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.

To be sure, prudent brand owners take a range of actions to defend ownership of their brands. Milder steps include issuing letters to offenders, such as publications, reminding editors about trade names. Owners are particularly sensitive to use of their brand name spelled without a capital letter. As past editor of a major trade publication, I received countless letters from brand owners reminding me about correct usage, even when no error had been committed. Brands often ran paid ads to remind the trade who owned a brand. These activities can be seen as setting the stage for a lawsuit, should one be required.

Of course, lawsuits are filed, even for comparatively minor offenses. For instance, Faberge has sued the owner of a restaurant in Brooklyn called “Faberge.” The restaurant also appropriated Faberge’s purple color motif and has menu items such as “St. Peter’s Kabob” that are evocative of Faberge’s Russian heritage.

This brings us to the matter of Tiffany and Costco. For many years, Costco sold a particular type of engagement ring as a “Tiffany ring.” When this came to the attention of Tiffany, it filed suit. It would seem that Tiffany should be on firm ground, especially since, like Apple, it controls the entire process from product and package design, to manufacturing and to its own retail stores. Maybe not. Costco argued that the particular Tiffany ring setting featuring a pronged diamond setting, which Tiffany first produced in the 19th century, had devolved to become a universal descriptor and wasn’t really Tiffany’s to control any more. Costco said its own ring vendor and other retailers follow the same practice.

In an early ruling in the ongoing court battle concerning Costco’s claims, a judge said “a genuine factual dispute” exists about whether the Tiffany trademark has taken on a generic meaning in the minds of consumers. That could be very bad news for Tiffany and, by extension, other brands.

Despite that encouragement, Costco subsequently discontinued use of the Tiffany name to describe the ring and has offered refunds to any consumer claiming to be deceived by the ring’s description, possibly to contain the size of the judgment should it lose.

Indeed, Tiffany continues to press its lawsuit by seeking a court order that forbids Costco from using its brand again and — in a bit of overreach — wants disgorgement of a portion of all of Costco’s profit, even profit from the sale of products totally unrelated to jewelry, such as gasoline, food, clothing and memberships.

Doubtless, Tiffany wants to put the trade on notice that there’s a high price to be paid for seizing its brand.

As we look out years into the future, it’s possible to see now-solid brands that might slip into generic usage; brands such as Coca Cola (or Coke), Google, Twitter and maybe even Apple’s iPhone. Apple is fortunate that no one calls computers “Apples” in a broad sense.

How bad is this news for brands? It’s very bad since for many companies, its brand is by far its most valuable asset. Loss of exclusive brand ownership spells doom for many companies. For Tiffany, loss of the Costco lawsuit could render its Tiffany engagement ring all but worthless. Look for brand owners to remain dedicated to the fight for the right to their own brands. After all, as we’ve seen in The Robin Report, brands are in enough trouble already.

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.

A Business Joke

Reluctantly, I feel it’s necessary to acknowledge Charney’s entrepreneurial accomplishment in creating a brand that hooked up with (no pun intended) young urban consumers in a sensuously charged way. It took off and spread like wildfire. It was at that moment in time when Charney should have removed himself from running the business and hired a CEO with management, operating and leadership credentials. Entrepreneurs, by definition, are creators and most often are not capable of managing and profitably growing a business. Charney is no exception.

Not only has he proven to be an inept CEO, given the continuing decline of the business (propped up by one loan after another), his maniacal micromanagement of every aspect of the operations has decimated whatever semblance of an organization there might once have been. Worse, his “everyone reports to Dov” insanity has driven off all of the skilled executives he briefly had. One example of his warped behavior was reported in a New York Times op-ed column by Joe Nocera: “In 2007, after the company went public and he had to bring in a chief financial officer, he told The Wall Street Journal that the man he hired was a ‘complete loser,’ which of course caused the man to quit.”

