Fashion · Luxury · Retail

Going Private Could Be The Best Thing To Ever Happen To Nordstrom — With One Big Caveat

Recently a roughly $8.4 billion offer from the Nordstrom family to take the namesake retailer private was rejected as inadequate. The deal now seems at risk as the special committee in charge of evaluating a potential transaction indicated that the price needed to be “substantially” and “promptly” improved upon or they would terminate further discussions.

While there is one major concern that looms large in any such deal, my hope is that the Nordstroms can get this done. While as a brand Nordstrom faces most of the same challenges that confront just about all retailers in this era of digital disruption, allowing the company to operate without the harsh and impatient glare of Wall Street could be a major long-term win. Here are a few key benefits to going private:

Avoiding the obsession with growth. The fact is that Nordstrom is fast becoming a relatively mature business. It has few new store openings to execute within its core concepts, it is very well penetrated in e-commerce, and there are not a ton of readily accessible wholly new categories (or geographies) to expand into. The Street’s obsession with growth for growth’s sake often pushes maturing brands to expand their core business too far (think Gap and J. Crew’s fashion missteps, Michael Kors’ distribution overexpansion, or Coach’s — and many others’ — over reliance on the outlet channel).

Minimizing the focus on largely irrelevant metrics. As I’ve been suggesting for many years, same (or comparable) store sales is an increasingly irrelevant metric, and as Brent Franson and I tackled more recently, the shifting nature of retail demands a whole new set of performance measures. Not having to be as concerned about monthly and quarterly reports will free Nordstrom to worry less about pleasing equity investors in the short term and enable greater focus on what they need to do to win over the long term.

Freedom to invest in physical retail. Despite the retail apocalypse narrative, physical retail is not dead; boring retail is. Fortunately Nordstrom has crafted a compelling digital presence, a well executed store model and a harmonious experience across channels. For the most part, Nordstrom full-line and Rack stores are in excellent real estate and it’s unlikely that they will have many store closings on the horizon despite the carnage around them. Nordstrom understands well that physical retail drives e-commerce and vice versa. The challenge is to continue evolving to address changing consumer demands, the emerging importance of younger shoppers and the convergence of digital and physical channels. To thrive Nordstrom must have both a remarkable digital experience and a remarkable brick & mortar experience. Despite what some in the investment community think, for some retailers additional investment in physical retail is not only necessary to keep pace, it is essential to maintain competitive advantage. Nordstrom is firmly in this category.

Ability to think long term and take prudent risks. While some investors are willing to take big bets on silly moon shots (but enough about Wayfair), those that invest in “traditional” retail tend to be more short-term focused and risk averse. Yet we live in a world where the future is getting harder and harder to predict and what will ultimately pay off may take years to become clear. Few retailers will survive, much less thrive, without leaning into more risk and establishing a strong test and learn culture. Historically Nordstrom has shown a willingness to be more innovative than most of its peers, including testing new formats (such as Nordstrom Local), buying emerging concepts (Haute Look and Trunk Club), as well as acquiring two technology companies just last week. While Nordstrom is largely past the capital intensive nature of their major investments in omni-channel infrastructure and expansion into Canada and New York City, there is every reason to believe that the future will require considerable investment and a greater tolerance for risk in order to stay truly remarkable.

Unlike most others in the largely undifferentiated department store space, Nordstrom already has a lot going for it and is not burdened with a crushing debt load like Neiman Marcus. Which brings me to the one big caveat.

Quite a few retailers have gotten into trouble by taking on too much debt through a private equity buyout. Unlike Toys R Us and others, which were struggling with the fundamentals of their core value proposition when they took on considerable leverage, the Nordstrom business model is fundamentally sound, the real estate portfolio is solid, and the management team is excellent and deeply experienced. Nevertheless, financial flexibility, as well as strategic and operating agility, will be key to navigating retail’s future. As mentioned above, Nordstrom is fortunate to have already done much of the heavy lifting where plenty of others are struggling to catch up. Yet, layering on substantial debt and interest payments may limit the company’s ability to make acquisitions and/or the technology investments to stay on the leading edge.

