Retail Analysis: Cos and Reiss - Essay Example

? COS Retail Analysis: Cos and Reiss BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 Introduction.................................................................................................. 2.0 The position of the industry sector.............................................................. 3.0 Range of merchandise and pricing analyses................................................ 4.0 Customer communications, service and store layout ambiance.................. 5.0 Analysis of theoretical positions on brand building.................................... 6.0 Retailer strategies for combating additional competitive risks.................... 7.0 Conclusion.................................................................................................... References Bibliography Retail Analysis: Cos and Reiss 1.0 Introduction Collection of Style (COS) is a relatively new fashion brand launched by H&M in 2007. COS provides fashion apparel and accessories targeted at younger consumer markets (18-30) demanding contemporary fashions with upscale appeal. COS was launched, according to one marketing representative of the business, to create new market opportunities by appealing to consumers who do not currently shop at H&M (Bengtsson and Vilic 2012). Offers a corporate press release: “COS splices its design flair with attainable prices for both men and women. These are immaculately produced wardrobe perennials: incorporating clean-cut accessible design with just a wink of character; a subtle design twist that lends each garment a modernist edge” (H&M 2007, p.2). The main product strategy at COS is to provide affordable, yet upscale fashion offerings to desired target consumers in the youth category, essentially bringing high street value to the ready-to-wear fashion concept. Collection of Style differentiates itself from competition in terms of quality. Reiss is a similar retailer with a radically different marketing and branding strategy than that of Collection of Style, however the product offerings are very similar and targeted at the same youth market ranging from 18 to 30. Reiss labels its own clothing line as “modern, iconic, sexy and design-led” (Reiss 2012, p.1). Reiss places significant strategic emphasis on the conceptions and benefits of design-led fashion offerings, dedicating a team of 20 designers to produce new fashion merchandise relevant to changing consumer lifestyle patterns. This retail organisation differentiates itself in terms of quality, similar to that of its competitor COS, but with a supplementary emphasis on detail and service (Reiss 2012). Both Collection of Style and Reiss work diligently to understand market characteristics, attempting to offer diverse merchandise offerings that are properly aligned to market needs and lifestyles. This report highlights the dimensions of retail strategy found within both retailing models, focusing on the influence of competitive forces, consumer attitudes, and industry conditions that influence strategy development. Research, both desk-based and with a qualitative observational methodology, indicated many strengths and weaknesses of the COS and Reiss retailing models. This report identifies these factors that serve to either hinder or improve business success in their desired youth target markets. 2.0 The position of the industry sector The retailing industry in which COS and Reiss attempt to thrive and differentiate is marked by several characteristics that influence retail strategy. In fashion retailing, the balance of power held by consumers is shifting favourably in the direction of the buyer, giving them much more leverage in driving transparency in the business models and with recurring threats of brand defection (Jackson and Shaw 2009). Cos and Reiss operate in highly saturated market environments, mature markets where many competitors maintain strong brand equity or, at minimum, brand recall associated with logo or other integrated communications developed by competition. Major competitors for both organisations includes Marks and Spencer, Zara, Armani and Primarks, long-standing retail organisations with very recognisable business reputations founded on years or even decades of brand-building. Fortunately for both retailers, there is little threat of new market entry by competitors as the costs of market entry are significant, requiring substantial financial and labour capital to achieve a positive market position. In fact, for new fashion retailer entrants into the UK market, the failure rate is 70 percent (Easey 2009). Thus, the majority of competitive function is to outperform major competitors such as Zara and Marks and Spencer, attempting to seize market share utilising differentiation strategies as key strategic success factors in their business models. Cos and Reiss both have product offerings that are classified as premium brands, which are positioned just under the luxury retailing concept. There has been tremendous growth in this market in recent years (Hameide 2011). The premium brand is considered to be aspirational, positioned between high-street fashions and fast fashion retailers such as Zara (Hameide 2011). “The Reiss customer looks for original and directional design with a strong focus on quality and detail. They expect impeccable service across all channels.” (Reiss 2012, p.1). This too appears to classify the market demands for consumers who patronise COS, demanding top quality products aligned with needs for modern and chic clothing offerings. The continuing threat, however, of potential