Showing posts with label luxury goods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label luxury goods. Show all posts

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Designers want to control their brands

We've posted before about the havoc wrought by department stores, especially Saks, in taking panicky markdowns last fall, which many designers feel caused serious damage to their brand names.

Now some of the designers, according to this Wall Street Journal article, are seeking to regain control over their brands, and specifically over the pricing of their products. One tactics is to demand to be left out of "storewide" sales:

These days, many fashion brands are effecting their own pushback, demanding to be left out of department stores' sales. "All our brands are taking great care to ensure that what happened in November will not happen again," says Paola Milani, a spokeswoman for Gucci Group, which owns Bottega Veneta, Yves Saint Laurent, Gucci and other brands. "The idea is to maintain pricing coherence in the regions in which our products are sold regardless of channel of distribution." [ ... ]

Saks, which was a leader in last fall's discounting, declined to comment. But this week, notices for Saks's 25% off "Friends and Family" sale exclude, in the teensy fine print, more than 40 top luxury brands, including Gucci, Cartier, Chanel, Loro Piana, Oscar de la Renta, Zegna and Christian Louboutin.

One wonders if that will be legal if the Leegin decision is repealed, as Senator Kohl is demanding.

Other tactics include opening new stores, in order to reduce dependence on the department store channel:
Her company depends on department stores for 70% of its revenue, which was $273 million in 2008. But she would like to whittle that share down to 50%.

To that end, Eileen Fisher will open six new stores of its own this year in the U.S. -- slightly accelerated from an average of five new stores per year -- and is launching a costly new technology platform for Internet sales that will offer greater flexibility, allowing online customers to pick up items in stores, for instance.

Probably not a bad idea anyway, considering the current state of department stores. Another variation is opening leased departments within the d-stores.

Monday, February 09, 2009

Chaos in the luxury market

Wall Street Journal reports on the fallout from Saks's deep discounts on top fashion lines.
When Saks Fifth Avenue slashed prices by 70% on designer clothes before the holiday season even began, shoppers stampeded. "It was like the running of the bulls," says Kathryn Finney, who says she was knocked to the floor in New York's flagship store by someone lunging for a pair of $535 Manolo Blahnik shoes going for $160.

Saks' deep, mid-November markdowns were the first tug on a thread that's now unraveling long-established rules of the luxury-goods industry. The changes are bankrupting some firms, toppling longstanding agreements on pricing and distribution, and destroying the very air of exclusivity that designers are trying to sell.
Other high-end retailers followed suit, as did many of the designers who have their own retail outlets. But will consumers who grow accustomed to designer shoes at $160 be willing to pay $535 again when the recovery comes?

Besides creating a suspicion of high prices among consumers, Saks's actions broke the unwritten law under which designers and retailers operated: "Leave the goods at full price at least two months, and don't do markdowns until the very end of the season."

Some designers now are looking for ways to protect themselves in the future. Among the options being considered: Giving department stores only a limited assortment of goods, retaining the top items for their own outlets; or, operating leased departments with department stores.
... New York design house Derek Lam, which is known for cocktail dresses that sell from $1,200 to $3,500, is opening its own New York store next month. To protect itself against other retailers' discounts, it's thinking about creating "special editions" of its lines that wouldn't be sold in Saks and other retailers.
In hindsight, Saks admits that it may have over-reacted.
"We didn't need to do what we did in accessories," Mr. Frasch says. High-end shoes and handbags would probably have sold out, even at higher prices, because shoppers see them as more practical wardrobe updates than another new outfit.

The retailer is still not out of the woods. Saks shares were recently trading at $2.72, down from $22 in December 2007. In mid-January, it laid off 1,100 people, or 9% of its work force, and could close some stores.

This year, Saks is spending about 20% less on merchandise to keep inventories lower, but Mr. Frasch acknowledges the number is only a guess. The luxury-goods business is "absolutely flying blind," he says.

His boss, Mr. Sadove, agrees. "One of the big questions that people are asking," he says, is: "Will people ever buy at full price again?"

I'll be interested to see if the Saks approach or the Abercrombie & Fitch approach (refusing to cut price) is more successful.