Taking Stock With Teens
A Collaborative Consumer Insights Project
Fall 2016
Piper Jaffray does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result,
investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this
report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decisions. This
report should be read in conjunction with important disclosure information, including an attestation under
Regulation Analyst Certification, found at the end of this report or at the following site:
http://www.piperjaffray.com/researchdisclosures.
Disclosures
Disclosures for universes of: Stan Meyers, Nicole Miller Regan, Gene Munster, Erinn Murphy, Matthew O’Brien, Michael Olson, Neely
Tamminga, Steph Wissink
1. I or a household member has a financial interest in the securities of the following companies: none
2. I or a household member is an officer, director, or advisory board member of the following companies: none
3. I have received compensation within the past 12 months from the following companies: none
4. Piper Jaffray or its affiliates beneficially own 1% or more of any class of common equities of the following companies: PBPB, SBH
5. Piper Jaffray has received compensation for investment banking services from or has had a client relationship with the following companies
within the past 12 months: CNMD, FIT, FOGO, GDDY, IART, IVTY, KTWO, NUVA, PLAY, RWLK, SHOP, SPNE, TACO, TCMD, W, ZBH
6. Piper Jaffray expects to receive or intends to seek compensation for investment banking services from the following companies in the next 3
months: IVTY, KTWO, RWLK, SHOP, TCMD
7. Within the past 12 months Piper Jaffray was a managing underwriter of a public offering of, or dealer manager of a tender offer for, the
securities of the following companies: FIT, GDDY, IVTY, KTWO, PLAY, RWLK, SHOP, TACO, TCMD
8. Piper Jaffray has received compensation for non-investment banking services from or has had a client relationship with the following companies
within the past 12 months: BBRG, JAKK, KIRK, PLKI, SBUX, SHOO, SONC, TACO, UEIC
9. Piper Jaffray makes a market in the securities of the following companies, and will buy and sell the securities of these companies on a principal
basis: AAPL, AEO, AKAM, ALGN, AMZN, ANF, ASNA, ATVI, AVP, BBRG, BIDU, BJRI, BOJA, CAKE, CBK, CBS, CHGG, CHS, CKEC, CNMD,
COH, COTY, CRI, CROX, CTRP, DECK, DFRG, DIS, DLB, DNKN, DRI, EA, EAT, EBAY, ENT, ENTL, EXPE, EXPR, FB, FINL, FIT, FL, FOGO, FOSL,
FRGI, FUEL, GCO, GDDY, GES, GIII, GKOS, GLUU, GMAN, GME, GMED, GPRO, GPS, GRPN, HABT, HAS, IART, IMAX, IPAR, IRG, ISRG, IVTY,
JAKK, JCP, JD, JWN, KIRK, KORS, KSS, KTWO, LB, LGF, LNKD, LOGM, MAT, MCD, MCHX, MDCA, MELI, NCMI, NDLS, NFLX, NKE, NUVA,
NVDQ, NWL, NXTM, P, PBH, PBPB, PCLN, PLAY, PLCE, PLKI, PNRA, PVH, PYPL, QSR, RGC, RH, ROST, RUTH, SBH, SBUX, SHOO, SIRI,
SONC, SPNE, SQBG, SUMR, SYK, TACO, TCMD, TIVO, TLYS, TRIP, TTWO, TUBE, UA, ULTA, URBN, VIAB, VNCE, W, WEB, WMGI, WSM,
WWW, XENT, XRAY, YELP, YHOO, ZBH, ZLTQ, ZNGA, ZOES, ZUMZ
10. Piper Jaffray usually provides bids and offers for the securities of the following companies and will, from time to time, buy and sell the
securities of these companies on a principal basis: AMC, AMCX, BBW, CMG, COO, DL, EL, GOOG, HELE, HSNI, INGN, JMEI, LBY, RGS, RL,
RMD, RWLK, SHOP, SPB, TOY CN, TUP, UEIC, VFC, WB, YUME
Note: Piper Jaffray and / or its employees (other than the analyst who follows Glu Mobile Inc.) own securities of Glu Mobile Inc. that were acquired
prior to the IPO of Glu Mobile Inc.
2 | Taking Stock With Teens
Investment Risks
Risks to achievement of investment objectives include, but are not limited to:
• Reliance on key top management
• Changing consumer preferences
• Changes in input costs and raw materials
• Markdown risks
• Product flow and inventory disruptions
• Competition
• Lack of pricing power
• Deleveraging of fixed expenses
• Foreign exchange rate risk
• General macroeconomic uncertainty
3 | Taking Stock With Teens
Fashion & Beauty
Restaurants
Media & Devices
Questions & Answers
Appendix
Depth of Piper Jaffray Consumer Insights Anchored in Primary
Research
Taking Stock
With Teens
Restaurant
Benchmark
Book
CFO/CIO
Survey
Millennial
Moms
Survey
Healthy
Lifestyles
Survey
Women’s
Survey
Holiday
Spending
Survey
5 | Taking Stock With Teens
Taking Stock
With Young
Adults
Athletic
Brand &
Wearables
Survey
Home
Improvement
Survey
32nd Semi-Annual Proprietary Teen Research Project
National survey of teens measuring:
• Behaviors & Priorities
• Capacity & Intentions
• Brand Preferences
10,000
16.0
34%
2,800 teens
$109,000
Classroom visits
and electronic
surveys
Household income
Represents top 20% of
U.S. household units
Responses
AVERAGE-INCOME GROUP
Average Age
Part-Time Employed
Survey is executed in partnership with DECA..
The source for all charts/tables within this report is Piper Jaffray.
6 | Taking Stock With Teens
UPPER-INCOME GROUP
7,200 teens
$53,000
Classroom visits
and electronic
surveys
Household income
Aligns more closely
with U.S. median
Fall 2016 Action Ideas
STOCK CALLS: RATINGS CHANGES & ESTIMATE REVISIONS
INITIATING COVERAGE:
adidas AG / ADS.GR / initiating Overweight / Sr. Research Analyst Erinn Murphy
RATINGS CHANGES:
Estee Lauder Companies Inc. / EL / from Overweight to Neutral / Sr. Research Analyst Steph Wissink
Under Armour, Inc. / UA / from Neutral to Overweight / Sr. Research Analyst Erinn Murphy
Zumiez Inc. / ZUMZ / from Neutral to Overweight / Sr. Research Analyst Neely Tamminga
ESTIMATE REVISIONS:
V.F. Corporation / VFC / reducing estimates and price target / Sr. Research Analyst Erinn Murphy
7 | Taking Stock With Teens
Fall 2016 Survey Summary
HIGH-LEVEL VIEWPOINTS:
•
Summary takeaway: spending trends are encouraging among upper-income teens; a potential leading
indicator for spending recovery
•
Total teen spending is down 2.6% y/y; spending on fashion, down 0.6% y/y
•
•
•
Upper-income: total spending up 2.5% y/y; spending on fashion, up 3.1% y/y
•
Average-income: total spending down 4.7% y/y; spending on fashion, down 2.1% y/y
Spending perceptions of “more” generally up among our upper-income female population—potential leading
indicators for future growth
•
Upper-income females spending “more” increased 100 bps y/y in clothing and 100 bps y/y in shoes and
dropped 100 bps y/y in accessories
•
Upper-income females spending significantly “more” on cosmetics and skincare up 900 bps and 600 bps
y/y, respectively
Parent contribution in the fashion category for teens tracking above average levels seen since 2010
•
Upper-income: parents contributing 51%+ for fashion at 71% vs. 68% average since 2010
•
Could be attributed to fewer kids taking on part-time employment: 34% of teens surveyed have part-time
employment—down 200 bps vs. LY
HIGH-LEVEL THEMES:
•
Denim trend strengthening
•
Beauty spending and prioritization at all-time highs
•
Video game spending tracking well ahead of multi-year average
•
Food is a source of entertainment
•
Social media engagement migrates to video- and photo-dominant platforms
8 | Taking Stock With Teens
Fashion & Beauty
Clothing, Shoes, Accessories & Beauty
38% of Teen Spending
Upper-Income Inflects Positive
Total teen spending is
-2.6% y/y; spending
on fashion, -0.6% y/y.
Upper-Income Total Spend
Upper-Income Fashion Spend
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
Spring 2005
Fall 2005
Spring 2006
Fall 2006
Spring 2007
Fall 2007
Spring 2008
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
Spring 2015
Fall 2015
Spring 2016
Fall 2016
$0
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
Upper-Income Fashion Spend
$4,000
Average-Income Fashion Spend
Upper-Income Total Spend
UPPER-INCOME SPENDING
$4,000
Average-Income Total Spend
Average-Income Fashion Spend
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
Spring 2005
Fall 2005
Spring 2006
Fall 2006
Spring 2007
Fall 2007
Spring 2008
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
Spring 2015
Fall 2015
Spring 2016
Fall 2016
Average-Income Total Spend
AVERAGE-INCOME SPENDING
10 | Taking Stock With Teens
Upper-income teens
leading potential
inflection in spending.
Total upper-income
teen spending inflects
positive—up 2.5% y/y
with fashion up 3.1%
y/y.
Denim Strengthening Driven by AEO
Denim saw an uptick
to 19.5% of overall
mindshare among
upper-income
females—up 540 bps
from spring and up
570 bps from last fall.
AEO is the primary
driver of the denim
uptick, up 710 bps
from last fall.
Top Fashion Trends - Upper-Income Females
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Fall 2015
Leggings/lululemon
Nike
Birkenstock
Converse
Victoria's Secret
Crop Tops
Short Shorts
Rompers
Vineyard Vines
Dresses
11 | Taking Stock With Teens
% Rank
Spring 2016
24% 1 Leggings/lululemon
5% 2 Victoria's Secret
5% 3 Converse
4% 4 Nike
4% 5 Boots
3% 6 Crop Tops
2% 7 Athletic Wear
2% 8 Jeans
2% 9 Michael Kors
2% 10 Adidas
% Rank
Fall 2016
23% 1 Leggings/lululemon
7% 2 Birkenstock
6% 3 Victoria's Secret
6% 4 Converse
3% 5 Ripped Jeans
3% 6 Jeans
2% 7 Adidas
2% 8 Bralettes
2% 9 Nike
2% 10 Chokers
%
25%
6%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Both “ripped jeans”
and “jeans” showed
up as top trends
among upper-income
females signaling to
us that there is a
change in the casual
uniform.
73% of Upper-Income Females
Intend to Purchase Denim in Next 3
Months
Top Denim Brands/Destinations – Upper-Income Females
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
12 | Taking Stock With Teens
Fall 2016
American Eagle
Hollister
Abercrombie & Fitch
PacSun
Nordstrom
Urban Outfitters
Old Navy
H&M
Kohl's
Forever 21
Levi's
%
36%
13%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
50% of upper-income
females have
purchased denim in
the past month and
intend to purchase
again in the next 3
months. In addition,
23% have not
purchased denim in
the past month, but
intend to purchase in
the next 3 months.
American Eagle
Outfitters is the No. 1
destination from
which upper-income
females intend to
purchase denim.
Hollister takes the No.
2 spot followed by
Abercrombie & Fitch.
AEO Mindshare Reaches New High
Among Upper-Income Females
American Eagle
Outfitters holds the
unique distinction of
being the only brand
consistently in the top
10 for 16 years.
Top Clothing Brands – Upper-Income Females
AEO Comp
AEO Change in Mindshare Y/Y
25%
800 bps
600 bps
400 bps
15%
200 bps
10%
5%
0 bps
0%
-200 bps
-5%
-400 bps
-10%
-15%
-600 bps
Spr 2003
Fall 2003
Spr 2004
Fall 2004
Spr 2005
Fall 2005
Spr 2006
Fall 2006
Spr 2007
Fall 2007
Spr 2008
Fall 2008
Spr 2009
Fall 2009
Spr 2010
Fall 2010
Spr 2011
Fall 2011
Spr 2012
Fall 2012
Spr 2013
Fall 2013
Spr 2014
Fall 2014
Spr 2015
Fall 2015
Spr 2016
Fall 2016E
AEO Comp
20%
13 | Taking Stock With Teens
AEO Change in Mindshare Y/Y
30%
AEO ticked back up to
No. 1 among upperincome females as a
preferred clothing
brand—the first time
since Spring 2007.
Mindshare for the
brand (17.4%) is up
700 bps from last fall
among upper-income
females.
Stock Highlights: Multi-Brand Retail & Specialty Commerce
Analyst: Neely Tamminga
AEO (+): Maintaining our survey’s status as the everlasting brand, American Eagle Outfitters once again makes the top ten
in our unaided survey for preferred brands making the brand, to-date, the only brand in our survey’s 16-year history that
consistently appears in the top ten as a preferred brand among teens. In the most recent fall survey, American Eagle set a
new all-time high in being chosen the No. 1 preferred brand among upper-income females with 17% mindshare. Since the
inception of our survey, American Eagle hasn’t achieved this level of mindshare or ranking in our fall surveys. Given their
body positivity and inclusion messages while continuing to invest in its core competencies of fabric and style, American
Eagle’s hard work and focus is clearly paying off in finding more customers than before. We remain confident that no
matter the environment for spending this fall and holiday season—Election distractions included—AEO will continue
demonstrating market share gains and delivering at or above their financial targets.
American Eagle Spr 2002 Spr 2003
Upper-Income
3rd (6%) 4th (9%)
Average-Income
American Eagle Fall 2002 Fall 2003
Upper-Income
4th (6%) 2nd (8%)
Average-Income
Spr 2004 Spr 2005
2nd (6%) 4th (8%)
1st (13%)
Fall 2004 Fall 2005
4th (6%) 4th (9%)
1st (13%)
Spr 2006
2nd (10%)
1st (12%)
Fall 2006
4th (8%)
1st (14%)
Top
Spr 2007
2nd (11%)
1st (14%)
Fall 2007
3rd (10%)
1st (16%)
American Eagle Spr 2002 Spr 2003
Upper-Income
5th (5%) 3rd (8%)
Average-Income
American Eagle Fall 2002 Fall 2003
Upper-Income
4th (6%) 4th (7%)
Average-Income
Spr 2004 Spr 2005
4th (7%) 3rd (8%)
1st (13%)
Fall 2004 Fall 2005
3rd (6%) 3rd (9%)
1st (13%)
Spr 2006
3rd (10%)
1st (11%)
Fall 2006
3rd (7%)
1st (15%)
Top Clothing Brands (Females)
Spr 2007 Spr 2008 Spr 2009 Spr 2010
1st (13%) 3rd (8%) 4th (5%) 3rd (6%)
1st (16%) 1st (13%) 1st (11%) 1st (11%)
Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010
4th (8%) 4th (7%) 3rd (8%) 3rd (8%)
1st (17%) 2nd (12%) 2nd (10%) 1st (12%)
American Eagle Spr 2002 Spr 2003
Upper-Income
4th (6%) 3rd (9%)
Average-Income
American Eagle Fall 2002 Fall 2003
Upper-Income
4th (6%) 2nd (10%)
Average-Income
Spr 2004 Spr 2005
3rd (5%) 5th (7%)
1st (12%)
Fall 2004 Fall 2005
5th (5%) 3rd (8%)
1st (12%)
Spr 2006
3rd (11%)
1st (12%)
Fall 2006
3rd (9%)
1st (12%)
Top Clothing Brands (Males)
Spr 2007 Spr 2008 Spr 2009 Spr 2010 Spr 2011 Spr 2012 Spr 2013 Spr 2014 Spr 2015 Spr 2016
3rd (9%) 3rd (10%) 4th (5%) 3rd (10%) 4th (7%) 4th (5%) 3rd (7%) 3rd (7%) 3rd (4%) 3rd (5%)
2nd (12%) 2nd (13%) 3rd (10%) 3rd (10%) 3rd (11%) 4th (7%) 2nd (10%) 3rd (6%) 3rd (6%) 3rd (7%)
Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016
2nd (13%) 3rd (8%) 3rd (7%) 2nd (11%) 4th (6%) 4th (6%) 3rd (6%) 3rd (6%) 3rd (4%) 3rd (4%)
1st (16%) 3rd (10%) 3rd (10%) 2nd (12%) 4th (9%) 4th (9%) 2nd (8%) 3rd (7%) 3rd (7%) 3rd (5%)
14 | Taking Stock With Teens
Clothing Brands (All)
Spr 2008 Spr 2009
3rd (9%) 5th (5%)
1st (13%) 1st (10%)
Fall 2008 Fall 2009
4th (7%) 5th (8%)
1st (11%) 2nd (10%)
Spr 2010
4th (7%)
1st (11%)
Fall 2010
3rd (10%)
1st (12%)
Spr 2011 Spr 2012 Spr 2013
3rd (9%) 4th (8%) 2nd (9%)
1st (10%) 4th (8%) 2nd (10%)
Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
4th (7%) 5th (8%) 3rd (7%)
2nd (10%) 3rd (9%) 3rd (8%)
Spr 2014 Spr 2015 Spr 2016
3rd (8%) 3rd (6%) 2nd (8%)
3rd (7%) 3rd (7%) 2nd (9%)
Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016
2nd (8%) 3rd (6%) 2nd (9%)
2nd (8%) 2nd (8%) 2nd (8%)
Spr 2011
2nd (10%)
2nd (10%)
Fall 2011
3rd (9%)
2nd (10%)
Spr 2014
2nd (9%)
2nd (8%)
Fall 2014
2nd (10%)
2nd (9%)
Spr 2012
2nd (12%)
2nd (9%)
Fall 2012
2nd (10%)
2nd (9%)
Spr 2013
2nd (12%)
2nd (11%)
Fall 2013
2nd (9%)
2nd (9%)
Spr 2015
3rd (7%)
2nd (8%)
Fall 2015
2nd (10%)
2nd (10%)
Spr 2016
2nd (11%)
2nd (11%)
Fall 2016
1st (17%)
1st (12%)
Stock Highlights: Multi-Brand Retail & Specialty Commerce
Analyst: Neely Tamminga
ANF (-): The brand turnarounds appear to have stalled a bit according to how teens are voting for each Hollister. No
doubt, the core A&F brand is being positioned older than the teen demographic—so slippage could be interpreted as a
good thing. That said, the Hollister brand moved down year-over-year slightly and more so sequentially among upperincome females—a group we tend to view as a leading indicator of brand relevance. In absolute with the movements we’re
observing, we’d be neutral on the data and monitor for a few seasons before reacting to it. That said, the data doesn’t sit
in absolute—we see it relative to other brand movements and American Eagle Outfitters is clearly dominating the
mindshare game this fall season and possibly at the expense of Hollister. We like ANF the stock for reasons beyond a
single fall season of teen survey data, therefore we maintain our Overweight rating. That said, for investors with a shorter
time horizon, we recommend caution on ANF shares based on the apparent mindshare shift between American Eagle
Outfitters and Hollister.
