by David Moin
From WWD Issue 05/23/2011
Risk-taking and retailing aren’t exactly kindred spirits. But for Macy’s Inc., the time is right to test new concepts and for “encouraging a higher level of risk-taking across all functions,” Terry Lundgren, Macy’s chairman, chief executive office and president, said.
“We have to try new things — all kinds — and if one of them doesn’t work, that’s OK,” Lundgren said.
During Macy’s annual meeting and press conference here Friday, Lundgren and other Macy’s executives outlined initiatives and tests in the works, in an effort to portray a culture of innovation at the $25 billion, 850-unit department store operator.
Decades ago, Macy’s did have a reputation for innovation, with marketing extravaganzas like the Fourth of July fireworks and launching The Cellar in San Francisco in 1971, though the image was lost in the following years as the company got sidetracked by bankruptcy, a takeover, consolidations and management restructurings.
Now, however, after reporting a strong 2010 and first quarter of 2011 and getting upgraded by rating agencies, Macy’s has renewed confidence, and the old industry metaphor that department stores were dinosaurs doesn’t seem valid, at least not in Macy’s case.
Suggesting there’s a bolder Macy’s to be reckoned with, Lundgren cited a string of initiatives and tests, even the possibility of building a full-line store “either in or nearby an outlet center” at a time when launching full-lines is less of a priority compared with pumping up productivity at existing units. If that unorthodox siting worked, it could open up ground for expansion. Lundgren did not disclose where a site for the first test might be, but it was obvious it could come soon.
However, he was clear to say there are “no plans at this time” to open an actual Macy’s outlet, since the company’s stores are already very promotional and value-oriented.
On the other hand, Bloomingdale’s, a division of Macy’s Inc., recently launched four outlets and is opening three more this year. “Outlet center developers are highly interested in Bloomingdale’s,” Lundgren said. Other upscale stores, like Nordstrom and Saks Fifth Avenue, have far more outlets, but Bloomingdale’s is “playing it by ear” and not setting a goal for how many outlet openings, Lundgren said.
Macy’s also has an agenda to make its beauty business more targeted, by breaking an industry formula of using a single spokesmodel to represent a line. The store is working with one major cosmetic company to diversify the products and marketing presentations by using different models and targeted mailings to appeal to African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics. Lundgren would not disclose the vendor.
Among other innovations in the works:
• Rolling out Impulse beauty departments selling niche brands such as Stila, Urban Decay, MAC and Smashbox to 100 stores by fall, accompanied by hipper marketing, as Macy’s attempts to draw the younger crowds it currently lacks. “The whole youth category — juniors, contemporary, young men’s and children’s — I believe we should be getting a larger share of that market,” Lundgren told reporters. “In the younger areas, we are not growing to the same degree.”
• Using larger stores around the country with broader assortments to ship goods to customers when they can’t get the products they want in the stores they shopped. Twenty-three stores will have the shipping capability by year-end, as part of Macy’s “search and send” programs that help associates locate products through the chain when they’re not available on site.
• Utilizing tablet computers in cosmetics to help customers identify the best products for their skin types. It’s being tested in the recently renovated Macy’s in Water Tower Place in Chicago.
• Outfitting all stores with WiFi in the months ahead.
• Developing merchandise displays with quick response codes that shoppers can scan with smartphone cameras and then see short videos with designers talking products, trends or fashion philosophy. It’s already apparent in Macy’s stores and seen in Bobbie Brown, Tommy Hilfiger, Martha Stewart, Rachel Roy, Sean John and Bar III private label areas.
• Bloomingdale’s SoHo is testing radio frequency identification in its denim department to more precisely stock and locate merchandise.
Lundgren also disclosed that Macy’s program of exclusive designer capsule collections, in its first year, will continue next year. Currently, Matthew Williamson is featured, Karl Lagerfeld will launch in the summer and another designer will follow later in the fall.
In addition, Lundgren said Macy’s has an $800 million capital expenditure budget, up from $500 million in 2010, which will be largely utilized for technology and fulfillment centers, including building a 3.5-million-square-foot center in West Virginia.
“How do we keep moving forward in the quest for continued growth and high performance? The answer lies in the relentless pursuit of growth through innovation and collaborating closely with vendors and other outside partners,” Lundgren told shareholders.
Throughout the industry, retailers are greatly disturbed by inflation. But Lundgren seemed less concerned. “Macy’s has a much broader assortment,” compared to companies like Gap or Kohl’s. “We have plenty of product categories that are not going to be significantly impacted by inflation.…If you are just selling simple basics like T-shirts, that’s a problem,” though he acknowledged there will be certain items at Macy’s rising in price quite a bit. Still, he noted that some designers, such as Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, are trying to mitigate higher prices by providing greater value in their products, creating them with enhanced stitching, buttons or other details involving more labor.
“We feel really good about where we’re at. It’s all about positioning,” he said.
On another positive note, Lundgren said he likes what he sees happening at shopping centers. “I’ve met with half of our developers in the last three months. They’re reinvesting in the centers.…Shopping centers must find ways to reinvigorate and I think they are doing that,” he said. “They’re enabling them with WiFi, adding new food elements and, in some cases, bowling alleys.”
Showing posts with label Terry Lundgren. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terry Lundgren. Show all posts
Monday, May 23, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
Major Capital Investments Planned By Retailers
by Evan Clark
From WWD Issue 05/16/2011
Retail’s cash spigot has opened up again.
Fashion chains are boosting capital expenditures by tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars this year, looking beyond the questionable consumer spending outlook as they vie for market share by bolstering both online operations and old-line stores.
A WWD analysis of spending plans at 10 major retailers — from Macy’s Inc. to Limited Brands Inc. to Tiffany & Co. — shows their capital expenditures are slated to increase by about a third this year, growing by up to a total of $1.52 billion. The dollars will be used to develop e-commerce capacity with new distribution centers, spruce up stores, add outlets and, in some instances, open new full-price doors.
After two years of downturn, when chains dramatically cut spending and loaded cash onto their balance sheets, retailers and other types of companies have plenty of money to spend and lots of catching up to do. But the massive infusion of cash might say more about retailers’ confidence in themselves than their outlook on the consumer. Many companies also are spending their cash hoards on massive share-buyback plans that goose earnings per share and can benefit investors, but do nothing to grow operations.
“The forward-looking retailers are fortifying their positions for the future,” said Arnold Aronson, managing director of retail strategies at Kurt Salmon. “There’s really no room for delay when you’re competing for market share in a low-growth marketplace. You have to be fast and nimble and take advantage of every opportunity.”
Much of the spending is going toward online operations, which are the fastest growing part of the business.
Macy’s Inc.’s capital expenditures are set to increase by 58.4 percent to $800 million without a single new full-price store planned. Instead the company is gearing up to support online sales, which shot up 38.3 percent in the first quarter.
Macy’s is building a Martinsburg, W. Va., online fulfillment center that will encompass 1.3 million square feet and employ 1,200 people year-round and an additional 700 around the holidays. The company broke ground at the 92-acre site last month and plans to have it ready to ship goods to online customers in June 2012.
Terry Lundgren, chairman, president and chief executive officer, sees investment in Macy’s online business as vital.
“This is a business that thrives on unrelenting creativity and innovation,” Lundgren said in January, when the company laid out plans to hire more merchandising and marketing specialists for its online business. “Having the right talent in the right place is vital as we seek to sustain and accelerate our sales growth online, as well as in the stores.”
And retailers are also investing in their physical stores — the bread and butter of their income statements.
Kohl’s Corp., which is boosting spending by 31.4 percent to $1 billion this year, has earmarked $250 million to remodel and relocate stores and another $120 million on fixtures and store improvements. The firm is expanding its use of electronic signage, making it easier and cheaper to adjust prices.
Kohl’s is just a part of it. Gap Inc. is continuing to refurbish its Old Navy stores, and The TJX Cos. Inc. is laying out $317 million on store renovations.
“A lot of the stores that were built 10 years ago, eight years ago, need to be improved,” said Antony Karabus, retail adviser with PwC, formerly referred to as PricewaterhouseCoopers, in Toronto.
Fixing up aging stores and updating supply chains will help retailers get more out of their existing businesses.
“Most apparel retailers do not have the capabilities in-house that they need in…merchandising, product development, global sourcing, design,” Karabus said. “There’s a lot of hurry-up-and-get-the-capability.”
All of this spending, though, is coming under scrutiny of more watchful chief financial officers.
“The cfo’s are putting their personal hand on it, making sure there’s a clear accountability and [return on investment],” Karabus said.
And some still see traction in new stores, even as others, such as Charming Shoppes Inc. and The Talbots Inc., continue to trim their portfolios.
Kohl’s, for instance, will spend $290 million to open 40 new doors, most of them employing a smaller, 64,000-square-foot format.
In the specialty sector, Chico’s FAS Inc. plans to add 100 to 110 stores, while Ann Inc., which operates the Ann Taylor and Loft chains, will grow its door count by 48 and Limited Brands Inc. will cut the ribbon on another 35 doors in North America. Macy’s is opening three new Bloomingdale’s outlets for fall.
When chains do expand, they’re being careful to better understand the demographics of the markets they enter.
“Retailers are asking for more information,” said Alan Shor, president and co-founder of real estate firm The Retail Connection. “They’re trying to be much more precise in their site selection.”
Companies continue to look closely at demographic information such as income, education and gender, but they are also digging deeper.
“They’re doing a better job of understanding who their customer is,” Shor said. “What is the customer buying? When is the customer buying it? Social media has [also] become much more of a factor in data mining.”
Marie Driscoll, an equity analyst at Standard & Poor’s, said retailers are “confident in themselves and their growth strategies,” not the U.S. market.
“The bulk of [spending] is either going to be international, e-commerce fulfillment and [distribution centers] and all that and then the outlet channel,” Driscoll said. “Capex includes IT expenditures, which includes maintaining your Internet presence, which is the biggest store.”
From WWD Issue 05/16/2011
Retail’s cash spigot has opened up again.
Fashion chains are boosting capital expenditures by tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars this year, looking beyond the questionable consumer spending outlook as they vie for market share by bolstering both online operations and old-line stores.
A WWD analysis of spending plans at 10 major retailers — from Macy’s Inc. to Limited Brands Inc. to Tiffany & Co. — shows their capital expenditures are slated to increase by about a third this year, growing by up to a total of $1.52 billion. The dollars will be used to develop e-commerce capacity with new distribution centers, spruce up stores, add outlets and, in some instances, open new full-price doors.
After two years of downturn, when chains dramatically cut spending and loaded cash onto their balance sheets, retailers and other types of companies have plenty of money to spend and lots of catching up to do. But the massive infusion of cash might say more about retailers’ confidence in themselves than their outlook on the consumer. Many companies also are spending their cash hoards on massive share-buyback plans that goose earnings per share and can benefit investors, but do nothing to grow operations.
“The forward-looking retailers are fortifying their positions for the future,” said Arnold Aronson, managing director of retail strategies at Kurt Salmon. “There’s really no room for delay when you’re competing for market share in a low-growth marketplace. You have to be fast and nimble and take advantage of every opportunity.”
Much of the spending is going toward online operations, which are the fastest growing part of the business.
Macy’s Inc.’s capital expenditures are set to increase by 58.4 percent to $800 million without a single new full-price store planned. Instead the company is gearing up to support online sales, which shot up 38.3 percent in the first quarter.
Macy’s is building a Martinsburg, W. Va., online fulfillment center that will encompass 1.3 million square feet and employ 1,200 people year-round and an additional 700 around the holidays. The company broke ground at the 92-acre site last month and plans to have it ready to ship goods to online customers in June 2012.
Terry Lundgren, chairman, president and chief executive officer, sees investment in Macy’s online business as vital.
“This is a business that thrives on unrelenting creativity and innovation,” Lundgren said in January, when the company laid out plans to hire more merchandising and marketing specialists for its online business. “Having the right talent in the right place is vital as we seek to sustain and accelerate our sales growth online, as well as in the stores.”
And retailers are also investing in their physical stores — the bread and butter of their income statements.
Kohl’s Corp., which is boosting spending by 31.4 percent to $1 billion this year, has earmarked $250 million to remodel and relocate stores and another $120 million on fixtures and store improvements. The firm is expanding its use of electronic signage, making it easier and cheaper to adjust prices.
Kohl’s is just a part of it. Gap Inc. is continuing to refurbish its Old Navy stores, and The TJX Cos. Inc. is laying out $317 million on store renovations.
“A lot of the stores that were built 10 years ago, eight years ago, need to be improved,” said Antony Karabus, retail adviser with PwC, formerly referred to as PricewaterhouseCoopers, in Toronto.
Fixing up aging stores and updating supply chains will help retailers get more out of their existing businesses.
“Most apparel retailers do not have the capabilities in-house that they need in…merchandising, product development, global sourcing, design,” Karabus said. “There’s a lot of hurry-up-and-get-the-capability.”
All of this spending, though, is coming under scrutiny of more watchful chief financial officers.
“The cfo’s are putting their personal hand on it, making sure there’s a clear accountability and [return on investment],” Karabus said.
And some still see traction in new stores, even as others, such as Charming Shoppes Inc. and The Talbots Inc., continue to trim their portfolios.
Kohl’s, for instance, will spend $290 million to open 40 new doors, most of them employing a smaller, 64,000-square-foot format.
In the specialty sector, Chico’s FAS Inc. plans to add 100 to 110 stores, while Ann Inc., which operates the Ann Taylor and Loft chains, will grow its door count by 48 and Limited Brands Inc. will cut the ribbon on another 35 doors in North America. Macy’s is opening three new Bloomingdale’s outlets for fall.
When chains do expand, they’re being careful to better understand the demographics of the markets they enter.
“Retailers are asking for more information,” said Alan Shor, president and co-founder of real estate firm The Retail Connection. “They’re trying to be much more precise in their site selection.”
Companies continue to look closely at demographic information such as income, education and gender, but they are also digging deeper.
“They’re doing a better job of understanding who their customer is,” Shor said. “What is the customer buying? When is the customer buying it? Social media has [also] become much more of a factor in data mining.”
Marie Driscoll, an equity analyst at Standard & Poor’s, said retailers are “confident in themselves and their growth strategies,” not the U.S. market.
“The bulk of [spending] is either going to be international, e-commerce fulfillment and [distribution centers] and all that and then the outlet channel,” Driscoll said. “Capex includes IT expenditures, which includes maintaining your Internet presence, which is the biggest store.”
Friday, May 13, 2011
Macy's Soars in First Quarter
Posted Wednesday May 11, 2011
From WWD.COM
Macy's Inc. blew past estimates with a better than five-fold increase in first-quarter profits and raised its financial outlook for the year.
Net income shot up to $131 million, or 30 cents a diluted share, from $23 million, or 5 cents, a year earlier. Profits per share came in a substantial 12 cents ahead of Wall Street's expectations.
Sales for the quarter ended April 30 increased 5.7 percent to $5.89 billion from $5.57 billion.
Macy's is also giving back more to shareholders, doubling the quarterly dividend on its common stock to 10 cents a share.
"Our performance cannot be attributed to a single factor, but rather to the coordinated execution of a series of complementary customer-centric strategies," said Terry Lundgren, chairman, president and chief executive officer. "In the first quarter, we benefitted from strong top-line sales, disciplined margin and expense management, improved credit performance and lower interest expense."
The department store boosted its annual profit projection to a range of $2.40 to $2.45 a share, ahead of the $2.25 to $2.30 previously anticipated.
From WWD.COM
Macy's Inc. blew past estimates with a better than five-fold increase in first-quarter profits and raised its financial outlook for the year.
Net income shot up to $131 million, or 30 cents a diluted share, from $23 million, or 5 cents, a year earlier. Profits per share came in a substantial 12 cents ahead of Wall Street's expectations.
Sales for the quarter ended April 30 increased 5.7 percent to $5.89 billion from $5.57 billion.
Macy's is also giving back more to shareholders, doubling the quarterly dividend on its common stock to 10 cents a share.
"Our performance cannot be attributed to a single factor, but rather to the coordinated execution of a series of complementary customer-centric strategies," said Terry Lundgren, chairman, president and chief executive officer. "In the first quarter, we benefitted from strong top-line sales, disciplined margin and expense management, improved credit performance and lower interest expense."
The department store boosted its annual profit projection to a range of $2.40 to $2.45 a share, ahead of the $2.25 to $2.30 previously anticipated.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Macy's Biggest Bargain: Its Shares
After enduring an arduous restructuring and a vicious recession, the storied retailer is standing tall under CEO Terry Lundgren
Barron's
By Jack Willoughby
Here's a Mother's Day gift idea: Buy her a nice selection of Macy's shares before prices go up.
After a huge acquisition that racked up enormous debt, intense competition from Internet retailers and a recession that reached into its customers' wallets, the 153-year old retailer finally has begun to regain some former glory. Sales and earnings are up, and the company has started to free itself of a suffocating $9 billion debt load. A new sales-and-distribution strategy holds the promise of more good news to come.
If the improvements continue, the company could jump up a notch to recapture a long-lost investment-grade rating. "I believe it will happen," says Terry Lundgren, the 59-year-old CEO who's credited with overseeing Macy's turnaround. "It's just a question of when. We're doing the right things with our balance sheet."
Investors have already returned to Macy's aisles. Robert Olstein, founder of the Olstein Strategic Opportunities and Olstein All Cap Value Value funds, has purchased a large block of Macy's shares for both, impressed by the retailer's ability to generate $3 a share in free cash flow and the speed with which it is paying down debt. He says the shares, trading last week around $24, are worth 40, based on cash flow, other financial metrics and the quality of management.
Similarly impressed is Leah Hartman, an analyst with CRT Capital Group, who has a Buy on the stock with a one-year price target of 32. Macy's paid down $1.2 billion in debt in 2010, and Hartman expects it to continue to whittle it down. Another promising sign: The company reported a 4.6% increase in same-store sales for 2010, the first rise in four years and the biggest gain in over a decade.
Although the shares have bounced way off their bottom of 5.07 back in 2008, they're still reasonably priced. At last week's level, they trade at just 10 times forward earnings of $2.33 a share for the fiscal year ending January of 2012, well below the current market multiple of 13.7. Macy's is also attractive compared with its peers, which trade on average at 13.5 times earnings. "Macy's continues to be the cheapest name in the space," says Morgan Stanley analyst Michelle L. Clark. Although some analysts believe this is as good as it gets for the company, "I believe they're still in the early stages" of their turnaround, she says.
IT'S BEEN A PAINFUL PROCESS. In 2005, Macy's bought May Department Stores for $11.5 billion in cash and stock and assumed $5.8 billion in debt. It was a bold move to give a company with a quintessential New York-brand name a bigger national presence. The deal brought in regional merchandisers Filene's, Foley's, Kaufmann's, J.W. Robinson's, Meier & Frank and Marshall Field's, among others. The transaction helped push the retailer, which also includes 42 Bloomingdale's stores, toward its mammoth size of 850 stores. The following year, notes Lundgren, was the first in which the retailer actually qualified as a national advertiser on the TV broadcast of its Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York.