Anecdotally, anonymous observers provide a disturbing picture of his dysfunctional, really whacky, abusive management style and hodge-podge approach to a retail business. Here’s one observation: “There is no retail management for the 250 or so stores. Everyone reports to Dov, from the assistant store manager in Cincinnati, to the visual display assistant. Dov conducts a meeting generally from his bedroom every week. He has every store call in. Seoul Korea calls in. Santa Barbara calls in. Berlin calls in. Lots of time differences … and languages … but the one constant is that Dov does all the talking. If business is bad in a store, it becomes a weather report by Dov: ‘Toronto, your business was terrible! it rained (or snowed, or was hot).’ …Any reason for slow business was due to the weather. And the solution was always the same: ‘Toronto, if your business doesn’t improve next week I’m coming up there and cutting off your (expletive).’

“There is no allocation department. That area is the lifeblood of specialty retail. So, instead of an algorithm for allocating, it is all Dov: ‘Send 5000 to the stores! Its gonna get cold soon so we need to send a lot of jackets to the stores!’ Product development is all done by Dov, as well. Nail polish is made in downtown LA. It is not FDA approved, and several bottles have exploded.”

Another anonymous comment: “Dov’s favorite lines to his employees: ‘I’m gonna make you bleed. I’m gonna break you in half. You’re a fraud.’”  It is all Dov, all the time. There is no one else running the store.

Another blatant example of abusive behavior towards his employees, and one for which Charney is being sued, was reported in a recent Bloomberg Businessweek article: “In November 2012, Michael Bumblis, a store manager in Malibu, had accused Charney of rubbing dirt in his face because Charney was displeased with the store’s condition and performance. Bumblis’s lawyer, Ilan Heimanson, says he informed the company of evidence of the confrontation beyond the accounts of witnesses. The stores had security cameras, and Bumblis had access to the video. Among the details in the complaint was a phone call Charney had supposedly made to Bumblis about his store’s poor sales. ‘Get your f-?-?-ing s-?-?- together, fag. Where is your f-?-?-ing creativity? Get some f-?-?-ing girls in bikinis to stand on PCH [Pacific Coast Highway] and have them wave a f-?-?-ing American flag. Are you a fag? Do you not want to see girls in bikinis? Are you banging that girl you were with in Vegas? What’s her name?’ American Apparel’s lawyer said in a filing that Bumblis was a poor-performing employee who was dismissed and that his story is ‘entirely contrived or wildly exaggerated.’

The article went on to say: “That case could bring other complications. Heimanson asked a Los Angeles court to try the case rather than send it to confidential arbitration, as American Apparel requires in all such matters. The judge ruled that the documents all American Apparel employees have to sign are ‘unconscionable,’ according to legal filings. The agreements forbid workers from filing claims against the company, talking about the company, or sharing any information about the personal life of the CEO. If they do, they risk being sued for $1 million. The company is appealing the ruling. If it stands, ‘we’ll be able to shine sunlight on the backroom dealings of American Apparel and Dov Charney,’ says Heimanson.”

The Unravelling

Following its IPO in 2007, Charney put his ambitions on steroids along with his chaotic, micro-managing behavior. This combination of a publicly traded company being run by an overzealous entrepreneur with zero management skills with a looming recession was bound to become a train wreck. A tipping point likely came in 2009 when an immigration audit forced him to lay off over half of his illegal factory workers. The subsequent disruptions to the business while replacement workers were hired and trained just exacerbated the declining business.

Between 2009 and 2013, the business consistently hemorrhaged money in addition to taking on costly debt, ballooning from under $100 million to around $250 million. In the last three fiscal years, American Apparel lost $270 million and its stock traded for under 50 cents earlier this year, down from $15 at the end of 2007.

In 2011, Lion Capital, one of American Apparel’s major lenders and a Charney supporter at the time, urged Charney to hire an experienced C-level apparel executive to stabilize the business, reorganize the infrastructure and operating functions, and to strategically put the business on a profitable growth trajectory.

Obviously in an attempt to protect their interests and ward off a potential disaster, Lion Capital reached out to Marty Staff, former successful CEO of JA Apparel (owner of the Joseph Abboud brand) and previously, CEO of Hugo Boss. In my opinion, Staff was precisely what Charney needed to turn the business around.