Top Clothing Brands (Upper-Income, All)
Spr 2007 Spr 2008 Spr 2009 Spr 2010
4th (8%) 4th (5%) 6th (4%) 7th (3%)
1st (13%) 1st (13%) 2nd (12%) 5th (7%)
Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010
4th (8%) 5th (4%) 6th (4%) 10th (2%)
1st (14%) 2nd (10%) 3rd (8%) 5th (7%)
Spr 2002
A&F
1st (13%)
Hollister
NM
Fall 2002
A&F
1st (18%)
Hollister 22nd (1%)
Spr 2003
1st (12%)
5th (5%)
Fall 2003
1st (15%)
5th (5%)
Spr 2004
1st (13%)
4th (5%)
Fall 2004
1st (13%)
3rd (9%)
Spr 2005
2nd (10%)
1st (12%)
Fall 2005
2nd (10%)
1st (13%)
Spr 2006
4th (9%)
1st (16%)
Fall 2006
3rd (8%)
1st (14%)
Spr 2002
A&F
2nd (10%)
Hollister
NM
Fall 2002
A&F
1st (19%)
Hollister 25th (1%)
Spr 2003
2nd (12%)
6th (7%)
Fall 2003
1st (18%)
3rd (8%)
Spr 2004
1st (12%)
3rd (8%)
Fall 2004
1st (14%)
2nd (10%)
Spr 2005
2nd (12%)
1st (14%)
Fall 2005
2nd (12%)
1st (16%)
Top Clothing
Spr 2006 Spr 2007
2nd (11%) 5th (8%)
1st (18%) 1st (13%)
Fall 2006 Fall 2007
2nd (10%) 3rd (8%)
1st (17%) 1st (15%)
Spr 2002
A&F
1st (16%)
Hollister
NM
Fall 2002
A&F
1st (16%)
Hollister 17th (1%)
Spr 2003
2nd (12%)
10th (2%)
Fall 2003
3rd (9%)
11th (2%)
Spr 2004 Spr 2005
1st (13%) 4th (8%)
10th (3%) 3rd (9%)
Fall 2004 Fall 2005
2nd (10%) 3rd (8%)
3rd (8%) 2nd (10%)
15 | Taking Stock With Teens
Spr 2011
12th (2%)
7th (3%)
Fall 2011
10th (2%)
7th (4%)
Spr 2012
10th (2%)
6th (5%)
Fall 2012
9th (2%)
7th (3%)
Spr 2013
10th (2%)
5th (4%)
Fall 2013
9th (2%)
8th (2%)
Spr 2014
10th (2%)
5th (3%)
Fall 2014
23rd (1%)
7th (2%)
Spr 2015
31st (1%)
7th (2%)
Fall 2015
12th (2%)
11th (2%)
Spr 2016
11th (2%)
5th (3%)
Fall 2016
19th (1%)
11th (2%)
Brands (Upper-Income, Females)
Spr 2008 Spr 2009 Spr 2010 Spr 2011
5th (5%) 6th (4%) 11th (3%) 12th (2%)
1st (14%) 1st (14%) 2nd (7%) 7th (3%)
Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011
7th (5%) 6th (4%) 9th (2%) 10th (2%)
2nd (10%) 2nd (8%) 4th (8%) 5th (5%)
Spr 2012
9th (2%)
3rd (6%)
Fall 2012
7th (3%)
5th (4%)
Spr 2013
9th (3%)
3rd (6%)
Fall 2013
15th (2%)
5th (4%)
Spr 2014
11th (2%)
6th (5%)
Fall 2014
23rd (1%)
9th (4%)
Spr 2015
28th (1%)
8th (3%)
Fall 2015
14th (2%)
10th (3%)
Spr 2016
12th (2%)
6th (5%)
Fall 2016
13th (1%)
12th (2%)
Top Clothing Brands (Upper-Income, Males)
Spr 2006 Spr 2007 Spr 2008 Spr 2009 Spr 2010 Spr 2011
4th (6%) 3rd (9%) 5th (6%) 5th (4%) 7th (3%) 9th (2%)
2nd (14%) 2nd (13%) 2nd (13%) 3rd (10%) 4th (7%) 8th (2%)
Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011
4th (7%) 4th (7%) 5th (3%) 6th (3%) 8th (2%) 8th (2%)
2nd (11%) 3rd (12%) 2nd (11%) 4th (8%) 4th (5%) 6th (2%)
Spr 2012
7th (2%)
5th (4%)
Fall 2012
7th (2%)
5th (2%)
Spr 2013
9th (2%)
5th (3%)
Fall 2013
6th (2%)
9th (1%)
Spr 2014
13th (1%)
4th (2%)
Fall 2014
19th (1%)
9th (1%)
Spr 2015
20th (1%)
10th (2%)
Fall 2015
8th (2%)
10th (1%)
Spr 2016
7th (2%)
6th (2%)
Fall 2016
19th (1%)
9th (1%)
Stock Highlights: Multi-Brand Retail & Specialty Commerce
Analyst: Neely Tamminga
LB (=): A year ago, our data began to demonstrate a deceleration in upper-income females choosing “Victoria’s Secret”
and “PINK” as their favorite clothing brand and we indicated then that it was a trend we were committed to monitoring.
Victoria’s Secret (which includes votes for “PINK”) came in at No. 5 this fall vs. No. 7 a year ago and No. 4 six months ago.
From a mindshare perspective, the combined votes for Victoria’s Secret and PINK came in at 4.6% this fall vs. 3.9% a year
ago and 6.4% this spring. We recognize that for the most part, LB continues to deliver notable growth in their comparablestore sales trends. That said, we are honest to our process in being mindful of the mind share slippage we saw this spring
and continuing to monitor trends.
Top Clothing Brands (Upper-Income,
Spr 2010 Spr 2011 Spr 2012 Spr 2013
Victoria's Secret / PINK 24th (1%) 16th (1%) 19th (1%) 9th (2%)
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
Victoria's Secret / PINK 45th (<1%) 16th (1%) 11th (2%) 10th (2%)
All)
Spr 2014
6th (3%)
Fall 2014
10th (2%)
Spr 2015
5th (4%)
Fall 2015
13th (2%)
Spr 2016
7th (3%)
Fall 2016
10th (2%)
Top Clothing Brands (Upper-Income, Females)
Spr 2010 Spr 2011 Spr 2012 Spr 2013 Spr 2014
Victoria's Secret / PINK 15th (1%) 9th (2%) 9th (2%) 6th (4%) 3rd (6%)
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014
Victoria's Secret / PINK 9th (2%)
8th (2%) 6th (4%) 6th (3%) 6th (4%)
Spr 2015
2nd (7%)
Fall 2015
7th (4%)
Spr 2016
4th (6%)
Fall 2016
5th (5%)
Mindshare by Division (Upper-Income, Females)
PINK
Victoria's Secret
2.2%
1.7%
2.6%
2.9%
2.4%
2.0%
2.2%
0.3%
Fall 2011
16 | Taking Stock With Teens
0.8%
1.0%
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
2.4%
1.3%
Fall 2014
Fall 2015
Fall 2016
Stock Highlights: Multi-Brand Retail & Specialty Commerce
Analyst: Neely Tamminga
JWN (=): Nordstrom has been bouncing around in the rankings of late but we are not alarmed. Among upper-income
females, however, Nordstrom remained in the top ten coming in at No. 10. We’ve attributed some of the recent weakness
to a commensurate drop in Free People as a preferred brand recognizing, as we do, that Nordstrom is one of the top and
long-standing retailers of Free People. While we fully realize that shoppers from eight to eighty shop at Nordstrom,
watching their relevance among the teen population is helpful to understanding both their relevance in the fashion
landscape and their ability to convince her to shop in their store later in life even past when “mom” is around to pay the bill.
Given the recent success of the pre-Fall Anniversary Sale event, we are not concerned about Nordstrom’s drop from No. 9
to No. 10 in six months. We look to their FQ3 report as providing additional leverage on expenses and investments—
demonstrating their focus on growing earnings—likely to be well-received in the investment community.
Top Clothing Brands (Upper-Income, Females)
Spr 2002 Spr 2003 Spr 2004 Spr 2005 Spr 2006 Spr 2007 Spr 2008 Spr 2009 Spr 2010 Spr 2011 Spr 2012 Spr 2013 Spr 2014 Spr 2015 Spr 2016
Nordstrom 14th (1%) 19th (1%) 12th (2%) 11th (2%) 5th (7%) 4th (9%) 4th (8%) 5th (5%) 9th (3%)
3rd (7%) 5th (5%) 4th (5%) 7th (4%) 6th (4%) 9th (3%)
Free People
31st (<1%) 20th (1%) 28th (1%) 12th (2%) 14th (2%) 7th (4%) 19th (1%)
Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016
Nordstrom 19th (1%) 6th (4%) 6th (4%) 4th (7%) 5th (5%) 5th (4%) 7th (5%) 7th (4%) 3rd (9%) 2nd (10%) 3rd (7%) 4th (6%) 5th (5%) 6th (4%) 10th (3%)
Free People
25th (1%) 6th (3%) 32nd (1%) 12th (2%) 8th (4%) 5th (6%) 10th (3%)
17 | Taking Stock With Teens
Stock Highlights: Multi-Brand Retail & Specialty Commerce
Analyst: Neely Tamminga
URBN (=): Urban Outfitters, while admittedly never likes to be associated as a teen retailer, is routinely viewed as an
aspirational brand among the thousands of teens we survey each year. In our Fall 2016 survey, the core UO brand is
demonstrating sequential improvement and year-over-year stability. Urban Outfitters came in at No. 5 versus No. 7 just six
months ago among our upper-income teens. Female respondents in our survey voted the brand at No. 4—up from No. 5
six months ago and down just a notch from No. 3 a year ago. We noticed Free People, the brand, underperformed their
past few fall surveys’ results but the brand is showing a sequential improvement coming in at No. 10 vs. No. 19 just six
months ago.
Spr 2003 Spr 2004 Spr 2005
Urban Outfitters 34th (1%) 19th (1%) 7th (3%)
Free People
Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005
Urban Outfitters 30th (1%) 14th (2%) 8th (2%)
Free People
Spr 2006
14th (2%)
Fall 2006
5th (4%)
Top Clothing Brands (Upper-Income, All)
Spr 2007
Spr 2008 Spr 2009 Spr 2010 Spr 2011 Spr 2012
Spr 2013
10th (2%) 10th (2%) 8th (3%)
10th (2%) 9th (2%)
7th (3%)
7th (3%)
45th (<1%) 31st (<1%) 33rd (<1%) 20th (1%)
Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
9th (2%)
6th (4%)
7th (4%)
9th (3%)
8th (3%)
8th (3%)
5th (4%)
37th (<1%) 13th (1%) 42nd (<1%) 21st (1%)
Top Clothing Brands (Upper-Income, Females)
Spr 2003 Spr 2004 Spr 2005 Spr 2006
Spr 2007
Spr 2008 Spr 2009 Spr 2010 Spr 2011
Urban Outfitters 19th (1%) 14th (2%) 7th (4%)
7th (3%)
8th (2%)
9th (3%)
6th (4%)
7th (4%)
5th (3%)
Free People
31st (<1%) 20th (1%)
Anthropologie
NA
NA
NA
17th (1%) 22nd (1%)
NA
38th (<1%) 40th (<1%) 26th (1%)
Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011
Urban Outfitters 24th (1%) 11th (3%) 8th (3%)
4th (7%)
6th (3%)
5th (7%)
5th (7%)
6th (4%)
4th (6%)
Free People
25th (1%) 6th (3%)
Anthropologie
NA
NA
NA
22nd (<1%) 32nd (<1%) 31st (<1%) 44th (<1%) 29th (1%) 35th (<1%)
Top Clothing Brands (Upper-Income, Males)
Spr 2003 Spr 2004 Spr 2005 Spr 2006
Spr 2007
Spr 2008 Spr 2009 Spr 2010 Spr 2011
Urban Outfitters
NA
27th (1%) 24th (<1%)
NA
25th (<1%) 22nd (1%) 10th (2%) 19th (<1%) 13th (1%)
Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011
Urban Outfitters
NA
NA
18th (1%) 34th (<1%) 19th (1%) 19th (1%) 14th (1%) 19th (1%) 17th (1%)
18 | Taking Stock With Teens
Spr 2012
Spr 2013
4th (6%)
4th (5%)
28th (1%) 12th (2%)
47th (<1%) 37th (<1%)
Fall 2012 Fall 2013
4th (5%)
3rd (8%)
32nd (1%) 12th (2%)
NA
32nd (<1%)
Spr 2012
14th (1%)
Fall 2012
20th (1%)
Spr 2013
20th (1%)
Fall 2013
12th (1%)
Spr 2014
6th (3%)
22nd (1%)
Fall 2014
5th (4%)
12th (2%)
Spr 2015
6th (3%)
9th (2%)
Fall 2015
5th (3%)
7th (2%)
Spr 2016
7th (3%)
32nd (1%)
Fall 2016
5th (3%)
18th (1%)
Spr 2014
5th (5%)
14th (2%)
34th (<1%)
Fall 2014
3rd (7%)
8th (4%)
37th (<1%)
Spr 2015
5th (5%)
7th (4%)
37th (<1%)
Fall 2015
3rd (7%)
5th (6%)
28th (1%)
Spr 2016
5th (5%)
19th (1%)
38th (<1%)
Fall 2016
4th (7%)
10th (3%)
49th (<1%)
Spr 2014 Spr 2015
21st (1%) 14th (1%)
Fall 2014 Fall 2015
15th (1%) 40th (<1%)
Spr 2016
18th (1%)
Fall 2016
19th (1%)
Stock Highlights: Multi-Brand Retail & Specialty Commerce
Analyst: Neely Tamminga
ZUMZ (+): We are upgrading our investment rating on ZUMZ from Neutral to Overweight because proprietary survey data
is pointing to strength for Zumiez and the brands it sells. Given the significant array of brands carried and sold by Zumiez,
we created a Zumiez Brand Index to better gauge the mindshare in our data. Often these brands are limited in their
distribution and nearly exclusive with Zumiez, so we believe a vote in one of the Zumiez-carried brands is a de facto vote
for Zumiez. This fall, we note that among the upper-income teens in our survey, the Zumiez Brand Index carried 5.1% of
the overall vote—up from 4.1% a year ago. When looking at the upper-income males, the Zumiez Brand Index accounted
for 7.9% of the mindshare, up from 6.7% a year ago, and comparable to brands like Ralph Lauren and American Eagle in
our top ten survey.
Zumiez Brand Index (Upper-Income, Male)
8.0%
ZUMZ Comp
8%
6%
7.5%
4%
2%
7.0%
0%
-2%
6.5%
-4%
-6%
6.0%
-8%
5.5%
-10%
Spring 2014
19 | Taking Stock With Teens
Fall 2014
Spring 2015
Fall 2015
Spring 2016
Fall 2016E
Survey Highlights: Global Fashion & Lifestyle Brands
Analyst: Erinn Murphy
ADS.GR – INITIATING OVERWEIGHT; €173PT (30X OUR FY17E EPS OF €5.76)
• Initiating EPS estimates of €5.02 and €5.76 for FY16 and FY17 (EPS growth of 15%); Street €4.81/€5.57
• Teen Survey findings support adidas is gaining share—as an athletic & a fashion brand
• No. 4 preferred footwear brand among all UI teens vs. No. 7 last year (6% mindshare vs. 2% LY)
• No. 8 preferred apparel brand for UI teens vs. No. 18 last year
• No. 2 preferred athletic footwear brand among all UI teens at 7% share vs. 4% share last year
• Appeared on both top-ten trends for males & females for first time
UNDER ARMOUR – UPGRADING FROM NEUTRAL TO OVERWEIGHT; $44 PT (60X OUR FY17E EPS OF $0.73)
• Raising PT from $40 to $44 (taking multiple up from 55x to 60x our FY17 EPS)
• Teen Survey findings support on-going traction for UA within footwear
• No. 7 preferred footwear brand for UI & AI males—highest in survey history
• No. 8 preferred apparel brand for UI males—first time back in top-ten since Spring 2015
• UA traction with women’s evident in proprietary survey work on 9/12; UA as No. 2 athletic apparel brand for women
• Guidance implies Q4’s weather pattern to be similar to LY; could prove conservative
• Believe initial FY17 sales guidance could come in at 23%; upside to initial guide supported by Kohl’s & international
VF CORP – REDUCING ESTIMATES & PT TO $63; MAINTAINING OVERWEIGHT
• Reducing Q3 EPS from $1.16 to $1.15; FY16 from $3.20 to $3.18; FY17 from $3.50 to $3.48 (Street: $3.57)
• PT reducing from $67 to $63 on multiple reduction on FY17E EPS from 19x to 18x
• Vans (18-19% of VFC sales) results mixed by gender:
• No. 3 brand for females but mindshare slipped for both UI and AI females, down 270 bps and 170 bps
• No. 2 brand for males; mindshare among UI males +190 bps (11% share); declined 70 bps for AI males
20 | Taking Stock With Teens
Fashion Spending View Mixed
Fashion Spending
Apparel
Shoes
Accessories
Total - All
Apparel
Shoes
Accessories
Total - Female
Apparel
Shoes
Accessories
Total - Male
Fall 2014
$733
$279
$103
$1,115
Spring 2015
$667
$270
$96
$1,033
Fall 2015
$685
$277
$95
$1,057
Spring 2016
$614
$277
$91
$982
Fall 2016
$701
$291
$98
$1,090
Seq Chg
14%
5%
7%
11%
Y/Y Chg
2%
5%
3%
3%
$974
$268
$157
$1,399
$854
$260
$144
$1,258
$962
$277
$150
$1,389
$754
$270
$125
$1,149
$917
$296
$143
$1,357
22%
10%
14%
18%
-5%
7%
-5%
-2%
$504
$290
$56
$850
$483
$279
$55
$818
$474
$277
$57
$808
$480
$283
$62
$826
$533
$286
$66
$885
11%
1%
6%
7%
12%
3%
16%
10%
Upper-income teens
generally lead cycles;
key spending
takeaways:
Females spending —
2% Y/Y with pressure
coming from apparel
and accessories—
both -5%.