But sitting on some $9 billion in debt made Macy's vulnerable to the miserable financial and economic conditions of 2008 and early 2009. Revenue dropped from $26 billion in 2007 to $24.9 billion in 2008 and then to $23.5 billion in 2009. Following earnings per share from operations of $2.15 in 2007, the company posted $1.29 in 2008 and $1.41 in 2009. Last year the figure rebounded to $2.09 a share.
"You have to remember how serious things became back in 2008," says Lundgren in an interview with Barron's at Macy's famous Herald Square store. "Consumers were questioning their net worth. The world seemed to be coming to an end," he recalls.
So, as Lundgren puts it: "It was clear then that it was time to make the necessary changes. We couldn't afford to waste a recession."
His reorganization started in the spring of 2008, with two initiatives, OneMacy's and MyMacy's. OneMacy's encompassed the unification of core functions such as buying, marketing, merchandizing and planning in New York, and support functions such as human resources and finance in Cincinnati. Macy's cut the number of regional divisions, whose chiefs operated with a lot of autonomy and separate hierarchies, to four from seven the first year. It got rid of them entirely in 2009. In all, 7,000 jobs were eliminated and Macy's estimates it saves about $500 million a year overall from the reorganization.
In the regional units' place came MyMacy's, designed to provide a faster, clearer picture of what customers wanted and to improve response time by opening up communications between New York and 69 newly created individual districts. The idea, says Lundgren, is to be more responsive to customer needs. He put experienced buyers and managers out in the 69 districts, which included 10 to 12 stores each, rather than as many as 23 stores in the old system. The idea is to increase the flow of information between the head office and individual stores so they can adapt to changing demand more quickly. It also lets the company leverage the buying power that tens of billions of dollars in revenue and hundreds of stores afford.
Previously, all of Macy's major suppliers had to deal separately with the seven regional chiefs and their staffs. CFO Karen Hoguet notes that prior to the Beijing Summer Olympics in 2008, Macy's was about to make a major deal with Ralph Lauren to design some of its wares around the games. But the transaction fell apart because not all the seven regional heads would sign on. More recently, for the Vancouver Winter Olympics in 2010, a Ralph Lauren deal was struck with one telephone call. Says Hoguet: "We speak with a new, uniform voice."
Sometimes, this system has to cope with mysteries. Mike Dervos, senior vice president regional director in charge of Macy's upper Midwest region, recalled that one store found that it couldn't keep pace with demand for women's size 11 shoes. Macy's rounded up more of the shoes; it even created separate displays for them and then worked with suppliers to create new styles of bigger women's footwear. It followed up with queries to other Macy's stories in the same district to see if they had noted a similar trend. Today, 300 Macy's stores carry size 11s for women and suppliers have responded with more styles. No one knows for sure why this size has become more popular, only that Macy's responded quickly to one store's needs. "These days there's no such thing as rolling it out in every store, says Dervos. "Trends move from the local to regional to cross country," he says.
Suppliers seem to like the change and are adapting their own systems."With MyMacy's we meet with one buyer and have one discussion, instead of seven discussions with seven plans not necessarily reflecting customer desires," says Fabrizio Freda, CEO of cosmetics specialist Estee Lauder. "Now we can talk with local representatives who call on each store to help personalize the customer's experience and focus on the right assortment."
"In many ways, we've returned to the system that I was familiar with back when I was starting—where buyers really knew the stores they were overseeing and visited them regularly," says Lundgren, who's seen his own career come full circle at Macy's. In 1988, he was the president of Los Angeles' specialty-retailer Bullocks Wilshire, a Federated Department Stores unit that was sold off to Macy's. Lundgren found out from a reporter's query that he was being replaced by Macy's. He landed on his feet as head of Neiman Marcus and rejoined Federated in 1994 as chief of merchandising. Shortly thereafter, Federated bought Macy's and he became Macy's CEO in 2003.
Ultimately, Lundgren envisions Macy's operating like a kind of living organism that's constantly adapting to customer needs. He'd like to see all its stores' inventory linked, to better deal with the ebbs and flows of demand. "The idea is to employ all the resources available to satisfy customer demand. It's one thing to put an order in through a fulfillment center, quite another to put it through to another store and have the item delivered. That's what we're aiming for—floor to store," he says.
Macy's surely has a lot more firepower than any old-time retailer. "There's no way you can duplicate or even buy the level of experience or the nationwide reach of the network we've created," says Lundgren. "It functions much the way the old local retailers did back in the early days but with the power of a nationwide buyers. Our purchasing clout gives us access to the best brands at reasonable prices. More than 40% of our sales come from exclusive and limited distribution brands only sold at Macy's. We want to raise that number." Among them: the Martha Stewart Collection of housewares and home textiles designed exclusively for Macy's, and Tommy Hilfiger's family apparel and accessories.
IT'S A LITTLE EARLY FOR A FIREWORKS display.
Long-term debt remains high at 55% of total capital. Although Standard & Poor's recently raised its view of Macy's debt to positive from stable, it says it still wants "additional clarity" about the retailer's financial plans before making any changes (it rates Macy's debt BB+). David Kuntz, a director at S&P, says the company has at times been "fairly aggressive" in the use of its balance sheet, though it more recently has "worked to deleverage." Adds Kuntz: "Still we need a deeper understanding of their financial policy upon the achievement of an investment-grade rating for it to occur."
More important, the economy's course—and consumers' wealth—remains iffy.
"People are crazy if they think that retail is separate from the economy," says money manager Olstein. "There's a chance [of a second dip in the economy], but we don't think so." Rising food and gas prices are the latest threats.
While these are real risks, Macy's has some "margin of safety," says Nathan Snyder, portfolio manager with $3.7 billion-in-assets Snow Capital Management. The retailer has lots of room for improvement, says the value specialist. By his calculation, Macy's generated $152 per square foot in 2009, compared with Kohl's $190 per square foot and Target's $279. "There's lots of room ahead for meaningful upside, regardless of overall growth in sales," says Snyder.
Although many analysts are wary of old-line retailers like Macy's that are anchor tenants for shopping malls, Lundgren thinks they can excel if they do things right. "We are responsible for the big traffic. People don't come to the malls, because the Gap is there. We need to create a reason to go there," he says. "That's our responsibility." Special events—like the national flower show—or local visits by celebrities can create traffic. And, in addition to well-trained sales people, retailers need to use the Internet and current media both to attract and keep customers. Macy's, for instance, has been using video at its counters that includes features like interviews with popular make-up artist and cosmetician Bobbi Brown to personalize the buying experience.
It's up to retailers like Macy's to figure out how to get teenagers, who still gravitate to malls, into their stores.
Surprisingly, for the first time in more than two decades, the department-store share of the retail dollar is rising—ever so slightly. In 2010, it hit 2.5%, up from 2.4%, in 2009. To put that into perspective, 25 years ago the figure was 9%.
Small as it is, the increase has made consultants, like Craig Johnson of Customer Growth Partners, more enthusiastic about Macy's. "Macy's had the best spring quarter since the recession. And most of the benefits are in front of it," says Johnson. It "used to be your grandmother's store. Now it's appealing to a new generation of young shoppers," he adds. Just in time for Mother's Day.
Barron's
By Jack Willoughby
Here's a Mother's Day gift idea: Buy her a nice selection of Macy's shares before prices go up.
After a huge acquisition that racked up enormous debt, intense competition from Internet retailers and a recession that reached into its customers' wallets, the 153-year old retailer finally has begun to regain some former glory. Sales and earnings are up, and the company has started to free itself of a suffocating $9 billion debt load. A new sales-and-distribution strategy holds the promise of more good news to come.
If the improvements continue, the company could jump up a notch to recapture a long-lost investment-grade rating. "I believe it will happen," says Terry Lundgren, the 59-year-old CEO who's credited with overseeing Macy's turnaround. "It's just a question of when. We're doing the right things with our balance sheet."
Investors have already returned to Macy's aisles. Robert Olstein, founder of the Olstein Strategic Opportunities and Olstein All Cap Value Value funds, has purchased a large block of Macy's shares for both, impressed by the retailer's ability to generate $3 a share in free cash flow and the speed with which it is paying down debt. He says the shares, trading last week around $24, are worth 40, based on cash flow, other financial metrics and the quality of management.
Similarly impressed is Leah Hartman, an analyst with CRT Capital Group, who has a Buy on the stock with a one-year price target of 32. Macy's paid down $1.2 billion in debt in 2010, and Hartman expects it to continue to whittle it down. Another promising sign: The company reported a 4.6% increase in same-store sales for 2010, the first rise in four years and the biggest gain in over a decade.
Although the shares have bounced way off their bottom of 5.07 back in 2008, they're still reasonably priced. At last week's level, they trade at just 10 times forward earnings of $2.33 a share for the fiscal year ending January of 2012, well below the current market multiple of 13.7. Macy's is also attractive compared with its peers, which trade on average at 13.5 times earnings. "Macy's continues to be the cheapest name in the space," says Morgan Stanley analyst Michelle L. Clark. Although some analysts believe this is as good as it gets for the company, "I believe they're still in the early stages" of their turnaround, she says.
IT'S BEEN A PAINFUL PROCESS. In 2005, Macy's bought May Department Stores for $11.5 billion in cash and stock and assumed $5.8 billion in debt. It was a bold move to give a company with a quintessential New York-brand name a bigger national presence. The deal brought in regional merchandisers Filene's, Foley's, Kaufmann's, J.W. Robinson's, Meier & Frank and Marshall Field's, among others. The transaction helped push the retailer, which also includes 42 Bloomingdale's stores, toward its mammoth size of 850 stores. The following year, notes Lundgren, was the first in which the retailer actually qualified as a national advertiser on the TV broadcast of its Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York.
But sitting on some $9 billion in debt made Macy's vulnerable to the miserable financial and economic conditions of 2008 and early 2009. Revenue dropped from $26 billion in 2007 to $24.9 billion in 2008 and then to $23.5 billion in 2009. Following earnings per share from operations of $2.15 in 2007, the company posted $1.29 in 2008 and $1.41 in 2009. Last year the figure rebounded to $2.09 a share.
"You have to remember how serious things became back in 2008," says Lundgren in an interview with Barron's at Macy's famous Herald Square store. "Consumers were questioning their net worth. The world seemed to be coming to an end," he recalls.
So, as Lundgren puts it: "It was clear then that it was time to make the necessary changes. We couldn't afford to waste a recession."
His reorganization started in the spring of 2008, with two initiatives, OneMacy's and MyMacy's. OneMacy's encompassed the unification of core functions such as buying, marketing, merchandizing and planning in New York, and support functions such as human resources and finance in Cincinnati. Macy's cut the number of regional divisions, whose chiefs operated with a lot of autonomy and separate hierarchies, to four from seven the first year. It got rid of them entirely in 2009. In all, 7,000 jobs were eliminated and Macy's estimates it saves about $500 million a year overall from the reorganization.
In the regional units' place came MyMacy's, designed to provide a faster, clearer picture of what customers wanted and to improve response time by opening up communications between New York and 69 newly created individual districts. The idea, says Lundgren, is to be more responsive to customer needs. He put experienced buyers and managers out in the 69 districts, which included 10 to 12 stores each, rather than as many as 23 stores in the old system. The idea is to increase the flow of information between the head office and individual stores so they can adapt to changing demand more quickly. It also lets the company leverage the buying power that tens of billions of dollars in revenue and hundreds of stores afford.
Previously, all of Macy's major suppliers had to deal separately with the seven regional chiefs and their staffs. CFO Karen Hoguet notes that prior to the Beijing Summer Olympics in 2008, Macy's was about to make a major deal with Ralph Lauren to design some of its wares around the games. But the transaction fell apart because not all the seven regional heads would sign on. More recently, for the Vancouver Winter Olympics in 2010, a Ralph Lauren deal was struck with one telephone call. Says Hoguet: "We speak with a new, uniform voice."
Sometimes, this system has to cope with mysteries. Mike Dervos, senior vice president regional director in charge of Macy's upper Midwest region, recalled that one store found that it couldn't keep pace with demand for women's size 11 shoes. Macy's rounded up more of the shoes; it even created separate displays for them and then worked with suppliers to create new styles of bigger women's footwear. It followed up with queries to other Macy's stories in the same district to see if they had noted a similar trend. Today, 300 Macy's stores carry size 11s for women and suppliers have responded with more styles. No one knows for sure why this size has become more popular, only that Macy's responded quickly to one store's needs. "These days there's no such thing as rolling it out in every store, says Dervos. "Trends move from the local to regional to cross country," he says.
Suppliers seem to like the change and are adapting their own systems."With MyMacy's we meet with one buyer and have one discussion, instead of seven discussions with seven plans not necessarily reflecting customer desires," says Fabrizio Freda, CEO of cosmetics specialist Estee Lauder. "Now we can talk with local representatives who call on each store to help personalize the customer's experience and focus on the right assortment."
"In many ways, we've returned to the system that I was familiar with back when I was starting—where buyers really knew the stores they were overseeing and visited them regularly," says Lundgren, who's seen his own career come full circle at Macy's. In 1988, he was the president of Los Angeles' specialty-retailer Bullocks Wilshire, a Federated Department Stores unit that was sold off to Macy's. Lundgren found out from a reporter's query that he was being replaced by Macy's. He landed on his feet as head of Neiman Marcus and rejoined Federated in 1994 as chief of merchandising. Shortly thereafter, Federated bought Macy's and he became Macy's CEO in 2003.
Ultimately, Lundgren envisions Macy's operating like a kind of living organism that's constantly adapting to customer needs. He'd like to see all its stores' inventory linked, to better deal with the ebbs and flows of demand. "The idea is to employ all the resources available to satisfy customer demand. It's one thing to put an order in through a fulfillment center, quite another to put it through to another store and have the item delivered. That's what we're aiming for—floor to store," he says.
Macy's surely has a lot more firepower than any old-time retailer. "There's no way you can duplicate or even buy the level of experience or the nationwide reach of the network we've created," says Lundgren. "It functions much the way the old local retailers did back in the early days but with the power of a nationwide buyers. Our purchasing clout gives us access to the best brands at reasonable prices. More than 40% of our sales come from exclusive and limited distribution brands only sold at Macy's. We want to raise that number." Among them: the Martha Stewart Collection of housewares and home textiles designed exclusively for Macy's, and Tommy Hilfiger's family apparel and accessories.
IT'S A LITTLE EARLY FOR A FIREWORKS display.
Long-term debt remains high at 55% of total capital. Although Standard & Poor's recently raised its view of Macy's debt to positive from stable, it says it still wants "additional clarity" about the retailer's financial plans before making any changes (it rates Macy's debt BB+). David Kuntz, a director at S&P, says the company has at times been "fairly aggressive" in the use of its balance sheet, though it more recently has "worked to deleverage." Adds Kuntz: "Still we need a deeper understanding of their financial policy upon the achievement of an investment-grade rating for it to occur."
More important, the economy's course—and consumers' wealth—remains iffy.
"People are crazy if they think that retail is separate from the economy," says money manager Olstein. "There's a chance [of a second dip in the economy], but we don't think so." Rising food and gas prices are the latest threats.
While these are real risks, Macy's has some "margin of safety," says Nathan Snyder, portfolio manager with $3.7 billion-in-assets Snow Capital Management. The retailer has lots of room for improvement, says the value specialist. By his calculation, Macy's generated $152 per square foot in 2009, compared with Kohl's $190 per square foot and Target's $279. "There's lots of room ahead for meaningful upside, regardless of overall growth in sales," says Snyder.
Although many analysts are wary of old-line retailers like Macy's that are anchor tenants for shopping malls, Lundgren thinks they can excel if they do things right. "We are responsible for the big traffic. People don't come to the malls, because the Gap is there. We need to create a reason to go there," he says. "That's our responsibility." Special events—like the national flower show—or local visits by celebrities can create traffic. And, in addition to well-trained sales people, retailers need to use the Internet and current media both to attract and keep customers. Macy's, for instance, has been using video at its counters that includes features like interviews with popular make-up artist and cosmetician Bobbi Brown to personalize the buying experience.
It's up to retailers like Macy's to figure out how to get teenagers, who still gravitate to malls, into their stores.
Surprisingly, for the first time in more than two decades, the department-store share of the retail dollar is rising—ever so slightly. In 2010, it hit 2.5%, up from 2.4%, in 2009. To put that into perspective, 25 years ago the figure was 9%.
Small as it is, the increase has made consultants, like Craig Johnson of Customer Growth Partners, more enthusiastic about Macy's. "Macy's had the best spring quarter since the recession. And most of the benefits are in front of it," says Johnson. It "used to be your grandmother's store. Now it's appealing to a new generation of young shoppers," he adds. Just in time for Mother's Day.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Harnessing the Might of Macy's
by Molly Prior and Pete Born
From WWD 04/22/11
During the last decade, department stores have often been the target of criticism for a seemingly anemic approach to innovation and an inability to attract new customers in the face of competitive new retail formats.
Now Macy’s is attempting to change the market’s tune and show that bigger is better by adding a dimension. As the solid number one in terms of U.S. prestige sales, the retailer is out to prove it’s got the brains as well as the brawn to become unbeatable in beauty.
If Terry J. Lundgren—chairman, president and chief executive officer of Macy’s Inc.—has his way, Macy’s, with 665 full-line beauty stores, will soon outstrip its competitors in terms of buzz and volume. With the recently introduced Impulse Beauty storewithin-a-store units, Macy’s is formulating a retail one-two punch that theoretically offers consumers—under one roof—the power of big brands on the traditional cosmetics selling floor and the playfulness of the niche dwellers on gondolas in the free-wheeling, more casual Impulse format. The staff, divided into merchants and operations chiefs, has been reorganized to give top executives the dexterity to drill down into local branches and discover what’s selling and what’s not. Likewise, the chain has launched a widespread training program aimed at honing selling skills and sharpening finesse.
All this adds up to a giant in the process of developing its own sense of cachet.
During a wide-ranging interview, Lundgren reflected on the strategic potency of beauty at Macy’s and the Impulse Beauty concept, as the chain battles for market share against the likes of Sephora and Ulta, onetime retail upstarts that are now vying for more turf.
“Beauty is such an important business,” says Lundgren. “Once you capture this customer, you’ve got a customer who will not only shop for beauty products consistently, but will shop the store.…We call it a signature business. It’s one of the most important businesses in the store.”
The importance of the category is underscored by its location. As Lundgren points out, the cosmetics department stands “at the front door of every one of our stores.
“I have always viewed it as the first impression of Macy’s, so the beauty business needs to be a great first impression,” he says. “We have to continue to work very hard to not ever take that for granted, but also work closely with our vendors and with our stores to make sure we understand that what is important to the customer in downtown Chicago may be different from the customer in Miami.”
Macy’s intensifying preoccupation with local preferences—a program known as My Macy’s—prompted a reorganization of its entire staff structure to ensure that information fl ows freely from the store level to the executive suite. The retailer also initiated a broad-scale training program called Magic Selling. Lastly, it unveiled the ambitious Impulse Beauty—an assisted, open-sell concept in select doors that serves as Macy’s answer to Sephora and like-minded competitors that cater to consumers’ interest in service only when they want it.
