A really bad time to be boring · Retail · Store closings

The critical question for struggling retailers: Too much store or not enough brand?

I suspect hardly anyone is surprised when an ailing retailer announces plans to shutter locations en masse. Across the last several years we’ve seen dozens of once mighty chains close hundreds of stores in hopes of staving off a trip to the retail graveyard.

Last week, having already closed some 120 stores in a bid to shrink to prosperity, Macy’s announced that it plans to eventually reduce the size of many of its under-performing stores. These “neighborhood stores” (four of which are currently being tested) will also undergo merchandising and service changes. In a Wall Street Journal article discussing the new strategy I was quoted as saying ““If you’ve got too much space, it means your brand isn’t resonating. It’s not a real estate problem, it’s a brand problem.” And while that quotation was a bit out of context and not meant specific to the viability of Macy’s new strategy, I do think it’s critical for retailers to be sure they are working on the right problem. From my experience, more times than not, a massive retrenchment of brick & mortar space is most often an indication of poor customer relevance, not bad real estate.

Of course, this does not mean retailers should not prune store locations and/or look to resize current (or planned future) locations. Clearly real estate decisions, be they specific location or size of footprint, need to reflect today’s consumer and competitive situation. And we know that the United States is, on average, significantly over-stored. We know that some retailers went a bit wild and crazy with store expansion plans in an era of cheap money. We know that the growth of e-commerce can often cause a radical rethink of physical asset deployment. Some store closings and some optimization of space is inevitable for most retailers.

If a consolidation of a retailer’s real estate portfolio, along with a robust digital strategy, results in a more remarkable customer experience that, in turn, leads to growing customer value then the strategy may well be sound. But this is rarely the case. Usually the shrinking to prosperity strategy is driven by a lack of physical store sales productivity which has been caused by losing market share to competitors with a better value proposition. So–at least in theory–you can improve productivity metrics by reducing the denominator. But that presumes that sales (the numerator) are at least stable. And the track record on that is poor. Show me a list of retailers that have cut their square footage massively in recent years and you’ve pretty much got a list of bankrupt or nearly bankrupt brands.

A lot of times Amazon–or e-commerce in general–is cited as the reason that retailers need a lot less square footage. Unfortunately this argument doesn’t hold up all that well. In turns out there are plenty of “traditional” retailers that have winning value propositions that are doing little if anything to the size of their stores. In fact many are opening stores. This is because their value proposition is unique, highly relevant, remarkable and well-harmonized across channels. I very much doubt Apple, Sephora, Costco, Nike, TJX, Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, among many others, will be announcing major contractions of their physical space anytime soon because their brands are more than big enough for their real estate.

Of course, the impact of e-commerce and shifting consumer preferences affect different categories quite differently, so there is no one size fits all prescription when it comes to any given retailers situation. Having said that, it always gives me pause when a brand that (allegedly) serves a large audience and derives most of its sales from brick & mortar locations discovers it must shut down a store in an otherwise well performing mall or in a trade area that has oodles of other “national” retailers that are not struggling in the least. Again, this suggests the problem is with the brand, not the location.

For Macy’s in particular, their neighborhood store strategy may well turn out to be value enhancing. Time will tell. But in some ways it is akin to admitting defeat in those trade areas unless other aspects of their overall digital strategy lead to meaningful market share growth.

When retailers get into trouble the easy thing to do is cut costs. Most struggling retailers have the expense optimization hammer and are always looking for the next nail. What’s harder, but ultimately far more important, is to become truly customer-obsessed and to invest behind being more remarkable than the competition. Until that happens, whether we are talking about Sears, JC Penney, Dillard’s, Kohl’s, Macy’s or any other brand that remains largely stuck in the boring middle, shrinking is not going to be the answer.

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.  

I’m honored to have been named one of the top 5 retail voices on LinkedIn.  Thanks to all of you that continue to follow and share my work.

A really bad time to be boring · Retail · Store closings

Sears: The world’s slowest liquidation sale picks up the pace

The Lampert Delusion might be a good name for a Robert Ludlum novel. Unfortunately it is more apropos of the apparent strategy Sears Holdings’ principal shareholder and CEO is employing to try to save the flailing retail chain.