It was a doomed relationship from the start. First of all, Charney gave Staff the title of President of Business Development. And as I wrote in an article for The Robin Report upon Staff’s departure after only six months on the job, (American Apparel: A Last Chance Lost) that title didn’t even imply operating authority. Charney just continued to micromanage every part of the business, and Staff got frustrated and left. This is not unlike the turnover of many other capable operating executives who wouldn’t put up with the tumultuous and chaotic working environment where it was impossible for them to develop and implement sound strategies for achieving growth.

I also wrote in that October, 2011 article: “Quite frankly, it amazes me that as CEO of a publicly owned company, given American Apparel’s financial condition and his questionable and storied behavior, Charney still has a job.”

Indeed, Staff was a “last chance lost” as American Apparel continues its downward spiral.

Enter The Money Guys

Now the money guys are circling. Lion Capital is demanding payment of its $10 million loan at 20% interest. Following his ouster by the Board, Charney requested New York investment firm Standard General to do a financial deal, which he hopes will be a mechanism to reinsert himself back into the business. And I guess Standard General believes there’s still a viable business that if turned around, could end up being a smart investment.
Standard General’s deal with Charney provides an immediate infusion of $25 million to shore up American Apparel’s financial mess, including repayment of the Lion Capital loan. Charney gets to keep a 43% share in the company but relinquishes his ownership control to Standard General. His fate for returning in any capacity to American Apparel, including reinstatement to the Board, is pending an investigation into his conduct and alleged wrongdoings. The deal also includes a commitment to continue manufacturing the apparel in the US, which has been a strong marketing position for the brand from its inception. The Board will be recast and, amazingly, Charney will be a paid consultant during the investigation period.

My Advice: Dump Charney

My final perspective amidst the cacophony of the media storm around this dirty business and dirty joke is one of disgust. Lion Capital and Standard General as well as all other funding sources that have thrown money down this cesspool ought to have their heads examined. I’ve been around long enough to know that most investors, no matter how deeply they analyze companies, don’t have a clue as to how businesses are run. The “numbers, the numbers, the “numbers” is their war cry. At the end of the day, it’s not about making a better America, about creating real value, or about improving the economy. It’s about making money.

Okay so be it. We live in a capitalistic economy. But from day one when Dov Charney luckily hit on a hot idea, all anybody with any common sense had to conclude was that it was not ever a question of whether American Apparel would collapse under his ineptness. It was only a question of when.
And now that the end is near, it’s equally incredible to me that Charney is being kept on on as a consultant, or even as janitor, as he so flippantly suggested to the press. Whatever his capacity, he has demonstrated from American Apparel’s opening day that he is not only an abusive micromanager, but also incapable of sustaining profitable growth.

Regardless of the outcome of the current investigation, if the American Apparel brand has any chance of being turned around, I advise the Board: Open your eyes and dump Dov Charney. Now.

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...]

CVS: Blowing Smoke? Or Truly Concerned for our Health?

Judy-CVS_FINAL-imageI resent the fact that I can’t walk down a street in New York City without breathing in a potentially lethal amount of second-hand smoke. So imagine my satisfaction when, on February 5, CVS announced it was going to cease selling tobacco products at its 7,600 stores by October 1.

CVS Loses a Loyal Customer

I became a CVS customer about 30 years ago. I found the stores conveniently located, bright, clean, and easy to shop. The product assortment was excellent and well-priced, and the ExtraCare loyalty program, of which I was a charter member, was terrific. I started shopping there for my prescription and over-the-counter medications, health and beauty aids, and vitamins, eventually expanding to cereal, juice, sundries, holiday candy, and school supplies. As the years went on, I did a greater portion of our family shopping there, and each quarter I would receive a generous coupon of “extra bucks” — free money to spend in the store. [Read more...]

Re-Urbanizing America

Suburban Sprawl Gives Way to the Not-So-Mean Streets of the Big City

The Great American Dream isn’t dead, but it’s certainly on life support.

