In this op-ed, The Growth Activists CEO and Australian fashion business advisor Rosanna Iacono reveals why brand strategy and capability are non-negotiable.
The Australian fashion industry, dynamic and ever-evolving, is a landscape where brand is paramount. Yet, an alarming trend continues to undermine the potential of once-iconic labels: the systematic erosion of brand DNA following changes in ownership. It’s a phenomenon that speaks volumes about a critical oversight in valuing intellectual property and, more importantly, the crucial leadership skills required to nurture it.
As a brand strategist with over three decades of experience, including sixteen years in global and regional leadership roles at powerhouses like Nike and Levi's, and having navigated the complexities of the Australian market, I’ve witnessed first-hand the devastating consequences of what I call "brand blandification." This isn’t merely about a decline in sales; it’s a lamentable loss of unique identity that disappoints loyal fans and leaves a void in the market, ultimately leading to the economic erosion of a once-valued asset.
Consider Sass & Bide. Once the undisputed darling of Australian fashion, a brand synonymous with a highly distinctive design handwriting crafted by its visionary founders, it was snapped up by Myer in 2013. What followed, however, was a masterclass in how not to manage a brand post-acquisition. The original essence, the very soul of Sass & Bide, was seemingly left undocumented, uncodified. There was no “codes and cues handbook” to capture its unique spirit, no clear mandate to preserve its distinctive aesthetic. The result? A brand that, to its original devotees, became a shadow of its former self, struggling to differentiate itself from high-street and private label offerings and, regrettably, losing its compelling edge. Whilst revenue today is reportedly just a fraction of what it was at the time of the transaction in 2013 (when the store footprint was many times larger), it is the value of the brand as an asset that is most eroded.
Sass & Bide is far from an isolated incident. We’ve seen similar fates befall Marcs, Willow, and Lover – brands once celebrated for their unique brand pillars, now seemingly bereft of their original identities, reduced to brand marks applied to private label offerings. And the most lamentable stories are those of brands that, having lost their way after a change in ownership, ultimately succumbed to oblivion, such as Alannah Hill and Charlie Brown. While it's easy to point fingers at the new owners, the reality is more nuanced. The issue isn't simply the change of hands; it's the profound misunderstanding and undervaluation of brand as a living, breathing asset.
In my experience leading private equity assignments for premium retail businesses, a brand-led approach is crucial for maximising exit value - and a truly healthy brand should always be sale-ready. In an acquisition, the purchase price often exceeds the fair market value of the tangible assets (like buildings, equipment, inventory) and is recorded as “goodwill" on the acquirer's balance sheet. A significant portion of this goodwill is attributable to intangible assets, and the brand (its reputation, customer loyalty, recognition, and future earning power) is a major driver of that. I've experienced first-hand that there are strategic acquirers who deeply understand the power of brand, and empower leadership teams to drive growth and equity through a consumer-first, brand-centric approach. The notion that private equity inherently strips value is a dated generalisation; in reality, brand mismanagement can occur under any ownership, be it trade, private equity, or otherwise.
Leader businesses understand that a brand's name alone is not enough. They powerfully capture their brand cues, embedding them in rigorous brand guidelines, and then work tirelessly to keep them alive while continuously making them relevant and compelling to new audiences. Chanel is the quintessential example. Long after Coco Chanel's passing in 1971, her iconic design cues – the quilting, tweed, gold chains, pearls, camellias, and monogram buttons – have been meticulously carried forward. Karl Lagerfeld, and later Virginie Viard, masterfully reinterpreted these signature elements, ensuring their resonance with emerging consumer groups. As we eagerly await Matthieu Blazy's vision for Chanel, we can be confident that whilst his artistic direction will be fresh, the brand's core cues will be powerfully reinterpreted, not erased.
Critical lessons for new owners
So, what are the critical lessons for new owners keen to preserve and indeed amplify the value of these intellectual property assets, using them to fuel continued growth?
The first is to acknowledge that a brand is an asset of profound value, not merely a logo or a name. It is the sum of experiences, perceptions, and emotions that resonate with consumers. This asset must be nurtured, protected, and continuously modernised without losing its essential characteristics. Zimmermann, a global success story, exemplifies this beautifully. Its private equity owners have wisely retained the services of the original founders, Nicky and Simone Zimmermann, understanding that their vision is intrinsically linked to the brand's enduring power. Similarly, Ksubi’s resurgence, propelled by the return of a brand impresario like Pip Edwards, demonstrates the profound impact of re-igniting original brand DNA for a new global customer base.
The second and perhaps most crucial learning concerns leadership capability. Far too often, particularly in the Australian market, managers appointed to lead acquired fashion businesses come from a high-street retail background, where brand is often secondary. While their operational expertise is valuable, they frequently lack the intrinsic brand management skills honed through experience with global icon brands or the rigorous brand discipline learned in branded consumer packaged goods. This skill set simply doesn't cut it when the task is to preserve and evolve a brand’s unique identity.