brand defection by price-sensitive consumers or those attracted to the psychographic-based marketing communications of other competitors continue to influence retail strategy and marketing focus at both businesses. The consumer attracted to Reiss top quality merchandise are deemed “power-hungry”, maintaining quality tastes as a “fashion innovator” who revels in being a fashion trendsetter (Giovannangeli, Chaaby and Lucas 2011, p.12). In a market environment where consumers have the power to force transparency into the business model, force backward integration, and maintain rather duplicitous brand perceptions of competing firms, Reiss must stay consistent with integrated marketing communications to align a dimension of quality-minded exclusivity whilst remaining true to its core values for quality and design. The founder of Reiss, however, does not believe that Reiss maintains any direct competitors, “he simply thinks of everyone as a competitor” (Dong 2008, p.1). This has potential, however, to be a competitive weakness in an environment where major competitors are consistently seeking new fashion innovation opportunities for merchandise offerings designed to appeal to consumer lifestyles. Reiss devotes the majority of its focus on product in the retail mix, with the founder of Reiss believing product to be absolutely “paramount” to gaining market interest and loyalty (Dong 2008). This is an industry where it is becoming much easier for competing firms to replicate existing products. Bennett and Rundle-Thiele (2004) believe that positioning based on pricing and quality are not sufficient differentiation tools, instead the only tangible asset of retailers unable to be copied is the brand identity. Both COS and Reiss, who are direct competitors of one another, place significant emphasis on merchandise design and quality. H&M, further, has provided COS with a limited budget for utilisation in brand-building exercises (Bengtsson and Vilic 2012). Because industry characteristics driven by significant consumer leveraging power require more emphasis on branding when fashion merchandise can be easily replicated by design experts, it does not appear to be sufficient to utilise such a significant emphasis on design and quality to maintain competitive advantage. To achieve market success and enhance revenues, it is absolutely critical to understand the market and their characteristics (Easey 2009). That is, if the retailer intends to provide merchandise that is relevant for consumer needs and what appears to be rather ego-centric views of self as it relates to the functionality and importance of fashion clothing and accessories. 3.0 Range of merchandise and pricing analyses Rebekka Bay, womenswear designer at COS, describes the merchandise offerings of the business as “fashionable essentials, reinvented classics and latest trends” (H&M 2007, p.2). The diversity of product at COS includes ready-to-wear contemporary fashions, polo shirts, cashmere V-neck sweaters, fashion jackets, and semi-casual evening wear (H&M 2007). Figure 1: Sampling of COS product Source: COS. (2012). http://www.cosstores.com/Store/Women/Accessories http://www.cosstores.com/Store/Men/Coats_Jackets The sample of the merchandise mix at COS illustrates a modernised, yet classical spin on elegant fashions aligned with the power-hungry characteristics of known loyal consumers. The quilted cotton jacket illustrated in the centre photograph in Figure 1 is priced at ?89, whilst the women’s evening glove accessories are priced at ?25. As illustrated, the majority of pricing of this contemporary merchandise is priced moderately, thus making it affordable for these youth markets with very demanding fashion expectations. Figure 2: Sampling of merchandise offerings at Reiss Source: Reiss. (2012). http://www.reiss.com/us/mens/mens-sale/coats-and-jackets/oracle/charcoal/ http://www.reiss.com/us/mens/mens-sale/shirts/decon/green/ The rather classical and sophisticated offerings at Reiss are priced considerably higher than COS products. The pinstripe dress shirt illustrated is priced at ?75 whilst the dress blazer is priced at ?212. The merchandise illustrated in both Figure 1 and Figure 2 clearly illustrates both the pricing differentials of both business models as it is aligned with quality and design parameters. It is important for this analysis to be able to effectively visualise the diversity of merchandise and its aesthetic appeal for similar, yet varied markets with different resource availability. By illustrating the pricing disparities between both competitors, it assists in determining whether existing, competitive pricing models are effectively aligned with quality positioning vital to both organisations in establishing a differentiated brand position. Fortunately, research indicates that those fitting within the desired target markets for both COS and Reiss, this being the 18 to 30 year old markets, have positive psychographic-based characteristics favourable for sustaining both pricing models. According to a recent study, this youth market is confident and tends to be attracted to premium products (Executive Digest 2008). The same study revealed that teenagers are focused on materialism in lifestyle and seek out brands that assist in justifying or developing their social identities (Executive Digest). Thus, for higher resource buyers, Reiss maintains an acceptable pricing model competitive with such competitors as Marks and Spencer and Primark. COS, being a more value leader in moderate pricing structures, is also sufficiently aligned with market characteristics and the more price-sensitive buyer that still maintains expectations for contemporary clothing and accessory options. Neither firm must rely on utilisation of penetration pricing or dynamic pricing to gain market interest, a brand-supported strength for both firms in justifying their existing pricing conceptions for the diversity of merchandise inventoried. 