Shopping street Barfüßerstrasse of Marburg, Germany.After decades of unprecedented growth, suburbia has been surpassed by the inner city. It is — if you’ll excuse an old saying from my quasi-hippie days — where the action is! And that action is attracting an incredibly broad demographic — everyone from young professionals and singles to baby boomers who don’t want to end up living in God’s waiting room.

We have already seen the beginning of an inner city building boom by retailers who want a piece of the action and are willing to embrace the idea that bigger is not necessarily better or practical. Those who are late to the party or ignore this new urbanization should have no trouble finding new careers in the healthcare or dogwalking industries.

But to understand where we’re going we have to look at where we’ve been.

“White Flight”

Most historians concede that suburban life really took off in the late 1940s and early 1950s with GIs returning after World War II. This was the beginning of the so-called “white flight” to bucolic suburban settings where the kiddies were safe, stay-at-home moms traded recipes and child rearing advice across white picket fences and all was right with the world — far from the mean streets of New York, Chicago, St. Louis and L.A.

Those left behind, however, witnessed urban decay, a descent into the heart of darkness where once-vibrant neighborhoods became ghost towns after dark, street crime proliferated, empty stores were boarded up canvases for graffiti and the scent of dinner from apartment windows was replaced by the stench of urine, garbage and despair.

I didn’t read all this in some urban history book. I lived it in New York throughout the 1970s when muggers could elude police by ducking around piles of uncollected garbage. But the pendulum, I’m happy to say, has swung in the other direction.

In places like New York, Atlanta, L.A. and points in between, we are seeing the reanimation of city life and a retail renaissance that has drawn the attention of everyone from Costco and Home Depot to Walmart and a new generation of small but competitive neighborhood stores.

The New Normal

A temporary phenomenon? I think not. I believe the financial crisis of 2008 was a major turning point — a time when the dream of home ownership became a nightmare of foreclosures or at least unattainable for younger people. If you want to add another label to your already overburdened lexicon, forget about Millennials, Gen X, or Gen Y, What we’re seeing is “Generation Rent.”

This isn’t the end of suburban sprawl. Many people still yearn for the pastoral life and the retail industry is happy to oblige. But remember the old saying that retail follows the rooftops. Increasingly, those rooftops are urban high-rises and the impact on people and business will be tremendous.

But reurbanization, gentrification or whatever you call it has its dark side. It often displaces people who have lived in some neighborhoods for generations. For instance, take the Chinatowns or other ethnic enclaves that have been fixtures in cities like New York, San Francisco and London. Young professionals and Millennials are paying rents that have forced out long time residents. Such is the price of urban renewal or, as the novelist and playwright James Baldwin called it, “Negro removal.”

On another front, legal and illegal immigrant populations — now 40 million strong across the country — are growing rapidly and moving from their traditional central-city locations to the inner suburbs or ”exurbs” in order to find affordable housing. They are creating cities within cities.

Chinese Checkers

Of course, if you want an extreme example of reurbanization gone wild just look at China. For decades, millions of people were practically ordered off the farms and into the cities to bolster the country’s insatiable demand for industrial workers. People happily obliged in order to get lucrative factory jobs that would lift them from abject poverty. Now the government is encouraging people to leave the cities for rural areas to alleviate overcrowding and re-populate the interior. It’s like Chinese checkers but with real Chinese.

Reurbanization is an economic issue here as well. Gas and commutation prices and real estate taxes are so high in some areas that you can literally save thousands of dollars annually by moving to the inner city. Besides people like the “walkability” factor and are tired of the sedentary lifestyle that requires one to own a car or two. .Additionally, the number of married Americans continues to dwindle or people are getting married later and having smaller families.

In fact, due to the above factors and lingering economic uncertainly that some call “the new normal,” the US Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) forecast that by 2025, only 10% of new households will have children. Put another way, only 2.6 million of the 27 million new households to be formed will have children.

Other sources have gone even further, stating that by 2025, families with children will account for only 25% of all US households. Basically, the days of cheap money, cheap mortgages, cheap gas and long-term economic stability are over. As Yale economist and Nobel Laureate Robert Shiller has noted: “the heyday of the exurbs may well be behind us.”