The Impulse Beauty concept expands Macy’s beauty business and the breadth of brands it carries by mixing open sell with traditional beauty counters—inside one store.
Asked how much beauty commands of total store sales and how high he would like to see it grow, Lundgren slyly replies, “Whatever it is, it always needs to be more in my opinion.”
Macy’s executives steadfastly declined to cite financial figures of any sort, but industry sources estimate the chain generated $3.25 billion in prestige fragrance, skin care and color cosmetics sales for 2010. That’s roughly 40 percent of the prestige market in America. In fragrances, the chain dominates with an estimated 50 percent share of the U.S. prestige market. These same sources calculate that beauty generates nearly 15 percent of total store sales, putting the category at the high end of the department store average.
By comparison, sources estimate Sephora accounts for roughly 15 percent of the prestige market, with a sales volume calculated at $1.1 billion to $1.2 billion a year— generated by 253 freestanding stores (not counting Canada), 235 units within J.C. Penney doors and what some manufacturers consider the most potent Web site in the industry. A Sephora spokeswoman had no comment on the sales estimate. In addition, Nordstrom is considered the third heavyweight by market executives with cosmetics department sales of $972 million last year in only 115 full-line doors, as of February.
As for Macy’s, “we don’t break out the categories, nor do we break out the stores,” says Lundgren. “But we are very pleased with our performance in beauty. We are very excited about 2010, and we are more excited about 2011.”
For the quarter ended Jan. 29, total store sales gained 4.3 percent on a comparable-store basis and the company projects 3 percent gains on a comp basis. Beauty division sales, according to industry sources, have been running ahead of those of the overall store.
Wall Street is equally as bullish. “Macy’s had the best comps in 15 years,” says Citi analyst Deborah Weinswig, noting that Macy’s same-store sales increased 4.6 percent in 2010. “This is a company that is very much evolving.” She notes that the apparel category, on the whole, is in decline, due to an aging customer. “But, skin care is particularly important to this customer,” says Weinswig. She’s also encouraged by Impulse Beauty and its ability to draw younger shoppers to the category. “It makes Macy’s feel more edgy.…It’s much less intimidating to shop Impulse Beauty. You can explore, it’s whimsical and it’s fun.”
Weinswig, who estimates beauty accounts for 10 to 15 percent of Macy’s sales, says, “It’s definitely a growing business for Macy’s.” The retailer’s My Macy’s efforts also lend themselves particularly well to the category. “I’ve always thought of beauty as a very localized business,” she says. Analysts’ optimism is reflected in the company’s stock price: Last July, shares on the New York Stock Exchange were at $17.16, a figure that had climbed to $23.93 at press time.
As an example, Muriel Gonzalez—Macy’s executive vice president and general merchandise manager of cosmetics, fragrances and shoes—cites the retailer’s success in foundation sales. “Our foundation business is very strong and that makes for a very loyal customer,” says Gonzalez. “Getting it right by location is something that we are able to do with a much greater degree than we ever did in the past.”
A lot of effort has gone into making such seemingly logical tasks possible. More than five years after swallowing up its competitors, Macy’s seems to have finally cracked the code on how to capitalize on its scale. In 2005, Lundgren orchestrated the acquisition of its long-time competitor May Department Stores Co. and its various retail nameplates—including Lord & Taylor (which was later divested), Marshall Field’s, Hecht’s and Foley’s—for approximately $17.3 billion. After combining the companies, Lundgren boldly created the first prestige category national department store chain called Macy’s. That controversial act has allowed Macy’s to implement national, blockbuster launches on key products in all stores on the same date.
The beauty category’s performance has been driven by several stalwart introductions, in which Macy’s linked promotional efforts with key brands.
Case in point: The Estée Lauder Cos. Inc.’s Clinique brand was a powerful sales locomotive last year, as Macy’s got behind the spring launch of Even Better Clinical Dark Spot Corrector in a big way, including participating in the TV campaign.
“Even Better Clinical was a clear example of what we were able to accomplish as one Macy’s because we were able to make a decision and get behind it in a faster, more nimble time period than all the operating divisions could have done,” says Gonzalez. “We were able to decide the week [of the launch], we were able to decide the visual and the marketing support, and we were able to get our stores all behind it. The results were that we got more than our fair share of that business and that really showed us how we can make big things bigger.”
Lynne Greene, global brand president of Lauder’s Clinique, Origins and Ojon brands, nodded to the effort and to Lundgren’s vision and “unbelievable patience” in laying the building blocks over five years to build the merchandising machine by opting for one retail nameplate; creating the My Macy’s program, which she describes as a “brilliant” exercise in tapping localization to build relevance, and following with the “I Believe” holiday campaign to get the heart pumping. Greene says Lundgren is a retailer who is unafraid to make hard decisions, like slapping the Macy’s name over longtime local favorites—“not always to applause”—and knows when and how to put initiatives together into a coherent train of thoughts. “He is the master of timing and knows how to pulse a strategy,” she says, adding Lundgren is “terribly inspirational. He encourages people to step out of the box.” Greene goes on to say that he then supports those who take a chance and get it right.
Gonzalez says Macy’s has always carried “blockbuster” skin care products—Origins Plantscription and Lancôme Génifi que included—but adds, “We now have the machine to really maximize them.”
Fragrance is another area where Macy’s is flexing its national marketing muscle.
“We have the strongest fragrance business in the country, and an enormous share of the market,” says Gonzalez. She allows that the life cycle of celebrity scents continues to shorten, saying, “They might be good for three or six months and then that customer is onto the next thing.” But, she says when the celebrity does something as simple as send a tweet to her fans about an upcoming public appearance at the store—as Rihanna did for the launch of her women’s fragrance Reb’l Fleur—“it’s unbelievable what can happen.”
Lundgren sees Macy’s prowess at trumpeting blockbuster products as a powerful marketing tool, one that in certain instances serves as an alternative to department stores’ long-held practice of gift-withpurchase. Referring to Clinique’s Even Better, he says, “We’re all trying to find something more creative than gift-with-purchase. And 2010 was a clear example of that.…[There’s] much more to come.”
That’s not to suggest that Macy’s is abandoning gwp, rather, it’s simply augmenting it with a new approach. “I see it as a way the customers get involved in a brand,” says Gonzalez. “Gift-with-purchase is a good thing.”
Lundgren adds, “[Gwp] has clearly been a big part of the business, no question, for us and for others.” He recalls, however, that last year Macy’s executives were particularly excited when the organization began working with vendors to invest in touting their latest innovations. “That has to become more a part of our growth in the future,” says Lundgren. “The large majority of our vendors agree with that [approach] and they are anxious to make a move in that direction.”
In addition to retooling its promotional strategy, Macy’s also broke from its established brandedbeauty- counter merchandising philosophy to make room for Impulse Beauty, an effort that spotlights smaller-size, niche brands. The concept borrows from the gondola-fi xtured environment made ubiquitous by specialty chains like Sephora and Ulta, plus drugstore forays into the prestige market, namely CVS Pharmacy’s Beauty 360 and Duane Reade’s Look Boutique.
“The opportunity that we had was to add to the mixture that we had with emerging brands,” says Gonzalez.
Impulse Beauty’s brand mix—housed in an at least 1,000-square-foot area— includes Benefi t Cosmetics, Bare Escentuals, Philosophy, Smashbox Cosmetics, Laura Geller, Laura Mercier, Dior, Stila, H2O Plus, MD Skincare, Bliss and the Frédéric Fekkai hair care brand.
It’s that mix of established department store brands and emerging lines that gives Macy’s an edge over competitors, says Gonzalez.
“The Impulse assortment of brands are carried in other venues. That is the same for our traditional assortment,” she acknowledges. “What is unique is the ability to shop all of these brands under one roof—from Estée Lauder, Clinique, MAC and Chanel to Urban Decay, Sue Devitt and Bare Escentuals. No other retailer has that complete of an assortment to service the customer’s every need.”
The concept has helped Macy’s break a longstanding impasse. In past generations, ceo’s have tried to recruit edgy, small brands, but with little success.
“The beauty of Impulse is that it allows us to bring in these smaller niche vendors that the former [business] model wouldn’t allow for because you needed to do enough volume to afford a staff full time,” says Lundgren. “So, you might be missing these relatively small-volume businesses that would do $50,000 to $100,000 in a store on an annual basis, which is great, but it isn’t enough to afford a staff.”
He continues, “The best part of [Impulse Beauty] is that we can bring in a number of these niche brands and, collectively, they fund a staff to service the entire space. That creates more opportunities for us to bring in some of these smaller, unique brands.”
Impulse Beauty has clearly taken root, leaping from testing in a few pilot stores on the West Coast in 2009 to a projected 100 stores across the country by year’s end.
“It brings a lot,” says Gonzalez. “We have such strength in our big brands, but lots of customers like the ability to touch and play on their own without somebody bothering them. There are people who just want to rush in and replenish a product, there are people who want to browse on their own, and sometimes they are the same people who want a full makeover and consultation.”
As Lundgren points out, the typical Impulse Beauty shopper is “younger and more contemporary, similar to the Impulse apparel customer.”
The youth market is what all retailers are chasing. “The challenge for Macy’s and every department store is it has to get a younger customer base than they’ve had,” says Walter Loeb, former retail analyst and president of the consulting fi rm Loeb Associates Inc. “For awhile, Macy’s customers were aging gently. This is not something that’s tolerable at this point.”
Leslie Blodgett, executive chairman of Bare Escentuals, says Impulse Beauty zeros in on younger shoppers who are already shopping for clothing and accessories at Macy’s. “First and foremost, it’s targeting those who are already shopping at Macy’s. It’s less about taking them away from another format,” she says. Bare Escentuals has counter displays in 91 Macy’s doors, and by year’s end, the brand will be featured in 49 Impulse Beauty shops (all in Macy’s stores where it does not have a counter). “It was a smart idea on Macy’s part,” says Blodgett. “Macy’s already had a younger consumer who was buying apparel, but they weren’t necessarily buying beauty.”
Aurelian Lis, general manager of North America for Benefit Cosmetics, generally gives good marks for the Impulse initiative, so far. “Overall, it’s a good new approach,” he says. “The customer is in a different mindset than in the traditional department. They want to play and experiment.” He adds that the Impulse concept has to reach three plateaus. The store has done well with the first two—letting the customer get to the product and communicating vital information like price and product function. The third step is more subtle. “The beauty staff has to create an environment that gives the customer permission to play,” Lis says. “It takes more time to perfect that.”
Benefit has Brow Bars built into its brand presentation in the store and the company has 100 service locations throughout the Macy’s chain. The brand is in the process of launching a skin care line, B.Right Radiant Skincare by Benefit, a move that has raised expectations. Lis also notes that Macy’s has been at work upgrading the staff. “People are better trained than they were a couple of years ago,” he adds.
Karen Grant, vice president and global beauty industry analyst for The NPD Group, sees the overall use of space as more innovative, inviting and compelling with a sense of home being created among the different floor formats and a more democratic feeling among the European, American and niche brands. She also applauds the reorganization into pairings of a merchant with a vision and an executive in charge of execution, which makes for better alignments. The trick, she says, is to have a certain homogeneity, but also the ability to differentiate from the competition. “The service element has to be different,” she observes, noting that there has been more education given to the sales associates and a little less gift mania to drive volume. Although the gwp promotions remain a big traffic driver.
As for luring new customers into the store, Grant sees the role of Impulse Beauty as a magnet to lure those already shopping in the store to make another purchase— “How to drive or create an environment where you get the most out of your consumers. It’s getting all of the juice out of the orange.”
Grant points out that Macy’s has been willing to try new formats in general. A small example is a merchandise standout on the cosmetics fl oor displaying hot items from different brands. It all adds up to one objective—“let’s keep our consumer in our store with us.”
Of course, some observers don’t see a dramatic change in the level of service working its way down to the selling fl oor yet. “I don’t think we can say the customer experience in beauty is so much different from what it was years ago,” says one vendor, speaking not for attribution. He quickly adds, however, that the chain is “doing really well” in beauty, now that the distraction of the merger has been put to rest, with brands like Clinique providing a big boost last year and Impulse Beauty coming on strong.
Gonzalez says the concept’s mix offers a nice complement to the service-intensive skin treatment business at the beauty counters. “We do have some treatment product in there, but really the home run is the color,” she says, later adding, “Our research has shown us that a good amount of the customers who are buying at Impulse Beauty are Macy’s customers who were not buying color and treatment. So, it’s been additive.”
In the past, she has said that 40 percent of Impulse Beauty shoppers are Macy’s customers who previously purchased in the store’s beauty department. For those who did shop beauty at Macy’s, Gonzalez says they are now simply buying more.
“It’s not, ‘I’m buying this instead of that.’ It’s allowing them to explore and find products that they might not have seen before because they were hidden behind a counter,” she says.
“Part of what we need to do is to make the beauty departments more exciting by constantly injecting new ideas,” which, in her view, energizes the entire offering.
“Customers really respond to variety. That’s why they come to Macy’s.” That point was driven home when Gonzalez was asked if the store is considering doing an Impulse Beauty private label brand, like Sephora’s namesake line. “I’ve thought about it and decided not to do it,” she quickly replies. “In beauty, people really do respond to brands. That’s what my focus is right now—acquiring the right kind of brands for Impulse Beauty.”
Two brands slated for a spring launch are Essie and Living Proof, as Macy’s seeks to add nail polish and expand its hair care offering.
Clearing room for a hair care assortment is a bit like crossing the Rubicon since department stores have historically left those products to the mass market. “It’s an obvious opportunity for us,” says Gonzalez, acknowledging that Macy’s does not sell hair products in its main beauty department.
“We’ve been talking about it for a long time,” adds Lundgren. “It’s one of those businesses that if you bring in one vendor, is it going to be enough volume in every store to pay for an associate who can talk about hair? The answer has been ‘no’ in the past,” says Lundgren. “Now, bringing it in as part of Impulse you can make that work. It’s a natural for us.”
He clarifies that the products have to bring innovation and lend themselves to an assisted-sell environment.
“There are certain customers who care a lot about the hair products that they use,” he says. “If all you care about is the lowest possible price, you can just put soap in a bottle and call it shampoo. There is plenty of that out there.”
On the subject of whether the early Impulse Beauty units are showing a compstore increase, a Macy’s spokesman says, “Results have been very positive, both in the original pilots and the rollout locations.” Although Macy’s refused to comment on the amount, one industry source said the chain is aiming to do $500,000 at each Impulse Beauty unit “and has succeeded in quite a few cases.”
Macy’s continues to tinker with the concept to improve productivity. “One thing I learned was that we weren’t using the end-cap displays correctly,” says Gonzalez. “So, in some of the new [shops] that we’re opening up, we’re actually merchandising the end caps with product and that’s an opportunity to use our space more effectively. Also, in some of the very early pilots [stores] we tried duplicating product that was already in another part of the floor. That was too confusing to the customer. We didn’t need to do that.”
Since Macy’s trump card in competing with the mass market is the service provided by beauty advisers, the question then becomes what can Impulse Beauty offer that is not already available in the market. “We have a staff there and they’re trained on all the brands,” says Gonzalez. “We have a person who coordinates all the information from all the vendors so that we can make sure that [the staff is] fully trained.”
Last fall, Macy’s implemented a storewide sales strategy for its employees called Magic Selling, an acronym that stands for: Meet and Make a Connection; Ask Questions and Listen; Give Options, Give Advice; Inspire to Buy and Sell More and Celebrate the Purchase.
“[Service] is the next major step for us,” says Lundgren. “We trained 130,000 employees last year. We’re retraining them now, because you just can’t do it once and then just hope for the best, you really have to make it a culture shift and a change and a focus on engagement as opposed to just ringing the register.…It is the most expensive training initiative we have ever embarked upon.…We’ve made incremental progress each year, it’s time to make big progress.”
Gonzalez adds, “This is about selling skills, it’s not about product information. It is about selling skills that you can use whether you’re selling fragrance, treatment or selling a handbag. It’s how to engage with a customer.”
With the budding Impulse Beauty experiment and so many Macy’s doors, the organization has been reorganized to give senior merchants and planners a telescopic view of what’s happening at the grassroots level.
In the spring of 2009, Macy’s put in a structure that pairs every gmm with a companion general planning manager with the same product scope. Likewise, every divisional merchandising manager has a divisional planning manager. And all buyers report to the chief merchandise planning officer, Julie Greiner.
As a gmm, Gonzalez works with Farrell Foster—executive vice president and general planning manager of cosmetics, fragrances and shoes—who leverages the broad brand strategies down to a door-to-door level.
While Gonzalez is working on assortment strategies on the top level, Foster says his job is to implement those decisions by each location “and make sure that we register who the customer is in each one of the buildings, make sure we’re distorting the categories that are right for each one of our buildings and make sure that we deliver on our commitment in regards to receipts to drive the sales piece of it at a location level.”
Lundgren sums it up: “Muriel buys it and Farrell distributes it.”
Beneath that level there are eight merchandise planning managers responsible for planning cosmetics. They report to a national planning manager, who reports to Greiner. In addition, in each of the 69 local store districts, there is a district merchant for cosmetics, who is responsible for store-level execution in 10 to 12 stores. These district merchants are part of the store’s organization. “With this structure, the district teams are organized around approximately 10 stores, and the whole team is active in those stores every week. They live in these 69 cities around the country, that’s what they do. The information that they feed up is filtered through these eight regions and then that gets to Farrell and Muriel for their decisions and execution,” explains Lundgren.
“It should’ve been done this way forever and probably was 50 years ago when we only had eight stores in each one of these companies. It’s almost back to the future,” he says.
“We now have this filtering system through the organizational structure that allows information to fl ow to Farrell’s organization to help us respond to the product they’re looking for and become locally relevant.” Lundgren continues, “That was really our vision. We said, ‘How do we get closer to the customer? How do we capture the information we know that the cosmetics department in NorthPark, Dallas, has that we couldn’t capture when we were trying to buy that product from San Francisco? Now we’ve got an organization structure that, to my knowledge, no other retailer has.”
Macy’s interest in local buying habits enables the team to zoom in on retail hot spots. One such hot spot is the Impulse Beauty unit in a D-level store located in, of all places, Delaware. That little shop turned out to be the most successful in the Impulse location, right behind the Herald Square outfit in New York.
“Through on-the-ground intelligence and feedback from the field, we really know who this customer is,” says Foster. “This particular store is located near a university, so it’s a younger customer base. Understanding the right product for the right store with a great selling effort has made this the number-two store.” Gonzalez adds that another hot spot was found in the Flushing section of Queens in New York. “We discovered certain stores that were in heavily Asian areas that, when we put the right selling people behind the counter, the business absolutely skyrocketed,” she recalls.
Each small success helps to boost the company’s confidence.
Lundgren says, “There is a broad group of competitors in the beauty world today and we’ve demonstrated in this past year that we can take market share from everyone and we intend to do that in 2011 and beyond.