4.0 Customer communications, service and store layout ambiance Desk-based research did not uncover the specific service models currently utilised by either retailer. This is due to the fact that COS is an SBU of parent company H&M whose diverse holdings are not segregated in annual reports from the well-established H&M. Reiss, in similar accord, appears to have a very confident view of its brand reputation and the potential brand equity it has established to where publication of service modelling would not benefit the business brand. Therefore, this analysis relies on direct researcher observation in both retail facilities to gain knowledge of how service is performed and effectively aligned with mission, vision or brand positioning methodologies. Observation of the retail environment at COS illustrated a very personalised customer service dimension, consisting of knowledge sales representatives that were highly interactive with consumers during the period of observation. Consumers were greeted with sales representatives maintaining similar market characteristics and appearance who were very verbal and expressive when offering fashion advice and responding to shopper questions. There appeared to be a well-established organisational culture associated with sociability and tacit product knowledge stemming from management and on-floor salespersons. Fournier (1998, p.346) iterates that the consumer is “very self aware and reflexive” and want to buy products that bring value into their lifestyles and where reciprocal relationships can be developed between buyer and brand. The personalised service dimensions and tangible knowledge of existing in-store merchandise illustrates that COS understands the importance of relationship development as part of its service model. Reiss, on the other hand, did not maintain the type of observable customer service found at COS. The tangible, physical sales environment was somewhat drab with ambient conditions such as lighting and temperature rather uncomfortable for a prolonged shopping experience. Berman and Evans (2009) clearly states that ambient conditions will significantly impact consumer perceptions. Without personalised service staff visible during the shopping experience, the researcher observed that the time that the average shopper remained in Reiss was significantly less than at COS where relationships between staff and buyers were apparent and blatant. Salespersons at COS were more successful in boasting merchandise sales during the observational period than at Reiss, which may indicate strong support for customisation in service to gain market interest and loyalty for impulsive fashion purchases. Though only speculation that would require a full-scale research investigation, COS sales representatives, by establishing mutually-reciprocal social relationships, seemed to have more fundamental success in influencing immediate purchase. Another fundamental difference in communications identified at COS and Reiss was the level to which each retailer utilised in-store advertising to promote sales or specific merchandise selections. Heat and Potter (2005) consider advertising in retail to be a form of seduction, though these authors warn that without supplementary communications, advertising is not nearly as effective as many in the business world would believe. With this in mind, Reiss maintained much more in-store advertisement that included relevant, market-similar actors sporting a variety of merchandise and accessories. Figure 2 illustrates the advertising variety at Reiss pervading the in-store environment. Figure 3: Sample of advertising communications utilised by Reiss Source: Shopping Blog. (2012). http://www.shoppingblog.com/blog/9221033 The premise of advertising as a form of supplementary communication to enhance service and potential in-store ambiance maintained rather drab colours and presentation, however this classical and low-key advertising conception did fit within the aesthetic parameters of place in the retail mix. Simplistic messages attached to relevant youth market actors such as “You” or “Get there” continued to reinforce the aspirational aspects of this brand attempting to appeal to the psychological and sociological dimensions of consumer behaviour to gain market interest. The effectiveness of this advertising is pragmatically yet-to-be-determined, however observation indicated very little market interest in the ad conceptions. COS, on the other hand, maintained less in-store advertising materials and communications, however their appeal was more in-line with theoretical positions about the importance of colour and ambiance in influencing decision-making by diverse buyer groups. Figure 4: Example of like COS advertising style found in-store Source: Fashion Brand. (2012). http://www.cbamd.com/fashion/trends.asp?tid=174 As illustrated by Figure 4, which is not a legitimate COS advertisement but styled against observed in-store ad concepts, enforces the difference in communications strategies utilised by both organisations. Observation of consumer reactions to the limited in-store advertisement, some coupled with marketing communications, indicated that buyers were more attracted to these messages and spent far more time examining their conceptions than at Reiss. This may have, though again only subjective based on qualitative analyses, made a positive impression on consumer markets as COS clearly experienced higher impulsive sales than at Reiss. “If made right, marketing can enhance and bring out the creativity of the designer to the market and create a successful fashion company” (Easey 2009, p.51). Clearly, both firms understand the utilisation of lifestyle-relevant actors enhances desire to make a purchasing decision, however the methodology by which both consider advertising to be a communications medium differ substantially. 