I visited the M&S archive and exhibition at the University of Leeds today, to gain some insight into the history of the Marks & Spencer brand. I had really been looking forward to the visit, given how much M&S had already featured in fashion news and consequently, in my critical journal up until this point.
The exhibition took a chronological look through the history of the brand, from its humble beginnings as a Penny Bazaar (the quaint equivalent of a modern day pound shop) to its contemporary influence and popularity among fashion bloggers. Despite the excitement of seeing so many vintage garments and the romantic idea that they had once been sold in high-street stores, I found that the exhibition lacked any correlation to the current day in terms of M&S notoriously struggling clothing sales performance and recent overall of its UK stores. It was quite a one-sided perspective - and praise where praise is due - I did learn a lot about the pioneering techniques and strategies instigated by the brand, including its use of man-made fibres in the seventies and the entrepreneurship which has made it a go-to household brand for generations. However, I found myself questioning where the facts and figures were - which are repeatedly reported in business fashion articles - but seemingly ignored in the exhibition.
This later prompted the inspiration behind my written article for the Fashion Writing and the Industry module which discussed the downfall of the M&S brand and my proposed reasoning behind it. Throughout the exhibition's timeline, attention was drawn to the numerous sub-brands which have passed through the mainline and it seemed to me that these confusing collections each housed under separate names were hampering the shopping experience for M&S consumers.
THE ANSWER FOR M&S
Decades of obscurity are to blame for the retail giant’s falling sales – the solution lies right under its nose.
Having secured an innumerable amount of in-house collections and collaborations under its belt since its early days as an 1884 Penny Bazaar in the city of Leeds, retail giant Marks & Spencer currently houses a comparatively smaller collection of seven womenswear sub-brands: Autograph, Classic, Indigo Collection, Limited Edition, Per Una and Twiggy, as well as lingerie collection Rosie for Autograph. Navigationally, Marks & Spencer’s general merchandise retail space is complicated both online and throughout its physical stores, of which plans to axe or overhaul 75 are still ongoing.
This apparent complication is caused by the retailer’s poor performance as a ‘people pleaser’ without a clear and decisive target customer to cater for. While Marks & Spencer’s string of collaborations did gain some positive publicity, the success hasn’t translated well into sales. Clothing and home sales declined again in 2016, falling by 2.2% despite the release of the second Archive collection by Alexa Chung in November of that year. In comparison, food sales have continued to grow by 3.6%. “M&S being stuck between attracting a loyal older customer and aspiring for a younger fashion follower has seen the brand make high profile signings to attract the latter in the enviable shapes of Rosie Huntington-Whitely and David Gandy – while alienating the typical M&S customer”, says Patrick Bousquet-Chavanne, Executive Director of Marketing at M&S. Despite attempting to “restyle vintage garments for a modern customer base”, the collection effectively failed to reach the modern customer and alienated its existing audience.
While selected pieces have proved their popularity in recent years, like the mid-length 70s suede skirt from the debut Archive by Alexa collection or the funnel-neck jumper with flute sleeves which recently caught the attention of the blogosphere, M&S risks becoming somewhat of a one-hit wonder – jeopardising its position as a retailer renowned for its rich history, wholesome beginnings and British heritage and instead, dismissed as a lacklustre brand that fails where others flourish.
The news of Marks & Spencer’s store closures came just weeks before the surprising sales performance figures announced after Christmas, responsible for giving a glimpse of hope to the consistently faltering clothing and general merchandise department. Having held the biggest market share of any retailer two decades ago, the retail giant is now clutching at straws in 6th place behind the market leader of traditional department stores, John Lewis.
Frustratingly for Steve Rowe, the success of his transition from Executive Director of Food to General Merchandise has dwindled. Brought to the forefront of general merchandise during a time of intense pressure to keep the M&S clothing department afloat, his strategy so far has been ineffective and his energy has been misplaced. Food at M&S is simple and sustainable, often British-produced and considered something of a premium treat; the retailer has redefined the microwave meal and the dine-in experience. The definition of clothing – and of its target audience – however, is obscure and contradicted by the influx of sub-brands with weak identities that don’t play to Marks & Spencer’s strengths in brand identity.
The retailer’s strength and consistency took a downward direction at the turn of the millennium, when the decision was made to axe the St. Michael sub-brand which had dominated the Marks & Spencer brand since 1928. The St. Michael brand represented M&S’s associations with revolutionary fashion manufacture and its trusted ‘St. Michael Quality Promise’.
A spokesperson said of the brand reorganisation back in the year 2000: “Our customers were not clear on what the main brand was - Marks & Spencer or St. Michael. We are very clear that the main brand is Marks & Spencer and that is what people identify with.” Yet falling sales, the introduction of contradictory collections and continuing disruptions in creative direction prove that there has been little development in establishing the ‘main’ Marks & Spencer’s brand on the market. In the present day, St Michael represents the clarity that the brand has been lacking. By revoking such a powerful statement, M&S has been left floundering ever since.
While the Marks & Spencer brand has all of the essential ingredients and more to regain a powerful stance on the market, it must break out of the veil of confusing sub-brands which have only been detrimental to the retailer’s attempts to forge – and more importantly, to maintain – a clear and loyal target audience. The brand’s green credentials are a potential area for growth; consumers are attracted by the knowledge that their clothing has been sourced nationally and this assures them of its quality. Yet uncharacteristically of a brand plagued by inconsistency, M&S are ahead of the game in terms of their ethical commitment. Since the retailer’s partnership with Oxfam began in 2008, 24 million garments worth an estimated £16 million have been donated in-store. The retailer has set a clear precedent in its Plan A 2020 strategy and aims to become the UK’s most ethical brand. Marks & Spencer must confidently project their brand image in general merchandising as confidently as it is projected in their food and ethical divisions to sustain their brand identity.
Post a Comment