Who's Who At Macy's
Terry J. Lundgren
A native of Long Beach, Calif., Terry J. Lundgren began his retailing career in 1975 as a trainee at Bullock’s, a Los Angeles-based division of Federated. Over the next decade, he held positions of increasing responsibility in buying, store management and human resources. In 1984, he was named senior vice president and general merchandise manager, moving up to president and chief executive officer three years later. He left Federated after its acquisition by Campeau Corp., joining Neiman Marcus and rising to chairman and ceo. He returned to Federated in April 1994 as chairman and ceo of the Federated Merchandising Group, at a time when the company doubled in size because of numerous acquisitions. Lundgren led the acquisition of May Department Stores Co. in 2005, again doubling the size of the company. Lundgren graduated from the University of Arizona, where he is an active supporter of the Terry J. Lundgren Center for Retailing.
Muriel Gonzalez
Executive vice president and general merchandise manager for cosmetics, fragrance and shoes, Muriel Gonzalez has had significant experience on the retail and brand side of the beauty business.
She began her career at Bloomingdale’s, and her early experience included stints at Saks Fifth Avenue and John Wanamaker, where she quickly rose through the ranks. From 1991 to 1999, she was senior vice president of marketing for Estée Lauder USA and Canada. Her retail experience includes merchandising and marketing. At AnnTaylor Stores Corp., for example, she was executive vice president and chief marketing officer.
Farrell Foster
Farrell Foster joined Broadway Stores Inc. in 1994 as a department manager. Two years later, he moved to Burdines in Miami, where he was promoted through the planning and finance ranks to become vice president for gross margin, financial and capital planning. When the Macy’s merchandising and merchandise planning organization was unified in 2009, Foster became group vice president and national planning manager. Today, he is executive vice president-general planning manager for cosmetics, fragrances and shoes, a position he assumed in November.
Terry J. Lundgren’s Expansive Vision: The CEO’s Four-Pronged Plan
It’s In the Mix: Offer beauty shoppers a one-two punch by combining the power of the big brands on the traditional floor with the playfulness and innovation of niche brands in Impulse Beauty.
Nationwide Is on Our Side: Use cross-country media campaigns to communicate innovation and excitement, thus lessening the dependence on gift-with-purchase.
Public Service: Create a renewed emphasis on training—and retraining—sales associates to transform the store’s culture into one that readily engages with customers.
Think Small: Reorganize the management structure and pair merchandise managers with planning counterparts so that executives can better predict and react quickly to local business drivers.
From WWD 04/22/11
During the last decade, department stores have often been the target of criticism for a seemingly anemic approach to innovation and an inability to attract new customers in the face of competitive new retail formats.
Now Macy’s is attempting to change the market’s tune and show that bigger is better by adding a dimension. As the solid number one in terms of U.S. prestige sales, the retailer is out to prove it’s got the brains as well as the brawn to become unbeatable in beauty.
If Terry J. Lundgren—chairman, president and chief executive officer of Macy’s Inc.—has his way, Macy’s, with 665 full-line beauty stores, will soon outstrip its competitors in terms of buzz and volume. With the recently introduced Impulse Beauty storewithin-a-store units, Macy’s is formulating a retail one-two punch that theoretically offers consumers—under one roof—the power of big brands on the traditional cosmetics selling floor and the playfulness of the niche dwellers on gondolas in the free-wheeling, more casual Impulse format. The staff, divided into merchants and operations chiefs, has been reorganized to give top executives the dexterity to drill down into local branches and discover what’s selling and what’s not. Likewise, the chain has launched a widespread training program aimed at honing selling skills and sharpening finesse.
All this adds up to a giant in the process of developing its own sense of cachet.
During a wide-ranging interview, Lundgren reflected on the strategic potency of beauty at Macy’s and the Impulse Beauty concept, as the chain battles for market share against the likes of Sephora and Ulta, onetime retail upstarts that are now vying for more turf.
“Beauty is such an important business,” says Lundgren. “Once you capture this customer, you’ve got a customer who will not only shop for beauty products consistently, but will shop the store.…We call it a signature business. It’s one of the most important businesses in the store.”
The importance of the category is underscored by its location. As Lundgren points out, the cosmetics department stands “at the front door of every one of our stores.
“I have always viewed it as the first impression of Macy’s, so the beauty business needs to be a great first impression,” he says. “We have to continue to work very hard to not ever take that for granted, but also work closely with our vendors and with our stores to make sure we understand that what is important to the customer in downtown Chicago may be different from the customer in Miami.”
Macy’s intensifying preoccupation with local preferences—a program known as My Macy’s—prompted a reorganization of its entire staff structure to ensure that information fl ows freely from the store level to the executive suite. The retailer also initiated a broad-scale training program called Magic Selling. Lastly, it unveiled the ambitious Impulse Beauty—an assisted, open-sell concept in select doors that serves as Macy’s answer to Sephora and like-minded competitors that cater to consumers’ interest in service only when they want it.
The Impulse Beauty concept expands Macy’s beauty business and the breadth of brands it carries by mixing open sell with traditional beauty counters—inside one store.
Asked how much beauty commands of total store sales and how high he would like to see it grow, Lundgren slyly replies, “Whatever it is, it always needs to be more in my opinion.”
Macy’s executives steadfastly declined to cite financial figures of any sort, but industry sources estimate the chain generated $3.25 billion in prestige fragrance, skin care and color cosmetics sales for 2010. That’s roughly 40 percent of the prestige market in America. In fragrances, the chain dominates with an estimated 50 percent share of the U.S. prestige market. These same sources calculate that beauty generates nearly 15 percent of total store sales, putting the category at the high end of the department store average.
By comparison, sources estimate Sephora accounts for roughly 15 percent of the prestige market, with a sales volume calculated at $1.1 billion to $1.2 billion a year— generated by 253 freestanding stores (not counting Canada), 235 units within J.C. Penney doors and what some manufacturers consider the most potent Web site in the industry. A Sephora spokeswoman had no comment on the sales estimate. In addition, Nordstrom is considered the third heavyweight by market executives with cosmetics department sales of $972 million last year in only 115 full-line doors, as of February.
As for Macy’s, “we don’t break out the categories, nor do we break out the stores,” says Lundgren. “But we are very pleased with our performance in beauty. We are very excited about 2010, and we are more excited about 2011.”
For the quarter ended Jan. 29, total store sales gained 4.3 percent on a comparable-store basis and the company projects 3 percent gains on a comp basis. Beauty division sales, according to industry sources, have been running ahead of those of the overall store.
Wall Street is equally as bullish. “Macy’s had the best comps in 15 years,” says Citi analyst Deborah Weinswig, noting that Macy’s same-store sales increased 4.6 percent in 2010. “This is a company that is very much evolving.” She notes that the apparel category, on the whole, is in decline, due to an aging customer. “But, skin care is particularly important to this customer,” says Weinswig. She’s also encouraged by Impulse Beauty and its ability to draw younger shoppers to the category. “It makes Macy’s feel more edgy.…It’s much less intimidating to shop Impulse Beauty. You can explore, it’s whimsical and it’s fun.”
Weinswig, who estimates beauty accounts for 10 to 15 percent of Macy’s sales, says, “It’s definitely a growing business for Macy’s.” The retailer’s My Macy’s efforts also lend themselves particularly well to the category. “I’ve always thought of beauty as a very localized business,” she says. Analysts’ optimism is reflected in the company’s stock price: Last July, shares on the New York Stock Exchange were at $17.16, a figure that had climbed to $23.93 at press time.
As an example, Muriel Gonzalez—Macy’s executive vice president and general merchandise manager of cosmetics, fragrances and shoes—cites the retailer’s success in foundation sales. “Our foundation business is very strong and that makes for a very loyal customer,” says Gonzalez. “Getting it right by location is something that we are able to do with a much greater degree than we ever did in the past.”
A lot of effort has gone into making such seemingly logical tasks possible. More than five years after swallowing up its competitors, Macy’s seems to have finally cracked the code on how to capitalize on its scale. In 2005, Lundgren orchestrated the acquisition of its long-time competitor May Department Stores Co. and its various retail nameplates—including Lord & Taylor (which was later divested), Marshall Field’s, Hecht’s and Foley’s—for approximately $17.3 billion. After combining the companies, Lundgren boldly created the first prestige category national department store chain called Macy’s. That controversial act has allowed Macy’s to implement national, blockbuster launches on key products in all stores on the same date.
The beauty category’s performance has been driven by several stalwart introductions, in which Macy’s linked promotional efforts with key brands.
Case in point: The Estée Lauder Cos. Inc.’s Clinique brand was a powerful sales locomotive last year, as Macy’s got behind the spring launch of Even Better Clinical Dark Spot Corrector in a big way, including participating in the TV campaign.
“Even Better Clinical was a clear example of what we were able to accomplish as one Macy’s because we were able to make a decision and get behind it in a faster, more nimble time period than all the operating divisions could have done,” says Gonzalez. “We were able to decide the week [of the launch], we were able to decide the visual and the marketing support, and we were able to get our stores all behind it. The results were that we got more than our fair share of that business and that really showed us how we can make big things bigger.”
Lynne Greene, global brand president of Lauder’s Clinique, Origins and Ojon brands, nodded to the effort and to Lundgren’s vision and “unbelievable patience” in laying the building blocks over five years to build the merchandising machine by opting for one retail nameplate; creating the My Macy’s program, which she describes as a “brilliant” exercise in tapping localization to build relevance, and following with the “I Believe” holiday campaign to get the heart pumping. Greene says Lundgren is a retailer who is unafraid to make hard decisions, like slapping the Macy’s name over longtime local favorites—“not always to applause”—and knows when and how to put initiatives together into a coherent train of thoughts. “He is the master of timing and knows how to pulse a strategy,” she says, adding Lundgren is “terribly inspirational. He encourages people to step out of the box.” Greene goes on to say that he then supports those who take a chance and get it right.
Gonzalez says Macy’s has always carried “blockbuster” skin care products—Origins Plantscription and Lancôme Génifi que included—but adds, “We now have the machine to really maximize them.”
Fragrance is another area where Macy’s is flexing its national marketing muscle.
“We have the strongest fragrance business in the country, and an enormous share of the market,” says Gonzalez. She allows that the life cycle of celebrity scents continues to shorten, saying, “They might be good for three or six months and then that customer is onto the next thing.” But, she says when the celebrity does something as simple as send a tweet to her fans about an upcoming public appearance at the store—as Rihanna did for the launch of her women’s fragrance Reb’l Fleur—“it’s unbelievable what can happen.”
Lundgren sees Macy’s prowess at trumpeting blockbuster products as a powerful marketing tool, one that in certain instances serves as an alternative to department stores’ long-held practice of gift-withpurchase. Referring to Clinique’s Even Better, he says, “We’re all trying to find something more creative than gift-with-purchase. And 2010 was a clear example of that.…[There’s] much more to come.”
That’s not to suggest that Macy’s is abandoning gwp, rather, it’s simply augmenting it with a new approach. “I see it as a way the customers get involved in a brand,” says Gonzalez. “Gift-with-purchase is a good thing.”
Lundgren adds, “[Gwp] has clearly been a big part of the business, no question, for us and for others.” He recalls, however, that last year Macy’s executives were particularly excited when the organization began working with vendors to invest in touting their latest innovations. “That has to become more a part of our growth in the future,” says Lundgren. “The large majority of our vendors agree with that [approach] and they are anxious to make a move in that direction.”
In addition to retooling its promotional strategy, Macy’s also broke from its established brandedbeauty- counter merchandising philosophy to make room for Impulse Beauty, an effort that spotlights smaller-size, niche brands. The concept borrows from the gondola-fi xtured environment made ubiquitous by specialty chains like Sephora and Ulta, plus drugstore forays into the prestige market, namely CVS Pharmacy’s Beauty 360 and Duane Reade’s Look Boutique.
“The opportunity that we had was to add to the mixture that we had with emerging brands,” says Gonzalez.
Impulse Beauty’s brand mix—housed in an at least 1,000-square-foot area— includes Benefi t Cosmetics, Bare Escentuals, Philosophy, Smashbox Cosmetics, Laura Geller, Laura Mercier, Dior, Stila, H2O Plus, MD Skincare, Bliss and the Frédéric Fekkai hair care brand.
It’s that mix of established department store brands and emerging lines that gives Macy’s an edge over competitors, says Gonzalez.
“The Impulse assortment of brands are carried in other venues. That is the same for our traditional assortment,” she acknowledges. “What is unique is the ability to shop all of these brands under one roof—from Estée Lauder, Clinique, MAC and Chanel to Urban Decay, Sue Devitt and Bare Escentuals. No other retailer has that complete of an assortment to service the customer’s every need.”
The concept has helped Macy’s break a longstanding impasse. In past generations, ceo’s have tried to recruit edgy, small brands, but with little success.
“The beauty of Impulse is that it allows us to bring in these smaller niche vendors that the former [business] model wouldn’t allow for because you needed to do enough volume to afford a staff full time,” says Lundgren. “So, you might be missing these relatively small-volume businesses that would do $50,000 to $100,000 in a store on an annual basis, which is great, but it isn’t enough to afford a staff.”
He continues, “The best part of [Impulse Beauty] is that we can bring in a number of these niche brands and, collectively, they fund a staff to service the entire space. That creates more opportunities for us to bring in some of these smaller, unique brands.”
Impulse Beauty has clearly taken root, leaping from testing in a few pilot stores on the West Coast in 2009 to a projected 100 stores across the country by year’s end.
“It brings a lot,” says Gonzalez. “We have such strength in our big brands, but lots of customers like the ability to touch and play on their own without somebody bothering them. There are people who just want to rush in and replenish a product, there are people who want to browse on their own, and sometimes they are the same people who want a full makeover and consultation.”
As Lundgren points out, the typical Impulse Beauty shopper is “younger and more contemporary, similar to the Impulse apparel customer.”
The youth market is what all retailers are chasing. “The challenge for Macy’s and every department store is it has to get a younger customer base than they’ve had,” says Walter Loeb, former retail analyst and president of the consulting fi rm Loeb Associates Inc. “For awhile, Macy’s customers were aging gently. This is not something that’s tolerable at this point.”
Leslie Blodgett, executive chairman of Bare Escentuals, says Impulse Beauty zeros in on younger shoppers who are already shopping for clothing and accessories at Macy’s. “First and foremost, it’s targeting those who are already shopping at Macy’s. It’s less about taking them away from another format,” she says. Bare Escentuals has counter displays in 91 Macy’s doors, and by year’s end, the brand will be featured in 49 Impulse Beauty shops (all in Macy’s stores where it does not have a counter). “It was a smart idea on Macy’s part,” says Blodgett. “Macy’s already had a younger consumer who was buying apparel, but they weren’t necessarily buying beauty.”
Aurelian Lis, general manager of North America for Benefit Cosmetics, generally gives good marks for the Impulse initiative, so far. “Overall, it’s a good new approach,” he says. “The customer is in a different mindset than in the traditional department. They want to play and experiment.” He adds that the Impulse concept has to reach three plateaus. The store has done well with the first two—letting the customer get to the product and communicating vital information like price and product function. The third step is more subtle. “The beauty staff has to create an environment that gives the customer permission to play,” Lis says. “It takes more time to perfect that.”
Benefit has Brow Bars built into its brand presentation in the store and the company has 100 service locations throughout the Macy’s chain. The brand is in the process of launching a skin care line, B.Right Radiant Skincare by Benefit, a move that has raised expectations. Lis also notes that Macy’s has been at work upgrading the staff. “People are better trained than they were a couple of years ago,” he adds.
Karen Grant, vice president and global beauty industry analyst for The NPD Group, sees the overall use of space as more innovative, inviting and compelling with a sense of home being created among the different floor formats and a more democratic feeling among the European, American and niche brands. She also applauds the reorganization into pairings of a merchant with a vision and an executive in charge of execution, which makes for better alignments. The trick, she says, is to have a certain homogeneity, but also the ability to differentiate from the competition. “The service element has to be different,” she observes, noting that there has been more education given to the sales associates and a little less gift mania to drive volume. Although the gwp promotions remain a big traffic driver.
As for luring new customers into the store, Grant sees the role of Impulse Beauty as a magnet to lure those already shopping in the store to make another purchase— “How to drive or create an environment where you get the most out of your consumers. It’s getting all of the juice out of the orange.”
Grant points out that Macy’s has been willing to try new formats in general. A small example is a merchandise standout on the cosmetics fl oor displaying hot items from different brands. It all adds up to one objective—“let’s keep our consumer in our store with us.”
Of course, some observers don’t see a dramatic change in the level of service working its way down to the selling fl oor yet. “I don’t think we can say the customer experience in beauty is so much different from what it was years ago,” says one vendor, speaking not for attribution. He quickly adds, however, that the chain is “doing really well” in beauty, now that the distraction of the merger has been put to rest, with brands like Clinique providing a big boost last year and Impulse Beauty coming on strong.
Gonzalez says the concept’s mix offers a nice complement to the service-intensive skin treatment business at the beauty counters. “We do have some treatment product in there, but really the home run is the color,” she says, later adding, “Our research has shown us that a good amount of the customers who are buying at Impulse Beauty are Macy’s customers who were not buying color and treatment. So, it’s been additive.”
In the past, she has said that 40 percent of Impulse Beauty shoppers are Macy’s customers who previously purchased in the store’s beauty department. For those who did shop beauty at Macy’s, Gonzalez says they are now simply buying more.
“It’s not, ‘I’m buying this instead of that.’ It’s allowing them to explore and find products that they might not have seen before because they were hidden behind a counter,” she says.
“Part of what we need to do is to make the beauty departments more exciting by constantly injecting new ideas,” which, in her view, energizes the entire offering.
“Customers really respond to variety. That’s why they come to Macy’s.” That point was driven home when Gonzalez was asked if the store is considering doing an Impulse Beauty private label brand, like Sephora’s namesake line. “I’ve thought about it and decided not to do it,” she quickly replies. “In beauty, people really do respond to brands. That’s what my focus is right now—acquiring the right kind of brands for Impulse Beauty.”
Two brands slated for a spring launch are Essie and Living Proof, as Macy’s seeks to add nail polish and expand its hair care offering.
Clearing room for a hair care assortment is a bit like crossing the Rubicon since department stores have historically left those products to the mass market. “It’s an obvious opportunity for us,” says Gonzalez, acknowledging that Macy’s does not sell hair products in its main beauty department.
“We’ve been talking about it for a long time,” adds Lundgren. “It’s one of those businesses that if you bring in one vendor, is it going to be enough volume in every store to pay for an associate who can talk about hair? The answer has been ‘no’ in the past,” says Lundgren. “Now, bringing it in as part of Impulse you can make that work. It’s a natural for us.”
He clarifies that the products have to bring innovation and lend themselves to an assisted-sell environment.
“There are certain customers who care a lot about the hair products that they use,” he says. “If all you care about is the lowest possible price, you can just put soap in a bottle and call it shampoo. There is plenty of that out there.”
On the subject of whether the early Impulse Beauty units are showing a compstore increase, a Macy’s spokesman says, “Results have been very positive, both in the original pilots and the rollout locations.” Although Macy’s refused to comment on the amount, one industry source said the chain is aiming to do $500,000 at each Impulse Beauty unit “and has succeeded in quite a few cases.”
