Is it just me, or there a whiff of the same throw-it-to-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks mindset that we Gap-watchers know and, um, know? First there was this:
[Ann Taylor], known for its prim clothing for career women in their 30s and 40s, is developing a new casual apparel chain for the older, baby-boomer generation, according to people briefed on the matter.
-- "Ann Taylor Said to Plan Boomer Unit," NYT, Aug 13, 07
And today there is this:
Even as chains offering more expensive goods are thriving, Ann Taylor and other midlevel women's apparel retailers have been struggling. To grab more affluent working women who aren't feeling pinched in the pocketbook, the company is introducing a line in its Ann Taylor stores that's a big step up -- 40% more expensive than its usual merchandise. The line, called Collection, includes about 50 items, and it's built around the work-appropriate suits and dresses that created Ann Taylor's reputation. Suit jackets will sell for $295 to $365, and pants for $175 to $195. Collection also includes silk tops for $120 to $195, $165 cashmere sweaters and handbags priced from $295 to $350. Most of the fabrics used in Collection, such as Loro Piana cashmere, come from Italy, and some are used in high-end designer lines.
-- "Ann Taylor's Loftier Goal: A More Upscale Shopper" (WSJ, Sep 14, 07)
I will be curious to see how well the luxury line plays out. As one of the interview subjects noted, if she's going to pay fat dollars for a swanky handbag, she does not want the Ann Taylor label on it. Also, I wonder if this attempt to branch out will be hurt by a backlash against obvious luxury spending. Although I don't quite buy the premise that we're at the cusp of of a designer down-cycle like CNN recently posited ("Brand Backlash," Sep 6, 07), I wonder if customers who consider Ann Taylor their "nice" clothes will feel miffy about having them positioned as the poor sisters to the good stuff.
It may not even be a problem, though. J. Crew has their own pricey Collection area, and it doesn't seem to have cost them goodwill. In fact, if you look at how the clothes are styled, they're seamlessly integrated with the lower-priced staples like chino jackets and cashmere tees. This is so smart: it presents the "upscale" stuff as available with just a leeeeetle bit of budgetary stretching. I notice the Gap is doing something similar with its limited-edition European collection, which pairs its three-figure wool coats with sawbuck t-shirts; this must be the iteration after its white designer shirts this spring.
It will be interesting to see if Ann Taylor takes a similar tack of mixing high and low. After all, attracting moneyed customers is only one tack to push sales. Another is to push your regulars into believing they can spend more.
I usually shop at Nordstrom's, which I love. Way back when (six years ago) I got two suits from their Classiques Entier line that I also loved. Then I got downsized.
When I started my current job at a BigLaw firm four years ago, I went back for a couple more CE suits. In the meantime, Nordstrom's CE line had gone the way of Theory, by which I mean to say extremely slim-hipped, close-cut, what planet is this a size 12 on "theory" of fashion design. I haven't been able to buy a CE suit since.
This past May, desperate for a summer suit, I wandered into Ann Taylor - not a usual shopping stop of mine - and immediately purchased a cropped-pant number in black pique. At full price. It was a size 12 and fit perfectly and my 38-31-41 figure looked great in it. I got an email about their fall pre-season suit sale, went back and found my Holy Grail: the perfect navy blue pinstriped suit I've been searching for since Gore was elected president. Again, I bought it immediately. There was another woman, also my age (late 30s/40) - blonde, professional, size 6 or so - and we were trying on every suit in the place. So, if their goal is to get regular customers to pay more - hell, I barely walked into the place before May and as of September 15 I've dropped $700 with the mofos.
As one of the interview subjects noted, if she's going to pay fat dollars for a swanky handbag, she does not want the Ann Taylor label on it.
Y'know, I looked at their current handbags (about $150) and there's nothing that says "Ann Taylor" about them - literally. I drop big money on Furla totes myself for the same reason: the only place that the word FURLA is repeated is on the lining. There are a lot of women who won't spend that kind of dough unless a bunch of GGs or LVs shouts to the world that I HAVE A TRENDY BAG. And then there are some of us who want exactly the opposite. So if the only Coach bag you'll buy is the one that has Cs all over the flipping thing, well, yeah, why bother with an equally expensive one that you can't show off? I'm not saying that AT's high-end leather collection will be a success, I'm just noting that the customer quoted maybe isn't their target bag lady.
It's funny that you post about AT right after Boden, because I went on their site and except for one totally kewl skirt (not the one you pictured, although that's very nice too) there is nothing that made me say "yeah, that's worth dropping $100 for." Especially since I can't wear most of their stuff to work. (The totally kewl skirt I could). Because, I look at Boden and I think: young, creative types (bloggers! yay!) who wear funky eyeglass frames. I look at Ann Taylor and I think: older female professional, size 8 or up, who doesn't want to look like she should wear a floppy-tie blouse with that suit. Personally, their Collection suit prices are fine with me, although the tops are a little dear. So I'd probably buy a Collection suit, then check out the "regular" AT or their sale rack for a top to wear with it, and if a sweater went well with the suit pants, sure. Which means that they still end up getting $$ from me, even if only the suit is their high-end label. It appears that as our Generation (X) moves into the corner office, Ann Taylor is trying to follow us there. I wish them luck.
Posted by: Shotrock | 2007.09.14 at 21:49
Y'know, I looked at their current handbags (about $150) and there's nothing that says "Ann Taylor" about them - literally. I drop big money on Furla totes myself for the same reason: the only place that the word FURLA is repeated is on the lining. There are a lot of women who won't spend that kind of dough unless a bunch of GGs or LVs shouts to the world that I HAVE A TRENDY BAG. And then there are some of us who want exactly the opposite. So if the only Coach bag you'll buy is the one that has Cs all over the flipping thing, well, yeah, why bother with an equally expensive one that you can't show off? I'm not saying that AT's high-end leather collection will be a success, I'm just noting that the customer quoted maybe isn't their target bag lady.
Agree with this point but think there's something in between. I abhor bags with labels on them -- but at the same time, if I have X to spend and can get a Furla, or a Longchamp, or an Ann Taylor bag, I'm not going for the latter unless it's an impulse buy in-store... because I don't think AT for bags. I realize they are trying to change that with this move, clearly, and that they want me to start thinking of AT as a destination for nice leather.
But I'm wondering if it's not a case (as Lisa said) of "push[ing] your regulars into believing they can spend more" -- i.e. the lady who has never spent $400 on a bag, but now has an easy opportunity to make that jump because she's very comfortable and secure in the AT brand -- versus trying to convince a Furla/Botkier/Fiore/Longchamp lady to buy an AT bag.
Posted by: Tracy | 2007.09.15 at 06:48