In My View by Eric Musgrave: Loyalty can have a short shelf life
Do many fashion brands still refer to their retail stockists as “partners”.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s I recall it was quite a big thing, as suppliers pledged to have a closer, mutually supportive relationship with independent buyers in particular.
Back then, in those carefree (ha ha!) pre-internet days, the main competition for indie-focused brands came from the high-street majors and their own-label offerings. Independents were more numerous, they reached more consumers, and relatively few brands sold directly to the general public.
How times change. A whole section of the high street has disappeared, it’s almost impossible to think of a brand that does not sell direct to the consumer, and e-commerce makes all that possible without them having to open a single shop.
Changing times bring changing relationships. Barely a month goes by now without another brand announcing an overhaul of its distribution strategy that sees more indie accounts cut from the stockist list.
In June Japanese sportswear brand Asics, US sports-inspired trainer and apparel brand New Balance and American sportswear major Under Armour all dropped the axe. It’s annoying for the indies that have happily sold the product – and probably have helped make its reputation in the UK – but no one should be surprised any more.
Loyalty has a limited shelf life.
Stockist rationalisation is nothing new. I can recall writing about Viyella Menswear (remember them?) having a massive clean up of its stockist list in the mid-1980s. It deleted an amazing 800 accounts, about 60% of the total (I said there were a lot more independents back then). After also tightening up its payment terms, it went from being loss-making to making a profit.
I always remember Andrew Freeman, Viyella Menswear’s MD at the time, telling me some of the tiny amounts retailers were spending while expecting first-class service from the brand. The most extreme case was the retailer who ordered only four Viyella shirts a year – all were in his size for his personal use, not to go in the shop.
No one would argue that dumping such time-wasters is wrong, but I sense from retailers I have spoken to that they object to the deceit, the hypocrisy and the inconsistency that often goes with the separation of the ways.
Ravi Grewal
Ravi Grewal runs the well-regarded menswear business Stuarts London with his brothers. A long-established shop in Shepherds Bush, west London is augmented by an impressive online business, but he has plenty of examples of being dropped.
“The lack of support from the brands we built has really affected us,” he told me. “After 15 years of selling Adidas, they just said we were not a fit for them anymore. Y3 Adidas decided we were ‘irrelevant’ after they had a change in management. Nike told us we were no longer part of their long-term strategy, but the worst bit was, they still kept other indies onboard.
“I was told separately that as Nike had its own store in the Westfield London shopping centre not far from us, Stuarts wasn’t needed in the same area. Even though we were here first.”
Many indies complain that the reasons given for being dropped, such as they don’t reflect the brand’s image, or display it in a way that suits the brand, or stock ‘inappropriate’ other brands, are spurious. Most annoyingly, often significant turnover, prompt payment and general good practice seemingly count for nothing once a decision has been made, often by a corporate team in a distant head office.
“We were selling the same number of Canada Goose units as Harrods,” Grewal explains, “but as soon as the brand opened their flagship on Regent Street, they decided to get rid of us.”
Dropping indies to make direct-to-consumer sales themselves is seen as the most common reason for the erasure of “the partnership”. This particularly stings with independents who have made a new brand’s reputation.
“I was probably the first buyer to bring French brand AMI to the UK. We finally got it to work after making a loss on it for three years. Just one season after getting it right, we are no longer part of their long-term strategy.”
Such experiences provoke strong reactions: “What ticks me off is we are OK to help build brands but as soon as they take off, we are pushed aside. I don’t have a beef with any retail competitors or how they do business. I do have issues with disloyal brands who stab independents in the back.”
As with most topics in the branded sector, the slashing of independent accounts affects the menswear side of the industry most deeply.
The glib answer to the dilemma is for indie retailers to keep “discovering” new brands that don’t have their own shops in the UK, don’t have a major online presence, and are not stocked by Flannels. But how many consumers are “early adopters” of such unfamiliar brands compared to the number who just go for the “comfort”, if that’s the word, of the big old favourites?
There is some comfort to be taken, of course, by remembering the instances when a high-flying brand decided it could do better and sell more by dumping the indie shops that made their UK reputation. Uggs, Replay and G-Star immediately spring to mind.
Who can add to that list of the brands who swung the axe and damaged themselves?
Image of Eric by Lloyd Smith.
