Vitoria's Secret To Move Into Athletic Gear

Yes, you read it correctly: the strong brand of intimate women's apparrel, owned by Limited Brands, plans that "yoga pants, sports bras and other athletic clothes could soon become a major portion of the lingerie retailer's business," according to a story in last Friday's Wall Street Journal. The store chain's CEO, Sharen Jester Turney, told the WSJ that the new products will go into 30 stores:

Early customer response to the gear has been "extremely positive," Ms. Turney said. "Many of our customers have said, 'I've been waiting for you to do sport wear that is sexier'" than other athletic brands, which tend to look less feminine, she said.

In a phone interview from New York, where Ms. Turney rang the opening bell of the New York Stock Exchange to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Limited's listing, the CEO said athletic wear eventually could produce as many sales as Victoria's Secret's Pink brand, a line of lingerie and sleepwear aimed at college students and young adults. Pink is expected to post about $900 million in sales this year.

Limited is also adding cosmetic bags, luggage, and hand bags "which it hopes shoppers will buy as gifts." I know that sounds good, but it's leaving me scratching my head. Yes, Limited has dropped the Express and Limited stores, so there are more resources now available, but what about the VS brand?

I've been doing some reporting on a couple of stories for Advertising Age regarding branding - with one yet to run (the danger brand can face when companies try to gear up operations for growth). As part, I have been speaking with branding experts. Between that and some common sense, it's not clear to me that this is necessarily a smart idea, even though in July the company faced 3% same store sales drops overall and 4% at Victoria's Secret in particular.

Here's a view from Laura Ries of Ries & Ries, who also happens to be the daughter of marketing expert Al Ries:

This is a common concern, whether we are going to service a market versus creating a market. We work with big companies and, really, it happens all the time. They say we have these cusotmers that want more from us – should we deliver on that, or should we stay focused and say no? Syaing now is a parnful and diffiuclt thing for most companeis to do. We say, 'You have to do what’s best for the brand.' Many times we would go into a meeting with the client and they’d have three product lines. One would do 75% of the business, another is 20%, and the other is 5%. We say to get out of those [smaller]businesses and go with the winner. They say, 'But we’ll lose 25% of the revenue.' We say, 'Yes, but you’re probably spending so much serving those markets.'

She mentioned that the company she was thinking of did drop the two lower-earning lines and ended up making more than ever before with just the single line.

Decisions about brand are not simple. Customers have to give you permission to expand beyond your niche. Are VS buyers going to see their bags as so much more desirable than, say, Coach or Louis Vitton? Are the ones buying the athletic wear actually going to use it to work out? That would suggest significnatly different styling - read different brand - than the intimate aparrel. And if they aren't wearing it out, are we talking about the equivalent of a housecoat to wear about before you get dressed?

I'd think that it would make sense to see what the consumers are buying. I'm betting it's not products, but a way of thinking of themselves as beautiful, desirable, and sexy - in an intimate setting, very possibly with someone else, or at least the fantasy or possibility that there might be someone else. Of course, this is just a guess on my part, but I've heard from women who buy from VS. Like all consumers, they're looking for a psychological experience, not just a product. And I'd bet that athletic wear has a significantly different experience, which means brand dilution and devaluation might be around the corner.