Ignore what the minimalists would tell you, being materialistic is a great thing. Especially for retailers and brands.
Allow us to explain.
Accelerating speed to market helps retailers/brands prevent excess inventory, drive full-price sales, and preserve margins. Increasing speed comes from innovating the processes that are used to bring products to market. In other words, how brands go to market as opposed to what brands bring to market.
Consider this example of a typical product creation calendar:
The calendar consists of a single track charting the concept-to-market journey. This includes key alignment moments, timelines and deadlines. Ideally, teams collaborate and work together at each milestone.
But in practice, this is not the case. Different teams are focused on different (and sometimes conflicting) goals. Relationships are often hierarchical and unbalanced. The collective speed of the organization is diminished as a result.
One example of this is the relationship between the design and material teams. Typically, design is in charge of the product, leading the seasonal calendar. The material team is relegated to being an order taker. This arrangement causes significant friction between teams. Much of the friction can be reduced by asking a “chicken or egg-like” question.
Which should go first?
Related Stories
When Design Goes First
When a brand is either merchant or design-led, these teams own the product creation process. Other functions must follow their lead, regardless of the direction.
Here is an overview of what typically happens:
- Merchandising and design present the seasonal concept.
- Design works on silhouettes and sketches.
- Design chooses materials and requests new developments.
- Material team works with vendors to fulfill new material development requests.
- Design either approves new material development or sends the material team back to the vendor for revisions.
- There are many iterations and back and forth until design gives the green light.
- Although this arrangement works, there are no guardrails on design to limit new development requests. As such, there is unnecessary overdevelopment forcing material teams back and forth between design and the mills. The teams will scramble to meet in-season deadlines which are often pushed out. But, this is at the expense of time and energy that could be invested in long-term material innovation. Compounding the problem is foregoing previous season material developments for newness. In fact, only a fraction of new developments are adopted. For example, a global performance brand had material adoption rates at approximately 20% for color and 35% for textiles. Meaning, 80% of new color developments and 75% of new textile developments were discarded. Additionally, merchant and design teams are not held accountable for overdevelopment and the resulting impacts on getting to market. By changing the relationship between design and materials, the above issues can be addressed. Part of this change entails letting materials lead the process.
When Materials Goes First
Here, brands can use a materials-led approach to drive the seasonal strategy. We call this Material Direction.
Specifically, here is what happens when brands lead with materials:
- Material team presents material strategy and direction, innovative materials in flight and existing materials owned in the library. This is presented in a “material brief.”
- Raw materials are purchased upfront.
- Design works on silhouettes and sketches and designs INTO materials that have been presented.
- New development requests are only approved IF the material requested does not exist in the library or is a must-have for the season.
- Material adoption is tracked and accountabilities are enforced. Allowing materials to go first prevents predictable delays. In turn, time to market is reduced. As a bonus, this also allows material teams to invest time into longer term objectives versus only hitting in-season deadlines. Further, this approach is a prerequisite for brands who wish to “fast-track” the production of items. This is applicable for items that are in high demand, or for styles which are brought in season after season. A materials-first approach reduces lead times by only using existing materials in core colors.
Being Materialistic Pays Off
We offer up some examples of where a materials-led approach has an impact on cutting down time to market.
First, a global apparel brand opted to be more transparent across their product development timelines so that materials could be chosen closer to market. Material teams share lead time options at the start of product creation. Merchandising would pick an option based on when they wanted the products in store. For example, developing a net new dyed knit has a lead time of 52 days but if a greige knit is used, the lead time drops to 37 days. If a pre-developed dyed textile is used, lead times are reduced to only 7 days.
Second, a global performance brand decreased development times from 120 weeks to 96 weeks by using a Material Development Agreement at the start of the season. The agreement was established using historical adoption rates to determine how many developments were permitted. In turn, this increased material adoption rates. In parallel, the product creation calendar was simplified by cutting redundant milestone moments and enabling material teams to provide input at relevant moments.
Finally, an outdoor retailer implemented a process where material direction for the season was set six months prior to global strategy. The intention is not necessarily to slash lead times, but instead to give material teams time for market research and strategy. When this was done, material teams reported that they had increased time and capacity to invest in materials strategy and innovation. Reason being, they significantly reduced the amount of in-season scrambling to meet deadlines.
The moral of the story here is that there is no shame in being materialistic. In fact, brands and retailers can accelerate speed to market by doing so. What this translates to is innovating the processes by which products get to market. An example of this process innovation is transforming the relationship between design and materials. Specifically, shifting from a design-led to a materials-led process.
So, go ahead and embrace materialism. We won’t judge you.
Liza Amlani and Raj Dhiman are Co-Founders of Retail Strategy Group. The firm works with retailers and brands, helping them to improve profitability and increase organizational effectiveness. Even in turbulent times, market leading brands turn to Retail Strategy Group to deliver breakthrough results.