Another error that is often made is to leave the work of defining brand to newly appointed design leaders, yet this function also often lacks the intrinsic skill if they have not had experience in global leader brands, having come instead from high-street retail where the default approach is to take inspiration from global catwalks versus truly conceptualise a distinctive signature. This is where it becomes critical that the ultimate P&L leader, the GM or CEO, possesses brand management skill, or is savvy enough to appoint a functional leader with this skill, reporting to them and working with all other business functions to bring brand leadership to life.
This phenomenon isn't unique to fashion; the beauty industry, too, has its share of similar brand-led declines. My own experience with Jurlique is a case in point. As Global Chief Brand Officer, my team and I were empowered to spearhead its global market growth, helping it become Australia's number one skincare brand, surpassing Clarins and Clinique who had long held the number one and two positions. Its unique DNA, marrying science with nature for efficacious results, resonated powerfully across the globe, expertly tapping into the burgeoning clean beauty revolution, particularly in Asian markets where our growth was explosive. The brand narrative and superior execution was meticulously woven into every touchpoint, from product to packaging to retail team education to store design. We opened 80 new doors globally in a single year. With brand power at its height, the business was exited for $335 million.
However, following its sale to Pola Orbis, successive brand leaders succumbed to what I call “not made here” syndrome. Immature brand capability in new appointees often results in a desire to impose one's own stamp, even when a winning formula is in place. I’ve seen this happen far too many times. The result? A significant dilution of Jurlique’s winning brand DNA formula and the blandification of its image over the last decade, leading to a reported drop out of Australia’s top 10 skincare brands and the departure of key international retail partners. And the trend of acquired brands being written off entirely isn't exclusive to fashion; the beauty market offers equally sobering examples. Estée Lauder Group shuttered Becca and Rodin Olio Lusso after spending hundreds of millions acquiring them, citing internal brand cannibalisation. The reality, however, is that powerful brand differentiation is the antidote to such issues, ensuring vitality and compelling customer acquisition, enabling acquired brands to play a unique critical growth-driving role in a broader brand portfolio.
When I returned to Australia after my global roles, one of my first acts as General Manager of Saba, acquired as a distressed asset by APG & Co who saw its significant potential, was to apply what I considered standard brand management practice. Within three months, I had worked with my team to strengthen and articulate the brand DNA in a comprehensive brand book (building on founder Joseph Saba’s original vision but contemporising it for a new generation), built a brand-led category architecture, and developed a plan for consistent brand manifestation across every consumer touchpoint. Upon presenting this brand-led growth strategy to the board for sign off I remember a delighted Group CEO remarking that this was the sort of work he’d typically pay an external consultancy upwards of $250,000 for. For me, it was simply ‘table stakes’ for running a successful branded business - my experience in global leader brands taught me this was an essential in-house skill, not one to be outsourced. This foundational work allowed Saba to achieve profitability and double its doors within 18 months, providing both an internal "north star" for the team and external market momentum. It set the business’s foundation for continued growth through a unique and compelling market position.
The enduring success of a premium retail brand hinges not on its name alone, but on the strategic cultivation of its unique essence. The good news is that these challenges are surmountable. With the right strategic insights and brand-centric leadership, premium fashion organisations can not only avoid the pitfalls of blandification but also unlock extraordinary, sustainable growth.
Key Takeaways for Fashion Brand Owners:
- Brand is an Asset, Not Just a Name: Treat your brand’s unique identity as a core intellectual property asset, requiring constant stewardship and investment.
- Codify Your DNA: Create comprehensive brand guidelines, your “codes and cues” handbook to ensure every touchpoint reinforces your brand's unique essence, and ensure these are passed on to new owners for consistent implementation. Don’t assume everyone just ‘gets it’ - as the business grows with talent in new functions and regions, the risk of brand dilution only increases.
- Invest in Brand-Centric Leadership: Appoint leaders with deep expertise in global brand management, not just retail operations, to safeguard and evolve your brand’s identity.
- Embrace Evolutionary, Not Revolutionary, Modernisation: Learn from brands like Chanel and Prada internationally, and Zimmermann, Ksubi, Camilla and Aesop locally – reinterpreting signature design elements for new audiences is key to relevance, not reinvention from scratch.
- Differentiation is Your Shield: A strong, differentiated brand DNA is your most powerful tool against market pressures, internal cannibalisation, and eventual decline.
The message is clear: in today's competitive fashion landscape, brand strategy and capability are not optional extras; they are the bedrock of sustainable growth and relevance. The time for reactive brand management is over. For fashion organisations to thrive, they must proactively invest in understanding, codifying, and evolving their unique brand essence, driven by individuals who possess the foresight and expertise to truly harness this unseen goldmine.