Males spending +10%
Y/Y with apparel up
double-digits;
footwear spend
reaches new peak.
21 | Taking Stock With Teens
Fashion Athletic Apparel Trend
Remains Healthy
40%
35%
35%
32%
28%
30%
25%
For combined genders,
35% of upper-income
teens favor an athletic
brand within preferred
apparel.
Average = 20%
20%
15%
26%
Athletic continues to
trend above the multiyear average of 20%.
10%
5%
0%
Gainers: Nike (+180
bps), Adidas (+100
bps), Under Armour
(+20 bps).
Losers: Dicks Sporting
Goods (- 30 bps).
We saw greater
strength within athletic
apparel from males
(+400 bps Y/Y) vs.
females (+100 bps Y/Y).
22 | Taking Stock With Teens
“Denim” Brands Accelerate For
Females; Athletic Looks Still In
25%
Fashion Athletic
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
23 | Taking Stock With Teens
Denim
Denim had an
increased presence in
Fall 2016,
representing 19.5%
mindshare for upperincome females, an
increase from 13.8%
in Fall 2015.
Fashion Athletic was
also strong, now
showing consecutive
fall increases since
breaking out of this
category in 2009.
Athletic Footwear Marches Higher
Among Males
86% of upper-income
males select an
athletic brand as their
footwear preferences,
up ~400 bps seq. &
Y/Y.
100%
90%
Gainers: adidas +250
bps Y/Y; Vans +190
bps Y/Y; Under
Armour +30 bps Y/Y;
Nike +20 bps Y/Y.
Consolidated Mindshare
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Losers: Converse
decelerates 40 bps
Y/Y.
Nike
Converse
24 | Taking Stock With Teens
Vans
Adidas
Puma
Under Armour
Rotation From Fashion To Athletic
Footwear Continues For Females
70%
58% of upper-income
females select an
athletic brand as their
footwear preferences,
flat seq. but +700 bps
Y/Y.
Consolidated Mindshare
60%
Gainers: adidas +460
bps Y/Y; Converse
+300 bps Y/Y; Nike
+200 bps Y/Y; Puma
+20 bps.
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Losers: Vans
decelerates 300 bps
Y/Y.
Nike
Converse
Vans
Adidas
Puma
Under Armour
Steve Madden (not
shown here) also
decelerated 300 bps
Y/Y; rotation points to
athletic into Holiday.
25 | Taking Stock With Teens
Top Teen Footwear Brands
Nike remains favorite
brand but adidas
share gains are
greater.
PREFERRED FOOTWEAR BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Rank
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2015
Nike
Vans
Converse
DSW
Steve Madden
Sperry
UGG
Adidas
Nordstrom
Payless ShoeSource
% Rank
Fall 2015
46% 1 Nike
9% 2 Vans
5% 3 Converse
3% 4 Sperry
3% 5 Steve Madden
3% 6 DSW
2% 7 Adidas
2% 8 Foot Locker
1% 9 Birkenstock
1%
Nordstrom
% Rank
Spring 2016
50%
1 Nike
9%
2 Vans
7%
3 Converse
4%
4 Adidas
3%
5 Sperry
3%
6 DSW
2%
7 Steve Madden
1%
8 Foot Locker
1%
9 UGG
1% 10 TOMS
% Rank
Fall 2016
48% 1 Nike
10% 2 Vans
7% 3 Converse
4% 4 Adidas
3% 5 Steve Madden
3% 6 Sperry
3% 7 DSW
2% 8 Birkenstock
1% 9 Foot Locker
1% 10 Nordstrom
%
51%
9%
7%
6%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
Steve Madden
decelerates in share
from 3% to 2% (No. 5
UI teens); share loss
more pronounced
with females (-300
bps).
PREFERRED FOOTWEAR BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2015
Nike
Vans
Converse
Sperry
Adidas
Steve Madden
Foot Locker
Payless ShoeSource
UGG
Three Brands Tied
% Rank
Fall 2015
46%
1 Nike
11%
2 Vans
7%
3 Converse
3%
4 Sperry
2%
5 Adidas
2%
6 Foot Locker
2%
7 Steve Madden
1%
8 Payless ShoeSource
1%
9 DSW
1% 10 Birkenstock
26 | Taking Stock With Teens
% Rank
Spring 2016
51%
1 Nike
10%
2 Vans
6%
3 Converse
3%
4 Adidas
2%
5 Sperry
2%
6 Foot Locker
1%
7 Steve Madden
1%
8 DSW
1%
9 Under Armour
1% 10 Journeys
Payless ShoeSource
UGG
% Rank
Fall 2016
54%
1 Nike
9%
2 Vans
6%
3 Converse
4%
4 Adidas
2%
5 Foot Locker
2%
6 Sperry
1%
7 Birkenstock
1%
8 Steve Madden
1%
9 Payless ShoeSource
1% 10 Under Armour
1%
1%
%
53%
9%
7%
5%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
Sperry moved down
from No. 4 to No. 6
among UI teens with
200 bps share
decline.
adidas Accelerates Into Holiday –
Upper-Income Females
6%
adidas now
represents over 5% of
upper-income female
teen footwear
preferences, up 470
bps Y/Y.
5%
adidas tracking above
its multi-year average
of 1.7%.
% Mindshare
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
Adidas UI Women's Footwear Mindshare
27 | Taking Stock With Teens
Adidas Multi-Year Average
adidas Accelerates Into Holiday –
Upper-Income Males
14%
adidas now
represents 6% of
upper-income male
teen footwear
preferences, up 300
bps Y/Y but flat
sequentially.
12%
adidas tracking above
its multi-year average
of 5.3%.
10%
% Mindshare
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Adidas UI Footwear Mindshare
28 | Taking Stock With Teens
Adidas Multi-Year Average
Major Handbag Brands
PREFERRED HANDBAG BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2015
Michael Kors
Coach
Kate Spade
Louis Vuitton
Vera Bradley
Tory Burch
Chanel
Target
Longchamp
Gucci
Marc Jacobs
% Rank
Fall 2015
39%
1 Michael Kors
14%
2 Kate Spade
10%
3 Coach
5%
4 Louis Vuitton
5%
5 Vera Bradley
4%
6 Tory Burch
2%
7 Gucci
2%
8 Longchamp
1%
9 Chanel
1%
10 Marc Jacobs
1%
% Rank
Spring 2016
31%
1 Michael Kors
15%
2 Kate Spade
10%
3 Coach
6%
4 Louis Vuitton
5%
5 Gucci
4%
6 Chanel
3%
7 Tory Burch
3%
8 Longchamp
2%
9 Vera Bradley
2%
10 Fossil
% Rank
Fall 2016
38%
1 Michael Kors
16%
2 Kate Spade
12%
3 Coach
4%
4 Louis Vuitton
4%
5 Longchamp
3%
Vera Bradley
3%
7 Chanel
2%
8 Gucci
2%
9 Tory Burch
2% 10 Fossil
%
34%
19%
10%
5%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
PREFERRED HANDBAG BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
Spring 2015
Michael Kors
Coach
Kate Spade
Louis Vuitton
Vera Bradley
Gucci
Chanel
Tory Burch
Fossil
Steve Madden
% Rank
Fall 2015
39%
1 Michael Kors
17%
2 Coach
6%
3 Kate Spade
4%
4 Vera Bradley
3%
5 Louis Vuitton
2%
6 Gucci
2%
7 Chanel
2%
8 Fossil
2%
9 Steve Madden
1% 10 Target
29 | Taking Stock With Teens
% Rank
Spring 2016
44%
1 Michael Kors
15%
2 Coach
6%
3 Kate Spade
5%
4 Vera Bradley
3%
5 Louis Vuitton
2%
6 Fossil
2%
7 Gucci
1%
8 Chanel
1%
9 Tory Burch
1%
10 Steve Madden
Guess
% Rank
Fall 2016
49%
1 Michael Kors
12%
2 Coach
8%
3 Kate Spade
4%
4 Vera Bradley
3%
5 Gucci
2%
6 Louis Vuitton
2%
7 Chanel
2%
8 Fossil
1%
Target
1% 10 Betsey Johnson
1%
%
44%
13%
10%
5%
3%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
KORS No. 1 (34%
share UI; 44% AI);
KORS notably gained
share among UI teens
(up 240 bps Y/Y).
KATE gains share
across both surveys,
up 470 bps among UI
teens and up 460 bps
among AI teens.
COH slightly up
among upper-income
teens, finishing at
10%, however AI
teens declined 200
bps finishing at 13%
(vs. 15% last fall). We
view upper-income as
a leading indicator
over average-income.
Handbag Intent Lower Among Teens
HANDBAG SPENDING INTENTIONS
All Customers: Intent To Spend On Handbag In Next Six Months
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
Spring 2015
Fall 2015
Spring 2016
43%
43%
45%
39%
42%
57%
57%
55%
61%
58%
Yes
No
Fall 2016
36%
64%
MAJOR BRANDS RANKINGS OVER TIME (UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
80%
Consolidated Mindshare
70%
60%
16%
19%
10%
50%
40%
10%
6%
15%
7%
9%
18%
26%
21%
30%
30%
39%
38%
31%
20%
38%
36%
10%
30%
26%
29%
18%
14%
10%
0%
Coach
30 | Taking Stock With Teens
Michael Kors
34%
Kate Spade
Tory Burch
Marc Jacobs
12%
10%
Intent to spend within
the fashion accessory
space had a notable
decline of 480 bps
Y/Y, correlating to
intent to spend within
handbags, which
declined 260 bps to
36% (vs. 39% last
fall).
The major accessible
luxury handbag
brands as a group
reaccelerated from
fall: KORS, KATE,
TORY, COH, MARC at
66% overall handbag
vote up from 62% in
fall, though down
sequentially from last
spring at 69%.
Watch Category Remains Out Of Favor
Among Teens
WATCH PURCHASE INTENT (UPPER-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Yes
No
Spring 2015
28%
72%
Fall 2015
30%
70%
Spring 2016
34%
67%
Michael Kors was the
No. 2 watch—
declined 120 bps in
share from Fall 2015.
Fossil declined one
rank to No. 5 brand
from No. 4 one year
ago.
Fall 2016
29%
71%
PREFERRED WATCH BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2015
Rolex
Michael Kors
Casio
Fossil
Nike
Apple
Nixon
Swatch
Timex
Gucci
Kate Spade
% Rank
Fall 2015
31%
1 Rolex
24%
2 Michael Kors
8%
3 Casio
7%
4 Fossil
4%
5 Apple
3%
6 Nike
1%
7 Nixon
1%
8 Gucci
1%
9 Timex
1% 10 Swatch
1%
31 | Taking Stock With Teens
% Rank
Spring 2016
34%
1 Rolex
19%
2 Michael Kors
7%
3 Fossil
5%
4 Casio
5%
5 Apple
4%
6 Nixon
4%
7 Nike
2%
8 Invicta
2%
9 Kate Spade
1% 10 Citizen
Gucci
% Rank
Fall 2016
29%
1 Rolex
22%
2 Michael Kors
8%
3 Apple
6%
Casio
5%
5 Fossil
3%
6 Nixon
3%
7 Nike
1%
8 Timex
1%
9 Fitbit
1% 10 Gucci
1%
Purchase intent
among upper-income
teens has declined
150 bps Y/Y.
%
37%
17%
5%
5%
5%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
Watch Preferences Migrating Towards
Wearable Technology
APPLE MINDSHARE OF WATCH CATEGORY (UPPER-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
6%
5.3%
4.8%
5%
4%
2.7%
3%
2%
5.4%
Smartwatches
continued to infuse
the watch category
mindshare. Apple
represented 5.4% of
overall mindshare vs.
4.8% last fall. Rank
for Apple has increase
from No. 5 to No. 3
Y/Y.
1.2%
1%
0%
Apple Share
32 | Taking Stock With Teens
For the first time Fitbit
has entered the top
10 mindshare rank for
the category, further
supporting the view of
the fitness band and
watch category
converging.
Fitbit Leads The Way With Wearables
MOST PREFERRED FITNESS BANDS (ALL TEENS)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2015
Fitbit
Nike
Apple
Garmin
Jawbone
Misfit
Adidas
Under Armour
Samsung
iFit
%
53%
24%
7%
5%
5%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2016
Fitbit
Nike
Apple
Garmin
Jawbone
Misfit
Under Armour
Samsung
Microsoft
iFit
%
72%
12%
6%
3%
3%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fall 2016
Fitbit
Nike
Apple
Garmin
Jawbone
Misfit
Samsung
Adidas
Polar
Movband
TomTom
%
71%
13%
6%
3%
3%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
21% of UI teens plan
to purchase a fitness
tracker in the next six
months up from 18%
of UI teens last Fall.
Fitness tracker’s
accelerates as UI
ownership rises to
28% female and 22%
male vs. 14% and
12% Fall 2015.
FITNESS BAND OWNERSHIP (UPPER‐INCOME, ALL TEENS)
30%
28.0%
Fitness Band Ownership (Male)
25%
Fitness Band Ownership (Female)
22.0%
20%
15%
18.0%
13.1% 13.2%
10%
33 | Taking Stock With Teens
13.6%
12.2%
22.1%
Fitbit No. 1 at 71% vs.
53% share last Fall.
In our Women’s
Survey this
September, Fitbit was
No. 1 with 73%.
Camcorder Category Unchanged
PERCENTAGE OF TEENS WHO OWN A CAMCORDER (ALL TEENS)
50%
44.7%
42.2%
38.8%
40%
36.2%
31.0%
30%
28.9%
28.3%
29.3%
Fall 2015
Spring 2016
Fall 2016
20%
10%
0%
Spring 2013
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
Spring 2015
PERCENTAGE OF TEENS WHOSE FAMILY OWNS A GOPRO (ALL TEENS)
30%
25.2%
19.8%
20%
17.2%
17.9%
Fall 2014
Spring 2015
21.1%
12.6%
10%
9.3%
0%
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
34 | Taking Stock With Teens
Fall 2015
Spring 2016
Fall 2016
Ownership of
camcorders appears
to be established in
the 28-29% range.
25% of teen families
owned a GoPro up
from 20% last year.
GoPro Demand Wanes In Unaided
“Wish List”
Wish list analysis
shows a continued
slide for GoPro as a
“hot” gifting item.
% OF TEENS WHO LISTED GOPRO AS ONE OF THEIR TOP TWO HOLIDAY GIFTS
1.6%
1.6%
$1,600
1.3%
1.4%
Wishlist % of Total
$1,800
GPRO Share
$1,400
GPRO Revenue
1.2%
$1,200
1.0%
0.9%
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
0.6%
$1,000
$800
0.6%
$600
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
35 | Taking Stock With Teens
$400
$200
0.0%
$0
Trailing 12 Month Sales (Millions)
1.8%
0.6% of teens cited
GoPro on their “wish
lists” down from 1.0%
last fall, and 0.9% in
Spring 2016.
The GoPro drone
made its initial debut
as a wish list item,
accounting for 4
entries in Fall 2016.
Beauty Category Highlights
BEAUTY WALLET SHARE REACHES ANOTHER PEAK
•
Beauty category at 11.3% of female wallet, up 200bps Y/Y and 80bps since Spring 2016.
COSMETICS SPEND CONTINUES TO RISE; MAIN DRIVER OF SPENDING INCREASES
•
Cosmetics spending inflected higher, up 25% over the past 10 years and 20% Y/Y.
•
Average annual spend per person now at $188 for cosmetics; $395 across all personal care categories.
BRAND DECONCENTRATION SIGNALING INCREASED COMPETITION
•
Top 10 brands have ceded nearly 7ppts of share Y/Y and 8ppts since Spring 2016.
•
Number of brands mentioned is declining; mid-tier brands gaining share as social media evens ad playing field.
SPECIALTY ENVIRONMENTS PREFERRED
•
Shift from legacy (drug, mass & dept stores) to specialty (multi-brand specialty & online) environments continues.
•
Reversal in preference occurred in Spring 2015 and has accelerated over the last 18 months.
•
Sephora & Ulta are top preferred destinations across all income levels; represent 79% of loyalty participation.
ENTHUSIASTS DERIVE INSPIRATION FROM BRANDS & BLOGGERS; THEY INFLUENCE THEIR FRIENDS
•
Top quintile of spenders cite online influencers as their primary beauty source.
•
Average beauty spenders cite friends as the leading influence.
•
Teens overwhelmingly prefer to shop for color cosmetics in store (90%) vs. online (10%).
36 | Taking Stock With Teens
Beauty Wallet Share and Cosmetics
Spend Higher than Ever
BEAUTY WALLET SHARE, UPPER-INCOME FEMALES
12.0%
11.3%
11.0%
10.5%
9.8%
9.3%
10.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.4%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
Cosmetics spending
is up 25% Y/Y and
10% since Spring.
AVERAGE ANNUAL SPEND, UPPER-INCOME FEMALES
Skin Care
$210
Cosmetics
Fragrance
$188
$190
$170
$150
Beauty wallet share
and cosmetics spend
reached the highest
value in our survey’s
history. Wallet share
among upper-income
females reached
11.3% while spending
in the beauty category
increased 20% Y/Y
and 13% since Spring
2016.
