F.A.T. Tuesday

On Tuesday Gap Inc. [NYSE:GPS] announced that “following a thorough assessment of its store concept, Forth & Towne, it has decided it will not move forward with a full roll-out. As a result, the company will close its Forth & Towne store concept after an 18-month pilot that began August 2005.”

“We made the tough decision to close the brand and focus our efforts on stabilizing the existing businesses,” said Robert Fisher, Gap’s chairman and interim chief executive.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

Gap designed Forth & Towne to offer baby boomers a miniature version of the department stores they grew up with, stocking four different labels under one roof. One section of the store, for example, was aimed at career-oriented women who shop for suits at Talbots Inc., while another resembled the loose, flowing styles at Chico’s. Part of the store held classic Gap T-shirts and jeans, redesigned for a less-skimpy look. The concept required a lot of space — and a lot of work to keep the sections distinct…

Forth & Towne’s stores “never gained much traction; suffered from fit, style and image problems; and became a big distraction.”

Forth & Towne, or F.A.T, also never developed an engaging story to support the concept. And it never settled upon a single point of difference to set it apart from competitors. Forth & Towne tried to be too much for too many audiences.

How did this happen?

In a stunning display of corporate homogeneity, the suits at The Gap failed to articulate a simple guiding promise for the new brand, as demonstrated by how they settled upon a name for the new concept which offered no clue of a reason to care about it. The team at Gap Inc. thought they were playing it safe, when instead their decision had the effect of issuing an execution order for the new concept before it was launched.

Forth & Towne might as well have been a stuffy bank, rather than the Chico’s killer it aspired to become as the name, and the story behind the name, offered no aspiration, no reason to want to affiliate with the brand. The brand had no spear tip by which to gain entry into the minds of female baby boomer crowd it so desperately wanted to influence and attract.

The result of such decision-making is easy to predict.

R.I.P F.A.T.

[More posts about Brand Management | More posts about Brand Blunders | More posts about Apparel Branding | More posts about Retail Branding | More posts about Brand Differentiation | More posts about Brand Strategy | More posts about Brand Naming | More posts about Gap Inc. | More posts about Forth & Towne | More posts about Chico’s | More blogs about Apparel & Retail Branding]

  Wednesday, February 28th, 2007 - 7:46pm  |  Apparel & Retail + Blunders + Brand Differentiation + Brand Management  |  Comments (2)

Brand as Competitive Advantage

“Branding is a competitive advantage without equal. People will wait longer, travel further, and spend more for a favored brand.”

This advice is offered by Dr. David A. Shore, PhD. Dr. Shore is an Associate Dean at Harvard University, School of Public Health, where he teaches Harvard graduate courses such as “Strategic Marketing: Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Positioning, Branding, and Building Trust.”

We agree. As offered previously, contrary to the depreciation experienced by every other balance sheet asset, a brand is the sole asset capable of appreciating in value. The natural result of an asset creating competitive advantage is value appreciation, and growth in balance sheet equity.

[More posts about Brand Equity | More posts about Laws of Branding | More posts about Competitive Advantage | More posts about Brand Strategy | More posts about Harvard University | More blogs about Brand Equity]

  Friday, February 23rd, 2007 - 5:01pm  |  Brand Equity + Brand Grad School + Competitive Advantage  |  Comments (0)