5.0 Analysis of theoretical positions on brand building Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) as well as Aron et al. (1992) state that consumers are most likely to build brand attachments, which leads to subsequent brand loyalty long-term, when a brand provides opportunities for social, professional, or personal expansion. Self-expansion should be defined in this particular case as the ability of a product or service dimension to add perceptions of value for self-improvement or social positioning among aspirational peer groups. Branding is the method by which retailers are able to reinforce the continuity of business practice and values with the tangibles and intangibles of service that will translate into value for desired target consumers (Abimbola 2001). The most fundamental aspect of creating a consistent brand is establishing a brand personality, which is best defined as the human-like characteristics associated with a particular fashion brand. The dimensions critical for establishing a relevant brand personality which will be accepted by consumers are competence, expertise, sophistication and excitement (Aaker 1996). When considering the inter-dependencies found at COS and Reiss associated with maintaining a consistent brand personality, Reiss appeared to be more successful in maintaining continuity to its quality and exclusivity positioning in this industry. Though COS maintained more visually aesthetic in-store communications, Reiss stayed consistent with its aspirational messages most viable for markets with power hungry characteristics and very rigid views on what constitutes acceptable merchandise. COS, due to its lower cost pricing model, maintains more potential market opportunities for those with less financial resources. Reiss, however, seeks the higher resource youth buyer with personality characteristics aligned with ego-centric purchasing and demands for fashion consumption. As illustrated by Figure 3, highlighting the largely black-and-white advertisement utilised at Reiss, remained consistent with the self-proclaimed higher-class status of its important target buyers. The in-store communications illustrating imagery of similar actors remained true to the classical and sophisticated values of Reiss, whilst some of the in-store advertisements at COS appeared to be out of place compared to the rather ultra-modern store layout utilised. Though again a subjective analysis based on research observation, Reiss appeared to be more consistent with staying true to its brand values, utilising integrated marketing communications effectively to align the brand with known customer characteristics. Hameide (2011) describes the inter-dependency between branding and effective market positioning. Positioning is defined as “how the company intends for the brand to be perceived”, without losing focus on what is actually considered important to target buyers (Hameide 2011, p.52). Reiss maintains, as expressed by the firm’s founder, a focus on exclusivity associated with its rather sophisticated merchandise offerings commanding higher-than-average pricing. Neither desk-based research nor observation indicated any worrisome deviation from foundational brand values at Reiss, thus consistently expressing sophistication and competence in marketing communications. The in-store communications utilised reinforce brand beliefs in a way that would, theoretically, seem to be superior to its competitor COS. Boone & Kurtz (2007) indicate the risks associated with sending inconsistent messages when attempting to build a brand or remain focused on improving brand equity. Again, Reiss remained dedicated to using aspirational messages aligned with consumer values, whilst COS seemed to have conflicted and inconsistent communications that were not necessarily aligned with brand personality. Whether this tangibly influenced consumer purchasing decision-making is unclear, as COS (as identified through observation) was more influential in promoting impulsive fashion purchase decisions than Reiss. This inconsistency could theoretically be based on the aforementioned limited budget provided to COS by H&M for brand-building. Further research into this phenomenon would better justify or refute this assessment, however when taking into consideration the importance of absolute consistency necessary to achieve a positive brand sentiment in consumer markets, Reiss appears to be a leader in this constancy than its competitor COS. 6.0 Retailer strategies for combating additional competitive risks According to Michael Porter (2011) one of the fundamental externally-driven risks to achieving market success is the level of substitutes available. Consumers have the ability in this retail industry to drive considerable transparency in business operations, influencing promotional development as incentives-based marketing from price-sensitive buyers willing to defect to competing brands. The very saturated competitive market provides