Unless you live in Illinois, you might have missed the news: the last large Sears department store has closed. Twenty minutes west of Chicago’s O’Hare airport, the Sears at Woodfield Mall in Schaumburg, Illinois took its last breath this November: the property will be redeveloped. This is poignant. Chicago, Illinois was where Mr. Sears and Mr. Roebuck founded the brand in 1892. 

The Sears at Woodfield Mall is just one of thousands of Sears stores shuttered over the past couple of years. Along with its financially-stressed step-sibling Kmart, Sears is no longer a living brand. Some refer to Sears as a zombie brand: no longer alive but lingering on the landscape. 

According to investigative reporting in Retail Dive (a provider of … “in-depth journalism and insight into the most impactful news and trends shaping retail. The newsletters and website cover topics such as brick-and-mortar, retail technology, e-commerce, marketing, payment technology, store operations, omnichannel, and more”), there were about 40 Kmart and 39 full-line Sears stores left as of May 26, 2021. USA Today reported recently (November 14, 2021) that there would be 15 Kmart and 19 Sears stores left after November closings. And, recently CNN reported that there are only 23 full-line Sears stores in the US including Puerto Rico. And, CNN said also that by December 2021, there will only be  12 Kmarts in the US, including the Virgin Islands, Guam and Puerto Rico. Over the past 15 years, Sears and Kmart have shuttered over 3,500 stores eliminating 250,000 jobs.

Business press and retail observers place most of the blame for Sears’ – and Kmart’s demise on Eddie Lampert, the hedge fund magnate. His extraordinary talent for financial engineering and management by cost-cutting, of which he was the beneficiary, put Sears and Kmart into their vicious vortexes of death. Mr. Lampert was chairman, and later, CEO of Sears Holdings.

During 2018, Sears Holdings filed for bankruptcy. In January of 2020, Mr. Lampert bought 400 Sears and Kmart stores out of bankruptcy, placing them in a new company, Transformco (Transform Holdco – a financial entity of Mr. Lampert’s creation.) It was a last minute sale approved by the bankruptcy judge. Sears Holdings, the old Sears, including Kmart, are still in bankruptcy and litigation. Transformco said its intention was to keep the 400 stores open. This has not happened, so there are now 34 stores, approximately.

Although Mr. Lampert’s history with Sears Holdings was unfortunate, to be fair, there was plenty of brand mismanagement prior to Mr. Lampert’s control. Nevertheless, Mr. Lampert did not implement any brand building to right the Sears and Kmart sinking ships.

Rather than reiterate the sad – and litigious – saga of old Sears’ Holdings and new Sears (Transformco), let’s look at the ways in which Sears Holdings’ brand-diminishment behaviors prior to its 2018 bankruptcy led to Sears’ soon-to-end night of the living dead.

Here are four tendencies for trouble that put Sears into zombie mode.

Troubling tendency #1: The arrogance of (great) success

Success is everybody’s aim. Sears had decades of successful retail dominance. From its beginnings as America’s catalog with expertise in fulfillment to its selling everything Americans could want with storied, trusted brands such as Kenmore, DieHard and Craftsman, Sears was the Amazon of its time. The Sears catalog was ubiquitous in American homes.

However, this great success fueled arrogance. Sears’ management’s mentality was that it could do no wrong. Sears believed it could sell anything and everything. Its retail outlets featured real estate (Coldwell Banker), financial services expertise (Dean Witter Reynolds) and Discover credit card. The diversity of these brands led to management taking its eyes off of the Sears brand. In a blink of an eye, Walmart became America’s everything store. Nothing Mr. Lampert’s team did changed Sears’ trajectory.

Thinking that you know everything and can sell anything is admirable. But, it is also dangerous. A new book on Boeing and its tragic 737 Max crashes cites arrogance as one of the factors leading to Boeing’s being toppled from its top perch in aviation.

Avoiding arrogance takes character and effort on the part of leadership. Great leadership means fighting the inclination to focus on oneself rather than the customer and the brand. The leader who creates a culture of arrogance by letting success go to the and egos of managers is a leader who is more committed to self rather than brand.

Troubling tendency #2: The comfort of complacency

Avoid complacency at all costs. Complacency stops innovation, renovation and keeping up with changing customer values and behaviors. Complacency allows employees to continue doing what they are most comfortable doing. Complacency lulls people into laziness and inaction. Complacency crushes curiosity and creativity. Complacency allows people to avoid looking at trends and changes. According to some, complacency leads to market share loss and underperformance. Complacency is passive. Brands are not. Brands are active promises of an expected relevant, differentiated experience. 