Fortunately the debt levels that are currently being contemplated don’t put the Nordstrom deal into the territory that ToysRUs and Neiman’s now find themselves. But obviously if the buyout price increases substantially it is likely the debt burden will as well. Investors also need to mindful of how well any company with considerable leverage would fare in a major economic downturn.

With any luck, a reasonable compromise can be achieved.

Fashion · Luxury · Retail

A tough agenda faces Neiman Marcus’ new CEO

Late last week the Neiman Marcus Group named former Ralph Lauren executive Geoffroy van Raemdonck as their new CEO, replacing company veteran Karen Katz (full disclosure: once my boss). While not terribly surprising given the company’s struggles under a mountain of debt, extremely rocky “NMG One” systems implementation and largely stagnant growth, the move does come at a critical time for North America’s leading luxury retailer.

As van Raemdonck takes the helm next month (and Katz moves to a Board position), he will be faced with addressing several important and vexing challenges. As I was SVP of strategy, business development & multi-channel marketing for the Neiman Marcus Group from 2004-08 (most of that time reporting to then CEO Burt Tansky) I have a somewhat unique perspective on what requires intense and urgent focus. Here’s my take:

Growing share in a mature and shifting market

As I wrote nearly a year ago, much of luxury retail has hit a wall. Many brands, including Neiman Marcus and its most direct competitor Saks Fifth Avenue, have struggled to grow both top and bottom line as core customers “age out” of peak spending years and very few new store locations exist. Neiman’s also has one of the highest e-commerce’s penetration in the industry and much of that growth is now merely channel shift.

Competition is also intensifying. In addition to the myriad online competitors, many of Neiman’s key vendors wisely continue to invest in direct-to-consumer growth strategies as they recognize the advantages of forging a direct relationship with consumers, the strategic brand control that operating their own stores and website affords and the opportunity for greater margins. Some are even pulling back from wholesale selling to create more exclusivity and more tightly managed distribution.

Affluent consumer behavior is also evolving markedly. After the financial crisis fewer customers seem willing to spend as conspicuously as before– despite a booming stock market and growing wealth inequality. Moreover, younger customers are starting to represent a growing percentage of the potential target market and clearly they are more digitally savvy, less logo conscious and don’t (yet?) seem to value the core elements of the luxury department store experience. All these factors create strong headwinds for Neiman Marcus’ hopes to restore significant revenue growth.

An overplayed hand

The work my customer insight team did on customer segment performance in 2007-08 revealed several alarming trends. While we were doing well with the uber-wealthy who tended to pay full price and were largely impervious to our raising average unit prices 7-9% per year, the rest of our business was weakening considerably and steadily. For customers who represented more than 2/3 of our profits, we were experiencing decreasing customer counts and lower transaction levels every year. In fact, literally all of our comparable store growth in the prior 5 years could be explained by the growth in average unit retail. While this was tolerated (and maybe even appreciated) by our very best customers, we were leaking business to Nordstrom (and others) as many very good customers found our ever increasing prices to be too high and our customer experience frequently lacking.

The strategy that had gotten Neiman’s to a leadership position was starting to run out of gas. Until the financial crisis hit (and Burt Tansky retired) little of substance was done to address this growing issue. While Karen Katz has made some inroads during her tenure, the brand still suffers from too narrow a customer base and little demonstrated ability to grow customer and transaction counts. This is the single biggest strategic challenge facing the company over the long term.

Unsustainable debt load

Neiman’s private equity owners paid way too much and saddled the company with a debt level that, unaddressed, will bring the company to its knees. There is simply no way for the brand to earn its way out of the problem. It is merely a matter of time before a significant restructuring of some sort must take place. The sooner this gets resolved the better, but thus far, despite the obviousness of the issue, neither the equity or debt holders have been willing to take the necessary haircut. Hope is not a strategy.