$141
Skincare spending is
up 20% Y/Y and 24%
since Spring.
$130
$110
$90
$66
$70
37 | Taking Stock With Teens
Fall-16
Fall-15
Spring-16
Spring-15
Fall-14
Spring-14
Fall-13
Fall-12
Spring-13
Spring-12
Fall-11
Spring-11
Fall-10
Fall-09
Spring-10
Spring-09
Fall-08
Spring-08
Fall-07
Spring-07
Fall-06
$50
Fragrance spending is
up 8% Y/Y and down
1% since Spring.
Beauty is a Fashion Accessory;
Intent to Spend Strengthening
BEAUTY VS. FASHION SPENDING
Fashion Spending Y/Y Change
Beauty Spending Y/Y Change
Post Recession Correl = 0.6
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
Beauty spend was
more tightly
correlated to the
fashion cycle prerecession; ties have
weakened as beauty
spending has
remained robust while
fashion spending has
contracted.
-20%
Fall 2016
Spring 2016
Fall 2015
Fall 2014
Spring 2015
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2012
Spring 2012
Fall 2011
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2009
Fall 2008
Spring 2008
Fall 2007
-30%
INTENT TO SPEND MORE VS. LESS ON BEAUTY
25%
20%
Average = 17%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2006
2007
38 | Taking Stock With Teens
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Intent to spend
remains very high;
intent to spend
“more” exceeds “less”
by over 20ppts.
Cosmetics Spend Highly Related to
Social Media Engagement
AVERAGE ANNUAL SPEND VS. TIME ON SOCIAL MEDIA
(UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Cosmetics
Skin Care
Fragrance
Social Media >10 hrs/wk
$190
60%
$170
Annual Spend
50%
$150
40%
$130
30%
$110
20%
$90
10%
$70
0%
$50
Fall-13
Spring-14
39 | Taking Stock With Teens
Fall-14
Spring-15
Fall-15
Spring-16
Fall-16
% of UI Females that Spend > 10 hrs/wk on Social Media
70%
$210
Color cosmetics
spending over the
past several years has
been highly related to
social media
engagement. As teens
spend more time on
social media, they
tend to spend more
on cosmetics.
Skin care and
fragrance, less visible
on digital mediums,
are less correlated.
Brand Shakeups: MAC a Donor; Indie
Brands Rise
PREFERRED COSMETICS BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2015
MAC
Maybelline
Urban Decay
CoverGirl
Bare Escentuals
Sephora
Benefit
L'Oreal
Clinique
NARS
%
16%
12%
10%
9%
6%
5%
5%
3%
3%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2016
MAC
Maybelline
Urban Decay
Sephora
CoverGirl
Bare Escentuals
Benefit
L'Oreal
Too Faced
Anastasia
%
17%
12%
11%
7%
7%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2016
MAC
Maybelline
Urban Decay
CoverGirl
Too Faced
Sephora
Clinique
L'Oreal
Benefit
Tarte
%
12%
9%
9%
8%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
PREFERRED COSMETICS BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2015
MAC
CoverGirl
Maybelline
Urban Decay
Sephora
Bare Escentuals
L'Oreal
Mary Kay
Name Withheld
Clinique
40 | Taking Stock With Teens
%
19%
12%
12%
9%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2016
MAC
CoverGirl
Urban Decay
Maybelline
Sephora
Bare Escentuals
Name Withheld
Clinique
L'Oreal
Too Faced
%
19%
11%
11%
11%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2016
MAC
CoverGirl
Maybelline
Urban Decay
Too Faced
Name Withheld
Sephora
NYX
Anastasia
Bare Escentuals
%
15%
9%
9%
7%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
MAC is the biggest
decliner on a Y/Y and
sequential basis –
declining 400-500bps
for all females.
The usual top-ranked
names were mostly
donors of share while
artisanal brands –
both prestige and
mass – ranked higher
this iteration.
Overall concentration
in top 10 declined –
social media is
evening the playing
field for brand
awareness.
Mass Brands Remain On Top For
Skincare
PREFERRED SKINCARE BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
Fall 2015
Neutrogena
Clean & Clear
Proactiv
Clinique
Cetaphil
Aveeno
Bare Escentuals
Lush
Clearasil
Mary-Kay
Sephora
%
32%
10%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Spring 2016
Neutrogena
Clean & Clear
Clinique
Proactiv
Cetaphil
Aveeno
Bare Escentuals
LUSH
MAC
Burt's Bees
%
31%
8%
7%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2016
Neutrogena
Clean & Clear
Clinique
Proactiv
Cetaphil
Aveeno
Clearasil
Biore
LUSH
Mary Kay
%
31%
9%
7%
7%
5%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
PREFERRED SKINCARE BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
Fall 2015
Neutrogena
Clean & Clear
Proactiv
Clinique
Mary-Kay
Clearasil
CoverGirl
Cetaphil
Aveeno
MAC
41 | Taking Stock With Teens
%
24%
12%
8%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Spring 2016
Neutrogena
Clean & Clear
Proactiv
Clinique
MAC
Aveeno
Mary Kay
Cetaphil
Clearasil
CoverGirl
%
22%
10%
9%
5%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2016
Neutrogena
Clean & Clear
Proactiv
Clinique
Cetaphil
Aveeno
Biore
Clearasil
Mary Kay
Dove
%
24%
10%
9%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Mass brands remain
top-of-mind, but
specialty retail
destinations are
gaining share.
Lack of innovation
continues to weigh on
the prestige skincare
industry.
Channel Shift Persists, Specialty
Gains
Specialty formats
continue to outpace
legacy channels.
SHOPPING CHANNEL PREFERENCES
(UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Specialty
70%
Mass, Dept & Drug Stores
65%
60%
54%
50%
40%
30%
32%
Channel
Reversal:
Specialty stores
outpace legacy
formats
20%
10%
26%
0%
Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Fall 2016
42 | Taking Stock With Teens
Stock Highlights: Beauty Category
Analyst: Steph Wissink
ULTA (+): DISCOVERY FORMAT GROWTH PERSISTS; TEENS OVERWHELMINGLY PREFER TO PURCHASE
COSMETICS IN-STORE
Ulta ranked No. 2 among preferred beauty shopping destinations for upper-income females, growing share by 1% Y/Y and
declining slightly since spring. Ulta achieved the top spot for average-income female shoppers, gaining +2% share vs. the
Spring, and +6% Y/Y.
Average-income teen girls favored Ulta at 29% of the vote vs. 20% among upper-income teen girls, implying a much wider
reach vs. peers and recognizing the mass and prestige balance in the brand portfolio.
Spend in specialty beauty formats (65%) continues to exceed all other channels combined according to our survey.
90% of beauty enthusiasts and average-income females prefer to buy color cosmetics in store vs. online. Upper-income
females have an even greater preference (92%) to purchase products in-store.
EL (-): COSMETIC BRANDS DONATE SHARE, LED BY MAC
MAC remains the No. 1 preferred brand cited by both upper- and average- income females but declined 400+bps Y/Y and
500bps sequentially since Spring. MAC had a more significant sequential drop for beauty enthusiasts (top quintile of beauty
spenders).
Clinique remains a top 5 brand for skincare, gaining 2% share Y/Y among upper-income, and maintaining share vs. spring.
EL’s brands overall ceded 200bps of share Y/Y and sequentially since spring. As the artisanal makeup brand space becomes
more competitive, the company’s legacy brands are less able to rely on traditional marketing and promotional tactics to gain
share. The millennial-focused Estee Edit line, launched in March, did not appear within our survey.
COTY (-): BRAND RANKINGS DECLINE; COMPETITION IS INCREASING
Coty’s largest color cosmetics brand, CoverGirl, ceded 300bps of share Y/Y for average-income and 200bps vs. spring.
Competition from artisanal prestige and masstige brands is intensifying; share in legacy brands is declining.
43 | Taking Stock With Teens
When It Comes to Teeth Straightening,
Teens Want Convenience
ASSUMING THAT CLEAR ALIGNERS WORK AS WELL AS TRADITIONAL
BRACKETS AND WIRES, WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD MAKE YOU
WANT TO USE THEM RATHER THAN BRACKETS AND WIRES (BRACES)?
50%
45%
40%
Ability to straighten teeth faster
35%
30%
Less pain
25%
Convenience (can take out to eat and
brush teeth)
20%
Cool designs (like emojis or different
colors)
15%
Fewer visits to the orthodontist
Consistent across all
income ranges, teens
want faster
treatment times–
more so for wealthier
teens.
Less pain the better.
Clear aligners rely on
constant gentle
pressure, whereas
braces apply brute
force to move teeth
(rubber bands,
tightening of wires,
etc.).
10%
5%
0%
0‐40k
40‐60k
60‐80k
44 | Taking Stock With Teens
80‐100k
100‐120k
120k+
Higher the household
income, the more
value teens place on
convenience.
Wealthier Teens More Likely to Wear
Clear Aligners to Straighten Teeth
Overall market
penetration remains
low, with 63% of all
teens saying that 1-2
out of 10 friends used
cleared aligners.
OUT OF TEN PEOPLE THAT YOU KNOW THAT HAD THEIR TEETH
STRAIGHTENED, HOW MANY OF THEM USED CLEAR ALIGNERS?
70%
60%
50%
1‐2
40%
3‐4
5‐6
30%
7‐8
9‐10
20%
10%
0%
0‐40k
40‐60k
45 | Taking Stock With Teens
60‐80k
80‐100k
100‐120k
120k+
Wealthier teens are
more likely to wear
clear aligners – 37%
teens with a HHI of
$100K+ had 3-6
friends use clear
aligners. By
comparison, 29%
teens with a HHI
<$60k had 3-6 friends
use clear aligners.
Stock Highlights: Orthopedics, Dental, and Vision Care
Analyst: Matt O’Brien
ALGN (+): ALIGN FOCUSED ON SHORTENING TREATMENT TIMES—A KEY FOCUS AMONG TEENS
At Align’s recent analyst day in June, it mentioned for the first time an emphasis on speeding up treatment times. There are a
number of ways treatment can be shortened:
a)
Accelerators – there are a number of mouth piece accelerators on the market today that vibrate the tooth/root,
loosening them to allow braces or clear aligners to move teeth more easily.
b)
Another solution ALGN is tinkering with is reducing the wear time per tray. Historically, patients were required to
wear each tray for 2 weeks. Now, some orthodontists have reduced the wear time by 1 week and have seen quality
results.
1.
With 26% of teens focused on pain reduction, this is an important metric for clear aligners in general since they are
relatively painless. Clear aligners apply constant gentle pressure to move teeth, whereas braces apply brute force to move
teeth (rubber bands, tightening wires, etc.).
2.
On the negative side, ALGN has kicked around the idea of introducing aligners with “cool designs.” Based on the survey
results, we do not think this will be a successful launch to further penetrate the teen market.
Potential Catalyst
1. ALGN presents data stating that 1 week wear times result in equivalent results compared to traditional braces AND 2 week
wear times.
2. While acquiring a Accelerator technology would not be an immediate positive financially, it would indicate that the
technology is legitimate and that a market exists. Meaning that patients would pay up for faster therapy times.
46 | Taking Stock With Teens
Restaurants
Food
23% of Teen Spending
Restaurant Spending Trends
Restaurants have
steadily grown in
importance within the
broader teen wallet.
15.0%
20.0%
10.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Food
48 | Taking Stock With Teens
2009
2010
Clothing
2012
Delta
2014
Fall
Fall
2015
Spring
Spring
Fall
Fall
2013
Spring
Spring
Fall
Fall
2011
Spring
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
(15.0%)
Fall
30.0%
Spring
(10.0%)
Fall
20.0%
Spring
(5.0%)
Fall
10.0%
Spring
|
Clothing Spend
30.0%
2016
Net Food Spend
Food Spend
FOOD VS. CLOTHING SPEND
During the most
recent survey,
restaurants
represented 23% of
overall spending for
upper-income teens.
In addition to
increasing share of
the overall budget
restaurant spending
continues to outpace
spending on clothing.
Restaurant Spending Trends
In addition to increasing
both absolute and
relative dollars at
restaurants teens are
showing an increasing
preference for limited
service restaurants
relative to full service
brands.
PREFERENCE FOR LIMITED SERVICE BRANDS
100%
90%
80%
70%
57%
56%
52%
50%
48%
46%
46%
43%
40%
41%
38%
39%
38%
40%
36%
59%
Full Service
60%
50%
Limited
Service
40%
30%
20%
43%
44%
Spring
Fall
48%
50%
52%
54%
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
54%
Fall
57%
60%
59%
62%
61%
62%
60%
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
64%
41%
10%
0%
2009
Spring
2010
49 | Taking Stock With Teens
2011
2012
Spring
2013
2014
2015
Fall
2016
This is the continuation
of a longer-term trend
we have observed going
back to Spring 2009, at
least, when teen brand
preferences were
primarily focused
around full service
brands.
Restaurant Spending Trends
PREFERRED BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME)
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2016
Fall
Estimated Average Check By
Preferred Brand
1
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
Chipotle
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
Chipotle
Starbucks
2
Chipotle
Chipotle
Chipotle
Starbucks
Chipotle
Chipotle
Chipotle
Chipotle
Chipotle
Chipotle
Chipotle
Chipotle
Starbucks
Chipotle
3
Chick-fil-A
Chick-fil-A
Chick-fil-A
Chick-fil-A
Chick-fil-A
Chick-fil-A
McDonald's
Panera
McDonald's
McDonald's
McDonald's
McDonald's
McDonald's
Olive Garden
4
Taco Bell
Panera
McDonald's
Panera
McDonald's
McDonald's
Chick-fil-A
Chick-fil-A
Olive Garden
Olive Garden
Olive Garden
Olive Garden
Olive Garden
T.G.I. Friday's
5
McDonald's
McDonald's
Panera
Olive Garden
Dunkin Donuts
Panera
Panera
McDonald's
Chick-fil-A
Chick-fil-A
Dunkin Donuts
Chick-fil-A
Chili's
Chili's
Starbucks
$5.12
Chipotle
$11.34
Chick-fil-A
~$6.00
Taco Bell
$5.98
McDonald's
$5.82
PREFERRED BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME)
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2016
Fall
Estimated Average Check By
Preferred Brand
1
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
Starbucks
McDonalds
Starbucks
2
Chick-fil-A
McDonald's
McDonald's
McDonald's
McDonald's
McDonald's
McDonald's
McDonald's
McDonald's
McDonald's
McDonald's
McDonald's
Starbucks
Olive Garden
3
McDonald's
Chick-fil-A
Chipotle
Chipotle
Chipotle
Chipotle
Olive Garden
Olive Garden
Olive Garden
Olive Garden
Olive Garden
Olive Garden
Olive Garden
McDonald's
4
Olive Garden
Olive Garden
Chick-fil-A
Chick-fil-A
Chick-fil-A
Olive Garden
Taco Bell
Taco Bell
Red Lobster
Taco Bell
Taco Bell
Taco Bell
Taco Bell
Applebee's
5
Chipotle
Buffalo Wild Wings
Olive Garden
Olive Garden
Taco Bell
Taco Bell
Chipotle
Buffalo Wild Wings
Taco Bell
Red Lobster
Applebee's
Applebee's
Apple Bee's
Chili's
Starbucks
$5.12
Chick-fil-A
~$6.00
McDonald's
$5.82
Olive Garden
$17.00
Chipotle
$11.34
50 | Taking Stock With Teens
In the current “Pay For
Performance” stage of
the cycle we view a
brand’s recipe for
success as equal parts
human capital, brand
equity, prudent growth,
and capitalizing on
strategic opportunities.
Over time, this should
lend itself to self-funded
development,
consistency in
earnings/cash flow,
and/or excess capital to
deploy back to
shareholders via share
repurchase and/or
dividends.
Stock Highlights: Restaurants
Analyst: Nicole Miller Regan
SBUX (+): REMAINS MOST PREFERRED BRAND AMONG ALL TEENS
Brand equity matters. Starbucks maintains its position as the most preferred brand among both upper and average income
teens across all geographies.
We remain confident in our long-term thesis based around proven global brand equity and an accelerating asset-light
growth model, both of which generate strong cash flow in support of continued reinvestment into the business and an
ongoing commitment to capital allocation.
CMG (=/+): SURVEY SUGGESTS EVIDENCE OF MODEST BRAND IMPROVEMENT
Chipotle remained the second most preferred brand among upper income teens and tied for top four among average
income teens (vs. tied for number five in Spring 2016 survey). Although subtle we note the relative improvement and believe
that the sequential move could suggest that trends are broadly mirroring the brand’s efforts to drive traffic and awareness.
At the cuisine level, the company remained the overwhelmingly most preferred brand within the Hispanic cuisine category
with the results being at relatively similar preference (or % mindshare) sequentially among both upper and average income
teens but still below prior year periods.
We reiterate our bull positioning grounded by when (not if) improvement occurs the company has ability to leverage strong
ULES, a healthy long-term unit growth pipeline, and its human capital investments.
MCD (=/-): SURVEY SUGGESTS BRAND FACING COMPETITIVE INTRUSION AMONG AVERAGE INCOME TEENS
Although McDonald’s showed steady mind share levels among upper income teens, survey results suggests continued
competitive intrusion from Chick-fil-A (specifically among average income teens) could be impacting the brand’s relative
mind share. McDonald’s brand results remain generally strong (in the top three range) while Chick-Fil-A has continued its
steady march higher.
McDonald’s overwhelming lead as the most preferred hamburger brand was maintained in the latest survey cycle. That
said, we note that brand preference remains below peak levels seen in prior survey periods, but we believe operational,
culinary, and technology initiatives position McDonald’s for continued improvement over the next several years.