A professor at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business pointed out several Sears’ management missteps. Sears did not appreciate the rise of big box stores, ended the catalog and neglected to invest in e-commerce. The professor told Retail Dive that even prior to Eddie Lampert, “Sears was fat rich and complacent.” He added that retailing is just an incredibly “brutal” business and fat, self-satisfied, complacency and arrogance allows great retailing to suffer.

Troubling tendency #3: Financial engineering above customer satisfaction

Retail Dive states that Eddie Lampert “… undertook some of the most complicated and thorough financial engineering the industry has ever witnessed, and which has now become infamous among retail observers, as well as the target of litigation.”

Financial engineering is the catchall phrase for extreme cost cutting including job losses, debt accumulation, share buy-backs, increased dividends, forced spinoffs and money siphoned into the pockets of investors rather than invested into businesses. Financial engineering can damage brands. This is because the priority of financial engineering is building shareholder value at the expense of customer value… a formula for failure. Boeing suffered from cost-cutting and suffered catastrophic consequences.

Financial engineers see strong brand equity as an opportunity to extract value rather than extend brand strength.  This is a form of brand extortion. A retail analyst and president of a retail consulting firm told Retail Dive, “(Eddie Lampert) is a mastermind of the corporate rule book. He was always manipulating Sears for the most profit for the owners of Sears, or for the companies he created to benefit from Sears.”

As one industry observer stated, “It’s a financial play. There are probably some things to do with the (Sears’ and Kmart’s) property, but as a viable retail business, there’s no future there.” This highlights one clear rule: you cannot cost manage your way to high quality revenue growth.  

Mr. Lampert saw the gold in Sears’ brands. In 2017, while heading Sears Holding Co., Mr. Lampert sold Craftsman, the 90-year-old tools brand to Stanley Black and Decker for $900 million. Transformco sold the DieHard (batteries) brand to Advance Auto Parts in 2019. A Transformco spokesperson indicated that at Advance Auto parts, Diehard would be able to innovate: something that was not happening at Sears Holdings.

Troubling tendency #4: Loss of relevance

Staying relevant means always staying aware of marketplace changes, altered customer behaviors and attitudes, competitive brands and your brands. Relevance requires learning about customers’ needs, problems and occasions of use that the brand satisfies better than alternatives. 

When a brand loses relevance, it can come close to death. However, brand demise is not inevitable. Ongoing brand management is a leadership challenge. Based on various reporting, however, it appears as if Sears’ and Kmart management is not focused on the customer. 

One data consultant interviewed stated the obvious about Tranformco: “There’s no love for the consumers, no relevance for consumers. There is no intention there of (operating) as a legitimate retailer.” 

In the 1970s and 1980s, Sears and Kmart were America’s largest and second largest retailers, respectively. Now, Sears and Kmart are irrelevant shadows, ghosts of arrogance, complacency and financial engineering.  Coming back to life will take leadership that cares about the brands. But, it also means asking customers to care about the brands. Retail observers say that shoppers do not seem to care about Sears and Kmart anymore. One observer asked, “Why would you care?” If you can even find a store, the experiences do not compare to competition. The once-treasured Sears and its brands are distant memories, as is Kmart. 

Just look at Sears’ Kenmore brand.

Those who said Mr. Lampert would make money by licensing the Kenmore name, for example, might want to reconsider. Kenmore loyalists are aging out of the marketplace. Those who are shopping large appliances most likely have never heard of Kenmore. Or, they may associate Kenmore with their grandparents’ homes. This happened to Electrolux vacuums, those heavy, long metal cannisters. A survey from the 1990s showed that Electrolux vacuum cleaners had incredible brand relevance, but it was among loyal 70+ year-olds. The brand lacked familiarity, let alone relevance, with most vacuum cleaner shoppers. Oldsmobile also suffered from a lack of relevance. The brand actually put its own nails in its own coffin by (ironically) advertising that Oldsmobile was not your grandfather’s Oldsmobile anymore. General Motors subsequently killed the brand.

Loss of relevance is self-inflicted. Loss of relevance stems from losing touch with the customer and from taking your eyes off of a world is changing. Loss of relevance stems from lack of innovation and renovation. The good news is that relevance can be built quickly, unlike trust which takes time to rebuild. With proper resource allocation – not financial finagling – and a passionate belief in the brands, brands can recapture relevance again. 

