No. 308: Legacy Brands Can Redefine DTC

On Procter & Gamble and why they should further invest in physical retail. If 2019’s Las Vegas’ Shoptalk convention is any indication, the brand representation may mark a shift away from self-sustaining, direct-to-consumer (DTC) brands. Legacy competition for consumer packaged goods (CPG) looks to regain the momentum that the DTC era has hindered. Prominent DTC brands are fewer and far between, this year. At Shoptalk, Bonobos is traditionally present but the brand is now owned by Walmart. Dollar Shave Club, another mainstay, is now owned by Unilever. And Trunk Club is now owned by Nordstrom. This is symbolic, in and of itself. Like many brands in the DTC space, they are increasingly dependent on traditional retail channels to achieve critical mass.

Of this year’s Shoptalk attendees, fewer are there to represent top 100 or so DTC brands. Here is a short list of the digitally vertical brands in attendance: Allbirds, Brandless, Boxed, Dirty Lemon, Everlane, Frank + Oak, Glossier, Harry’s, Mack Weldon, Mizzen + Main, Native Deodorant (Procter & Gamble), and Tuft & Needle. Of these, few have shunned wholesale retail and even fewer have shied away from physical retail development. While these companies have moved upon the traditional landscape with major retail partnerships, acquisitions, or physical retail growth, traditional powers have been slow to account for the resulting changes.

In the most recent Member Brief, we published The Target Report:

Target, Walmart, and Amazon (TWA) are each facing the commoditization of online grocery sales as new challengers continue to hinder TWA’s market cap growth. To address these challenges, each retailer is adopting product marketers and DTC brands are sources of new business and loyal customers. In each case, TWA are positioning themselves as practical homes to fashion, beauty, electronics, and lifestyle brands. Amazon is aggregating. Target is curating. And Walmart is acquiring. 

While the grandeur of DTC brands may be dwindling, legacy brands like Unilever and Procter & Gamble (P&G) are reinvesting into DTC era solutions. Between 2010 and 2019, CPG challenger brands established a momentum that traditional companies have had to counter. As of yet, traditional companies have yet to mount a true offensive against challengers and the retailers that have courted them. According to Happi Magazine, P&G is responsible for 18% of Walmart’s in-store sales. This number is up from 15% in 2016. This number has grown, thus far, despite Walmart’s heavy investment into DTC operations, exclusive CPG partnerships, and private label development.

2PM Data: P&G CoNTEXT

Revenues of the leading beauty CPG manufacturers in billions (2016)
EBITDA forecast of Procter & Gamble Co in millions (2018-2020)
Brand equity of the leading personal care brands worldwide in millions (2018)
Procter & Gamble’s net sales worldwide by business segment in millions (2014-2018)

P&G is at a crossroads. The 182 year old consumer brand earned its highest revenue figure in 2012 and has yet to reach those heights since, though they have successfully cut expenses and bolstered profits. Even so, P&G’s 2018 net income figure was the second lowest in their last 13 years. This diminished position corresponds with the growth in DTC retail sector. This growth along with the continued development of well-marketed private label CPG brands at big box retailers has resulted in increased substitution for traditional products from marketers like P&G and Unilever.

Redefining Direct to Consumer

A rendering of their franchise opportunity

There is a remarkable opportunity for P&G to leverage their products in inventive, new ways. The Cincinnati-based company recently launched Tide Cleaners, a franchise retail experience and service center for dry cleaning. Franchisees gain access to the most recognizable brand in home goods and Tide gets a new retail channel to sell products, build affinity, grow top funnel advertising, and realize service-driven revenue streams.

Tide, one of P&G’s most recognizable brands, has been repurposed to present an on-demand laundry service. Tide Dry Cleaners allows customers to select their desired service in-app, pay, and then drop off their clothing at the storefronts to be picked up when push notified. Customers will return to find their clothes washed, dried, and folded. These dry cleaning storefronts now run in Cincinnati, Boston, Chicago, DC, Philadelphia, Denver, and Dallas. This new retail experience begs the question: why not expand into vertical retail with physical “Everyday” storefronts?

One example of Procter & Gamble’s existing DTC efforts

On “P&G Everyday” and defensibility. As of 2018, Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club (Unilever) won over 12% of Gillette’s market share thanks to their direct model and partnerships with retailers. Procter and Gamble would further benefit from the development of a DTC physical retail model. By owning their in-store “Everyday” experiences, P&G would be able to meet a few objectives that would be useful as Amazon, Walmart, and Target continue to develop competing home goods brands to address their own profitability concerns.