51 | Taking Stock With Teens
Media & Devices
Music, Video Games, Mobile & Entertainment
26% of Teen Spending
Amazon Mindshare Gains Continue
PREFERRED WEBSITES (UPPER-INCOME)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2015
Amazon
Nike
Forever 21
eBay
Victoria's Secret
American Eagle
Urban Outfitters
Eastbay
Brandy Melville
Wanelo
% Rank
Fall 2015
36%
1 Amazon
8%
2 Nike
5%
3 eBay
5%
4 Forever 21
3%
5 Urban Outfitters
2%
6 American Eagle
2%
7 Eastbay
1%
8 Victoria's Secret
1%
9 Nordstrom
1%
10 PacSun
% Rank
Spring 2016
38%
1 Amazon
8%
2 Nike
4%
3 Forever 21
3%
4 eBay
3%
5 American Eagle
2%
Victoria's Secret
2%
7 Urban Outfitters
2%
8 Eastbay
2%
9 Dick's Sporting Goods
1% 10 PacSun
% Rank
Fall 2016
41%
1 Amazon
5%
2 Nike
5%
3 American Eagle
3%
4 eBay
3%
5 Forever 21
3%
6 Urban Outfitters
3%
7 Nordstrom
2%
8 Victoria's Secret
1%
9 Hollister
1%
PacSun
%
40%
8%
4%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
PREFERRED WEBSITES BY GENDER (UPPER-INCOME)
Females
Rank
Spring 2015
1 Amazon
2 Forever 21
3 Victoria's Secret
4 eBay
5 American Eagle
6 Urban Outfitters
7 Brandy Melville
8 Wanelo
9 Charlotte Russe
10 Nordstrom
% Rank
Fall 2015
23%
1 Amazon
11%
2 Forever 21
8%
3 Urban Outfitters
4%
4 American Eagle
4%
5 Victoria's Secret
3%
6 Nordstrom
3%
7 Brandy Melville
3%
8 Hollister
2%
9 Free People
2% 10 Nike
% Rank
Spring 2016
28%
1 Amazon
9%
2 Forever 21
6%
3 Victoria's Secret
5%
4 American Eagle
4%
5 Urban Outfitters
4%
6 Nike
3%
Sephora
3%
8 Hollister
3%
lululemon
2% 10 PacSun
% Rank
Fall 2016
29%
1 Amazon
11%
2 American Eagle
6%
3 Forever 21
5%
4 Urban Outfitters
5%
5 Victoria's Secret
2%
6 Nordstrom
2%
7 Brandy Melville
2%
8 Hollister
2%
9 Etsy
2% 10 Free People
%
27%
8%
6%
5%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Males
Rank
Spring 2015
1 Amazon
2 Nike
3 eBay
4 Eastbay
5 Steam
6 American Eagle
Dick's Sporting Goods
8 Foot Locker
9 Zappos
10 PacSun
Ralph Lauren
% Rank
Fall 2015
47%
1 Amazon
12%
2 Nike
5%
3 eBay
2%
4 Eastbay
2%
5 Dick's Sporting Goods
1%
6 Foot Locker
1%
7 PacSun
1%
8 Vineyard Vines
1%
9 Ralph Lauren
1% 10 Tilly's
1%
% Rank
Spring 2016
45%
1 Amazon
12%
2 Nike
6%
3 eBay
3%
4 Eastbay
2%
5 Dick's Sporting Goods
2%
6 Foot Locker
1%
7 Zumiez
1%
8 Supreme
1%
9 Ralph Lauren
1% 10 Three Sites Tied
% Rank
Fall 2016
50%
1 Amazon
7%
2 Nike
5%
3 eBay
3%
4 Vineyard Vines
2%
5 Zumiez
2%
6 Eastbay
2%
7 Adidas
1%
PacSun
1%
9 Foot Locker
1% 10 Ralph Lauren
Supreme
%
48%
12%
5%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
53 | Taking Stock With Teens
Amazon essentially
maintained mindshare
overall, which is in line
with our expectations.
Mindshare
concentration among
the top 5 preferred
eCommerce sites has
increased 7ppts over
the past two years.
eBay mindshare
unchanged, which is
incrementally positive
relative to previous
decline.
Profile of Prime Adoption
PRIME MEMBERSHIP PENETRATION BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME
80%
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
Spring 2015
Fall 2015
Spring 2016
Fall 2016
70%
60%
Our survey and other
past PJC consumer
surveys suggest that
there are 63M-66M
Prime households in
the United States.
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
$21K-$41K
$41K-$68K
$68K-$112K
$112K+
Total
PRIME MEMBERSHIP BY INCOME QUINTILE (000S)
70,000
$112K+
60,000
$68K-$112K
50,000
$41K-$68K
$21K-$41K
40,000
$0K-$21K
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Spring
2013
Prime adoption has
increased across all
income brackets in
each of the past six
surveys.
Fall 2013
54 | Taking Stock With Teens
Spring
2014
Fall 2014
Spring
2015
Fall 2015
Spring
2016
Fall 2016
Oh Snap! FB Engagement Declines
Which social platform do you use at least once per month?
Spring 2015
Fall 2015
Spring 2016
Snapchat
68%
74%
75%
Instagram
73%
76%
74%
Twitter
57%
58%
58%
Facebook
47%
56%
60%
Pinterest
25%
25%
27%
Google+
14%
24%
23%
Fall 2016
80%
79%
56%
52%
25%
22%
What is your favorite social platform?
Spring 2015
Fall 2015
Snapchat
11%
17%
Instagram
29%
29%
Twitter
21%
18%
Facebook
12%
13%
Pinterest
2%
1%
Google+
1%
1%
Fall 2016
35%
24%
13%
13%
1%
1%
Spring 2016
24%
23%
16%
15%
1%
1%
Younger Teens Likely Drawing Down Aggregate
Facebook Number
90%
% using Platform
80%
70%
60%
50%
Facebook
40%
Twitter
30%
Instagram
20%
Snapchat
10%
0%
14
55 | Taking Stock With Teens
15
16
Age
17
18
Snapchat continues
to gain steam as most
engaged and
preferred social
platform.
Decline in Facebook
engagement; likely
due to mix of younger
teens, Messenger
divergence, and
shifting use cases for
social.
Instagram steps up
engagement; view
Instagram’s default
public model as
distinguished from
Snapchat, highly
defensible.
Teen iPhone Ownership Spikes
iPhone Ownership
90%
80%
70%
iPhone ownership of
74% is highest rating
ever with upside
remaining–79% of
teens say next phone
will be an iPhone.
60%
50%
40%
Own an iPhone
30%
Expect Next Phone An iPhone
20%
10%
0%
Apple Watch Intention
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
Own A Smartwatch
8%
Plan to buy Apple Watch
6%
4%
2%
0%
Fall-14
56 | Taking Stock With Teens
Spring-15
Fall-15
Spring-16
Fall-16
Apple Watch interest
remains modest with
11% of teens planning
on buying an Apple
Watch in the next 6
months vs. 10% in
Spring 2016.
Stock Highlights: Internet
Analyst: Gene Munster
AMZN (+): SURVEY SHOWS MAINTAINED MINDSHARE & INCREASING PRIME ADOPTION
Amazon maintained mindshare among teens vs. Spring 2016 and gained 200bps y/y; at 40% mindshare in the US, Amazon
outstripped our pre-2014 expectations of moderation in the low 30% range.
Prime adoption continues to be strong; survey implies 63M-66M U.S. households have Prime; if the 2nd, 3rd and 4th income
quintiles adopt Prime to the extent that upper income has, it would add ~20% to Prime membership in the United States.
The next leg of the Amazon story will likely be further penetration of member retail consumption.
EBAY (=): MAINTAINING MINDSHARE AN INCREMENTAL POSITIVE
eBay saw stabilized mindshare at 3.5%, which is positive vs. the decline from 8% in Fall 2013. We remain Neutral as
EBAY’s current valuation (9x ’18E EBITDA) fairly represents the company’s low-growth outlook, in our view.
FB (+): ENGAGEMENT DECLINE LARGELY EXPECTED; SNAPCHAT AND INSTAGRAM CO-EXISTING
Facebook saw declines in the percent of teens indicating they use the platform, which is likely the result of 1) declining
engagement as new social platforms shift user behavior, 2) younger teens (less engaged) replacing older teens (more
engaged) in survey population, and 3) shifting use case towards Messenger may actually be creating two separate social
networks in teens’ minds. Decline in Facebook engagement is largely baked into buyside expectations. Instagram growing
despite Snapchat popularity – difference between default public (Instagram) and default private (Snapchat) proving to be a
defensive moat
AAPL (+): TEENS CONTINUE TO INCREASE IPHONE OWNERSHIP
Apple continued to grow smartphone share among teens with 74% of teens owning an iPhone vs 69% in Spring-16. We
note this is the biggest survey/survey increase in iPhone ownership since the Fall-14 survey as the iPhone 6 launched. We
view the survey as a positive data point on iPhone 7 demand despite there being less overall fanfare around the launch
compared to the iPhone 6.
57 | Taking Stock With Teens
Console Video Game Takeaways
DO YOU ALREADY OWN OR EXPECT YOUR HOUSEHOLD TO BUY THE PS4
OR XBOX ONE IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS?
58 | Taking Stock With Teens
76% of respondents
anticipate buying a
next-gen console or
already own one,
compared to 78% in
Spring 2016. New
console ownership up
to 54% vs 52% in
spring.
Console Video Game Takeaways
HOW MUCH ARE TEENS SPENDING ANNUALLY ON VIDEO GAMES?
$191 ‐ Expected Video Game Spend in 2016
12% ‐ Budget Spent On Video Games in 2016
$250
14%
12%
$200
10%
Teen expected spend
on video games
dipped slightly to
$191 for Fall 2016
after reaching a new
high of $214 in Spring
2016, but remains at
elevated levels.
$150
8%
6%
$100
4%
$50
2%
$0
Video Game Spend
Fall 2016
Spring 2016
Fall 2015
Spring 2015
Fall 2014
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2012
Spring 2012
Fall 2011
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2009
Fall 2008
Spring 2008
Fall 2007
Spring 2007
Fall 2006
Spring 2006
Fall 2005
Spring 2005
0%
Video Game Spend Allocation
CIRCLE OF LIFE: REQUIRED ITEMS FOR SURVIVAL OF MALE TEENS
59 | Taking Stock With Teens
Only food (20%) and
clothing (16%)
exceed male teen
spending on video
games (12%).
Teen Mobile Game Trends Stable
77% play games on
smartphone or tablet,
compared with 81%
in the spring.
DO YOU PLAY GAMES ON YOUR MOBILE PHONE OR TABLET?
% of
Students
% of
Students
Spring
2013
Fall 2013
% of
Students
Spring
2014
% of
% of
% of
Students
Students
% of
% of
Students Spring Students Spring Students
2016
Fall 2016
2015
Fall 2015
Fall 2014
Yes
83%
81%
85%
80%
81%
79%
81%
77%
No
17%
19%
15%
20%
19%
21%
19%
23%
WHEN PLAYING GAMES ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICE, DO YOU BUY VIRTUAL GOODS
LIKE ENERGY, COINS OR EXTRA LEVELS?
% of
Students
% of
Spring
Students
2013
Fall 2013
% of
Students
Spring
2014
% of
% of
% of
Students
% of
Students
% of
Students Spring Students Spring Students
Fall 2014
2015
Fall 2015
2016
Fall 2016
Yes
16%
18%
18%
22%
21%
24%
26%
24%
No
84%
82%
82%
78%
79%
76%
74%
76%
60 | Taking Stock With Teens
24% of teens who
play mobile games
spend money in game
(vs. 26% in the
spring).
Stock Highlights: Video Games & Digital Media
Analyst: Mike Olson
CONSOLE VIDEO GAMES
ATVI(+), EA(+), TTWO(+): SURVEY POINTS TO FASTER UPTAKE OF NEXT-GEN CONSOLES COMPARED TO PRIOR
CYCLE, TIME SPENT PLAYING VIDEO GAMES STABLE
Video game publishers (ATVI, EA, TTWO) will be beneficiaries of a faster uptake of next-gen consoles with 76% of
respondents expecting to buy a PS4 or Xbox One within the next two years or already owning one. This compares to 78%
in our Spring survey and 73% in Fall of 2015.
GameStop
GME(+): SURVEY SHOWS THAT FULL GAME DOWNLOADS AREN’T REPLACING DISCS OVERNIGHT
40% of teens said they expect at least half of their video game purchases to be full-game downloads this year, flat from
40% in the Spring, but the percentage of teens (28%) that said they won't download any of their games (prefer to buy all
games on a disc) slightly increased (from 26% in Spring), suggesting the shift to digital full game downloads isn't
happening overnight.
MOBILE GAMES
GLUU(=/-) and ZNGA (=/-): SURVEY POINTS TO MODEST DECLINES IN MOBILE GAME INTEREST AND
WILLINGNESS TO SPEND ON FREE TO PLAY
Mobile gaming interest and willingness to spend in-game declined modestly from all-time highs recorded in Spring 2016.
We see these mobile gaming data points as a slight negative for GLUU (OW) and ZNGA (Neutral).
61 | Taking Stock With Teens
Video and Music Trends
TEEN DAILY VIDEO CONSUMPTION
TEEN MUSIC CONSUMPTION ACROSS PLATFORMS
62 | Taking Stock With Teens
Netflix and YouTube
continue to dominate
teens’ video
consumption with
YouTube surpassing
Cable TV for the first
time increasing to
26% as Cable TV
shrunk to 25%.
On-demand music
services like Spotify
continue to gain
market share among
teens (increased to
34% from 27%), as
more traditional
platforms and
Pandora continue to
lose share.
DIS Well Positioned In Next 12 Months
MOST ANTICIPATED FILMS IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS
63 | Taking Stock With Teens
Our survey points to
another solid 12
months for the Disney
Studio. Disney films
dominated the most
anticipated list with
Rogue One, Beauty
and the Beast, Pirates
of the Caribbean,
Thor and Doctor
Strange taking the No.
2, No. 3 and No. 4,
No. 6, No. 7 spots.
Stock Highlights: Media and Entertainment
Analyst: Stan Meyers
DIS (+): SURVEY POINTS TO ANOTHER SOLID 12-MONTH RUN FOR THE DISNEY STUDIO
Our survey points to another solid 12 months for the Disney Studio.
Disney films dominated the most anticipated list with Rogue One, Beauty and the Beast, Pirates of the Caribbean, Thor and
Doctor Strange taking the No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4, No. 6, No. 7 spots in the survey.
LGF (+): LIONSGATE WELL-POSITIONED AMID CONTINUED VIDEO CONSUMPTION FRAGMENTATION
Viewership among teens continues to fragment creating more demand for content across traditional and emerging
platforms. Netflix and YouTube continue to dominate teens’ video consumption with YouTube surpassing Cable TV for the
first time (increasing to 26%), as Cable TV shrinks to 25%.
These trends bode well for Lionsgate, which produces high quality long-form content across all platforms.
P (-): TEENS CONTINUE TO PIVOT AWAY FROM PANDORA AND INTO ON-DEMAND MUSIC SERVICES
Pandora continues to lose teen mindshare as the go-to music platform, instead shifting to on-demand platforms such as
Spotify and Apple Music. Teens spent 15% of their time listening to Pandora – down from 18% in the spring. Other ondemand services like Spotify jumped to 34% from 27% in the spring and 21% a year ago.
We believe this trend is already built into the stock and see a great entry point ahead of its on-demand product launch.