Limited degrees of freedom and flexibility

While Neiman’s has seen their operating performance improve somewhat, macro-economic factors explain much of it and there can be no certainly of that continuing. The fact is that the only way Neiman’s performance improves markedly is for them to start gaining significant share in a mostly flat market. That will almost certainly require substantial investment in new technology, re-inventing the customer experience at retail and extending their digital capabilities. Saddled with large debt and interest payments, the company will be severely constrained in having the cash to do what it will take.

Attracting younger customers and executing the ‘customer trapeze’

While demographically oriented strategies are typically overly simplistic, demographics ARE destiny over the long-term. For Neiman Marcus to thrive in the future they must navigate what I like to call the ‘customer trapeze.’  They must deftly do their best to optimize value from their historical high spending core customers–who tend to be older, love the traditional in-store shopping experience and prefer the highest end brands– while simultaneously doing a much better job of attracting new customers who are largely “digital first” shoppers, prefer more relaxed and democratic personal service and tend to spend considerably less on average. Getting this portfolio right isn’t easy and will require Neiman’s to literally take significant share away from some very formidable competitors whose brands’ are currently better aligned with younger, more aspirational shoppers’ needs and values.

An inevitable merger with Saks?

Many people believe that both Neiman’s and Sak’s fundamentally have too many stores. They are wrong. Because of incredibly favorable rent deals and developer capital contributions, the break-even volumes for most stores are very reasonable. Even if their physical stores were to lose 10% of their volume you could count the number of stores that would be cash negative on one hand. More importantly, stores are critical to helping support the online business, which is nearly a third of Neiman Marcus’ total volume. We understood this relationship well when I worked there–and this dynamic has only gotten far stronger. Closing stores, for the most part, would weaken the brand, not help it.

Having said that, a long rumored merger with Saks holds the potential for value creation. There are some geographies where having Saks and Neiman Marcus duke it out directly only leads to mediocre profits for both, particularly as more business moves online. Rationalizing locations would increase the overall profit pool. Opportunities for eliminating redundant overhead are hardly trivial. Alas, the challenges of both companies’ current capital structures make this conceptually valid merger more complex than it might otherwise be.

Cultural pushback

When I joined the Neiman Marcus executive team one of the first things I noticed was how strong the culture was. This was good and bad. The good part was that most folks had worked together for a long time and the company was a well oiled execution machine. The bad parts were exactly the same thing. Strategy played second fiddle to execution, many senior managers lacked the requisite external perspective and, consequently, there were many blindspots.

Innovation as a discipline was also incredibly under-valued. Karen Katz deserves praise for moving the company forward on many of these fronts, but some of what is needed to take the company to the next level is not inherent to its DNA. van Raemdonck is the first outsider to run the company in some time. I expect a rocky road generally, as well as some departures of high level, long-tenured executives.

Unlike many decades old brands that are struggling mightily, Neiman has many strong core elements. And that’s clearly an advantage as van Raemdonck sets his agenda. Unfortunately, Neiman’s historical strengths are also at the center of many of its go-forward challenges. Until the debt issue is resolved, even under a best case scenario, their new leader will likely be hamstrung to move as quickly as he would like, not to mention at the pace that the company desperately needs.

A version of this story appeared at Forbes, where I am a retail contributor. You can check out more of my posts and follow me here.  

For information on keynote speaking and workshops please go here.

Fashion · Luxury · Omni-channel · Retail

Should Hudson Bay Buy Neiman Marcus? The Case For And Against.

Tuesday morning the Neiman Marcus Group reported another quarter of disappointing financial results and announced that it was going to “explore strategic alternatives.”

To be sure, some of Neiman’s problems are idiosyncratic, largely owing to a botched systems implementation and a now crushing debt load taken on in a 2013 private equity buyout. Yet the brand’s continuing struggles also underscore how luxury retail has hit the wall and how it now seems increasingly likely that the storied company may need to run into the arms of yet another owner.

Recent reports have suggested that the Hudson’s Bay Company was hot on the trail of Macy’s. Yet to many, the notion that HBC would acquire a badly wounded company several times its size, seemed a bit crazy. But the rationale for HBC–the owner of Saks Fifth Avenue and Gilt–to acquire Neiman’s seems, at least at face value, more strategically sound and (perhaps) more easily financed.

