Bridal buyer

89

ASSOCIATION NEWS

WWW.BRIDALBUYER.COM

M

inimum stock order requirements have

become part of the buying process for

retailers, with an ever-increasing demand

put on us to buy even more samples from

unending collections. How is this shaping

our industry and our buying habits and

what about the ‘movable minimum’?

Minimums themselves should be good for all parties,

bride, retailer and supplier: you buy the minimum required

and in return have an area of exclusivity and in most cases

are included in advertising campaigns and web promotions.

The supplier has a guaranteed order

book, which enables them to invest in new

designs and the development of their brand,

as well as booking substantial advertising

campaigns. And the bride looking for a

particular designer doesn’t arrive at a

stockist’s store to fi nd they only have two

dresses on the sale rail from a collection

that’s two years old.

The problem for retailers is that as

designers have looked to expand they have

added new collections to their portfolio,

citing price point or change of direction as

a reason for this addition. These are often

variations on styles already available in their collection and

the new designs could easily have been absorbed into the

existing collection, making it stronger, more diverse and

giving the buyer more choice to select their minimums from.

In reality these collections have far more to do with

suppliers wanting to have a presence in every store in a

town rather than having just one brand with one store to

support it. There are many suppliers who now have three

or four different collections and with new bridal shops

mushrooming up around the country there is a steady

fl ow of new clients to approach without seeming to upset

the client base they already have. This in itself wouldn’t

necessarily be a problem as, if minimums were strictly

enforced, many shops would decline to take a collection as

the investment and risk would be seen as too great. This is

where the ‘movable minimum’ comes in!

The ‘movable minimum’ has stealthily made its way into

our buying world. As new forums have sprung up and

retailers are in general talking to each other much more

openly than ever before and after discussing this subject

with retailers and suppliers at The London Bridal Show and

White Gallery London, one thing is clear: many suppliers

have adopted the ‘movable minimum’.

RBA

With brands now altering the number of

pieces retailers must buy from store to store

Nicola Garton, Chair of the RBA (Retail

Bridalwear Association), asks what impact the

‘movable minimum’ is having on the industry.

The ‘movable minimum’ is when a supplier has requested

that all stockists order a minimum number of styles from

their new collection; only to then move this number to

suit the client and area they are dealing with at the time.

This creates a great deal of uncertainty and bad feeling as

retailers fi nd out they have been made to purchase more

than other stockists. In many cases it also allows shops

to order gowns that they have not had as samples in their

own store, undermining the store that has invested in that

sample. If the minimums were strictly enforced across the

board, retailers would then scale back their buying to fewer

designers allowing the stockists prepared to

place an order, a larger area of exclusivity

and a greater chance of repeat business.

If a new collection does not have enough

dresses within it for you to comfortably order

the minimum required, then you need to ask

yourself if that label should be taking up

valuable space on your rails. If you’ve built

up a relationship with a company over the

years, it’s often very diffi cult to decide not

to continue stocking their designs and we

often order from collections that are not as

strong as we would like in the hope that

next season things will improve. Sometimes

this is a good strategy and the next year’s collection is

much improved, other times it’s just as disappointing as the

previous year. This is when the movable minimum is used

to best advantage; the supplier allows the minimum to slide

and a lesser order is placed. When store owners meet up for

a chat over coffee and fi nd that their fellow retailer ordered

only half of the samples that they were required to order,

resentment sets in and complaints follow.

Maybe we could collectively look at the examples set by

other industries, where they use ways to incentivise their

accounts by setting sales targets, which if reached, result in

a bonus, a discount or a prize for that branch. It’s a great way

to encourage sales in a positive way and create excitement

and also has the potential to reap benefi ts for all parties.

In essence, suppliers could give loyalty to stockists along

with acceptable exclusivity areas, with rigid minimums

applied across the board. This can only lead to a feeling of

security and a happy willingness to purchase minimums

by the retailers from the suppliers, secure in the knowledge

that A.N. Other Bridal Store fi ve miles down the road doesn’t

have the same brand and has only had to buy half of the

minimums that you have. The playing fi eld will become level,

with a greater mutual respect all round. BB

“The ‘movable

minimum’ has

stealthily made

its way into our

buying world”

A WORD

FROM THE

089.BB.163.RBA.indd 89 12/06/2014 10:08