multiple opportunities for substitutes of both fashion apparel and accessories, each maintaining different levels of quality, aesthetics, and pricing. For instance, a leather belt purchased at Reiss can be substituted with fashion suspenders at a competing organisation; a phenomenon common and recurrent in this industry. How, then, are both retailers managing to combat the threats of substitutes? At Reiss, it is about diversifying the product line to provide relevant and fashion-trend-conscious merchandise to maintain a fresh market reputation. By offering a wide assortment of different products in the same category, such as a bolo tie and traditionalist business attire neckwear, the business is able to ensure more market interest. COS, on the other hand, maintains less assortment than Reiss, especially in accessory offerings which was clearly observed through direct observational investigation. Though COS does include a variety of apparel and accessories, the volume of substitute products available in-store were significantly less than that of Reiss. Though again a subjective assessment founded on qualitative research, it would seem that Reiss is better positioned to remove the competitive threats of substitute products than COS by diversifying product availability in each product category. Why is diversification of products able to work as a competitive tool to remove some competitive threats? In the retail environment, cost control is a significant concern. When a retail organisation significantly diversifies its inventories, the operational model must consider holding costs. These include warehouse space costs, taxations, lighting and other utilities, and even labour to maintain control over inventory management and movement (Heizer and Render 2004). Neither Reiss nor Cos, unfortunately, promote their exact inventory holding costs in the form of financial statements that would significantly improve making a competent analysis of the financial burdens that might be imposed on Reiss for diversifying each merchandise category. However, it should be acknowledged that such diversification, though intended to reduce threats of substitutes that can erode market share, has the ability to impose higher costs on the organisational budget. If we are to assume that maintaining a diversified merchandise selection is considered favourable to key target markets, then Reiss maintains a significant competitive advantage based on theoretical constructs for cost controls within the organisation. Each retailer also maintains a similar sales channel philosophy to expand both brand presence and impose a new convenience into the purchasing process. COS and Reiss, both, maintain a dedicated sales website consisting of multiple, illustrative pages of merchandise available for home delivery. This typically provides more incentive for buyers that value convenience purchasing. However, the methodology of promotion on both websites illustrates, for COS, consistency to market positioning whilst at Reiss there is a confliction in promotion. COS is positioned on the market according to quality, therefore as linked with marketing theory, COS is utilising appropriate methodology by camouflaging sales promotions. Boone and Kurtz (2007) warn against premium brands utilising a high volume of well-publicised sales promotions, believing discounting to be a proverbial dirty word that serves to cheapen a brand. Reiss, another quality leader in this industry, clearly expresses its sales discounting in bold, eye-catching font on the sales website. Figure 5: Emphasis of discounting incentives offered by Reiss (to scale) Source: Reiss. (2012). http://www.reiss.com/us/ Reiss is a privately held company, thus utilising financial figures to enhance analysis of discounting philosophy could not be sustained. However, taking into consideration the industry acknowledgement of discounting as a potential hindrance to maintaining quality and premium-based positioning, it would seem that Reiss is creating an inconsistency between positioning and efforts to gain increased revenues from potentially price-sensitive buyers. Though COS does maintain some sales merchandise, the promotions are more obscured, thus promoting customers to first examine regularly priced merchandise that provides more sustainable profit value. Being a quality leader in the industry, backed by strong support for ongoing design team innovations, would not seem to be aligned with such a blatant promotional discounting philosophy. The goal of Reiss is to establish a brand personality that is considered relevant for the ego-centric values of the primary target consumer groups. In most elements of operations, Reiss seems to largely excel in consistency associated with intended market position. However, as pertaining to discounting, it does not make sense, backed on theoretical marketing constructs, to so transparently utilise discounting philosophy in this fashion. Does this necessarily mean that it can be concretely stated that Reiss requires significant adjustment in promotional policy? There is simply not enough hard data available to quantify this assessment, however it should be acknowledged that deviating from top quality positioning supported by emphasis on design maintains, at least, opportunities to create conflicted messages in many buyer markets that hold pre-existing beliefs in Reiss quality and exclusivity. It could be that Reiss utilises discounting to ensure reduction of inventory holding costs for unsold merchandise, which would make logical sense to ensure there is adequate inventory space for