The Hidden Message in How Americans Spend

Consumer spending increased by 3.7% in June, the highest 12-month smoothed monthly increase in almost two years, according to data released last week by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

This year, Americans will spend $12 trillion on stuff, slightly more than the $11.7 trillion they spent on stuff last year.

These gross numbers are pretty meaningless and hard to wrap one’s mind around, but if we look behind the big numbers at what we’re spending our money on, and how some of those expenditures are growing, it’s not only pretty interesting, but can also tell us about how optimistic we’re feeling, about our consumer preferences as a society, and where we might be headed.

When the government tracks consumer spending, it creates two major categories: goods, which are separated into durables like cars and washing machines, and nondurables like clothes and food; and services, such as private school tuition, cab fare, eating in restaurants, and going to the doctor.

What I’d like to do here, though, is to categorize them a little differently.

pyramid2

Abraham Maslow (remember him from Psychology 101?) created the theory of the hierarchy of needs; simply stated that self-actualization is not possible until our basic needs are met. So, using a pyramid as a model, shelter, food and clothing (physiological needs) are the most basic needs at the base.

Fast forward to the top, creativity and artistic pursuits, are defined as self-actualization, or achieving our full potential as human beings. I’m super-simplifying here, but you get the idea. So if we look at trends in consumer spending through a redefined prism of Maslow’s hierarchy, and taking a few liberties with the climb to the top, some interesting patterns emerge. We can start with non-discretionary (need) categories like food, clothing and shelter at the base, and discretionary purchases, (more wants than needs) like restaurant dinners and new cars at the top.

So how have Americans been spending their money? And what’s behind these spending trends?

 

Level 1: Food, Clothing, Shelter (Basic Needs)

For one thing, it looks like the American Dream is alive and well, and home is still where the heart is – at least the heart of non-discretionary spending. As the chart below illustrates, spending on housing, which totaled an annualized $2 trillion as of June 2014 data, has been growing much faster than groceries and apparel, the other two key need categories, whose totals were $900 billion and $367 billion, respectively. Much of this increase has been due to tightened supplies of rental properties and energy costs, which have driven up monthly housing and utility costs, causing people to dedicate a larger share of their wallet to housing costs. Despite rock-bottom interest rates, home purchases have been about as spotty as job market recovery, resulting in an increased demand for homes to rent.

Although food prices have risen for certain categories, like meat and dairy, large supermarket chains are in a tough race for market share, which has kept inflation to a minimum and allowed consumers to take advantage of loss-leader bargains. In both apparel and groceries, showrooming has enabled price transparency across competitive retailers. As the chart shows, although spending on housing rose by 4% last month, slightly ahead of the total spending increase of 3.7%, spending on groceries rose by less than 2% and apparel spending edged up by less than 1%. In other words, Americans are spending more on housing because they have to, and taking advantage of the promotional environment in apparel and food to because they can.

RRSpending1

Level 2: Health and Wellbeing (Safety)

Next, let’s look at how we are spending on keeping ourselves healthy, the next level up on our redefined hierarchy of needs spending pyramid. Consumption of pharmaceuticals has skyrocketed in recent months as millions of formerly uninsured people got coverage under the Affordable Care Act and began to take medications for chronic illness and other conditions, causing windfalls for Big Pharma companies and the major drug store chains. However, spending on medical services and other forms of healthcare has grown by just over 3% as hospitals, clinics and physicians find their ability to bill patients is extremely limited under the new health care legislation. More people are going to doctors, according to CMS, the service that administers Medicare, but total spending is being offset by the declining average cost of a doctor treatment or visit. Maybe the Affordable Care Act is actually keeping health care affordable? Time will tell.

