.” Bezos will have to begin quantifying just what getting “big, bigger and faster” means. And it will also be the moment we’ve all been waiting for when Amazon will have to start turning a profit. At this juncture, yes, Amazon, the great disruptor, has created a new retail playing field, that they alone have been dominating.
But Walmart is finally rediscovering and reinventing the part of its DNA that disrupted the industry and created a unique new playing field half a century ago, which it alone dominated and grew to its near- $500 billion in annual sales (Amazon is pushing for $90 billion). Walmart is rediscovering its once-revered distribution genius, not just as an incremental update and improvement, but rather to reinvent it altogether. And I predict it will reinvent itself by “leapfrogging” over Amazon’s model (which still has miles to go), and will redefine what getting bigger, faster really means. Talk about a breathtaking spectacle. What does a gargantuan $500 billion, 10,000-store (worldwide – about 4500 in the US) company look like getting bigger, faster? [Read more...]
The Death and Diminishment of Malls and Other Big Footprints
We are on the edge of the Great Retail Demassification. Prior to the “great disruptor” (that would be the Internet), and before the marketplace became ridiculously over-stored and over-stuffed, consumers were well served by massive regional malls (currently numbering about 1200), in which retailers located their stores and to which consumers travelled enthusiastically. To steal a line from the movie, “Field of Dreams,” retail growth strategy during the pre-digital era could truly be based on nothing more than “build it and they will come.” And they did. Fast forward: consumers have every retail store in the world resting comfortably in their pockets, just a key-tap away, wherever they are and whenever they choose to shop for exactly what they want. Why, then, would anyone spend the time and money to travel to, and shop through the malls; or for that matter, any large, impersonal, traditional retailer? [Read more...]
Little-Known H-E-B Shows the Way
As the post-recession era drags on, the dynamics of retailing are changing, adjusting to the new normal.
As we’ve seen lately in the pages of the Robin Report, some retailers that didn’t fare any too well in the recession are circling the wagons and shedding retail units. Opportunistically, those sites are being picked up by resiient retailers that survived the recession. What we’re seeing is the classic case of the big getting bigger and stronger, and the weak continuing on a downward trajectory. Is it simply survival of the fittest? Or poor strategic planning?
There’s another path to growth that’s increasingly being considered by clever American retailers, namely international expansion. Some retailers have long had a presence beyond America’s borders; McDonalds and Starbucks have led the way. Others are making the leap for the first time or expanding into more countries, including Bloomingdale’s, Urban Outfitters, J. Crew, Ralph Lauren, and Gap.
Yet, one strange anomaly persists in the world of retailing — and stranger still, it concerns the largest and most widespread retailing of all — food retailing, or, to be more precise, conventional supermarkets. [Read more...]