I N V E S T M E N T
R E S E A R C H
April 2011
TAKING STOCK WITH TEENS
Spring 2011
Jeffrey P. Klinefelter
Senior Research Analyst
612 303-5537
[email protected]
Piper Jaffray & Co.
Neely J.N. Tamminga
Senior Research Analyst
612 303-1537
[email protected]
Piper Jaffray & Co.
Sean P. Naughton, CFA
Senior Research Analyst
612 303-6326
[email protected]
Piper Jaffray & Co.
Adam F. Engebretson, CFA
Research Analyst
612 303-6473
[email protected]
Piper Jaffray & Co.
Jennifer Yung
Research Associate
612 303-6472
[email protected]
Piper Jaffray & Co.
Alex J. Fuhrman
Research Analyst
212 284-9315
[email protected]
Piper Jaffray & Co.
Jonathan N. Berg
Research Analyst
612 303-6426
[email protected]
Piper Jaffray & Co.
We recently completed our 21st semi-annual, proprietary Taking Stock With Teens
research project through a combination of geographically diverse high school visits as well
as an online survey in partnership with DECA. We visited nine states across the country
to discuss fashion and spending trends with teens and also surveyed a wider group of teens
through an online survey that included respondents from 37 states. In total, we surveyed
4,500 teens about their spending patterns, brand preferences, and media preferences with
an average age for total respondents of 16.5 years.
Key Takeaways From The Survey:
Upper-Income Teen Fashion Spending Stable; Sentiment Improving
Results from our upper-income respondents reflect relative stability in total dollars and
improvement in intent to spend on fashion over the prior two surveys. Overall, spending
on fashion is flat sequentially and year-over-year with low- to mid-single-digit gains in the
apparel category. For footwear, we note the trend continues higher year-over-year, but
did see some mild loss sequentially. In terms of intent to spend, we observed male and
female respondents both want to spend more on fashion this year, which is a reversal of
prior surveys and we believe reflects improving sentiment with the teen consumer. In
particular, 41% of females indicated they were going to spend more on clothes this year
than last year – the highest number since Fall 2008. Given the stable spending metrics on
fashion, improved sentiment metrics, and under-investment in the category, we believe the
upper-income teen demographic is poised to increase spending in 2011.
Average-Income Teen Fashion Spending Remains Constrained; Sentiment Stable
The average-income teen fashion budget had remained largely unchanged for the prior
three surveys; however, our most recent survey did see a 10% drop in fashion budgets.
Importantly, we saw continued stabilization in average-income teens’ willingness to spend
on fashion; our male respondents were slightly more encouraged than female respondents.
Specifically, the number of females indicating they were going to spend less on fashion
increased which we believe is indicative of strong results in lower-priced fashions focused
on this customer. Overall, we believe the inflation in non-discretionary categories (food
and gas) is impacting the amount of money average-income teens have available to spend
on fashion categories. Car and food increased 3ppt as a percentage of total budgets for
average-income teens in our Spring survey.
Risks: A reliance on key management, fashion changes, mall traffic volatility, competition,
cost inflation, inventory and markdown risk, access to capital and compliance with debt
covenants, and general economic uncertainty.
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 on pages 117 - 119 of this report or at the following site: http://www.piperjaffray.com/researchdisclosures
April 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Survey Summary and Valuation Considerations .................................................................. 3
Survey Summary .................................................................................................................. 3
Teen Specialty Retail Valuation ........................................................................................... 6
Taking Stock With Teens Survey Details ............................................................................. 7
Survey Facts and Process ...................................................................................................... 7
Demographics ...................................................................................................................... 8
Student Demographics – All Students .................................................................................. 8
Student Spending Behavior ................................................................................................ 12
Student Spending Behavior – All Students .......................................................................... 12
Macroeconomic Backdrop for Student Spending ............................................................... 14
Student Spending Behavior – By Gender ............................................................................ 19
Student Spending Behavior – Spending Expectations ......................................................... 24
Student Spending Behavior – By Category ......................................................................... 32
Student Spending Behavior – Parent Spending ................................................................... 35
Student Spending Behavior – Timing of Spending .............................................................. 36
Student Spending Behavior – Shopping Frequency ............................................................. 36
Student Spending Behavior – Shopping Channel Preference ............................................... 40
Upper-Income Student Survey – Brand Preferences ............................................................ 44
Clothing Brand Preferences – All Students ......................................................................... 44
Clothing Brand Preferences – By Gender............................................................................ 50
Clothing Brand Preferences – Action Sports & Boardsport Brands .................................... 53
Clothing Brand Preferences – Fast Fashion ........................................................................ 58
Clothing Brand Preferences – Brand Concentration ........................................................... 60
Clothing Brand Preferences – By Geographic Region ......................................................... 60
Footwear Brand Preferences – All Students ........................................................................ 67
Footwear Brand Preferences – By Gender .......................................................................... 70
Footwear Brand Preferences – By Geographic Region ........................................................ 73
Average-Income Student Survey – Brand Preferences ......................................................... 76
Clothing Brand Preferences – All Students ......................................................................... 76
Clothing Brand Preferences – By Gender............................................................................ 80
Clothing Brand Preferences – Action Sports & Boardsport Brands .................................... 83
Footwear Brand Preferences – All Students ........................................................................ 90
Footwear Brand Preferences – By Gender .......................................................................... 92
Athletic Brand Preferences ................................................................................................. 95
Brand Preferences – Athletic Brands – All Students ............................................................ 95
Pop Quiz! Fresh Insights On Fashion .............................................................................. 100
In-Class – Demographic Data .......................................................................................... 100
Fresh Insights on Fashion Perceptions .............................................................................. 100
End of Denim Dominance? Not So. ................................................................................ 102
Trending Down/ Trending Up: We Show-And-Tell the Brands ...................................... 104
Sources of Influence ......................................................................................................... 108
Sources of Influence – All Students .................................................................................. 108
Media Influences – All Students ....................................................................................... 110
Gift Cards and Wish Lists ................................................................................................ 114
Gift Card Redemption Rates – All Students ..................................................................... 114
Wish Lists – All Students ................................................................................................. 114
Important Research Disclosures....................................................................................... 117
2 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
S U R V E Y S U M M A R Y A N D VA L U A T I O N C O N S I D E R A T I O N S
Survey Summary
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Our 21st semi-annual Taking Stock With Teens survey included responses from 4,500
teens and we visited nine cities to discuss current spending trends and brand
preferences with teens during the months of February and March.
Our Spring 2011 Taking Stock With Teens survey results continue to reflect
stabilization in spending at the upper-income level and potential for a discretionary
recovery in fashion as the overall employment picture begins to improve. However,
significant discounting, a lack of confidence and higher product costs could create a
difficult environment in the second half of the year. We continue to see a preference
for “value” at all levels of household income, but believe teens will spend for
differentiated and fashion based merchandise.
Fast Fashion remains a key theme within the teen demographic for upper-income teen
females. Our results have shown this category to average about 18% of total female
votes over the last 17 surveys with a significant inflection higher since Fall of 2008.
Looking only at the last six surveys, the average mindshare has increased to 26.5%.
We believe a general recovery is a positive for fashion, but think it will take time for the
consumer to walk back up the pricing continuum and as such “Fast Fashion” will
remain a prominent portion of the young female budget.
Inflation in non-discretionary categories like food and gas is reflected in teen attitudes
toward fashion spending budgets. Looking at our results for teen budgets, we note car
and food increased by 5ppt for upper-income teens and 3ppt for average-income teens.
We think the increase in the price of gas and food is impacting the overall allocation of
dollars to the fashion category, but believe upper-income teens want to spend more on
fashion categories this year.
Intent to spend improves dramatically with upper-income teens looking to spend more
on fashion categories. While it is clear budgets continue to be impacted by higher
costs, we believe the intent to spend on fashion is critically important as setting a
budget in high school can be difficult for a student to calculate. We note 41% of
females responded they plan to spend more on apparel this year than last year – the
highest result since Fall 2008. Also, young men want to spend more on shoes this year
than last with 29% of respondents indicating they would spend more on footwear this
year than last year – 2ppt higher than our Fall 2010 result and 7ppt higher than the
Spring 2010 result.
In terms of channel dynamics, we note upper-income teens continue to be drawn
further online for spending with close to 13% of purchases coming from this channel.
This is a 2ppt increase sequentially and 3ppt increase from last year – the largest
sequential gain in the internet channel since Fall 2007. In terms of average-income
teens, we note channels of purchase remain relatively similar with a mild increase in
internet sequentially offset by a small decline in specialty and major chains. Overall,
upper-income teens purchase slightly more online then average-income teens by 2ppt.
For the second consecutive survey, we asked teens what brands they no longer wear
and observed Gap, Abercrombie & Fitch, Hollister and Aeropostale all prominently at
the top of the list. That said, these brands command a significant amount of share
within the marketplace, but is difficult to ignore the potential long-term ramifications
associated with losing traction with core customers.
Influences remain consistent with friends dominating with both upper-income and
average-income survey respondents followed by the internet. The internet displaced
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 3
April 2011
•
•
television as the No. 2 influencer with teens in our Fall 2010 survey, and we believe this
trend will likely continue as social networking continues to be a major reason people
go online.
Economic data continues to get incrementally better as year-over-year employment
growth stays positive and consumers have rebuilt balance sheets. In addition, income
growth has outpaced consumption growth in the first two months of 2011 which we
believe is a healthy sign for the economy as we look to establish a new long term
savings rate and a new base for the economy to begin growing. While employment is
typically a lagging indicator for the market, we believe it will be important to sustain
the current level of spending.
In terms of demographics, we note our upper-income teens had an average household
income of $84,000, with an average age of 16.5 years old and 39% of whom had jobs (a
3ppt increase from last Fall). For our average-income teens, the average household
income was $45,000, with an average age of 16.6 years old and 41% of whom had parttime jobs (a 2ppt increase from last Fall). We note the average number of teens saying
they had a job since Spring 2005 for the upper-income demographic is 44% and 49%
for the average-income household.
Exhibit 1
TAKING STOCK WITH TEENS – SUMMARY CLOTHING BRAND PREFERENCES
TOP CLOTHING BRAND PREFERENCES (UPPER INCOME STUDENT SURVEY)
S pring 2 0 11
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
No. 4
No. 5
Nike
Fo rever 21
American Eagle
A ctio n Spo rts B rands
P o lo Ralph Lauren
F a ll 2 010
A ctio n Spo rts B rands
Nike
American Eagle
Fo rever 21
Ho llister
S pring 2 0 10
A ctio n Spo rts B rands
Fo rever 21
Nike
Ho llister
A merican Eagle
F a ll 2 00 9
A ctio n Spo rts B rands
Fo rever 21
Ho llister
Nike
A merican Eagle
S pring 2 0 0 9
A ctio n Spo rts B rands
Ho llister
Nike
Fo rever 21
A merican Eagle
F a ll 2 00 8
A ctio n Spo rts B rands
Ho llister
Fo rever 21
A merican Eagle
A &F
S pring 2 0 0 8
Ho llister
A ctio n Spo rts B rands
American Eagle
A &F
Fo rever 21
F a ll 2 00 7
Ho llister
A ctio n Spo rts B rands
American Eagle
A &F
Fo rever 21
S pring 2 0 0 7
Ho llister
A merican Eagle
Actio n Spo rts B rands
A &F
Fo rever 21
TOP CLOTHING BRAND PREFERENCES (AVERAGE INCOME STUDENT SURVEY)
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
No. 4
No. 5
A merican Eagle
Nike
Fo rever 21
A ctio n Spo rts B rands
Ho llister
F a ll 2 010
A merican Eagle
Ho llister
Nike
A ctio n Spo rts B rands
A ero po stale
S pring 2 0 10
A merican Eagle
Nike
Actio n Spo rts B rands
Ho llister
Fo rever 21
A ctio n Spo rts B rands
A merican Eagle
Nike
Ho llister
Fo rever 21
S pring 2 0 0 9
A merican Eagle
A ctio n Spo rts B rands
Ho llister
Nike
Fo rever 21
F a ll 2 00 8
A merican Eagle
A ctio n Spo rts B rands
Ho llister
Nike
A ero po stale
S pring 2 0 0 8
A merican Eagle
A ctio n Spo rts B rands
Ho llister
Nike
A &F
F a ll 2 00 7
A merican Eagle
Ho llister
Actio n Spo rts B rands
Nike
A &F
S pring 2 0 0 7
A merican Eagle
Ho llister
Actio n Spo rts B rands
A &F
Nike
S pring 2 0 11
F a ll 2 00 9
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
Nike rules the roost with teens as the top apparel and footwear brand for upperincome teens and narrowly missed a full sweep with average-income teens as well. Top
preferred brands within upper-income changed from Action Sports Brands to Nike. In
addition, Forever 21 regained its prior position as the No. 2 preferred brand overall
while American Eagle held onto the No. 3 rank. We also noticed Polo Ralph Lauren
enter the top five for the first time. In terms of brands moving down in the rankings,
4 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
we noticed Hollister fell out of the top five for the first time since Fall of 2002. In
addition, Action Sports Brands fell out of the top 3 for the first time since Spring of
2002.
Average-income teens continue to vote for American Eagle as the No. 1 brand overall,
but we note Nike did gain ground moving back into the No. 2 position overall. We
also note that Forever 21 moved back into the top five with a strong showing as the
No. 3 brand overall for apparel. In terms of declines, we note the Hollister brand gave
back the improvement we saw in Fall of 2010 when it registered as the No. 2 brand
overall and fell back to the No. 5 brand with average-income teens.
In footwear, both upper-income and average-income teens continue to rank Nike as the
dominant market share winner with 42% and 45%, respectively. Interestingly, UGG
Australia moved up two rank points since Fall of 2010 and maintained the same rank
year-over-year with upper-income teens suggesting the brand remains strong with the
youth demographic.
•
•
SLIGHT CHANGE IN METHODOLOGY (STARTING IN FALL ’10)
•
•
In order to more accurately reflect upper-income versus average-income, we decided
to cut our data by household income for the zip codes respondents filled out on the
survey. This is a slight change from our prior methodology in which we assigned the
schools we visited as a proxy for upper-income and on-line only survey the large
sample size as a proxy for average-income. We believe analyzing the data by zip
code will enable us to get a better geographic representation of the upper-income
demographic as it opens up respondents from our larger pool to be included in the
survey for upper-income.
In addition, we supplemented our in-class survey process with a section we are titling
Pop Quiz! to provide additional insights into near-term trends on fashion trend.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 5
April 2011
Teen Specialty Retail
Valuation
Valuations In Teen Retail
Following our Fall 2008 survey, we recalibrated our valuation multiples across the teen
retail space, owing to what we were defining as the "new normal" with square footage
growth slowing and more moderate same-store sales expectations. Market multiples for
many teen retailers had been predicated on square footage growth, a favorable
demographic trend, and easy access to credit. This formula dramatically slowed during the
recession as credit availability contracted materially and hurt the teen sector. That said, we
believe concepts that have an expansion story, merchandise focused on the value price point
consumer or have a compelling international growth component can remain at high-teens
to low-20s multiples given the lack of investable growth in the industry.
Our Spring 2011 survey provides further evidence of a bifurcated recovery with upperincome teens feeling more confident and willing to spend more on fashion, while averageincome teens continue to rationalize budgets and are more heavily impacted by inflation in
non-discretionary categories. On balance, we think the industry is poised for a modest
recovery but one that takes longer and is more calculated than prior cycles. Until a defined
fashion trend (likely bottoms-driven) catalyst is identified (e.g., non-denim?), replenishment
in the category will be tied to micro-trends, placing more pressure on merchants to
correctly edit trend assortments.
In terms of stocks within the teen space, share prices on average are only 42% of their
previous peaks, which we believe allows for potential accretion in the space if employment
trends continue to improve and concepts continue to resonate with the core customer.
Risks to our medium-term recovery thesis include rising unemployment and savings rates,
which limit spending capacity; potential changes in taxation laws, affecting upper-income
household purchasing power; lack of a fashion catalyst; and input costs.
6 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
TAKING STOCK WITH TEENS SURVEY DETAILS
Survey Facts and
Process
Survey Facts
•
•
•
National study of buying behavior and brand preferences based on a sample of 4,500
teens across the United States. Survey results segmented by household income level,
gender, category, and respondent type.
Upper-income student survey included 1,000 students from households with income in
the top 25% of U.S. housing units (defined as $70,000/year and greater). Averageincome student survey included 3,500 students from households with income below the
$70,000 threshold, but slightly above the national average.
Spring 2011 tour dates: February 22 – March 30, 2011.
Survey Process
•
•
•
•
•
Our survey program collects data through two methods: 1) a series of visits to schools
across the United States, launched in the Spring of 2001 and 2) an online survey, which
has been conducted in partnership with DECA since the Spring of 2005.
