BrandWatch by Michel Gutsatz

The Future of Retail: Living a Thrilling Experience

Two recent examples of the retailing initiatives of "outdoor" brands deserve to be analyzed on BrandWatch.

1.      In October 2007 Decathlon opened its Geologic Village in the Gironde where customers are allowed to test all the hunting and fishing articles of the three "nature" private labels of the company before buying them.  An 18 ha site consisting of indoor and outdoor facilities (with a small lake) and a fishing deck area, a big-game fishing simulator, a shooting range and a cold room to test the resistance of garments to cold weather, etc.). Special events are also organized: the 7^th November last a "Big Game Day" was held, complete with bloodhound, running wild boar, etc.

2.      In Germany, Globetrotter converted its downtown store in Cologne (called "Adventure House") into a large sports arena where the clients were able to find a cold room and shower for testing clothing, a built-in pool to practice kayaking and diving and a vaccination centre. This initiative completed the publishing of an interactive website where customers can share their "outdoor" experiences.

 As the Globetrotter advertisements proclaim, here are two brands that think of "Shopping as an Adventure" (Téléchargement Globetrotter shopping.jpeg ). We have here two exciting examples of the "economy experience" that are being implemented: encouraging consumers to share their experiences, testing products in real-life situations, experiencing extraordinary events; the company and the brand thus reinforcing the emotional relationship they share with their customers. 

Each brand, whatever its category, can build its client relationships in this manner, in keeping with its "world vision", and so develop its business.

However, I believe that it is only possible on two conditions:

1.      That the brand indeed has a "world vision" that it practices in a consistent and systematic manner;

2.      That these "live" initiatives are not perceived by consumers as being one-time or opportunistic "publicity stunts". >

Give it some thought!

Do you know Mylan?

A half-page advertisement caught my eye in the Friday, 21^st November edition of Le Monde: "As everything becomes more complicated, it is good to have someone that one can count on".  Against a background of chaotic white, green, and yellow, a blue logo stands out: Mylan, your life.

"You know the name of your doctor and your pharmacist. It is time that you knew those of your medications.  Mylan, your new health reference".  Here is true innovation: a pharmaceutical company - specialized in generic drugs – has decided to set itself up like a brand!

This move should be regarded as a cornerstone: in a period of strong growth in the pharmaceutical industry and the increasing importance of generic drugs, a well-known player, present in 140 countries and one among the Top 5 of the 9 European markets decides:

1.      to opt out of the dominant product (or "blockbuster") rationale where the name of the laboratory is unimportant (the consumer buys a product by its name and is totally unaware who the manufacturer is);

2.      ...with the intention of instituting a brand logic:  Mylan asks the consumer to trust a single "health" brand which disposes of the largest possible selection of drugs. 

Evidently, this strategic choice is based on the existence of strong social and economic pressure on doctors and pharmacists:  "prescribe generics"; evidently the pharmaceutical laboratories will react and claim that it is they who finance research, nonetheless Mylan's strategic choice will have two consequences:

1.      Extending the domain of brands to a sector that was hitherto fairly resistant: health.

2.      Pharmaceutical companies shall have to ask themselves the question: who are my customers? Are they only the doctors and pharmacists, and so should I continue to develop a B to B strategy?  Are they also the consumers, and therefore should I develop a B to C strategy – and, consequently, create a brand? 

Decidedly, the 21st century promises to be exciting!

Are you a part of the Warhammer community?

Do you know that a certain number of boys and young men, aged between 10 and 30 years, get together regularly, far from computer screens, to share a common passion, the Warhammer games?  Did you know that they spend hours putting together and painting figurines in metal and plastic, or that it is done in a true spirit of emulation to decide which figurine will be - in strict compliance with the codes of its character (Beasts of Chaos, Vampire Counts, Dark Elves, etc.) - the most extraordinary?  Did you know they meet in small groups or in hundreds at championships playing titanic battles governed by strict rules and which unfold in rhythm to the throw of dice?

