It was the Fox who said, “what is essential is invisible to the eye.” In a world of rapidly changing real and digital landscapes providing your customers with anything that is going to go that extra little 1% can truly pay off.
I came across a super simple story about this timeless piece of wisdom from Seth Godin this morning.
It takes a bold and confident cook to serve a naked hot dog. No roll, no kraut, no mustard.
And a movie shown on a bare wall in an empty room is never going to be received as well as one seen in a crowded theater.
It might be bold to put your work into the world unadorned, but it’s probably ineffective.
We know that a placebo works better if it’s handed to you by a doctor in a lab coat, and that the little show the sommelier puts on improves the taste of wine.
The packaging, the service, the environment, the hours, the interactions, the way it feels to tell our friends–these are all the free prize.
This bonus, the extra free prize that doesn’t seem to be the point of the item itself, is often more important than the thing you think you actually make. The single most effective way to improve your impact is to do a better job of providing it.
Sure, a better hot dog is always appreciated. But when you want to increase user satisfaction, don’t forget to offer better mustard.
Written by Áslaug Magnúsdóttir, co-founder and CEO of Moda Operandi for The Business of Fashion.
When founding a company, one of the most important decisions you will make is how and when your company grows. Growing a young company is not an involuntary, linear process, like how a baby grows. Growth tends to happen in sizeable, step-up increments, like a set of stairs, based upon deliberate decisions you and your team make. The key is to balance careful planning with speed of execution.
The implications of this tricky balance are multiple and very real. Do you “get it right first,” subordinate growth to perfecting your product or service, or do you “get big fast” and shun polishing the decks while it’s full speed ahead?
As you will hear me say often, there is no right solution to this kind of puzzle. But as co-founder of Moda Operandi (M’O), I mulled this balance carefully and decided I needed to “get big fast.” I saw an opportunity for M’O to be first to market with our unique “pre-order luxury goods” concept and I knew that meant aligning myself with key people and companies to help me do it quickly and cleverly. In short, I felt the need for speed was a critical competitive advantage that outweighed hoarding equity and control. This decision had significant implications for how I thought about taking on a partner, where to raise financing, and how much. And since, 16 months later, M’O remains the only store in the business with our dedicated pre-order model, this decision has turned out to be one of the most important I’ve made for the company to date.
TO PARTNER, OR NOT TO PARTNER
One of the first decisions to make when you come up with a business idea is whether to do it alone or with a partner. You have probably heard that entering into a partnership around a company is like entering into a marriage, and it is true. Partnerships, like marriages, are exciting because the whole is greater than the individual parts and together amazing offspring can be born. But also, like marriages, partnerships require work and compromises and they have real costs. Decision-making and control is shared; equity and wealth potential is diluted. So just like getting hitched on a whim in Vegas is not necessarily a great long term idea, you shouldn’t pick a partner unless you think you need to. And if you do need to, make sure that person is kick ass.
I knew Lauren Santo Domingo, my co-founder, would be the perfect partner. Why?
After our first chat about it, I knew there was nobody else I wanted as a co-founder of the company. But we can’t all be this lucky. And taking on a bad co-founder can kill your business before it is born. So here are a few things you need to think about when making the decision about partnering-up or going solo:
Divorce is a mess, not least because it will really slow you down. So only pick a partner if you need to. And if you need to, pick someone who will help you get there faster and smarter. The last thing you need is the old ball and chain.
Investors are your friends. They give you money, you build cool things, consumers spend money, everyone is happy. However, there are different kinds of investors and each has pros and cons. Specific to speed to market, here are a few things to consider:
The key point: if you believe you need to get your company to market now, make sure you match your expectations with those of your potential investors. You may not have the luxury of options. But you don’t want to take on an investor who wants you to get it right first, when you’re focused on getting big fast.
HOW MUCH MONEY IS ‘ENOUGH MONEY’?
Another common question I am often asked is, how much money should I raise and how quickly should I raise it? Fundraising is painful and time consuming. Some founders prefer to raise just enough to get something to market now. On the other hand, some founders prefer to go the extra mile and aim for a bigger raise so they won’t have to suffer through the process all over again in just a short while. There are pros and cons to each approach.
