Brand Trivialisation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EQUITIES LUXURY GOODS Best Of: Brand Trivialisation 30 JUNE 2015 For the convenience of our clients, we are re-publishing and updating the most significant research insights lest they were lost in the flow of big reports. Luca Solca (+44) 203 430 8503 Brand trivialisation risk is not something you can anticipate from sales and profit trends [email protected] You will eventually see an impact on sales and profits – by which time it is too late. Yet, the seeds Paola Bertini of brand equity destruction are sown long before one sees the pernicious results. (+44) 207 039 9521 [email protected] We think that analysing brand perception, brand distribution and product range architecture Hui Fan can help in anticipating and detecting trivialisation risk before it materialises: (+44) 203 430 8507 [email protected] 1. Is the brand obvious to all? Or is it ‘hiding in plain sight’? Hard luxury brands offer a better scale vs visibility ratio. We use Google and Baidu hits as well as website traffic statistics as proxies of brand ubiquity. 2. Is distribution directly controlled? Brand exclusivity as perceived by consumers rests heavily on their building the equation Price = Value. Direct retail maximises price discipline. 3. Is the ratio of full-price stores to factory outlets high or low? If luxury is about perceived exclusivity, then in the ideal world factory outlets would not exist. The more products there are ‘walking’ on the street – bought at full price or not – the greater the impression of ubiquity. 4. Is the brand identified with a few specific products? The narrower the sales mix and the stronger the brand association with a specific product, the higher the risk of brand trivialisation. 5. What is the ratio of spontaneous top-of-mind recognition to volumes in circulation? Spontaneous top-of-mind recognition correlates with intention to buy = desirability. At equal top-of- mind recognition levels, we prefer brands with a smaller ‘installed base’ / higher average price. When we bring all this together, we discover that the Burberry, Marc Jacobs, Gucci and Moncler brands could be more vulnerable to brand trivialization. Louis Vuitton, by contrast, looks less at risk, especially on distribution grip. Key valuation metrics Rating Mkt cap Price TP Upside P/E (x) EV/EBITA (x) (EURm) (LC) (LC) 15e 16e 15e 16e Burberry (=) 9,856 15.9 19 20% 19.8 18.3 13.4 11.9 Hermès Int. (=) 36,702 352.0 300 -15% 35.6 32.1 22.6 20.0 Hugo Boss (+) 7,040 102.0 130 27% 17.4 15.0 12.9 11.0 Kering (+) 20,462 162.5 200 23% 16.6 14.4 14.3 12.3 Luxottica (=) 28,771 60.5 59 -2% 30.1 26.8 18.8 16.8 Available on LVMH (+) 82,014 163.6 180 10% 20.5 18.6 13.5 12.2 Prada (=) 11,163 37.7 45 20% 21.2 19.9 14.4 13.2 Richemont (+) 42,205 77.7 90 16% 19.0 17.4 13.7 12.3 Swatch Group B (+) 19,557 373.7 485 30% 14.8 13.2 11.2 9.5 * Prices at 29 June 2015 See Appendix (on p11) for Analyst Certification, Important Disclosures and Non-US Research Analyst disclosures. The art of managing luxury brands is to navigate the paradox of selling exclusivity by the thousands – or millions – depending how successful one is. If you accept our definition of luxury – luxury is being cool by having something other people don't – maintaining the perception / illusion of exclusivity is vital for brand equity resilience. In this report we bring together a number of ideas on how to assess and measure brand trivialisation risk. We apply these ideas to score the companies and brands we cover. Finally, we draw investment conclusions from these scores and the risk profiles we ascertained. Brand trivialisation risk is not something you can anticipate from sales and profit trends. Of course, you will eventually see brand trivialisation’s impact on sales and profits – by which time it is too late. We are convinced that the seeds of brand equity destruction are sown long before one sees the pernicious results. When brands take steps to grow their top lines and expand their margins, they need to be mindful of the impact on their brand equity. This is the period and process we want to focus on in this report. We think that analysing brand perception, brand distribution and product range architecture can help in anticipating and detecting trivialisation risk before it materialises: 1. Is the brand obvious to all? Or is it ‘hiding in plain sight’? We like big brands that are not obvious to consumers. Scale brings competitive advantage in a fixed cost business. But high visibility and ubiquity bring high brand trivialisation risk. We use Google hits, Baidu hits and website traffic statistics as proxies of brand ubiquity; we conclude that hard luxury brands offer a better scale vs. visibility ratio. 