Regular readers may remember that I have been calling Sears “the world’s slowest liquidation sale” since 2013 as it became clear that Lampert had no credible strategy to stop Sears and Kmart from sinking further into irrelevance–much less restoring them to meaningful profitability. Since then, nothing material has been done to get the brands back on track, and asset after asset has been unloaded to fund widening operating losses.

The good news — in one way of looking at it — is that Sears had significant fungible assets of decent value to raise cash and a more than cozy relationship with a few willing buyers. Unfortunately, in many cases, by the time Sears sells off something, it is doing so at fire-sale prices and in a manner that only further weakens its core business. Which is why my provocative post from 2014 is looking more prescient every day.

So while Lampert has been slinging strategic nonsense for over a decade, he has been able to keep Sears Holdings alive well past its expiration date. However, today’s action to close yet another bunch of stores is almost certain to accelerate Sears’ trip to the retail graveyard. Here’s why:

First, and most importantly, closing stores does precisely nothing to improve customer relevance. Neither Sears nor Kmart suffers from a “too many stores” problem. They suffer from being boring, irrelevant and poorly executed retail concepts. Tellingly, both have exited multiple markets and trade areas that lots of other similar retailers make work. There is a reason the Kohl’s or Macy’s or Home Depot down the street from the stores Sears is closing remain profitable, and it mostly comes down to customer relevance and remarkability.

Second, closing these stores does little to improve profitability. Sears lost $324 million in the first quarter on a 11.9% comparable store sales decline. You cannot possibly show me any math that suggests shuttering these stores will make a dent in those deeply disturbing statistics. Moreover, almost none of the volume lost from these closings will be made up online or in neighboring stores.

Third, as a practical matter, neither Sears nor Kmart is a national retailer anymore, and as they shed volume they deleverage or make inefficient their operating systems. As marketing moves further to digitization and personalization, national scale economics are less important, but they still matter.

The supply chain is highly dependent on scale. Continue to drop volume, and logistics costs as a percentage of revenue go up — or service must be cut, further weakening Sears’ competitive position. Sears has a lot of product that is home delivered. Take volume out of a delivery area, and costs go up or service must go down. As revenues continue to contract, vendors not only become worried about getting paid but also aren’t likely to focus product development and marketing resources on an ever-shrinking chain. It gets harder and harder for Sears to offer anything proprietary or unique in its merchandise assortments.

Fourth, a key point of differentiation for decades has been Sears’ proprietary brands, particularly Kenmore, Craftsman and Diehard. As these products get distribution elsewhere, Sears may generate some incremental cash, but it continues to give customers fewer reasons to shop in its stores or on its captive e-commerce sites.

The simple reality is this: Nothing of any consequence has been done or is being done that will materially reverse the downward trajectory of the company. Closing stores and selling off key elements of the business may slightly improve cash flow, but they further weaken Sears’ and Kmart’s value propositions. Operating losses remain huge with no end in sight. And Sears Holdings is quickly running out of things to raise significant cash.

In an ode to Hemingway, the way Sears will go bankrupt is gradually and then suddenly. Dead brand walking.

838634748_sears-store-750x500

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.  

On June 15 I will be doing a keynote at The Shopper Insights & Retail Activation Conference in Chicago.  For more on my speaking and workshops go here.

Being Remarkable · Reimagining Retail · Store closings

It’s just about time for full-on panic at J.C. Penney

It’s been a long sad slog for J.C. Penney. In 2011, after more than a decade of (at best) mediocre performance, the company brought in Ron Johnson from Apple as its new CEO. In what some saw as a bold attempt at transformation — and others saw as a misguided Hail Mary pass — retail’s latest savior changed just about everything all at once, and to put it mildly, the results were disastrous. Sales plummeted by about a third, the stock tanked, and Johnson was eventually shown the door.

Former CEO Mike Ullman returned to stabilize the rapidly deteriorating situation — which he did. Then in August 2015, Home Depot’s Marvin Ellison was brought in as the new CEO. In the more than five years since the Ron Johnson debacle, Penney’s has tried many things to claw back lost market share, improve profitability and become more relevant for a new generation. Very little of it has gained any traction. The stock, which traded around $40 when Johnson joined — and in the $20s when he left — sunk to just above $2 after a hugely disappointing quarterly earning report and the announcement that Ellison was leaving to join Lowe’s.

