Posts Tagged 'Macy’s'

Macy’s reshuffles the merchant deck

Macy’s new CEO Jeff Gennette announced yesterday the hiring of a new president (with background at eBay and Home Depot) and the restructuring of its merchant organization. The company also announced plans to grow its private brand penetration from 29% to 40%. Here’s my comment from a recent RetailWire discussion:

I’ll start with this point: Growing private-brand penetration from 29% to 40% will only drive Macy’s sales if the company gets the merchandise content right. I’d argue that there are already too many private brands and lack of clarity between them, especially in women’s apparel. Macy’s execs may be able to tell the difference, but I doubt the average shopper can define what Karen Scott vs. Style & Co. vs. Charter Club (and so forth) really stand for. Let’s face it: Most stores trying to grow their private label business are doing it as a margin play, not a loyalty tool, and it’s often moved the sales needle in the wrong direction.

As to the new hires and restructuring: It’s clear that Macy’s is doubling down on omnichannel with the hiring of Mr. Lawton. It’s also clear that streamlining its merchant organization is meant to bring more speed to the decision-making process. Let’s see if the new team can tackle those “clarity of offer” problems after all.

Second quarter sales show a pulse

The stock market did not react well to most stores’ second quarter earnings, but there were hints of improvement from most retailers. My comment below (from RetailWire) focuses on Nordstrom in particular but several other stores show signs of figuring out omnichannel too:

The results of Nordstrom’s Anniversary Sale (and the “less bad” sales reports from Macy’s and Kohl’s) may point toward a stronger second half than expected. It’s too early to tell if we’re seeing a full-fledged revival of women’s apparel sales (still reported as a weak spot on Kohl’s earnings call), but the Nordstrom numbers are encouraging.

I shopped the Anniversary Sale in a couple of markets, and you’d be hard pressed to find a robust sale offering in men’s or women’s — so there must have been some traffic-driven regular-price selling in the mix. Hats off to Nordstrom for sticking to its promotional discipline, and for continuing to ride the success of its Rack and e-commerce businesses.

Thoughts on the QVC-HSN merger

Here are some quick impressions that I posted on RetailWire about QVC’s plan to acquire HSN. “Home shopping” has lost its novelty — especially as TV viewers cut the cable cord — so the combined company faces some daunting challenges:

The initial benefit of the QVC-HSN merger comes from economies of scale in a mature segment. (It’s the same kind of play that Macy’s made for May Company several years ago, recognizing the lack of organic growth in traditional department stores.) But it’s clear that home shopping (via TV) is not where the action is. It’s up to QVC to figure out how to translate the “treasure hunt” experience of off-pricers to its model, and especially how to engage mobile shoppers at its site. It becomes an urgent challenge as more consumers (especially younger ones) continue to cut the cable cord.

Is Amazon Prime Wardrobe another disruptive move?

Amazon is introducing a new feature for Prime members: Risk-free trial of several apparel items with the ability to return what you don’t like. (And price incentives to keep more of what you chose.) RetailWire panelists mostly see this as another Amazon “game changer,” but I view it a bit differently as their response to the lack of physical stores:

If Amazon aspires to be the top seller of apparel in the U.S. (and it’s already getting close), it needs to add a “try before you buy” feature to keep driving more Prime memberships. It’s responding to the challenge of concepts like Trunk Club — but it’s also acknowledging its lack of a physical footprint. Think about it — stores like Kohl’s and Macy’s already have huge numbers of brick-and-mortar locations where you can return unwanted clothing that you bought online. This may be a rare case where Amazon responds to a competitive weakness in its formula.

Does Gordmans have a future as an off-pricer?

Stage Stores bought the Gordmans Midwest-based chain out of bankruptcy earlier this year, and announced plans to convert it from a promotional department store to an off-pricer. I commented on a RetailWire panel discussion about the game plan along with Stage Stores’ decision to maintain multiple nameplates:

From my recollection shoppoing a few Gordmans stores in the past, they were a Kohl’s wannabe without the geographic footprint to be sustainable. Now they are aiming to be a TJ Maxx wannabe but will still be saddled with the same problems. It’s tough to enter an increasingly crowded sector without the physical footprint or the buying power to compete against TJX, Ross Store and now Backstage.

Stage Stores is trying to maintain multiple concepts and brands (Peebles, Goodys, Bealls and now Gordman). Why not operate one concept under one brand-name umbrella? It’s the “Bon Ton syndrome” where none of the individual brand names is strong enough to overcome the lack of scale.

Should Amazon buy Macy’s?

Here are some of my own thoughts from a provocative discussion on RetailWire:

Amazon shouldn’t buy Macy’s if its only motivation is to use the stores as pickup and return centers. And I’m not sure that Amazon “needs” Macy’s to give its own apparel business more credibility — some reports suggest that Amazon will already become the #1 seller of apparel in the U.S. this year.

It should only pursue Macy’s if it is prepared to reinvent the department store model from top to bottom — something that Macy’s itself seems unwilling or unable to do. Amazon is already dipping its toe into other kinds of brick-and-mortar retail, but this would be a big jump.

Thoughts on Macy’s self-service shoe and cosmetics departments

RetailWire panelists just took on the subject of a new test at Macy’s, in which its shoe and cosmetics departments are being converted to “assisted self-service” instead of the traditional associate-driven model. In the case of shoes, Macy’s is getting more of its inventory out of the stockroom and bulked out on the floor, with apparent early success. I’m raising a caution flag, however:

It’s hard to tell whether the reconfigured shoe department is meant to be a sales driver or an expense saver. JCP recently reconfigured a store that I visited to mass out its shoe inventory — DSW-style — instead of depending on salepeople to find the right size in the back. (And these associates are often paid a commission, just like cosmetics salespeople.) But it gets to the heart of what Macy’s wants to be. As Art put it, are they trying to be JCP or Kohl’s? Are they finding the hidden costs of “omnichannel” (BOPIS and so forth) to be unsustainable for a traditional department store?

And one more issue: By abandoning the Nordstrom model (where the salesperson is trained to bring out three pairs of shoes when the customer asks to look at one), Macy’s may in the long run walk away from the sales and margin potential of “upselling” that shoe and cosmetics departments should be known for. A declaration of victory may be premature.