At M’O, we went the extra mile. While we were fortunate enough to have some seed money to get our proof of concept going, we parallel-tracked the fund raising process in full swing until we secured our first round of venture capital. Grabbing market share was critical. We had to build the car while driving it down the highway.
This may not always be the right decision. A young company might be better served in its early days focusing its attention on perfecting the product rather than on fundraising. And depending on the economic environment and the appetite of the investment community, raising more early on might mean giving up more equity to investors than if you wait. But you probably will need more money than you think. And it is always good to stash away cash today for a rainy day tomorrow, like a sudden downturn in the market or the unexpected arrival of a formidable competitor.
During our latest fund raising, I had a meeting with a Chinese businessman, one of the most successful retail tycoons in the world. He said, “You guys are hot. Everyone is talking about M’O. Raise as much money as you can now.”
The point? If capturing market share is of the essence, raise as much money as you can now. Having too much money is a good problem, even if it means dilution, giving up control and sharing the throne. But get to market. Raising all the money in the world means nothing if you aren’t open for business.
In February 2011, I launched an online store — Moda Operandi — with my business partner, Lauren Santo Domingo. Moda Operandi (M’O) was the first of its kind, offering the latest runway styles for immediate pre-order following their presentation at fashion shows in New York, London, Milan and Paris. The site was the result of an idea that I had back in the Fall of 2009 while I was running the premium division at Gilt Groupe: why not allow fashion lovers to buy anything off the runway, in any size offered by the designer, from the comfort and privacy of home? That idea became an obsession that I knew I had to see through to fruition. And I did: Friday last week, M’O announced a Series C round of financing in the amount of $36 million. Investors in the round included venture capital firms RRE, NEA and NAV, as well as strategic investors Condé Nast, LVMH and IMG. Champagne was uncorked. M’O was cemented as a real business.
While celebrating the closing of our latest round, I sat down for coffee with my friend and former McKinsey colleague, Imran Amed, founder of The Business of Fashion. Imran suggested I write a column for BoF about my experience as a founder and CEO of a fashion startup. Our conversation got me thinking about my career, M’O and how it all came to be. Specifically, what are the key requirements for success as an entrepreneur? Why do some start-ups prosper while others fail? How much of it is a result of planning and skill, and how much is just dumb luck?
There is no perfect script for launching a business and I don’t pretend to have all the answers to these questions. But I do hope that sharing my thoughts and experience over the weeks to come can shed some light on the issues that fashion start-ups face and tease out some lessons learned. And, most important, I hope that my story might help others obsessed with an idea to take the plunge to see it through.
1. SOLVE A PROBLEM, EVEN IF OTHERS ARE ALSO PRESENT
You have heard it before and you will hear it again: a start-up that solves a problem, addresses a need and/or fills a void is one that is best positioned for success. The fact that M’O fills a gap in the market has been one of the key factors that has taken us this far. M’O also is unique in that it is the only business specializing in letting consumers pre-order the latest designer runway styles. But if solving a problem is critical to a company’s success, is uniqueness a requirement as well? Absolutely not. Many examples exist of successful companies that were not the first of their kind. In the online fashion space, Gilt Groupe is a good example of this. Gilt took its concept (selling exclusive fashion at a discounted price through limited-time “flash sales”) from a business previously launched in Europe, Vente-Privée, but shaped the concept to address the needs of a US customer base. And Gilt is not alone: flash sale sites have taken the US by storm, delivering discounted goods and services to customers who crave them. The bottom line is that while filling a void is key, being first to do it is not.
2. ACTUALLY, IT’S REALLY ALL ABOUT THE TEAM
When I started thinking about the concept for M’O, I immediately knew that Lauren was the perfect business partner. We had both worked in the fashion industry for a long time and we had complementary skills. My background was steeped in the business side of fashion, having worked as both an investor and consultant to fashion brands. Lauren’s expertise was in the creative side: a long time stylist and editor, she has an exceptional eye for fashion and deep relationships with designers around the world. We knew that technology was our weak spot, so we embarked on the notoriously difficult task of finding a qualified CTO in New York. Once this problem was solved, we knew we had the key skill sets covered. We could then move on to building our initial website with a small, but highly qualified team of passionate people.
