Communities and Branding: Learning From The Master

 

Over the course of my professional career I have been associated with some of the most recognized brands in apparel.  This association was behind the scenes as we either owned the license to produce the goods or we financed the turnaround of the troubled brand; this would include brands such as Spuds Mackenzie, Big Dogs Sportswear,  and Jimmy Buffett's Caribbean Soul to name just a few.

One of the great things about being behind the scenes is that you get to understand the brand, the thinking behind the creation, and you get to observe the personalities involved.

From the evolution of screen printing in four color process on white or pastel colored shirts to where we are today, you realize that the concepts of "branding" and "community" has been at the forefront of success and longevity of numerous tee shirt lines long before their current vogue with the advent of the internet.

Even after all these years and with the explosion in imprinted apparel graphic design, I still believe that Micheal Latona, who was the original artist of some of the best graphic designs that launched Jimmy Buffet's Caribbean Soul and who then went on to establish Harlequin Nature Graphics as the premier nature graphics screen printing company, is still the most creative artist/screen printer ever.  Here is the only sample I have of his work on my computer (he did everything by hand):

After 40 years Jimmy Buffett is still the absolute master of the concepts of  branding and community both on and off the web!  From Caribbean Soul, Parrotheads, to Margaritaville he has continuously and consciously developed his brand and his community;  lets be honest, would Florida be as popular of a vacation destination without him and his music?  That is the ideal of "lifestyle."

Today, we throw around terms without ever thinking about the core characteristic of the terms that we use.  We talk about "brand" when we probably should be using the term, "label." We can relate to, like, and recognize a "label" but a brand involves something deeper; an essence, a spirit, a quality.  Labels create, market and project their message on the consumer, while a brand has their message projected upon them by the consumer.

We talk about "communities" as something relating to individuals, with a shared interest, coming together and we believe that the future is about communities.  The reality is "a shared interest" can also be nothing more than a fad or a craze:  At one time things like hula hoops and pet rocks created "communities" also but these communities eventually moved on because they were not anything more than a craze.

The reality is a "community" has to be much more than about shared interests; it has to be about "lifestyle."  Virtual communities must become real communities as a first step to advancing to lifestyle status.  Lifestyle, like brands, must involve something deeper than just "shared interests."

Lifestyle is about perspective and attitude, most people don't realize that Jimmy Buffett started the Save The Manatee Movement back in 1981; that was the beginning of the broadening of the budding brand beyond music.  He did fall behind in the area of apparel, that was more the fault of the individuals behind Jimmy Buffett's Caribbean Soul/Caribbean Soul and Tommy Bahama ended up the dominant player in that market but Jimmy Buffett's Margaritaville is attempting to re establish themselves in the apparel market, and doing so with the recognition that their "community" has aged.  One day even Threadless will have to grow beyond tee shirts!

Then, its fascinating to watch how Jimmy Buffett and Margaritaville can evolve and adapt as witnessed by their newest adventure, the "gamification" of a brand/lifestyle, which idealistically is the goal of every consumer product company:

The brilliance of wisdom!

Looking Forward, Reaching Back

I received an email last night from an acquaintance yesterday in regards to apparel retail, the internet, and change; it was something circulating among a group of research fellows for an investment advisory group based in New York City.

They were discussing the 'fact' that there had been an assumption that with the advent of the internet apparel had to overcome the the hesitation of consumers to buy clothing sight unseen.  I was shocked, because being in apparel, having studied apparel retail for over 20 years, and being a cheerleader for the internet since 1996 that I issue was one that I have never once stopped to think about.

It dawned on me that that might be a legitimate issue in New York City but for the rest of the country that was never an issue.  The reason for this is because the rest of the country has a long history of buying apparel sight unseen;  those of us who remember receiving a Sears and Roebuck, Montgomery Wards, JC Penney catalog and or the myriad of other specialty catalogs that existed understand that buying clothing from a picture was not a novelty but rather a long standing tradition for a vast majority of Americans who are over 40.

I remember my sisters having slumber parties with their friends where they would sit with the JC Penney catalog and explore the new fashions or my mother thumbing through the JC Penney catalog much like folks today watch HGTV to find new ideas to decorate old rooms.

Realistically, the whole concept of brands came about because we were shopping sight unseen and a brand name represented a reputation for value and dependability;  Craftsmen tools, Kenmore appliances all were names you could trust.  JC Penney was popular in the 1970's because it represented "fashion" while clothing from Sears was old fashioned....pity the poor kid who's parents bought their clothes from Sears!

Sometimes we get so wrapped up in the concept of change that we tend to forget that some change is nothing more than a reconnecting to tradition, or a return to long known, well established principles.

The internet is not a threat to apparel retail but rather the exposure of the fact that they have lost sight of one major underlying principle of retail;  define your customer, your market, and serve them.  Retail can embrace the internet in a variety of ways but it will not assure them a future unless consumers can find a reason to embrace them.  Until department stores can rekindle the reputations they once had they will continue to be irrelevant;  you have to have a reputation, your name has to stand for something, or you will just be lost in the shuffle.

Retail has never been about how one shops but rather always about why one shops and what one shops for; we have lost sight of this basic principle over the course of the last 30 years of massive consumption fueled by easy credit; its not the internet that is a threat to malls and brick and mortar retail but rather the financial crash of 2008 that has fundamentally changed consumerism and retail.