School visits are structured as a half-day workshop which includes a classroom
presentation reviewing market research and the role of a securities analyst; in-class and
electronic surveys addressing shopping behavior and brand preferences; a mall field trip
including in-store surveys focused on fact-finding principles such as pricing,
merchandise presentation, and competition.
The online survey in partnership with DECA is open to students in all 50 states,
Canada, and U.S. Virgin Islands during the month of March.
Data from both sources is combined and then sorted by income level by cross
referencing student-provided zip codes and Census Bureau data.
Students from zip codes with an average income of $70,000/year and greater are
included in our upper-income student survey while all others are included in the
average-income student survey.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 7
April 2011
DEMOGRAPHICS
•
•
•
We surveyed a total of approximately 4,500 students across our Upper-Income and
average-income student surveys.
We visited nine different classrooms across the nation during the months of February
and March 2011. Our survey results include site visits in California, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Texas and Washington.
Our online survey in partnership with DECA received 4,500 responses from 37 states.
Exhibit 2
TAKING STOCK WITH TEENS – SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS
UPPER INCOME STUDENT SURVEY
Students Surveyed - Upper Income
Gender Breakdow n - Female to Male
Average Age
Percentage Of Students Part-Time Employed
Average Household Income
Spring 2011
1,000
45%-55%
16.5
39%
$84,000
Fall 2010
1,200
45%-55%
16.2
36%
$88,000
Spring 2010
900
48%-52%
16.6
39%
$79,000
Fall 2009
1,200
44%-56%
16.3
38%
$75,000
Spring 2009 Fall 2008 Spring 2008
600
850
670
46% - 54% 47% - 53% 51% - 49%
16.3
16.2
16.4
35%
44%
45%
$73,000
$76,000
$77,000
Fall 2007 Spring 2007 Fall 2006 Spring 2006
980
600
1,000
700
49% - 51% 58% - 42% 51% - 49% 55% - 45%
16.6
16.6
16.4
16.6
45%
43%
50%
46%
$71,000
$73,000
$74,000
$72,000
Fall 2005
700
49% - 51%
16.7
52%
$75,000
AVERAGE INCOME STUDENT SURVEY
Students Surveyed - Average Income
Gender Breakdow n - Female to Male
Average Age
Percentage Of Students Part-Time Employed
Average Household Income
Spring 2011
3,500
49%-51%
16.6
41%
$45,000
Fall 2010
4,800
50%-50%
16.3
39%
$45,000
Spring 2010
5,100
53%-47%
16.7
43%
$49,000
Fall 2009
10,000
52%-48%
16.2
39%
$52,000
Spring 2009 Fall 2008 Spring 2008
7,500
6,800
4,500
52%-48%
51% - 49% 52% - 48%
16.7
16.4
17.1
45%
51%
50%
$52,000
$50,000
$57,000
Fall 2007 Spring 2007 Fall 2006 Spring 2006
3,300
1,200
3,000
1,200
54% - 46% 49% - 51% 54% - 46% 53% - 47%
16.6
16.8
16.3
16.9
51%
51%
52%
56%
$46,000
$51,000
$42,000
$44,000
Fall 2005
2,300
49% - 51%
16.4
55%
$42,000
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Student
Demographics – All
Students
Student Demographics – Upper-Income Student Survey
•
•
We surveyed approximately 1,000 students in our upper-income student survey.
Results included responses from 22 states.
8 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 3
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – RESPONSE BY STATE
The Spring 2011 Survey:
10-20% of total responses
5-10% of total responses
0-5% of total responses
No responses
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
•
•
•
•
Approximately 45% of respondents were female and 55% were male in our upperincome student survey, a similar percentage of females relative to our Fall 2010 survey
and slightly lower than our Spring 2010 survey. This balance still represents a lowerthan-average percentage of female respondents; the average over the last 14 surveys is
51% females and 49% males.
The average age of respondents was 16.5 years. This is in line with the 14-survey
average age. Based on U.S. birth rate statistics for the years 1992-1997 (today’s 14
through 19 year olds), our sample represents trends among roughly 24 million
teenagers.
We believe that by surveying teens in this targeted age bracket and across two unique
household income profiles, we are able to monitor discretionary spending, compare
and contrast brand preferences and shopping behavior, and observe purchase patterns
during highly formative years for young adults.
As the teen retail landscape becomes more fragmented in terms of target demographic,
reach, and lifestyle, we are able to qualify differences in preference and behavior
among respondents from their early teens to late teens.
In addition, we note the highly discretionary nature of teen ‘budgets’ in which wants
often overshadow needs, and social status is dictated by image, involvement,
association, and achievements.
Exhibit 4
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS
UPPER INCOME STUDENT SURVEY
Students Surveyed - Upper Income
Gender Breakdow n - Female to Male
Average Age
Percentage Of Students Part-Time Employed
Average Household Income
Spring 2011
1,000
45%-55%
16.5
39%
$84,000
Fall 2010
1,200
45%-55%
16.2
36%
$88,000
Spring 2010
900
48%-52%
16.6
39%
$79,000
Fall 2009
1,200
44%-56%
16.3
38%
$75,000
Spring 2009 Fall 2008 Spring 2008
600
850
670
46% - 54% 47% - 53% 51% - 49%
16.3
16.2
16.4
35%
44%
45%
$73,000
$76,000
$77,000
Fall 2007 Spring 2007 Fall 2006 Spring 2006
980
600
1,000
700
49% - 51% 58% - 42% 51% - 49% 55% - 45%
16.6
16.6
16.4
16.6
45%
43%
50%
46%
$71,000
$73,000
$74,000
$72,000
Fall 2005
700
49% - 51%
16.7
52%
$75,000
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 9
April 2011
•
•
•
•
In terms of part-time employment, 39% of students in our upper-income student survey
held jobs at the time of the survey – even with the prior year and up from 36% in the
Fall 2010 season. However, this measure is well below the 14-survey average at 44%.
When looking specifically at employment by gender, roughly 41% of females and 38%
of males were employed at the time of our survey. This compares to Fall 2010 when
38% of females and 35% of males were employed and Spring 2010 when 39% of
females and 38% of males were employed.
The average household income of our upper-income student survey sample was
approximately $84,000, higher than the 14-survey average of $75,000. The income level
compares to $88,000 in Fall 2010 and $79,000 in Spring 2010.
We note the average household income of our upper-income student survey group
represents roughly the top 25th percentile of average household incomes in the United
States, based on zip code analysis. According to the 2000 United States Census,
national average household income nears $42,000. We think this population of teen
households is responsible for roughly 60% of spending power across teen and youth
retailing. Were we to apply a living cost and inflation adjustment to mirror the annual
census update, the average household income level of our survey would approximate
$108,000.
Student Demographics – Average-Income Student Survey
•
•
We surveyed approximately 3,500 students in our average-income student survey.
Results included responses from 36 states.
Exhibit 5
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – RESPONSE BY STATE
The Spring 2011 Survey:
10-20% of total responses
5-10% of total responses
0-5% of total responses
No responses
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
Among our average-income student survey, approximately 49% of respondents were
female and 51% were male, a lower percentage of females relative to our prior seven
survey cycles. This balance represents a lower-than-average percentage of female
respondents as the 13-survey average balance includes 52% females and 48% males.
10 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
•
•
•
•
The average age of respondents was 16.6 years which is in line with the 13-survey
average age of 16.6 years. Based on U.S. birth rate statistics for the years 1992-1997
(today’s 14 through 19 year olds), our sample represents trends among roughly 24
million teenagers.
We believe that by surveying teens in this targeted age bracket and across two unique
household income profiles, we are able to monitor discretionary spending, compare
and contrast brand preferences and shopping behavior, and observe purchase patterns
during highly formative years for young adults.
As the teen retail landscape becomes more fragmented in terms of target demographic,
reach, and lifestyle, we are able to qualify differences in preference and behavior
among respondents from their early teens to late teens.
In addition, we note the highly discretionary nature of teen ‘budgets’ in which wants
often overshadow needs and social status is dictated by image, involvement,
association, and achievements.
Exhibit 6
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS
AVERAGE INCOME STUDENT SURVEY
Students Surveyed - Average Income
Gender Breakdow n - Female to Male
Average Age
Percentage Of Students Part-Time Employed
Average Household Income
Spring 2011
3,500
49%-51%
16.6
41%
$45,000
Fall 2010
4,800
50%-50%
16.3
39%
$45,000
Spring 2010
5,100
53%-47%
16.7
43%
$49,000
Fall 2009
10,000
52%-48%
16.2
39%
$52,000
Spring 2009
7,500
52%-48%
16.7
45%
$52,000
Fall 2008 Spring 2008
6,800
4,500
51% - 49% 52% - 48%
16.4
17.1
51%
50%
$50,000
$57,000
Fall 2007 Spring 2007
3,300
1,200
54% - 46% 49% - 51%
16.6
16.8
51%
51%
$46,000
$51,000
Fall 2006 Spring 2006
3,000
1,200
54% - 46% 53% - 47%
16.3
16.9
52%
56%
$42,000
$44,000
Fall 2005
2,300
49% - 51%
16.4
55%
$42,000
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
•
•
In terms of part-time employment, 41% of students in our average-income student
survey held jobs at the time of the survey, down from 43% in the prior year but up
from 39% in the Fall 2010 season. However, this measure is also well below the 13survey average of 49%.
When looking specifically at employment by gender, 43% of females and 40% of males
were employed at the time of our survey. This compares to Fall 2010 when 41% of
females and 37% of males were employed and Spring 2010 when 45% of females and
41% of males were employed.
The average household income of our average-income student survey sample was
approximately $45,000, lower than the 13-survey average of $48,000. The income level
compares to $49,000 in the prior year and $45,000 in Fall 2010. Were we to adjust the
average household income by a rate commensurate with the annualized Census Bureau
cost of living and inflation adjustment, our average-income student survey household
income would approximate $58,000, slightly above the average adjusted income
nationwide of $54,000.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 11
April 2011
S T U D E N T SP E N D I N G B E HA V I O R
Student Spending
Behavior – All
Students
Our Spring 2011 Taking Stock With Teens survey results continue to reflect stabilization in
spending and potential for a discretionary recovery in fashion. However, significant
discounting, an unstable employment environment, and inflation in non-discretionary
categories remain key themes in budgeting decisions for teens. Our Spring 2011 survey
indicates fashion spending by upper-income teens is likely to outperform average-income
teen spending. We continue to see a preference for “value” at all levels of household
income, but believe teens will spend more for differentiated merchandise.
Key Highlights: Student Spending Behavior – Upper-Income Student Survey
•
•
•
•
•
•
We assess fashion budgets for the teen consumer by looking at spending on the apparel,
footwear and accessories categories. Spring 2011 fashion budgets appear to be flat
compared to our Fall 2010 and Spring 2010 survey results.
By gender, female fashion budgets increased 1% sequentially from Fall 2010, but
declined 3% from Spring 2010. We believe this continues to reflect lower Average Unit
Retail prices in the fashion category, a difficult teen employment situation, and a valueoriented consumer mindset. For males, fashion budgets declined 12% sequentially from
Fall 2010 but increased 10% from Spring 2010. This marks a significant improvement
from the 3% year-over-year decrease observed in our Fall 2010 results and suggests
male spending is now increasing following a bottoming in Spring 2010.
By category, apparel experienced a 4% increase in spending on a sequential and yearover-year basis. Apparel was the best performing fashion category on a sequential
basis. Shoes also increased 4% year-over-year but declined 6% from Fall 2010.
Accessories was the weakest category with a 27% year-over-year decline and a 4%
sequential decline as both genders have reduced their accessories budgets.
In terms of sentiment, we believe the upper-income teen is feeling much better about
spending. We ask students whether they plan to spend more, less or the same on
fashion versus the prior year and this survey showed significant improvement in this
metric on both a year-over-year and sequential basis. We note 36% of students
indicated they plan to spend more on apparel compared to 34% in Fall 2010 and 33%
in Spring 2010. Shoe spending expectations increased even more as 30% of students
plan to spend more compared to 26% in Fall 2010 and 22% in Spring 2010. The
number of students planning to spend less on shoes dropped to 11%, which is the
lowest level since Fall 2005.
Spending expectations improved for both genders, but improvements were more
pronounced for females. This bodes well for fashion spending as female fashion
budgets are approximately twice the size of male fashion budgets. The percentage of
females expecting to spend more on apparel increased to 41%, up from 38% in Fall
2010 and 34% in Spring 2010. Female shoe spending expectations posted an even larger
increase as 31% expect to spend more, up from 26% in Fall 2010 and 23% in Spring
2010. Male spending expectations also posted strong gains as the percentage of
students expecting to spend more on apparel increased to 33%, up from 30% in Fall
2010 and 31% in Spring 2010. Expected shoe spending for males also posted increased
as 31% expect to spend more compared with 26% in Fall 2010 and 23% in Spring 2010.
Historically, fashion replenishment cycles have lasted three to five years and have been
followed by transition cycles lasting another two to four years. We note that the prior
peak in fashion spending was the Spring 2006 survey, or five years ago. While fashion
12 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
cycles clearly are dependent on a favorable economic trend, we have yet to see a
dominant apparel fashion trend emerge to drive traffic and conversion.
Exhibit 7
FASHION CYCLE
Average Comp = 1.2%
Grunge
15%
Cleaned Up
Casual
Khaki
Cargo
Surf &
Skate
Premium
Denim
Cycle Transition
Cycle Transition
Cycle Transition
Fast Fashion
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
Mar-92
Sep-93
Mar-95
Sep-96
Mar-98
Sep-99
Mar-01
Sep-02
Mar-04
Sep-05
Mar-07
Sep-08
Mar-10
Index Includes: ANF, ANN, AEO, ARO, CACH, CHS, GES, GPS, HOTT, JWN, LTD, NWY, PSUN, TLB, & URBN
Source: Company Reports, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Student Spending Behavior – Average-Income Student Survey
•
•
•
We estimate fashion budgets for the teen consumer by looking at spending on the
apparel, footwear and accessories categories. We note Spring 2011 fashion budgets
declined 10% on both a sequential and year-over-year basis.
By gender, female fashion budgets declined 3% sequentially from Fall 2010 and
declined 8% from Spring 2010. We believe this continues to reflect lower Average Unit
Retail prices in the fashion category, a difficult teen employment situation, and a valueoriented consumer mindset. For males, fashion budgets declined 11% sequentially from
Fall 2010 and declined 9% from Spring 2010. These results suggest deterioration from
the flat sequential and 1% year-over-over improvement in the Fall 2010. We believe
this may be caused by higher food and gas prices which are more likely to impact
spending on discretionary categories for the average-income teen.
By category, apparel declined 11% year-over-year and 13% on a sequential basis.
Within apparel, female spending declined less than male spending. Shoes was the
strongest fashion category with a 6% year-over-year decline and 1% sequential decline.
Female shoe spending increased 2% on a sequential basis but declined 8% year-overyear. Among males, shoe spending declined 6% sequentially and 5% year-over-year.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 13
April 2011
•
Macroeconomic
Backdrop for Student
Spending
Accessories was the weakest category as spending declined 13% on a year-over-year
and sequential basis.
In terms of sentiment, we believe average-income teens are feeling lukewarm about
spending. We ask students whether they plan to spend more, less or the same on
fashion versus the prior year and this survey continued to point to consolidation
around the same for the average-income teen consumer. To us, this suggests
stabilization for spending and a continued slow grind with the average-income teen
consumer. We note there was not as much improvement in sentiment among averageincome teens versus upper-income teens.
Key Highlights: Macroeconomic Backdrop – Employment, Savings and Capacity to Spend
Economic indicators continue to show year-over-year gains as the discretionary recovery
continues at a moderate pace. We believe the economy is gradually improving and
corporate balance sheets are healthy enough to hire for growth, although employers have
been slow to do so. However, we remain cognizant of the potential impact of rising prices
in non-discretionary categories such as gas and food. While personal income growth is
improving, further inflation in these categories could affect spending on discretionary
categories.
Employment
We continue to believe the current employment picture domestically remains the biggest
challenge to the ongoing economic recovery. The unemployment rate is improving on a
year-over-year basis and initial unemployment claims have declined 12% year-over-year to
approximately 394,000 per week.
•
•
•
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 7.1 million fewer people
employed in March 2011 versus March 2008. Employment levels are showing signs of
improvement as total non-farm employment has increased on year-over-year basis for
six consecutive months with the first three months of 2011 each posting one millionplus new jobs compared to the year ago period.
Teen spending continues to be negatively impacted by a teen unemployment near
record-high levels. The current 24.5% teen unemployment rate is below last October’s
peak of 27.1%, but is still higher than any point between 1983 and 2008 and compares
to an average of 15.6% from 1948 to 2008.
Domestic employers continue to do more with less as productivity continues to show
solid gains. Despite strong earnings growth, businesses have not significantly increased
headcount.
Below we look at four charts: 1) the rate of change in employment year-over-year relative to
the S&P 500, 2) the teen unemployment rate, 3) teen demand for jobs, and 4) improvements
in apparel spending after three years of declines. We believe if income growth remains at
current levels and apparel keeps its historical relationship with disposable personal income,
sales in the category can increase 4-5% in 2011.