This is bad. Very bad. And I will be the first to admit that I am a bit surprised.

While it is clear that Penney’s is in some ways the poster child for “the collapse of the middle” that I frequently speak about, there were reasons to believe that Penney’s was well positioned to regain meaningful market share.

First, under Johnson, the company essentially fired one-third of its customers through a series of bone-headed moves. While it is difficult to win back customers in an intensely competitive market, I thought a decent subset would return once the obvious blunders were fixed. For the most part, it hasn’t happened.

Second, Sears, its most similar on-the-mall competitor, has closed hundreds of stores in the past few years — surely Penney’s would pick up a fair share. But if it has, it’s not so obvious.

Third, in addition to continuing to expand its successful Sephora in-store shops, Penney’s has added new products and services (including home appliances and mattresses) to attract new customers, drive incremental traffic and improve store productivity. So where’s the beef?

Fourth, after being a laggard in e-commerce and omni-channel, Penney’s has taken steps to elevate these capabilities. Yet the growth hasn’t followed.

Lastly, the categories in which it competes have performed pretty solidly the past few quarters. Penney’s failure to grow revenue at least 3-4% means it is losing share.

So Penney’s now finds itself in a situation where it has been engaged in years of cost cutting and store closings. There is very little gas left in that particular tank. The problem is no longer fundamentally about cost position or store footprint; it is about customer relevance and revenue. Penney’s finds itself in a situation where competitors have ceded hundreds of millions of dollars of sales through store closings, yet apparently little has migrated to its benefit. Penney’s finds itself in the middle of the best year in recent retail industry history, yet is struggles to keep pace. And now its CEO elects to leave.

It simply won’t get any easier from here.

While the seemingly imminent demise of Sears will provide incremental market share opportunities, we should not lose sight of the fact that the moderate department store sector continues to decline with no end in sight. Sales of online apparel are expected to double within the next few years, which will continue to pressure the economics of brick-and-mortar retailers that don’t execute a well-harmonized multi-channel strategy. Younger shoppers will become increasingly important to the overall fortunes of just about any retailer, and Penney’s has done little to contemporize its brand. And while Penney’s may have a few stores to close, mass store shutterings are almost certain to accelerate its decline. The best barometer of success going forward is robust trade area growth, derived from stable to slightly positive comp store sales and strong double-digit e-commerce growth.

Given the bifurcation of retail and the death of boring, J.C. Penney is a long way from being a remarkable and compelling retailer. Yet the positive retail cycle we are in and the likely shuttering of hundreds of directly competitive stores over the next six to 18 months will give the more-than-100-year-old brand an unprecedented opportunity to grab share. If it cannot improve its performance dramatically over the next few quarters, the issue won’t be whether a transformation is ever possible; it will be whether the once-stored retailer will even be around at any reasonable scale much longer.

And if that doesn’t incite panic, I don’t know what will.

jc-penney-store-1200xx2048-1152-0-107

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.  

On June 15 I will be doing a keynote at The Shopper Insights & Retail Activation Conference in Chicago.  For more on my speaking and workshops go here.

Consolidation · Reinventing Retail · Store closings

Sears: Dead brand walking

Recently Sears Holdings made several interesting announcements. First, it declared it was closing 63 more stores, in a continued false notion that it can shrink itself to prosperity. This is in addition to the 358 Sears and Kmarts already shuttered in 2017. Then it issued a press release detailing steps it’s taking to improve its financial structure, wherein it included operating results for the quarter. Despite over a decade of strategic restructuring, huge investments in its membership program and digital capabilities, closing hundreds of its worst locations–not to mention massive store closings on the part of many of its direct competitors–the company expected to report comparable store sales declines of 15.3% for the quarter and a loss of at least $525 million. Yikes!

Following all this, in what is likely to win the award for the most obvious prediction by a Wall Street investment analyst in modern history, Bill Dreher of Susquehanna opined that “Sears may never be profitable again.”

So while Sears apparently has a few folks willing to believe something good might still happen, the company continues to execute what I have long called “the world’s slowest liquidation sale.” In fact, Sears continues to act as if we’re all either gullible or stupid. Or perhaps both.

