Have we lost the plot?

We have clients who own brands – retailers or wholesalers – and we have retail clients that sell brands but do not necessarily own any.

What is this leading up to?

This: Should retailers separate brands or should everything be displayed together by product type?

Going back to 1928 and the Bromhead lectures based on events at Dickins and Jones Limited and DH Evans and Company, we learn that in those days, by and large, they disregarded brands and sorted items according to size and colour. The thinking was that the public will not buy a garment unless it is exactly what they want regardless of the brand name. Seems to make eminent sense, I hear you say.

The growth of branded lines in those days led retailers to consider brands of their own, but again the same argument arose. Obviously they accepted that it is a different story when it comes to whiskey, gin and beer.

Another thing they didn’t worry about was exclusivity.

The thinking here was again similar. If it is not in the style the customer wants, or if it is not in her colour or size, she is not going to buy it because it is exclusive to Brown or Smith. And because the retailer claiming exclusivity has more than one garment in stock, the customer is still likely to see that particular garment on someone else!

Closely tied to this arose the question of advertising. Bromhead couldn’t bear the idea of spending money on advertising. He preferred to spend it on more and better staff. And on visual displays. He figured that losing sales in order to keep stock back because an advertisement was due to appear was crazy. (And similarly he was opposed to catalogues and brochures for the same reason).

Horror of all horrors that one should advertise an item then to see the competition advertising it at 20 per cent less in the same publication. He totally rejected the notion that when things are tough “Perhaps we ought to step up our advertising”.

What he said was that if things were bad, they started looking through their assortments!

All sounds rather archaic, doesn’t it? And yet woven into this philosophy is the notion that retailers were retailers. Their destiny was in their hands. The buyers were talented and bought goods they knew they could sell. They didn’t need to rely on brand names or advertising. The merchandise stood up against the competitor’s based on its merits and how it was presented to the customer.

And oh yes, sales depended on how accomplished and well trained the staff were in the art of selling!

How far have we really progressed? Can we still learn lessons from the past? I think the answer is ‘Yes’!

Stuart Bennie is a retail consultant at Impact Retailing. Email Stuart.

You have 7 articles remaining. Unlock 15 free articles a month, it’s free.