14 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 8
EMPLOYMENT VERSUS S&P 500
S&P500
1,600
EMPLOYMENT CHANGE
4%
3%
1,400
1%
1,200
S&P 500
0%
1,000
-1%
-2%
800
-3%
Employment Change Y/Y
2%
-4%
600
-5%
1/4/2011
1/4/2010
1/4/2009
1/4/2008
1/4/2007
1/4/2006
1/4/2005
1/4/2004
1/4/2002
Jan-78
1/4/2003
1/4/2001
Jan-75
1/4/2000
1/4/1999
1/4/1998
1/4/1997
1/4/1996
1/4/1995
1/4/1994
-6%
1/4/1993
400
Source: Baseline, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Exhibit 9
TEEN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
30
TEEN
ALL AGES
25
20
15
10
5
Jan-11
Jan-08
Jan-05
Jan-02
Jan-99
Jan-96
Jan-93
Jan-90
Jan-87
Jan-84
Jan-81
Jan-72
Jan-69
Jan-66
Jan-63
Jan-60
Jan-57
Jan-54
Jan-51
Jan-48
0
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 15
April 2011
Exhibit 10
TEEN EMPLOYMENT – BY INCOME LEVEL
100%
Average-Income Student Survey
% of Respondents Answering "Yes"
90%
Upper-Income Student Survey
80%
76%
71%
70%
60%
50%
41%
40%
39%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Do you have a job?
If no, do you want one?
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Exhibit 11
RETAIL APPAREL/ACCESSORIES SALES
TOTAL RETAIL CLOTHING STORE SALES (SA) VS. PRIOR YEARS
2011 vs. Prior Years
2000 2001 2002 2003
January
13.3
14.1
14.2
14.6
February
13.6
14.2
14.4
14.2
March
13.9
13.9
14.5
14.5
April
13.8
14.2
14.4
14.4
May
14.1
14.0
14.2
14.7
June
13.9
13.9
14.4
14.9
July
13.8
14.0
14.2
15.1
August
14.1
14.2
14.4
15.1
September
14.4
13.3
14.0
15.2
October
14.2
14.0
14.6
15.1
November
14.3
14.0
14.5
15.3
December
14.1
14.2
14.8
15.5
Total
167.4 167.8 172.6 178.5
% Change
0.2% 2.8% 3.4%
DPI*
% Change
% Apparel
7,327
2.3%
($ BILLIONS)
2004 2005 2006
15.5 16.2
17.4
15.7 16.7
17.4
16.0 16.3
17.4
15.6 16.8
17.6
15.7 16.5
17.5
15.5 16.8
17.6
15.6 16.5
17.7
15.6 16.8
17.6
15.8 16.5
18.3
16.1 17.2
18.2
16.0 17.1
17.9
16.2 17.2
18.4
189.2 200.6 213.1
6.0% 6.0% 6.2%
7,649 8,010 8,378 8,889 9,277
4.4% 4.7% 4.6% 6.1% 4.4%
2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2%
2007 2008 2009
18.5
18.7
17.3
18.3
18.3
17.7
18.8
18.7
17.0
18.2
18.6
17.1
18.6
18.6
17.4
18.3
18.6
17.2
18.4
18.5
17.4
18.3
18.4
17.6
18.5
17.6
17.6
18.5
17.3
17.6
18.7
17.3
17.4
18.4
16.8
17.4
221.7 217.5 208.9
4.0% -1.9% -4.0%
2010
17.7
17.9
18.5
18.2
18.1
18.1
18.1
18.1
18.1
18.3
18.6
18.4
218.3
4.5%
9,916 10,424 10,953 11,035 11,378 11,833
6.9% 5.1% 5.1% 0.7% 3.1% 4.0%
2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%
Est. apparel $s '11:
% change from '10
*Disposable Personal Income
Represents decelerating and declining investment in apparel
Source: Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Piper Jaffray & Co.
16 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
2011
18.5
18.6
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
228.1
4.5%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
6.2% -0.3% -1.0% 6.6% 4.2%
7.1% 1.9% 1.5% 5.0% 3.8%
April 2011
Savings Rate
We believe the more elevated levels of the savings rate has been caused by a decline in the
value of assets on the consumer balance sheet and a lack of confidence in the economic
recovery, specifically with regards to jobs.
We estimate every 1% increase in the personal savings rate is worth approximately
$115 billion in consumer expenditure declines. The current rate of 5.8% is significantly
higher than the 3.5% average since January 2000. We estimate a drop in the savings
rate to 3.5% would generate $265 billion in incremental consumer spending.
Not surprisingly, there appears to be an inverse relationship between the Volatility
Index (VIX) and consumer’s penchant for savings. For historical perspective, we note
the savings rate in the United States has averaged 7.4% over the past 80 years, but has
been below this average since 1986.
•
•
Exhibit 12
PERSONAL SAVINGS RATE VERSUS VIX (CBOE VOLATILITY INDEX)
9%
70
Stimulus
8%
60
7%
50
6%
5%
40
4%
30
3%
20
2%
10
1%
0%
0
PERSONAL SAVINGS RATE
VIX
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Baseline, Piper Jaffray & Co.
Capacity to Spend
Personal consumption expenditure growth has generally tracked above income growth
since mid-2008. However, the spread has narrowed and personal income growth exceeded
personal consumption expenditures in January and February 2011. In addition, the personal
savings rate remains at elevated levels, suggesting the consumer has the ability to further
increase spending but we believe improving levels of confidence are necessary before this
trend materializes. We remain encouraged by wage growth and consumers’ ongoing
deleveraging, both of which have put money back into consumers’ pockets.
•
Personal income less current account transfers has shown year-over-year growth for the
last 12 months following 14 months of declines. In January 2011, the year-over-year
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 17
April 2011
•
•
•
growth rate accelerated sequentially 140bps to 4.8% and February’s growth rate
increased 30bps to 5.1%.
Access to revolving credit remains limited as the total amount of credit is 7% lower
than one year ago. From the peak of credit availability in September 2008, revolving
credit has decreased by 18%.
PCE growth has been tracking above income growth which is similar to other periods
with a slowdown in personal income and revolving credit availability. However, in
January the relationship reversed suggesting personal income growth could support a
higher level of consumption.
Financial obligation and debt service ratios have declined to levels below historical
averages. While not a significant driver of teen spending as teens typically have little
debt, we believe the drop bodes well for higher levels of parent contributions to teens’
budgets.
Exhibit 13
PERSONAL INCOME LESS CURRENT TRANSFERS + REVOLVING
CREDIT VERSUS PCE CHANGE (YEAR-OVER-YEAR)
$1,000
$1,000
PERSONAL INCOME LESS CURRENT TRANSFERS + REVOLVING
PERSONAL CONSUMPTION
$800
$800
$600
$600
$400
$400
$200
$200
$0
$0
-$200
-$400
-$400
-$600
-$600
-$800
-$800
1969-Jan
1969-Sep
1970-May
1971-Jan
1971-Sep
1972-May
1973-Jan
1973-Sep
1974-May
1975-Jan
1975-Sep
1976-May
1977-Jan
1977-Sep
1978-May
1979-Jan
1979-Sep
1980-May
1981-Jan
1981-Sep
1982-May
1983-Jan
1983-Sep
1984-May
1985-Jan
1985-Sep
1986-May
1987-Jan
1987-Sep
1988-May
1989-Jan
1989-Sep
1990-May
1991-Jan
1991-Sep
1992-May
1993-Jan
1993-Sep
1994-May
1995-Jan
1995-Sep
1996-May
1997-Jan
1997-Sep
1998-May
1999-Jan
1999-Sep
2000-May
2001-Jan
2001-Sep
2002-May
2003-Jan
2003-Sep
2004-May
2005-Jan
2005-Sep
2006-May
2007-Jan
2007-Sep
2008-May
2009-Jan
2009-Sep
2010-May
2011-Jan
-$200
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve
18 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Student Spending
Behavior – By Gender
Total fashion spending trends remain subdued with no change in our upper-income student
survey and a 10% decline in our average-income student survey. Fashion spending trends
among upper-income females and males outperformed average-income spending on both a
sequential and year-over-year basis. Upper-income female spending is beginning to
normalize as fashion spending declined 3% year-over-year but improved 1% sequentially.
These results are encouraging as upper-income female fashion spending declined 4%
sequentially and 20% year-over-year in the Fall 2010 survey. Average-income female
spending declined 8% year-over-year and 3% on a sequential basis. Upper-income male
fashion spending increased 10% year-over-year but declined 2% sequentially. Averageincome male fashion spending declined 11% year-over-year and 9% on a sequential basis.
Key Highlights: Upper-Income Student Spending Behavior – By Gender
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
By gender, fashion spending remains significantly higher in absolute dollars for females
at $1,280 versus $611 for males.
Female fashion spending declined 3% year-over-year but improved 1% sequentially.
Apparel was the top performing fashion category among females as spending increased
5% year-over-year and 3% on a sequential basis. Females reduced footwear spending
by 13% sequentially and 9% year-over-year. Spending on accessories by females
declined 4% sequentially and 25% year-over-year.
Male fashion spending increased 10% year-over-year driven by shoes and apparel.
Among males, shoes were the top performing category as spending increased 23% yearover-year and 1% on a sequential basis. Apparel followed with an 8% year-over-year
increase but declined 1% sequentially. Men’s accessories continued to decline as
spending fell 21% year-over-year and 16% from Fall 2010.
Overall shoes and apparel posted the strongest year-over-year results with an increase
of 4%. The relative outperformance of shoes was driven by strength in male spending
while apparel spending increased for females and males. We believe increased footwear
spending trends in our survey, coupled with strong FQ4 results from footwear brands
and retailers, suggests the footwear category can continue to strengthen driven by
fashion and technical innovation.
Accessories were also down year-over-year for both genders with females reporting a
25% decline and males reporting a slightly lower decline of 21%.
We note that the average household income of our upper-income student survey is
approximately $84,000.
Assuming a total teen population of 24 million (14 to 19 years of age) our survey
represents an economic sub-group spending approximately $22 billion annually on
fashion products.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 19
April 2011
Exhibit 14
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – FASHION SPENDING, ALL STUDENTS
Fashion Spending Spring-11
Apparel
$630
Shoes
$218
Accessories
$85
Total - All
$933
Apparel
Shoes
Accessories
Total - Fem ale
Apparel
Shoes
Accessories
Total - Male
Seq Chg
4%
-6%
-9%
0%
Y/Y Chg
4%
4%
-27%
0%
Fall-10
$608
$233
$93
$934
Seq Chg
0%
11%
-20%
0%
Y/Y Chg
-19%
5%
-17%
-14%
Spring-10
$608
$209
$116
$932
Y/Y Chg
-2%
-21%
-14%
-8%
Fall-09
$749
$221
$113
$1,083
Y/Y Chg
4%
2%
-9%
2%
Spring-09
$620
$263
$135
$1,018
Y/Y Chg
-22%
4%
0%
-14%
Fall-08
$721
$217
$125
$1,062
Y/Y Chg
1%
2%
0%
1%
Spring-08
$795
$254
$134
$1,183
Y/Y Chg
-21%
-6%
-24%
-19%
Fall-07
$715
$211
$125
$1,052
Y/Y Chg
-20%
-12%
-20%
-18%
$924
$221
$135
$1,280
5%
-13%
-4%
1%
3%
-9%
-25%
-3%
$876
$253
$141
$1,270
-2%
4%
-22%
-4%
-24%
0%
-19%
-20%
$895
$243
$181
$1,319
-2%
-27%
-19%
-10%
$1,154
$254
$173
$1,581
7%
-1%
-10%
4%
$911
$333
$223
$1,467
-19%
9%
8%
-11%
$1,074
$256
$193
$1,524
7%
1%
3%
6%
$1,129
$305
$206
$1,640
-13%
-3%
-12%
-11%
$1,002
$253
$188
$1,444
-19%
-9%
-10%
-17%
$354
$216
$41
$611
-1%
1%
-16%
-2%
8%
23%
-21%
10%
$358
$214
$49
$622
10%
22%
-6%
12%
-9%
12%
-18%
-3%
$327
$176
$52
$555
-12%
-13%
-12%
-12%
$392
$192
$60
$644
1%
7%
0%
2%
$370
$202
$59
$631
-8%
4%
17%
-3%
$389
$180
$60
$629
-8%
6%
0%
-3%
$404
$195
$50
$649
-18%
2%
-34%
-15%
$421
$169
$61
$651
-17%
-17%
-38%
-19%
Y/Y Chg
-1%
-5%
-21%
-5%
Fall-06
$888
$241
$156
$1,285
Y/Y Chg
-1%
-6%
-20%
-5%
Spring-06
$1,021
$285
$225
$1,531
Y/Y Chg
11%
13%
-6%
8%
Fall-05
$897
$256
$195
$1,348
Y/Y Chg
-2%
34%
-20%
0%
Fall-05
$897
$256
$195
$1,348
Y/Y Chg
-2%
34%
-20%
0%
Spring-05
$922
$253
$240
$1,415
Y/Y Chg
1%
14%
-16%
-1%
Fall-04
$920
$191
$242
$1,353
Y/Y Chg
12%
-2%
-3%
7%
Spring-04
$914
$222
$287
$1,423
Y/Y Chg
13%
-13%
64%
14%
Fall-03
$821
$195
$250
$1,267
Y/Y Chg
12%
-14%
39%
11%
$1,297
$316
$234
$1,847
-4%
5%
-25%
-6%
$1,243
$277
$210
$1,730
0%
-7%
-24%
-5%
$1,355
$302
$312
$1,969
18%
9%
14%
16%
$1,247
$297
$277
$1,821
3%
33%
-5%
6%
$1,247
$297
$277
$1,821
3%
33%
-5%
6%
$1,150
$277
$274
$1,701
1%
11%
-14%
0%
$1,205
$223
$293
$1,721
64%
64%
40%
59%
$1,137
$249
$320
$1,706
10%
-18%
44%
9%
$735
$136
$210
$1,081
-19%
-45%
10%
-19%
$495
$191
$76
$762
-13%
-28%
-29%
-19%
$507
$202
$98
$807
-12%
-7%
-18%
-11%
$572
$263
$107
$942
4%
22%
-42%
-1%
$573
$218
$119
$910
16%
51%
-28%
13%
$573
$218
$119
$910
16%
51%
-28%
13%
$549
$215
$184
$948
-9%
16%
-24%
-8%
$492
$144
$166
$802
-48%
-49%
-46%
-48%
$606
$185
$241
$1,032
12%
-7%
106%
21%
$945
$281
$308
$1,534
81%
39%
86%
72%
Fashion Spending Spring-07
Apparel
$1,007
Shoes
$270
Accessories
$177
Total - All
$1,454
Apparel
Shoes
Accessories
Total - Fem ale
Apparel
Shoes
Accessories
Total - Male
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Exhibit 15
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – FASHION SPENDING, ALL STUDENTS
$1,700
$1,562
$1,600
$1,531
$1,468
$1,500
$1,400
$1,300
$1,454
$1,423
$1,415
$1,353
$1,285
$1,244
$1,348
$1,285
$1,267
$1,183
$1,200
$1,139
$1,100
$1,083
$1,062
$1,052
$1,018
$1,000
$932
$934
$933
Spring
2010
Fall
2010
Spring
2011
$900
$800
$700
Spring
2001
Fall
2001
Spring
2002
Fall
2002
Spring
2003
Fall
2003
Spring
2004
Fall
2004
Spring
2005
Fall
2005
Spring
2006
Fall
2006
Spring
2007
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
20 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Fall
2007
Spring
2008
Fall
2008
Spring
2009
Fall
2009
April 2011
Exhibit 16
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – FASHION SPENDING, ALL STUDENTS
$1,969
$1,900
$1,847
$1,821
$1,716
$1,706
$1,661
$1,700
$1,721
$1,561
$1,562
$1,500
$1,300
$1,730
$1,581
$1,531
$1,534
$1,476
$1,468
$1,640
$1,701
$1,458
$1,454
$1,423
$1,415
$1,444
$1,524
$1,467
$1,342 $1,267
$1,244
$1,285
$1,353
$1,280
$1,348
$1,285
$1,319
$1,183
$1,270
$1,152
$1,100
$1,083
$1,139
$1,116
$1,032
$1,081
$900
$948
$910
$1,052
$1,062
$942
$934
$1,018
$932
$890
$933
$807
$856
$762
$802
$700
$651 $649
$629
$631
$644
$611
$555
$622
$500
Spring
2001
Fall
2001
Spring
2002
Fall
2002
Spring
2003
Fall
2003
Average Spending - All Students
Spring
2004
Fall
2004
Spring
2005
Fall
2005
Spring
2006
Fall
2006
Spring
2007
Average Spending - Female
Fall
2007
Spring
2008
Fall
2008
Spring
2009
Fall
2009
Spring
2010
Fall
2010
Spring
2011
Average Spending - Male
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 21
April 2011
Key Highlights: Average-Income Student Spending Behavior – By Gender
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
By gender, fashion spending remains significantly higher in absolute dollars for females
at $1,057 versus $735 for males.
