Accelerating the Rate of Adoption: J. Crew

Esquire recently featured an interesting piece on the re-development of the men’s section of famous East Coast America prep icon J. Crew, and how this re-development helped shape the way men look at fashion.

Jenna Lyons glides into Drexler’s office after her summons on the intercom. He asks her: “When did the light go off that we were gonna go after men’s in a different way? I remember saying, ‘Clothes suck out there. Where do guys shop?’ I remember saying, ‘No one’s doing something right.’ I vaguely remember saying that.”

So launched the hard task of completely re-vamping the way men’s fashion looks but, more importantly, the way men think about fashion. The article comically reminds the reader of Seinfeld. Just think Seinfeld, and you can recall the state of men’s fashion in the 1990s. But how can a company completely overhaul a market so large? How can they make men more comfortable and willing to purchase fitting jeans? Tailored suit jackets? Narrower lapels? More minimalist collars, with a better spread?

J. Crew has used three main factors to see an accelerated rate of adoption of its clothing and, subsequently, a large increase in market share.

Three main factors of accelerating the rate of adoption were applied throughout the course of a decade: joint ventures, media/product placement, and celebrity endorsement. 

One thing that J. Crew is now notorious for is its joint ventures. Through the mantra of “In Good Company,” J. Crew has partnered with companies like Timex, DODOcase, Corgi, Sperry Top Sider, Barbour, Mougin & Piquard, and The Laundress to produce exclusive items.

The company has reached out to form partnerships with celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow. That single partnership led them to an 8% traffic increase for their online store. Other prominent individuals like First Lady Michelle Obama frequently wears J. Crew dresses to events that have high media exposure. Further, it is not uncommon to see J. Crew pieces appear on various talk shows, television episodes (including shows such as 30 Rock) or, allegedly, the entire wardrobe for films such as The Romantics. This included such young male stars as Josh Duhamel and Adam Brody suited in the company’s Ludlow suiting line — a suit fitted right off the rack.

The revamp and the accelerating factors seem to be working: J. Crew is now seen as a leader in men’s fashion, has seen incredible success in the retail industry for both men’s and women’s clothing, has experienced a successful expansion into Canada and is planning its launch in the UK.

 

 

Email, RSS Follow

Herbert Marcuse and the Mayfly

Herbert Marcuse, http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/images/
herbohlbfinger250pxw.jpg

 

Step into a political philosophy class and there is a good chance you may learn of Herbert Marcuse and his writings in One Dimensional Man where he comments that  “people recognize themselves in their commodities; they find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment” (Marcuse, 9). Our purchases are no longer just items, they define us and our lives. At times, this may seem to be a bit of a stretch but I challenge you to reflect: how many commodities in your life do you consider a necessity? How many do you feel aid you in defining your life? Chances are, you can name quite a few.

One of my favorite examples of a company exploiting the connection or need for  a product is an advertisement from Vodafone, released in 2006. The advertisement seeks, and possibly succeeds, to manipulate viewers into believing that the product, or the brand, is necessary in our lives in order to achieve the happiness that we seek.

The life of the mayfly in the Vodafone commercial is one of absolute bliss while “soaring,” “swooping,” and “savoring every moment.” While the commercial may not actually be suggesting that we too need to soar and swoop in order to have fun and achieve a better life, by superimposing the company name at the end of the commercial, it does suggest that we can mirror the bliss of the mayfly by purchasing one of their products.

When explicitly laid out, it seems absurd to believe that a commercial such as this would be effective.

Yet, it must work. Vodafone’s annual sales saw an increase of two billion pounds following the ad campaign that included the mayfly commercial and we continually find inspirational advertisements that suggest a better, more spiritual life is linked to consumer products. I tried to reflect back on my own spending habits and recall any advertisements that may have been linked to them. Personally, I have already cycled through three different iPods (constantly ‘upgrading’ in models and model generations) and am now on my fourth cell phone. When my second iPod broke months ago, I noticed and commented to my peers about an instant change of mood. I constantly use my iPod while walking, riding the bus, exercising, and studying, among other activities. To not be able to do this for a short period of time caused a dramatic change in my daily habits. I had linked a sense of my very being to a $300 product that comes in a sleek plastic box from a high-tech corporation. Marcuse has me pegged.

Do you have a similar product in your life? 

Email, RSS Follow

Lady Gaga vs. Target

I never planned for my first blog post to reference Lady Gaga. However, with the recent focus on Target’s various ad campaigns in lecture, I recalled the tension between the large retailer and the ultra-famous pop star. A deal had been inked between Lady Gaga and Target to release an “exclusive to Target” deluxe edition of her Born This Way album. However, Lady Gaga and her representatives moved quickly to dissolve the deal when it was discovered that the company’s political action committee (PAC) had made donations to Minnesota State Representative Tom Emmer’s campaign for governor, who is a staunch anti-LGBT activist and, according to some sources, has been associated with a ministry that advocates the killing of gay people.

Even further, Target’s PAC has reportedly donated over $30,000 to politicians who are openly and vehemently anti-gay rights activists — a message that runs directly against Lady Gaga’s overarching philosophies and even the direct motto in the title track “Born This Way.”

Besides simply a bout of bad press, it is important to question how this failed exclusivity deal between the retailer and the pop star links to marketing. I don’t think it is much of a stretch to say that much of the internal workings of a corporation as large as Target goes unnoticed, except to highly attentive shareholders. But the micro (internal) environment of a corporation can have a large effect on its marketing abilities in an instance such as this — although there may be a significant portion of Target’s clientele that agrees with their political donations, there is also a significant portion that doesn’t. This internal action by Target’s PAC lost them an exclusivity deal with one of the biggest pop star’s in the world (an individual who boasts an alarmingly loyal fanbase of “Little Monsters” and has over 33 million followers on Twitter). Arguably, these political donations created an external threat to its marketing: an extremely influential pop star has publicly denounced their brand name and refused to sell her products in their store, directly affecting which consumers can buy certain products.

This brings about a few questions: is it worth it for large corporations to run political PAC’s if they have the potential to be controversial? Is it acceptable for a company like Target to openly support political candidates who openly oppose the equality of individuals?

Email, RSS Follow