64 | Taking Stock With Teens
Questions & Answers
SPEAKER
COVERAGE
Neely Tamminga
Multi-Brand Retail & Specialty Commerce
Erinn Murphy
Global Fashion & Lifestyle Brands
Stephanie Wissink
Household, Beauty & Children's Products
Matthew O’Brien
Medical Technology: Orthopedics, Dental & Vision Care
Nicole Miller Regan
Restaurants
Gene Munster
Internet
Michael Olson
Online Content
Stan Meyers
Media & Entertainment
65 | Taking Stock With Teens
Appendix
Project Framework & Key Demographics
ALL TEENS
Teens Surveyed
Gender - Female
Gender - Male
Average Age
Percentage Of Teens Part-Time Employed
Average Household Income
Fall 2016
10,000
45%
55%
16.0
34%
$68,800
Spring 2016
6,500
44%
56%
16.5
39%
$62,500
Fall 2015
9,400
44%
56%
16.0
36%
$68,000
Spring 2015
6,200
49%
51%
16.3
35%
$67,000
Fall 2014
7,200
47%
53%
16.0
35%
$73,000
Spring 2014
7,500
47%
53%
16.4
33%
$63,000
Fall 2013
8,650
47%
53%
16.2
35%
$67,000
Spring 2013
5,200
47%
53%
16.3
36%
$69,000
UPPER-INCOME TEEN SURVEY
Teens Surveyed - Upper Income
Gender - Female
Gender - Male
Average Age
Percentage Of Teens Part-Time Employed
Average Household Income
Fall 2016
2,800
41%
59%
15.8
31%
$109,000
Spring 2016
1,300
46%
54%
16.5
40%
$101,000
Fall 2015
2,700
41%
59%
15.9
33%
$107,000
Spring 2015
1,400
46%
54%
16.2
36%
$104,000
Fall 2014
2,200
46%
54%
16.1
36%
$109,000
Spring 2014
1,300
43%
57%
16.2
33%
$103,000
Fall 2013
2,400
44%
56%
16.1
34%
$105,000
Spring 2013
1,600
45%
55%
16.1
33%
$104,000
AVERAGE-INCOME TEEN SURVEY
Teens Surveyed - Average Income
Gender - Female
Gender - Male
Average Age
Percentage Of Teens Part-Time Employed
Average Household Income
Fall 2016
7,200
46%
54%
16.0
36%
$53,000
Spring 2016
5,200
44%
56%
16.4
39%
$53,000
Fall 2015
6,700
45%
55%
16.1
37%
$52,000
Spring 2015
4,800
49%
51%
16.4
34%
$56,000
Fall 2014
5,000
48%
52%
16.0
35%
$56,000
Spring 2014
6,200
48%
52%
16.4
33%
$55,000
Fall 2013
6,250
49%
51%
16.2
35%
$53,000
Spring 2013
3,600
47%
53%
16.5
38%
$54,000
60%
South, 45%
Midwest, 30%
Views On The Economy
West, 17%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Getting Better
Staying the Same
Getting Worse
0%
Northeast, 8%
67 | Taking Stock With Teens
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Spending by Category by Income Demographic
SPENDING BY CATEGORY (UPPER-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Spending by Category - All Teens
Video Games / Systems
Music / Movies (DVD/CD)
Electronics / Gadgets
Clothing
Accessories / Personal Care / Cosmetics
Shoes
Food
Concerts / Movies / Sporting Events
Car
Books / Magazines
Furniture / Room Accessories
Other
Total Fashion (Clothing, Access & Footwear)
Fall 2016
7%
5%
8%
21%
9%
8%
23%
6%
6%
1%
2%
4%
38%
Spring 2016 Fall 2015 Spring 2015 Fall 2014 Spring 2014 Fall 2013 Spring 2013
7%
7%
8%
7%
7%
7%
6%
5%
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
7%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
7%
8%
20%
20%
20%
21%
21%
21%
21%
10%
9%
10%
10%
9%
9%
10%
8%
9%
7%
8%
9%
9%
8%
22%
22%
23%
20%
21%
20%
18%
5%
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
9%
7%
8%
9%
9%
9%
8%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
38%
38%
36%
39%
38%
39%
40%
SPENDING BY CATEGORY (AVERAGE-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Spending by Category - All Teens
Video games / systems
Music / movies (DVD/CD)
Electronics / gadgets
Clothing
Accessories/personal care/cosmetics
Shoes
Food
Concerts/Movies/Sporting events
Car
Books/magazines
Furniture / room accessories
Other
Total Fashion (Clothing, Access & Footwear)
68 | Taking Stock With Teens
Fall 2016
8%
5%
8%
20%
11%
10%
21%
5%
8%
2%
2%
4%
40%
Spring 2016 Fall 2015 Spring 2015 Fall 2014 Spring 2014 Fall 2013 Spring 2013
8%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
7%
6%
7%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
18%
20%
20%
20%
21%
21%
20%
11%
10%
11%
10%
11%
11%
10%
9%
10%
9%
9%
10%
10%
8%
20%
19%
21%
17%
18%
16%
18%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
6%
9%
9%
8%
9%
9%
10%
10%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
38%
39%
40%
40%
41%
42%
39%
Aggregated Spending by Category
SPENDING BY CATEGORY (ALL TEENS)
Spending by Category - All Teens
Video Games / Systems
Music / Movies (DVD/CD)
Electronics / Gadgets
Clothing
Accessories / Personal Care / Cosmetics
Shoes
Food
Concerts / Movies / Sporting Events
Car
Books / Magazines
Furniture / Room Accessories
Other
Total Fashion (Clothing, Access & Footwear)
69 | Taking Stock With Teens
Fall 2016 Spring 2016 Fall 2015 Spring 2015 Fall 2014 Spring 2014 Fall 2013 Spring 2013
7%
8%
7%
8%
7%
7%
7%
6%
5%
6%
6%
6%
6%
7%
6%
7%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
7%
8%
20%
19%
20%
20%
21%
21%
21%
20%
10%
10%
10%
11%
10%
11%
10%
11%
9%
9%
9%
8%
9%
9%
10%
9%
21%
21%
20%
21%
18%
18%
17%
17%
5%
5%
6%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
8%
9%
9%
8%
9%
9%
10%
10%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
4%
3%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
40%
38%
39%
39%
40%
41%
41%
40%
Shopping Channel Preferences
TIME SPENT IN SHOPPING CHANNELS (UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Specialty
Major Chain / Dept Store / Off Price
Discount
Outlet
Mail Order
Online Only E-Tailers
Fall 2016
33%
28%
13%
11%
6%
9%
Spring 2016 Fall 2015 Spring 2015
31%
33%
30%
29%
31%
33%
14%
13%
13%
11%
10%
11%
6%
6%
6%
9%
8%
9%
Fall 2014
32%
31%
13%
11%
5%
7%
Spring 2014 Fall 2013 Spring 2013
33%
31%
33%
29%
32%
20%
14%
13%
17%
11%
12%
14%
6%
6%
4%
8%
7%
13%
TIME SPENT IN SHOPPING CHANNELS (UPPER-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Specialty
Major Chain / Dept Store / Off Price
Discount
Outlet
Mail Order
Online Only E-Tailers
70 | Taking Stock With Teens
Fall 2016
26%
27%
12%
15%
6%
15%
Spring 2016 Fall 2015 Spring 2015
27%
27%
26%
29%
29%
31%
13%
12%
12%
12%
13%
12%
6%
6%
6%
14%
14%
13%
Fall 2014
27%
30%
13%
13%
6%
11%
Spring 2014 Fall 2013 Spring 2013
27%
27%
26%
28%
30%
20%
13%
12%
15%
13%
14%
15%
7%
6%
4%
13%
10%
18%
Off-Price Ticks Down Among Teens
IS IT POPULAR TO SHOP AT OFF-PRICE STORES? (UPPER-INCOME, YES)
80%
Female
Male
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Spring 2013 Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Fall 2016
IF YOU SHOP AT OFF-PRICE STORES, DO YOU PREFER OFF-PRICE (UPPER-INCOME, YES)
80%
Female
Male
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Spring 2013 Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Fall 2016
71 | Taking Stock With Teens
Top Fashion Trends Right Now
TOP FASHION TRENDS RIGHT NOW (UPPER-INCOME, MALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Spring 2015
Nike/Jordans
Jogger Pants
Ralph Lauren
Preppy
Vineyard Vines
Khakis/Chinos
Athletic Wear
Timberland
Boat Shoes
Tall Socks
% Rank
Fall 2015
17% 1 Nike/Jordans
10% 2 Preppy
9%
Ralph Lauren
8% 4 Vineyard Vines
7% 5 Jogger Pants
5% 6 Boat Shoes
4%
Khakis/Chinos
4% 8 Athletic Wear
3% 9 Tall Socks
3% 10 Shoes
% Rank
Spring 2016
18% 1 Nike/Jordans
8% 2 Jogger Pants
8% 3 Ralph Lauren
8% 4 Preppy
7% 5 Athletic Wear
5% 6 Hair / Man Buns
5%
Khakis/Chinos
4% 8 Vineyard Vines
4% 9 Boat Shoes
3% 10 Tall Socks
% Rank
Fall 2016
20% 1 Nike/Jordans
12% 2 Jogger Pants
6% 3 Vineyard Vines
6% 4 Athletic Wear
5% 5 Khakis/Chinos
5% 6 Preppy
5% 7 Ralph Lauren
4% 8 Tall Socks
3% 9 Boat Shoes
2% 10 Adidas
%
19%
8%
7%
6%
6%
6%
4%
4%
3%
2%
TOP FASHION TRENDS RIGHT NOW (UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Spring 2015
% Rank
Fall 2015
Leggings/lululemon
33% 1 Leggings/lululemon
Victoria's Secret
5% 2 Nike
Boots
4% 3 Birkenstock
UGG Australia
4% 4 Converse
Nike
4% 5 Victoria's Secret
Crop Tops
3% 6 Crop Tops
Converse
2% 7 Short Shorts
High-Waist Pants/Skirts
2% 8 Rompers
Birkenstock
2%
Vineyard Vines
Dresses
2% 10 Dresses
72 | Taking Stock With Teens
% Rank
Spring 2016
24% 1 Leggings/lululemon
5% 2 Victoria's Secret
5% 3 Converse
4% 4 Nike
4% 5 Boots
3% 6 Crop Tops
2% 7 Athletic Wear
2% 8 Jeans
2% 9 Michael Kors
2% 10 Adidas
% Rank
Fall 2016
23% 1 Leggings/lululemon
7% 2 Birkenstock
6% 3 Victoria's Secret
6% 4 Converse
3% 5 Ripped Jeans
3% 6 Jeans
2% 7 Adidas
2% 8 Bralettes
2% 9 Nike
2% 10 Chokers
%
25%
6%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Uptrending Brands
BRANDS STARTING TO WEAR (UPPER-INCOME, MALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Spring 2015
Nike
Ralph Lauren
Under Armour
Vineyard Vines
American Eagle
Adidas
Vans
Sperry Top-Sider
Express
Hollister
J. Crew
% Rank
Fall 2015
15%
1 Nike
9%
2 Ralph Lauren
6%
3 Adidas
5%
4 Vineyard Vines
4%
5 Under Armour
3%
6 American Eagle
3%
7 Vans
2%
8 H&M
2%
9 Tommy Hilfiger
2% 10 RVCA
2%
% Rank
Spring 2016
13%
1 Nike
11%
2 Ralph Lauren
6%
3 Adidas
6%
4 American Eagle
4%
5 Vineyard Vines
4%
6 Under Armour
3%
7 Vans
2%
8 Hollister
2%
9 New Balance
2% 10 Four Brands Tied
% Rank
Fall 2016
11%
1 Nike
10%
2 Ralph Lauren
7%
3 Adidas
4%
4 American Eagle
3%
5 Vineyard Vines
3%
6 Under Armour
3%
7 Vans
2%
8 H&M
2%
9 Lululemon
2% 10 Hollister
%
13%
10%
8%
5%
5%
5%
3%
2%
2%
2%
BRANDS STARTING TO WEAR (UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2015
lululemon
Nike
Victoria's Secret
Forever 21
H&M
American Eagle
Urban Outfitters
Free People
PacSun
Express
73 | Taking Stock With Teens
% Rank
Fall 2015
6% 1 Free People
6% 2 Brandy Melville
5% 3 lululemon
5% 4 Forever 21
5% 5 American Eagle
4% 6 PacSun
3% 7 Victoria's Secret
3% 8 Urban Outfitters
3% 9 Nike
3% 10 H&M
% Rank
Spring 2016
7% 1 American Eagle
5% 2 Nike
5% 3 Forever 21
4% 4 H&M
4% 5 Victoria's Secret
4% 6 Express
4% 7 Adidas
3%
Free People
3%
Hollister
3%
lululemon
% Rank
Fall 2016
7% 1 American Eagle
6% 2 Urban Outfitters
5% 3 Free People
4%
Nike
4% 5 lululemon
4% 6 Victoria's Secret
3% 7 Adidas
3% 8 PacSun
3% 9 Forever 21
3% 10 Brandy Melville
%
9%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
Downtrending Brands
BRANDS NO LONGER WORN (UPPER-INCOME, MALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
Spring 2015
Gap
Adidas
Abercrombie & Fitch
Aeropostale
Hollister
Nike
American Eagle
Under Armour
Reebok
DC Shoes
Puma
% Rank
Fall 2015
14%
1 Gap
10%
2 Adidas
8% 3 Abercrombie & Fitch
6% 4 Under Armour
5% 5 Nike
5% 6 Aeropostale
4% 7 Hollister
4% 8 Reebok
3% 9 Skechers
3% 10 Ralph Lauren
3%
% Rank
Spring 2016
13% 1 Gap
10% 2 Adidas
8% 3 Abercrombie & Fitch
6% 4 Nike
5% 5 Under Armour
4% 6 Hollister
4% 7 Reebok
4% 8 Aeropostale
4% 9 American Eagle
3% 10 Skechers
% Rank
Fall 2016
13% 1 Adidas
9% 2 Gap
7% 3 Under Armour
7% 4 Nike
6% 5 Reebok
5% 6 Skechers
5% 7 Puma
4% 8 Abercrombie & Fitch
4% 9 Hollister
3% 10 Aeropostale
%
10%
10%
7%
6%
6%
5%
5%
4%
4%
3%
BRANDS NO LONGER WORN (UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Spring 2015
Aeropostale
Abercrombie & Fitch
Justice
Hollister
Gap
Forever 21
Old Navy
American Eagle
dELiA*s
Miss Me Jeans
74 | Taking Stock With Teens
% Rank
Fall 2015
28%
1 Aeropostale
19%
2 Justice
14%
3 Abercrombie & Fitch
11%
4 Hollister
5% 5 Gap
2% 6 Old Navy
2% 7 American Eagle
2% 8 Forever 21
1% 9 dELiA*s
1% 10 Target
% Rank
Spring 2016
22% 1 Aeropostale
20% 2 Justice
18% 3 Abercrombie & Fitch
8% 4 Hollister
7% 5 Gap
2% 6 Old Navy
2% 7 Forever 21
2% 8 American Eagle
2% 9 Nike
1% 10 Target
% Rank
Fall 2016
26% 1 Justice
20% 2 Aeropostale
12% 3 Abercrombie & Fitch
9% 4 Hollister
5% 5 Gap
3% 6 Forever 21
2% 7 American Eagle
2%
Old Navy
2% 9 H&M
1%
Ralph Lauren
Victoria's Secret
%
29%
17%
12%
9%
4%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Top Clothing Brands Among Upper-Income
PREFERRED CLOTHING BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Spring 2015
Nike
Forever 21
American Eagle
Ralph Lauren
Victoria's Secret
Urban Outfitters
Hollister
Nordstrom
Free People
PacSun
% Rank
Fall 2015
24%
1 Nike
8%
2 Forever 21
6%
3 American Eagle
4%
4 Ralph Lauren
4%
5 Urban Outfitters
3%
6 PacSun
2%
7 Free People
2%
8 H&M
2%
9 Vineyard Vines
0.02 10 Nordstrom
% Rank
Spring 2016
27%
1 Nike
7%
2 American Eagle
6%
3 Forever 21
5%
4 Ralph Lauren
3%
5 Hollister
2%
6 PacSun
2%
7 Urban Outfitters
2%
Victoria's Secret
2%
9 H&M
2% 10 Adidas
% Rank
Fall 2016
21% 1 Nike
8% 2 American Eagle
7% 3 Forever 21
6% 4 Ralph Lauren
4% 5 Urban Outfitters
3% 6 H&M
3% 7 PacSun
3% 8 Adidas
3% 9 Vineyard Vines
2% 10 Victoria's Secret
%
29%
9%
5%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
PREFERRED CLOTHING BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2015
Forever 21
Victoria's Secret
American Eagle
Nike
Urban Outfitters
Nordstrom
Free People
Hollister
PacSun
Four Brands Tied
% Rank
Fall 2015
16% 1 Forever 21
7% 2 American Eagle
7% 3 Urban Outfitters
6% 4 Nike
5% 5 Free People
4% 6 Nordstrom
4% 7 Victoria's Secret
3% 8 PacSun
3% 9 lululemon
2% 10 Hollister
% Rank
Spring 2016
15% 1 Forever 21
10% 2 American Eagle
7% 3 Nike
6% 4 Victoria's Secret
6% 5 Urban Outfitters
4% 6 Hollister
4% 7 PacSun
4% 8 H&M
3% 9 Nordstrom
3% 10 Charlotte Russe
% Rank
Fall 2016
14% 1 American Eagle
11% 2 Forever 21
7% 3 Nike
6% 4 Urban Outfitters
5% 5 Victoria's Secret
5% 6 H&M
4% 7 PacSun
4% 8 lululemon
3% 9 Brandy Melville
2% 10 Free People
Nordstrom
%
17%
11%
7%
7%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
PREFERRED CLOTHING BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, MALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
75 | Taking Stock With Teens
Spring 2015
Nike
Ralph Lauren
American Eagle
Vineyard Vines
Vans
Adidas
Kohl's
J.Crew
Under Armour
Hollister
% Rank
Fall 2015
40% 1 Nike
7% 2 Ralph Lauren
4% 3 American Eagle
3% 4 Vineyard Vines
2% 5 Adidas
2% 6 H&M
2% 7 PacSun
2% 8 Abercrombie & Fitch
2% 9 Kohl's
2% 10 Hollister
Vans
% Rank
Spring 2016
42% 1 Nike
8% 2 Ralph Lauren
4% 3 American Eagle
3% 4 Adidas
2% 5 PacSun
2% 6 Hollister
2% 7 Abercrombie & Fitch
2% 8 Vans
1% 9 Supreme
1% 10 Vineyard Vines
1%
% Rank
Fall 2016
33% 1 Nike
10% 2 Ralph Lauren
5% 3 American Eagle
3% 4 Adidas
3% 5 Vineyard Vines
2% 6 H&M
2% 7 Vans
2% 8 Under Armour
2% 9 PacSun
2%
Hollister
%
44%
6%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
Top Clothing Brands Among Average-Income
PREFERRED CLOTHING BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2015
Nike
Forever 21
American Eagle
Ralph Lauren
Hollister
Victoria's Secret
PacSun
H&M
Kohl's
Three Brands Tied
% Rank
Fall 2015
19% 1 Nike
7% 2 American Eagle
7% 3 Forever 21
5% 4 Ralph Lauren
4% 5 Hollister
4% 6 Victoria's Secret
3% 7 PacSun
2% 8 H&M
2% 9 Hot Topic
10 Aeropostale
% Rank
Spring 2016
21%
1 Nike
8%
2 American Eagle
6%
3 Forever 21
5%
4 Ralph Lauren
4%
5 Victoria's Secret
4%
6 Hollister
2%
7 H&M
2%
8 Under Armour
2%
9 PacSun
2% 10 Aeropostale
% Rank
Fall 2016
23% 1 Nike
9% 2 American Eagle
5% 3 Forever 21
5% 4 Ralph Lauren
4% 5 Hollister
4% 6 Victoria's Secret
2% 7 H&M
2% 8 Adidas
2% 9 rue21
2% 10 PacSun
%
27%
8%
6%
5%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
PREFERRED CLOTHING BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2015
Forever 21
American Eagle
Victoria's Secret
Nike
Hollister
Charlotte Russe
Urban Outfitters
PacSun
H&M
rue21
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Spring 2015
% Rank
Fall 2015
14% 1 Forever 21
8% 2 American Eagle
8% 3 Victoria's Secret
6% 4 Nike
5% 5 Hollister
4% 6 PacSun
3% 7 rue21
3% 8 H&M
3% 9 Hot Topic
2% 10 Aeropostale
% Rank
Spring 2016
12%
1 Forever 21
10%
2 American Eagle
8%
3 Nike
7%
4 Victoria's Secret
6%
5 Hollister
3%
6 rue21
3%
7 H&M
3%
8 Hot Topic
3%
9 Charlotte Russe
2% 10 Aeropostale
% Rank
Fall 2016
11% 1 American Eagle
11% 2 Forever 21