Macy’s continues to tinker with the concept to improve productivity. “One thing I learned was that we weren’t using the end-cap displays correctly,” says Gonzalez. “So, in some of the new [shops] that we’re opening up, we’re actually merchandising the end caps with product and that’s an opportunity to use our space more effectively. Also, in some of the very early pilots [stores] we tried duplicating product that was already in another part of the floor. That was too confusing to the customer. We didn’t need to do that.”
Since Macy’s trump card in competing with the mass market is the service provided by beauty advisers, the question then becomes what can Impulse Beauty offer that is not already available in the market. “We have a staff there and they’re trained on all the brands,” says Gonzalez. “We have a person who coordinates all the information from all the vendors so that we can make sure that [the staff is] fully trained.”
Last fall, Macy’s implemented a storewide sales strategy for its employees called Magic Selling, an acronym that stands for: Meet and Make a Connection; Ask Questions and Listen; Give Options, Give Advice; Inspire to Buy and Sell More and Celebrate the Purchase.
“[Service] is the next major step for us,” says Lundgren. “We trained 130,000 employees last year. We’re retraining them now, because you just can’t do it once and then just hope for the best, you really have to make it a culture shift and a change and a focus on engagement as opposed to just ringing the register.…It is the most expensive training initiative we have ever embarked upon.…We’ve made incremental progress each year, it’s time to make big progress.”
Gonzalez adds, “This is about selling skills, it’s not about product information. It is about selling skills that you can use whether you’re selling fragrance, treatment or selling a handbag. It’s how to engage with a customer.”
With the budding Impulse Beauty experiment and so many Macy’s doors, the organization has been reorganized to give senior merchants and planners a telescopic view of what’s happening at the grassroots level.
In the spring of 2009, Macy’s put in a structure that pairs every gmm with a companion general planning manager with the same product scope. Likewise, every divisional merchandising manager has a divisional planning manager. And all buyers report to the chief merchandise planning officer, Julie Greiner.
As a gmm, Gonzalez works with Farrell Foster—executive vice president and general planning manager of cosmetics, fragrances and shoes—who leverages the broad brand strategies down to a door-to-door level.
While Gonzalez is working on assortment strategies on the top level, Foster says his job is to implement those decisions by each location “and make sure that we register who the customer is in each one of the buildings, make sure we’re distorting the categories that are right for each one of our buildings and make sure that we deliver on our commitment in regards to receipts to drive the sales piece of it at a location level.”
Lundgren sums it up: “Muriel buys it and Farrell distributes it.”
Beneath that level there are eight merchandise planning managers responsible for planning cosmetics. They report to a national planning manager, who reports to Greiner. In addition, in each of the 69 local store districts, there is a district merchant for cosmetics, who is responsible for store-level execution in 10 to 12 stores. These district merchants are part of the store’s organization. “With this structure, the district teams are organized around approximately 10 stores, and the whole team is active in those stores every week. They live in these 69 cities around the country, that’s what they do. The information that they feed up is filtered through these eight regions and then that gets to Farrell and Muriel for their decisions and execution,” explains Lundgren.
“It should’ve been done this way forever and probably was 50 years ago when we only had eight stores in each one of these companies. It’s almost back to the future,” he says.
“We now have this filtering system through the organizational structure that allows information to fl ow to Farrell’s organization to help us respond to the product they’re looking for and become locally relevant.” Lundgren continues, “That was really our vision. We said, ‘How do we get closer to the customer? How do we capture the information we know that the cosmetics department in NorthPark, Dallas, has that we couldn’t capture when we were trying to buy that product from San Francisco? Now we’ve got an organization structure that, to my knowledge, no other retailer has.”
Macy’s interest in local buying habits enables the team to zoom in on retail hot spots. One such hot spot is the Impulse Beauty unit in a D-level store located in, of all places, Delaware. That little shop turned out to be the most successful in the Impulse location, right behind the Herald Square outfit in New York.
“Through on-the-ground intelligence and feedback from the field, we really know who this customer is,” says Foster. “This particular store is located near a university, so it’s a younger customer base. Understanding the right product for the right store with a great selling effort has made this the number-two store.” Gonzalez adds that another hot spot was found in the Flushing section of Queens in New York. “We discovered certain stores that were in heavily Asian areas that, when we put the right selling people behind the counter, the business absolutely skyrocketed,” she recalls.
Each small success helps to boost the company’s confidence.
Lundgren says, “There is a broad group of competitors in the beauty world today and we’ve demonstrated in this past year that we can take market share from everyone and we intend to do that in 2011 and beyond.
Who's Who At Macy's
Terry J. Lundgren
A native of Long Beach, Calif., Terry J. Lundgren began his retailing career in 1975 as a trainee at Bullock’s, a Los Angeles-based division of Federated. Over the next decade, he held positions of increasing responsibility in buying, store management and human resources. In 1984, he was named senior vice president and general merchandise manager, moving up to president and chief executive officer three years later. He left Federated after its acquisition by Campeau Corp., joining Neiman Marcus and rising to chairman and ceo. He returned to Federated in April 1994 as chairman and ceo of the Federated Merchandising Group, at a time when the company doubled in size because of numerous acquisitions. Lundgren led the acquisition of May Department Stores Co. in 2005, again doubling the size of the company. Lundgren graduated from the University of Arizona, where he is an active supporter of the Terry J. Lundgren Center for Retailing.
Muriel Gonzalez
Executive vice president and general merchandise manager for cosmetics, fragrance and shoes, Muriel Gonzalez has had significant experience on the retail and brand side of the beauty business.
She began her career at Bloomingdale’s, and her early experience included stints at Saks Fifth Avenue and John Wanamaker, where she quickly rose through the ranks. From 1991 to 1999, she was senior vice president of marketing for Estée Lauder USA and Canada. Her retail experience includes merchandising and marketing. At AnnTaylor Stores Corp., for example, she was executive vice president and chief marketing officer.
Farrell Foster
Farrell Foster joined Broadway Stores Inc. in 1994 as a department manager. Two years later, he moved to Burdines in Miami, where he was promoted through the planning and finance ranks to become vice president for gross margin, financial and capital planning. When the Macy’s merchandising and merchandise planning organization was unified in 2009, Foster became group vice president and national planning manager. Today, he is executive vice president-general planning manager for cosmetics, fragrances and shoes, a position he assumed in November.
Terry J. Lundgren’s Expansive Vision: The CEO’s Four-Pronged Plan
It’s In the Mix: Offer beauty shoppers a one-two punch by combining the power of the big brands on the traditional floor with the playfulness and innovation of niche brands in Impulse Beauty.
Nationwide Is on Our Side: Use cross-country media campaigns to communicate innovation and excitement, thus lessening the dependence on gift-with-purchase.
Public Service: Create a renewed emphasis on training—and retraining—sales associates to transform the store’s culture into one that readily engages with customers.
Think Small: Reorganize the management structure and pair merchandise managers with planning counterparts so that executives can better predict and react quickly to local business drivers.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Adapting to the New Retail Landscape
by Rachel Brown
From WWD Issue 04/14/2011
At the 15th annual Global Retailing Conference here last Thursday and Friday, Martha Stewart clearly articulated traditional retailers’ modern dilemma. In a world in which shopping on the Web is easy and convenient, they have to be that much better than their online rivals — and even their own online shops — to lure customers into stores.
“No matter where you live, you can get great stuff if you order online. It’s happening, and it is going to continue to happen,” said Stewart. “The challenge, I think, to retailers is to keep the stores very, very interesting and to keep new and innovative products appearing in the stores as they grow their e-commerce business.”
Similarly, Raul Vazquez, executive vice president, global e-commerce at Wal-Mart Stores Inc., said, “Consumers today, when you ask them what their favorite retail experiences are, they list online companies. One could argue it is a superior customer experience online.” And he continued with a cautionary note: “There are going to be winners and losers. Some people are going to ride this game, and it is going to be phenomenal for them.”
Retailers are certainly not throwing in the towel, as evidenced by the speeches encouraging innovation from executives at companies as diverse as Wal-Mart, Macy’s Inc., Gilt Groupe, Crate & Barrel and QVC Inc. during the conference, which was presented by the University of Arizona’s Terry J. Lundgren Center for Retailing at the Loews Ventana Canyon resort. Instead, they have carved out strategies to distinguish themselves from competitors — online or otherwise — and implement technology to keep pace with customers’ adoption of the latest advancements.
Lundgren, the chairman, president and chief executive officer of Macy’s, said the retailer has been making its merchandise relevant to consumers with its deals for exclusive brands. Last year, he estimated about 40 percent of sales came from those brands carried only at Macy’s, such as Rachel Rachel Roy, Tommy Hilfiger and Material Girl — a key point of difference to drive shoppers into stores. “If the customer likes the brand and wants it, they can only come to you for that product,” he said.
Meanwhile, Macy’s has been on board the technology train. Lundgren mentioned Quick Response bar codes, which are placed throughout stores and are readable by shoppers’ cell phones, enabling them to watch videos of designers telling stories about their inspiration. And he highlighted successful online marketing efforts, including a contest via Facebook with Clinton Kelly for wardrobe makeovers that garnered around 20,000 applicants; a beach party in Chicago promoted on the Web in advance of spring break to energize young customers; and a flash performance of “Hallelujah!” by the Opera Company of Philadelphia at Macy’s Center City store that has been viewed more than 7 million times on YouTube.
Three years ago, Lundgren said Macy’s spent no money to advertise digitally. Last year, he said, the company shelled out $120 million to do so. “We are planning to grow that number significantly and, in many ways, it is coming out of traditional media,” said Lundgren.
Vazquez underscored technological progress isn’t a boon to everybody. He singled out an independent San Francisco store owner who, in order to gain new customers, had his margins shaved by Groupon taking 50 percent of sales on its offers and Google asking for 20 percent or more of sales for the store to show up on local searches. “We are going to start spending a lot more not only to acquire these new customers…[but] for every new customer that someone is acquiring, some other person is spending money to retain that customer,” he said.
Still, seizing the opportunities technology provides is a must for most retailers’ survival. “The whole ecosystem that you’re part of is under attack right now by people who are innovative,” said Vazquez. Elements of Wal-Mart’s counterattack he identified are Web enhancements that allow users of the retailer’s site to determine which stores around them have a product — for example, the iPad 2 — in stock, and its “Site to Store” program being rolled out nationally that lets customers order online and pick up their purchases in stores. Vazquez also said Wal-Mart is exploring self-service “way finding” technology that informs customers on cell phones where something they are looking for is located inside a store so they don’t have to ask for directions.
Giving consumers more precisely what they want — and securing an order — is the goal of many of retailers’ technological improvements. At Wal-Mart, Vazquez said the Web site suggests daily values based on customers’ online viewing and purchasing patterns. Gilt Groupe is introducing individualized tailored e-mails to all its members after a test resulted in a 7 to 12 percent lift in revenue from a limited group getting the personalized e-mails. Chairman Susan Lyne explained that two regressions run each day, examining what members browsed and added to their carts, and purchasing behavior power the personalized e-mails. She added that e-mails to alert members any time a designer they have bought from before is up on Gilt Groupe again has led to a 30 to 40 percent lift in revenue.
For the customer, Mike George, president and ceo of QVC, said the television shopping network’s objective with new technological tools is to “create an experience that’s about her and the QVC that she wants, not the QVC we want to offer her.” He said QVC is changing its technological infrastructure to respond to where the customer engages with QVC (such as a tablet versus the TV), what time she buys products and where she wants packages left at her house, as well as many other data. As it does so, George said, the technological ground is shifting under QVC’s feet. Mobile technology, he stressed, “will change retailing in the most fundamental and profound way, and I think at a pace that will make the pace of change driven by the Internet [seem] glacial.”
From WWD Issue 04/14/2011
At the 15th annual Global Retailing Conference here last Thursday and Friday, Martha Stewart clearly articulated traditional retailers’ modern dilemma. In a world in which shopping on the Web is easy and convenient, they have to be that much better than their online rivals — and even their own online shops — to lure customers into stores.
“No matter where you live, you can get great stuff if you order online. It’s happening, and it is going to continue to happen,” said Stewart. “The challenge, I think, to retailers is to keep the stores very, very interesting and to keep new and innovative products appearing in the stores as they grow their e-commerce business.”
Similarly, Raul Vazquez, executive vice president, global e-commerce at Wal-Mart Stores Inc., said, “Consumers today, when you ask them what their favorite retail experiences are, they list online companies. One could argue it is a superior customer experience online.” And he continued with a cautionary note: “There are going to be winners and losers. Some people are going to ride this game, and it is going to be phenomenal for them.”
Retailers are certainly not throwing in the towel, as evidenced by the speeches encouraging innovation from executives at companies as diverse as Wal-Mart, Macy’s Inc., Gilt Groupe, Crate & Barrel and QVC Inc. during the conference, which was presented by the University of Arizona’s Terry J. Lundgren Center for Retailing at the Loews Ventana Canyon resort. Instead, they have carved out strategies to distinguish themselves from competitors — online or otherwise — and implement technology to keep pace with customers’ adoption of the latest advancements.
Lundgren, the chairman, president and chief executive officer of Macy’s, said the retailer has been making its merchandise relevant to consumers with its deals for exclusive brands. Last year, he estimated about 40 percent of sales came from those brands carried only at Macy’s, such as Rachel Rachel Roy, Tommy Hilfiger and Material Girl — a key point of difference to drive shoppers into stores. “If the customer likes the brand and wants it, they can only come to you for that product,” he said.
Meanwhile, Macy’s has been on board the technology train. Lundgren mentioned Quick Response bar codes, which are placed throughout stores and are readable by shoppers’ cell phones, enabling them to watch videos of designers telling stories about their inspiration. And he highlighted successful online marketing efforts, including a contest via Facebook with Clinton Kelly for wardrobe makeovers that garnered around 20,000 applicants; a beach party in Chicago promoted on the Web in advance of spring break to energize young customers; and a flash performance of “Hallelujah!” by the Opera Company of Philadelphia at Macy’s Center City store that has been viewed more than 7 million times on YouTube.
Three years ago, Lundgren said Macy’s spent no money to advertise digitally. Last year, he said, the company shelled out $120 million to do so. “We are planning to grow that number significantly and, in many ways, it is coming out of traditional media,” said Lundgren.
Vazquez underscored technological progress isn’t a boon to everybody. He singled out an independent San Francisco store owner who, in order to gain new customers, had his margins shaved by Groupon taking 50 percent of sales on its offers and Google asking for 20 percent or more of sales for the store to show up on local searches. “We are going to start spending a lot more not only to acquire these new customers…[but] for every new customer that someone is acquiring, some other person is spending money to retain that customer,” he said.
Still, seizing the opportunities technology provides is a must for most retailers’ survival. “The whole ecosystem that you’re part of is under attack right now by people who are innovative,” said Vazquez. Elements of Wal-Mart’s counterattack he identified are Web enhancements that allow users of the retailer’s site to determine which stores around them have a product — for example, the iPad 2 — in stock, and its “Site to Store” program being rolled out nationally that lets customers order online and pick up their purchases in stores. Vazquez also said Wal-Mart is exploring self-service “way finding” technology that informs customers on cell phones where something they are looking for is located inside a store so they don’t have to ask for directions.
Giving consumers more precisely what they want — and securing an order — is the goal of many of retailers’ technological improvements. At Wal-Mart, Vazquez said the Web site suggests daily values based on customers’ online viewing and purchasing patterns. Gilt Groupe is introducing individualized tailored e-mails to all its members after a test resulted in a 7 to 12 percent lift in revenue from a limited group getting the personalized e-mails. Chairman Susan Lyne explained that two regressions run each day, examining what members browsed and added to their carts, and purchasing behavior power the personalized e-mails. She added that e-mails to alert members any time a designer they have bought from before is up on Gilt Groupe again has led to a 30 to 40 percent lift in revenue.
For the customer, Mike George, president and ceo of QVC, said the television shopping network’s objective with new technological tools is to “create an experience that’s about her and the QVC that she wants, not the QVC we want to offer her.” He said QVC is changing its technological infrastructure to respond to where the customer engages with QVC (such as a tablet versus the TV), what time she buys products and where she wants packages left at her house, as well as many other data. As it does so, George said, the technological ground is shifting under QVC’s feet. Mobile technology, he stressed, “will change retailing in the most fundamental and profound way, and I think at a pace that will make the pace of change driven by the Internet [seem] glacial.”
Friday, April 1, 2011
Consumer Comfort in U.S. Rises for First Time in Five Weeks
Bloomberg Businessweek
By Alex Kowalski
Consumer confidence in the U.S. rose for the first time in five weeks as Americans said their finances were in better shape.
The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index improved to minus 46.9 in the period ended March 27 from a seven-month low of minus 48.9 the prior week. Readings this low are historically seen during recessions, according to Gary Langer, president of Langer Research Associates LLC in New York, which compiles the index for Bloomberg.
A strengthening job market may help consumers overcome strains from the highest gasoline prices in more than two years and rising grocery bills. At the same time, sentiment soured for a fourth consecutive week among those making more than $100,000 a year, indicating continued drops in home values and swings in stock prices are rattling wealthier households.
“It’s a mixed bag out there,” said George Mokrzan, senior economist at Huntington National Bank in Columbus, Ohio, “The income rises and job growth are the major drivers at this point, so in general the consumer can withstand some higher prices.”
Another report today showed business activity expanded at a faster pace than forecast in March, signaling manufacturing remains a driver of growth in the world’s largest economy. The Institute for Supply Management-Chicago Inc. said its business barometer fell to 70.6 this month from February’s 71.2 reading that was the highest since July 1988.
2010 Average
The Bloomberg Comfort Index, with records dating back to December 1985, fell to a record low of minus 54 in November 2008, while the peak of 38 was reached in January 2000. Readings averaged minus 45.7 last year.
Last week’s results reflected gains for two of the three components.
The measure of personal finances rose to minus 1.1 from minus 5.5, the report showed. Fifty percent of those polled held positive views on their financial situation, up from 47 percent the previous week. Last week was the second time the share has been at 50 percent or higher since January 2010.
The buying-climate index increased to minus 53.1 from minus 55.1. Those saying it was a good time to buy needed items held at 23 percent.
Consumers’ views on the economy turned more grim as that component fell to minus 86.5 last week, the lowest level since April 2009, from minus 86 the prior week. The share of households with a positive view of the economy held at 7 percent.
Gasoline’s Influence
“With gasoline prices continuing to surge, public ratings of economic conditions remain well below the levels typically associated with growth,” Langer said in a statement. “Consumers may be questioning the recovery’s strength and durability alike.”
As home values recede toward the lowest levels since the last expansion began at the end of 2001, the drop in wealth may cause consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of the economy, to cool.
Residential real estate prices dropped in the 12 months ended January by the most in more than a year. The S&P/Case- Shiller index of property values in 20 cities fell 3.1 percent from January 2010, the group said this week. Eighteen of the 20 cities in the index showed a year-over-year decline, and prices in 11 markets dropped to fresh lows from their 2006, 2007 peaks, the same as in December.