more profitable, new merchandise varieties. However, other competitors in this industry with premiumisation models identify alternative methods of clearing old stock, such as switching channels to low-end retailers under merchandising and stock delivery agreements. Based on all of the foundational theories regarding brand consistency and maintaining a relevant business model that stays focused on premiumisation, it would appear that Reiss is utilising an inappropriate strategy that serves to potentially erode some of the positive brand equity built through years of brand building and integrated marketing communications. COS appears to be more consistent to its brand personality within the market. However, Reiss appears to at least somewhat offset some potential losses to brand equity by focusing on stand-alone brands labelled under Reiss. Reiss offers a variety of merchandise under this brand name that is only available at Reiss stores and online (Giovannangeli et al. 2011). Supported by advertisement in a variety of relevant fashion magazines, this stand-alone brand has gained more market attention and interest (Giovannangeli et al.). This gives the business much more competitive edge over COS and many other organisations such as Zara and Marks and Spencer that relies on the brand relevancy of existing fashion producers in its procurement models. Marks and Spencer and many other competitors do not have this advantage with stand-alone labels, giving Reiss a unique merchandising concept. In a separate industry, the foods industry, Sainsbury’s (a major supermarket chain) has recently diversified its product variety to include a stand-alone fashion brand referred to as the Tu line. This is a contemporary, youth-focused line and intended to be an aspirational brand (Sainsbury 2011). Sainsbury has achieved significant market interest in this fashion line that is intended to give the business new opportunities for expressing its flexibility which is important under a business positioning focusing on innovation as a key competitive advantage. Having a stand-alone fashion line illustrates the brand equity currently sustained by Reiss which is founded on years of brand building efforts that allows for portfolio diversification, which can be translated, long-term, into a variety of different Reiss-branded products or services. This is not something identified with COS through observation or desk-based research, suggesting Reiss maintains a better competitive advantage than this similar competitive business model. 7.0 Conclusion The research project consisting of secondary and primary research indicated many strengths at both COS and Reiss. COS maintains a superior customer service model that includes tangible knowledge holders serving as sales representatives that genuinely personalise the shopping experience and improve relationships between Reiss and the consumer. Observation indicated a consumer acceptance of this more invasive service model by which many consumers were actively and positively engaged with the sales representatives. Reiss, on the other hand, emphasises the importance of its reputation for excellence in service, however observation indicated a significant lack of support help and engagement with consumers. Since the bricks-and-mortar retail facilities are the only channels of distribution within the Reiss business model, there seems to be little evidence of a superior, competitive focus on improving relationship development with important target consumers. Unless the business redevelops its customer service and satisfaction models, it would seem impractical for Reiss to continue to publicise its powerful emphasis on improving service dimensions when there is little or no evidence of this supported through observation and lack of acknowledgement from legitimate desk-based source materials highlighting proof of a viable service model in-store. COS also does maintain competitive advantages by staying consistent with its brand conception and maintaining congruency between values associated with quality with the consumer market. This is in greater proportion to what was identified at Reiss. COS described its products as modern, affordable and top quality to justify its intention for market positioning and the majority of communications, store layout aesthetics, and merchandise availability support how the business stays true to its brand personality. Reiss and its rather drab and unpleasant environmental conditions experienced during direct researcher observation definitely depleted the in-store experience, even though the foundation of in-store communications were adequately aligned with brand positioning strategy and values. As far as facilities management and retail strategy related to layout, COS is clearly a leader over Reiss. Reiss, on the other hand, seems to understand more effectively the risks that influence business strategy that stems from the external environment in greater proportion than that of COS. By diversifying merchandise selections to include substitute products within the same category, it removes some risk of brand defection by important revenue-providing target consumers. Since this is identified by most marketing and business practitioners, such as Michael Porter, as being critical to adapting to external market influences, Reiss is better positioned for sustainability by adding flexibility in procurement and merchandising strategies than COS and many other competitors in this saturated industry. The ability to launch a stand-alone brand illustrates a higher volume of brand equity with this