The key take-away? Your initial team is everything. Nail down the key people at the get go who are critical to success and then get going with it. Don’t get bogged down with hiring in non-essentials at the early stages. Outsource other needs or just acknowledge to your investors and partners you aren’t wasting time on those areas now and will address them later.
3. PASSION WILL GET YOU FAR
People often ask me what it is like to be a founder and CEO of a start-up and whether this is a path I recommend. My answer is simple: don’t start and run a company unless there is nothing else in the world you want to do. Being the CEO of a start-up is all consuming. You no longer have weekends, holidays or a truly carefree drink after work. You are on constant alert, thinking about the people who work for you, planning out the future of your company, fussing over every small detail that might contribute to the success (or demise) of your business. The ups and downs are real and extreme. So the one thing you absolutely need to keep yourself and your team motivated is complete and utter conviction in and passion for what you are doing. Anything short of that and your team will smell it, your partners will smell it, your customers will smell it and you will fail.
Years ago, while living in London, a business partner and I spent several months researching and developing a concept for a healthy fast food chain. Despite it being a solid business concept that catered to a real need in the market, it just wasn’t my passion. And when things started to get tough, I didn’t have the conviction to keep myself going. M’O, on the other hand, has captivated me from the day I picked up the phone to call Lauren. With that kind of love for our company, I am motivated to wake up every day to nurture and grow the company.
4. LIKE IT OR NOT, CASH IS KING
At the risk of stating the obvious: you might have a wonderful business idea, but unless you are independently wealthy or able to convince someone else to fund your idea, it is unlikely to go much further than the drawing pad. Raising money is like most things in life, an acquired skill that requires practice and dedication. When I moved to New York in 2006, I started an investment company, TSM Capital, with retail legend Marvin Traub. TSM invested in fashion brands, such as Matthew Williamson and Rachel Roy, and I spent a good deal of time (and heartache) raising capital for early stage fashion companies. This was an extraordinarily difficult task, as many investors were not comfortable assessing the competitive advantage of individual fashion brands. I had to hone my fund raising skills by learning the do’s and don’ts of selling brands to investors: what motivates them, what scares them. That learning was critical during M’O’s fund raising process and we have been blessed with the ability to access capital to fund our growth and development, having raised nearly $50 million in under two years. Without this money — and without knowing how to raise money — the beautiful idea behind M’O would have stayed a sketch on the drawing pad.
5. LIFE IS ALL ABOUT TIMING
This lesson is may be the hardest. Timing is everything, too. Some ideas are great but they are just too far ahead of their time and they fail. Some ideas are great but they arrive at the party too late and they fail. This is as true in the online fashion world as anywhere else. Gilt got its timing completely right, launching just when the economy was experiencing a significant downturn and full price luxury sales were suffering heavily. As a result, Gilt’s business, selling discounted fashion merchandise from previous seasons, was an instant success.
At M’O, we knew our time was now. We saw the writing on the wall. Consumers were demanding online access not just to commodity products from Amazon but luxury goods from designers. With the economy rebounding, we worked hard to get to market fast — even at the expense of making mistakes along the way. As a result, M’O has been able to generate the sales and financing required to put the company in a unique place. In short, while you can’t time everything, do your homework to determine the right moment for your idea. Once you see that wave coming, paddle as hard as you can to catch it. There might not be another big one on the horizon for some time.
The following article was described as the best article ever written on the Australian marketing landscape by the Creative Director of the agency I work for. Written by Mark Ritson and posted on bandt.com.au on April 19.
Australian brands need to take a reality check: the days of being an oligopoly are finished, writes Mark Ritson.
Oligopoly. It’s a word that originated from the Greek word monopoly in the 19th century to describe a situation in which a small number of companies dominate a large proportion of a particular category or market.