Share Prices
Swings in the stock market may also weigh on the outlooks of those earning more than $100,000 a year in income. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index fell 6.4 percent from Feb. 18 to March 16 and has since climbed 5.7 percent to close yesterday in New York at 1,328.26.
The comfort reading for those making $100,000 dropped to minus 14 last week, the lowest level since October, from minus 13.8.
Today’s report showed the strengthening labor market is doing little to lift the moods of those with jobs. The confidence index for Americans working full time fell to minus 39.8 last week, the lowest level since August, from 38.4, while it increased for those who were unemployed.
A report from the Labor Department today showed the number of Americans applying for unemployment insurance fell by 6,000 to 388,000 in the week ended March 26. The number of people continuing to receive benefits dropped to the lowest level since October 2008.
More Jobs
Economists project a Labor Department report tomorrow will show employers added 190,000 workers to payrolls in March and the jobless rate held at 8.9 percent.
While the labor market improves and incomes gain, Americans are paying more for staples, and costs may climb further in the next few months. The average price of regular gasoline at the pump was $3.61 a gallon on March 29, the highest since September 2008, according to AAA, the nation’s biggest motoring organization.
Price increases have not yet offset demand for consumer goods. Same-store sales at Macy’s Inc., the second-largest U.S. department to chain, rose 5.8 percent in February, compared with the 3.7 percent average gain from analysts’ estimates compiled by Retail Metrics Inc.
Still, retailers are watching how inflation affects sales, according to Terry Lundgren, Macy’s chairman, president and chief executive officer.
Inflation Pressures
“There’s just no question about it, and there’s no way around” inflation pressures, Lundgren said during a March 29 conference call with analysts. “If we get by 2 percent or 3 percent inflation, it’s not a bad thing. As long as the product has demand to it, the price impact so far has not been negative.”
The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index is based on responses to telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,000 consumers aged 18 and over. Each week, 250 respondents are asked for their views on the economy, personal finances and buying climate; the percentage of negative responses is subtracted from the share of positive views and divided by three. The most recent reading is based on the average of responses over the previous four weeks.
By Alex Kowalski
Consumer confidence in the U.S. rose for the first time in five weeks as Americans said their finances were in better shape.
The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index improved to minus 46.9 in the period ended March 27 from a seven-month low of minus 48.9 the prior week. Readings this low are historically seen during recessions, according to Gary Langer, president of Langer Research Associates LLC in New York, which compiles the index for Bloomberg.
A strengthening job market may help consumers overcome strains from the highest gasoline prices in more than two years and rising grocery bills. At the same time, sentiment soured for a fourth consecutive week among those making more than $100,000 a year, indicating continued drops in home values and swings in stock prices are rattling wealthier households.
“It’s a mixed bag out there,” said George Mokrzan, senior economist at Huntington National Bank in Columbus, Ohio, “The income rises and job growth are the major drivers at this point, so in general the consumer can withstand some higher prices.”
Another report today showed business activity expanded at a faster pace than forecast in March, signaling manufacturing remains a driver of growth in the world’s largest economy. The Institute for Supply Management-Chicago Inc. said its business barometer fell to 70.6 this month from February’s 71.2 reading that was the highest since July 1988.
2010 Average
The Bloomberg Comfort Index, with records dating back to December 1985, fell to a record low of minus 54 in November 2008, while the peak of 38 was reached in January 2000. Readings averaged minus 45.7 last year.
Last week’s results reflected gains for two of the three components.
The measure of personal finances rose to minus 1.1 from minus 5.5, the report showed. Fifty percent of those polled held positive views on their financial situation, up from 47 percent the previous week. Last week was the second time the share has been at 50 percent or higher since January 2010.
The buying-climate index increased to minus 53.1 from minus 55.1. Those saying it was a good time to buy needed items held at 23 percent.
Consumers’ views on the economy turned more grim as that component fell to minus 86.5 last week, the lowest level since April 2009, from minus 86 the prior week. The share of households with a positive view of the economy held at 7 percent.
Gasoline’s Influence
“With gasoline prices continuing to surge, public ratings of economic conditions remain well below the levels typically associated with growth,” Langer said in a statement. “Consumers may be questioning the recovery’s strength and durability alike.”
As home values recede toward the lowest levels since the last expansion began at the end of 2001, the drop in wealth may cause consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of the economy, to cool.
Residential real estate prices dropped in the 12 months ended January by the most in more than a year. The S&P/Case- Shiller index of property values in 20 cities fell 3.1 percent from January 2010, the group said this week. Eighteen of the 20 cities in the index showed a year-over-year decline, and prices in 11 markets dropped to fresh lows from their 2006, 2007 peaks, the same as in December.
Share Prices
Swings in the stock market may also weigh on the outlooks of those earning more than $100,000 a year in income. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index fell 6.4 percent from Feb. 18 to March 16 and has since climbed 5.7 percent to close yesterday in New York at 1,328.26.
The comfort reading for those making $100,000 dropped to minus 14 last week, the lowest level since October, from minus 13.8.
Today’s report showed the strengthening labor market is doing little to lift the moods of those with jobs. The confidence index for Americans working full time fell to minus 39.8 last week, the lowest level since August, from 38.4, while it increased for those who were unemployed.
A report from the Labor Department today showed the number of Americans applying for unemployment insurance fell by 6,000 to 388,000 in the week ended March 26. The number of people continuing to receive benefits dropped to the lowest level since October 2008.
More Jobs
Economists project a Labor Department report tomorrow will show employers added 190,000 workers to payrolls in March and the jobless rate held at 8.9 percent.
While the labor market improves and incomes gain, Americans are paying more for staples, and costs may climb further in the next few months. The average price of regular gasoline at the pump was $3.61 a gallon on March 29, the highest since September 2008, according to AAA, the nation’s biggest motoring organization.
Price increases have not yet offset demand for consumer goods. Same-store sales at Macy’s Inc., the second-largest U.S. department to chain, rose 5.8 percent in February, compared with the 3.7 percent average gain from analysts’ estimates compiled by Retail Metrics Inc.
Still, retailers are watching how inflation affects sales, according to Terry Lundgren, Macy’s chairman, president and chief executive officer.
Inflation Pressures
“There’s just no question about it, and there’s no way around” inflation pressures, Lundgren said during a March 29 conference call with analysts. “If we get by 2 percent or 3 percent inflation, it’s not a bad thing. As long as the product has demand to it, the price impact so far has not been negative.”
The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index is based on responses to telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,000 consumers aged 18 and over. Each week, 250 respondents are asked for their views on the economy, personal finances and buying climate; the percentage of negative responses is subtracted from the share of positive views and divided by three. The most recent reading is based on the average of responses over the previous four weeks.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Macy's Terry Lundgren Sees 2010 Pay Cut
by Arnold J. Karr
From WWD Issue 03/31/2011
Terry Lundgren took a 7.4 percent cut in total compensation last year as a marked increase in his stock awards wasn’t enough to offset reductions in his options, cash bonus and car use.
According to the definitive proxy filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission Wednesday, Lundgren, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Macy’s Inc., earned a total of $14.9 million in 2010 versus $16.1 million in 2009. His salary was unchanged at $1.5 million and his stock awards rose 51.2 percent to $3.6 million.
The cash portion of his bonus — classified as nonequity incentive plan compensation — dropped 25 percent to $5.3 million from $7 million, the maximum permitted, a year earlier. His option awards fell 14.8 percent to $1.2 million and other compensation was off 65.6 percent, to $172,000. The big cut in the “other” classification was principally due to a reduction in the costs of Lundgren’s car expenses to just over $42,000 from over $261,000 in the prior year.
The proxy noted that the company took steps in 2010 that “enabled it to distinguish between the costs associated with [Lundgren’s] personal use and the costs associated with business use of the car and driver service.”
Because of fluctuating stock prices and vesting schedules, stock and option awards aren’t necessarily realized by the named executive officer, but companies are required to include them in the compensation tables when submitting proxies to the SEC.
In fiscal 2010, Macy’s more than doubled its net income, to $847 million, while sales rose 6.4 percent to $25 billion and were up 4.6 percent on a same-store basis.
From WWD Issue 03/31/2011
Terry Lundgren took a 7.4 percent cut in total compensation last year as a marked increase in his stock awards wasn’t enough to offset reductions in his options, cash bonus and car use.
According to the definitive proxy filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission Wednesday, Lundgren, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Macy’s Inc., earned a total of $14.9 million in 2010 versus $16.1 million in 2009. His salary was unchanged at $1.5 million and his stock awards rose 51.2 percent to $3.6 million.
The cash portion of his bonus — classified as nonequity incentive plan compensation — dropped 25 percent to $5.3 million from $7 million, the maximum permitted, a year earlier. His option awards fell 14.8 percent to $1.2 million and other compensation was off 65.6 percent, to $172,000. The big cut in the “other” classification was principally due to a reduction in the costs of Lundgren’s car expenses to just over $42,000 from over $261,000 in the prior year.
The proxy noted that the company took steps in 2010 that “enabled it to distinguish between the costs associated with [Lundgren’s] personal use and the costs associated with business use of the car and driver service.”
Because of fluctuating stock prices and vesting schedules, stock and option awards aren’t necessarily realized by the named executive officer, but companies are required to include them in the compensation tables when submitting proxies to the SEC.
In fiscal 2010, Macy’s more than doubled its net income, to $847 million, while sales rose 6.4 percent to $25 billion and were up 4.6 percent on a same-store basis.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Brand Anna -- The Business of Being Anna Wintour
The editor of Vogue has always occupied the most powerful seat in the world of American fashion. But Anna Wintour's web of influential friends and allies has helped turn her into a global brand that transcends fashion.
WSJ Magazine
By Joshua Levine
To understand what's happened to Anna Wintour and to the fashion industry as a whole, it helps to look at two photographs. The first is a 1955 Richard Avedon shot of the model Dovima, dressed in a black Dior gown with flowing white sash, stretching her white arms toward two enormous pachyderms that flank her like bodyguards. "Dovima with Elephants," as the photograph is known, may be fashion's most iconic single image—perfectly posed and concerned with absolutely nothing but itself. A print sold for $1,153,011 at Christie's last November—a record for an Avedon.
Wintour turns that iconography inside out in Vogue's April issue. Amidst the magazine's lissome models is a photo spread featuring Amar'e Stoudemire, the 6-foot-10-inch, 240-pound basketball forward, in his New York Knicks uniform. An elephant among Dovimas.
Stoudemire isn't the first pick in Wintour's basketball draft—she put LeBron James on the cover a few years back—but she's been courting him for a while now. In September, she invited him to join her at the runway show before last September's Fashion's Night Out and in February she brought him to the Tommy Hilfiger show. "Amar'e looked wonderfully dapper when he turned up," Wintour says. "I can think of very few men who could pull off a collegiate cardigan, bow tie and Nike high-tops. I asked him what he thought one of the best looks was, and he indicated a camel cape. And you know, he was right."
"There are people who are like beacons, and I'm in the fortunate position that I can meet such people," she says. It's hard to imagine Wintour hanging around with these people just because, well, she likes them. "To be in Vogue means something," she continues, matter-of-factly. "Not all of them become friends, but it's part of my job to get to know these people and try to understand who they are, what they are and what future they have. I won't pretend that I'm sitting here with a spreadsheet . . . 'Now it's time to reach out to LeBron James.' It's instinctive." That's how Wintour works—intuitively, obliquely and patiently. "Her genius," says the designer Marc Jacobs, "is picking people very astutely, whether in politics, movies, sports or fashion."
She's been editor of the American edition of Vogue since 1988, and by now it has become commonplace to call her the most powerful woman in fashion. But her influence is much broader than it appears in her fun-house-mirror caricature: a brittle despot in round Chanel sunglasses who rules the world around her through impeccable taste, terror and sarcasm. It is hidden within an intricate web of powerful friends and allies, many of whom she's worked with for decades. That web spans the U.S., out to Hollywood, down to Washington, and across both oceans. Imperious as she may appear, she's really more impresario than empress.
Her inner circle is tight-knit, their devotion cemented by an almost canine sense of loyalty on Wintour's part. "I'm a streak player, but Anna's there, good or bad," says Harvey Weinstein, co-chair of the Weinstein Company, who goes back some 15 years with Wintour. "When I wasn't doing so well, Anna would throw a party and put me next to Bernard Arnault." Out of that came several business deals, says Weinstein (he declines to be more specific). Weinstein returned the favor by stepping in to help Wintour produce a Bruce Springsteen/Billy Joel benefit concert for then-Senator Barack Obama before the 2008 election.
Australian director Baz Luhrmann met Wintour when he sent her a half-finished reel of his movie "Moulin Rouge!" after it was beset by toxic prerelease buzz. Wintour threw her support behind it, putting Nicole Kidman on the cover in a gown from the film and organizing a celebrity auction around it with allies like Weinstein and Donald Trump. "Those people helped me see 'Moulin Rouge!' through its birth pangs," Luhrmann says. The two have been close friends since. "I always talk to Anna about what I'm up to," he says, referring to plans for his next film, an adaptation of "The Great Gatsby," "and I always listen to what she has to say."
Anna's army gives her a reach that far exceeds her grasp as a magazine editor, not to mention a deceptively potent economic punch. In the past two years, it's become clearer just how wide-ranging her clout really is. In early 2009, with New York's $10 billion fashion business reeling, Wintour took a ride to see New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. She proposed a one-shot, late-night shopping party, inspired by Paris's "nuits blanches," the city's round-the-clock cultural festivals. Bloomberg signed on, after insisting that all five boroughs be invited to the party. "Even a guy like me, who can barely match my tie to my shirt, knows that fashion means dollars to New York City. Besides, behind all Anna's grace and poise is some pretty tough resolve. She's not a person you want to say no to."
The idea wasn't universally popular at first. The city was shell-shocked. Retail therapy had suddenly become dysfunctional behavior, and New York was in the chilly grip of that least American of virtues, thrift. Early on, Wintour approached Terry Lundgren, chairman of Macy's Inc., which owns both Macy's and Bloomingdale's, for support. "I was hesitant, given the mood people were in," Lundgren says. "I didn't know if it would work."
One former colleague recalls Wintour deploying her celebrity shock troops when some stores balked at joining up. "She's calling it in from command central—'I'll get you Sienna Miller at the store, I'll send you Justin Timberlake!' " (Timberlake and Miller are among Wintour's most zealous Hollywood allies. "She understands fashion is a frame of mind, not just the clothes," Timberlake says. "She's figured out that all these small moving parts come into play to make a bigger picture.")
Fashion's Night Out was a Mardi Gras moment in the middle of Lent. Overall foot traffic in New York City stores increased almost 50 percent, according to the research firm ShopperTrak. While other post-event reports suggested there was more ogling than spending, the overall verdict was resoundingly favorable. "Maybe you can't really put a figure on Wintour's economic impact, but it's a very big number," Lundgren says, adding that Macy's sales, which had been down 4 to 5 percent, rose into "double digits" the weekend after FNO. "It was the first shot in the arm we had seen that year."
The following year, Wintour upped the ante. She convened an extraordinary meeting of 30 international Vogue editors and publishers in Paris, to discuss further global initiatives. "It was the first time anybody had gotten them all together," says S.I. Newhouse, chairman of Advance Publications, which owns Vogue parent Condé Nast. "She didn't need my authority to do it—she has a remarkable ability to impose her will. If I had had reservations, she probably would have gone ahead anyway."
To kick off the festivities, Wintour organized New York's largest public fashion show in the plaza at Lincoln Center, selling 1,500 tickets at $25 and higher. The show conscripted 125 of the world's top models, broadcast live on the Web and later on CBS. Fashion's Night Out 2010 clocked in with more than 1,000 New York stores, over 100 American cities and 16 countries around the world. Istanbul, for example, logged clothing sales of $2 million in three hours. Rest assured, there will be an encore in 2011.
Wintour's glittery coalition of the willing will be on full display next month at her benefit gala for the Metropolitan Museum's Costume Institute. The guest list includes Paul McCartney, Jeff Koons, Alicia Keys and Marissa Mayer, Google's vice president of consumer products. Last year, Bloomberg, Bono, Barry Diller, Larry Gagosian and Tommy Mottola all dropped in from their respective planets.
When Wintour took over as co-chair of the gala in 1995, it was an in-grown Park Avenue cluster buss that generated around $900,000 a year in donations. The Met has been throwing some kind of Costume Institute benefit since 1948, when matrons paid $50 to wear some of the Costume Institute's gowns at a midnight supper in December. Diana Vreeland and Pat Buckley, formidable doyennes in their own right, took their turns co-chairing it. Wintour corralled the biggest names from Hollywood, television and the Internet, and turned the gala into New York's star-spangled air kiss to the world. "It was much more fashion industry before," Wintour says. "When I became involved, I started to invite the Nicole Kidmans and the Cate Blanchetts, and then I tried to bring in the worlds of politics, literature, painting, music, so it's not just about fashion. It's like producing a show."
For the sometimes fussy Met, this was a new way of looking at things. Last year, for instance, Wintour had a 30-foot hot-air balloon trucked in from South Dakota and floated it above the museum's Engelhard Court. "When we first saw it, we go, 'Never! We can't have gas in the museum!' " says Met president Emily Rafferty. "Anna's changed our attitude—she's brought us to new levels of thinking of what we can do, but without ever losing sight that we're working in a museum context here."
Prices for a ticket will run up to $25,000, and $250,000 for a table. Last year, the gala brought in almost $9 million. In the realm of New York charity benefits, only the Robin Hood Foundation gala with its hedge-fund-heavy guest list is said to raise more. In all, Rafferty credits Wintour with raising $75 million for the museum's Costume Institute since she arrived—$55 million through the benefit gala and $20 million through corporate sponsorships for exhibitions. "That's an awful lot of money," Rafferty says. The money will help the Costume Institute undertake a major renovation, beginning in 2012. For her labors, Wintour has been named an honorary trustee of the museum.
Many people think they already know Anna Wintour. She's the perfectly coiffed monstre sacré of the fashion world. She has been saddled over the years with various nicknames, many turning on some form of the word "cold." She does not go out of her way to dispel them. You can see it in the 2009 documentary "The September Issue," as Wintour impassively allows Grace Coddington, the Vogue creative director with her heart on her sleeve, to hijack the audience's affection. "Anna doesn't play against anyone's expectations of her," a former colleague says.
Instead, Wintour has an arid sense of humor about her reputation. At a screening of "The Devil Wears Prada," based on a roman à clef by a former Wintour assistant, she wore Prada. During a trip to China last fall, she was asked during a press conference whether she was really like that. "It's true, of course, that I beat all my assistants, lock them in a cupboard and don't pay them," she deadpanned. "She's got an eye-rolling way of laughing at the circus, even while she takes it deadly seriously," says Luhrmann. Wintour herself puts it more simply: "I care deeply about my friends and my family and they know it, but work is work."
Wintour had a fixation with fashion from a very young age. Her father was an Englishman named Charles Wintour who edited London's Evening Standard newspaper and had a reputation for aloofness. Her mother was an American named Eleanor Baker, whom everyone called Nonie. In 1967, 17-year-old Anna dropped out of school to join London's wild fashion dance.