competitor over that of COS. COS, additionally, is superior to Reiss in terms of establishing a competitive pricing model that is considered favourable to a diverse group of target consumers and, potentially, mass market buyers. Though both organisations are positioned in terms of quality and premium modelling, COS stays true also to its value conceptions and is therefore able to gain market attention and maintain certain market loyalties, especially relevant for price-sensitive buyer markets. This not only gives some advantages over Reiss, but also over other competition such as Marks and Spencer that rely on strong brand appreciation from existing loyalist consumers that justifies a higher-than-average pricing structure. If COS remains true to keeping prices low whilst not sacrificing modernism, design and quality, it is likely COS will maintain much more sustainability for market patronage to this brand in the long-term. Future research into the financial status of both firms would secure more justification for any suppositions made within this research project, many of which were founded on observation during the tangible in-store experience. However, it should not be said that either firm is a competitive failure or would be unable to sustain their current business models and marketing focus as there is ample evidence that both firms have market loyalties in key demographic groups. Both COS and Reiss, despite some recognised and highlighted inconsistencies between brand congruency and operations, should both be considered viable business models with appropriate investment potential for future and existing shareholders looking for sustainable return on investment. References Aaker, D. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets, California Management Review, 38(Spring), pp.102-120. Aron, A., Aron, E. and Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self-scale and structure of interpersonal closeness, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), pp.596-611. Abimbola, T. (2001). Branding as a competitive strategy for demand management in SMEs, Journal of Research in Marketing & Entrepreneurship, 3(2), pp.97-105. Bengtsson, F. and Vilic, M. (2012). The art of fashionable branding – the success of the Swedish brand COS, University of Gothenburg. [online] Available at: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/29371/1/gupea_2077_29371_1.pdf (accessed 15 December 2012). Bennet, R. and Rundle-Thiele, S. (2004). Customer satisfaction should not be the only goal, Journal of Service Marketing, 18(7), pp.514-523. Berman, B. and Evans, J.R. (2009). Retail Management: A Strategic Approach, 11th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Boone, L. and Kurtz, D. (2007). Contemporary Marketing, 12th ed. UK: Thompson South-Western. COS. (2012). Online product catalogue. [online] Available at: http://www.cosstores.com/Store/Women/Accessories (accessed 16 December 2012). Dong, E. (2008). Reiss arrives: Another British brand arrives to bring newness and excitement to their customers. [online] Available at: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/4/27/lifeliving/21041644&sec=lifeliving (accessed 14 December 2012). Easey, M. (2009). Fashion Marketing. Singapore: Markono Print Media Ltd. Executive Digest. (2008). How to market to the overlooked 25 to 34 year old age segments. [online] Available at: http://www.marketing-execs.com/news/11-08/2.asp (accessed 18 December 2012). Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March), pp.343-372. Giovannangeli, M., Chaaby, S. and Lucas, T. (2011). Reiss Marketing Plan, International Market Advisors. [online] Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/MattGiova/be-successful-be-stylish-be-reiss (accessed 15 December 2012). H&M. (2007). Press Release: COS – Collection of Style: The new fashion brand that puts the haute in high street. [online] Available at: http://about.hm.com/content/hm/NewsroomSection/en/NewsRoom/NewsroomDetails/cos_collection_of_style.html (accessed 17 December 2012). Hameide, K.K. (2011). Fashion Branding Unravelled. Fairchild Books. Heat, J. and Potter, A. (2005). The Rebel Sell: How the counter culture became consumer culture. London: Capstone Publishing Ltd. Heizer, J. & Render, B. (2004), Operations Management Flexible Version Package, 7th ed. Prentice-Hall. Jackson, T. And Shaw, D. (2009). Mastering Fashion Marketing. England: Palgrave MacMillan. Muniz, A. and O’Guinn, T. (2001). Brand community, Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), pp.412-432. Porter, M. (2011). Porter’s Five Forces: A Model for Industry Analysis [online] Available at: http://www.quickmba.com/strategy/porter.shtml (accessed 16 December 2012). Reiss. (2012). Reiss: Men/Women. [online] Available at: http://www.reiss.com/us/ (accessed 14 December 2012). Reiss. (2012). The brand. [online] Available at: http://www.reiss.com/us/feature/brand/ (accessed 16 December 2012). Sainsbury. (2011). Here comes the summer, Sainsbury Journal. [online] Available at: http://www.veterans.jspensions.com/Sites/Sainsburys%20Veteran/library/files/The%20Journal%20May-June%202011.pdf (accessed 17 December 2012). Shopping Blog. (2012). Reiss to open shop inside Bloomingdales flagship. [online] Available at: http://www.shoppingblog.com/blog/9221033 (accessed 17 December 2012). Bibliography Levy, M. and Weitz, B. (2012). Retailing Management, 8th ed. McGraw Hill. McGoldrick, P. (2002). Retail Marketing, 2nd ed. McGraw Hill. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions, and organisations across nations, 2nd ed. Sage Publications. Read More