When I worked for Neiman Marcus as the head of strategy and corporate marketing we took a hard look at acquiring Saks. Years later, many of the pros and cons of combining the #1 and #2 luxury department stores remain the same.

The Case For

It seems increasingly obvious that the luxury department store sector is quite mature. While e-commerce is growing (now representing 31% of Neiman’s total revenues), most of that is now merely channel shift. Moreover, there are virtually no new full-line store opportunities for either Saks or Neiman’s, and the jury remains out whether or not US brands can find a meaningful number of store openings outside their home markets. Shifting demographics also do not bode well for long-term sector growth.

Faced with this reality, consolidation makes a lot of sense. If Saks were to merge with Neiman’s there would be considerable cost savings from combining many areas of operations. Rationalization of the supply chain would yield material savings as well. Managing the two brands as a cohesive portfolio would allow for optimization of marketing spending and promotional activity. There might even be some benefits from combining buying power to extract greater margins from vendors. Less tangible, but potentially meaningful, is the ability to cascade best practices from each organization.

The more interesting benefits could come from addressing store overlaps. As the market matures and more sales move online, there will be a growing number of trade areas (and specific mall locations) where Saks and Neiman’s going head-to-head only waters down the profitability of each respective location. Selectively closing stores and redeploying that real estate could drive up the remaining locations’ profitability dramatically, while unlocking the underlying real estate value of certain locations. All of which certainly plays into Richard Baker’s (HBC’s Chairman) strengths.

The Case Against

By far the most challenging element of any buyout of Neiman’s by HBC (or by anyone for that matter) would be the price and the related financing. Neiman’s was sold in 2013 for $6 billion dollars and still carries about $5 billion in debt. Since the buyout the company’s EBITDA has gone south, with no prospect for an imminent major turnaround. Given the maturity of the sector and the company’s recent weak operating performance, it’s hard to see why anyone would pay the sort of multiple that would make the current equity and/or debt owners whole.

Unless the real estate value can be unlocked in a transformative way, the only rationale for a merger hinges on the ability to generate operational efficiencies and optimize trade area by trade area market performance. With regard to the former, this isn’t trivial. The Saks and Neiman’s cultures are very different. To say one is very New York and the other is very Texas merely hints at the challenges. It’s easy to sketch out the synergies on paper. Making them actually happen is another thing entirely.

With regard to the latter, the fact is that Saks and Neiman’s are very similar concepts (though Neiman’s historically has been operated far better). When I was at Neiman’s we struggled with how we would operate two virtually identical brands often operating in the same mall–or in places like San Francisco, Beverly Hills, Boston and Chicago–just down the street. Even if we could get out of a lease (or sell the store), would closing a shared location actually be accretive to earnings? If we continued to go head-to-head could we shift the positioning of each brand enough to actually grow market share and profits. Ultimately, other issues trumped this particular concern, but this issue isn’t trivial either and the degree to which it is important mostly comes back to the ultimate price to get a deal done.

Without access to proprietary data it’s impossible to completely assess the likelihood of an HBC/Neiman’s deal. But it seems increasingly likely that something dramatic needs to happen with Neiman’s capital structure and it’s difficult to imagine how another leveraged buyout gets done with private equity sponsors. And it’s hard to see another strategic buyer that makes much sense. More and more, HBC looks like the only game in town.

A version of this story appeared at Forbes, where I am a retail contributor. You can check out more of my posts here.

Fashion · Holiday Sales · Innovation · Leadership · Luxury

Neiman Marcus & Target: A glorious failure

“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”

–  Samuel Beckett

If you pay attention to this sort of thing, you know that several months back Neiman Marcus and Target made a big splash when they announced a partnership to jointly market a limited collection of fashion items for the holidays. This announcement was followed by a lot of PR hoopla and a high-profile television and social media advertising campaign.

And guess what? It was a bust.