2. Is distribution directly controlled? Or is it largely dependent on wholesale? Brand exclusivity as perceived by consumers rests heavily on their building the equation Price = Value. That is why when you ask the price of something in a well- managed store – try LV or Chanel – the typical reply is “the value of this product is…” Direct retail maximises price discipline. The end-of-season sales habitually held by multi-brand wholesale customers destroys brand equity. 3. Is the ratio of full-price stores to factory outlets high or low? If luxury is about perceived exclusivity, then in the ideal world factory outlets would not exist. In fact, they bring brands to a broader audience, offering them at a fraction of their full price. The notion that these are products from the past season – if they are indeed so – is a weak excuse: the more products there are ‘walking’ on the street – bought at full price or not – the greater the impression of ubiquity. 4. Is the brand identified with a few specific products? The narrower the sales mix and the stronger the brand association with a specific product, the higher the risk of brand trivialisation. This is the reason behind the demise of many premium brands – Crocs, Timberland, Locman, etc. It is also the key to the ‘mystery’ of why Hermes does not increase the availability of its Birkin and Kelly handbags, even as it produces new models. 5. What is the ratio of spontaneous top-of-mind recognition to volumes in circulation? We like top-of-mind brands as spontaneous top-of-mind recognition correlates with intention to buy = desirability. At equal top-of-mind recognition levels, we prefer brands that have the smaller ‘installed base’ / higher average price. This, we think, bodes well for future full-price volume development. When we bring all this together, we discover that the Burberry, Marc Jacobs, Gucci and Moncler brands could be more vulnerable to brand trivialization. Louis Vuitton by contrast, looks less at risk, especially on distribution grip. Exane BNP Paribas Research Luxury Goods 30 June 2015 page 2 Figure 1: Luxury is about selling a promise of exclusivity – Commercial success risks undermining brand equity Source: Exane BNP Paribas Exane BNP Paribas Research Luxury Goods 30 June 2015 page 3 Figure 2: When we bring all this together, we discover that the Burberry, Marc Jacobs, Gucci and Moncler brands could be more vulnerable to brand trivialization. Louis Vuitton, by contrast, looks less vulnerable, especially on distribution grip Source: Exane BNP Paribas Analysis Exane BNP Paribas Research Luxury Goods Figure 3: Hard luxury brands are better at 'hiding in plain sight’ Retail Equivalent Brand Footprint (EUR bn) Brand exposure as measured by Google hits Ralph Lauren Chanel Chanel Louis Vuitton Rolex Coach Louis Vuitton Gucci Cartier Ralph Lauren Calvin Klein Hermès Gucci Prada Hermès Armani Armani Burberry Burberry Calvin Klein Omega Cartier Coach Rolex Prada Tiffany Tiffany Omega 024681012 0 100 200 300 400 500 Retail-Equivalent Sales (EUR bn) Google Hits (m) Note: “brand footprint” calculated on the basis of retail equivalent sales: 1 retail = 2.5X wholesale = 10X license Source: Company reports, Google (20/06/2013), Exane BNP Paribas estimates Figure 4: Off-price engagement at lowest risk would entail choosing options that offer a combination of high brand control and low full-price contamination Brand Control Low High 3. Multi-brand in-store 1. Mono-brand in- end-of-season store end-of-season "explicit" discounting "explicit" discounting High 2. Mono-brand in- store end-of-season "soft" discounting 7. Multi-brand online pure-play discounters 6a. Multi-brand physical discounters / Full-Price Contamination Full-Price chains Low 6b. Multi-brand 5. Mono-brand 4. Mono-brand physical discounters / physical off-price physical off-price independents store / franchised- store / concession wholesale Source: Exane BNP Paribas Exane BNP Paribas Research Luxury Goods 30 June 2015 page 5 Figure 5: Chanel, Hermès, LV and Loro Piana are probably the most ‘virtuous’ in off-price engagement. Moncler, Burberry, Hugo Boss, Prada and Gucci seem more exposed to off-price risk Physical Mono-brand In-Store Multi-Brand In-Store Sales Multi-brand Online Discounters Stockists Outlet Sale s Off 5th Bergdorf Goodman Yoox Century 21 TK Maxx Gucci √√ √ √ √ √√ Bottega Veneta √√ √ √ Saint Laurent √√ √ √ √ √√ Ke r ing Balenciaga √√ √√√ A McQueen √√ √ √ √ Stella McCartney √√ √ √ √ √√ Brioni √√ √ √ √ √ LV √ Fendi √√ √ √ √ √√ Celine √√ √√ Kenzo √√ √ √ √ √√ Mar c Jac obs √√ √ √ √ √√ LVMH Givenchy √√ √ √ √ √ Puc c i √√√ √ √ DKNY √√ √ √ √ √√ Chris tian Dior √√ √ √ √√ Loro Piana √√ √ He r m è s Hermès √ Chanel Chanel √ √ Bur be r r y Burberry √√ √ √ √ √ Hugo Bos s Hugo Boss √√ √ √ √ √√ Pr ada √√ √ √ √ Prada Miu Miu √√ √ √ √ Chloe √√ √ √ √√ Richemont Dunhill