Since then she has climbed from masthead to masthead at fashion magazines in England and here, never losing sight of the only fashionable masthead really worth climbing. The story has passed into legend of Wintour's first interview at Vogue in 1982. Grace Mirabella, then Vogue's editor, asked Wintour what job she would like if she came to the magazine. "Your job," Wintour is said to have replied without blinking. Mirabella circled the wagons, but six years later, Wintour had penetrated and Mirabella was out. (Mirabella remained bitter about it.)
Wintour realized long before most that fashion was about to burst its tight seams and join the broader culture. When she put Kim Basinger on Vogue's May 1991 cover, fashion was still living in the rarefied fantasy of Dovima. In the main, Hollywood stars were no more icons of style than they were models of personal probity or fonts of wisdom. Wintour changed all that with a series of celebrity covers that put Holly wood on notice that it had better get serious about what it wore—Winona Ryder and Sharon Stone in 1993, Julia Roberts in 1994, Demi Moore in 1995, leading up to the celebrity explosion of 1998, when Sandra Bullock, Claire Danes, Renée Zellweger (whose image Wintour managed closely), Elizabeth Hurley and the notorious Spice Girls took turns on Vogue's cover (Wintour concedes she might have pushed the point there: "I'm not terribly proud of putting the Spice Girls on the cover," she says). That was also the year Oprah Winfrey and Hillary Clinton got covers, signaling Vogue's embrace of the wider world. Occasionally, the wider world doesn't hug back. Wintour's 2008 LeBron James cover, shot by Annie Leibovitz to evoke King Kong, was a big loser on the newsstand.
There's also the question of whether Vogue doesn't sometimes allow a fashionable tail to wag a questionable dog. The March issue included a soft-focus look at Syria's ruling al-Assad family. Yes, conceded writer Joan Juliet Buck, "In Syria, power is hereditary," and there are those "souvenir Hezbollah ashtrays" scattered around. But president Bashar al-Assad's wife, Asma, is nonetheless "glamorous, young and very chic."
Still, Wintour called the tune correctly, even if she doesn't get every note right. "Fashion has become as powerful as music was when I was growing up," Luhrmann says. Was it Wintour or was it the world? "That's a little chicken and egg, but she led the way and you have to give her the credit," says a colleague.
Fashion may have overflowed its banks in the past decade, but the $350 billion industry itself remains compact enough for one person to dominate, that person being Wintour. She threw all of Italy into a tizzy last year when it was discovered she would spend only four days in Milan during February's fashion week. Emergency meetings were called, designers frantically demanded to reschedule their shows and every one scrambled to squeeze 88 runway shows into 70 hours to accommodate her abbreviated stay. In 2007, R. J. Cutler was shooting "The September Issue" about putting together Vogue's biggest issue. A friend asked him what it was like watching Wintour work. "Well," he replied, "you can make a film in Hollywood without Steven Spielberg's blessing, and you can publish software in Silicon Valley without Bill Gates's blessing, but it's pretty clear to me you can't succeed in the fashion industry without Anna Wintour's blessing."
In fact, some of fashion's biggest names are where they are in large part thanks to Wintour. She has helped broker corporate marriages for some of fashion's biggest brands—Bottega Veneta at Gucci and Michael Kors at Sportswear Holdings. "She does this very discreetly, but she's really a kind of consigliere to the entire fashion and retail industry," says a former colleague who worked closely with her.
The Michael Kors story goes back to 1981, soon after Wintour joined New York magazine as fashion editor. Kors, a young designer, had just launched his first women's-wear line and Wintour decided in her brisk way that she liked the clothes, and him. Kors hit the rocks in the mid-'90s, filing for bankruptcy in 1993, but Wintour talked him up tirelessly.
In 2002, Silas Chou and Lawrence Stroll were looking for fashion's next big brand. The two partners had made out handsomely buying Tommy Hilfiger in 1989 and taking it public in 1992. Wintour recommended Kors. "When I met Michael, Anna had seen his talent 20 years before," Chou says. "We talked constantly and when the time arrived, her opinions about him were very important." Chou and Stroll bought a controlling stake in Kors in 2003 through their Sportswear Holdings for around $100 million. Retail sales for the Kors brand are now in the neighborhood of $1 billion.
"I came to realize that she's really the McKinsey of fashion," says a former colleague who attended several corporate matchmaking sessions with her. Wintour is more modest: "We can suggest, but in the end, everybody makes up their own minds."
One of the people Wintour counsels regularly is Bernard Arnault, whose LVMH luxury conglomerate owns Louis Vuitton, Givenchy, Marc Jacobs and Fendi, among others. In 1993, Wintour and Vogue contributing editor André Leon Talley put a down-and-out designer named John Galliano together with financial backers John Bult and Mark Rice, which relaunched Galliano's flagging career. She later proposed him to Arnault, who hired him first for Givenchy and then for Christian Dior (which is controlled by Arnault's holding company). In 1997, Wintour pushed Marc Jacobs to Arnault for Louis Vuitton. "She pointed us towards unexpected choices," Arnault says. "I speak very openly to her, and this was quite audacious—it was not about picking the big names of the moment. It took her to see that there was a stylistic closeness between John and Dior. She was the discoverer."
It looks like Galliano needs Wintour more than ever now: In late February, the designer was abruptly suspended from Dior after a Parisian couple accused him of yelling unprovoked anti-Semitic barbs at them in a Paris bistro. When a video clip recorded last October surfaced soon after showing a visibly drunk Galliano at a bar making similar racist remarks, he was fired. Of his downfall, Wintour says, "This is all so tragic."
Last July, Wintour met with then–French Minister of Industry Christian Estrosi. She suggested politely that the French government do more to support young French designers financially. Her own CFDA/Vogue Fashion Fund, which raises millions for young American designers, has become something of a model in Europe. She got the idea in 2001, when the World Trade Center disaster disrupted New York's fashion week, leaving young designers financially stranded. The fund now has a $10 million endowment, and has launched similiar programs in Milan and London.
"She tackles things that are really much bigger than what any other editors take on," says François-Henri Pinault, head of luxury-goods giant PPR. Pinault is currently discussing how to finance support for young designers with Estrosi. Not that Wintour came right out and asked him to. "She's much more subtle than that," he says.
When I met Wintour in her big, artfully tidy office at Vogue, she had been up since 5 a.m.—her normal waking hour. On most days she goes off to play tennis at 6, but lately she's been nursing a sore elbow and can't play. Which didn't mean no tennis. She was watching her friend Roger Federer play a tough five-set match against Gilles Simon at the Australian Open. Simon had beaten Federer twice before, and Wintour was uneasy. "At least he's through," she said afterward, visibly relieved.
Wintour first sought out Federer at the 2002 U.S. Open, before he won his first Grand Slam. He was a bit taken aback. "I didn't really know who she was," Federer says. She's since become a trusted adviser and a close friend, not only to him but also to his wife, Mirka, and agent, Tony Godsick. "I bounce all kinds of ideas off her—what to wear on and off the court, photo shoots, sponsors, everything," he says. For her part, Wintour has never asked him for anything, but, he says, "That day will come, and when it does, I'll be very happy to work with her."
The unusual part, say her intimates, is that there's never a direct quid pro quo. On the other hand, if Wintour does ask for something, there aren't two possible answers. "If I get a request for something I don't want to do," says Marc Jacobs, "first I get an email, then a phone call from someone at Vogue, and now I don't even bother to say no—I know the next call is from her."
Jacobs describes a den-motherly attitude that those who see only her hard surface sheen don't suspect she has. "She gets such a bad rap. She stands by the people she believes in, and if you're not one of those people, perhaps you take a different view." Wintour has supported Jacobs since her earliest days at Vogue, when, he says, "everybody was trashing me. It goes way beyond an editor-fashion-designer relationship." Which is how Jacobs found himself sitting next to Wintour on the Jimmy Fallon show, speaking out about Fashion's Night Out.
If there's a risk to having a rat pack, even a large and glamorous one, it's the possibility that it could make Vogue's pages seem overly clubby. Wintour reflects a minute when I ask her about this, and puts it another way. "I try to remain open to new people, but obviously there's a stronger element of trust with people you've known for a long time," she says. "I think we have a Vogue vocabulary, and there are certain people we like to have as the backbone of the magazine—Vogue's signposts. We try very hard to integrate the familiar signatures with people we feel are new and up-and-coming, but I would rather err on the side of being a little more familiar than being too . . . What's the right word? . . . Edgy."
With all of her globe-trotting, matchmaking and event-planning, it's easy to forget that Wintour's bread and butter is running a magazine. Like the rest of the magazine industry, Vogue was badly hurt by the economic crash. Revenue fell 5.55 percent in 2008, then a further 27 percent in 2009 to $289 million, but now it appears to have rebounded. Revenue for 2010 was up 18 percent to $342 million, according to the Publisher's Information Bureau—although it remains below the 2007 peak of $419 million—and it's up almost 11 percent for the first quarter of this year, behind Elle's 14.3 percent and abreast of InStyle's 10.9 percent. Vogue is solidly beating both in total number of ad pages.
Wintour launched the redesigned Vogue.com last September, on the eve of New York Fashion Week. After starting slowly with 545,000 unique visitors, the site registered 896,000 in January. That's still fewer than the 2.4 million who visited Style.com, the omnibus Condé Nast site that used to host Vogue, but it's a healthy upswing, even more so when you consider Style.com is 10 years old.
Wintour came late to the Internet, concedes her boss, S.I. Newhouse. "She started the site reluctantly because she believes that the expression of Vogue's effectiveness is print," he says. "But, typically, once she did it, she did it right." Can Wintour rule the digital fashion world as resolutely as she has ruled print? "It's too early to say," hedges Newhouse, "but take Fashion's Night Out as one example: She clearly has an ability to impose her will."
The brand, of course, is what Newhouse cares most about. "There can be no greater role than being editor of Vogue," says Newhouse, who confirms that Vogue is Condé Nast's most profitable publication. As far as the occasional rumors about a successor for Wintour, who is 61, Newhouse has one word: "Never. I hope she's here 10 years from now, 20 years from now."
You might ask, with all her talent-grooming outside Vogue, has Wintour groomed anyone to take over whenever she—or, more to the point, S.I. Newhouse—chooses to pass on her mantle? "Why would she?" answers a former colleague, who points out that at most magazines the editorial mantle doesn't get passed dynastically. And regime change is rarely gentle. Grace Mirabella didn't groom Wintour, and Diana Vreeland didn't groom Mirabella. More often than not, a new editor means a new editorial vision, usually at the behest of the boss. As long as Wintour's vision defines Vogue, no one is likely to do Wintour better than Wintour herself.
But last year, the successor rumors grew feverish. Waiting in the wings, so it went, was Carine Roitfeld, the provocative editor of French Vogue known around Paris as "Iggy Pop." She happens to look a little like the goggle-eyed rocker and she shares with Pop a sense of erotic bravura that gave French Vogue a reputation for daring. Roitfeld gets the credit, if that's the word, for launching a trend known as "porno chic," which gave French Vogue an R-rated eclat in the fashion world. U.S. Vogue, it was said dismissively, was overly preoccupied with things people might buy.
Roitfeld resigned in December, reportedly pushed toward the door for having consulting relationships with labels like Balenciaga that were seen as coexisting uneasily with her editorial duties. (Roitfeld denies ever having consulted and having been asked to resign.) Inside French Vogue, the idea that Roitfeld threatened Wintour was never taken seriously. "It was all bulls—," says one French Vogue executive. "The only thing Roitfeld cared about was creativity, and Wintour is about business. Wintour gives the 'la' to all the other editors"—a French expression rooted in the way orchestras tune their instruments that means she both sets the tone and serves as inspiration.
Not everyone applauds Wintour's business sense and wider ambitions. There are those who mourn the passing of fashion in its narrower, Dovima-centric sense, and who see Wintour's broader sensibility as a coarsening of fashion's most exquisite self. In a recent New York Times article on Roitfeld's departure, the fashion photographer Inez van Lamsweerde said she hoped French Vogue didn't start to look more like, well, American Vogue. "Do we really need another magazine about the latest architectural feat, the latest book? To me, what's needed is a real fashion magazine with the best taste and incredible photography," she said. This kind of thing has been heard before. Back in the '90s, designer Geoffrey Beene famously accused Wintour of appealing to the lowest common denominator. "As an editor, she has turned class into mass, taste into waste. Is she not a trend herself?" sniped Beene, who stopped inviting Wintour to his shows.
Even after the departure of Roitfeld, rumors still adore Wintour. The latest one is that she is interested in leaving Vogue and fashion for a job in Washington as an ambassador. This speculation has fed on Wintour's enthusiastic fund-raising activities for Barack Obama and her open admiration for the First Lady—Michelle Obama is one of the first names Wintour mentions when asked whom she most looks up to.
Before the presidential election in 2008, she co-hosted a fund-raising dinner with Calvin Klein and André Leon Talley at Klein's home. "I spent time on the aesthetics, and Anna did the phone calls and was really responsible for the funds," Klein recalls. "She was a powerhouse, this tiny, beautiful woman who you think just lives and dies for fashion." Shortly after, Annie Leibovitz photographed Michelle Obama for a spread that ran in the January 2009 issue. She also appeared on Vogue's March 2009 cover, along with an exclusive interview with the First Lady.
Last July, Wintour hosted a $30,000-a-head Obama fund-raiser at her townhouse in Greenwich Village. In attendance were key members of her network, including Harvey Weinstein and his wife, Marchesa designer Georgina Chapman; Andrew Rosen, founder of sportswear manufacturer Theory (he contributed heavily to the CFDA/Vogue Fashion Fund and made the T-shirts for Fashion's Night Out); Gap designer Patrick Robinson (who co-chaired the 2010 Costume Institute gala with Oprah Winfrey and Wintour); old chum and CFDA president Diane von Furstenberg; and art dealer Larry Gagosian. According to Women's Wear Daily, the dinner raised as much as $1.5 million.
Wintour flatly denies she's angling for some kind of government job. For her, Vogue has no limitations. "With all the new media outlets out there, with all the noise, a voice of authority and calm like Vogue becomes more important than ever. The more eyes on fashion, the more opinions about fashion, the more exploration of fashion around the world, the better it is for Vogue. Vogue is like Nike or Coca-Cola—this huge global brand. I want to enhance it, I want to protect it, and I want it to be part of the conversation."
WSJ Magazine
By Joshua Levine
To understand what's happened to Anna Wintour and to the fashion industry as a whole, it helps to look at two photographs. The first is a 1955 Richard Avedon shot of the model Dovima, dressed in a black Dior gown with flowing white sash, stretching her white arms toward two enormous pachyderms that flank her like bodyguards. "Dovima with Elephants," as the photograph is known, may be fashion's most iconic single image—perfectly posed and concerned with absolutely nothing but itself. A print sold for $1,153,011 at Christie's last November—a record for an Avedon.
Wintour turns that iconography inside out in Vogue's April issue. Amidst the magazine's lissome models is a photo spread featuring Amar'e Stoudemire, the 6-foot-10-inch, 240-pound basketball forward, in his New York Knicks uniform. An elephant among Dovimas.
Stoudemire isn't the first pick in Wintour's basketball draft—she put LeBron James on the cover a few years back—but she's been courting him for a while now. In September, she invited him to join her at the runway show before last September's Fashion's Night Out and in February she brought him to the Tommy Hilfiger show. "Amar'e looked wonderfully dapper when he turned up," Wintour says. "I can think of very few men who could pull off a collegiate cardigan, bow tie and Nike high-tops. I asked him what he thought one of the best looks was, and he indicated a camel cape. And you know, he was right."
"There are people who are like beacons, and I'm in the fortunate position that I can meet such people," she says. It's hard to imagine Wintour hanging around with these people just because, well, she likes them. "To be in Vogue means something," she continues, matter-of-factly. "Not all of them become friends, but it's part of my job to get to know these people and try to understand who they are, what they are and what future they have. I won't pretend that I'm sitting here with a spreadsheet . . . 'Now it's time to reach out to LeBron James.' It's instinctive." That's how Wintour works—intuitively, obliquely and patiently. "Her genius," says the designer Marc Jacobs, "is picking people very astutely, whether in politics, movies, sports or fashion."
She's been editor of the American edition of Vogue since 1988, and by now it has become commonplace to call her the most powerful woman in fashion. But her influence is much broader than it appears in her fun-house-mirror caricature: a brittle despot in round Chanel sunglasses who rules the world around her through impeccable taste, terror and sarcasm. It is hidden within an intricate web of powerful friends and allies, many of whom she's worked with for decades. That web spans the U.S., out to Hollywood, down to Washington, and across both oceans. Imperious as she may appear, she's really more impresario than empress.
Her inner circle is tight-knit, their devotion cemented by an almost canine sense of loyalty on Wintour's part. "I'm a streak player, but Anna's there, good or bad," says Harvey Weinstein, co-chair of the Weinstein Company, who goes back some 15 years with Wintour. "When I wasn't doing so well, Anna would throw a party and put me next to Bernard Arnault." Out of that came several business deals, says Weinstein (he declines to be more specific). Weinstein returned the favor by stepping in to help Wintour produce a Bruce Springsteen/Billy Joel benefit concert for then-Senator Barack Obama before the 2008 election.
Australian director Baz Luhrmann met Wintour when he sent her a half-finished reel of his movie "Moulin Rouge!" after it was beset by toxic prerelease buzz. Wintour threw her support behind it, putting Nicole Kidman on the cover in a gown from the film and organizing a celebrity auction around it with allies like Weinstein and Donald Trump. "Those people helped me see 'Moulin Rouge!' through its birth pangs," Luhrmann says. The two have been close friends since. "I always talk to Anna about what I'm up to," he says, referring to plans for his next film, an adaptation of "The Great Gatsby," "and I always listen to what she has to say."
Anna's army gives her a reach that far exceeds her grasp as a magazine editor, not to mention a deceptively potent economic punch. In the past two years, it's become clearer just how wide-ranging her clout really is. In early 2009, with New York's $10 billion fashion business reeling, Wintour took a ride to see New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. She proposed a one-shot, late-night shopping party, inspired by Paris's "nuits blanches," the city's round-the-clock cultural festivals. Bloomberg signed on, after insisting that all five boroughs be invited to the party. "Even a guy like me, who can barely match my tie to my shirt, knows that fashion means dollars to New York City. Besides, behind all Anna's grace and poise is some pretty tough resolve. She's not a person you want to say no to."
The idea wasn't universally popular at first. The city was shell-shocked. Retail therapy had suddenly become dysfunctional behavior, and New York was in the chilly grip of that least American of virtues, thrift. Early on, Wintour approached Terry Lundgren, chairman of Macy's Inc., which owns both Macy's and Bloomingdale's, for support. "I was hesitant, given the mood people were in," Lundgren says. "I didn't know if it would work."
One former colleague recalls Wintour deploying her celebrity shock troops when some stores balked at joining up. "She's calling it in from command central—'I'll get you Sienna Miller at the store, I'll send you Justin Timberlake!' " (Timberlake and Miller are among Wintour's most zealous Hollywood allies. "She understands fashion is a frame of mind, not just the clothes," Timberlake says. "She's figured out that all these small moving parts come into play to make a bigger picture.")