  • Physical stores could reduce dependency on Walmart and Target as primary sales channels while giving P&G more leverage to negotiate better terms and in-store marketing collateral at Target and Walmart or on Amazon (currently an advertising partner).
  • By going direct to consumer, these owned storefronts would cut P&G’s dependency on wholesale relationships, promoting higher margins per sale.
  • With owned storefronts, P&G would be capable of launching their own delivery services and last mile operation.

While “direct to consumer” is the buzz phrase of this era in retail, physical storefronts are once again becoming critical components in a healthy customer acquisition ecosystem. But brand manufacturers can no longer rely upon big box retailers to run the way that they did prior to this era. Digitally native brands are prioritizing physical retail to reduce customer acquisition costs and build long-term loyalty. As a result of this shift by internet-first retailers, big box retailers like Walmart and Target have prioritized partnerships and acquisitions with these brands to drive their customers to their stores.

Walmart Inc. hopes to boost profits by charging for in-store and online advertising by some of the retailer’s biggest suppliers, including Procter & Gamble Co.

Will P&G Pay to Advertise in stores?

The DTC era of retail has begun to place marketers like Unilever and P&G at a disadvantage. Just ten years ago, P&G owned the grooming and beauty aisles at stores like Target. In some stores, Harry’s and Flamingo installations are the most visible. In others, its Native’s deodorant or Casper’s pillows. As third-party retailers like Walmart reevaluated shelf space and in-store marketing, P&G began to lose control of their product presentation. But their commitment to direct-to-consumer business models is a sign that this disadvantage may be short lived.

In addition to the Tide Dry Cleaner franchise system, P&G is experimenting with digitally-native brands. In addition, the company continues to test new online retail formats with BigCommerce. But it’s the direct store format that could offer physical retail growth and brand defensibility amidst the continued evolution of retail. A P&G owned storefront wouldn’t just be a place to own relationships with old customers. It would serve as a space where P&G’s new digitally-native brands could test for and acquire new customers. Direct to consumer retail isn’t limited to online channels, DNVBs are innovating in this way. Marketers like Unilever and P&G can do the same.

Read the No. 308 curation here.

Report by Web Smith | About 2PM

Member Brief: The Target Report

TR

Target is in a three-way battle against Amazon and Walmart; the Minneapolis-based retailer’s opponents couldn’t have more contrasting strategies. Each retailer’s strategy reflects their differentiated effort to Conserve Attractive Profits, a value chain law posed by Harvard Business School professor and author Clayton Christensen.

This member brief is designed exclusively for Executive Members, to make membership easy, you can click below and gain access to hundreds of reports, our DTC Power List, and other tools to help you make high level decisions.

Join Here

No. 307: A Whirlwind Week for Nike

One of the biggest questions asked this week: what will Nike do next? In just seven days, Nike landed three major stories. Known to make the best out of controversial situations, Nike’s biggest brand test may come in early summer 2019. That’s when the brand will be tasked with spinning one of the most embarrassing failures in its recent memory. For Nike – a brand that has positioned itself as a sociological compass as of late: this week began as a test of their evolved brand position. Nike has tended to the question: “how do we address what others have broken?” This week, they were forced to ask: “how do we address what we’ve broken?”

It’s been a whirlwind week for Nike. Five days ago, the biggest amateur basketball star since Lebron James was injured after his shoe malfunctioned in a game. The sporting event was in such high demand that tickets were for sale on the secondary market for nearly $2,900 per seat. Students waited the customary 39 days outside of the Duke arena for their coveted seats. And President Obama made a rare, sideline appearance with his custom Rag & Bone “44” aviator jacket and black Allbirds. When Zion Williamson went down with his knee injury, a television camera panned to the former President who is seen pointing with concern, “his shoe broke.”

It’s been a whirlwind week for Nike. Four days ago, the biggest story in recent NFL history settled an alleged collusion case against the league. The former quarterback’s case against the league’s team owners. The case was said to have some merit and it’s rumored that the cash value was substantial enough to please both sides of the table. The case was settled with complete confidentiality, paving the way for the small chance at a return to the gridiron. Colin Kaepernick, who’s announced signing by Nike caused waves throughout all of sports, released his first product with Nike on the day after the conclusion of his lawsuit. Now a symbol in and of itself, Nike’s simple, generic black jersey with his former number sold out instantly.

It’s been a whirlwind week for Nike. Just one day ago, arguably the greatest athlete of all time voiced and starred in a new Nike ad. Serena Williams narrated over just a few of the recent, iconic moments for women in sports. It was an emotional advertisement directed by Kim Gehrig, the same woman who directed the recent Gillette ad that called toxic masculinity into question. While the Gillette ad was met with, both, praise and disgust – the Serena Williams-narrated project was widely loved. In a matter of hours, the ad was reportedly watched over 17 million times across Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, and Twitter. Featuring Simone Biles, Chloe Kim, Ibtihaj Muhammad, and several members of the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team, some would argue that Gehrig’s ad was the star of the Oscars – the ad’s broadcast premiere.