RRSpending2

Level 3: Quality of Life Connections (Belonging)

Next, let’s take a look at some spending categories up a little higher on the hierarchy of values: feel-good “big ticket” items. The auto industry has benefitted greatly in the past year by the unleashing of pent-up demand. During the recession, car sales declined because people decided they would just make do with their old clunkers. Once the economy started to grow again and employment and income started to recover, millions went out en masse and purchased new cars. However, that growth started to slow considerably early last year, as shown by the chart below, and then picked up again starting in February of this year. Although new car sales are strong, at an annualized $98 billion in June, they’re not growing as much as they were in early 2013, though part of that is due to tougher comparisons— that is, they’re being compared to stronger months than they were in early 2013.

Another interesting category in this realm is communication ($276 billion), which includes mobile device (smart phone) contracts, where growth is an annualized 4%, but off from the higher levels seen last year, primarily because the tablet craze has quieted considerably.

And growth in furniture and appliance spending, representing a total of $287 billion, remains sluggish despite the improved stability in the housing market. The lack of consumer interest in the category has been a source of tremendous frustration for retailers in this space. Perhaps a good bit of the softness in spending is due to the extremely competitive and promotional marketplace – prices have been declining for these products, and consumers are taking advantage of the available deals to spend less.

RRSpending3

Level 4: Having Fun (Esteem)

We’re approaching the top of the spending pyramid, where some of the most discretionary of the major consumer purchase categories reside, specifically entertainment. Key categories include recreational activities spending, at $450 billion, products like toys and sporting goods, at $367 billion, and spending on food outside the home, at $746 billion. Of the three, eating out is the only one with accelerating growth. In the hierarchy of needs, it reflects confidence and achievement that consumers have choice to reward themselves with a slightly more expensive option than cooking at home. And the fact that we’re spending moderately on recreation says that we’re having some fun.

RRSpending4

Level 5: Self-Improvement (Self Actualization)

At the pinnacle of all these spending categories are the self-actualized pursuits of spending on education and financial planning. Amazingly, it looks like these areas are growing at above-average rates; we’re actually spending more to improve our ability to succeed in the future. Education spending, at $282 billion, is one of the fastest growing categories in consumer spending (after pharmaceuticals). And not all that surprisingly, given the volatility of the financial markets, spending on financial services is growing quickly as well, at an annualized $890 million according to June 2014 figures. This data would suggest that we are optimistic about the future, interested in self-improvement and searching for, and funding, solutions.

Despite what is happening in the economy or in Washington, people are living their lives and hanging on to their dreams.

RRSpending5

Lessons from Offshore

paco1Lesson #1 – Returning Turtles

“Organized retail” is the term we use to describe modern trade in the emerging market. It is an explosion that has quietly been transforming access to goods across the planet. In most emerging markets, the first intrusion of organized retail is the modern grocery store or hypermarket; however, it has stretched beyond big boxes, to specialty retail, foodservice and how malls are built.

paco2Local merchants that have ventured to the United States and Europe are behind much of that transformation. They have left home to get educated, observe and process, and then return to to reinvent. One early example is Thailand-based Lotus, an agribusiness broker that saw organized retail as a way of vertically integrating in the early 1990s. During the first Asian money crisis of 1997, Lotus sold its first attempt at retail, a grocery chain in Thailand, to Tesco and then made the decision to bet on China. In 2014, Lotus not only operates nearly 60 retail superstores in China (which sell the food products they produce), but also owns many of the shopping malls (such as Super Brand Mall in Shanghai, pictured) where their stores are lead tenants. [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...]

Dov Charney is a Joke: A Dirty Joke and a Business Joke

Dov Charney, Portfolio, November 1, 2008The media at large has publicly exposed enough of the “dirty” part of this “jokester” that I don’t need to pile on more. Although it might be a more titillating read to add more dirt to the pile, I’ll just sign off on his disgusting behavior during his tenure as CEO of American Apparel by saying it’s equally disgusting to me that the board didn’t kick his butt out of there a long time ago. It never ceases to amaze me that too many boards are still weak on proper governance in protecting the shareholders from the egregious, deleterious behavior of miscreant CEO’s. And American Apparel’s board seems to be one of those.