The marketing implications of an oligopoly are as ancient and well established as the concept itself. With a distinct lack of competition, incumbent brands can achieve relatively high prices and profitability while reducing or eliminating product innovation. Lesser competition also creates a false sense of brand superiority in the organisations and a dismissive and overconfident rejection of the threat of possible competitive entrants. With limited options the oligopoly tends to largely ignore the actual consumer because they have such little market power – so consumer orientation is low in an oligopoly and the investment in market research tends to be low to non-existent. As a result of all this, oligopolistic brands are usually high in brand awareness but very low in brand associations and exhibit low differentiation from each other. Ask a consumer trapped in an oligopoly to name some brands and they can rattle off four or five immediately. Ask them to then tell you what each of those brands stands for and, more often than not, the question is met with a blank response and a shrug of shoulders.
Sound familiar? It should. For the past 40 years, while the rest of the world increasingly embraced international trade and fierce global competition, Australian has ticked along very nicely with a very limited set of international entrants and a very healthy – some would say too healthy – domestic competitive environment. And the result has created one of the biggest and most oligopolistic markets in history. Across Australia, until very recently, you could find classic oligopolistic conditions in most categories. Two brands with 70% share of the usually fragmented and ultra-competitive grocery sector. Four brands with 80% share of national retail banking. Three companies controlling 80% of the news media. Three airlines with almost all of the domestic flights under their control. Two companies with a stranglehold over the vast majority of beer drunk in Australia. I could go on.
It’s more than just the presence of a small number of Aussie brands dominating the domestic categories that makes us a classic oligopoly, however. Australian brands also consistently exhibit all the hallmarks of oligopolistic behaviour. For example, there is no better evidence of the presence of the oligopoly than an arrogant, dismissive response to external entrants. And we have seen that response time and again in Australia. Aussie winemakers dismissed the threat from South American vines because their wine was “shit” and not up to the standards of Aussie production. When Aldi announced it was entering Australia there was an outpouring of scorn poured on the ability of a German player to be able to handle the extremely difficult and very different Australian market. Eight years later Aldi continues to grow at a very healthy pace and rates Australia as one of its most successful markets. Costco can tell a similar story. Each foreign brand was warned that Australia was a tough market to crack, and yet each one has cut through incumbent local brands like a hot knife through butter.
It was the same scenario among the fashion retail circle in 2010 when the potential threat posed by the fast fashion brands of Zara and H&M was initially debated in Sydney and Melbourne. Once again incumbent executives were sceptical of Zara’s potential down under and its ability to negotiate the Southern hemisphere seasonality into its offerings. And once again the brand found Australia both fruitful and easy to enter. Meanwhile, such is the oligopolistic attitude of the domestic brands that many of their leaders continue to dismiss Zara as “nothing special” when they mystery shop their Spanish rival.
Australia has also been clearly guilty of another oligopolistic trait – low consumer orientation. It’s best exemplified by the almost total lack of regular and recurrent market research taking place in many of Australia’s biggest brands. In contrast with Europe or America my decade in Australia has taught me that it is entirely possible to be a marketing director or brand manager here and have absolutely no consumer research of any kind. While about six in 10 brands track their brand equity on an annual basis in America, less than 10% manage to do the same here. Our oligopolistic tendencies are also reflected in our leaders. Whenever I give a talk in Australia about being better at branding the inevitable question from the audience is how Aussie marketers can convince a senior management team bereft of marketers and devoid of any consumer orientation of the branding imperative – and the honest answer is that you can’t. Many Aussie businesses were built around the ridiculous belief that their success comes from their sales figures and their stock price. The idea that both these two metrics are in turn driven by the consumers that pay for everything is entirely lost on the sad, old white men that disrespect marketing and run most big Australian brands.