The product offering failed to generate the sales frenzy that past designer collaborations from Tar-zhay have, and the merchandise has been marked down 50 – 70%. The media are now out with their post-mortem bashings, many taking the “I knew it was a bad idea all along” route.

Having previously led strategy and corporate marketing at Neiman Marcus for several years, I’ve gotten plenty of questions about my take on the strategy and its execution (NOTE: full disclosure, I remain a Neiman’s investor). Frankly, I think much of the criticism misses the mark entirely.

Clearly, a lot of the execution was messed up. Prices were generally too high, designer brands were extended too broadly and some of the product was just plain goofy: a $50 Rag & Bone boys’ sweater? That was never a good idea.

Big picture, however, the concept was fundamentally good for both Target and Neiman’s. Target is well-known for enhancing its fashion cred with such partnerships; so for them, this was a no-brainer. If they made any money on it, all the better. But the real value is in brand enhancement.

For Neiman Marcus, the strategic value may be less obvious but, in essence, their foray into “mass-tige” is no different from Karl Lagerfeld or Jimmy Choo doing their special offerings at H&M. The goal is to generate buzz and expose their brands to a demographic that they need to cultivate for the long-term. Forging a longer-term and/or more broad partnership would be dumb. But experiments, such as what was tried here, can be shrewd moves indeed.

Which brings me to my last point. What gratifies me the most is that Neiman’s actually tried something bold and, arguably, counter-intuitive. Neiman Marcus’ last CEO–and my former boss–Burt Tansky was a brilliant merchant and remains a luxury and fashion industry icon–and rightly so. But he was hardly a risk-taker and fundamentally not wired to say ‘yes’ to strategic innovation. Kudos to Karen Katz and her team for being willing to push the envelope.

It’s so very easy to label something a failure after the fact and to castigate management for its ineptitude. The far easier path for leaders of course is to never try. You rarely get criticized for the things you didn’t do.

It’s a terrible strategy to eliminate the possibility of failure. Great companies and great leaders are not characterized by an absence of failure.

Without trying, there is no growth. Without failure, there is no learning. The key is to fail better.

So was the Neiman Marcus and Target partnership a failure? In the immediate-term, definitely. But the overall grade from where I sit is “Incomplete.”

If the lesson Neiman Marcus takes away from this project–and it is a project, not a strategy–is to pull back on innovation, to stop experimenting, than it will be a huge waste of time and resources. If it strengthens their resolve, if they apply their learning to improve the process of innovation, than it will be the most glorious of failures.

Fashion · Growth · Luxury

Out of Barneys’ rubble: What’s next for luxury fashion’s biggest boutique

Yesterday Barneys New York averted yet another trip to bankruptcy court through a major restructuring deal that converted most of their debt to equity (

Unless you work at Istithmar–the PE firm that paid more than $940MM for Barneys in 2007 (oops!)–or owned Barneys debt, this is a big deal (pun intended). Barneys no longer has to divert the majority of its cash to service debt and now has greater capacity to improve existing operations and focus resources on growth.

So we’re good now, right? Not so fast.

To be sure, buying a marquee brand at fire sale prices sets up Barneys new class of equity owners for potentially high returns. And newish CEO Mark Lee has done a solid job of executing the basics and going after the proverbial low-hanging fruit. But we need to deal with a few facts.

We should not forget that Barneys recent improved performance comes at a time when virtually all luxury brands have performed well as the US market recovers from the devastating effects of the recession. As the market returns to 2007 levels–and we’re pretty much there–the reality is that the US luxury market is pretty mature.  Maintaining outsized revenue growth in the future is mostly going to need to come from market share gains and/or new stores.

The more looming reality is that Barneys is basically a 2 1/2 store chain. It’s no big secret that the New York and Beverly Hills stores drive the majority of profits while the Chicago flagship is a solid, but way less significant contributor. But expansions of flagship stores to markets like Scottsdale and Dallas have been disasters, and the Co-op stores have had decidedly mixed results.