Behind this game is a brand: Games Workshop. This brand has, for 25 years, created a true community through its games, figurines and its network of shops.

Why should these shops be the focus of our interest? 

"60 Millions de Consommateurs": a bit of rigour please!

The November issue of the consumer magazine "60 Million" focuses on two topics that I often refer to since BrandWatch was created: Organic cosmetics and nutrition.

The titles attract attention:

"Organic Cosmetics: can we rely on labels ?"....

"Still too much salt in our plates."

Let us start with Organics.

The argument put forward by the magazine is that only certified products can be considered as Organic. It picks 3 of them: Ecocert/Cosmebio, BDIH, Nature et Progrès. The article then becomes very confusing:

•  "The "natural" cosmetics market is booming. False promises and genuine organic products, how does one separate the wheat from the chaff? We have verified the claims of 40 amongst them": Bewilderment reigns from the outset. Are they referring to "natural" or "organic" products? In fact, apparently to both, since the products tested are those from Yves Rocher and Body Shop (not labelled), as well as labelled products. At no time is the distinction between "natural"/"organic" discussed. It goes on to point out the presence of phenoxyethanol and parabens in products that nowhere claim to be "organic" (except for Bioscreen). Evidently, this article attempts to address two subjects at the same time: the conformity of labelled products to the rules set down by the labels AND the presence of products claiming to be "natural" while using ingredients spurned by the labels.

•  The confusion reaches its peak when we read the remarks with regard to Weleda, in bold type: "Of the two Weleda products selected only one is labelled. Although the second may be’ in total harmony with human existence and nature’, it has not been certified". What a lack of thoroughness! The "60 Millions" tests show that the two products in question - as all of the (except one) labelled "organic" products – do not contain parabens or glycol ethers. This phrase, in fact, stigmatizes Weleda by ridiculing its "signature" and reproaching it for not having had certain products certified. This therefore shows a total ignorance of the current issues surrounding the new Natrue label, for example.
•  Finally, the test includes the identification of "allergenic essences" - - found in 31 of the products tested... with no discussion of the subject at any time in the article! By giving the subject the same level of importance as parabens and glycol ethers (which are extensively analyzed), the magazine implicitly cast opprobrium on most of the products ... without ever stating that these ingredients (not listed) are accepted by the certifying labels!
  

What about nutrition?

I Like the Hermès Website

Well, naturally, Hermès kept us waiting! For a long time a homepage announced the imminent arrival of the brand's new website. But then, Hermes has a unique relationship with time. Hermès is a brand that knows how to take its time.

 

The Hermès Website is finally here! This site is a marvellous reflection of the intelligence of the brand. I use the term "brand" voluntarily, knowing that Jean Louis Dumas has often refuted it (including to me), as he finds it smacks too much of "marketing ". I suggest that you browse it in the relaxed pace that it calls for, to discover the treasures it contains.

 

From the outset, the home page establishes the basic elements of the aesthetics of the brand - which are, each of them, references to the "world vision" (or ethics) of the brand:

•  An "off-centre" logo, slightly tilted - where so many brands display them head-on, forcefully: Hermes does not need to proclaim its presence ...
• The use of drawing and writing: Hermès is a brand that attaches importance to the gesture – that of the craftsman as well as the designer ...
•  A mood both romantic and "unconventional": Hermès arouses the imagination of its customers,
•  The use of the colour "orange" and the orange box, emblematic of the brand,
•  ... and the faint "dashed" strokes that one sees on all pages, a "saddle stitch" – symbolizing its trade.

 

Rejuvenating a Fashion Label: the Case of St. John

Many fashion brands eventually ask themselves the inexorable question: how do I rejuvenate my client base? Indeed, customers grow older with the brand and there comes a day when the question of its rejuvenation is inevitably raised. How many times have I heard: "Our clients are 50 ... 60 years old... they will disappear ... They should absolutely be replaced by a younger clientele, in order to ensure the longevity of the brand". In the youth-centric ambiance that characterizes our current society, it is certainly more prestigious to have a young clientele than to work on a "seniors" brand!