Despite growing signs of its imminent demise–or at least a complete collapse into a holding company with a small and decidedly mixed bag of residual assets–Sears Holdings CEO Eddie Lampert continues to put lipstick on the pig. A couple of weeks ago he took the Wall Street Journal to task for a rather harsh story by posting a retort on the company’s blog, in which he once again neglects to discuss anything that would meaningfully improve customer relevance, but goes to great lengths to highlight moves that are clearing perpetuating, if not accelerating, declining performance. And in what may be the surest sign that the company’s beleaguered CEO has no capacity for irony, the day after the company shared its horrible quarterly performance Sears announced it was opening two (count ’em two!) small format appliance & mattress stores.

The news at Sears went from bad to sad a long time ago. As I have recounted before, back in 2003 when I was part of the senior team working on trying to fix the department store business, it was abundantly clear that Sears’ concentration of assets (particularly for its home business) in regional malls was a significant and growing liability. It was also apparent that Sears had much more of a revenue problem that a cost problem. As we sit here fourteen years later, average store sales productivity has declined in virtually every quarter since I moved on from the outhouse to the penthouse (Neiman Marcus Group) and beyond. The major appliance and home improvement businesses, which once were incredibly profitable, are largely decimated. Years of cost cutting have made Sears’ stores an embarrassment. Market share continues to plummet.

In the spirit of full disclosure, our team did not come up with a compelling plan to turn around Sears, so for me it has always been an open question whether anybody could have saved them. I was certainly neither smart enough, nor powerful enough, to make it happen. But I have always hoped Lampert and team would figure it out.

In any event, at this point any notion that Sears can be saved in any way remotely resembling a major national retail brand is the pinnacle of wishful thinking. Yet some people still seem to hold out hope. It’s time to let that go.

Dead brand walking.

 

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 speaking gigs please go here.

Being Remarkable · Reinventing Retail · Store closings

Department stores aren’t going away, but 3 big things still need to happen

It’s been a long, slow slide for department stores. Starting some two decades ago, the major chains began leaking share to the big-box, off-the-mall players. Just as that started to stabilize somewhat, Amazon and other e-commerce pure-plays began chipping away at the sector’s once dominant position in apparel, accessories and home products. Most recently, in addition to the ongoing threat from online shopping, off-price chains have benefitted from a growing legacy of major chain mediocrity.

Unsurprisingly, investors have treated the sector like the plague. The market values of Macy’s, J.C. Penney, Sears, Dillard’s and Kohl’s have all plummeted. Even Nordstrom, which has performed relatively well, has seen its market value halved in the past couple of years. Just this past week J.C. Penney saw its shares, which were already off some 80% since 2013, plunge further after a surprise earnings warning. In addition, Sycamore looks to be picking at the carcass of Bon-Ton Stores and Lord & Taylor is selling its iconic Manhattan flagship to WeWork. And on and on.

For many, this unrelenting parade of bad news leads them to believe that department stores are toast. But just as the retail apocalypse narrative is nonsense, so is the notion that department stores are going away. I am willing to go out on a limb to say that a decade from now there will still be hundreds of large, multi-category brick-and-mortar stores operating in the United States and throughout the world. But despite this conviction, things are virtually certain to get worse before they get better and three major things must happen before any sort of equilibrium can be reached and decent profits can return.

Major space rationalization/consolidation. The overall retail industry is still reeling from decades of overbuilding, as well as the abject failure of most department store anchors to innovate to stay remotely relevant and remarkable. While the idea that major chains can shrink to prosperity is fundamentally misguided, it’s clear that a) most chains still have too many stores, b) the stores they have are, on average, larger than they need and c) there is no compelling reason for Sears, Kmart, Bon-Ton (and perhaps a few others) to exist at all. Many dozens, if not hundreds, of locations are certain to be whacked after the holiday season. And despite the liquidation sales that will put pressure on earnings in the first half of the calendar year, there is actually a real chance for year-over-year margin improvement by the time the holiday season rolls around this time next year.