Average-income female spending declined 8% year-over-year and 3% on a sequential
basis. Accessories was the top performing fashion category among females as spending
declined 7% year-over-year but increased 3% on a sequential basis. Female footwear
spending declined 8% year-over-year but increased 2% sequentially. Apparel spending
declined 8% year-over-year and 6% sequentially and was the worst performing
category among average-income females.
Male fashion spending declined 9% year-over-year and 11% on a sequential basis.
Among males, shoes were the top performing category as spending declined 5% yearover-year and 6% on a sequential basis. Apparel followed with a 9% year-over-year
decline and 11% sequential decline. Men’s accessories continued to decline as spending
fell 17% year-over-year and 27% from Fall 2010.
On a combined basis, shoes posted the strongest results with a decline of 6% year-overyear and 1% sequentially. We believe increased footwear spending trends in our
survey, coupled with strong FQ4 results from footwear brands and retailers, suggests
the footwear category can continue to strengthen driven by fashion and technical
innovation.
Accessories were also down year-over-year for both genders with females reporting a
7% decline and males reporting a decline of 17%.
We note that the average household income of our average-income student survey is
approximately $45,000.
Assuming a total teen population of 24 million (14 to 19 years of age) our survey
represents an economic sub-group spending approximately $22 billion annually on
fashion products.
Exhibit 17
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – FASHION SPENDING, ALL STUDENTS
Avg. Income Fashion Spending Spring-11
Apparel
$560
Shoes
$239
Accessories
$103
Total - All Students
$902
Apparel
Shoes
Accessories
Total - Female
Apparel
Shoes
Accessories
Total - Male
Apparel
Shoes
Accessories
Total - All Students
Apparel
Shoes
Accessories
Total - Female
Apparel
Shoes
Accessories
Total - Male
Seq Chg
-13%
-1%
-13%
-10%
Y/Y Chg
-11%
-6%
-13%
-10%
Fall-10
$640
$241
$119
$999
Seq Chg
2%
-6%
0%
0%
Y/Y Chg
4%
0%
-12%
1%
Spring-10
$626
$255
$119
$1,000
Seq Chg
1%
6%
-12%
1%
Y/Y Chg
9%
-2%
-10%
3%
Fall-09
$617
$241
$135
$993
Seq Chg
7%
-7%
2%
3%
Y/Y Chg
6%
-10%
3%
1%
Spring-09
$576
$260
$132
$968
Seq Chg
-1%
-3%
1%
-1%
Y/Y Chg
-15%
-10%
-6%
-13%
Fall-08
$582
$268
$131
$980
Seq Chg
-15%
-7%
-7%
-12%
Y/Y Chg
-10%
4%
-10%
-7%
$689
$233
$134
$1,057
-6%
2%
3%
-3%
-8%
-8%
-7%
-8%
$733
$229
$130
$1,093
-2%
-10%
-10%
-5%
3%
-1%
-8%
1%
$752
$253
$145
$1,150
6%
10%
2%
6%
5%
-5%
-9%
0%
$709
$231
$142
$1,082
-1%
-14%
-11%
-6%
-2%
-16%
-12%
-7%
$719
$268
$159
$1,146
-1%
-2%
-2%
-1%
-16%
-13%
-12%
-14%
$725
$275
$162
$1,162
-15%
-11%
-10%
-13%
-12%
5%
-9%
-8%
$419
$245
$71
$735
-11%
-6%
-27%
-11%
-9%
-5%
-17%
-9%
$471
$262
$97
$830
2%
2%
14%
3%
5%
0%
-21%
0%
$461
$257
$85
$804
2%
-1%
-31%
-4%
13%
3%
-15%
6%
$450
$260
$123
$834
10%
4%
23%
10%
6%
0%
27%
7%
$408
$251
$100
$759
-4%
-3%
3%
-3%
-14%
-5%
9%
-9%
$425
$260
$97
$782
-10%
-2%
6%
-6%
-6%
3%
-10%
-3%
Spring-08
$681
$288
$140
$1,109
Seq Chg
5%
13%
-4%
6%
Y/Y Chg
2%
20%
0%
6%
Fall-07
$649
$256
$145
$1,051
Seq Chg
-3%
6%
4%
0%
Y/Y Chg
-1%
-1%
1%
-1%
Spring-07
$667
$241
$140
$1,047
Seq Chg
2%
-7%
-3%
-1%
Y/Y Chg
-2%
-7%
-29%
-8%
Fall-06
$654
$259
$144
$1,057
Seq Chg
-3%
0%
-27%
-7%
Y/Y Chg
7%
15%
-6%
7%
Spring-06
$677
$259
$197
$1,133
Seq Chg
11%
15%
29%
15%
Y/Y Chg
-2%
21%
42%
8%
Fall-05
$610
$225
$153
$988
Seq Chg
-12%
5%
10%
-5%
Spring-05
$692
$214
$139
$1,045
$852
$308
$180
$1,340
4%
18%
1%
6%
-3%
15%
-13%
-1%
$822
$260
$179
$1,260
-7%
-3%
-13%
-7%
0%
-3%
-1%
-1%
$881
$268
$206
$1,355
7%
-1%
14%
6%
5%
-4%
-3%
2%
$822
$269
$181
$1,273
-2%
-3%
-15%
-5%
5%
13%
-9%
4%
$842
$278
$213
$1,333
8%
16%
7%
9%
-1%
19%
25%
6%
$781
$239
$199
$1,219
-8%
2%
16%
-3%
$849
$234
$171
$1,254
$474
$265
$92
$830
5%
5%
-15%
3%
7%
24%
29%
14%
$450
$251
$107
$809
2%
18%
51%
11%
-5%
7%
-39%
-9%
$442
$213
$71
$726
-1%
-14%
-27%
-8%
-7%
-9%
-60%
-18%
$445
$247
$97
$789
-6%
5%
-45%
-11%
3%
18%
-7%
6%
$475
$235
$177
$887
10%
12%
69%
19%
-2%
25%
82%
15%
$432
$209
$105
$746
-11%
11%
8%
-3%
$487
$188
$97
$772
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
22 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 18
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – FASHION SPENDING, ALL STUDENTS
$1,300
$1,200
$1,133
$1,109
$1,100
$1,057
$1,045
$1,051
$1,047
$988
$1,000
$994
$980
$1,000
$999
$968
$902
$900
$800
$700
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
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Exhibit 19
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – FASHION SPENDING, ALL STUDENTS
$1,500
$1,355
$1,333
$1,300
$1,340
$1,254
$1,219
$1,273
$1,162
$1,260
$1,133
$1,100
$1,146
$1,109
$1,045
$1,047
$1,051
$1,057
$988
$900
$1,057
$994
$1,000
$999
$902
$830
$809
$759
$746
$834
$803
$782
$700
$1,093
$968
$980
$887
$789
$772
$1,150
$1,081
$830
$735
$726
$500
Spring 2005
Fall 2005
Spring 2006
Fall 2006
Average Spending - All Students
Spring 2007
Fall 2007
Spring 2008
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Average Spending - Female
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Average Spending - Male
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 23
April 2011
Student Spending
Behavior – Spending
Expectations
In order to test perception versus reality, we also ask the teens in our survey to indicate
whether they are spending more, the same, or less on the fashion categories.
Key Highlights: Upper-Income Student Spending Behavior – Spending Expectations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
As is normally the case, our measure of spending “expectations” is more optimistic
than our changes in year-over-year fashion budgets.
Improvements in spending expectations were most notable for female shoes and
apparel, and male shoes.
In our upper-income student survey, female shoe intent-to-spend saw the biggest
improvement as the percentage of students planning to spend more increased to 31%
compared to 26% in the Fall and 23% last Spring.
Intent-to-spend improvement was also notable in the apparel category for females as
41% plan to spend more on the category this year versus 38% in the Fall and 34% last
Spring. We note this is the highest level since Fall 2008. 14% of females said they would
spend less on clothing, which is slightly higher than the 11% in Fall 2010, but remains
below the 15-17% range from Fall 2008 to Spring 2010.
Female accessories intent-to-spend also improved as 29% expect to spend more versus
26% in the previous two surveys.
Among males in our upper-income student survey, shoe intent-to-spend improved
substantially. The percentage of respondents planning to spend more increased to 29%
compared to 27% in the Fall and 22% last Spring. In addition, the percentage expecting
to spend less fell to 9%, which is the lowest level since Spring 2004.
Male clothing spending expectations also showed improvements as 33% expect to
spend more versus 30% in the Fall and 31% last Spring. Those expecting to spend less
dropped to 8% which the lowest since Fall 2005.
In aggregate, 30% of all teenage consumers expect to spend more on shoes compared
with 26% in the Fall and 22% last Spring. Those expecting to spend less fell to 11%,
the lowest level since Fall 2005. 36% of all teenage consumers expect to spend more on
clothing compared to 34% in the Fall and 33% last Spring.
More than half of all teenage consumers (53%) claim to be spending about the same
amount of money on clothing, while 59% claim to be spending the same on shoes and
67% expect to spend the same on accessories this year.
24 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 20
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING SPENDING
EXPECTATIONS, ALL STUDENTS
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Less
More
Same
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Exhibit 21
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SHOE SPENDING
EXPECTATIONS, ALL STUDENTS
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Less
More
Same
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 25
April 2011
Exhibit 22
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SHOE SPENDING
EXPECTATIONS, FEMALE
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Less
More
Same
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Exhibit 23
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING SPENDING
EXPECTATIONS, FEMALES
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Less
More
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
26 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Same
April 2011
Exhibit 24
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SHOE SPENDING
EXPECTATIONS, MALES
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Less
More
Same
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Exhibit 25
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING SPENDING
EXPECTATIONS, MALES
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Less
More
Same
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 27
April 2011
Key Highlights: Average-Income Student Spending Behavior – Spending Expectations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
As is normally the case, our measure of spending “expectations” is more optimistic
than our changes in year-over-year fashion budgets.
Spending expectations were largely unchanged and in some cases, worsened in our
average-income student survey.
In our average-income student survey, female intent-to-spend saw no material change
as the percentage of students planning to spend more on clothing remained at 38% for
the third consecutive survey. The number of females planning to spend less on clothing
increased slightly to 15%, up from 13% in the Fall and 14% last Spring. 29% of
females plan to spend more on shoes, which is the same as last Fall and a slight
decrease from 30% last Spring. Female accessories spending saw a similar decline from
28% planning to spend more last Fall and Spring compared to 27% currently.
Male clothing intent-to-spend worsened as 31% expect to spend more versus 32% in
the Fall and 35% last Spring. Those expecting to spend less dropped to 10%, indicating
more average-income males are planning to spend the same amount on clothing.
Male shoe spending expectations were mixed as 31% are planning to spend more
compared to 29% in the Fall and 32% last Spring.
In aggregate, 30% of all teenage consumers expect to spend more on shoes compared
with 29% in the Fall and 31% last Spring. Those expecting to spend less remained at
13%. 35% of all teenage consumers expect to spend more on clothing compared to
35% in the Fall and 36% last Spring.
More than half of all teenage consumers (53%) claim to be spending about the same
amount of money on clothing, while 59% claim to be spending the same on shoes and
65% expect to spend the same on accessories this year.
Exhibit 26
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING SPENDING
EXPECTATIONS, ALL STUDENTS
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Less
More
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
28 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Same
April 2011
Exhibit 27
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SHOE SPENDING
EXPECTATIONS, ALL STUDENTS
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Less
More
Same
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Exhibit 28
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – ACCESSORIES SPENDING
EXPECTATIONS, ALL STUDENTS
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Less
More
Same
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 29
April 2011
Exhibit 29
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING SPENDING
EXPECTATIONS, FEMALES
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Less
More
Same
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Exhibit 30
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SHOE SPENDING
EXPECTATIONS, FEMALES
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Less
More
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
30 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Same
April 2011
Exhibit 31
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING SPENDING
EXPECTATIONS, MALES
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall
2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010
Less
More
Same
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Exhibit 32
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SHOE SPENDING
EXPECTATIONS, MALES
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Less
More
Same
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 31
April 2011
Student Spending
Behavior – By
Category
Teen consumers continue to spend a significant amount of money on the fashion category
as it represents 37%-40% of the total teen budget for Spring 2011. For our upper-income
student survey, our Spring 2011 rate of 37% is a decline from 39% in Fall 2010 and Spring
2010. Fashion spending in the average-income student survey was 40%, below 42% in Fall
2010 and 43% in Spring 2010. The impact of inflation in non-discretionary categories such
as food and gas was evident with both categories gaining share in both surveys.
Key Highlights: Upper-Income Student Spending Behavior – By Category
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Looking back over the past five years, we note the Fashion category has represented
between 37% and 44% of the total teen budget and is substantially the largest category,
followed by Food at 18% and Car at 11%.
Females continue to spend more than half of their disposable income on fashion
products at 52% of total spending (down from 53% in the Fall and previous Spring)
versus a much lower 26% of total budget for males (down from 28% in the Fall and
27% in Spring 2010).
Food is the second largest category at 18% of total expenditures. Share increased from
16% on a sequential basis and last Spring’s 17%. Males allocate 20% of spending to
Food, which is slightly higher than females at 18%.
Car-related expenditures climbed to 11% of total, an increase from 8% last Fall and
9% last Spring. Following our school visits and conducting teen focus groups, higher
gas prices have become an increasing concern and these higher prices likely explain a
significant portion of the increase.
While it is difficult to truly measure the amount of music purchased versus downloaded
at no cost by teenage consumers, the Music and Movies (CD/DVD) category maintains
a significant share of disposable income. The category represents 8% of the total
budget, but is still below the 11% peak in Spring 2009. Spending on the category was
8% of total budget share in the Spring 2010 survey and 9% in Fall 2010.
The Electronics / Gadgets category represents 7% of total budget share, up from 6% in
Spring 2010, but in line with Fall 2010. We believe this slight uptick may be due in part
to the buzz over tablet computers and other devices. By gender, Electronics/Gadgets
represented 8% of total budget for males and 5% for females in this survey iteration.
Video Games slipped to 6% versus 7% last Spring but flat with Fall 2010. The Video
Game category ranks much higher for males at 10% versus only 1% for females.
Among males, share slipped from 14% in Spring 2010 and 11% in Fall 2010.