Of course the innovators of today will hype the internet and social media as change because the reality is their sense of history only goes back about 30 years and thus, in a way they are changing their world; but realistically, they are not so much changing the world as much as they are returning the world of retail to its roots.

The concepts of 'community,' 'branding,' and 'social reputation' are all age old terms in the world of retail;  The reality of Web 2.0 or consumer centric business models really is nothing more than reaffirmation of the ideas that, "...the customer is always right" and or "...have it your way...."

The key for the future of any internet based apparel line is reputation, brand, service, and value; but do not confuse the concept of value with low cost, but rather think of value as being a perception of getting more for ones money.  Eventually even the most successful community based companies of today will have to transition themselves to a brand;  before Threadless there was Jimmy Buffet, who has been transforming  communities of "Parrot Heads" into successful brands such as Caribbean Soul and Margaritaville for 30 years now!

Everything To Everyone And Nothing To No One

An article today about brands that will disappear in 2012 really grabbed my attention because American Apparel was on the list.  Now, I wasn't surprised about them being on the list because quite honestly, when they went public I figured it was just a matter of time before they eventually ended up as a "pump and dump" statistic in the annals of the corporate world.

Of course the article wants to define American Apparel as,

The once-hip retailer reached the brink of bankruptcy earlier this year, and there is no indication that it has gained anything more than a little time with its latest financing. It currently trades as a penny stock. The company had three stores and $82 million in revenue in 2003. Those numbers reached 260 stores and $545 million in 2008.

The reality is that American Apparel was also a player in the promotional product market and the private label market.  Basically, if you read both of the linked articles you will realize that on the west coast American Apparel is known as a big player in the promotional product market and on the east coast it is perceived as a 'hip retailer.'

Everything to everyone and nothing to no one.

While the promotional products market is huge, and the private label market is even bigger you also have competitors like Alstyle, Gildan, and Delta, to name a few who are focused on those markets; Alstyle is half the size of American Apparel and the other two are a little larger but only marginally.  All of them are aggressively defining their markets and exploring new ones; for example, Gildan's bought a sock company a few years ago so that it would have access to Walmart, all in an attempt to compete with Fruit of the Loom. 

Common sense would make you ask one simple question, "Why would someone pay retail for an American Apparel product at one of its stores when they can also find themselves receiving an American Apparel made product for free as some promotion?"

Personally, I could never understand how a company with a customer base that was 85% female could be so popular with women when Dov Charney, the CEO, has had more sexual harassment lawsuits filed by employees against him than you could imagine!  This won't be an issue much longer.

The future belongs to those companies that define themselves and then embrace their market; at some point companies have to say, "That's not who we are and that's not what we do."  Success will not come to those who hedge their bets by dabbling in a variety of markets. 

Everything to everyone and nothing to no one.

I always admired American Apparel because they were cutting edge and swimming against the current with the concept of  "Made in Downtown LA—Vertically Integrated Manufacturing" and their vocal support of causes such as immigration reform, support for gay rights, and environmental issues.  They were "Web 2.0" long before it became common.

But if you are going to be more than just a tee shirt, then don't sell to markets where all they care about is a tee shirt, because that ends up being a battle over price. 

I really do hope that somehow American Apparel is able to find its way and recognize that it was once a brand that's value was greater than the sum of its parts.

Lifestyle, Branding, and Location

So much of our time is spent making decisions today that will dramatically impact our future based upon our experiences from the past; that not only sounds counter productive but it might actually be counter productive!

We are currently reorganizing and repositioning our company, a company that produces goods in Central America while also screen printing goods domestically which we distribute, both B2B and B2C, throughout the world.  Currently, we are located in Bowling Green, Kentucky which is ideally located, from a logistics perspective; along the I-65/I-40 corridor and some what centered both east to west and north to south.  Then, there is also Western Kentucky University; which graduates some very talented young people!

As a manufacturer and distributor, location of our operations is critical considering the market that we serve.  But, our anticipated future growth, which will be primarily in the area of product development, web development, and marketing, makes location less relevant.

With the internet and various other communications development why do all of ones operations have to be located together?  Does location matter and what is the future of location?

We do represent an established brand and we will build upon that foundation but why be just a brand when you can also be a lifestyle?  Would L. L. Bean be what they are if they were not located in Maine?  What were the benefits for Nike to be located in Oregon?  Can you imagine Jimmy Buffett without Margaritaville?  Imagine Ralph Lauren without polo, yachts, or the cowboy….

What if we moved certain aspects of our operations to…..Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin?

It’s definitely a great place to live with sense of lifestyle that is all its own.  Small town, beautiful natural scenery, and an active year round schedule of activities.  Door County offers all sorts of potential for adding a sense of ‘lifestyle’ to a brand.

Now I realize that 'lifestyle' can be created very easily by any half way decent advertising or marketing firm, but that doesn't make it real.  To be real it has to become part of a corporate culture; the whole 'outward' facing aspect of the corporation has to become part of that lifestyle; for one simple example we can turn to Patagonia. 

What about employees? 

Does location play a role in the choice of jobs employees make?  Wouldn't lifestyle be a great fringe benefit to an employee?