Shhh… Abercrombie is Cutting Prices

Last night at the mall, we saw what it looks like when retailers who don’t want to discount do the dirty deed in hushed tones. Just a few feet inside the lease line at an Abercrombie & Fitch store, we saw fleece tops at 50% off—a whacked price put onto a tasteful little sign no bigger than a postcard. We saw this throughout the store, motivating price points on merchandise clearly meant for the upcoming fall/winter season. This A&F store even had a sign at the entry announcing a back-to-school sale (odd, since prime back-to-school shopping season is behind us). Deep discounts? On current season merchandise? Is this really “we will not become promotional” A&F? Since the onset of the recession, shoppers have flocked to low-price retailers like T.J. Maxx and Ross. Nearly every clothing chain has aggressively discounted to try to win over penny-pinching shoppers. But in the face of all this discounting, A&F has stubbornly held onto its loftier price structure to protect its “aspirational” brand.

Last week, A&F announced that its sales dove a frightening 29 percent in August – the eleventh straight month of double digit sales declines for the retailer. Sure, times are tough and the teen (and parent) clothing budget has been squeezed, but rival Aeropostale, with its less expensive, but still fashionable, apparel managed to increase sales a very respectable 9%. A&F has finally, reluctantly, quietly capitulated to shoppers’ demand for a deal (while still clinging hopefully to the idea of an aspirational brand). “It (discounting) is not the primary vehicle nor will it be the primary vehicle for driving business, but it is part of the balance at this point… but it is not the driving force of this business. The driving force is fashion, quality, aspiration, and will continue to be so,” Chief Executive Officer Michael Jeffries said on an Aug. 14 conference call.

A&F may have done its job of creating a high-priced brand image a little too well. Despite a current move to more price cutting, the company’s success ultimately depends on the willingness of teens to drop $50 on “Perfect Butt” sweatpants once the economy rebounds. Still, now that teens have learned that for the same $50 they can get a pair of sweats and jeans at Aeropostale and still have money in their pocket for a couple of tickets to a movie, it may not be so simple to get them to return. Habituation is a tough monkey to overcome.

Gilly Hicks – We’re Not Sold

When it comes to Gilly Hicks, the lifestyle lingerie emporium aimed at teens and the newest brand in the Abercrombie stable, there’s one thing we can all agree on: the store itself is beautiful, luxurious, and sexy. The look of the space has won raves from fashion bloggers and stock analysts alike. The branding is brilliant, although entirely fictional: Abercrombie CEO Mike Jeffries concocted an elaborate Australian back story for the entirely American underwear brand (who knew “down under” had other meanings?) A portrait of “Gilly” hangs in the stores, to add a faux vintage feel to the shop. Gilly Hicks hopes to be younger and hipper than, but just as successful as, Victoria’s Secret.

The opening of Gilly Hicks has been controversial. Although Citigroup analyst Kimberly C. Greenberger praised the store’s “cute and sweetly sexy” image and said, “We believe Gilly Hicks could be a more wholesome alternative (to Victoria's Secret), and mothers would not mind taking their 15-year-olds to Gilly Hicks to shop,” an assortment of critics have attacked the whole notion of trying to sell sex to teens. Everything from the store’s racy ad campaign, featuring 7-foot-tall posters of naked men, to the website, which broadcasts a video showing women swimming topless, and the effort to sell sexy lingerie to teens has drawn complaints.

But the ultimate question, indeed, the only question is, will it sell? Gilly Hicks represents a huge per store investment, from the home-like front porch exterior to the dimly lit Ralph Lauren-on-steroids interior, with a huge amount of square footage dedicated to selling a tiny passel of products that would fit comfortably inside the closet of a New York City studio apartment. On the one hand, other companies have made big profits using edgy, sexy ads to sell to the teenage set. The other companies in Abercrombie’s stable, Abercrombie & Fitch, abercrombie, and Hollister, have deftly won over their target markets. Unfortunately for Abercrombie, we think it’s highly doubtful that Gilly Hicks is going to help the company bust out of a recession-fueled slump, despite the store’s gorgeous environment. Luxury undergarments for teens are not a natural sell in the best of times, and right now, the retailers that are thriving are mostly value brands aimed at the prudent. Add in the store’s sales crew – the young-side-of-20-something associates look as great as the store, but are without the years of experience in fitting bras and selling intimate wear – and it seems like an even bigger, and more expensive, misstep. What do you think?