10% 3 Nike
10% 4 Victoria's Secret
4% 5 rue21
3% 6 Hollister
2% 7 H&M
2% 8 PacSun
2% 9 Hot Topic
2%
Ralph Lauren
%
12%
12%
12%
7%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
PREFERRED CLOTHING BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, MALES)
10
Nike
Ralph Lauren
American Eagle
PacSun
Hollister
H&M
Kohl's
Adidas
Vans
Aeropostale
76 | Taking Stock With Teens
% Rank
Fall 2015
33% 1 Nike
8% 2 Ralph Lauren
6% 3 American Eagle
3% 4 Hollister
3% 5 Under Armour
2% 6 PacSun
2% 7 Adidas
2% 8 Vans
2% 9 Levi's
2% 10 H&M
% Rank
Spring 2016
33%
1 Nike
8%
2 Ralph Lauren
7%
3 American Eagle
3%
4 Under Armour
3%
5 Hollister
2%
6 PacSun
2%
7 H&M
2%
8 Adidas
2%
9 Aeropostale
2% 10 Vans
% Rank
Fall 2016
34% 1 Nike
8% 2 Ralph Lauren
7% 3 American Eagle
3% 4 Adidas
3% 5 Hollister
2% 6 Under Armour
2% 7 H&M
2% 8 Vans
2% 9 PacSun
2% 10 Levi's
%
40%
7%
5%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Top Footwear Brands Among Upper-Income
PREFERRED FOOTWEAR BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Rank
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2015
Nike
Vans
Converse
DSW
Steve Madden
Sperry
UGG
Adidas
Nordstrom
Payless ShoeSource
% Rank
Fall 2015
46% 1 Nike
9% 2 Vans
5% 3 Converse
3% 4 Sperry
3% 5 Steve Madden
3% 6 DSW
2% 7 Adidas
2% 8 Foot Locker
1% 9 Birkenstock
1%
Nordstrom
% Rank
Spring 2016
50%
1 Nike
9%
2 Vans
7%
3 Converse
4%
4 Adidas
3%
5 Sperry
3%
6 DSW
2%
7 Steve Madden
1%
8 Foot Locker
1%
9 UGG
1% 10 TOMS
% Rank
Fall 2016
48% 1 Nike
10% 2 Vans
7% 3 Converse
4% 4 Adidas
3% 5 Steve Madden
3% 6 Sperry
3% 7 DSW
2% 8 Birkenstock
1% 9 Foot Locker
1% 10 Nordstrom
%
51%
9%
7%
6%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
PREFERRED FOOTWEAR BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2015
Nike
Converse
Vans
DSW
Steve Madden
UGG
Nordstrom
Payless ShoeSource
Sperry
Famous Footwear
% Rank
Fall 2015
22% 1 Nike
10% 2 Converse
9% 3 Vans
7% 4 Steve Madden
7% 5 DSW
4% 6 Birkenstock
3% 7 Nordstrom
3% 8 Tory Burch
2% 9 UGG
2% 10 Sperry
% Rank
Spring 2016
28% 1 Nike
12% 2 Converse
10% 3 Vans
8% 4 DSW
7% 5 Steve Madden
3% 6 Adidas
3% 7 UGG
3% 8 Sperry
2% 9 TOMS
2% 10 Foot Locker
Payless ShoeSource
% Rank
Fall 2016
32% 1 Nike
14% 2 Converse
9% 3 Vans
7% 4 Steve Madden
5% 5 Adidas
3% 6 DSW
3% 7 Birkenstock
2% 8 Nordstrom
2% 9 UGG
2% 10 Michael Kors
2%
Sperry
%
30%
15%
7%
5%
5%
5%
4%
2%
2%
1%
1%
PREFERRED FOOTWEAR BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, MALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
10
Spring 2015
Nike
Vans
Sperry
Adidas
Converse
Foot Locker
New Balance
ASICS
Ralph Lauren
Clarks
Timberland
77 | Taking Stock With Teens
% Rank
Fall 2015
67% 1 Nike
8% 2 Vans
3% 3 Sperry
3% 4 Adidas
2% 5 Converse
2% 6 Foot Locker
1% 7 New Balance
1% 8 Ralph Lauren
1% 9 Under Armour
1% 10 Champs Sports
1%
Puma
% Rank
Spring 2016
66% 1 Nike
9% 2 Vans
5% 3 Adidas
3% 4 Sperry
2% 5 Converse
2% 6 Foot Locker
1% 7 Asics
1% 8 Champs Sports
1% 9 Clarks
0% 10 Under Armour
0%
New Balance
% Rank
Fall 2016
63% 1 Nike
10% 2 Vans
6% 3 Adidas
4% 4 Sperry
2% 5 Foot Locker
2% 6 Converse
1% 7 Under Armour
1% 8 ASICS
1%
New Balance
0% 10 Finish Line
0%
%
66%
11%
6%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
Top Footwear Brands Among Average-Income
PREFERRED FOOTWEAR BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2015
Nike
Vans
Converse
Sperry
Adidas
Steve Madden
Foot Locker
Payless ShoeSource
UGG
Three Brands Tied
% Rank
Fall 2015
46%
1 Nike
11%
2 Vans
7%
3 Converse
3%
4 Sperry
2%
5 Adidas
2%
6 Foot Locker
2%
7 Steve Madden
1%
8 Payless ShoeSource
1%
9 DSW
1% 10 Birkenstock
% Rank
Spring 2016
51%
1 Nike
10%
2 Vans
6%
3 Converse
3%
4 Adidas
2%
5 Sperry
2%
6 Foot Locker
1%
7 Steve Madden
1%
8 DSW
1%
9 Under Armour
1% 10 Journeys
Payless ShoeSource
UGG
% Rank
Fall 2016
54%
1 Nike
9%
2 Vans
6%
3 Converse
4%
4 Adidas
2%
5 Foot Locker
2%
6 Sperry
1%
7 Birkenstock
1%
8 Steve Madden
1%
9 Payless ShoeSource
1% 10 Under Armour
1%
1%
%
53%
9%
7%
5%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
PREFERRED FOOTWEAR BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2015
Nike
Vans
Converse
Steve Madden
Payless ShoeSource
Sperry
UGG
Tory Burch
DSW
TOMS
% Rank
Fall 2015
30%
1 Nike
12%
2 Converse
10%
3 Vans
4%
4 Steve Madden
3%
5 Sperry
3%
6 DSW
2%
7 Payless ShoeSource
2%
8 Birkenstock
2%
9 Journeys
2% 10 UGG
% Rank
Spring 2016
35%
1 Nike
12%
2 Converse
11%
3 Vans
3%
4 Steve Madden
2%
5 Adidas
2%
6 DSW
2%
7 UGG
2%
8 Payless ShoeSource
2%
9 Birkenstock
2% 10 Foot Locker
% Rank
Fall 2016
41%
1 Nike
11%
2 Converse
8%
3 Vans
3%
4 Adidas
3%
5 Birkenstock
2%
6 Foot Locker
2%
7 Steve Madden
2%
8 Sperry
2%
9 Payless ShoeSource
2% 10 DSW
%
38%
12%
9%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
PREFERRED FOOTWEAR BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, MALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2015
Nike
Vans
Sperry
Adidas
Converse
Foot Locker
New Balance
Ralph Lauren
DC Shoes
Champs Sports
78 | Taking Stock With Teens
% Rank
Fall 2015
63%
1 Nike
9%
2 Vans
4%
3 Adidas
3%
4 Sperry
3%
5 Converse
2%
6 Foot Locker
1%
7 Ralph Lauren
1%
8 Under Armour
1%
9 Ariat
1% 10 DC Shoes
% Rank
Spring 2016
65%
1 Nike
9%
2 Vans
4%
3 Adidas
3%
4 Converse
2%
5 Sperry
2%
6 Foot Locker
1%
7 Under Armour
1%
8 Ariat
1%
9 ASICS
1% 10 Ralph Lauren
Skechers
% Rank
Fall 2016
65%
1 Nike
9%
2 Vans
4%
3 Adidas
2%
4 Foot Locker
2%
5 Sperry
2%
6 Converse
1%
7 Under Armour
1%
8 New Balance
1%
9 ASICS
1% 10 Ralph Lauren
1%
%
65%
9%
6%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Top Athletic Clothing Brands Among Upper-Income
PREFERRED ATHLETIC CLOTHING BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2015
Nike
Under Armour
lululemon
Adidas
The North Face
% Rank Fall 2015
72%
1
Nike
7%
2
lululemon
4%
3
Under Armour
4%
4
Adidas
1%
5
The North Face
% Rank Spring 2016
72%
1 Nike
7%
2 Adidas
6%
3 Under Armour
4%
4 lululemon
1%
5 The North Face
% Rank Fall 2016
71%
1
Nike
7%
2
lululemon
5%
3
Adidas
5%
4
Under Armour
1%
5
Athleta
The North Face
%
71%
7%
7%
6%
1%
1%
PREFERRED ATHLETIC CLOTHING BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2015
Nike
lululemon
Under Armour
Adidas
The North Face
% Rank Fall 2015
70% 1 Nike
8% 2 lululemon
5% 3 Under Armour
3% 4 Adidas
1% 5 The North Face
% Rank Spring 2016
67% 1 Nike
15% 2 lululemon
5% 3 Adidas
3% 4 Under Armour
1% 5 Athleta
% Rank Fall 2016
69% 1 Nike
9% 2 lululemon
5% 3 Adidas
4% 4 Under Armour
2% 5 Athleta
%
65%
15%
7%
4%
1%
PREFERRED ATHLETIC CLOTHING BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, MALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2015
Nike
Under Armour
Adidas
The North Face
Bauer
79 | Taking Stock With Teens
% Rank Fall 2015
73%
1 Nike
8%
2 Under Armour
4%
3 Adidas
1%
4 Bauer
1%
5 The North Face
% Rank Spring 2016
75% 1 Nike
6% 2 Adidas
5% 3 Under Armour
1% 4 The North Face
1% 5 Bauer
Patagonia
% Rank Fall 2016
73% 1 Nike
8% 2 Under Armour
7% 3 Adidas
2% 4 lululemon
1% 5 Columbia
1%
%
76%
7%
7%
1%
1%
Top Athletic Clothing Brands Among Average-Income
PREFERRED ATHLETIC CLOTHING BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2015
Nike
Under Armour
Adidas
lululemon
The North Face
% Rank Fall 2015
71% 1 Nike
7% 2 Under Armour
5% 3 Adidas
2% 4 lululemon
1% 5 The North Face
% Rank Spring 2016
70% 1 Nike
10% 2 Under Armour
5% 3 Adidas
2% 4 lululemon
1% 5 The North Face
% Rank Fall 2016
69% 1 Nike
10% 2 Under Armour
5% 3 Adidas
2% 4 lululemon
1% 5 Victoria's Secret
%
72%
9%
7%
2%
1%
PREFERRED ATHLETIC CLOTHING BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2015
Nike
Under Armour
Adidas
lululemon
The North Face
% Rank Fall 2015
72% 1 Nike
6% 2 Under Armour
5% 3 lululemon
4% 4 Adidas
1% 5 The North Face
% Rank Spring 2016
72%
1 Nike
8%
2 Under Armour
4%
3 Adidas
4%
4 lululemon
1%
5 Victoria's Secret
% Rank Fall 2016
70% 1 Nike
9% 2 Under Armour
4% 3 Adidas
4% 4 lululemon
1% 5 Victoria's Secret
%
73%
7%
6%
5%
1%
PREFERRED ATHLETIC CLOTHING BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, MALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
Spring 2015
Nike
Under Armour
Adidas
Puma
The North Face
80 | Taking Stock With Teens
% Rank Fall 2015
71% 1 Nike
9% 2 Under Armour
6% 3 Adidas
1% 4 The North Face
1% 5 Mossy Oak
% Rank Spring 2016
69%
1 Nike
11%
2 Under Armour
6%
3 Adidas
1%
4 The North Face
0%
5 Columbia
% Rank Fall 2016
68% 1 Nike
12% 2 Under Armour
6% 3 Adidas
1% 4 Columbia
0%
The North Face
%
71%
11%
8%
1%
1%
Top Athletic Footwear Brands Among Upper-Income
PREFERRED ATHLETIC FOOTWEAR BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2015
Nike
Adidas
New Balance
ASICS
Under Armour
% Rank Fall 2015
81% 1 Nike
4% 2 Adidas
2% 3 ASICS
1% 4 New Balance
1% 5 Under Armour
% Rank Spring 2016
83% 1 Nike
4% 2 Adidas
2% 3 ASICS
2% 4 New Balance
1% 5 Under Armour
% Rank Fall 2016
81% 1 Nike
6% 2 Adidas
2% 3 ASICS
1%
New Balance
1% 5 Under Armour
%
83%
7%
2%
2%
1%
PREFERRED ATHLETIC FOOTWEAR BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
Spring 2015
Nike
Adidas
ASICS
Mizuno
New Balance
% Rank Fall 2015
82% 1 Nike
3% 2 Adidas
2% 3 ASICS
2% 4 Mizuno
2% 5 New Balance
% Rank Spring 2016
87%
1 Nike
3%
2 Adidas
2%
3 ASICS
1%
4 Brooks
1%
5 Mizuno
% Rank Fall 2016
85% 1 Nike
4% 2 Adidas
2% 3 ASICS
1% 4 New Balance
1% 5 Brooks
%
86%
5%
2%
1%
1%
PREFERRED ATHLETIC FOOTWEAR BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, MALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2015
Nike
Adidas
Under Armour
New Balance
ASICS
81 | Taking Stock With Teens
% Rank Fall 2015
79% 1 Nike
4% 2 Adidas
2% 3 New Balance
2% 4 Under Armour
1% 5 ASICS
% Rank Spring 2016
80% 1 Nike
6% 2 Adidas
2% 3 New Balance
2% 4 Under Armour
2% 5 ASICS
% Rank Fall 2016
78% 1 Nike
8% 2 Adidas
2% 3 New Balance
2% 4 Under Armour
1% 5 ASICS
%
80%
8%
2%
2%
1%
Top Athletic Footwear Brands Among Average-Income
PREFERRED ATHLETIC FOOTWEAR BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2015
Nike
Adidas
Under Armour
ASICS
New Balance
% Rank Fall 2015
82% 1 Nike
5% 2 Adidas
1% 3 Under Armour
1% 4 ASICS
1% 5 New Balance
% Rank Spring 2016
81%
1 Nike
4%
2 Adidas
3%
3 Under Armour
2%
4 ASICS
1%
5 New Balance
% Rank Fall 2016
80% 1 Nike
5% 2 Adidas
3% 3 Under Armour
1% 4 ASICS
1% 5 New Balance
%
82%
6%
2%
1%
1%
PREFERRED ATHLETIC FOOTWEAR BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2015
Nike
Adidas
ASICS
Under Armour
Mizuno
% Rank Fall 2015
85% 1 Nike
3% 2 Adidas
1% 3 ASICS
1% 4 Under Armour
1% 5 Mizuno
% Rank Spring 2016
84% 1 Nike
3% 2 Adidas
2% 3 Under Armour
1% 4 ASICS
1% 5 Mizuno
% Rank Fall 2016
84% 1 Nike
4% 2 Adidas
1% 3 ASICS
1% 4 Under Armour
1% 5 Brooks
%
86%
5%
1%
1%
1%
PREFERRED ATHLETIC FOOTWEAR BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, MALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2015
Nike
Adidas
Under Armour
ASICS
New Balance
82 | Taking Stock With Teens
% Rank Fall 2015
80% 1 Nike
6% 2 Adidas
2% 3 Under Armour
1% 4 ASICS
1% 5 New Balance
% Rank Spring 2016
78%
1 Nike
6%
2 Adidas
4%
3 Under Armour
1%
4 New Balance
1%
5 ASICS
% Rank Fall 2016
77% 1 Nike
6% 2 Adidas
3% 3 Under Armour
1% 4 New Balance
1% 5 ASICS
%
78%
8%
3%
2%
1%
Top Sports Among Upper-Income
FAVORITE SPORT (UPPER-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2015
Soccer
Basketball
Running
Football
Baseball
% Rank Fall 2015
14% 1 Soccer
11% 2 Basketball
10% 3 Football
8% 4 Running
6% 5 Baseball
% Rank Spring 2016
16% 1 Soccer
12% 2 Basketball
10% 3 Running
8% 4 Football
6% 5 Baseball
% Rank Fall 2016
16% 1 Soccer
13% 2 Basketball
10% 3 Football
9% 4 Running
6% 5 Baseball
%
16%
13%
11%
7%
6%
FAVORITE SPORT (UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2015
Soccer
Running
Volleyball
Swimming
Cheerleading
% Rank Fall 2015
16% 1 Soccer
14% 2 Running
8% 3 Volleyball
8% 4 Camping
7% 5 Basketball
% Rank Spring 2016
19% 1 Soccer
12% 2 Running
9% 3 Volleyball
6% 4 Basketball
6% 5 Swimming
% Rank Fall 2016
18% 1 Soccer
15% 2 Volleyball
7% 3 Running
7% 4 Swimming
6% 5 Dancing
%
16%
10%
10%
7%
7%
FAVORITE SPORT (UPPER-INCOME, MALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2015
Basketball
Football
Soccer
Baseball
Lacrosse
83 | Taking Stock With Teens
% Rank Fall 2015
16% 1 Football
14% 2 Basketball
13% 3 Soccer
11% 4 Baseball
6% 5 Lacrosse
% Rank Spring 2016
16%
1 Basketball
16%
2 Football
14%
3 Soccer
11%
4 Baseball
5%
5 Running
% Rank Fall 2016
18% 1 Basketball
15% 2 Football
13% 3 Soccer
10% 4 Baseball
5% 5 Running
%
19%
17%
15%
9%
5%
Top Sports Among Average-Income
FAVORITE SPORT (AVERAGE-INCOME, ALL TEENS)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2015
Soccer
Basketball
Football
Running
Volleyball
% Rank Fall 2015
15% 1 Football
13% 2 Basketball
11% 3 Soccer
10% 4 Running
6% 5 Volleyball
% Rank Spring 2016
14%
1 Basketball
14%
2 Soccer
14%
3 Football
7%
4 Running
6%
5 Baseball
% Rank Fall 2016
14% 1 Basketball
14% 2 Football
13% 3 Soccer
8% 4 Running
6% 5 Baseball
%
15%
14%
14%
6%
6%
FAVORITE SPORT (AVERAGE-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2015
Soccer
Running
Volleyball
Basketball
Swimming
% Rank Fall 2015
17% 1 Soccer
14% 2 Volleyball
12% 3 Running
8% 4 Basketball
7% 5 Swimming
% Rank Spring 2016
17%
1 Soccer
13%
2 Running
10%
3 Volleyball
9%
4 Basketball
6%
5 Camping
% Rank Fall 2016
16% 1 Soccer
11% 2 Volleyball
11% 3 Basketball
9% 4 Running
7% 5 Swimming
%
16%
13%
9%
9%
6%
FAVORITE SPORT (AVERAGE-INCOME, MALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2015
Football
Basketball
Soccer
Baseball
Running
84 | Taking Stock With Teens
% Rank Fall 2015
19% 1 Football
18% 2 Basketball
13% 3 Soccer
8% 4 Baseball
6% 5 Running
% Rank Spring 2016
23%
1 Football
19%
2 Basketball
11%
3 Soccer
10%
4 Baseball
4%
5 Running
% Rank Fall 2016
20% 1 Football
18% 2 Basketball
13% 3 Soccer
10% 4 Baseball
5% 5 Running
%
22%
20%
13%
11%
4%
Preferred Camera Brands Among Teens
WHAT BRAND CAMCORDER DO YOU CURRENTLY OWN? (ALL TEENS)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2015
Canon
Nikon
GoPro
Sony
Kodak
Samsung
Apple
Flip
Nokia
Fujifilm
27%
21%
15%
11%
7%
5%
4%
2%
2%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2015
Canon
GoPro
Nikon
Sony
Apple
Samsung
Kodak
Flip
Panasonic
Nokia
%
26%
21%
20%
13%
5%
4%
4%
1%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2016
Canon
GoPro
Nikon
Sony
Apple
Kodak
Samsung
Flip
Fujifilm
Polaroid
%
29%
22%
21%
9%
5%
5%
3%
1%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2016
Canon
GoPro
Nikon
Sony
Samsung
Kodak
Apple
Fujifilm
Polaroid
Panasonic
%
32%
24%
19%
9%
4%
4%
3%
1%
1%
1%
WHAT BRAND CAMCORDER WOULD YOU PURCHASE? (ALL TEENS)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2015
Canon
GoPro
Nikon
Sony
Kodak
Apple
Samsung
Polaroid
Nokia
Fujifilm
85 | Taking Stock With Teens
%
27%
24%
20%
9%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2015
Canon
GoPro
Nikon
Sony
Apple
Samsung
Kodak
Polaroid
Nokia
Fujifilm
%
28%
24%
19%
8%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2016
Canon
GoPro
Nikon
Sony
Kodak
Apple
Samsung
Polaroid
Fujifilm
Logitech
%
33%
23%
19%
7%
6%
4%
2%
2%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2016
Canon
GoPro
Nikon
Sony
Apple
Kodak
Polaroid
Samsung
Nokia
Logitech
Elgato
%
39%
23%
15%
7%
4%
4%
2%
1%
1%
0%
0%
Competition Increasing Across
Viable Players
BRAND SHARE AND CONCENTRATION (UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
De-concentration
across top tier brands
in tandem with
declining count overall
indicates the viability
of mid-tier brands.