Combine an unhealthy internal arrogance and a distinct lack of consumer focus, and the third classic feature of an oligopoly – lack of Australian product innovation – becomes easily understandable. And once again Australia has proven to be a perfect exposition of low product innovation from incumbent firms. There is no better example than the general approach to wine production in this country. More than 70% of the wine grapes under production in Australia are derived from just Chardonnay, Shiraz and Cabernet Sauvignon. When Dan Jago, the wine buyer from British supermarket Tesco, came to Australia in 2007 and warned producers their lack of innovation in lighter styles of wine and in less homogenous varietals was going to end in disaster his comments were met with characteristic oligopolistic arrogance. Jago was told he should go back to “selling dog food” and leave the wine business to the Aussie experts. Five years on, his comments have proved prescient in the extreme. A lack of product innovation has been endemic across Australian business for decades. From Gerry Harvey making an entirely ridiculous argument why Harvey Norman had decided not to sell their products online – ““Online people do not make any money. The whole world was conned with online retailing… it’s a con, a complete con.” – to our big two supermarkets only finally committing to proper private label strategies more than a decade after every other major grocery industry had developed one. We moved slowly in Australia – not because we like moving slowly – but because the oligopoly allowed us the luxury of laziness. Competition was dull and therefore so was the response to it in innovation terms.
All of this has played out in the enormous disparity between domestic prices and those paid overseas for exactly the same products overseas in more competitive markets. There is no better example than in foreign cars. Take Mercedes, for example. In the US you will pay about $200,000 for the new Mercedes SLS roadster. That same car, inexplicably, will set you back more than double that price here in Australia. In an oligopoly the lack of competition allows competitors to charge more for products and decades of its existence has encouraged consumers to accept blatant overpricing as something endemic and acceptable in their market. That’s why, despite the American and US dollars enjoying parity in recent years, we pay double the price for our Grande Latte than an American pays for exactly the same beverage. The impact of the internet on domestic Australian retailers such as Harvey Norman and Dymocks is not simply a story of technological change. It is also one of pure competition in which a newly globalised consumer can and will seek out better prices, for the same products, outside of the oligopoly they have been constrained within for so many years.
And the end result of all this is weaker brands with low differentiation and relatively low brand equity. The valuation firm Brand Finance has repeatedly shown that Australian firms derive less of their overall enterprise value from brand equity than their international peers. Or to put that in layman’s terms, our brands are less valuable than our foreign competitors. And is that really any surprise? Most Australian managers still over rely on sales promotions which destroy brand equity. Most still underspend on integrated marketing communications. Most still eschew consumer research and tracking in favour of “gut feel” and “instinct”. Have we really created that many distinctive brands in Australia? For all the talk, for example, of the battle between DJs and Myer – if I was to knock a passageway between their two flagship stores on Bourke Street Mall in Melbourne, how many consumers would really notice they had switched stores? The cosy nature of our Australian oligopoly has meant that our competitive brands have coexisted rather than competed with each other.
Make no mistake, there is nothing illegal about an oligopoly. In fact you can make a very coherent argument that if you are one of the brands operating inside an oligopoly you should de-focus on consumers and differentiation and ramp up prices and margins. While it would be easy to criticise Coles back in 2005 for an incredibly poor operation, low consumer focus and sub-standard retail standards, one could only be impressed with the sustained and consistent profits that the company was able to extract from the market at this time. But the killer point about oligopolies is that eventually they implode. Just as nature hates a vacuum, capitalism hates oligopolies. A dangerous transition is now taking place across Australia. As our dollar grows in value and our population gradually inches towards 25 million the eyes of foreign brands turn southward towards us. In America the parity with the dollar makes us roughly as valuable as New York or Texas. In Europe a jittery economy and long-term market decline make Australia’s relatively stable and cashed-up economy a very attractive target despite the long distances involved. Australia is suddenly a focus for global brands and the recognition that the local brands here are poorly run and devoid of brand equity makes the attraction all the greater. One global marketing director I spoke with at Christmas described Australia as “a gold mine currently being exploited by locals with pick axes”.