Foundations for Growth

I’m not sure I agree and the reasons may be of interest to retailers formulating expansion plans over the next few years. It’s the far fringe suburbs that are in jeopardy for the reasons previously stated. The exurbs, in my definition are the inner-ring suburbs — places outside of city centers but accessible by public transportation or even bike paths. I believe these areas will be the foundations that support economic growth in cities across America.

Herein lies the conundrum for retailers who have erected those monuments to consumerism called malls and supercenters. They aren’t obsolete. But how many more of these pleasure palaces can you build before reaching the saturation point or the point of no return on investment?

The entire concept of retailing needs a refresh to compete in space-starved urban environments.

Some say retailing is retailing no matter where you are. For years, the mantra was “bigger is better” But urban living means give and take — giving up space and taking less home. Trust me. In New York closet space is scarcer than a parking space.

From the retail perspective, building in a city like New York means dealing with uncompromising union rules, convoluted fire and electrical codes and erratic deliveries. Getting timely deliveries is like planning the Normandy invasion. Only Allied forces never had to deal with parking violations.

Nonetheless, retailers like Target, Walmart, Costco and others have seen the future and are focusing more closely on smaller urban formats.

Urbanization is not a fad or a simple trend. It is an inevitable, unstoppable force. Retail will follow the rooftops in the cities as they have done in the suburbs, creating new jobs and becoming one of the foundations of urban economic growth. This in turn will hopefully contribute to a stronger infrastructure and, in turn, a better quality of life for everyone.

Kind of makes you wonder. America’s Heartland may not be where you think it is.

People Improvement is a New Frontier of Growth

In my last article, I addressed the importance of “individualizing” store growth plans based on each store’s metrics and specific DNA. Now, let’s discuss the next step in the process — looking further inside the “black box” to the individual associate’s performance to help each person reach his or her full potential as reliable, strong contributors to store growth.

Developing associates to be more productive has never been more important than right now! Retailers face increasing pressures on labor costs. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) forces companies to make hard decisions on full-time vs. part-time staff. Although many retailers remain committed to maintaining a core staff of full-timers, these higher costs must be offset somehow. Our answer is to systematically increase individual productivity. When associates learn and apply new skills to help more customers buy, and buy more, they dramatically offset increases in wages or benefits.career path

As we all know, retail boils down to customers and associates. Associates are the ultimate touch point — where their interactions with customers strongly influence the likelihood of hearing, “Yes, I’ll take it.” So what’s the best way to systematize individual performance improvement and develop more top sellers? [Read more...]

The Harder They Fall

ex_tiger_woods_watchConsumers love celebrities and are more than willing to fork over billions of dollars for things they endorse. But do you want them to land on your product when they fall from grace?

That multi-million dollar celebrity endorsement deal for your store’s organic clothing line is going gangbusters, with sales soaring 20% in just four weeks.

But then your squeaky clean, environmentally-active spokesman is caught in a sleazy hotel room wearing a sequined ball gown, with two underage prostitutes, a German shepherd and a bag full of crack cocaine. What now?

A little over the top? Maybe. But when it comes to celebrities nothing is impossible. As someone once said, “you pay your dime and take your chances.” [Read more...]

Unintended Consequences: The Price Race to the Bottom

mysupermarketConventional supermarket retailers can’t catch a break — even sometimes.

Conventional operators — Kroger, Safeway and the like — face a vast array of competition developing on all sides. That includes food purveyors such as deep discounters, mass merchants, membership clubs and restaurants, just to cite a few. Competition is always evolving with new strategies and new players, but one constant is that shoppers demand good value for low prices, and are quick to change stores if they think that’s not happening.

Regrettably for supermarkets, the battle for the low-price prize isn’t in their favor, and not just because of increased competition. The looming threat is really information: thanks to increasingly sophisticated online price-comparison websites and mobile apps, it’s getting easier for shoppers to take a look at several retailers’ price lineups before leaving home, or while in the supermarket.

