High Fashion Average Woman

This past Sunday, I needed long underwear.  It’s been freaking colder than cold here in New England, and when it’s like that, well, you just need long underwear or risk getting a frozen behind.  I’d also been thinking a lot about this brooch I saw over the Christmas shopping season, and was hoping to find something like that….because, well, a girl can never have too many huge brooches.  Since I usually hit the Holyoke Mall (the biggest mall nearest where I live) about once a week, I knew that I could pick up both items, maybe even something more, at J.C. Penney.

Since sometime last summer, all the retail stock pundits have been screaming about J.C. Penney and its CEO Ron Johnson.  Johnson, they said, “doesn’t know a thing about retail! all he did was design the Apple Store! That’s got nothing to do with successful retailing!”  (the recent bit of pundit naysaying can be found here on Yahoo! Finance–ok, you don’t need to point out the irony on that one…)  However, when I first got a glimpse of what Johnson was trying to do, I immediately got it.  JCP had, by the time Johnson came on board, was known as mall store that continuously had black, red, and yellow banners that screamed  50%, 60% and 75% discounts.  It also wanted to be in New York City, a place known for historically for classic retail brands as well as for other kitschy mall brands like Hollister (that has a flagship store on 5th Avenue, much to the chagrin of many….)

Going to a store with huge banners that offer 75% discounts may be great in the eyes of crazed bargain-hunters, but to me, it really represents a retailer that’s struggling.  Indeed, Penney’s has been struggling for quite some time.  About 2 years ago, when they introduced their American Living apparel line, I showed up at an event in one of that line’s dresses, and friends were shocked.  JCP has been, for quite a number of years, associated with old folks, stretchy polyester pants and the types of clothes easily converted to uniforms (for those jobs that have strict dress codes, but no, not uniforms…)

The brand had become stodgy and un-chic.  Stores like Kohls, which offer designer (Vera Wang) and celebrity endorsed brands (Daisy Fuentes, Lauren Conrad) were pulling in the fashion-conscious customers looking for something with style, while Sears got the Land’s End traditional folks, Target got the juniors (Target is abysmal for grown-up women with style.)   Wal-Mart , Old Navy, and some of the bulk shopping clubs picked up the slack for discount family-wear.

So, I, for one, really and truly welcomed the changes.  I thought it about time that some retailer wants to offer quality

Back of Prada-style pattern dress with industrial zipper

clothing at a reasonable price.  I was pleasantly surprised when, this past Fall season,  I picked up a Prada-esque sheath with exposed zipper for about $35.  That seemed totally reasonable to me.

Apparently, I have different shopping and pricing incentive standards than other consumers.  JCP lost in sales after it introduced its “Fair and Square” pricing scheme–the price on the tag being the price of the item with no other sales needed.  Johnson was pretty much pilloried for this strategy, and is now bringing back the old Sale! Sale! Sale!

Consumers, it seems, are like Pavlov’s dogs.  They don’t believe the price on the tag is the fair and square price at all.  They immediately think the initial price is a mark-up, and that they are NOT getting the item for fair value.  Ring the bell of Sale! Sale! Sale! and wow!  the CONSUMER IS SAVING MONEY! (even when it’s all a ruse.)  Consumers have been conditioned to think this way and when presented with truth in pricing recoil because there is no psychological charge, no zip of serotonin in their brains that make them believe they’re doing something good when buying something marked “discount.”

Sad.  Really, really sad.  But horribly, horribly true in the case of most consumers.

So, the pundits are zinging Johnson again for going back to the “gimmicky sales.”   Seems that Johnson is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.   But if I were you, I’d start shopping more at Penneys.  I not only picked up a great pair of lightweight Cuddl-duds long underwear (in black) for $12, but I also picked up a two-belt set for $5, a Monet brooch for $7 (Monet is a great costume brand–stuff lasts a long time) and this pair of tailored emerald green ankle length pants for $10:

Tailored, ankle cut emerald green pants, size 14 Petite. they make my butt look fantastic!

What JCP has truly suffered from is a lack of innovative, distinctive marketing strategy.  Michael Francis, who departed in June of 2012, was the guy responsible for Target’s successful, “whimsical”  marketing strategy.  So, it was really no surprise that JCP’s “new” marketing resembled Target’s tried-and-true marketing.  It did not distinguish JCP enough from Target, nor did it signal to the consumer that JCP was new.  It signaled that JCP might be attempting to emulate Target.  Big, big mistake.  Some pundits even questioned if Francis was a “convenient scapegoat.”    But, seriously, if anyone bothered to really look at the types and kinds of ads that were produced under Francis, and compared them with ads from the time that Target was changing its image, the visual similarities–the “whimsy”–was evident.   It is unclear who’s heading up marketing now, but JCP really needs to reach out and speak to the consumer about its brands, its looks, and draw the consumers’ attention to some of its brands (Cosmopolitan and Betseyville for starters) as well as demonstrate what are, IMO, it’s style-conscious, almost-runway looks.  JCP just might need people to show others how to buy and co-ordinate their looks.  But that’s just my $.02…..

Tags: budget fashion, clothing, controversy, fashion, fashion advertising, retail, shopping