Fashion's Night Out was a Mardi Gras moment in the middle of Lent. Overall foot traffic in New York City stores increased almost 50 percent, according to the research firm ShopperTrak. While other post-event reports suggested there was more ogling than spending, the overall verdict was resoundingly favorable. "Maybe you can't really put a figure on Wintour's economic impact, but it's a very big number," Lundgren says, adding that Macy's sales, which had been down 4 to 5 percent, rose into "double digits" the weekend after FNO. "It was the first shot in the arm we had seen that year."
The following year, Wintour upped the ante. She convened an extraordinary meeting of 30 international Vogue editors and publishers in Paris, to discuss further global initiatives. "It was the first time anybody had gotten them all together," says S.I. Newhouse, chairman of Advance Publications, which owns Vogue parent Condé Nast. "She didn't need my authority to do it—she has a remarkable ability to impose her will. If I had had reservations, she probably would have gone ahead anyway."
To kick off the festivities, Wintour organized New York's largest public fashion show in the plaza at Lincoln Center, selling 1,500 tickets at $25 and higher. The show conscripted 125 of the world's top models, broadcast live on the Web and later on CBS. Fashion's Night Out 2010 clocked in with more than 1,000 New York stores, over 100 American cities and 16 countries around the world. Istanbul, for example, logged clothing sales of $2 million in three hours. Rest assured, there will be an encore in 2011.
Wintour's glittery coalition of the willing will be on full display next month at her benefit gala for the Metropolitan Museum's Costume Institute. The guest list includes Paul McCartney, Jeff Koons, Alicia Keys and Marissa Mayer, Google's vice president of consumer products. Last year, Bloomberg, Bono, Barry Diller, Larry Gagosian and Tommy Mottola all dropped in from their respective planets.
When Wintour took over as co-chair of the gala in 1995, it was an in-grown Park Avenue cluster buss that generated around $900,000 a year in donations. The Met has been throwing some kind of Costume Institute benefit since 1948, when matrons paid $50 to wear some of the Costume Institute's gowns at a midnight supper in December. Diana Vreeland and Pat Buckley, formidable doyennes in their own right, took their turns co-chairing it. Wintour corralled the biggest names from Hollywood, television and the Internet, and turned the gala into New York's star-spangled air kiss to the world. "It was much more fashion industry before," Wintour says. "When I became involved, I started to invite the Nicole Kidmans and the Cate Blanchetts, and then I tried to bring in the worlds of politics, literature, painting, music, so it's not just about fashion. It's like producing a show."
For the sometimes fussy Met, this was a new way of looking at things. Last year, for instance, Wintour had a 30-foot hot-air balloon trucked in from South Dakota and floated it above the museum's Engelhard Court. "When we first saw it, we go, 'Never! We can't have gas in the museum!' " says Met president Emily Rafferty. "Anna's changed our attitude—she's brought us to new levels of thinking of what we can do, but without ever losing sight that we're working in a museum context here."
Prices for a ticket will run up to $25,000, and $250,000 for a table. Last year, the gala brought in almost $9 million. In the realm of New York charity benefits, only the Robin Hood Foundation gala with its hedge-fund-heavy guest list is said to raise more. In all, Rafferty credits Wintour with raising $75 million for the museum's Costume Institute since she arrived—$55 million through the benefit gala and $20 million through corporate sponsorships for exhibitions. "That's an awful lot of money," Rafferty says. The money will help the Costume Institute undertake a major renovation, beginning in 2012. For her labors, Wintour has been named an honorary trustee of the museum.
Many people think they already know Anna Wintour. She's the perfectly coiffed monstre sacré of the fashion world. She has been saddled over the years with various nicknames, many turning on some form of the word "cold." She does not go out of her way to dispel them. You can see it in the 2009 documentary "The September Issue," as Wintour impassively allows Grace Coddington, the Vogue creative director with her heart on her sleeve, to hijack the audience's affection. "Anna doesn't play against anyone's expectations of her," a former colleague says.
Instead, Wintour has an arid sense of humor about her reputation. At a screening of "The Devil Wears Prada," based on a roman à clef by a former Wintour assistant, she wore Prada. During a trip to China last fall, she was asked during a press conference whether she was really like that. "It's true, of course, that I beat all my assistants, lock them in a cupboard and don't pay them," she deadpanned. "She's got an eye-rolling way of laughing at the circus, even while she takes it deadly seriously," says Luhrmann. Wintour herself puts it more simply: "I care deeply about my friends and my family and they know it, but work is work."
Wintour had a fixation with fashion from a very young age. Her father was an Englishman named Charles Wintour who edited London's Evening Standard newspaper and had a reputation for aloofness. Her mother was an American named Eleanor Baker, whom everyone called Nonie. In 1967, 17-year-old Anna dropped out of school to join London's wild fashion dance.
Since then she has climbed from masthead to masthead at fashion magazines in England and here, never losing sight of the only fashionable masthead really worth climbing. The story has passed into legend of Wintour's first interview at Vogue in 1982. Grace Mirabella, then Vogue's editor, asked Wintour what job she would like if she came to the magazine. "Your job," Wintour is said to have replied without blinking. Mirabella circled the wagons, but six years later, Wintour had penetrated and Mirabella was out. (Mirabella remained bitter about it.)
Wintour realized long before most that fashion was about to burst its tight seams and join the broader culture. When she put Kim Basinger on Vogue's May 1991 cover, fashion was still living in the rarefied fantasy of Dovima. In the main, Hollywood stars were no more icons of style than they were models of personal probity or fonts of wisdom. Wintour changed all that with a series of celebrity covers that put Holly wood on notice that it had better get serious about what it wore—Winona Ryder and Sharon Stone in 1993, Julia Roberts in 1994, Demi Moore in 1995, leading up to the celebrity explosion of 1998, when Sandra Bullock, Claire Danes, Renée Zellweger (whose image Wintour managed closely), Elizabeth Hurley and the notorious Spice Girls took turns on Vogue's cover (Wintour concedes she might have pushed the point there: "I'm not terribly proud of putting the Spice Girls on the cover," she says). That was also the year Oprah Winfrey and Hillary Clinton got covers, signaling Vogue's embrace of the wider world. Occasionally, the wider world doesn't hug back. Wintour's 2008 LeBron James cover, shot by Annie Leibovitz to evoke King Kong, was a big loser on the newsstand.
There's also the question of whether Vogue doesn't sometimes allow a fashionable tail to wag a questionable dog. The March issue included a soft-focus look at Syria's ruling al-Assad family. Yes, conceded writer Joan Juliet Buck, "In Syria, power is hereditary," and there are those "souvenir Hezbollah ashtrays" scattered around. But president Bashar al-Assad's wife, Asma, is nonetheless "glamorous, young and very chic."
Still, Wintour called the tune correctly, even if she doesn't get every note right. "Fashion has become as powerful as music was when I was growing up," Luhrmann says. Was it Wintour or was it the world? "That's a little chicken and egg, but she led the way and you have to give her the credit," says a colleague.
Fashion may have overflowed its banks in the past decade, but the $350 billion industry itself remains compact enough for one person to dominate, that person being Wintour. She threw all of Italy into a tizzy last year when it was discovered she would spend only four days in Milan during February's fashion week. Emergency meetings were called, designers frantically demanded to reschedule their shows and every one scrambled to squeeze 88 runway shows into 70 hours to accommodate her abbreviated stay. In 2007, R. J. Cutler was shooting "The September Issue" about putting together Vogue's biggest issue. A friend asked him what it was like watching Wintour work. "Well," he replied, "you can make a film in Hollywood without Steven Spielberg's blessing, and you can publish software in Silicon Valley without Bill Gates's blessing, but it's pretty clear to me you can't succeed in the fashion industry without Anna Wintour's blessing."
In fact, some of fashion's biggest names are where they are in large part thanks to Wintour. She has helped broker corporate marriages for some of fashion's biggest brands—Bottega Veneta at Gucci and Michael Kors at Sportswear Holdings. "She does this very discreetly, but she's really a kind of consigliere to the entire fashion and retail industry," says a former colleague who worked closely with her.
The Michael Kors story goes back to 1981, soon after Wintour joined New York magazine as fashion editor. Kors, a young designer, had just launched his first women's-wear line and Wintour decided in her brisk way that she liked the clothes, and him. Kors hit the rocks in the mid-'90s, filing for bankruptcy in 1993, but Wintour talked him up tirelessly.
In 2002, Silas Chou and Lawrence Stroll were looking for fashion's next big brand. The two partners had made out handsomely buying Tommy Hilfiger in 1989 and taking it public in 1992. Wintour recommended Kors. "When I met Michael, Anna had seen his talent 20 years before," Chou says. "We talked constantly and when the time arrived, her opinions about him were very important." Chou and Stroll bought a controlling stake in Kors in 2003 through their Sportswear Holdings for around $100 million. Retail sales for the Kors brand are now in the neighborhood of $1 billion.
"I came to realize that she's really the McKinsey of fashion," says a former colleague who attended several corporate matchmaking sessions with her. Wintour is more modest: "We can suggest, but in the end, everybody makes up their own minds."
One of the people Wintour counsels regularly is Bernard Arnault, whose LVMH luxury conglomerate owns Louis Vuitton, Givenchy, Marc Jacobs and Fendi, among others. In 1993, Wintour and Vogue contributing editor André Leon Talley put a down-and-out designer named John Galliano together with financial backers John Bult and Mark Rice, which relaunched Galliano's flagging career. She later proposed him to Arnault, who hired him first for Givenchy and then for Christian Dior (which is controlled by Arnault's holding company). In 1997, Wintour pushed Marc Jacobs to Arnault for Louis Vuitton. "She pointed us towards unexpected choices," Arnault says. "I speak very openly to her, and this was quite audacious—it was not about picking the big names of the moment. It took her to see that there was a stylistic closeness between John and Dior. She was the discoverer."
It looks like Galliano needs Wintour more than ever now: In late February, the designer was abruptly suspended from Dior after a Parisian couple accused him of yelling unprovoked anti-Semitic barbs at them in a Paris bistro. When a video clip recorded last October surfaced soon after showing a visibly drunk Galliano at a bar making similar racist remarks, he was fired. Of his downfall, Wintour says, "This is all so tragic."
Last July, Wintour met with then–French Minister of Industry Christian Estrosi. She suggested politely that the French government do more to support young French designers financially. Her own CFDA/Vogue Fashion Fund, which raises millions for young American designers, has become something of a model in Europe. She got the idea in 2001, when the World Trade Center disaster disrupted New York's fashion week, leaving young designers financially stranded. The fund now has a $10 million endowment, and has launched similiar programs in Milan and London.
"She tackles things that are really much bigger than what any other editors take on," says François-Henri Pinault, head of luxury-goods giant PPR. Pinault is currently discussing how to finance support for young designers with Estrosi. Not that Wintour came right out and asked him to. "She's much more subtle than that," he says.
When I met Wintour in her big, artfully tidy office at Vogue, she had been up since 5 a.m.—her normal waking hour. On most days she goes off to play tennis at 6, but lately she's been nursing a sore elbow and can't play. Which didn't mean no tennis. She was watching her friend Roger Federer play a tough five-set match against Gilles Simon at the Australian Open. Simon had beaten Federer twice before, and Wintour was uneasy. "At least he's through," she said afterward, visibly relieved.
Wintour first sought out Federer at the 2002 U.S. Open, before he won his first Grand Slam. He was a bit taken aback. "I didn't really know who she was," Federer says. She's since become a trusted adviser and a close friend, not only to him but also to his wife, Mirka, and agent, Tony Godsick. "I bounce all kinds of ideas off her—what to wear on and off the court, photo shoots, sponsors, everything," he says. For her part, Wintour has never asked him for anything, but, he says, "That day will come, and when it does, I'll be very happy to work with her."
The unusual part, say her intimates, is that there's never a direct quid pro quo. On the other hand, if Wintour does ask for something, there aren't two possible answers. "If I get a request for something I don't want to do," says Marc Jacobs, "first I get an email, then a phone call from someone at Vogue, and now I don't even bother to say no—I know the next call is from her."
Jacobs describes a den-motherly attitude that those who see only her hard surface sheen don't suspect she has. "She gets such a bad rap. She stands by the people she believes in, and if you're not one of those people, perhaps you take a different view." Wintour has supported Jacobs since her earliest days at Vogue, when, he says, "everybody was trashing me. It goes way beyond an editor-fashion-designer relationship." Which is how Jacobs found himself sitting next to Wintour on the Jimmy Fallon show, speaking out about Fashion's Night Out.
If there's a risk to having a rat pack, even a large and glamorous one, it's the possibility that it could make Vogue's pages seem overly clubby. Wintour reflects a minute when I ask her about this, and puts it another way. "I try to remain open to new people, but obviously there's a stronger element of trust with people you've known for a long time," she says. "I think we have a Vogue vocabulary, and there are certain people we like to have as the backbone of the magazine—Vogue's signposts. We try very hard to integrate the familiar signatures with people we feel are new and up-and-coming, but I would rather err on the side of being a little more familiar than being too . . . What's the right word? . . . Edgy."
With all of her globe-trotting, matchmaking and event-planning, it's easy to forget that Wintour's bread and butter is running a magazine. Like the rest of the magazine industry, Vogue was badly hurt by the economic crash. Revenue fell 5.55 percent in 2008, then a further 27 percent in 2009 to $289 million, but now it appears to have rebounded. Revenue for 2010 was up 18 percent to $342 million, according to the Publisher's Information Bureau—although it remains below the 2007 peak of $419 million—and it's up almost 11 percent for the first quarter of this year, behind Elle's 14.3 percent and abreast of InStyle's 10.9 percent. Vogue is solidly beating both in total number of ad pages.
Wintour launched the redesigned Vogue.com last September, on the eve of New York Fashion Week. After starting slowly with 545,000 unique visitors, the site registered 896,000 in January. That's still fewer than the 2.4 million who visited Style.com, the omnibus Condé Nast site that used to host Vogue, but it's a healthy upswing, even more so when you consider Style.com is 10 years old.
Wintour came late to the Internet, concedes her boss, S.I. Newhouse. "She started the site reluctantly because she believes that the expression of Vogue's effectiveness is print," he says. "But, typically, once she did it, she did it right." Can Wintour rule the digital fashion world as resolutely as she has ruled print? "It's too early to say," hedges Newhouse, "but take Fashion's Night Out as one example: She clearly has an ability to impose her will."
The brand, of course, is what Newhouse cares most about. "There can be no greater role than being editor of Vogue," says Newhouse, who confirms that Vogue is Condé Nast's most profitable publication. As far as the occasional rumors about a successor for Wintour, who is 61, Newhouse has one word: "Never. I hope she's here 10 years from now, 20 years from now."
You might ask, with all her talent-grooming outside Vogue, has Wintour groomed anyone to take over whenever she—or, more to the point, S.I. Newhouse—chooses to pass on her mantle? "Why would she?" answers a former colleague, who points out that at most magazines the editorial mantle doesn't get passed dynastically. And regime change is rarely gentle. Grace Mirabella didn't groom Wintour, and Diana Vreeland didn't groom Mirabella. More often than not, a new editor means a new editorial vision, usually at the behest of the boss. As long as Wintour's vision defines Vogue, no one is likely to do Wintour better than Wintour herself.
But last year, the successor rumors grew feverish. Waiting in the wings, so it went, was Carine Roitfeld, the provocative editor of French Vogue known around Paris as "Iggy Pop." She happens to look a little like the goggle-eyed rocker and she shares with Pop a sense of erotic bravura that gave French Vogue a reputation for daring. Roitfeld gets the credit, if that's the word, for launching a trend known as "porno chic," which gave French Vogue an R-rated eclat in the fashion world. U.S. Vogue, it was said dismissively, was overly preoccupied with things people might buy.
Roitfeld resigned in December, reportedly pushed toward the door for having consulting relationships with labels like Balenciaga that were seen as coexisting uneasily with her editorial duties. (Roitfeld denies ever having consulted and having been asked to resign.) Inside French Vogue, the idea that Roitfeld threatened Wintour was never taken seriously. "It was all bulls—," says one French Vogue executive. "The only thing Roitfeld cared about was creativity, and Wintour is about business. Wintour gives the 'la' to all the other editors"—a French expression rooted in the way orchestras tune their instruments that means she both sets the tone and serves as inspiration.
Not everyone applauds Wintour's business sense and wider ambitions. There are those who mourn the passing of fashion in its narrower, Dovima-centric sense, and who see Wintour's broader sensibility as a coarsening of fashion's most exquisite self. In a recent New York Times article on Roitfeld's departure, the fashion photographer Inez van Lamsweerde said she hoped French Vogue didn't start to look more like, well, American Vogue. "Do we really need another magazine about the latest architectural feat, the latest book? To me, what's needed is a real fashion magazine with the best taste and incredible photography," she said. This kind of thing has been heard before. Back in the '90s, designer Geoffrey Beene famously accused Wintour of appealing to the lowest common denominator. "As an editor, she has turned class into mass, taste into waste. Is she not a trend herself?" sniped Beene, who stopped inviting Wintour to his shows.
Even after the departure of Roitfeld, rumors still adore Wintour. The latest one is that she is interested in leaving Vogue and fashion for a job in Washington as an ambassador. This speculation has fed on Wintour's enthusiastic fund-raising activities for Barack Obama and her open admiration for the First Lady—Michelle Obama is one of the first names Wintour mentions when asked whom she most looks up to.
Before the presidential election in 2008, she co-hosted a fund-raising dinner with Calvin Klein and André Leon Talley at Klein's home. "I spent time on the aesthetics, and Anna did the phone calls and was really responsible for the funds," Klein recalls. "She was a powerhouse, this tiny, beautiful woman who you think just lives and dies for fashion." Shortly after, Annie Leibovitz photographed Michelle Obama for a spread that ran in the January 2009 issue. She also appeared on Vogue's March 2009 cover, along with an exclusive interview with the First Lady.
Last July, Wintour hosted a $30,000-a-head Obama fund-raiser at her townhouse in Greenwich Village. In attendance were key members of her network, including Harvey Weinstein and his wife, Marchesa designer Georgina Chapman; Andrew Rosen, founder of sportswear manufacturer Theory (he contributed heavily to the CFDA/Vogue Fashion Fund and made the T-shirts for Fashion's Night Out); Gap designer Patrick Robinson (who co-chaired the 2010 Costume Institute gala with Oprah Winfrey and Wintour); old chum and CFDA president Diane von Furstenberg; and art dealer Larry Gagosian. According to Women's Wear Daily, the dinner raised as much as $1.5 million.
Wintour flatly denies she's angling for some kind of government job. For her, Vogue has no limitations. "With all the new media outlets out there, with all the noise, a voice of authority and calm like Vogue becomes more important than ever. The more eyes on fashion, the more opinions about fashion, the more exploration of fashion around the world, the better it is for Vogue. Vogue is like Nike or Coca-Cola—this huge global brand. I want to enhance it, I want to protect it, and I want it to be part of the conversation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



