But for the moment, let’s forget about Charney’s sexual proclivities, including allegations of abuse. Many top executives have been caught with their pants down, so to speak, albeit not all as flagrantly as Charney. Many were fired, yet many others have just had their dalliances swept under the rug.

Charney’s real dirty joke is that he is a business joke of the tallest order. [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...]

Malls are the New Anchors…

Robin_Mall_blog_finalAnd 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.”

Passion Can’t Be Found In A Spreadsheet

iStock_000021559265SmallThe distance between Vere and Portman streets in central London is 528 yards; an easy walking distance encompassing the two solitudes of retail today: stores that behave as product sheds and those that behave like retail theater. Taking center stage in the dichotomy are three stalwarts of the British department store industry: Debenhams at the start; Selfridges in the middle; and Marks & Spencer at the end. The headlines on these companies say it all:

“Debenhams shares dive…the biggest obstacle to profits comes from a higher level of discounting as the retailer struggles to attract shoppers…”

“Marks & Spencer’s recent figures show the retailer losing market share faster than any of its rivals…”

“Selfridges turnover for the year is ahead 9% while pre-tax profits rose 40%…”

But the headline I find most illuminating of all is this:

“The latest problems at Debenhams will pile pressure on its finance director, Simon Herrick, who was already seen as likely to exit the company…”

If businesses are to prosper they need customers who are engaged and willing to spend, and I can assure you the lack of interest on the part of shoppers for Debenhams isn’t because of Mr. Herrick’s finance competency. While this headline comes from an analyst, it’s indicative of a common corporate failing: too often finance departments are asked to make right in a business what it takes an entire executive team to figure out, namely how to be more meaningful to a buying public who has the freedom to spend their time and money wherever they want.

Success and Failure in Retail Neither Begins Nor Ends at the CFO’s Door

Where these stores are located is the area of Oxford and Regent streets in central London, home to one of the world’s premier retail districts. Every year 150 million shoppers put the lie to the notion that ‘stores are dead’ and many pass the windows of Debenhams, Selfridges, and Marks & Spencer. There are clearly plenty of prospective customers, but they show a declining desire to make two of those stores a destination. A simple visit to these fading retail icons and you’ll immediately understand why: bad lighting, inelegant visual merchandising, and disinterested staff in the fading stores, whereas Selfridges is famed for its excitement and dynamism. The two in trouble feature environments where dreams of fashion and style go to die; in the stand-out you’ll find experiences that draw people in record numbers who are willing to pay more, and seem to do so gladly based on the numbers. And remarkably, executives of all three can walk the floors of their competitors in five minutes and experience what makes the difference.

So it makes you wonder: can retail executives even see the experience through the eyes of a shopper? Each of these three companies has the size, financial clout, and reputation to attract the best and brightest talent. I’m sure none of them lack for MBAs and finance people, yet it would seem that common sense and instinct – the soft skills that humanize the business of retail – have been subverted by higher education when their executives can’t seem to see the solution for better performance when it’s staring them in the face.

Quality Retail Experiences Rely on Store Executives to Make Them That Way

Too often, retail leaders describe the measure of their personal success based on their vertical roles in the business: the ability to deliver faster, cheaper and to reduce costs; rarely on the need to add value back into the store environment. Their idea to develop greater customer loyalty is all too frequently based on low price. Why? Many leaders feel that to innovate and engage consumers through the experience of their environments is overshadowed by transactional cultures that view process as the end, not the means. It seems few big companies remember what it was that made them what they are. Their worlds revolve around revenue rather than value; demographic segments instead of people. And what requires good common sense becomes over-analysis of the abstract. The new silver bullet of ‘big data’ is crazy given the way so many business people use it to define their strategic priorities – what’s the point of knowing more about your customer if you’re not able to truly understand or reflect why your business should matter to them?

The opportunity for offline retail has never been greater, but retail’s existential threat is itself. Who’d choose to shop online if they could get the benefit of price as well as experience? This model starts by offering a better way by asking if what you’re presenting to the buying public actually matters. If it does you win; if it doesn’t you discount.

