On a recent visit to Brooks Brothers, we tried to buy two identical shirts in a style that the store has stocked as far back as we can remember. The clerk apologetically informed us that there was only one. Then we tried to get a pair of shoes, also a standard model. The first clerk went into the stockroom and never came back. We went to another department and then returned to the shoe section where a different clerk was able, after 10 minutes, to find the shoes. To reduce inventory, Brooks Brothers no longer sells many items in exact sizes but instead designates these items small, medium and large. One new size has replaced two old ones, making it impossible for half the customers to get a correct fit. The store cleverly used some space it saved to install a display of blue jeans, highlighting the high cost of the store’s wool trousers.

Buttonholes

Recently, we ordered two jackets and a suit. We were told that there would be a substantial charge for what used to be a free option: buttonholes on the sleeves. We reluctantly agreed to pay the fee (three times). But when we went for a fitting, the garments had been made with buttons just sewn onto tacky fake buttonholes. The jackets had to go back to the sweatshop, making for an unnecessary and annoying delay. Meanwhile, the bill for that big purchase zipped right along, reaching us weeks before the garments were ready. The store used to bill the honest way: when the customer accepted the goods. Also, the date on the statement showed that Brooks Brothers’ computers were programmed to shorten the billing cycle. Early one morning, we tried to find a clerk in a department that sprawls across a full floor. No luck. Finally we asked very loudly if the store was going broke and somebody within earshot scooted out of a doorway to see what the ruckus was about. While these matters may seem perfectly normal to those who do their shopping in Albania or Louisville, Colorado, they are not what we are used to. Something had changed and we have tentatively come to the opinion that the problems at Brooks Brothers stem from misapprehensions on the part of its owner, a firm that ought to know better. Since 1988, Brooks Brothers has been owned by the respected British operator of clothing and food outlets, Marks & Spencer. At home, Marks & Spencer is considered the most sensible place for the middle class to shop. So taken with this image was former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that she let it be known throughout the realm that Marks & Spencer was the place she bought her underwear. We once bought underwear at Marks & Spencer, too, but it shrunk quite a bit, which might explain certain aspects of Mrs Thatcher’s personality. Marks & Spencer has, we are sure, nothing but the best of intentions for Brooks Brothers, which is why it has given the American clothier the benefit of its most successful ideas. Unfortunately, these ideas make a lot more sense in spreadsheets contemplated by bean counters – a special type, as the British enjoy a breakfast consisting of beans and toast – than they do at display counters contemplated by customers. Whereas the consequences of tight inventory control seem to be accepted by the British consumer the Marks & Spencer supermarket nearest our London office always seems to be out of chicken by mid-afternoon – it runs contrary to the habits of a typical American shopper, particularly one visiting a store that charges top dollar.

By Hesh Wiener

And the cultural difference is even more pronounced when it comes to personnel. British shoppers tend to be ruggedly self-sufficient; Brooks Brothers customers usually want a great deal of help while selecting the exact same suit they have worn since their fathers first took them to the emporium. But even if American consumers were exactly like their British counterparts, Brooks Brothers would be heading for a fall. The clothier doesn’t serve consumers in general, it caters to its own customer base. If the clothier’s new policies are part of a scheme to build a new (and presumably larger) clientele, we respectfully

suggest that the company would be wiser to find these new customers before chasing away the old ones. Although there are cultural explanations for the way Marks & Spencer is trying to run Brooks Brothers, most of the new practices transcend national boundaries. They are the ideas favoured the world over by generalists holding advanced business degrees and they seem to work well in certain business situations. MBA-think is particularly effective when the relationship between buyer and vendor is minimal and the communication between the parties is distant and symbolic. For example, a maker of consumer goods like cookies or cigarettes rarely has direct contact with a consumer. The consumer picks the items off a shelf in a retail outlet and pays a cashier. As there are huge volumes of these transactions, the maker of the goods can reckon its course by studying statistics. The very opposite considerations lead to the success of businesses where intense customer contact is the basis of commerce. Expensive service organisations such as law firms or medical practices may benefit from the use of common business disciplines, but they cannot succeed if they treat clients as statistics. Marks & Spencer’s British clothing business, despite its dependence on company-owned outlets and notwithstanding its sterling reputation, is based on a minimal but broadly appealing customer relationship. Brooks Brothers’ past success was based on the personal touch and more than a soupon of snobbery. There could be only one consequence as the clothier distanced itself from its customers. IBM’s personal computer business, particularly its latest manifestation, is a typical mass market operation. But the company’s mainframe business is quite the opposite. As the formerly strong relationship between IBM sales reps and their customers weakened in recent years, both the quantity and quality of IBM’s large systems business has fallen. In both cases, management appears to have wrongly identified the primary cause of downward pressure on revenue and profit. Executives have attributed their companies’ problems to the recession and not their own policies. This has given both IBM and Brooks Brothers an excuse for inaction and a means to avoid the critical self-examination that is vital to every business. While it is clear that both institutions have been concerned about their disappointing financial results, neither has been able correctly to identify the causes of their distress, let alone face the facts.

Incompetence

This is not the result of incompetence, but rather the consequences of an understandable ignorance. Brooks Brothers and IBM are both unique businesses, and unfortunately this makes them less susceptible to any advice based on more general cases. But within the coincidence of their malaise may lie a solution. IBM’s managers, undoubtedly familiar with Brooks Brothers, should study the clothier’s unsuitable behaviour. And Brooks Brothers bosses should learn how IBM became unbuttoned. In the meantime, customers of both firms may want to reconsider whether their attachments are rewarding relationships or merely empty habits. In our case, we’re considering a survey of alternative clothiers at a neighbour of Brooks Brothers. It has a name most appropriate to our profession: J Press.

Copyright (C) 1993 Technology News of America Co Inc All Rights Reserved