Is it Trouble in Topshop or Trouble at all shops?

Like so many in the retail industry, I recently devoured the BBC Two Documentary "Trouble in Top Shop."

Top Shop, at its height, wasn't a store; it was a sensory experience. When you entered the flagship store at Oxford Circus in London, you didn't know when you would resurface. You had five floors to navigate, all of which held hidden treasures to be discovered.

While the store was laid out with well-thought-out precision, it was chaotic and a buzzing hive of activity due to the sheer volume of customers on constant rotation. I would always ensure I was there when the store was opening to have the ability to wander through without the chaos that would ensue later in the day.

Customers would have their arms filled, making their way to the changing rooms. Customers were women and men of all ages and all cultures. It was a place to get everything from a pair of jeans to a formal dress, from a manicure to a sandwich. It was an exciting place to go, and you didn't want to leave until you had covered every square inch of the five floors.

The documentary highlighted very concerning points. The documentary, titled "Trouble at Topshop," raised the question.

Does the trouble that caused the downfall of Top Shop also exist more broadly across the retail industry?

The team at Top Shop, led by Jane Shepherdson, brought together a group of creative and passionate women who were determined and committed to bringing women the clothes they wanted. In Jane's words, speaking of that time:

"We are the customer, and we're in this together."

Unlike many other fashion retailers, Top Shop was led by a woman who built a female-dominated team. A creative team that worked collaboratively to deliver their brand vision.

"To be THE global fashion authority."

To do this, they knew that they needed to be different, to have an edge that made them stand out from the other fashion retailers in the market. Theirs would be:

"If something wasn't fashionable or well designed, it wouldn't be in Top Shop."

They were an enviable team that built trust with their customer by delivering the best possible value product to them, making them feel unique, fashionable, and incredible. In turn, they returned exponential growth to their investors and shareholders.

Those interviewed who had worked at Top Shop at its height of success spoke with great passion and pride about what it was like working in such a dynamic, creative, innovative, industry-leading business. What was also highly noticeable about them was how they commonly used the word "we." Not I, not me, but we.

Under Jane Shepherdson's leadership, the brand continuously evolved. Complacency was a word those at Top Shop were not allowed to use and therefore was not a part of their DNA. Instead, they saw it as their responsibility to keep moving forward at pace as the way they saw it, "the world does not stand still," and therefore, neither should Top Shop.

As a result, they were cohesive in their approach to delivering the vision and instinctively knew what to do for the business. They knew that they needed to keep the product moving forward. Change before the customer makes that decision for them—continual evolution.

Then things changed.

In 2002, The Arcadia Group, which Top Shop was a part of, was bought by Sir Philip Green. By this time, the female-dominated team at Top Shop had successfully turned a dated retailer for teens into a fashion phenomenon they were very proud of. However, the new owner's leadership style and core beliefs lacked alignment and synergy with the Brand Director. The Brand Director that had so successfully led the change and evolution of the Top Shop brand through her creative and innovative approach. A team that was crystal clear on the vision and direction of the brand and felt empowered and determined to work together to be the best.

Instead of getting out of their way and letting them do what they were doing and good at, the new owner seemingly barged in and, by doing so, removed the autonomy the team had enjoyed and thrived on. They felt they weren't trusted nor respected for their contribution to the business's success. They were laughed at, publicly insulted, and shouted at regularly. An environment that was, as one person put it, "emotionally draining."

The vision became distorted.

Meetings shifted from being product-focused to numbers focused. There was a constant obsession with the competition and what they were doing, far removed from a focus on what they themselves were doing and how they would continue to lead in the market. No one could make a decision, be brave enough to make a decision, or know who the decision-makers were. It became chaotic, with no one knowing what they wanted or wanted to do.

Does any of this sound familiar?

• How many retail businesses do you hear about that are in a similar situation?

• Numbers first, with product somewhere thereafter.

• Not trading nor evolving your business because you're planning so far ahead.

• The exhaustive amount of time spent in the past compared to that spent on focusing on the future.

• Companies filled with siloed departments instead of collaborative and cohesive teams.

• Unnecessarily competing over the price under the veil of being customer-focused without considering the benefits of offering the customer a quality and value equation.

• Stunted growth over continuous brand evolution.

• Short-term thinking and gain over long-term investment and evolution.

• People waiting to be told instead of knowing they are empowered to have a voice, make decisions and move things forward.

And, more importantly, a lack of a clearly defined vision.