A statement from Transformco in USA Today indicated that there is a “go-forward strategy” for Sears and Kmart. This strategy is “ … to operate a diversified portfolio consisting of a small number of larger, premier stores with a larger number of small format stores.” Transformco believes it “… will continue to expand both Hometown Stores (appliances, tools, garden implements) and Home & Life Stores (Smart home and home services, replacement parts and connected appliances) in cities and towns that previously had larger format stores.” Additionally, efforts will be made to grow sears.com and the Sears Home Services business.

This remains to be seen. 

Brands do not die natural deaths. As Sears and Kmart show, deaths and declines of brands generate internally from mismanagement and nonbelief. Brands can be revitalized but it is unclear if revitalization is in the works at Transformco. In the meantime, Sears and Kmart are in a twilight zone, shadows of their former selves, drained of life but still walking the earth, waiting for the inevitable. Eventually, all the life will be sucked out of Sears and, then, Kmart. When wringing all the worth out of a brand is the goal, there is no going back. You’ve entered the twilight zone.

This is surprising news.

If any legacy automotive company were to have a clear, concise, inspirational vision about the future it would be Ford Motor Company. Ford Motor Company became successful because its founder, Henry Ford, had an incredible vision. Simply put, Henry Ford saw a future where everyone who makes a car would be able to drive to work in their own car. To do this, his company would make a car that would be affordable to every American.

However, it is not Ford Motor Company that is creating a future in which it will win. It is a most unlikely candidate: Hertz.

Hertz is over 100 years old. Its car rental business was decimated by Covid-19. When people stopped traveling, they stopped renting cars. Hertz filed for bankruptcy selling off inventory just to keep the business operational. If you did wind up at a Hertz counter during the pandemic, your choices were not only limited, but iffy as some vehicles had maintenance issues.

In a detailed and rather distressing review of Hertz’ problems in Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Hertz suffered for decades with financial engineers managing the business. Hertz amassed extraordinary debt. Additionally, there were operational problems merging its Hertz systems with newly acquired Dollar Thrifty, pressure and input from Carl Icahn, serious accounting issues resulting in an SEC fine and a lawsuit against three executives and a CEO, still ongoing.

Yet now, under new ownership and leadership, Hertz is being viewed as visionary. Hertz’ post-bankruptcy future is being guided by interim CEO, Mark Fields, who is an ex-Ford Motor Company leader. Mark Fields is not just a car guy: he is a Ford Motor Company car guy. He understands the value of creating, articulating and actualizing a galvanizing, startling, compelling possible dream. 

You cannot work at Ford Motor Company and ignore its provenance. The greatest part of the Ford Motor Company legacy was the democratization of mobility. Anyone could afford to buy a car. And, according to Mark Fields, underlying the purchase of 100,000 Tesla vehicles, the construction of EV charging stations and a partnership with Uber, is the belief that for electric vehicles to become the norm, some company will have to democratize electric vehicle mobility. Mr. Fields stakes his bet on Hertz.

Surveying the established automotive brands, most of these have or will have EV’s with prices out of range for the average car buyer. And, as Mr. Fields points out, only Tesla has the capacity to churn out electric vehicles “at scale.” Success for electric vehicles will only come when they can be owned by anyone. This is vintage Henry Ford.

“I will build a motor car for the great multitude. It will be so low in price that no man making a good salary will be unable to own one.

“When I’m through everybody will be able to afford one and everyone will have one ad will be able to enjoy with his family the blessing of hours of pleasure in God’s great open spaces. The horse will have disappeared from our highways, the automobile will be taken for granted and we will give a large number of men employment at wages.”

In other words, the purpose of Ford Motor Company was to make “… mobility accessible to everyone.”

Some of the most successful brands are based on democratizing their categories. McDonald’s democratized eating out. Target democratized stylish, well-designed yet affordable products. The Franklin Mint democratized owning artworks. Its die-cast airplanes and vehicles, plates, commemorative pieces, dolls, coins, sculptures gave people the opportunity to own and collect art. Olay skincare democratized scientifically designed products that work at affordable pricing. The Ordinary, recently purchased by Estee Lauder, takes that affordability to a new level. The Ordinary’s serums oils and creams in most cases cost around US $8. IKEA democratized furniture while its Swedish relative, H&M, democratized fashion.

