Posts Tagged 'Macy’s'

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.

Why Kohl’s needs a large store count

Amid all of this year’s news about stores closures, Kohl’s maintains that its large location count is a strategic advantage. (At the same time, it intends to re-size some of its existing stores.) Here’s a recent RetailWire comment following Kohl’s announcement:

I’ll start with my usual “full disclosure” that I worked for Kohl’s (and with Kevin Mansell) from 1982 to 2006. Convenience has always been one of the legs of Kohl’s strategy, and its real estate portfolio was intentionally built apart from regional malls. (I think Mr. Mansell mentioned on CNBC that only 80 of Kohl’s stores are located in regionals.) Maintaining this footprint is not only important as Macy’s and JCP continue their strategic retreat — not to mention whatever happens to Sears — but also as a way to leverage the e-commerce business that represents 15% of Kohl’s sales today.

As to the smaller or downsized stores, the trick for Kohl’s will be to keep narrowing its assortments to fit these formats. This is just as true in full-sized stores — when Kohl’s takes a position on a key brand like UnderArmour (or activewear in general), something has to give.

Two comments on omnichannel

Here are a couple of RetailWire posts on the subject of whether e-commerce is eating into brick-and-mortar retail. The first comment was published after stores reported year-end sales:

“Omnichannel” retailers like Macy’s, JCP and Target are still heavily dependent on their physical footprint. Each store reported rapid e-commerce growth (from 17% in Penney’s case to 30% at Target), yet each of them also reported total comparable-sales declines in the low single digits. So it’s clear that the combination of brick-and-mortar and omnichannel isn’t driving sales yet.

All of these stores and others have opportunities to improve their assortments, customer service and overall store experience. Omnichannel initiatives like BOPIS and “ship from store” have put even more strain on retailers’ ability to execute these “Retail 101” issues better. But until they do, their overall sales will continue stuck in neutral.

The second comment was published today:

“Cannibalization” may be the wrong term, because retailers with true omnichannel strategies need to think about how to grow the overall pie. Continuing to think about business silos (e-commerce vs. brick-and-mortar) will stand in the way of a consistent overall approach to the business.

But there’s no doubt that brick-and-mortar is losing its relevance, as seen in the growing number of chains closing locations or throwing in the towel altogether. To go back to the question of how to grow the overall pie…why isn’t that happening? Why aren’t strategies like BOPIS (intended to drive traffic to stores) driving incremental sales?

These aren’t easy questions to answer, but I continue to believe that the operating demands of turning a physical store into a mini-distribution center are eroding the service-centric reasons why consumers shop in those stores in the first place.

“Cannibalization” may be the wrong term, because retailers with true omnichannel strategies need to think about how to grow the overall pie. Continuing to think about business silos (e-commerce vs. brick-and-mortar) will stand in the way of a consistent overall approach to the business.

But there’s no doubt that brick-and-mortar is losing its relevance, as seen in the growing number of chains closing locations or throwing in the towel altogether. To go back to the question of how to grow the overall pie…why isn’t that happening? Why aren’t strategies like BOPIS (intended to drive traffic to stores) driving incremental sales?

These aren’t easy questions to answer, but I continue to believe that the operating demands of turning a physical store into a mini-distribution center are eroding the service-centric reasons why consumers shop in those stores in the first place.

 

 

 

 

Department stores’ search for relevance

From a recent RetailWire blog post, I have some comments about the continuing struggles in the department store segment. Some of my concerns are based on the relevance of their merchandise content, and some are based on the “sameness” of the shopping experience:

There are two key “relevance” issues, especially pertaining to traditional department stores: First, are retailers using all of the technological tools at their disposal to enhance their brands? Are they leveraging today’s tools (mobile payment, RFID, and so forth) to improve customer service or simply to cut costs? And how has “omnichannel” (especially BOPIS) actually eroded the shopping experience? There is very little difference between shopping at Macy’s or Dillards today compared to 30 years ago, other than UPC scanning and more sophisticated POS terminals.

Second — and it always comes down to this — is merchandise content. I’ve shopped a lot of traditional department stores over the last few weeks, and I’m struck by how much inventory and square footage continues to be devoted to dressy career apparel for men and women. This may be the retailers’ sweet spot (as they see it), but the lack of adaptation to change is concerning. Do these stores not recognize that Boomers are retiring — and leaving the workforce — in droves? Do they not see that most Millennials are working in more casual environments and are shopping elsewhere for their wardrobe needs? (Add to this the slow reaction to the movement toward activewear-as-sportswear.)

Sometimes achieving “relevance” costs money — whether through new tech tools, more payroll or a fresh coat of paint. But mostly it’s about the products, brands and trends that stores choose to put forward.