What is probably worse is that many businesses actually can't see that,

 a) they operate this way

or

b) don't see a problem with operating in this way

I worked in a business, albeit for a short time, that spent the first three days of every week analysing and questioning the prior week's results. That left just two days to get work done and focus on the future before you turn around and do it all again. It felt like you were in a rough sea, attempting to swim to the horizon only to continually be dragged back to shore.

Don't get me wrong, the past does play a role in what we do, but it should be used as a guide, a starting point, not the sole dictator of the future.

A customer doesn't want to see the same from you repeatedly. They need to see your evolution. They need to see your vision for them; doing so will keep them returning. Spending sixty percent of your time in the past gives you no time to deliver evolution, particularly as the time spent in the past, in my instance, was justifying the result.

I once worked for someone I often thought of when listening to Jane Shepherdson's story. He was the Managing Director of the company I worked for. He very clearly articulated and communicated his vision for the company to everyone in the business. There was no question from anyone on who we were, what we stood for, who our customer was and what role we played in delivering the vision. The focus for all of us was on moving forward and fast. You had to keep up or jump off.

It was an energetic and incredibly positive environment. Our Managing Director was highly visible and available to you but left you to get on with your part. He constantly challenged you to do more, try new things, and evolve. You were aware of what your competitors were doing, but they weren't your focus. Our company and our customers were the focus.

Decisions were not caught up in bureaucracy but were made quickly, with implementation a priority for all involved. If something was tried and didn't resonate with the customer, it was a case of "let's reflect quickly, move out of it and move on" without any form of blame or finger-pointing. It was seen as more important to try new things than the exhaustive process of procrastination and approval, as it was a shared view that not everything would be a success and resonate with the customer.

It was hard work. Really hard work, but you didn't care. You thrived in this dynamic environment. You felt like you were making a difference for the customers and making a significant contribution to the company. You felt valued and proud. Your ideas were encouraged, welcomed, and heard. The product was at the core of all that we did, and we were a united, creative, and collaborative team. It was, without question, the most memorable time in my retail career.

I have heard of retail businesses today that have product range signoffs that don't actually show or present any product! Instead, the meeting revolves solely around numbers. How is this possible in a retail/product business?

Then there are the other businesses that hold these signoffs virtually without any physical presentation of product ranges or the ability to touch and feel the product. I understand this was required at the height of the pandemic, but is this necessary now that you can go into your office? How are you supposed to see the value or detail of a product on a screen? Or get the buy-in from those there to sell or market your product?

I also then need to mention those insisting that these "sign-offs" are completed a year out from when the product is due in store. Yes, there have been ongoing issues with the supply chain but working so far out on all of your ranges gives you no opportunity to test and trial. It gives you no opportunity to react to trading conditions. It gives you no opportunity to offer your customer something new more frequently, regularly attracting them to your store or site.

On top of this is the obsession with the competition, also raised in the Trouble at Top Shop documentary. Unfortunately, this is also a common theme in retail today, with many retail companies focusing on what their competitor is doing and then copying them. If you defined your place in the market and were clear about the unique reason why you exist and what you stand out for, why is there the need to obsess over what others are doing and copying them? Why not build your unique position and focus on offering your customer something they can't get elsewhere?

Knowing what your competitor is doing is essential. Yes. But obsessing over it and continually changing your strategy to "match" them is not. As Jane Shepherdson said in Trouble at Top Shop, you:

"Have to have something that makes you stand out from the others."

If you have this, you can forge forward as a market leader who knows what your customer wants. Not a follower who stands for so many things; that you end up standing for nothing of any value.

This documentary highlighted that it is time for many retailers to reflect. It is time to question whether you are in the same position as Top Shop. Could you be heading down the same path?

Questions to ask:

Do you have a clear vision?

What makes you stand out from everyone else, and is this enough to attract and keep customers?

Do you invest time, energy, and resources into the constant evolution of your business?

Do you have the best team to deliver your vision?

Have you built and developed a team that is encouraged to continually bring new ideas with a supporting culture of working collaboratively to implement these ideas - quickly?

If you have had the privilege of working in a team such as the team at Top Shop that existed at the height of its glory, you know how special and unique that is. Anything outside of that pales in significance. I know that firsthand.

What is hard to understand is why these opportunities are so rare. They shouldn't be. Retail is a dynamic and ever-changing industry.

Today we are caught up in the bureaucracy of playing it safe. Over planning, doing the same things we have always done, and running a race to the bottom. Isn't it time to change that? Before it is too late.