Many of the automotive companies betting on the all-electric future envision a cleaner world, a more sustainable tomorrow, a smarter (AI, digital) tomorrow. Sustainability is essential, of course. Opening that sustainable world to everyone in ways that make mobility accessible to the masses is even more bold and exciting. (The Chevy Bolt EV and the Bolt EUV could have been positioned as democratizing EVs but all Bolt electric vehicles have been recalled because their batteries could be defective and cause fires. In San Francisco, bolt EVs are banned from parking lots citing “public safety.” General Motors has focused on EV leadership rather than on EV’s for the masses, look no further than it electric Hummer, starting at US $80,000.

While business press and practicing pundits focus on the financial implications of Hertz’ statements, and while Elon Musk (a visionary in his own right) tweets about the on-off nature of the unsigned Hertz contract along with the pace of Tesla-to-Hertz deliveries, Mark Fields presents a future-oriented, ambitious goal with opportunities that others did not see. Mr. Fields is creating the dimensions of the world in which Hertz will win, a world in which competitors will be playing by Hertz’ rules. He is providing a framework that will guide decision-making, planning and action.

In Hertz’ tomorrow, Hertz will succeed by owning the bat, the ball and the playing field. And yet, in Hertz’ tomorrow, we will all be winners.

As reported in Bloomberg BusinessWeek, athletic shoe brand Reebok, recently orphaned by Adidas, has a new owner: Authentic Brands Group, Inc. Authentic Brands is known for the rejuvenation of mismanaged, once wonderful brands. 

One of the questions raised in the press focuses on whether Reebok should revitalize its original brand promise or whether Reebok should find a more relevant, differentiated brand promise. The shoe brand Skechers is an interesting model to follow.

Reebok has an incredible backstory. 

Joseph William Foster, who designed some of the earliest spiked running shoes, founded a business with his sons in 1900. J.W. Foster and Sons became famous across the British Empire for innovative athletic shoes. (The Olympic runner, Harold Abrahams, wore a pair of Foster’s “running pumps” in the Paris Summer Olympics in 1924. The film, Chariots of Fire, commemorated Mr. Abrahams.)

Two of J. W. Foster’s grandsons, Joe and Jeff Foster, started Reebok in 1958. 

In 1979, at a Chicago trade show, Paul Fireman, worked in his family’s Boston, MA outdoor and fishing gear business, saw Reeboks for the first time. Mr. Fireman gained the rights to license and sell Reeboks in the US. In the space of two years, in 1981, Reebok’s sales were $1.5 million.

Mr. Fireman made a savvy observation. Most gyms, such as the iconic Gold’s, focused on men and bodybuilding. Newer health clubs and aerobics classes had mostly female customers.  Reebok created the Reebok Freestyle aerobics shoe in 1982, the first athletic shoe designed for women. 

If you lived in Los Angeles in the early 1980’s, it seemed as if every woman’s foot was sporting a Reebok Freestyle shoe. Reebok was the fitness shoe brand before fitness became fitness, as we know fitness today. Reebok owned aerobics. The Reebok Freestyle was part of the liberating acceptance of women into non-professional physical fitness. The Reebok Freestyle was so successful that by 1983, Reebok’s sales were $13 million.

Reebok’s success led Mr. Fireman to buy the UK-based parent company in 1984. The Reebok brand went public in 1985. And, during the later 1980’s, with new shoe products, shoe innovations, clothing and accessories, Reebok’s sales soared to $1 billion. Reebok closed sponsorship deals and sports celebrity endorsements. Reebok was one of the most connected sports brands next to Nike. In 2005, Reebok became part of the Adidas family.

Adidas could not keep the energy going. Adidas replaced Paul Fireman while pushing Reebok into a wider array of partnerships and logo changes. There were turnarounds, write-downs and restructurings. Each effort had a new rationale. But, none of the actions could replicate Reebok’s prior success. The Reebok became lost in brand mismanagement. Adidas focused primarily on its namesake brand fearing any huge push behind Reebok might jeopardize Adidas’ success.

Cost cuts did place profit on the bottom line. But, as one analyst told The Wall Street Journal, “Returning profit was a good step but driving the top line is something else.” According to Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Reebok no longer fit into Adidas’ strategic plans. 

Authentic Brands’ revitalization of Reebok will be a challenge. 