Yes, Barneys expanded to markets like Las Vegas at precisely the worst time and yes, there have been execution follies along the way. But the bigger issue is that Barneys, as currently envisioned, is basically a big boutique. Unlike Neiman Marcus and Saks, which play in a full-range of affluent customer price points and target multiple lifestyles, Barney’s is tightly focused on a more specific customer from both a fashion point of view and price range.  In huge fashion markets like New York and LA, they can thrive. In smaller markets, faced with long-standing department store and boutique competition, it’s much, much harder.

Barneys has tried to correct for this by building smaller stores. While the stores are beautiful and contain a lot of great product, they mostly end up looking like a smaller boutique concept trying to fill up too big a space. So far, in markets like Dallas and Scottsdale, customers seem to agree.

For Barneys to profitably and meaningfully move beyond more than a handful of cities they are going to have to address a wider market while still maintaining a strong sense of their unique DNA and brand image. Faced with strong omni-channel competition like Saks, Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom–not to mention a whole host of e-commerce only players and local boutiques–that is no easy task.



Fashion · Luxury · Retail

Don’t confuse members with customers

Thanks to the so-called flash-sales sites we now have a distorted definition of what being a member means. Before Gilt, RueLaLa and the myriad “private” e-commerce business wanna-bees, gaining membership in something typically meant you needed to actually do something more than have an email address and a pulse.

By now it should be clear to everyone that membership to these sites is simply a marketing gimmick. And an effective one at that.

But beyond semantics, the key issue is really how many of these members are actually customers? And of the actual customers, how many have bought more than once in the last year and how many are actually profitable (or have the potential to be)? You don’t have to tumble too many numbers to realize how shallow the customer base for most of these sites must be.

With competition heating up, and overall core sector growth flattening, it won’t be long before some investors become quite unhappy indeed.

Customer Growth Strategy · Fashion · Luxury · Omni-channel · Retail · Uncategorized · Winning on Experience

Luxury’s back!!! Uh, not so fast.

With last quarter’s improved earnings–and a string of positive same-store sales reports–many have declared that the luxury market is once again booming.

While there is no question that business is on fire in developing luxury markets like China, the results in mature markets suggest a business that IS dramatically improved–and on a much more positive trajectory–but recovered? I beg to differ.

Better is not the same as good.  Let’s look at a few examples.

Neiman Marcus (full disclosure: my former employer and I still own an equity stake) is the clear leader in full-line luxury retail and today reported a December sales increase of 4.7%  In their most recently released quarterly earnings, Neiman’s reported a 7% same-store sales increase and a 33% increase in operating earnings compared to last year.

Today Saks reported a 11.8% increase in December sale-store sales.  In their last quarterly report, they showed a year over year sales increase of 4% and a doubling of their operating income.

This is all sounds pretty good until you compare these results to the same period just before the recession started.  Compared to the comparable quarter in 2007, Neiman’s sales are 18% below where they were–and this is after opening several new stores and having a rapidly growing e-commerce business.  More dramatically their quarterly earnings are still only half of what they were at their 2007 peak.

Same basic story at Saks: their sales are still down some 17% compared to 2007 (though they have closed a few full-line stores) and pre-tax operating earnings are down 30%.

Nordstrom–the best in class “accessible luxury” player–was affected less during the recession and has bounced back more strongly.  Their overall sales are pulling ahead of 2007, buoyed by new store openings, a leading omni-channel capability and a more broadly accessible offering.  While they have clearly gained market share, their earning are still about a third less than they were three years ago.

I have little doubt that virtually every player catering to the high end will report significantly improved earnings this next reporting period. And I’m delighted to see this positive trend.  But very few will have truly recovered.

A complete recovery will require more than just return of the ultra-high net worth customers and a bounce off the bottom.  It’s going to take a broader consumer recovery.  It’s going to take a better in-store customer experience.  It’s going to take building in more tangible value to the merchandise offering.  It’s going to take making the brand more accessible, while preserving the core customer.  It’s going to take a more compelling omni-channel strategy.  Fundamentally, it’s going to mean that all these players become more customer-centric rather than product-centric.

