Prada at Kmart: luxury brands and status abandonment.

It's only a small thing. But as we all know small things can lead to big things.

But the release of a new Prada fragrance, Tendre (selling for $79.00) in the Sydney Mother's Day catalogue for Kmart Australia, certainly signals to DIFFUSION that Prada seems to be heading down the same road of luxury brand dilution that destroyed the once great Pierre Cardin, nearly brought down the house of Calvin Klein and which threatens so many brands in this market.

Sure you might argue that it's only perfume and for this brand a cheaply priced one at that, but the democratization of luxury brands seems to be destroying those aspects of a luxury brand (exclusivity, price, access, aeesthetic) that denote these brands.

It's fact we noted in our blog The Defining Essence 20 October 2005 and one that seems to have escaped Prada's owners as they take the brand into the mass luxury market.

Perhaps the Prada licensees haven't read the definition of luxury that in 2000 the European Commission used to review Prada's role in the market as part of a ruling on it and LVMH's acquisition of Fendi. What's important about this ruling is that it is one of the few non-academic reviews of the operation of luxury goods.

The Commission described "luxury products" as "high quality articles with a relatively high price, marketed under a prestige trademark". As such luxury goods were considered to operate in a single product market because of two factors "substitutability from the demand side: the idea of acquiring a luxury good is linked to prestige rather than consumption of a precise item" and "substitutability from the supply side" or where most of the producers of luxury goods manufacture a broad range of products such as ready to wear, leather goods, fashion or, in this case, perfume.

This definition fits in comfortably with our understanding of both the pricing and accessibility attributes of luxury brands. More importantly, the definition attaches the generally accepted idea that prestige is also linked to acquisition and not the actual consumption of the item. Which is probably to say that a lot of women will see the Kmart catalogue and think "I have to have this Prada perfume because it is a such a luxe brand".

What's also interesting from this ruling is the Commission also connects both the transactive distance of luxury brands and the aesthetic of their environmental setting to their definition, noting that Prada itself indicated that "the common denominator is the importance of qualitative requirements designed to maintain the image of prestige, exclusivity and the high quality of the brand (e.g. location, the nature of the external appearance of neighbouring shops, decoration and fittings of the outlet which should reflect the prestige of the brand)."

This hardly sits well with my knowledge of my local Kmart located in a suburban shopping mall which hosts a Baker's' Delight, Go-lo and a Wendys and where Prada perfume is likely to sit alongside the latest offering from Paris Hilton in aisle six.

So, by their own definition Prada not only seem to be falling out of the luxury goods market in their attempts to market mass luxury but also are defying some of the basic principles of luxury brand management. These are:

1. creating distance, a no-mix area or barriers to entry for those who are not invited and by necessity of protecting clients from non-clients;

2. selective pricing and and exclusive distribution as well as the aesthetic dimension of the products; and,

3. the recognition and acknowledgement of its luxury status by all.

By all three counts Prada is failing. First, by not maintaining and enforcing these barriers to entry and allowing their licensee to flout it. Second, by using a selective pricing model more recognisable as that of a democratic, basic brand model (other brands of perfume can sell at Kmart at similar prices) and finally, there appears to be both an acknowledgement of its luxury status by very inclusion on the front page of the catalogue, and also an argument for a case of status abandonment by Prada's Australian licensee and, I suspect, its international license holders, for this latest distribution deal. I'm sure it won't be first such breach.

Coles breakup signals strategy failure.

Putting paid to his much vaunted big-box brand strategy, Coles Group Chairman Rick Allert announced today the troubled retail giant will be split and expressions of interest sought.

Despite a number 30 ranking in the global retailing stakes, Allert and CEO John Fletcher seems to have cast aside the dubious brand work of both McCann Erickson and Futurebrand and has told investors and the market that it was inviting expressions of interest for 100% ownership of the group including what they call the Everyday Needs Business (Coles Supermarkets and Kmart), Target and/or Officeworks. He also said the Group would also consider the sale of a considerable stake in the Everyday Needs Business as well as a demerger of both of Target and OfficeWorks.

Here at DIFFUSION we've been a long time critic of the group's less than comprehensible brand strategy, with Allert and Fletcher being consistently wrong footed by Woolworths. Just over three years ago Fletcher had the opportunity to set things right but even then he was saying his organisation didn't need one. It's about time other similar companies (we have a list!) woke up to the need for CEO-led wholistic brand strategy not run by their marketing departments or their advertising agencies.

Coles failure is a patent example of such strategy absence.

Stella McCartney gives Target some relief from cultural cringe.

Target, the Coles Group owned version of their American counterpart, have finally gotten a little design-savvy with the launch this week of internationally renowned designer Stella McCartney's winter collection.

The McCartney collection is part of a project, called "Designers for Target, style by design'' which has previously featured collections from Australian designers Melbourne's T.L. Wood and Sydney-based Alice McCall and Tina Kalivas. Unlike Target USA, this is a one-off project which illustrates some of the problems associated with the hero branding exercises like this.

Target USA are more design focussed than Australia with designers like Alessi's Michael Graves, Reidel and Isaac Mizrahi always in stock. The latest Target "Design for All" includes entire women's collections (not 14 pieces from Stella's atelier) by famed New York designers Proenza Schouler.

So why should we feel lucky we get this collection from Stella McCartney? After all she's been designing for Puma recently and the collection has been heavily featured in David Jones. And why is it only Qantas First and Business class passengers will get the benefits of design supervision by Australians Mark Newson and toiletries courtesy of Akira Isogawa and Colette Dinnigan? It all smacks a little of the old Australian cultural cringe. It's only acceptable for most people if its an overseas designer and has a premium attached to it. Here at DIFFUSION we believe good design should always be cheap and accessible. The Coles Group has had the opportunity to do this for a long time now. So let's see something from the likes of Akira, Colette and even Stella EVERY time we visit a Target Store.

Coles brand backflips.

As DIFFUSION predicted (Is McCann set to give Coles a Walmart 9/4/06) Coles Group's roll out of it's new brand strategy is proving problematic.

Firstly, the much heralded closure of the Bi-Lo brand has not resulted in customers flocking to Coles supermarkets, as was hoped, but to competitors like Woolworths, Aldi and those pesky IGA stores. What this is likely to mean is that its other brands (K-Mart, Vintage Cellars) in the portfolio also slated for the chop are likely to be left standing while John Fletcher and those masterminds at McCann Erickson and Futurebrand rethink the much vaunted supercentre approach. Yes, supercentre is what they are going to be called. Just check out a recent National Retail Manager role Cole Group advertised two weeks ago describing the Coles Supacentre as "radically transforming the retail experience in Australia".

Secondly, there's the tiny issue of an imminent-any-time-any-day-now-soon sale after Fletcher and Coles Group Board chairman Rick Allert decided to throw in the towel and succomb to the inevitable private equity tsunami engulfing some large underperforming listed companies throughout Australia.

Thirdly, Coles Group's current lacklustre trading performance is putting even more pressure on Fletcher and Co to get the new strategy right. Here at DIFFUSION we've received word from Tooronga that there's quite a lot of internal dissatisfaction with the new direction. Insiders are wondering whether the new strategy is going to work.

In the end, it might all be for nought. If, after an equity group breaks it up and Woolworths nabs Coles' best performers Target and OfficeWorks, what will they be left? An underperforming supermarket chain and a lacklustre variety store. Hardly the stuff of dreams.