Press Play >> now for a 45 second video message from Ken.
It seems like it’s the same old story when the monthly retail sales reports come out. The chains that have been doing well (like the new Kohl’s that I just visited) continue to maintain their comp sales growth and the others (like most department stores) can’t figure out what’s happening in the marketplace.
A couple of reports this month pointed out what’s wrong with these stores. It’s the brand, stupid! An article in the New York Times talked about Macy’s strategy backfiring and that the new consolidated brand had forgotten about what made May Co. and Marshall Field’s so successful. It went on to say that the reason customers weren’t going to the stores as much was because there weren’t enough “deals” (as in coupons and promotions) and therefore the customers were opting for other chains (like Kohl’s and Target). CEO Terry Lundgren stated that Macy’s moved “too far, too fast” from the promotions and basic merchandise (like Dockers) that the previous chains built their volume on and that they would have to “backtrack” to get some of those customers back. I don’t think that’s the problem and those customers that only shopped because of a coupon only accelerated the downfall of the previous department stores. Wouldn’t it be much better to give people a reason to shop at your stores other than the “stars” (like Martha Stewart and P Diddy?) have stuff there to sell? The new campaign for the “global Macy’s brand” really fell short in creating any reason to shop there or to expect a better experience than the specialty and discount chains have been offering. Department stores, when they were the heart of retailing, made shopping an exciting experience or at the very least a place for special purchases. As they have expanded and consolidated, there simply is nothing special about the stores. And a discount coupon or loads of 50% off Dockers or Liz Claiborne isn’t really special, particularly when they are always on sale. Who shops for regular price at a department store anyway? I happen to agree with the consolidation of all the former store names under the Macy’s logo. It is a legendary brand with a lot going for it. But all of these stores aren’t on Herald Square and the experience is nothing special. What Macy’s needs to figure out is what the brand should be so that it can have a special relationship (aka a brand) with its new and future customers. Until they define the brand better, all the coupons in the world won’t reverse the downward trend and the disgruntled customers of the former stores.
Another report came out that after 20 years, the Bombay Company’s new owners were abandoning the US and were just going to operate the Canadian stores. I knew the dollar in Canada had grown in value, but not that much! The articles generally stated that Bombay’s demise was due to its (and many other smaller stores’) failure to compete with the big box and larger specialty chains. That may be true but it’s not all a matter of size that matters. For the 20 years, I could never really figure out what Bombay’s reason for being (a key element to a successful brand) was and why anyone would shop there. Sure the stores were neat and the merchandise was nice, but why should I go there? They never developed a brand that was based on the customer and the result was that the chain was always “just there”. Maybe they will do better in Canada, but I am surprised that they lasted as long as they did. There are plenty of smaller sized chains (like Coach, Christopher and Banks, Hollister) that do very well because they have a great brand strategy and they execute it very well in the store, everyday.
Without a great brand strategy, a retailer can blame poor performance on a lot of other reasons (like the weather) but what they really need to do is take a good look inside and find out what they really stand for with the customer and then communicate that more effectively.
Recent Comments