It can happen–it needs to happen–but it won’t fully happen anytime soon.

I had some surgery a couple of years ago and for some time I was hobbling around, feeling a fair amount of pain.  I realized–as did those around me–that each day I was feeling a little bit better.  And that was good.  But while I was still limping, nobody was deluded that I had completely recovered.

When it comes to the luxury recovery, let’s not kids ourselves either.


Being Remarkable · Brand Marketing · Fashion · Growth · Leadership · Luxury

Luxury’s Flight to Quality

Hermes. Bulgari. Louis Vuitton. PPR (owner of Gucci and Bottega Veneta). Richemont.  All have recently reported strong profits.

Clearly, these firms have benefitted from their growing presence in the booming Asian luxury markets. But something else is going on. I believe this dazzling performance during a worldwide recession is about more than their global footprint.

All of these brands represent a powerful legacy of craftsmanship, of superior materials, of timelessness.  Unquestionably these products are expensive, yet time and time again, consumers choose them over much less costly options or similarly priced more trendy alternatives.

Because the affluent consumer’s capacity and willingness to spend remains constrained, brands must work even harder to capture a disproportionate share of the available wallet.  These heritage luxury brands are getting more than their fair share in a flight to quality.  They have taken a purchase which could be seen as a splurge and made it a seemingly sensible choice.

Of course, regardless of the price point, any brand wins because the consumer sees a strong price/value relationship.  And let’s face it, it’s easy to run a sale, offer extra loyalty points or give away a gift with purchase to drive short-term revenue.

Spending the money, making the hard choices, having the patience to build an investment quality to your brand–well that takes something extra.  It takes leadership, vision and courage to build something truly remarkable and enduring.

What’s your choice?


Customer Growth Strategy · Customer Insight · Customer-centric · Engagement · Fashion · Growth · Innovation · Leadership · Luxury · Retail · Social Media · Winning on Experience

Reset! Engaging Customers in the New Normal

If you missed the webinar that Jon Giegengack and I conducted earlier this week entitled Engaging Consumers and Growing Market Share in the “New Normal,” the recording of the session and presentation deck are now both available.

Webinar recording:

Webinar deck:

[tweetmeme source= stevenpdennis]

Engagement · Fashion · Loyalty Marketing · Luxury · Retail

Members only? Or “Members Only” jacket?

A powerful component of customer engagement is providing scarce, exclusive and relevant experiences that reinforce your brand positioning.

“Members Only” or “By Invitation Only” marketing programs can be compelling messages that tell your customer that you truly appreciate their business.   For years leading luxury retailers such as Bergdorf Goodman and Barney’s have feted their best customers with private lunches, exclusive parties or access to fashion designer “meet and greets.”  More accessible retailers like J. Crew and Nordstrom use their loyalty programs to reward members with unique privileges such as free alterations, early notice of new merchandise arrivals or special shopping hours.  In all cases, the customer is granted access based upon some meaningful qualification, typically spending level or loyalty.

But another kind of marketing seems to be gaining momentum, and it’s best illustrated by the flash-sales sites such as GiltGroupe, HauteLook and BeyondTheRack.  These businesses are growing dramatically–RueLaLa recently reported that their sales doubled year over year–and one of their hooks is that their low prices are for “members only.”   So what does one have to do to qualify to be a member?  Having a legitimate e-mail address is just about all it takes.

In the early 1980’s “Members Only” jackets quickly became all the rage.  If you wanted the world to know how cool you were, a “Members Only” jacket gave you quick access to an exclusive club.  But it wasn’t long before just about everybody had one and what propelled the brand soon eviscerated it.

There is ample evidence that, for a while, you can get away with hooking customers with faux exclusivity.  But just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.  Deep levels of engagement and loyalty are not built on smoke and mirrors; rather they are built on forging relationships rooted in respect and trust.

Authenticity matters.

Does your marketing look more Members Only or more “Members Only” Jacket?

[tweetmeme source= stevenpdennis]