Social media has
evened the playing
field for niche brands
– improving visibility
for authentic smaller
brands and disrupting
larger brands.
86 | Taking Stock With Teens
Estee Lauder Portfolio Declines
EL COSMETIC BRAND SHARE (UPPER INCOME, FEMALES)
EL Brand Share
EL Americas Sales
35%
12%
10%
30%
8%
25%
20%
15%
22% 22%
6%
20%
17%
4%
2%
0%
10%
-2%
5%
0%
87 | Taking Stock With Teens
-4%
-6%
Estee Lauder’s
portfolio of brands
lost 200bps of share
this season and Y/Y,
led my MAC which
declined 400bps Y/Y
for upper income
females.
Fragrance: Specialty Store Brands
Remain Top of Mind
PREFERRED FRAGRANCE BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
Fall 2015
Victoria's Secret
Bath & Body Works
Marc Jacobs
Juicy Couture
Chanel
One Direction
Taylor Sw ift
Versace
Polo Ralph Lauren
Aquolina
Coach
%
27%
21%
7%
6%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
Spring 2016
Victoria's Secret
Bath & Body Works
Marc Jacobs
Chanel
Juicy Couture
Burberry
Dolce & Gabbana
Versace
Polo Ralph Lauren
One Direction
Taylor Sw ift
%
30%
22%
5%
4%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
Fall 2016
Victoria's Secret
Bath & Body Works
Chanel
Marc Jacobs
Juicy Couture
Versace
Calvin Klein
Gucci
Polo Ralph Lauren
Taylor Sw ift
%
28%
27%
6%
5%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
PREFERRED FRAGRANCE BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fall 2015
Victoria's Secret
Bath & Body Works
Juicy Couture
Marc Jacobs
Chanel
Polo Ralph Lauren
One Direction
Versace
Nicki Minaj
Taylor Sw ift
88 | Taking Stock With Teens
%
24%
24%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2016
Bath & Body Works
Victoria's Secret
Juicy Couture
Chanel
Marc Jacobs
Polo Ralph Lauren
Rue 21
AXE
Dolce & Gabbana
Justin Bieber
Taylor Sw ift
%
29%
29%
4%
3%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2016
Victoria's Secret
Bath & Body Works
Chanel
Juicy Couture
Marc Jacobs
Rue 21
Calvin Klein
Polo Ralph Lauren
Versace
Gucci
%
31%
31%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
Highly innovative
brands are best
positioned to retain
teen customers.
Mass brands ceding
share to authentic
social media
backed/built indie
brands.
Fragrance: Top 3 Brands Remain
Consistent for Males
PREFERRED FRAGRANCE BRANDS (UPPER-INCOME, MALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
Fall 2015
Old Spice
Ralph Lauren
AXE
Gucci
Versace
Calvin Klein
Nike
Degree
Hollister
Abercrombie & Fitch
Giorgio Armani
%
24%
19%
14%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Spring 2016
Ralph Lauren
Old Spice
AXE
Calvin Klein
Gucci
Versace
Hollister
Chanel
Nautica
American Eagle
Nike
%
20%
13%
8%
6%
5%
5%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2016
Old Spice
Ralph Lauren
AXE
Gucci
Versace
Calvin Klein
Chanel
Nautica
Armani
Degree
%
24%
17%
13%
6%
4%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
PREFERRED FRAGRANCE BRANDS (AVERAGE-INCOME, MALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2015
Ralph Lauren
AXE
Old Spice
Versace
Calvin Klein
Gucci
American Eagle
adidas
Hollister
Giorgio Armani
89 | Taking Stock With Teens
%
20%
15%
13%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2016
Ralph Lauren
AXE
Old Spice
Calvin Klein
Versace
Gucci
Armani
Rue21
American Eagle
Hollister
%
20%
13%
12%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2016
Ralph Lauren
Old Spice
AXE
Versace
Calvin Klein
Gucci
Armani
Hollister
American Eagle
adidas
%
20%
14%
13%
5%
5%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Males continue to
rank Old Spice, Ralph
Lauren and AXE as
their top preferred
brands.
Discovery Supports Specialty Retail
Formats
PREFERRED BEAUTY DESTINATIONS (UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2015
Sephora
Ulta
Target
CVS
MAC
Walmart
Macy's
Nordstrom
Walgreens
Rite-Aid
%
38%
19%
14%
6%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2016
Sephora
Ulta
Target
CVS
MAC
Walmart
Macy's
Walgreens
Nordstrom
Bare Escentuals
Online
Sally Beauty
%
38%
21%
12%
7%
5%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2016
Sephora
Ulta
Target
CVS
Walmart
MAC
Walgreens
Macy's
Nordstrom
Sally Beauty
%
41%
20%
12%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
PREFERRED BEAUTY DESTINATIONS (AVERAGE-INCOME, FEMALES)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2015
Sephora
Ulta
Walmart
Target
MAC
Walgreens
Macy's
CVS
Sally Beauty Supply
Dillard's
90 | Taking Stock With Teens
%
24%
23%
14%
10%
6%
4%
2%
2%
2%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2016
Ulta
Sephora
Walmart
Target
MAC
Walgreens
CVS
Macy's
Sally Beauty
Bath & Body Works
%
27%
24%
13%
9%
4%
3%
3%
2%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fall 2016
Ulta
Sephora
Walmart
Target
MAC
Walgreens
CVS
Macy's
Bath & Body Works
Sally Beauty
%
29%
27%
12%
10%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
Ulta continues to gain
share for average
income females –
Sephora is the
preferred beauty
location for upperincome teens.
Specialty Retail Favored For Loyalty
Programs
BEAUTY LOYALTY PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
(UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Yes
No
Fall 2014
32%
68%
Spring 2015
33%
67%
Fall 2015
36%
64%
Spring 2016
39%
61%
Fall 2016
47%
53%
PREFERRED BEAUTY LOYALTY PROGRAM
(UPPER-INCOME, FEMALES)
Fall 2015
Sephora
Ulta
CVS
MAC
Bare Escentuals
Macy's
Mary Kay
Victoria's Secret
Walgreens
Avon
CoverGirl
e.l.f.
Lipsy
Neutrogena
91 | Taking Stock With Teens
%
56%
24%
4%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
Spring 2016
Sephora
Ulta
MAC
Bare Escentuals
CVS
Macy's
Nordstrom
Sally Beauty
Victoria's Secret
Clinique
e.l.f.
Ipsy
Mary-Kay
Walgreens
%
55%
24%
3%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
7
10
Fall 2016
Sephora
Ulta
MAC
Clinique
Bare Escentuals
CVS
Birchbox
Target
Walgreens
Bath & Body Works
Mary Kay
Nordstrom
Proactiv
Sally Beauty Supply
Too Faced
Urban Decay
%
55%
24%
4%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Loyalty program
participation
continues to grow as
specialty remains the
preferred beauty
destination among
upper-income
females; outpacing
legacy formats.
Meet Our Senior Analyst Team
Neely Tamminga
Managing Director
Sr. Research Analyst
Erinn Murphy
Principal
Sr. Research Analyst
Steph Wissink
Managing Director
Sr. Research Analyst
Multi-Brand Retail &
Specialty Commerce
Global Fashion &
Lifestyle Brands
Household, Beauty &
Children’s Products
Matt O’Brien
Managing Director
Sr. Research Analyst
Nicole Miller Regan
Managing Director
Sr. Research Analyst
Gene Munster
Managing Director
Sr. Research Analyst
Medical Technology:
Orthopedics, Dental
& Vision Care
Restaurants
Internet
Mike Olson
Managing Director
Sr. Research Analyst
Stan Meyers
Asst. Vice President
Research Analyst
Online Content
Media &
Entertainment
92 | Taking Stock With Teens
Ratings, Stock Prices, and Price Targets
Ticker
ADS.GR
EBAY
EL
VFC
UA
CMG
ZNGA
ANF
ZUMZ
GLUU
Company
adidas AG
eBay Inc.
Estee Lauder Companies Inc.
V.F. Corporation
Under Armour, Inc.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
Zynga, Inc.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
Zumiez Inc.
Glu Mobile Inc.
Rating
Overweight
Neutral
Neutral
Overweight
Overweight
Overweight
Neutral
Overweight
Overweight
Overweight
As of October 12, 2016
Source: Piper Jaffray estimates, FactSet, Bloomberg
93 | Taking Stock With Teens
Price
Price
Price Target
MktCap
10/12/16 Target
Justification
(Bil.)
€155.65
€173
30x FY17E EPS
€32.569
$31.50
$25
8.5x 2017E EV/EBITDA
$35.564
$88.18
$90
24x FY18E EPS
$32.352
$54.73
$63
18x FY17E EPS
$22.699
$38.52
$44
60x FY17E EPS
$16.845
$418.52
$483 ~20x FY18E EV/EBITDA disc. 2 yrs at 10% $12.186
$2.94
$3
10x EV/'17E EBITDA
$2.593
$16.13
$28
6x FY18E EV/EBITDA
$1.091
$22.47
$28
9x FY18E EV/EBITDA
$0.558
$2.11
$3
1x EV/FY17E Sales
$0.281
Important Research Disclosures
Analyst Certification – Nicole Miller Regan, Gene Munster, Erinn Murphy, Matthew O’Brien, Michael Olson, Neely Tamminga, Steph Wissink, and
Stan Meyers, Research Analysts: The views expressed in this report accurately reflect my personal views about the subject company and the subject
security. In addition, no part of my compensation was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views contained in this
report.
Piper Jaffray research analysts receive compensation that is based, in part, on the firm's overall revenues, which include investment banking revenues.
Affiliate disclosures: Piper Jaffray is the trade name and registered trademark under which the corporate and investment banking products and services of
Piper Jaffray Companies and its subsidiaries Piper Jaffray & Co. and Piper Jaffray Ltd. are marketed. Simmons & Company International is a division of Piper
Jaffray & Co. This report has been prepared by Piper Jaffray & Co. and/or its affiliate Piper Jaffray Ltd. Piper Jaffray & Co. is regulated by FINRA, NYSE and
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and its headquarters are located at 800 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55402. Piper Jaffray Ltd. is
authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, and is located at 88 Wood Street, 13th Floor, London EC2V 7RS. Disclosures in this section and
in the Other Important Information section referencing Piper Jaffray include all affiliated entities unless otherwise specified.
Ratings and Other Definitions
Stock Ratings: Piper Jaffray ratings are indicators of expected total return (price appreciation plus dividend) within the next 12 months. At times analysts
may specify a different investment horizon or may include additional investment time horizons for specific stocks. Stock performance is measured relative to
the group of stocks covered by each analyst. Lists of the stocks covered by each are available at www.piperjaffray.com/researchdisclosures. Stock ratings
and/or stock coverage may be suspended from time to time in the event that there is no active analyst opinion or analyst coverage, but the opinion or
coverage is expected to resume. Research reports and ratings should not be relied upon as individual investment advice. As always, an investor’s decision to
buy or sell a security must depend on individual circumstances, including existing holdings, time horizons and risk tolerance. Piper Jaffray sales and trading
personnel may provide written or oral commentary, trade ideas, or other information about a particular stock to clients or internal trading desks reflecting
different opinions than those expressed by the research analyst. In addition, Piper Jaffray offers technical and event-driven research products that are based
on different methodologies, may contradict the opinions contained in fundamental research reports, and could impact the price of the subject
security. Recommendations based on technical and event-driven analysis are intended for the professional trader, while fundamental opinions are typically
suited for the longer-term institutional investor.
Overweight (OW): Anticipated to outperform relative to the median of the group of stocks covered by the analyst.
Neutral (N): Anticipated to perform in line relative to the median of the group of stocks covered by the analyst.
Underweight (UW): Anticipated to underperform relative to the median of the group of stocks covered by the analyst.
94 | Taking Stock With Teens
Important Research Disclosures
Other Important Information
The material regarding the subject company is based on data obtained from sources deemed to be reliable; it is not guaranteed as to accuracy and does
not purport to be complete. This report is solely for informational purposes and is not intended to be used as the primary basis of investment decisions.
Piper Jaffray has not assessed the suitability of the subject company for any person. Because of individual client requirements, it is not, and it should not be
construed as, advice designed to meet the particular investment needs of any investor. This report is not an offer or the solicitation of an offer to sell or buy
any security. Unless otherwise noted, the price of a security mentioned in this report is the market closing price as of the end of the prior business day.
Piper Jaffray does not maintain a predetermined schedule for publication of research and will not necessarily update this report. Piper Jaffray policy
generally prohibits research analysts from sending draft research reports to subject companies; however, it should be presumed that the fundamental equity
analyst(s) who authored this report has had discussions with the subject company to ensure factual accuracy prior to publication, and has had assistance
from the company in conducting diligence, including visits to company sites and meetings with company management and other representatives.
Notice to customers: This material is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity if Piper Jaffray is prohibited or restricted
by any legislation or regulation in any jurisdiction from making it available to such person or entity. Customers in any of the jurisdictions where Piper Jaffray
and its affiliates do business who wish to effect a transaction in the securities discussed in this report should contact their local Piper Jaffray sales
representative. Europe: This material is for the use of intended recipients only and only for distribution to professional and institutional investors, i.e. persons
who are authorized persons or exempted persons within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 of the United Kingdom, or persons
who have been categorized by Piper Jaffray Ltd. as professional clients under the rules of the Financial Conduct Authority. United States: This report is
distributed in the United States by Piper Jaffray & Co., member SIPC, FINRA and NYSE, Inc., which accepts responsibility for its contents. The securities
described in this report may not have been registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and, in such case, may not be offered or sold in the United
States or to U.S. persons unless they have been so registered, or an exemption from the registration requirements is available.
This report is produced for the use of Piper Jaffray customers and may not be reproduced, re-distributed or passed to any other person or published in
whole or in part for any purpose without the written consent of Piper Jaffray. Additional information is available upon request.
© 2016 Piper Jaffray. All rights reserved.
95 | Taking Stock With Teens