In our Member Brief entitled “The Nike Report“, I wrote:

Nike wants to own iconography. And in sport, that also means sports history. For a company that wants to own history, they own very little of it today. If you’re a history enthusiast, you can watch clips of Jesse Owens in 1936 Berlin exhibiting heroics in first-generation Adidas track spikes, hand delivered by Adi Dassler. Or you can watch Muhammad Ali swinging at other boxers with Everlast on display. Now, Under Armour owns his rights in a protective attempt to prevent Nike from using their marketing wizardry to build their cache. And in a similar attempt, Adidas owns the rights to Jackie Robinson.

Nike has always been in the business of iconography: Pre, Jordan, Bo, Tiger, Serena, Agassi, Kobe, and now Lebron. But as the brand’s stock trades at historic highs, the Portland company seems to have its eyes set on more. It’s emphasis has shifted towards its role in sports history, supporting people, social movements, and milestones that may not be as popular in the moment as it will be once the history shifts. History has a way of changing things. The way that consumers view things today may be different in a decade or two. The brand seeks to be on the right side of history – as long as it is or will be profitable. Careful capitalism, if you will.

The Zion Debacle

Nike’s week began with a shoe malfunction during one of amateur sports’ biggest stages and ended with a new ad that made consumers temporarily forget about the high profile injury. But from all accounts – Zion Williamson, himself, is undeterred. Several credible sports news outlets are on record with his plan on returning to the team. In a recent San Francisco Chronicle article, “Why Zion will keep playing at Duke“:

Why? Because he’s a competitor, a joyous athlete having the time of his life. Because he couldn’t imagine quitting on his teammates. Because the NCAA Tournament is one of the grand theaters of sport, giving him exactly the exposure he needs going into the draft. And because there’s nothing more ludicrous than the perception that every high-profile freshman is really just a dimwit who never goes to class and spends 14 hours a day on the basketball court.

Unlike many potential first round draft picks, Zion’s earning potential may actually rise if he closes out his “one and done” season in championship fashion. His brand equity has rare potential. Marketers like Adidas, Nike, and Under Armour pay a premium for athletes who are more than the game that they play. Listen to Zion in a post-game interview. He’s as All-American as a kid can be. From his mannerisms to his charisma and book smarts, he has the potential to transcend the sport that he plays. Much like a few of his predecessors.

Below, is a sortable breakdown of the NBA’s top stars and rookies. Williamson currently ranks number 15 among the combination of high powered NBA veterans breakout rookies. Two of his metrics surpass the median social media interest of the group.

[table id=38 /]

This begs the question, which shoe brand will land Zion? By most accounts, Nike will be the shoe brand that markets a fortified signature shoe for the 6’7″ 290 pound, 19 year old phenom out of Salisbury, North Carolina. Both Duke and UNC are deeply entrenched in Nike lore. Michael Jordan’s brand is adored at his Chapel Hill alma mater. And no college coach in America is paid more by Nike than Duke’s Michael William Krzyzewski.

According to Patrick Rishe, a sports business writer for Forbes, Williamson is looking at a shoe endorsement deal that will yield an annual value of $9-10.5 million. This figure would place him seventh overall, far surpassing the NBA’s existing rookie deals – even the highly inflated Puma deals. And ESPN’s Dan Le Batard was quoted as saying that Williamson’s brand and visibility is worth a rookie contract worth $80 million.

The story of the week was about Nike’s short term recovery. While the brand temporarily lost $1.1 billion in value after the injury, the stock’s devaluing was a red herring of sorts. At the surface, pundits and casual observers viewed the malfunction as a gift to Adidas, Puma, or Under Armour. Summer 2019 is shaping up to another example of Nike’s masterful messaging. All data and smart commentary points to a different conclusion.

Footage of this product malfunction will be on repeat for as long as the young athlete is in the spotlight. It’s part of his Williamson’s story. Nike’s next shoe, specially designed for him, will likely be marketed as ‘fail proof.’ It will be a product advancement and a symbol of material progress. If things go their way, Nike will engineer first shoe made for a giant who plays with the explosive leap and versatility of a player 100 pounds lighter and five inches shorter. Fortunately for Williamson, it’s in Nike’s best interest to offer him one of the richest rookie contracts in its history.

Read the No. 307 curation here.

Report by Web Smith | About 2PM