The history of Skechers provides some insight on brand building. There are some early similarities between Reebok and Skechers. For example, both brands were built by retail mavens who observed cultural market trends to identify a powerful position. It is unfortunate that Reebok lost its way during its Adidas years.

Here are four principles that Skechers followed in building the Skechers brand. 

Skechers was the brain-child of Robert Greenberg who, along with his son, founded L.A. Gear in 1983. In 1992, Mr. Greenberg and his son Michael were ousted from L.A. Gear after a downturn in sales. The two Greenbergs started Skechers. 

1. Know your customers 

Skechers focused on a specific audience with specific unsatisfied needs. Robert Greenberg saw that the athletic shoe category dominated by Nike was highly competitive. But, he noticed that there was no brand aiming at casual street wear. Skechers aimed at young, with-it males who needed casual and stylish street shoes rather than more athletic shoes. As with Paul Fireman’s insight into women and fitness, Skechers made casual, stylish footwear for young hip men.

2. Know your customer’ needs and problems

The Greenbergs had a skill for staying aware and on top of style trends. This is an imperative in all categories but especially necessary in fashion. As fashion tastes changed, Skechers changed its product offerings. Adidas worried that innovative additions to the Reebok brand would cannibalize Adidas. Skechers saw that innovative products kept the brand successful. The Skechers Collection aimed at young, professional, more fashion-aware men with smarter, more sophisticated and formal casual footwear. Today, Skechers has over 3000 styles. Skechers’ brand essence is comfort technology. In our current stressed out world, people want to feel reassured, relaxed, recharged and revitalized. Comforting technology is technology that cares about how the person is feeling. Skechers describes itself as a brand for every lifestyle. Its provenance is a “growing legacy of comfort, innovation, quality and style.

3. Create a product that is a representative symbol for the brand’s market

Early on, to generate awareness and familiarity, Skechers created an iconic product, the Chrome Dome, an urban street boot. The Chrome Dome reflected the zeitgeist of youth at a time when Nirvana owned the music charts.  The Chrome Dome was the perfect brand user’s experiential example. Popular with both men and women, the Chrome Dome was sold with a grungy, well-worn look. Having an iconic product that is synced with current trends modernizes and connects a brand. Nissan did this during its first renovation under Carlos Ghosn by resurrecting the 280Z. Reebok did it with the Freestyle. What would McDonald’s be without the Big Mac? What would Dodge be without the Charger?

4. Break through with exciting news highlighting creative, valued solutions to the customer’s needs and problems

Skechers believes marketing communications is essential for brand success. Having a great brand is great, but if no one knows about it, that great brand will languish. Today, Skechers is a heavy user of celebrity TV advertising for its innovative comfortable, stylish walking shoes and other products. Skechers knows that communicating something new generates interest: new is news. For example, in the recent Wall Street Journal weekend magazine, Skechers ran a print ad hyping its Skechers Max Cushioning shoe. It has Ultra GO^® cushioning, air cooled GOga mat and other materials to make your walk comfortable, breathable with lots of traction and a “snug, sock-like fit.” On the first page of The New York Times Sunday Style section Skechers advertised its Skechers Uno, a stylish walking shoe with a visible air bubble (Skechers Air) and memory foam.

In its Reebok article, Bloomberg BusinessWeek asks if the best way to rejuvenate Reebok is to go back to its original positioning or to go somewhere else with R&D and new, innovative styles. The article quotes a branding executive who captures Authentic Brands’ Reebok conundrum. “It’s almost not worth trying to break into it (the original positioning) again, even with an iconic name. The shelves are full. No one’s going to move over for you to move in.”

Due to brand mismanagement, Reebok lost its own identity. Brands can last forever. But, only if properly managed. 

Let’s hope Reebok focuses on articulating a core promise in a relevant, differentiated, trustworthy way. And, let’s hope Reebok focuses on delivering that relevant, differentiated, trustworthy promised experience each time, every time, to every customer everywhere in a quality manner. Let’s hope Authentic Brands focuses on revitalizing Reebok not by going backwards. Reebok’s success will rest on identifying a market space where it can profitably satisfy customer needs with innovative product news that captures today’s changing world. Following the four steps from Skechers’ playbook would make sense.

Department stores such as Macy’s, J.C. Penney’s and Saks Fifth Avenue, for example, have faced troubled times over the past few years. Covid-19 did not help. Most department stores are seeking solutions that leverage America’s changing shopping habits such as delivery and pick-up. Amazon is reported to be entering the department store arena. But, how much Amazon will be effective in creating a new shopping approach is still unknown. Coronavirus notwithstanding, the concept of the department store has become less relevant and less differentiated.