32 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 33
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SPENDING BY CATEGORY
Spending by Category - All Students
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 & Footw ear)
Spring-11
6%
8%
7%
20%
10%
7%
18%
6%
11%
2%
1%
4%
37%
Fall-10
6%
9%
7%
22%
10%
8%
16%
7%
8%
2%
1%
4%
39%
Spring-10
8%
8%
6%
22%
10%
7%
17%
5%
9%
2%
1%
3%
39%
Fall-09
7%
9%
7%
23%
10%
9%
14%
6%
8%
2%
1%
3%
42%
Spring-09
8%
11%
7%
23%
10%
8%
14%
5%
7%
2%
2%
4%
41%
Fall-08
6%
7%
8%
24%
10%
7%
15%
6%
10%
2%
1%
3%
41%
Spring-08
7%
8%
7%
23%
11%
7%
15%
6%
10%
2%
1%
3%
41%
Fall-07
5%
8%
6%
23%
11%
8%
15%
7%
10%
2%
1%
3%
42%
Spring-07
6%
9%
6%
24%
13%
7%
15%
5%
8%
2%
1%
3%
44%
Fall-06
5%
10%
6%
23%
11%
7%
15%
6%
10%
2%
1%
3%
41%
Spring-06
4%
9%
5%
25%
11%
7%
16%
5%
10%
2%
1%
4%
43%
Fall-05
5%
10%
5%
22%
10%
6%
15%
7%
12%
2%
1%
4%
39%
Spring-05
5%
10%
4%
29%
8%
8%
16%
5%
10%
3%
3%
1%
45%
Fall-04
4%
9%
5%
27%
7%
7%
16%
7%
12%
3%
2%
3%
41%
Spring-04
3%
8%
4%
27%
7%
8%
18%
7%
12%
3%
NA
3%
42%
Fall-03
5%
8%
4%
28%
8%
7%
15%
7%
12%
3%
NA
3%
43%
Spring-03
5%
9%
5%
26%
8%
8%
15%
7%
12%
3%
NA
3%
42%
Spending by Category - Fe m ale
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 & Footw ear)
Spring-11
1%
7%
5%
29%
16%
7%
15%
6%
9%
2%
1%
2%
52%
Fall-10
1%
8%
4%
30%
16%
8%
14%
6%
7%
3%
1%
2%
53%
Spring-10
2%
7%
4%
30%
16%
8%
16%
5%
8%
2%
1%
2%
53%
Fall-09
1%
8%
4%
31%
16%
9%
13%
6%
7%
3%
1%
1%
56%
Spring-09
2%
10%
5%
30%
16%
8%
14%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
54%
Fall-08
1%
6%
5%
32%
16%
8%
14%
5%
8%
3%
1%
1%
56%
Spring-08
1%
6%
4%
31%
16%
8%
14%
5%
9%
3%
1%
2%
54%
Fall-07
1%
6%
3%
31%
17%
8%
13%
6%
9%
3%
1%
1%
56%
Spring-07
1%
8%
4%
32%
17%
8%
13%
5%
7%
2%
1%
1%
57%
Fall-06
1%
8%
4%
32%
17%
8%
12%
6%
8%
3%
1%
2%
56%
Spring-06
1%
8%
3%
32%
16%
6%
15%
5%
8%
2%
1%
3%
54%
Fall-05
1%
8%
3%
30%
17%
7%
13%
6%
9%
3%
1%
2%
54%
Spring-05
1%
8%
2%
35%
11%
9%
15%
5%
9%
3%
2%
1%
55%
Fall-04
1%
7%
2%
36%
10%
8%
15%
6%
10%
3%
2%
2%
54%
Spring-04
1%
7%
2%
35%
10%
9%
16%
6%
9%
3%
NA
2%
54%
Fall-03
1%
6%
2%
38%
11%
9%
14%
6%
9%
3%
NA
2%
57%
Spring-03
1%
6%
3%
34%
11%
9%
14%
7%
10%
3%
NA
3%
55%
Spending by Category - Male
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 & Footw ear)
Spring-11
10%
9%
8%
13%
5%
7%
20%
6%
12%
1%
1%
6%
26%
Fall-10
11%
9%
9%
15%
6%
7%
18%
7%
10%
1%
1%
6%
28%
Spring-10
14%
9%
8%
15%
6%
7%
18%
5%
11%
2%
1%
5%
27%
Fall-09
13%
10%
9%
16%
5%
8%
16%
7%
9%
1%
2%
5%
30%
Spring-09
12%
12%
8%
17%
5%
9%
15%
5%
9%
1%
1%
5%
30%
Fall-08
11%
8%
10%
17%
5%
7%
15%
7%
13%
2%
1%
4%
29%
Spring-08
13%
10%
10%
16%
5%
6%
16%
6%
11%
2%
1%
4%
27%
Fall-07
9%
10%
9%
16%
5%
7%
17%
8%
11%
2%
2%
4%
28%
Spring-07
13%
12%
8%
14%
6%
6%
16%
6%
10%
2%
2%
5%
27%
Fall-06
9%
12%
9%
15%
6%
6%
17%
6%
13%
2%
1%
5%
27%
Spring-06
9%
11%
8%
17%
4%
7%
17%
6%
12%
2%
1%
6%
28%
Fall-05
9%
11%
7%
15%
4%
5%
16%
8%
15%
2%
1%
6%
24%
Spring-05
11%
12%
8%
18%
3%
7%
18%
6%
11%
2%
3%
1%
28%
Fall-04
8%
12%
8%
14%
3%
5%
17%
9%
15%
3%
1%
5%
22%
Spring-04
7%
10%
8%
14%
4%
6%
21%
8%
15%
3%
NA
4%
24%
Fall-03
10%
11%
5%
15%
3%
5%
18%
9%
15%
3%
NA
7%
23%
Spring-03
9%
12%
8%
15%
4%
6%
17%
7%
15%
3%
NA
4%
25%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Average-Income Student Spending Behavior – By Category
•
•
•
•
•
•
Looking back over the past five years, we note the Fashion category has represented
between 40% and 44% of the total teen budget and is substantially the largest category,
followed by Food at 15% and Car at 12%.
Females continue to spend half or more of their disposable income on fashion products
at 50% of total spending (down from 51% in the Fall and 53% last Spring) versus a
much lower 29% of total budget for males (down from 33% in the Fall and 32% in
Spring 2010).
Food is the second largest category at 15% of total expenditures. Share increased from
14% on a sequential and year-over-year basis. Males allocate 16% of spending to Food,
which is slightly higher than females at 15%.
Car-related expenditures climbed to 12%, an increase from 10% last Fall and Spring.
Following our school visits and conducting teen focus groups, higher gas prices have
become an increasing concern and these higher prices likely explain a significant
portion of the increase.
While it is difficult to truly measure the amount of music purchased versus downloaded
at no cost by teenage consumers, the Music and Movies (CD/DVD) category maintains
a significant share of disposable income. The category represents 8% of the total
budget, compared to 7% in Spring 2010 and 8% in Fall 2010.
The Electronics / Gadgets category represents 7% of total budget share, which is the
same as the previous three surveys. By gender, Electronics/Gadgets represented 9% of
total budget for males and 5% for females in this survey iteration.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 33
April 2011
•
Video Games remained at 6% for the fifth consecutive survey. The Video Game
category ranks much higher for males at 11% versus only 2% for females.
Exhibit 34
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SPENDING BY CATEGORY
Spending by Category - All Students
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 & Footw ear)
Spring-11
6%
8%
7%
20%
11%
8%
15%
5%
12%
2%
2%
4%
40%
Fall-10
6%
8%
7%
21%
12%
9%
14%
6%
10%
2%
2%
3%
42%
Spring-10
6%
7%
7%
22%
11%
9%
14%
5%
10%
2%
2%
4%
43%
Fall-09
6%
8%
7%
23%
11%
10%
13%
6%
9%
2%
2%
4%
44%
Spring-09
6%
8%
6%
22%
11%
10%
14%
5%
10%
2%
2%
4%
43%
Fall-08
5%
8%
6%
22%
11%
10%
12%
5%
12%
2%
2%
4%
43%
Spring-08
6%
8%
6%
22%
11%
9%
13%
5%
11%
2%
2%
4%
42%
Fall-07
5%
9%
6%
22%
11%
9%
13%
5%
12%
2%
2%
4%
42%
Spring-07
6%
10%
6%
22%
11%
9%
12%
5%
11%
2%
1%
5%
41%
Fall-06
5%
10%
6%
22%
12%
9%
13%
5%
10%
2%
2%
4%
43%
Spring-06
5%
10%
5%
23%
11%
8%
14%
5%
13%
2%
1%
4%
42%
Fall-05
5%
10%
5%
22%
11%
8%
13%
5%
14%
2%
1%
4%
41%
Spring-05
4%
8%
4%
23%
8%
7%
16%
6%
16%
2%
2%
5%
38%
Spending by Category - Fem ale
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 & Footw ear)
Spring-11
2%
8%
5%
26%
17%
8%
15%
5%
10%
2%
2%
2%
50%
Fall-10
1%
8%
5%
26%
16%
9%
13%
5%
9%
3%
2%
2%
51%
Spring-10
1%
7%
5%
28%
16%
10%
13%
5%
9%
3%
2%
3%
53%
Fall-09
1%
7%
5%
28%
16%
10%
12%
5%
8%
3%
2%
3%
54%
Spring-09
2%
8%
5%
27%
16%
10%
13%
5%
8%
3%
2%
3%
53%
Fall-08
1%
8%
5%
28%
15%
10%
12%
5%
10%
3%
2%
2%
53%
Spring-08
2%
7%
4%
28%
16%
10%
13%
5%
9%
3%
2%
2%
53%
Fall-07
1%
8%
4%
27%
16%
9%
12%
5%
10%
3%
2%
2%
52%
Spring-07
1%
9%
4%
28%
16%
10%
12%
4%
9%
3%
1%
3%
54%
Fall-06
1%
10%
4%
27%
16%
10%
12%
5%
9%
3%
2%
3%
53%
Spring-06
1%
8%
3%
30%
17%
8%
12%
5%
11%
2%
1%
2%
55%
Fall-05
1%
9%
2%
30%
17%
8%
12%
5%
10%
2%
1%
3%
55%
Spring-05
1%
7%
2%
29%
11%
9%
15%
5%
14%
3%
2%
3%
49%
Spending by Category - Male
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 & Footw ear)
Spring-11
11%
8%
9%
15%
6%
8%
16%
6%
13%
1%
2%
5%
29%
Fall-10
10%
9%
9%
17%
7%
10%
15%
6%
11%
1%
2%
4%
33%
Spring-10
11%
8%
9%
16%
7%
9%
15%
6%
11%
2%
1%
6%
32%
Fall-09
11%
8%
9%
17%
7%
10%
13%
6%
11%
2%
2%
5%
34%
Spring-09
10%
9%
8%
17%
7%
10%
14%
6%
11%
2%
2%
6%
33%
Fall-08
10%
9%
8%
16%
7%
10%
13%
6%
13%
2%
2%
5%
33%
Spring-08
11%
9%
9%
15%
6%
9%
13%
6%
13%
2%
2%
5%
30%
Fall-07
9%
10%
8%
16%
6%
9%
14%
6%
14%
2%
1%
6%
31%
Spring-07
11%
10%
8%
16%
6%
8%
13%
7%
12%
2%
1%
6%
29%
Fall-06
10%
11%
8%
16%
7%
9%
14%
5%
12%
2%
2%
5%
31%
Spring-06
9%
12%
8%
15%
5%
7%
16%
5%
14%
2%
1%
6%
27%
Fall-05
9%
12%
7%
15%
5%
7%
15%
6%
17%
2%
1%
5%
27%
Spring-05
8%
10%
6%
15%
4%
5%
17%
7%
18%
2%
2%
6%
24%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
34 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 35
STUDENT SPENDING BY CATEGORY – BY INCOME LEVEL
50%
45%
40%
40%
Upper Income Students
37%
Avg Income Students
35%
30%
25%
20%
18%
15%
12%
10%
8% 8%
6%
5%
6% 6%
7% 7%
4% 4%
5%
2% 2%
1% 2%
Furniture / room accessories
11%
Books/magazines
15%
Other
Electronics / gadgets
Video g ames / systems
Concerts/Movies/Sporting events
Music / movies (DVD/CD)
Food
Car
Fashion (clothes, footwear,
accessories)
0%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Student Spending
Behavior – Parent
Spending
Parent contribution is a key driver of teen spending across apparel, electronics, car, and
home furnishings categories for both income groups. As the teen unemployment rate
remains near 25%, parent contributions constitute a significant proportion of teen’s
spending.
Key Highlights: Upper-Income Student Spending Behavior – Parent Spending
•
•
Parent contribution up slightly year-over-year. On average, students in our survey
come from families with household income of approximately $84,000 versus the
national average of $42,000. As such, we do not find that variable expenses such as
gasoline or heating fuel tend to impact the family budget as meaningfully as they do for
the average household when it comes to buying apparel and footwear for teens.
However, teens continue to expect less contributions from their parents as only 8%
expect more money for fashion this year versus 27% expecting less.
We should also note that this demographic is highly dependent on parent contributions
(perhaps in part due to high teen unemployment) as 69% of the teens count on their
parents for 50% or more of their fashion budgets. We note 42% of teens rely on
parents for 76%-100% of their fashion budget. Non-fashion categories including
electronics, car and home furnishings are also primarily funded from parent
contributions with 65% of the teens counting on their parents for 50% or more their
budget for these categories.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 35
April 2011
Key Highlights: Average-Income Student Spending Behavior – Parent Spending
•
•
Student Spending
Behavior – Timing of
Spending
Key Highlights: Student Spending Behavior for Both Surveys – Timing of Spending
•
•
•
•
•
Student Spending
Behavior – Shopping
Frequency
Parent contribution up slightly year-over-year. On average, students in our survey
come from families with household income of approximately $45,000 versus the
national average of $42,000. As such, we believe variable expenses such as gasoline or
heating fuel tend to impact the family budget more meaningfully compared to those
surveyed in our upper-income student survey. However, teens continue to expect less
contribution from their parents as only 11% expect more money for fashion this year
versus 28% expecting less.
We should also note that this demographic is highly dependent on parent contributions
(perhaps in part due to high teen unemployment) as 65% of the teens count on their
parents for 50% or more of their fashion budgets. We note 41% of teens rely on
parents for 76%-100% of their fashion budget. Non-fashion categories including
electronics, car and home furnishings are also primarily funded from parent
contributions with 60% of the teens counting on their parents for 50% or more of their
budget for these categories.
Teens like to "buy now, wear now;" gift cards and Fast Fashion retailing changing
traditional seasonal demand.
We believe the importance of the holiday season has lessened for the apparel category
during the past few years — due in part to the growth of gift cards, which are typically
redeemed for new Spring or Spring-transitional product after the holidays, as well as
the long period of Back-to-School buying from late Summer through October.
We also believe the advent of Fast Fashion retailers, those with trend-right, in-season
product at value prices, are encouraging more consumers to purchase fashion items
throughout a season rather than stocking up at the beginning or waiting for clearance
at the end.
Our upper-income student survey indicates 48% of teen fashion purchases are made
during the Spring and Summer seasons (more during the Summer than Spring) and
another 33% of purchases are made during the key back-to-school season. Only about
18% of teen fashion purchases are made during the Holiday season.
Our average-income student survey indicates 48% of teen fashion purchases are made
during the Spring and Summer seasons (more during the Summer than Spring) and
another 34% of purchases are made during the key back-to-school season. Similar to
our upper-income student survey, only about 18% of teen fashion purchases are made
during the Holiday season.
Key Highlights: Upper-Income Student Spending Behavior – Shopping Frequency
•
•
Shopping frequency for the fashion category declined on both a year-over-year and
sequential basis. Clothing and accessories were each down year-over-year while shoes
increased slightly. On a sequential basis, all three categories declined. Females’
shopping frequency declined 6% year-over-year, potentially another sign that the
teenage consumer is focusing dollars on value and visiting stores less often.
We believe this decrease in frequency is likely a reflection of less “newness” in the mall
for the fashion category and smaller budgets. We believe teens continue to visit the mall
more in response to events such as sales, holidays, and back-to-school.
36 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
•
On a total basis, teens indicate they are shopping for apparel, accessories/personal care,
and footwear approximately 14, 9 and 6 times per year, respectively, versus 15, 9, and 6
times per year last Spring.