A true commitment to be more focused, more innovative and more remarkable. It turns out department stores, like every other struggling retail brand, picked a really bad time to be so boring. It turns out that deferred innovation is even more crippling than deferred maintenance. It turns out that trying to be everything to just about everybody means being mostly irrelevant to a lot of folks. Given the certain continuing contraction of the sector, the only hope for remaining brands is to gain significant amounts of market share. And that only happens to any material degree by embracing intense customer-centricity to become more relevant to a tighter customer set and by consistently executing a far more remarkable experience than the competition. Continued flogging of me-too products, one-size fits all advertising, boring presentation and chasing the promiscuous shopper through promotion on top of promotion won’t cut it. Period. Full stop. The hard part is that most of the flailing brands are woefully far behind, lack a culture of innovation and simply don’t have the cash to do what it will take to right the ship.

Amazon needs to place its bet. It’s clear that Amazon has its sights set on being a much bigger player in apparel, accessories and home products. And it’s hard to see how Amazon gets speed, adds the necessary volume and addresses the vexing returns/supply chain issues without a major physical presence in the moderate and higher-end softlines arena. For that reason, I’m also willing to go out on a limb and predict that Amazon will buy a major department store player in 2018. And just as its acquisition of Whole Foods is transformative for the grocery industry, so too will be a much deeper brick-and-mortar (and omnichannel) presence in the department store sector. In fact, it’s hard to underestimate how a big move by Amazon here will reshape just about every imaginable facet.

While 2017 has brought more than its fair share of department store news–and we’re hardly finished–I see 2018 as being chock-a-block with not only profound news but likely representing the year when the future of the sector will become far more clear. Stay tuned.

jc-penney-store-1200xx2048-1152-0-107

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 speaking gigs please go here.

Omni-channel · Reinventing Retail · Store closings

Are mass store closings the start of an inevitable downward spiral?

At the recent inaugural ShopTalk Europe event in Copenhagen, Hudson’s Bay Company CEO Gerald Storch posited that retailers risk hastening their demise by taking an axe to their store counts. Clearly there are many factors that contribute to a brand’s march to the retail graveyard, yet there is mounting evidence that Storch’s observation is on the money. As I’ve said many times, show me a retailer that is shuttering a large number of outlets and chances are the intrinsic problem is not too many stores but that the brand is not sufficiently relevant and remarkable for the stores it has.

I first surfaced this concern more than four years ago in my post “Shrinking to prosperity: The store closing delusion” and revisited it more recently with an updated Forbes post. While in many cases store counts need to be rationalized to address the overbuilding of the past two decades and to optimize store footprints given the shift to e-commerce, with rare exception, the retailers that are closing a large number of stores are working on the wrong problem.

When physical retail still accounts for 75-90% of a category’s volume, it’s hard to understand how radical cuts in store counts help address a brand’s ability to maintain, much less grow, market share. When we know for a fact that brick & mortar locations are key to supporting a viable and growing e-commerce business (and vice versa), mothballing dozens (or even hundreds) of stores only serves to undermine a retailer’s ability to meet customers’ evolving omni-channel demands. When we recognize that it is often far cheaper to acquire and serve customers through physical stores, reducing store counts substantially can worsen a retailer’s long-term cost position. And, as Storch points out, mass store closings erode purchasing power and can send consumers a signal that a retail brand is on its way to oblivion, serving only to make matters worse.

In fact, I cannot come up with a single major retailer that has closed 20% or more of its stores and is now considered truly healthy. On the other hand, I can easily name many that went through multiple iterations of down-sizing that have either liquidated or are currently in bankruptcy proceedings–Sears Canada being the most recent example. I can also list many that seem to be in perpetual store closing mode (Sears US for one) that thus far have been spared a visit from the grim reaper yet continue to see their operating results deteriorate with little hope for resurrection. For many, sadly, it’s dead brand walking.

We should also ignore any analysis that tries to estimate the number of store closings that a retailer must undertake to get back to prior store productivity levels. First, anchoring success on past store productivity metrics is largely irrelevant as it ignores a store’s contribution to online volume growth. Minimally, we need to understand the growth and profitability of a trade area and incorporate both e-commerce and physical store performance. Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus–just to name two powerful examples–have seen their historical store productivity numbers weaken, yet they still have healthy financial performance overall. Second, any such analysis is merely a rote arithmetic exercise that erroneously assumes that massive store closings don’t have any adverse impact on e-commerce, nor make a brand less relevant and competitive in consumers’ minds nor serve to de-leverage fixed costs.