Personally, I prefer the metaphor of the small town disco. Imagine a small country town where the women outnumber the men four to one. The Saturday night disco has been an easy place for the local men to get lucky. Now imagine a mine opens just outside town and there is a sudden influx of young, fit, rich, single men. The local men are out of shape, under-dressed, and over-confident about their charms because of years of success. They are unprepared for the deluge of new suitors now heading to the disco every Saturday night. In contrast, the local single women cannot believe their luck and are quick to see all the advantages. They now openly reject the local men who they once aspired to date. Indeed, it becomes the fashion in the town to only date the new men because the locals are seen as being old fashioned and out of touch. Bereft of company, the local men debate whether to head to the nearby city on Saturdays to meet new single women – but they have become so reliant on the local dating scene none of them know where to hang out or what to say in other locations. It’s a crude metaphor – but a good one for the years ahead in a newly competitive Australia.
The problems of an oligopoly only become apparent when it starts to break down. With the arrival of foreign competition the local incumbents are simply not ready to compete at the same level. And here we glimpse two of the other implications of oligopolistic behaviour. First, a lack of real competition has left most firms unable to react and respond to new threats in a strategically successful way. The response of local brands to the threat of internet imports in lobbying the government for a change in the tax policy was a classic example of how old world oligopolistic brands try to respond to new threats. To take another example, the management team at Coles have been forged from the crucible of foreign supermarket competition and are subsequently running rings around Woolworths with smartly marketed, consumer-based strategies. The old world response of Woolworths thus far has been to play the classic oligopolistic response: we will copy you. You get a chef, we get a chef. You get a meat policy, we get a meat policy. But this is no way to respond in the long term.
The second implication of the oligopoly is the most troubling of all, however. The internal market has been so easy and profitable most domestic brands have refused to countenance major foreign expansion. For all its country brand attractiveness, Australia does not have a single strong international brand. And I am not counting brands such as Ugg and Fosters beer, which are successfully run by foreign owners who understand international expansion and brand management unlike most of our domestic executives. Yes Collette Dinnigan sells a few outfits in Europe but the brand would have less than 0.1% unaided awareness among fashion buyers there. Okay, Harvey Norman does a decent trade in Singapore and Slovenia – but that’s hardly a global brand is it?
We talk a good game in Australia when it comes to brand equity and brand management but the harsh reality is that our brands are weak and they are struggling. Groups that owe their success to brands and branding such as Billabong, Goodman Fielder and National Foods have all stumbled in recent years. The recent acquisition of the former-Fosters group by SAM Miller highlighted both how poorly our domestic brand management has fared and how much easier foreign acquirers could improve things quickly by doing the basics well. The cosy, profitable nature of the Australian oligopoly has had a double impact on our foreign competitiveness: making us both a soft target for the foreign brands now entering our domestic market and having limited our interest and ability to successfully enter and export our brands to foreign markets.
The popular press has been too keen to paint a picture of a major high street recession for Australian consumers. Clearly this has not been an easy 12 months for Australian consumers. But mixed into this minor recessionary story is a deeper and more troubling malaise caused by weak domestic brands being attacked by stronger international entrants. How else do we explain the success of international players such as Costco, Apple, Zara, Burberry and Gucci in Australia if there is such an enormous recession going on? The bitter legacy of living and managing in an oligopoly for so long is that we simply do not build strong, differentiated brands well in this country. The sooner we accept this fact, the sooner we can do something about it.
Unfortunately, however, one of the classic characteristics of oligopolistic firms is that they cannot see the competitive threat in these terms. They would rather blame the government, the economy or even the consumers for their downturn in sales and profits. The first step of an Australian renaissance on the high street is the acceptance that the threat from foreign brands is real and the current ability to meet that threat with our domestic marketing competence is low to non-existent.
It’s time to wake up and recognise the new reality of Australian marketing. We are an oligopoly no more.
Professor Mark Ritson is a consultant to some of the world’s biggest brands. He teaches brand management at Melbourne Business School and on the AMI’s Masterclass program.
This article first appeared in B&T’s sister magazine Professional Marketing.
How do great leaders inspire action? How do companies inspire marketplaces to investigate and purchase their products, fashion or otherwise? The answers to these questions I discovered within a 18 minutes TEDx talk I found this morning by Simon Sinek.