Relevant differentiation is critical for any brand. If a brand is just differentiated, but not relevant, it is a novelty but not a frequent favorite. If a brand is relevant, it has meaning but it is just like other brands with nothing special to say. This lack of relevant differentiation is plaguing department stores. 

Department stores have focused on technology, delivery, data, promotions and inventory. The goal is to be omnichannel. But, there appears to be a lack of focus on the brand: what does my brand mean to customers?  Saks Fifth Avenue focuses on its inventory – the latest couture from clothing designers, for example. But, Neiman Marcus has that approach, too. And, inventory is a feature of the brand: it is not a benefit. Exactly what are the functional, emotional and social benefits of inventory? What customers’ needs? Nordstrom had a famous signature brand essence but bankruptcy and other financial issues has eaten away at Nordstrom’s fabled service orientation positioning.

One department store is focusing on its brand. One department store is focusing on making its brand relevantly differentiated to make it a customer favorite. Kohl’s is that store.

Kohl’s, once a popular Wisconsin grocery chain established in the 1920’s, opened a department store in the early 1960’s. The original Kohl’s department store positioned itself as an affordable, but not discount, emporium with a wide variety of goods.

Since its opening, Kohl’s experienced decades of management and ownership changes. And, although, over time, the enterprise faced the same sorts of issues that most brick-and-mortar stores experienced, it has managed to successfully emerge as a popular shopping venue.

Rather than just concentrate on getting goods to customers, Kohl’s has concentrated on generating and implementing a focused, relevant differential advantage. In other words, Kohl’s has spent time and effort in the development and activation of a brand promise. And, Kohl’s is making sure that everything it does is focused on delivering that brand promise to its customers regardless of how these customers prefer to shop.

In a brand-affirming interview with The New York Times, the CEO of Kohl’s, Michelle Gass, spoke about the brand’s positioning. She stated, “Kohl’s had a successful model for a long time, sort of this hybrid department store brand, but with mass convenience. But, over time, that got blurred. So, the challenge and opportunity is, ‘OK, what is the space we can occupy that will be differentiated?’”  Ms. Gass stated that Kohl’s did focus on its ability to be an “omnichannel retailer”. Customers look for this. She added, “But from a product and brand standpoint, how are we going to be more relevant? How are we going to have a brand stand for something?” 

Defining a brand promise is an important strategic step for establishing or revitalizing a brand’s relevant differentiation. Brands are promises of relevant and differentiated, trustworthy experiences. The total brand experience (functional, emotional and social benefits) is what defines the relevant distinctiveness of the brand. It is a mistake to believe that a brand promise is a mere marketing construct. A brand promise is what attracts – and generates loyalty of – customers, potential customers and employees and other stakeholders.

Creating a brand promise is essential for brand longevity. Without a concise, clear, well-articulated, credible brand promise, a brand can find itself a commodity… a generic version standing only for the basic characteristics of the category. Unfortunately, this is what has happened to department stores.

For Kohl’s, claiming a relevant differentiated position is allowing Kohl’s to become incredibly meaningful to its customer base and like-minded others. And, if the brand consistently delivers its brand promise in a quality manner, trust will build.

According to Ms. Gass, Kohl’s “… is not a traditional department store.” So, what is Kohl’s? Kohl’s is “… small… super convenient” especially when it comes to how customers wish to interact with the brand. “But more importantly, we (Kohl’s) see ourselves as a specialty concept, that Kohl’s is the curator and the editor to bring you all of the products and brands you need to lead a more active and casual lifestyle. Our strategy is the active and casual lifestyle, and selling the kinds of products that were amplified during the pandemic. People want to look good. They want to be comfortable. Their work wardrobe is going to look very different coming out of this eventually than what it was going in.”

Brand success requires many things. But, one of the most critical is defining what you want your brand to stand for in the mind of the customer. Without a brand promise, a brand runs the risk of becoming generic. And, a category with brands that are generics is a category without a market. This is because a market is a homogeneous group of people sharing common yet specific values, common yet specific needs within a common yet specific occasion. Without needs to satisfy, there is no market.

Department stores need to move on from a relentless, progressing omnichannel focus to figuring out what they want to be now and for the future. Department stores need to follow Kohl’s lead if they want to generate enduring profitable growth.