Ultimately, I don’t see a scenario where store closings will be the silver bullet that troubled retailers need to get back on track. They may be a key piece in a needed reinvention, but the critical work centers on taking the required actions to make these troubled brands sufficiently relevant and remarkable such that they can stem the share of wallet loss that got them into trouble in the first place.

Said differently, if sales are the problem, working on the cost side will never help breathe a dying retailer back to life.

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 speaking gigs please go here.

Being Remarkable · Reinventing Retail · Store closings

The Retail Apocalypse And The Urgent Quest For Remarkable

Some love the “retail apocalypse” narrative. It’s great clickbait, makes for captivating keynote speeches and gives consultants a hook to peddle complicated strategic frameworks. Alas, it’s mostly nonsense. Physical retail is definitely different, but it’s far from dead. The fact is plenty of new stores are opening, many traditional retailers and — I hope you are sitting down — even quite a few malls are doing great. Brick-and-mortar retail sales are likely to be up this year, just as they were last year.

Some retailers love hearing this alternative narrative because they think it means they will be okay, that they don’t have to change, that there is some storm they just have to ride out. Unfortunately, that is not only nonsense, it is dangerous nonsense. While physical retail is not dead, virtually every aspect of retail is changing dramatically, as this excellent pieceby Doug Stephens points out. While I believe Doug overstates a few things, his underlying premise is on the money. Almost everything has to change and the key thing to understand is that the future of retail will not be evenly distributed. Stated simply: yes, some brands will do well. But many others will struggle mightily, others will be eviscerated and quite a few are dead already, they just don’t know it.

Physical retail is not going away but unremarkable retail is getting hammered. The brands that relied on good enough are learning the hard way that good enough no longer is. The mediocre brands that were protected by scarcity of information, distribution and access are getting blown apart as the customer can now get the same product anytime, anywhere, anyway — and often for less money. The brands that tried to stake out a place in the vast wasteland between cheap and special are losing as retail becomes more bifurcated and it’s increasingly clear that it’s death in the middle.

By now, a few things should be abundantly clear:

Just because physical retail isn’t dead doesn’t mean you don’t have to change.

On average, more than 80% of retail will still be done in physical stores in 2025. Unfortunately, you can’t pay your bills with averages and your mileage will vary. The way the migration of sales away from physical stores to online will affect your competitive situation and marginal economics can have devastating consequences. Even small shifts can require the need for radical reinvention.

Stop blaming Amazon.

hile there is no question of Amazon’s dramatic and growing impact upon the retail ecosystem, most of the retail industry’s problems today have nothing to do with Amazon. Overbuilding, excessive discounting, boring product, unremarkable experiences and a fundamental lack of innovation are the main reasons that most retailers are struggling today.

It’s not just about e-commerce. 

The most disruptive force in retail is not e-commerce but the fact that most customer journeys start in a digital channel. In fact, digitally-influenced brick-and-mortar sales dwarf online sales.

You can’t out-Amazon Amazon. 

Pop quiz: Are you Walmart or Target? No? Okay, then stop trying to out-price, out-assort and out-convenience Amazon. To paraphrase Seth Godin: the problem with a race to the bottom is you might win.

Choose remarkable. 

Unless you are on the short list of brands that can be just about everything to everybody (and actually make money) your task is to get hyperfocused on a set of consumers for whom you can be intensely relevant and remarkable at scale. That likely means being far more experiential and blending the best of online and offline in a compelling and harmonized way.

Be prepared to blow stuff up. 

Remarkable is easier said than done. And most retailers suffer from bringing a knife to a gun fight when it comes to innovation. Much of what got us any level of success in the past isn’t going to work in the age of digital disruption. New thinking, new processes, new technology, new metrics and new people are table-stakes on the path to retail reinvention.

Hurry.

As the Chinese proverbs says, “the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.” Chances are you’re already behind and it’s far later than you think. The only choice then is to get started. Now. And go fast. Fail fast. Rinse and repeat.

The big problem is we think we have time.

purple cow

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 speaking gigs please go here.