The points within the this talk are simple, yet immensely profound for the world of fashion. People don’t need fashion. People only need clothing, and that depends where they are located in the world. People purchase the ‘why?’…
Check out Simon’s talk below. It may inspire you to re-think your communication of your ‘why?’.
After you spend years investing to build an aspirational brand, a competitor launches a new clothing brand or perfume and your customers disappear to buy the new new thing. The luxury and fashion industries are full of such stories.
Luxury and fashion have been playing this aspirational model forever. It works like this: I am not part, but would like to be; because I want to be recognized as a rich and important person, I buy a Gucci’s bag, Prada’s shoes, and so forth. To aspire and be recognized is part of being human.
But the aspirational branding strategy is intrinsically risky, because it is so exposed to consumers’ fashion hypes and downs. How can a luxury business stand apart from the aspirational crowd?
Let me present a successful case in Europe and parse out the managerial lessons. Loro Piana sells both exclusive wool and cashmere fabrics and its own branded clothes. An six-generation-old Italian family business, the company’s sales have grown from €243 million in 2000 to €478 million last year, despite two deep recessions. Loro Piana is distributed globally in 22 countries and operates 135 retail stores, most of them directly owned.
The company’s mission is to sell excellent products made from the best sources of raw material (wool and cashmere). Over the years, the company has been able to scout in remote areas of the world the best raw materials, building local sustainable ecosystems and preferred access to breeders.
For example, Loro Piana has been working with the vicuna from the mountainous steppes of South America for many years, culminating with the animals saved from extinction thanks to a project developed with the support of Peru government and the local community. By acquiring 2,000 hectares in the Andes, the company is establishing a natural reserves to further protect these animals. The vicuna produces the finest fiber capable of being spun with an average diameter of only 12-13 microns against the 15 microns of cashmere. Thanks to its preferential access and local community bonds, Loro Piana buys 85% of Peru’s production.
Another example is baby cashmere, a fiber the company obtains from the undercoat of young Hircus goats in the remote Gobi desert in Mongolia. Loro Piana works smoothly and sustainably with local nomadic Mongolian goat herders and has set up a local Mongolian company to manage the process of baby cashmere sourcing to be closer to the local nomadic community.
For Loro Piana, success depends not only on its ability to build competitive advantage through access to the best raw materials, but also on its sophisticated marketing skills and ability to use its exclusive raw material access for its branding. Baby Cashmere and Vicuna are now prime Loro Piana labels, associated by clients and consumers with product excellence. The company uses a very limited advertising budget compared to other fashion houses, mainly focused on promoting local ecosystems and stories of raw material excellence. The company does nearly no advertising on clothing lines or what aspirational brands usually do. In contrast, Loro Piana wants to be hidden.
Over the years, thanks to its obsession for sourcing and product excellence and sophisticated marketing, Loro Piana has become a classic of elegance. Its branding consumer’s perception is the opposite of aspirational. This brand and strategic positioning preserves them from the hypes and downs of fashion brands. Business is more stable, less cyclical, with lower advertising investment requirements — and, as a consequence, very profitable.
Do you have a plan for you brand on how to become a classic and shy away from the aspirational crowd?
Player: Pachinko Pictures
Location: Melbourne Australia
Specialities: All things animation across web, video, iphone, ipad, android, and many more
Clients: McQ by Alexander McQueen, Vogue Japan, Chupa Chups, Nike, and London Fashion Week to name a few…
Pachinko Pictures is a Melbourne based digital animation studio with extensive experience in the world of fashion. A small team capable of big things. UK natives Dave & Ian of Pachinko have worked across the globe with the likes of Nike, McQ, and Vogue. Dave & Ian were engaged to produce the first ipad magazine for Vogue Japan (Vogue Hommes Blossom). The result of which is below.
Upon the release of the ipad in 2010 Pachinko was one of the first players on the block to leverage the new found technology to levels ahead of the time. See how Pachinko utilised the brand of Lady Gaga in a magazine concept with an integrated commerce and retail platform.