Exhibit 36
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SHOPPING FREQUENCY BY CATEGORY
Shopping Frequency by Category - All Students
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
Spring-11
2.5
10.4
4.3
13.9
8.8
6.3
35.3
9.7
20.9
3.2
1.6
6.4
Fall-10
3.2
11.8
4.8
15.1
9.0
6.6
36.5
11.8
19.1
3.8
1.5
5.2
Spring-10
3.4
11.0
4.3
14.7
9.4
6.2
34.9
10.4
24.2
5.2
2.0
6.2
Fall-09
3.4
11.5
4.2
17.0
10.3
7.1
36.0
11.4
18.0
4.5
1.5
6.1
Spring-09
4.3
12.9
5.5
15.5
10.2
7.5
34.2
10.8
18.5
5.2
2.2
7.4
Fall-08
3.0
6.0
4.3
16.0
8.6
6.0
36.6
10.9
20.3
4.9
1.5
6.6
Spring-08
4.1
6.4
4.5
18.3
10.7
7.1
36.8
10.6
21.2
4.9
1.9
5.7
Fall-07
3.1
5.9
4.2
18.5
10.4
7.1
38.6
13.4
22.7
5.1
1.5
5.0
Spring-07
2.9
6.3
3.7
19.0
12.4
7.0
42.4
10.3
21.5
6.0
1.8
6.1
Fall-06
2.9
6.0
4.1
18.4
10.5
6.3
42.5
10.3
23.0
5.1
1.6
6.0
Spring-06
2.0
6.0
3.8
17.6
11.2
6.7
42.2
10.1
21.5
5.9
1.4
5.4
Fall-05
2.9
7.1
4.1
17.8
10.4
6.6
43.1
11.8
26.8
6.3
1.5
5.0
Spring-05
2.5
9.6
3.6
20.9
16.3
9.2
44.1
9.6
22.6
6.9
2.1
4.9
Fall-04
3.1
11.2
2.9
11.7
9.8
3.7
41.9
12.5
24.4
5.1
1.3
12.4
Spring-04
1.6
5.5
2.4
15.2
13.5
7.0
45.1
8.4
28.0
3.2
NA
13.1
Fall-03
2.8
8.9
5.7
19.0
15.0
6.6
43.8
12.3
16.4
6.5
NA
26.8
Shopping Frequency by Category - Fem ale
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
Spring-11
0.7
9.8
3.3
21.1
14.0
8.4
35.2
9.2
18.8
4.4
1.6
4.0
Fall-10
0.8
10.6
3.0
22.6
14.2
8.5
36.3
11.8
17.9
5.1
1.7
3.5
Spring-10
0.7
10.2
2.4
21.3
13.7
7.3
36.8
9.7
23.8
5.9
1.4
5.0
Fall-09
0.9
11.5
2.9
24.9
16.5
9.6
37.0
10.5
16.6
6.2
1.4
5.2
Spring-09
1.8
10.9
4.0
21.4
16.2
9.4
36.3
12.1
16.4
6.5
2.3
5.8
Fall-08
0.8
5.4
3.0
23.3
13.7
8.3
37.4
11.4
17.5
7.2
1.7
4.7
Spring-08
0.9
5.5
2.9
25.6
16.5
9.7
38.2
10.6
22.3
6.8
1.9
5.5
Fall-07
0.7
4.8
2.8
26.7
16.7
9.8
37.4
12.8
21.4
6.9
1.9
3.6
Spring-07
0.6
5.0
2.2
25.4
17.1
8.8
43.3
9.6
21.5
7.1
1.7
5.0
Fall-06
0.7
4.6
2.6
27.9
16.8
8.7
42.7
9.5
22.2
7.0
1.9
4.5
Spring-06
0.4
5.7
2.5
23.2
15.7
9.0
42.7
10.2
21.4
7.5
1.4
4.2
Fall-05
0.5
5.7
2.2
24.9
15.8
9.5
44.6
11.9
24.3
7.9
1.5
3.4
Spring-05
0.5
8.3
2.0
26.5
21.8
11.1
44.9
8.8
20.8
8.3
2.0
4.7
Fall-04
0.7
11.7
1.9
21.5
21.4
6.0
45.4
14.2
27.6
7.2
2.0
15.6
Spring-04
0.5
3.0
0.8
19.9
18.8
9.9
42.9
11.0
26.2
4.2
NA
6.4
Fall-03
0.5
6.1
4.0
27.0
21.0
9.0
45.0
12.0
10.4
7.0
NA
23.6
Shopping Frequency by Category - Male
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
Spring-11
3.9
10.9
5.1
8.1
4.5
4.6
35.3
10.2
22.5
2.3
1.6
8.2
Fall-10
5.2
12.8
6.3
8.9
4.7
5.1
36.7
11.8
20.2
2.7
1.3
6.6
Spring-10
5.8
11.7
6.0
8.6
5.4
5.1
33.1
11.0
24.6
4.5
2.6
7.4
Fall-09
5.4
11.6
5.2
10.6
5.2
5.0
35.2
12.1
19.1
3.2
1.6
6.8
Spring-09
6.4
14.5
6.7
10.5
5.1
5.9
32.4
9.7
20.3
4.2
2.1
8.8
Fall-08
5.0
6.5
5.5
9.6
4.1
4.0
36.0
10.4
22.8
2.9
1.4
8.3
Spring-08
7.4
7.4
6.2
10.6
4.5
4.4
35.3
10.5
20.1
3.0
2.0
5.9
Fall-07
5.4
6.9
5.5
10.5
4.3
4.4
39.8
14.0
24.0
3.3
1.0
6.5
Spring-07
6.2
8.1
5.7
10.1
5.7
4.3
41.2
11.2
21.6
4.5
2.0
7.7
Fall-06
4.9
7.4
5.5
9.3
4.5
4.1
42.3
11.1
23.7
3.4
1.3
7.4
Spring-06
4.3
6.5
5.6
10.2
5.3
3.6
41.5
9.9
21.8
3.8
1.3
7.1
Fall-05
5.1
8.5
5.9
11.1
5.3
3.8
41.7
11.8
29.2
4.9
1.6
6.6
Spring-05
5.4
11.6
6.1
11.7
7.3
5.8
43.1
10.8
25.9
4.4
2.3
4.8
Fall-04
4.1
12.1
2.7
6.2
3.1
2.3
38.6
12.7
27.5
4.5
0.6
13.1
Spring-04
3.3
9.0
4.6
10.0
8.3
2.4
42.9
7.7
26.2
3.8
NA
19.0
Fall-03
5.5
11.5
6.5
7.0
7.5
3.0
42.4
13.5
21.4
6.0
NA
29.2
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
•
Females continue to shop frequently for the apparel category at 21 times per year,
down from 23 times per year in Fall 2010 but even with last Spring. Shoe shopping
frequency among females did increase slightly year-over-year to eight times per year.
Males are shopping for apparel approximately eight times per year, down from nine
times per year last Spring, and five times per year for accessories and footwear, both
flat from last Spring. However, males are more exhibiting more focus and a higher
intent to buy as they reduce their shopping trips.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 37
April 2011
Exhibit 37
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SHOPPING FREQUENCY BY
CATEGORY, BY GENDER
40
Female
Male
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Other
Furniture / room accessories
Books/magazines
Car
Concerts/Movies/Sporting
events
Food
Shoes
Accessories/personal
care/cosmetics
Clothing
Electronics / gadgets
Music / movies (DVD/CD)
Video games / systems
0
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Average-Income Student Spending Behavior – Shopping Frequency
•
•
•
Shopping frequency for the fashion category declined on both a year-over-year and
sequential basis. Clothing and shoes were each down year-over-year while accessories
were unchanged. On a sequential basis, all three categories declined. Females’ shopping
frequency increased 1% year-over-year but declined 3% sequentially.
We believe this decrease in frequency is likely a reflection of less “newness” in the mall
for the fashion category and smaller budgets. We believe teens continue to visit the mall
more in response to events such as sales, holidays, and back-to-school.
On a total basis, teens indicate they are shopping for apparel, accessories/personal care,
and footwear approximately 16, 11 and 8 times per year, respectively, versus 18, 11,
and 9 times per year last Spring.
38 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 38
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SHOPPING FREQUENCY BY CATEGORY
Shopping Frequency by Category - All Students
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
Spring-11
3.3
9.3
5.0
16.4
11.4
7.7
34.0
9.2
23.6
3.1
1.8
6.6
Fall-10
3.3
9.6
5.2
17.5
12.0
8.4
33.9
11.6
22.6
3.6
2.0
6.2
Spring-10
3.6
5.6
5.1
18.3
11.4
8.8
34.4
10.2
23.3
4.4
2.4
7.1
Fall-09
3.3
6.0
4.8
18.7
11.2
8.8
33.5
11.4
21.9
4.8
2.3
6.8
Spring-09
3.6
6.3
5.1
18.6
11.6
9.5
34.5
10.4
23.0
5.1
2.3
7.6
Fall-08
3.7
6.9
5.4
20.3
12.3
10.4
35.0
12.0
24.6
5.3
2.7
7.4
Spring-08
4.1
6.7
5.7
20.0
12.7
9.9
35.9
10.8
24.0
5.7
2.5
7.8
Fall-07
3.6
7.3
5.4
20.1
12.8
9.6
37.2
12.3
26.6
6.5
2.7
8.1
Spring-07
3.6
7.1
5.6
18.6
11.7
8.4
41.4
10.5
25.6
6.1
2.6
7.1
Fall-06
3.5
7.9
5.1
22.1
13.6
10.2
41.7
11.5
24.6
6.6
2.9
7.8
Spring-06
3.6
6.8
4.5
17.2
11.7
7.9
38.2
8.6
26.3
5.9
2.3
6.2
Fall-05
3.2
8.5
4.1
19.1
14.3
8.3
40.8
11.4
28.0
5.3
2.0
6.9
Spring-05
2.8
10.0
3.6
18.1
15.9
7.6
41.6
9.5
30.6
4.8
2.2
6.6
Shopping Frequency by Category - Female
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
Spring-11
1.1
8.8
4.1
21.8
16.5
10.0
35.5
8.2
23.2
4.0
1.9
5.1
Fall-10
1.0
9.0
4.1
22.5
17.2
10.3
34.7
11.1
22.1
4.5
2.2
5.3
Spring-10
1.1
5.2
3.5
23.4
14.9
10.6
34.6
9.6
22.5
5.3
2.4
6.0
Fall-09
1.0
5.7
3.4
23.7
15.0
10.7
33.7
10.4
21.0
6.2
2.3
5.9
Spring-09
1.4
6.1
3.6
23.6
15.1
11.5
35.1
9.7
21.4
6.3
2.3
6.4
Fall-08
1.1
6.2
3.7
25.8
16.6
12.8
35.3
10.6
23.4
6.6
2.8
6.3
Spring-08
1.3
6.0
3.7
25.5
17.0
12.0
36.2
9.4
22.1
6.8
2.4
6.7
Fall-07
1.2
6.4
3.9
25.6
17.3
11.8
37.8
11.5
25.4
8.1
2.9
7.3
Spring-07
1.1
6.4
3.8
24.8
16.9
11.1
42.1
9.3
23.6
7.4
2.7
5.8
Fall-06
1.0
7.3
3.2
28.1
18.2
0.0
42.1
10.9
23.4
7.5
2.9
6.9
Spring-06
1.0
5.8
2.6
23.2
16.9
9.9
38.7
8.1
26.1
6.7
2.2
4.9
Fall-05
0.9
7.3
2.4
26.4
20.3
10.9
41.2
10.6
26.2
6.1
2.2
5.4
Spring-05
0.7
7.9
1.9
24.0
21.4
10.4
42.3
9.2
29.7
5.9
2.6
5.3
Shopping Frequency by Category - Male
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
Spring-11
5.3
9.8
5.9
11.1
6.5
5.6
32.6
10.2
24.0
2.3
1.6
8.1
Fall-10
5.5
10.2
6.2
12.6
6.9
6.5
33.1
12.1
23.1
2.6
1.8
7.1
Spring-10
6.4
6.1
7.0
12.5
7.4
6.7
34.2
10.9
24.3
3.4
2.3
8.4
Fall-09
5.7
6.3
6.4
13.3
7.1
6.8
33.3
12.6
22.9
3.4
2.3
7.7
Spring-09
6.0
6.6
6.7
13.1
7.7
7.3
33.8
11.2
24.7
3.7
2.3
9.0
Fall-08
6.3
7.7
7.0
14.6
7.8
8.0
34.7
13.3
25.9
4.0
2.5
8.6
Spring-08
7.2
7.5
7.9
14.0
8.0
7.6
35.6
12.4
26.1
4.5
2.6
9.0
Fall-07
6.3
8.2
7.2
13.7
7.6
7.2
36.5
13.3
28.0
4.7
2.6
9.1
Spring-07
6.0
7.7
7.3
12.6
6.6
5.7
40.8
11.7
27.5
4.9
2.6
8.4
Fall-06
6.5
8.6
7.4
14.9
8.1
0.0
41.2
12.2
26.0
5.4
2.8
9.0
Spring-06
6.6
8.0
6.6
10.4
5.9
5.5
37.6
9.1
26.6
4.9
2.4
7.8
Fall-05
5.4
9.6
5.8
11.9
8.4
5.7
40.5
12.2
29.7
4.4
1.8
8.3
Spring-05
5.5
12.7
5.6
10.8
9.0
4.2
40.7
9.8
31.7
3.6
1.7
8.2
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
•
Females continue to shop frequently for the apparel category at 22 times per year,
down slightly from 23 times per year in the Fall and last Spring. Shoe shopping
frequency among females declined slightly while accessories increased year-over-year.
Males are shopping for apparel approximately 11 times per year, down from 13 times
in the previous two surveys. Shoe shopping frequency fell to six from seven in Fall 2010
and Spring 2010.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 39
April 2011
Exhibit 39
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SHOPPING FREQUENCY BY
CATEGORY, BY GENDER
40
Female
Male
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Other
Furniture / room accessories
Books/magazines
Car
Concerts/Movies/Sporting
events
Food
Shoes
Accessories/personal
care/cosmetics
Clothing
Electronics / gadgets
Music / movies (DVD/CD)
Video games / systems
0
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Student Spending
Behavior – Shopping
Channel Preference
Key Highlights: Upper-Income Student Spending Behavior – Shopping Channel Preference
•
•
•
•
•
Specialty stores continue to be the No. 1 preference for teen consumers at 28% share,
but internet and major chains continue to gain share. The specialty channel has been
declining steadily from an average of 42% during 2003-2005 due to steady gains in the
“value channels” as well as the internet and outlet stores. Specialty store share declined
to 28% from 30% in Fall 2010 and 29% in Spring 2010.
We believe the long-term trend toward a lower share for specialty retail is a function of
both the growth of the internet channel and stronger fashion brands and assortments in
the discount and outlet channels.
A “transition” fashion cycle is also likely contributing to the diversification of channel
preferences as teenage consumers look to multiple store formats and alternative brands
for unique and or value-priced fashion products, given the lack of any dominant
bottoms trends.
We attribute sequential decline in the discount channel and flat share in outlets to more
promotional activity at specialty retailers. As prices fall in the mall, the value
proposition offered by discount and outlet channels is significantly reduced.
The internet channel increased to a 13% share which is the highest level in the history
of the survey. This is an improvement from 11% in Fall 2010 and 10% in Spring 2010.
It is also important to recognize that a substantial portion of internet sales are likely
40 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
•
from the web sites of mall-based youth retailers, thus understating the actual specialty
store share.
The internet channel is showing share gains for both genders, although it is much
stronger for males at 17% share this Spring and 7% for females. We believe the lower
share among young women is due to shopping remaining a mall-based, social event.
Exhibit 40
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SHOPPING CHANNEL
PREFERENCE
40%
35%
Spring-08
30%
Fall-08
Spring-09
Fall-09
Spring-10
Fall-10
Spring-11
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Internet
Mail order
Outlet
Discount
Department
Major Chain
Specialty
0%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 41
April 2011
Exhibit 41
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SHOPPING CHANNEL
PREFERENCE
Shopping Channel Preference - All Students
Spring-08 Fall-07 Spring-07 Fall-06 Spring-06
35%
38%
36%
38%
43%
16%
15%
14%
14%
15%
14%
14%
18%
15%
15%
16%
14%
15%
14%
12%
8%
9%
9%
8%
8%
3%
3%
2%
3%
3%
9%
8%
6%
8%
6%
Specialty
Major Chain
Department
Discount
Outlet
Mail order
Internet
Spring-11
28%
16%
15%
15%
11%
2%
13%
Fall-10
30%
15%
16%
15%
11%
3%
11%
Spring-10
29%
15%
15%
17%
11%
3%
10%
Fall-09
31%
14%
14%
15%
12%
3%
11%
Spring-09
35%
13%
14%
14%
10%
3%
10%
Fall-08
32%
14%
16%
16%
11%
3%
10%
Specialty
Major Chain
Department
Discount
Outlet
Mail order
Internet
Spring-11
33%
13%
18%
16%
10%
2%
7%
Fall-10
35%
13%
20%
15%
9%
2%
6%
Spring-10
31%
14%
20%
19%
9%
2%
5%
Fall-09
35%
13%
18%
16%
12%
2%
5%
Spring-09
39%
10%
18%
17%
8%
2%
6%
Fall-08
37%
12%
20%
15%
9%
2%
5%
Shopping Channel Preference - Female
Spring-08 Fall-07 Spring-07 Fall-06
36%
39%
38%
42%
15%
14%
13%
12%
19%
18%
21%
19%
16%
15%
15%
14%
8%
8%
8%
7%
2%
2%
2%
2%
5%
4%
4%
4%
Specialty
Major Chain
Department
Discount
Outlet
Mail order
Internet
Spring-11
24%
18%
13%
14%
12%
3%
17%
Fall-10
26%
18%
12%
15%
12%
4%
14%
Spring-10
27%
16%
11%
15%
14%
4%
14%
Fall-09
29%
15%
11%
15%
12%
4%
15%
Spring-09
31%
15%
11%
13%
12%
4%
14%
Fall-08
27%
15%
12%
16%
12%
4%
14%
Shopping
Spring-08
33%
17%
9%
15%
9%
4%
13%
Channel Preference - Male
Fall-07 Spring-07 Fall-06
37%
33%
34%
15%
15%
16%
10%
13%
12%
13%
15%
13%
10%
11%
9%
4%
3%
4%
12%
9%
12%
Fall-05
40%
14%
16%
13%
8%
3%
7%
Spring-05
36%
15%
18%
14%
8%
3%
5%
Fall-04
42%
14%
16%
12%
8%
2%
6%
Spring-04
42%
15%
17%
12%
7%
3%
4%
Fall-03
47%
14%
16%
10%
7%
3%
4%
Spring-03
42%
15%
15%
12%
8%
4%
4%
Spring-06
45%
14%
16%
13%
7%
2%
3%
Fall-05
42%
14%
20%
12%
7%
2%
3%
Spring-05
38%
15%
19%
13%
8%
2%
3%
Fall-04
45%
15%
19%
11%
5%
2%
3%
Spring-04
46%
14%
18%
10%
6%
2%
3%
Fall-03
48%
13%
15%
11%
7%
2%
4%
Spring-03
47%
14%
17%
10%
7%
3%
2%
Spring-06
40%
16%
12%
11%
9%
3%
9%
Fall-05
38%
14%
12%
13%
9%
3%
11%
Spring-05
33%
15%
16%
14%
9%
5%
9%
Fall-04
38%
13%
12%
16%
10%
3%
9%
Spring-04
35%
17%
15%
12%
9%
4%
8%
Fall-03
49%
15%
17%
8%
6%
2%
3%
Spring-03
36%
17%
13%
13%
10%
4%
7%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Average-Income Student Spending Behavior – Shopping Channel
Preference
•
•
•
•
•
Specialty stores continue to be the No. 1 preference for teen consumers at 29% share, a
slight decrease on a sequential basis from 30%. The specialty channel has been
declining steadily from the high-30%’s level from 2005 due to steady gains in the “value
channels” as well as the internet and outlet stores.