Up to now, most online services compared prices among competing supermarkets in a defined geographical area so shoppers could make a convenient shopping choice or decide to patronize more than one local store in their quest for low prices. [Read more...]

How Do Changes in Brand Loyalty Shift Marketing Responsibilities?

The Robin REportSupermarket retailers are facing a sea change when it comes to how the products they sell are marketed. That responsibility is going to migrate from manufacturers to the retailers themselves before too long.

Why? Because supermarket shoppers are a fickle bunch. And nowhere is that more evident than in their fast-changing attitudes toward brands and their loyalty to them — or, to be more precise, their lack of brand loyalty.

Of course, brand loyalty has been fading for a long time, but for the first time, surveys of motivations behind consumer buying decisions show that a large majority of supermarket shoppers have no brand preference at all. Instead, they are prone to swing between brands, or to opt equally for specialty or store brands. [Read more...]

Land Of Opportunity To Barren Wasteland

rr_3-13_cover“Bubble Capitalism” Crushes the American Dream

Forget the cresting, breaking and other visible economic waves we discern on the surface of our economy — all accompanied by “cyclical” blathering of the dire necessity to create jobs and growth, and reduce debt and deficit spending.

While we blather, we’re blind. The less visible, stronger undercurrents of our dying free market capitalism that catapulted us to global economic dominance with the promise of an “American Dream” along with it, has been morphing into what I’m calling “bubble capitalism.” Some are calling it “crony capitalism,” which is equally descriptive. It’s just that bubbles are what the cronies feed off of. And it is crushing the American Dream by tipping the once-level playing field in favor of a narrowing segment of big finance and big business, aided and abetted by big government.

And let me be crystal clear. I am not whining for redistribution. I’m suggesting that if we don’t figure out a way to get back to good old democratic capitalism and its level playing field, we will have a barren wasteland in our future, albeit one that will be filled with a bunch of worthless stuff (popped bubble residue), scattered across a country that will look more and more like the third world. Think about three million empty, decaying and devalued houses following the leveraged-up mortgage crash of 2008. And what about the jobs lost, and spike in the number of people living below the poverty line?

Sorry, you want nice, you probably won’t find it in the Robin Report. We like to make wake-up calls. [Read more...]

Private Labels, Public Nuisances, and Captured Moments

rr_3-13_private_labelAll the recent hubbub over a certain Connecticut homemaker’s image and brand is only the tip of a major merchandising movement that is starting to consume the home furnishings field. As national brands continue to recede from the category—they are pretty much null and void in soft home categories, like sheets and towels, and hold a tenuous position at best in some smallappliance and housewares classifications—the ascendency of private and captured brands is nearing unprecedented levels.

The spectrum goes from the extreme of Kohl’s where virtually the entire home department is proprietarily branded, to stores like Target, and now Penney, where soft home is all private and hard home is mostly national brands—to ones like Macy’s and Bed Bath & Beyond where the assortments are still…well, assorted. [Read more...]

The Green Marketing Act

cell phone sales_greenYou got rid of the landline three years ago because two-thirds of your calls were from telemarketers. Then you downgraded your cable service wondering why you were paying so much for so little. Now you watch stuff on your Tablet and laptop more and more. And when the price of a New York Times went up to $2.50, you decided to read news online from a wider variety of sources, and like it decidedly better.

Today, you live a new kind of life than you did five years ago. You have several e-mail addresses so that you can filter the spam. The snail mail is more than 90% junk so you’ve even stopped opening it; the envelope gets a glance and often gets chucked. When you drive, it’s commercial-free Satellite Radio since traditional ads, with their crazy voices and incoherent offerings, drive you crazy. You loved Marc Gobé’s film, This Space Available, downgrading billboards, and outdoor media in general, to visual pollutant status. You take a pleasure in buying the store’s house brand, not because you have to, but because the ‘superiority’ of branded products is something you seriously question. We watch commercials at the Super Bowl and Oscars for the entertainment value and once in a while on YouTube; the rest of the time you conspire to avoid them. [Read more...]