Retail · Store closings · The Amazon Effect

Department store quarterly performance: Better isn’t the same as good

Last week we had five major department stores report their quarterly earnings: Macy’sKohl’sNordstromDillard’s and JCPenney. It was a decidedly mixed bag relative to both expectations and absolute performance. Yet many observers seemed encouraged by the overall improvement in sales trend. Yet the overall sector is still losing market share, just not at quite as fast a rate. Which begs the question, is less bad somehow good?

It’s clear that one must pull out of a dive before an ascent can begin. It’s also obvious that reducing the rate of descent is no guarantee of a resurrection. Better is simply not the same as good. So to understand whether recent results provide a dose of optimism or are merely noise, it’s worth looking more closely at a few key considerations.

More rationalization must occur. The sector has been in decline for two decades–and not because of Amazon or e-commerce. The main reason is that department stores failed to innovate. They focused on expense reduction and excessive promotions, instead of being more remarkable and relevant. That won’t be fixed easily or quickly. So, in the meantime, there is simply too much supply chasing contracting consumer demand. Sector profitability isn’t going to improve much until Sears goes away and additional location pruning on the part of remaining players occurs.

Yet physical retail is not going away. Brick & mortar retail is becoming very different, but it’s far from dead. There is no fundamental reason why any given department store cannot not have a viable operation with hundreds of physical locations, particularly when we realize that some 80% of all products in core department store categories are purchased offline.

You can’t shrink to prosperity. Wall Street seems to think that store closings are a panacea. They’re wrong. It’s one thing to right-size both store counts and individual store sizes in response to overbuilding and shifting consumer preferences. It’s another thing to make a brand’s value proposition fundamentally more relevant and remarkable. Department stores must spend more time working on giving consumers reasons to shop in the channels they have (note: excessive discounting doesn’t count) and abandon the idea that shuttering scores of locations is a silver bullet.

Same-store sales are an increasingly irrelevant metric. Wall Street needs to let go of its obsession with same-store performance as the be-all-end-all performance indicator. Any decent “omni-channel” retailer should be on its way to–or as is already true with Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus well past–more than 20% of its overall sales coming from e-commerce. So unless a retailer is gobbling up market share most of that business is coming from existing stores. The reality is that shifting consumer preferences are going to make it nearly impossible for many retailers (of any kind) to run positive store comps. That does not mean a brand cannot grow trade area market share and profits. And it doesn’t mean that a given store is not productive even if sales keep trending down. Stores drive online, and vice versa. Smart retailers understand this and focus on customer segment and trade area dynamics, not merely individual store performance in isolation.

It is going to take more than a couple of quarters to fully understand whether the department store sector has stabilized, much less turned the corner. As we look ahead, of the five that reported, Nordstrom is clearly the best positioned, both from the standpoint of having relevant and differentiated formats and possessing physical and digital assets that are the closest to being “right-sized” for the future. And call me crazy, but I sense that JC Penney is actually starting to gain some meaningful traction. Dillard’s is a mess and Macy’s and Kohl’s remain very much works in progress.

Regardless, with tepid consumer demand and over-capacity, no department store brand (and I’d include Neiman Marcus and Saks in the mix as well) does especially well until we see further consolidation. And even when that occurs, if department stores keep swimming in a sea of sameness and engaging in a promotional race to the bottom, they have zero chance of getting back to a sustainable, much less interesting, level of performance. Better is nice. Encouraging even. But it is simply not the same as good.

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

Being Remarkable · Forbes · Omni-channel · Store closings

Honey, I shrunk the store

While the “retail apocalypse” narrative is nonsense, it’s clear that we are witnessing a major contraction in traditional retail space. Store closings have tripled year over year and more surely loom on the horizon. The “death of the mall” narrative also tilts to the hyperbolic, but in many ways it is the end of the mall as we know it, as dozens close and even larger number are getting re-invented in ways big and small.

While the shrinking of store fleets gets a lot of attention, another dynamic is becoming important. Increasingly, major retailers are down-sizing the average size of their prototypical store. In some cases, this is a solid growth strategy. Traditional format economics often don’t allow for situating new locations in areas with very high rents or other challenging real estate circumstances. Target’s urban strategy is one good example. In other situations, smaller formats allow for a more targeted offering, as with Sephora’s new studio concept.