We believe the long-term trend toward a lower share for specialty retail is a function of
both the growth of the internet channel and stronger fashion brands and assortments in
the discount channel.
A “transition” fashion cycle is also likely contributing to the diversification of channel
preferences as teenage consumers look to multiple store formats and alternative brands
for unique and or value-priced fashion products, given the lack of any dominant
bottoms trends.
We attribute year-over-year declines in the discount channel to recent heavy
promotional activity at specialty retailers. As prices fall in the mall, the value
proposition offered by the discount channel is significantly reduced.
The internet channel increased slightly to 11% on a sequential basis but was flat yearover-year. The internet channel is much stronger for males at 15% share versus 7% for
females. We believe the low share among females is due to shopping remaining a mallbased, social event.
42 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 42
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SHOPPING CHANNEL
PREFERENCE
35%
30%
Spring-08
Fall-08
Spring-09
Fall-09
Spring-10
Fall-10
Spring-11
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Internet
Mail order
Outlet
Discount
Department
Major Chain
Specialty
0%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Exhibit 43
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SHOPPING CHANNEL
PREFERENCE
Specialty
Major Chain
Department
Discount
Outlet
Mail order
Internet
Spring-11
29%
17%
11%
17%
11%
3%
11%
Fall-10
30%
18%
11%
17%
11%
3%
10%
Spring-10
29%
16%
12%
19%
10%
4%
11%
Fall-09
29%
16%
12%
18%
11%
4%
11%
Specialty
Major Chain
Department
Discount
Outlet
Mail order
Internet
Spring-11
31%
17%
12%
19%
11%
3%
7%
Fall-10
31%
18%
13%
18%
10%
3%
7%
Spring-10
31%
16%
13%
20%
10%
3%
8%
Fall-09
32%
16%
13%
19%
10%
3%
7%
Specialty
Major Chain
Department
Discount
Outlet
Mail order
Internet
Spring-11
27%
18%
10%
15%
11%
4%
15%
Fall-10
29%
17%
10%
15%
12%
4%
13%
Spring-10
27%
16%
10%
17%
10%
5%
15%
Fall-09
26%
16%
10%
17%
11%
5%
14%
Average Incom e Student Survey - All Students
Spring-09
Fall-08
Spring-08
Fall-07
28%
31%
33%
33%
16%
16%
15%
17%
13%
12%
12%
12%
19%
17%
16%
17%
10%
10%
10%
9%
4%
4%
4%
4%
11%
10%
10%
9%
Spring-07
34%
17%
11%
17%
10%
4%
8%
Fall-06
32%
17%
12%
17%
10%
4%
8%
Spring-06
34%
19%
12%
17%
8%
3%
7%
Fall-05
35%
20%
11%
15%
9%
4%
6%
Spring-05
38%
19%
10%
17%
7%
3%
5%
Average Incom e Student Survey - Fem ale
Spring-09
Fall-08
Spring-08
Fall-07
30%
34%
35%
34%
16%
16%
15%
17%
14%
13%
14%
13%
20%
18%
17%
18%
10%
9%
9%
9%
3%
3%
3%
3%
7%
7%
6%
6%
Spring-07
36%
17%
13%
17%
9%
3%
5%
Fall-06
34%
17%
13%
18%
9%
3%
6%
Spring-06
37%
19%
13%
18%
7%
3%
4%
Fall-05
37%
20%
13%
16%
8%
3%
4%
Spring-05
39%
19%
11%
17%
7%
3%
4%
Average Incom e Student Survey - Male
Spring-09
Fall-08
Spring-08
Fall-07
25%
28%
30%
32%
16%
17%
16%
16%
11%
10%
10%
10%
18%
16%
15%
15%
11%
10%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
5%
15%
14%
14%
13%
Spring-07
31%
17%
9%
17%
11%
5%
10%
Fall-06
30%
17%
10%
17%
10%
4%
11%
Spring-06
31%
20%
11%
16%
9%
4%
9%
Fall-05
33%
20%
9%
15%
11%
4%
8%
Spring-05
37%
19%
8%
17%
7%
4%
7%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 43
April 2011
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – BRAND
PREFERENCES
The following exhibits are the results from our upper-income student survey from across
the country. We asked the students to list their favorite clothing, footwear, athletic apparel,
room furniture, and fragrance brands in order of preference. Students were asked to write
responses onto blank lines, rather than choose them from a list, which has yielded an
unaided list of brands. Mind share ranks for all categories are determined by tallying
student “votes” in order of preference.
Clothing Brand
Preferences – All
Students
We asked students to list their favorite clothing brands, in order of preference. Students
cited their favorite top three brands and the following exhibits each teen’s top choice.
44 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 44
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING BRAND PREFERENCES, ALL STUDENTS
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Brand
% Total Rank Brand
Nike
1
Action Sports Brands
15%
Forever 21
2
Nike
10%
American Eagle
3
American Eagle
9%
Action Sports Brands
4
Forever 21
8%
Polo Ralph Lauren
5
Hollister
6%
Nordstrom
6
Nordstrom
4%
Hollister
7
Polo Ralph Lauren
3%
Kohl's
8
Aeropostale
2%
Urban Outfitters
9
Urban Outfitters
2%
Name Withheld
10 Buckle
2%
Abercrombie & Fitch
Spring 2009
Fall 2008
Brand
% Total Rank Brand
Action Sports Brands 12%
1
Action Sports Brands
Hollister
2
Hollister
12%
Nike
3
Forever 21
6%
Forever 21
4
American Eagle
5%
American Eagle
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
5%
Abercrombie & Fitch
6
Urban Outfitters
4%
Aeropostale
7
Nike
4%
Urban Outfitters
8
Charlotte Russe
3%
Nordstrom
Nordstrom
2%
Charlotte Russe
10 Kohl's
2%
Spring 2007
Fall 2006
Brand
% Total Rank Brand
Hollister
1
Hollister
13%
American Eagle
2
Action Sports Brands
11%
Action Sports Brands
3
Abercrombie & Fitch
9%
Abercrombie & Fitch
4
American Eagle
8%
Forever 21
5
Urban Outfitters
6%
Nordstrom
6
Forever 21
6%
Nike
Kohl's
3%
Old Navy
Nordstrom
2%
Kohl's
9
Nike
2%
Gap
10 Polo Ralph Lauren
2%
Guess
2%
Urban Outfitters
2%
Spring 2005
Fall 2004
Brand
% Total Rank Brand
Hollister
12%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
Abercrombie & Fitch
10%
2
Action Sports Brands
Action Sports Brands 10%
3
Hollister
American Eagle
8%
4
American Eagle
d.e.m.o.
7%
5
d.e.m.o.
Name Withheld
3%
6
Forever 21
Urban Outfitters
3%
Name Withheld
Gap
3%
8
Guess
Guess
2%
Buckle
Forever 21
2%
10 Nordstrom
Nike
2%
Nordstrom
2%
Spring 2003
Fall 2002
Brand
% Total Rank Brand
Abercrombie & Fitch
12%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
Name Withheld
11%
2
Action Sports Brands
Action Sports Brands 10%
3
Name Withheld
American Eagle
9%
4
American Eagle
Hollister
5%
5
Gap
Guess
4%
6
Nike
d.e.m.o.
3%
7
Old Navy
Polo Ralph Lauren
3%
8
d.e.m.o.
Gap
3%
Polo Ralph Lauren
Old Navy
2%
10 Forever 21
Spring 2001
Brand
% Total
Gap
17%
Abercrombie & Fitch
16%
Name Withheld
16%
American Eagle
10%
Old Navy
8%
Action Sports Brands
6%
Limited
5%
Structure
5%
Nordstrom
4%
Banana Republic
4%
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
1
Action Sports Brands 13%
1
Action Sports Brands 14%
13%
2
Forever 21
2
Forever 21
12%
10%
10%
3
Nike
3
Hollister
10%
9%
8%
4
American
Eagle
4
Nike
9%
7%
8%
5
Hollister
5
American Eagle
7%
7%
8%
6
Aeropostale
6
Abercrombie & Fitch
4%
4%
4%
7
Abercrombie & Fitch
7
Urban Outfitters
3%
3%
4%
Charlotte Russe
8
Aeropostale
3%
3%
3%
9
H&M
9
Buckle
3%
2%
3%
10 Nordstrom
Kohl's
2%
2%
3%
Urban
Outfitters
Nordstrom
2%
2%
3%
Spring 2008
Fall 2007
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
1
Hollister
1
Hollister
18%
13%
14%
2
Action Sports Brands 11%
2
Action Sports Brands 13%
10%
3
American Eagle
3
American Eagle
8%
9%
10%
4
Abercrombie & Fitch
4
Abercrombie & Fitch
7%
5%
8%
5
Forever 21
5
Forever 21
4%
5%
6%
6
Nordstrom
6
Nike
4%
4%
6%
7
Nike
7
Aeropostale
4%
4%
3%
8
Aeropostale
8
Polo
Ralph
Lauren
3%
4%
2%
9
Old Navy
9
Nordstrom
3%
2%
2%
10 Urban Outfitters
Urban Outfitters
2%
2%
2%
Spring 2006
Fall 2005
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
14%
1
Hollister
16%
1
Hollister
13%
12%
2
American Eagle
10%
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
10%
8%
3
Action Sports Brands
9%
3
Action Sports Brands
9%
8%
4
Abercrombie & Fitch
9%
4
American Eagle
9%
4%
5
Forever 21
4%
5
d.e.m.o.
4%
3%
6
Nordstrom
4%
6
Nordstrom
4%
3%
7
Nike
3%
7
Polo Ralph Lauren
3%
3%
8
d.e.m.o.
3%
8
Macys Inc.
2%
2%
9
Hot Topic
3%
Urban Outfitters
2%
2%
10 Old Navy
2%
10 Hot Topic
2%
Name Withheld
2%
Spring 2004
Fall 2003
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
13%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
13%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
15%
11%
2
American Eagle
6%
2
American Eagle
8%
9%
3
Action Sports Brands
6%
Action Sports Brands
8%
6%
4
Name Withheld
5%
4
Name Withheld
7%
4%
Hollister
5%
5
Hollister
5%
3%
6
d.e.m.o.
5%
6
Gap
3%
3%
7
Old Navy
4%
7
Old Navy
3%
3%
8
Gap
3%
8
Nordstrom
3%
3%
9
Polo Ralph Lauren
3%
9
d.e.m.o.
3%
3%
10 Guess
2%
10 Forever 21
2%
Spring 2002
Fall 2001
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
18%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
13%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
13%
7%
2
Name Withheld
10%
2
Name Withheld
10%
7%
3
American Eagle
6%
3
American Eagle
7%
6%
4
Gap
5%
4
Gap
5%
5%
5
Action Sports Brands
5%
5
Action Sports Brands
5%
4%
6
Wet Seal
4%
6
Structure
4%
3%
7
Banana Republic
3%
7
Old Navy
4%
2%
8
Old Navy
3%
8
Charlotte Russe
3%
2%
9
d.e.m.o.
3%
9
Banana Republic
3%
2%
10 Nike
3%
10 Wet Seal
2%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 45
April 2011
Exhibit 45
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING BRAND PREFERENCES, FEMALES
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Brand
% Total Rank Brand
Forever 21
22%
1
Forever 21
American Eagle
10%
2
American Eagle
Nordstrom
7%
3
Nordstrom
Buckle
4%
4
Hollister
Urban Outfitters
3%
5
Action Sports Brands
Action Sports Brands 3%
6
Urban Outfitters
7
Hollister
3%
7
Charlotte Russe
8
Name Withheld
3%
8
Buckle
9
Victoria's Secret
2%
9
Abercrombie & Fitch
10 H&M
2%
10 Aeropostale
H&M
Guess
Spring 2009
Fall 2008
Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
1
Hollister
14%
1
Forever 21
2
Forever 21
10%
2
Hollister
3
Action Sports Brands 7%
3
Action Sports Brands
4
American Eagle
5%
4
American Eagle
5
Nordstrom
5%
5
Urban Outfitters
6
Abercrombie & Fitch
4%
6
Charlotte Russe
Aeropostale
4%
7
Abercrombie & Fitch
Charlotte Russe
4%
Nordstrom
Urban Outfitters
4%
9
Wet Seal
10 Buckle
3%
10 Aeropostale
Macy's Inc.
Fall 2006
Spring 2007
Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
1
American Eagle
13%
1
Hollister
Hollister
13%
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
3
Forever 21
10%
3
American Eagle
4
Nordstrom
9%
4
Urban Outfitters
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
8%
5
Nordstrom
6
Old Navy
3%
6
Forever 21
7
Action Sports Brands 3%
7
Action Sports Brands
8
Urban Outfitters
2%
8
Guess
Name Withheld
2%
9
Macy's Inc.
10 Buckle
2%
Wet Seal
Guess
2%
Fall 2004
Spring 2005
Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
1
Hollister
14%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
12%
2
Hollister
3
American Eagle
8%
3
American Eagle
4
d.e.m.o.
5%
4
Forever 21
5
Action Sports Brands
4%
5
Action Sports Brands
6
Name Withheld
4%
6
Guess
7
Urban Outfitters
4%
Nordstrom
8
Guess
3%
8
The Buckle
9
Forever 21
3%
Name Withheld
10 Wet Seal
2%
10 d.e.m.o.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
18%
1
Forever 21
20%
1
Forever 21
19%
11%
2
Hollister
7%
2
Hollister
8%
9%
3
American Eagle
6%
3
American Eagle
7%
8%
4
Charlotte Russe
5%
4
Action Sports Brands
7%
5%
5
Aeropostale
5%
5
Urban Outf itters
6%
4%
6
Action Sports Brands 5%
6
Abercrombie & Fitch
4%
3%
7
Urban Outfitters
4%
7
Nordstrom
4%
3%
8
Wet Seal
4%
8
Charlotte Russe
4%
2%
9
Nordstrom
3%
9
Aeropostale
4%
2%
10 H&M
3%
10 Buckle
3%
2%
2%
Spring 2008
Fall 2007
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
15%
1
Hollister
14%
1
Hollister
15%
10%
2
Forever 21
9%
2
Forever 21
13%
8%
3
American Eagle
8%
3
Abercrombie & Fitch
8%
7%
4
Nordstrom
8%
4
American Eagle
8%
7%
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
5%
5
Nordstrom
4%
5%
6
Action Sports Brands 4%
6
Urban Outf itters
3%
5%
7
Aeropostale
3%
Wet Seal
3%
5%
8
Wet Seal
3%
8
Aeropostale
3%
3%
9
Urban Outfitters
3%
Action Sports Brands
3%
2%
10 Charlotte Russe
2%
10 Charlotte Russe
3%
2%
Spring 2006
Fall 2005
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
17%
1
Hollister
18%
1
Hollister
16%
10%
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
11%
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
12%
7%
3
American Eagle
10%
3
American Eagle
9%
7%
4
Forever 21
8%
4
Nordstrom
7%
5%
5
Nordstrom
7%
5
Action Sports Brands
4%
5%
6
Action Sports Brands 4%
Macys Inc.
4%
5%
7
Urban Outfitters
3%
7
Forever 21
4%
4%
8
Charlotte Russe
3%
8
Urban Outf itters
3%
3%
Name Withheld
3%
9
Guess
2%
3%
10 Hot Topic
2%
10 Wet Seal
2%
d.e.m.o.
2%
Spring 2004
Fall 2003
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
14%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
12%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
18%
10%
2
Name Withheld
8%
2
Name Withheld
9%
6%
3
Hollister
8%
3
Hollister
8%
6%
4
American Eagle
7%
4
American Eagle
7%
5%
5
Action Sports Brands 4%
5
Action Sports Brands
5%
4%
6
Guess
4%
6
Forever 21
4%
4%
7
d.e.m.o.