The problem, in fact, is wrongly expressed. The real question lies elsewhere: which target does the "world vision" of the brand best correspond to?  A certain number of brands in different countries - Max Mara in Italy, Escada in Germany, St. John in the U.S. - share a common vision: to offer classic fashion, with "wearable", high quality clothing, to affluent women who do not wish, under any circumstance, to commit a faux pas in matters of taste.  The latest victim of this illusion is St. John, the American knitwear brand created more than 40 years ago by Mary Gray, that experts call "the safe, tasteful choice of powerful women in business and politics".

This brand has a large, loyal clientele that brings in about 400 million dollars in turnover, creating product lines that give its customers some unique advantages:

•  Suits in luxurious knits, a blend of wool and rayon that is resilient and does not crease.
•  Clothes that create a beautiful silhouette yet hide certain physical imperfections at the same time ...

St. John created a unique advertising saga over 20 years: Kelly Gray, daughter of the founders, was the house model of the brand. In these very offbeat advertisements, "she was surrounded by panting Lotharios in various stages of undress": a young blonde woman surrounded by men trying to make an impression, in situations that often reminded one of American icons (cow boys, casinos, cars, etc.).

A true brand identity was created, where the essential signs were:

•  Its American-ness
•  A desirable woman in the eyes of men objects ...

In 1999, after 10 years in the portfolio of the Escada brands, the founding family repurchased the brand with the help of an investment fund. Kelly Gray, who became CEO, decided to rejuvenate the brand. The products were rejuvenated (evening dresses with bare shoulders, jackets with fur collars...)... without success, and Kelly Gray was replaced by a former chairman of Ermenildo Zegna U.S.

It was an unfortunate choice ....

Nutrition: The Battle of the Labels

The battle of the "nutritionally correct" labels is raging in the USA. I referred to the "Guiding Stars" initiative of Hannaford Brothers in my post of 26^th June: a distributor equips itself with a nutritional analysis grill of all the products sold on its shelves, finds that only 23% of the products are worthy of a "star" rating, notes that sales of these "star" products take flight and ... offers its system under license. National brands in this case are directly "judged" by the distributors.

They have now responded. On 28^th October last, a number of brands ... and a distributor (Coca Cola / General Mills / Kellogg / Kraft Foods / PepsiCo / Unilever / Walmart) announced that they were jointly launching the "Smart Choices Program", a new "scientific" label.  In order to qualify for the label, certain limits not to be crossed (in saturated fatty acids, added sugar, salt, etc.) would be determined for each of the 18 product categories identified (desserts, snacks, cereals, beverages, food, etc.).  The products should also, more often than not, include nutrients that nutritionists have recommended as being good for health (vitamins, fiber, calcium, magnesium, etc.). All these will be indicated by a label placed on the front of the packaging. The products so labeled will be available in 2009.

I suggest drawing a parallel with what is taking place in the beauty sector - in the segment of organic products, which, in my view, are the counterpart of the "nutritionally correct" in food. Three players compete in the labeling market:

•  The distributors: Whole Foods has launched a Premium Body Care Label applicable to all products available on its shelves.

•  The brands: a label called "Oasis" which groups L'Oreal, Aveda (The Estée Lauder Companies) and a multitude of minor brands AND the new "Natrue" brand, grouping Dr.Hauschka, Weleda, Logona, Lavera, etc.

• The organizations delivering certifications: Ecocert, Cosmebio, The Soil Association, BDIH, etc.

Although each actor announces that its objective is to afford better visibility regarding offers proposed to the consumer, I see other reasons for this proliferation:

•  Firstly, it is a real market for the certifying bodies (obtaining a label can cost a brand several thousand Euros), as well as for brands: the financial stakes, direct and indirect, are considerable.
•  Then there is also a real battle for the right to set the standards: who will hold it tomorrow? The brands themselves, at risk of being accused of being both judge and party? The distributors, finally reverting to the source of their profession as selectors? The "independent" agencies - but not necessarily non-profit?

A wager that this battle of the labels has only just begun ...