By far, however, the big driver is the impact of e-commerce. With many retailers seeing online sales growing beyond 10% of their overall revenues–and in cases like Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus north of 25%–brick & mortar productivity is declining. It therefore seems logical that retailers can safely shrink their store size to improve their overall economics.

Yet the notion that shrinking store size is an automatic gateway to better performance is just as misunderstood and fraught with danger as the idea that retailers can achieve prosperity through taking an axe to the size of their physical store fleets. To be sure, there are quite a few categories where physical stores are relatively unimportant to either the consumer’s purchase decision and/or the underlying ability to make a profit. Books, music, games and certain commodity lines of businesses are great examples. But brick & mortar stores are incredibly important to the customer journey for many other categories, whether the actual purchase is ultimately consummated in a physical location or online.

Often the ability to touch & feel the product, talk to a sales person or have immediate gratification are critical. In other cases, lower customer acquisition and supply chain costs make physical stores an essential piece of the overall economic equation. Shrinking the store base or the size of a given store can have material adverse effects on total market share and profit margins. For this reason, retailers are going to need (and Wall St. must understand) a set of new metrics.

The worst case scenario is that a brand makes itself increasingly irrelevant by having neither reasonable market coverage with its physical store count nor a compelling experience in each and every store it operates. Managing for sheer productivity while placing relevance and remarkability on the back burner is all too often the start of a downward spiral. Failing to understand that a compelling store presence helps a retailer’s online business (and vice versa) can lead to reducing both the number of stores and the size of stores beyond a minimally viable level. But enough about Sears.

In the immediate term, we may feel good that by shooting under-performing locations and shrinking store sizes through the pruning of “unproductive” merchandise we are able to drive margin rates higherAlas, increasing averages does nothing if we are losing ground over the long-term with the customers that matter.

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

 

Consolidation · Luxury · Store closings

The Kors/Jimmy Choo Deal May Usher In A New Era Of Retail Consolidation

Last week’s announcement that Michael Kors would buy luxury shoe and accessories brand Jimmy Choo comes on the heels (heh, heh) of Coach’s $2.4 billion deal to acquire Kate Spade. While this particular move is not in and of itself a catalyst for more merger & acquisition activity, there is a growing sense that various forces are converging to drive an acceleration in retail industry consolidation.

The biggest driver is the harsh reality that organic growth is getting harder and harder to come by. Most sectors of the luxury market have stalled and retailers across a spectrum of formats and price points are being confronted with the need to downsize their physical store footprints amidst retail overcapacity and a fundamental shift in consumer spending behavior. Many companies–and Coach and Kors are good examples of this–have hit a wall in how far their core brands can be stretched and expanded. Strategic acquisitions offer the potential to address different price points and/or reach new demographics that are not easily accessible by their primary banners. In Kors case, it looks like the Jimmy Choo deal will not be their last.

Another driver is the underlying dynamics of operating in today’s ever shifting, fast changing retail world. The power is shifting way from brands toward the consumer, away from retailers toward product brand owners, away from physical toward e-commerce and away from traditional mass market ways of reaching consumers toward all things digital. For many brands, a fundamental reinvention of their model is required and that necessitates new skills, increased scale, more speed and greater agility.

Accordingly, some recent transactions have been motivated by a desire for the acquiring brand to inject new talent and ideas into a moribund culture. Others are driven by a classic “make vs. buy” decisions or spurred by more opportunistic situations where a struggling player runs into the arms of a cash rich suitor. Walmart’s recent activity seems to be a little bit of all the above.

The aborted discussions between HBC and Neiman Marcus might be more illustrative of what the future holds. More and more, I expect to see traditional players come to the realization that their sector must be consolidated and rationalized as top line growth opportunities evaporate and it becomes clear that meaningful earnings growth can only come from taking out capacity, mitigating competitive intensity and better leveraging scale and scope. In some cases these transactions will come together through proactive, forward thinking leadership. Others will be triggered by the opportunity to acquire assets at fire sale prices when a competitor is struggling or files for bankruptcy.

Either way, with the ripple effects of disruption only growing stronger, the pace of activity is likely to quicken considerably. And it just may turn out that store closings are not the only big retail story this year.

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