DDi - April/May 2012 - (Page 64)

64 | Think Tank Fabulousness, overrated hirty years ago, a young intern for the window display team of a department store was called to his boss’ office and given $100 with which to purchase “better-coordinated shoes” at a competitor’s store to accessorize an outfit featured in his store’s window. With multiple shoe departments at his home store, his boss could find nothing “fabulous” enough for the featured display. For some retailers, the situation has barely changed when it comes to store design. Millions of dollars are routinely spent to create “fabulous” interiors, with less thought given to how the space will highlight brand attributes and create sales, than to provide an entry in a “Store of the Year” contest or bragging rights at a stockholders’ meeting. I once read that many companies open new headquarters just before declaring bankruptcy or closing, as a last-gasp effort to change their business— a misguided desire to have function follow form. Likewise, the retail industry is replete with new concept stores opened at the 11th hour: Montgomery Ward, Kinney Shoes, Kids “R” Us, Service Merchandise, Sears Grand, Linens ’n Things and, more recently, Esprit and Borders come to mind. I’ve personally had the displeasure of seeing a “Grand Opening” banner replaced with “Store Closing” within days at my “The City, by Circuit City” store a few years ago. Many of these stores were beautiful and functioned well, some were even revolutionary. No doubt, market conditions contributed to their demise, but in every case, competitors in the same market remain open. What went wrong? T A store design can only be successful when it highlights meaningful, positive brand attributes in a new way that were blocked by the previous concept. In the hierarchy of brand levers (product, pricing, promotional strategy, people, packaging and publicity), the “place” alone can’t move the needle, as painful as that is for us to admit. Last-ditch new concept stores fail unless they serve to create a new way to do business, correcting what was wrong about the brand in the first place, and can get the word out in enough time to have the consumer care. If the new concept displays great product previously missed, highlights a new pricing or promotional strategy in a way that couldn’t be seen before, lets people interact and work in a better way, or shows important branding and creates new buzz, there may be a chance for success—as long as the customer wants the change. It is likely that failed new concepts either highlighted brand attributes that were problematic in the old environment, or failed to get the marketplace to notice the positive change in time. Marketing heads get to be chief marketing officers (CMOs) of their organizations. They command big salaries, serve on boards and are powerful enough to sway consumer brand awareness. Companies invest millions of dollars on their marketing recommendations, and they must justify their expenditures. There are only a handful of comparable “CDOs” (chief design officers) among retail companies today, and we have only to look to ourselves to understand why. CMOs, the good ones, use marketing clout to create buzz around real brand attributes or pay for their bad judgment, overblown campaigns or lack of results with their jobs. Many of our best designers use millions of dollars to create “fabulousness,” with little justification for the expenditure (beyond “meeting” the budget), only to watch the store get shuttered. Unlike good CMOs, who demand positive brand attributes to market and justify expenditures with results, designers—even good ones—are sometimes seduced by the beauty of their brainchild, as fears of the store environment’s ability to correct failed brand issues are swept aside. If we are looking to grow retail brands, we have the right to demand great brand levers to design for, and the responsibility to justify our expenditures against real results. Only then will we see companies willing to create CDOs and view the retail design industry as important as we do. Back to the kid in that competitor’s shoe department. I’d like to say that he found appropriate shoes at his own company, convinced his boss to use them and watched as the shoes sold out. The truth is, he bought a pair from the competition, used them in a fabulous window, and learned a lesson that he had to re-learn recently, when his award-winning, game-changing environment failed—a case of too little change, way too late for the marketplace to notice. We can’t just make it fabulous anymore! —Ron Brunette is currently serving as chief of design and branding for Kilwins Chocolates Franchise Inc., a growing confections retailer and manufacturer. He has created new concept retail environments for several companies, including Sears Holdings, Circuit City, Modell’s Sporting Goods, Best Buy/Musicland and Toys, Kids & Babies “R” Us. www.ddionline.com | April/May 2012 http://www.ddionline.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of DDi - April/May 2012

DDi - April/May 2012
Table of Contents
From the Editor
From the Show Director
Newsworthy
Shopper Insights
Greentailing
Editor’s Choice
Design Snapshot
Loblaws
The new food retail
Channel Focus: Jewelry
What’s next for digital retail?
Mobile wallets
Product Spotlight: Technology
Right Light
Post-Show Coverage
Calendar
Advertisers
Classifieds
Think Tank

DDi - April/May 2012