Amazon’s Threat Isn’t From Being Online, It’s By Being Customer Obsessed

Ironically the one business that retailers fears most is Amazon. Yet, in that company’s 2013 letter to shareholders, Jeff Bezos wrote:

“We are internally driven to improve our services, adding benefits and features, before we have to. We lower prices and increase value for customers before we have to. We invent before we have to. These investments are motivated by customer focus rather than by reaction to competition. Proactively delighting customers earns trust, which earns more business from those customers, even in new business arenas. Take a long-term view, and the interests of customers and shareholders align.”

So the company that makes every retailer question whether there’s a future for brick-and-mortar has customer delight at the core of its DNA. The same business that’s been referred to as “socialist” in its ideals by investors focused exclusively on short-term results has proven that long-term success can only come by thinking first about customers. Not surprisingly, you find a similar philosophy at the heart of the one retailer whose performance on Oxford Street outperforms the others.

The Weston family that owns Selfridges is the second largest luxury retailer in the world with holdings that include Brown Thomas in Ireland, de Bijenkorf in the Netherlands, Fortnum & Mason and Primark in the UK, and Holt Renfrew in Canada.

Their retail philosophy, expressed by Alannah Weston, the Selfridge group’s Vice Chair, is that there’s a lot more to the experience of their stores than just shopping. Her vision is to be the destination for exceptional experiences and believes that with such an enormous space the bounds of creativity have to be limitless. In a recent interview she explained that, “In an all-access shopping culture, remaining relevant is essential because you can buy anything at the airport shop, so why come to a department store?”

Weston’s advice for success is that you’ve got to have passion, “If you don’t believe it, you won’t do it well.” It’s simple: you’ve got to matter to your stakeholders if you’re to succeed. And while there’s little passion to be found in a spreadsheet, you may just find it in yourself by walking the shop floor, listening to customers, hearing what really matters, and by attempting to build back into your business that one thing which you can take true pride in. If you do a walkabout, invite your colleagues along – retail is a team sport.

Is Joe Fresh Still Fresh Enough?

IMG_2103I heard good things about Joe Fresh from a friend a couple of years ago, so I visited the Madison Avenue store, which initially opened in October, 2011 as a pop-up. It was a bright, fun place in a convenient neighborhood location. I bought a cotton V-neck cardigan in orange, Joe Fresh’s signature color, for about $19. I returned several times to buy Christmas gifts that season. Joe Fresh seemed a good resource for low priced, colorful, clean looking, basics. A poorer woman’s JCrew, perhaps a bit younger, certainly much, much cheaper — decent enough quality for the price, with a teeny bit of a contemporary edge. Joe Fresh has a much narrower, more classic and basic-focused assortment than H&M, with equally low prices, and is a refreshing, lower priced alternative to the now muddy Gap.

In 2004, Loblaw’s, Canada’s largest retailer with 1000 corporate and franchised stores, serving 14 million customers weekly, reached out to Joe Mimram, the co-founder, of Club Monaco, to create a clothing line to be sold in Loblaw’s supermarkets. Loblaw’s had extensive and successful experience with private brands, including President’s Choice, the maker of the Decadent Chocolate Chip Cookie, the number-one selling cookie in Canada. But those cookies were not enough to meet the threat of Walmart’s ever expanding Canadian Supercenters. And so, a well priced, well designed clothing line for Loblaw’s made sense. Joe Fresh was launched with women’s apparel in 40 Loblaw stores in 2006 and exceeded sales expectations. Today, Joe Fresh is sold in 340 Loblaw’s stores and includes women, children and men’s clothing, shoes, accessories, cosmetics, bath and body. In 2010, Loblaw’s launched the first Joe Fresh stand-alone store in Vancouver, and there are now 16 in Canada. [Read more...]

Will it Be Made in America?

FINAL image_Anastasia‘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.

 

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...]