4%
Nordstrom
4%
4%
8
Charlotte Russe
3%
8
Gap
3%
4%
Old Navy
3%
9
Wet Seal
3%
3%
10 Wet Seal
2%
10 Guess
2%
Target
2%
Fall 2002
Spring 2003
Spring 2002
Fall 2001
Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
1
Name Withheld
15%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
19%
1
Name Withheld
14%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
13%
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
12%
2
Name Withheld
9%
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
10%
2
Name Withheld
11%
3
American Eagle
8%
3
Gap
7%
3
Wet Seal
9%
3
Gap
8%
Action Sports Brands
8%
4
American Eagle
6%
4
Gap
6%
4
American Eagle
6%
5
Guess
7%
5
Action Sports Brands 5%
5
American Eagle
5%
5
Charlotte Russe
5%
6
Hollister
7%
6
Wet Seal
4%
Guess
5%
6
Wet Seal
4%
7
Forever 21
4%
7
Forever 21
4%
7
Old Navy
4%
7
Old Navy
3%
8
Charlotte Russe
2%
8
Old Navy
3%
8
Action Sports Brands 3%
8
Guess
3%
Gap
2%
9
Charlotte Russe
3%
9
Banana Republic
3%
9
Action Sports Brands
3%
Old Navy
2%
10 Guess
3%
bebe
3%
10 bebe
2%
Forever 21
2%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
46 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 46
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING BRAND PREFERENCES, MALES
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
Nike
27%
1
Nike
23%
1
Action Sports Brands 21%
1
Action Sports Brands 21%
Action Sports Brands 12%
2
Action Sports Brands 20%
2
Nike
17%
2
Nike
15%
Polo Ralph Lauren
11%
3
American Eagle
8%
3
American Eagle
10%
3
American Eagle
8%
American Eagle
7%
4
Hollister
5%
4
Hollister
7%
4
Hollister
8%
Kohl's
3%
5
Polo Ralph Lauren
5%
5
Polo Ralph Lauren
3%
5
Polo Ralph Lauren
4%
Levis
3%
6
Aeropostale
3%
6
Aeropostale
3%
6
Abercrombie & Fitch
3%
Gap
2%
7
Kohl's
2%
7
Abercrombie & Fitch
2%
7
Aeropostale
3%
Hollister
2%
8
Abercrombie & Fitch
2%
8
Ecko Unlimited
2%
8
Hot Topic
3%
Abercrombie & Fitch
2%
9
Under Armour
2%
9
Adidas
2%
9
Buckle
2%
Name Withheld
Levis
10 Hot Topic
Kohl's
2%
2%
2%
2%
Spring 2009
Fall 2008
Spring 2008
Fall 2007
Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
1
Action Sports Brands 18%
1
Action Sports Brands 28%
1
Action Sports Brands 17%
1
Action Sports Brands 22%
2
Nike
11%
2
Hollister
11%
2
Hollister
13%
2
American Eagle
13%
3
Hollister
9%
3
American Eagle
8%
3
American Eagle
10%
3
Hollister
12%
4
American Eagle
5%
4
Nike
7%
4
Nike
7%
4
Abercrombie & Fitch
7%
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
4%
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
3%
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
6%
5
Nike
6%
6
Aeropostale
3%
6
Name Withheld
2%
6
Aeropostale
4%
6
Kohl's
2%
7
Old Navy
3%
7
Kohl's
2%
7
Old Navy
2%
7
Name Withheld
2%
Polo Ralph Lauren
3%
8
Champs
2%
Polo Ralph Lauren
2%
Polo Ralph Lauren
2%
9
Hot Topic
2%
9
Ecko
1%
9
Under Armour
2%
9
Aeropostale
2%
10 Gap
2%
Polo Ralph Lauren
1%
10 Ecko
2%
10 Hot Topic
2%
Kohl's
2%
Target
1%
Levis
2%
Under Armour
1%
Under Armour
2%
Urban Outfitters
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
5
6
7
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Spring 2007
Fall 2006
Spring 2006
Fall 2005
Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
Action Sports Brands 17%
1
Action Sports Brands 19%
1
Action Sports Brands 16%
1
Action Sports Brands 15%
Hollister
13%
2
Hollister
11%
2
Hollister
14%
2
Hollister
10%
Abercrombie & Fitch
9%
3
American Eagle
9%
3
American Eagle
10%
3
Abercrombie & Fitch
8%
American Eagle
9%
4
Abercrombie & Fitch
7%
4
Abercrombie & Fitch
6%
American Eagle
8%
Nike
7%
5
Nike
5%
5
Nike
6%
5
d.e.m.o.
7%
Aeropostale
3%
6
Polo Ralph Lauren
4%
6
d.e.m.o.
4%
6
Polo Ralph Lauren
5%
Gap
3%
7
Kohl's
3%
7
Old Navy
4%
7
Wal-Mart
3%
Kohl's
3%
8
Hot Topoic
3%
8
Hot Topic
3%
8
Hot Topic
3%
Hot Topic
2%
9
ecko unltd.
2%
9
Wal-Mart
3%
9
Levi
2%
Polo Ralph Lauren
2%
Lacoste
2%
10 Polo Ralph Lauren
2%
10 Gap
2%
Wal-mart
2%
Kohl's
2%
Lacoste
2%
Spring 2005
Spring 2004
Fall 2003
Fall 2004
Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
Action Sports Brands 20%
1
Action Sports Brands 21%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
13%
1
Action Sports Brands 14%
d.e.m.o.
11%
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
10%
2
Action Sports Brands
8%
2
American Eagle
10%
Hollister
9%
3
Hollister
8%
3
American Eagle
5%
3
Abercrombie & Fitch
9%
Abercrombie & Fitch
8%
4
Nike
7%
Polo Ralph Lauren
5%
4
Old Navy
6%
American Eagle
7%
5
d.e.m.o.
5%
d.e.m.o.
5%
5
Gap
5%
Nike
5%
American Eagle
5%
6
Gap
5%
6
d.e.m.o.
4%
Gap
3%
7
Gap
4%
7
Banana Republic
4%
7
Name Withheld
3%
Name Withheld
2%
8
Polo Ralph Lauren
3%
Old Navy
4%
Nike
3%
Old Navy
2%
Name Withheld
3%
9
Nike
3%
Polo Ralph Lauren
3%
Polo Ralph Lauren
2%
Old Navy
3%
10 Hollister
3%
Target
3%
Buckle
3%
Spring 2003
Fall 2002
Spring 2002
Fall 2001
Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
Action Sports Brands 13%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
16%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
16%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
14%
Abercrombie & Fitch
12%
2
Action Sports Brands
9%
2
Action Sports Brands
8%
2
Name Withheld
9%
American Eagle
9%
Nike
9%
3
Name Withheld
6%
3
Action Sports Brands
7%
Polo Ralph Lauren
7%
4
American Eagle
6%
4
American Eagle
6%
4
American Eagle
7%
Name Withheld
6%
d.e.m.o.
6%
5
Polo Ralph Lauren
5%
5
Old Navy
5%
d.e.m.o.
6%
6
Polo Ralph Lauren
6%
6
Nike
5%
6
Mr. Rags
3%
Nike
4%
7
Old Navy
5%
7
Banana Republic
5%
7
Foot Locker
3%
Quiksilver
3%
8
Nautica
3%
Gap
5%
8
Gap
2%
Nautica
3%
9
Anchor Blue
3%
9
Tommy Hilfiger
4%
Kohl's
2%
Ecko Unlimited
3%
10 Old Navy
3%
J.C. Penney
2%
6 brands tied for 10th place
Gap
3%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 47
April 2011
Key Highlights: Brand Preferences – All Students
•
•
•
•
When looking at the top ten brands as a group, approximately eight brands repeated
their top ten inclusions from the prior season and six brands from the prior year.
Kohl’s moved into the top ten, while Aeropostale, The Buckle, and Abercrombie &
Fitch fell out of the top ten. When compared to the prior year, American Eagle and
Polo Ralph Lauren were an addition to the list while the remaining brands were the
same. The last time Kohl’s made our top ten brand preference list was in Fall 2009
(three surveys ago).
In total, most of the brands selected were those we had expected. Brands with national
presence or store bases in states surveyed tended to rank highest, particularly in the top
five brands listed.
The shift in rank among brands was the most notable takeaway from our brand
preferences question. We note a drop-off in the Action Sports Brands group at an 8%
share and No. 4 rank compared to Fall 2010 and last Spring’s 13% share and No. 1
rank. However, Nike rose to the No. 1 spot by gaining 2ppt, which could indicate some
tradeoff from action sports to mainstream sports.
Among the top five brands, American Eagle holds steady at the No. 3 position for the
second consecutive season. Forever 21 jumped two spots to No. 2 from Fall; we note
that Forever 21 has held the No. 2 position in three of the last four surveys. Conversely,
Abercrombie & Fitch, which has always appeared on our top ten Upper-Income list,
did not make the top ten ranking this iteration (No. 12), which could possibly speak to
the company’s promotional pricing posture limiting its appeal. However, Hollister
remains on our list, falling from No. 5 year-over-year and sequentially to No. 7.
Exhibit 47
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – BRAND CONCENTRATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Fall 2001
Fall 2002
Spring 2003
Fall 2003
Spring 2004
Fall 2004
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
Top 5
39%
47%
47%
43%
35%
43%
47%
45%
48%
47%
51%
51%
43%
47%
41%
46%
47%
51%
48%
Top 4
34%
42%
42%
38%
30%
39%
40%
41%
44%
41%
45%
45%
39%
43%
35%
39%
40%
44%
41%
Top 3
29%
33%
33%
31%
25%
33%
32%
32%
35%
33%
37%
37%
33%
36%
30%
31%
32%
35%
34%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
The top five brands accounted for 48% mindshare, down from 51% in Fall but up
slightly from 47% last Spring. This compares to a 19-survey average of 46%. The top
48 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
•
four brands accounted for 41% mindshare, down 3ppt from Fall and up 1ppt from
Spring 2010. The top three brands accounted for 34% mindshare, slightly down from
35% in Fall and up from 32% in Spring 2010.
We notice more strength in the top five, top four, and top three brands these last few
years; in Spring 2008, the top five brands owned 43% of our survey responses which
then dropped to 41% in Spring 2009 but Spring 2010 and this current season has
increased to 47% and 48% respectively. One possibility could be the booming
marketplace pre-recession explains the top five dilution in 2008/2009 (as retailers
typically place orders six months before they sell) and fewer small brands and retailers
post-recession. Additionally, because pricing has become a more important
consideration for consumers, large retailers with buying power can provide better
prices and hence can win more mindshare.
Exhibit 48
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING BRANDS
PREFERRED, ALL STUDENTS
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2011
Nike
Forever 21
American Eagle
Action Sports Brands
Polo Ralph Lauren
% Total
15%
10%
9%
8%
6%
Fall 2010
Action Sports Brands
Nike
American Eagle
Forever 21
Hollister
% Total
13%
12%
10%
9%
7%
Spring 2010
Action Sports Brands
Forever 21
Nike
American Eagle
Hollister
% Total
13%
10%
9%
7%
7%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Relative to the prior years, brands included among the top ten were largely similar.
Hollister fell out of the top five rank from Fall and last Spring (to No. 7); Polo Ralph
Lauren swapped places with Hollister (up from No. 7 in Fall).
Action Sports Brands did not maintain its top ranked position, falling to No. 4 with
8% share. This grouping of brands has been the most popular brand for five
consecutive seasons, peaking with 18% share in Fall 2008. The level achieved this
Spring is not consistent with historical low-double-digit share, and we believe a lower
response rate from the West Coast (48% fewer surveys taken than in the Fall) is largely
responsible since West Coast lifestyle weighs more heavily on Action Sports Brands.
While the spread between the top two brands has been narrowing the last two seasons,
our Spring survey reversed this trend. Nike gained 3ppt to hold a 15% share with
Forever 21 5ppt behind at 10% share.
In the Fall, we noted the sports apparel brands (Action Sports and Nike) had never held
the No. 1 and No. 2 positions in our brand preference survey. The combined 25%
share of Action Sports Brands and Nike is the group’s highest percentage total since the
inception of our survey. This Spring, Nike appears to be gaining more strength and is
pulling away from the pack.
In regards to the other top five brands, season-to-season share was slightly lost at
American Eagle (from 10% to 9%) and slightly gained by Forever 21 (+1ppt from 9%
to 10%).
Together, Abercrombie & Fitch Co. brands commanded approximately 4% share,
down from 9% in Fall 2010, 10% in Spring 2010, 12% share in Fall 2009, 16% in
Spring 2009, and 14% in Fall 2008. This marks the company’s lowest point to-date
with respect to collective mindshare. Share peaked in Spring 2006 at 25% (Abercrombie
& Fitch with 9% share and Hollister with 16% share). The brand is still important to
teens aged 14 to 17 years, but not in the same manner it was when it peaked at 25% in
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 49
April 2011
•
•
Spring 2006. We believe a shifting demographic is beneficial in keeping the company
relevant and fresh in the constantly changing retail environment. As we have
mentioned in prior research notes, the Abercrombie brands are deriving larger share
from an international tourist base.
Forever 21’s move higher is of particular interest as we have observed increased female
preference toward Fast Fashion brands over the last three years. We noted in our
Spring 2010 survey report that Forever 21’s share (at 10%) may well mark the brand’s
peak but based on the company’s expansion plans (including larger store formats) and
the continuing popularity of Fast Fashion, we now retract that forecast and believe the
company could gain more share in future surveys. However, our recent survey still
excludes Charlotte Russe and H&M from the top ten brand preference list; these Fast
Fashion retailers were ranked No. 7 and No. 9 in Spring 2010.
Within the balance of the top ten, we highlight the upwards progression of Polo Ralph
Lauren. After an absence in our past five surveys, Polo Ralph Lauren re-emerged in the
No. 7 position this past Fall and now ranks No. 5. Polo Ralph Lauren’s 6% share
precedes Nordstrom’s No. 6 ranking and 4% share. Polo Ralph Lauren and Nordstrom
have jointly made the top ten brand preference list for the second consecutive season,
with the combined companies accounting for a 10% share – up from 7% in the Fall –
which we believe indicates upper-income teen proclivity towards higher-end brand
labels.
Exhibit 49
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING BRANDS
PREFERRED, BY GENDER
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Fem ale
Forever 21
American Eagle
Nordstrom
The Buckle
Urban Outfitters
Action Sports Brands
% Total
22%
10%
7%
4%
3%
3%
Male
Nike
Action Sports Brands
Polo Ralph Lauren
American Eagle
Kohl's
% Total
27%
12%
11%
7%
3%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Clothing Brand
Preferences – By
Gender
Key Highlights: Brand Preferences – By Gender
•
•
•
When segmenting our brands preferred category by gender, we note several differences
between females and males. Among the top five brands preferred, two brands crossed
over between genders – American Eagle and Action Sports Brands.
For females, Forever 21 (primarily a single gender retailer) captured 22% share from
this past Fall’s 18% share. Girls selected Nordstrom (No. 3, 7% share) among their top
five preferred brands while guys selected Nike (No. 1, 27%) and Polo Ralph Lauren
(No. 5, 11%) among their top five preferred brands.
We must again comment on Forever 21 as the dominant brand for females. Forever 21’s
22% capture is 12ppt higher than No. 2 American Eagle. Similarly, Nike’s 27% capture
is 15ppt higher than No. 2 Action Sports Brands as the dominant brand for male
students. These two brands essentially have a stronghold on each gender that is
growing: in the Fall, Forever 21 garnered 18% share and Nike 23% share.
50 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
•
With respect to brand concentration by gender, the top five brands among females
accounted for 49% while the top five accounted for 60% mindshare among males. This
compares with this past Fall’s 51% for females and 61% for males (fairly similar),
Spring 2010’s 43% and 58%, respectively, and Fall 2009’s 43% of female share and
57% of male share. The trend appears to be moving towards more consolidation
among female brand preferences.
Exhibit 50
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING BRANDS
PREFERRED, FEMALE
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2011
Forever 21
American Eagle
Nordstrom
The Buckle
Urban Outfitters
Action Sports Brands
% Total
22%
10%
7%
4%
3%
3%
Fall 2010
Forever 21
American Eagle
Nordstrom
Hollister
Action Sports Brands
% Total
18%
11%
9%
8%
5%
Spring 2010
Forever 21
Hollister
American Eagle
Charlotte Russe
Aeropostale
% Total
20%
7%
6%
5%
5%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Brand Preferences – Females
•
•
•
•
•
•
As we evaluate the top five brands among females on both a sequential and year-overyear basis, we highlight Forever 21’s top ranking for the 4th consecutive survey. The
brand gained back 4ppt after losing 2ppt in the Fall 2010 ranking (from 20% to 18%).
On a year-over-year basis, Forever 21 maintained its No. 1 rank, gaining an additional
2ppt of share to 22%, the brand’s highest level to-date.
American Eagle maintained its No. 2 position despite losing 1ppt from the prior Fall
period 11% for a 10% share. In the Fall, American Eagle displaced Hollister in the No.
2 position by gaining 5ppt from the prior period 6% share for an 11% share, which
was the Eagle’s highest share capture since its No. 1 position and 13% share back in
Spring 2007. We continue to believe AEO has some of the strongest fashions in the teen
market. The brand does not just come out with commodity-like pieces but instead
infuses novelty into its product. While FQ4 comps may have been disappointing,
female teens are still in favor of the brand.
Hollister slipped off the top five list after slowly losing rank the past two seasons.
While still in the top ten (at No. 7), we are sensing more female teens are veering
towards fashion as evidenced by a top ten list that includes Fast Fashion retailers
Forever 21 and H&M, premium department store Nordstrom, and edgy retailer Urban
Outfitters.
Nordstrom remains in the No. 3 position after jumping 6 spots to the No. 3 position
from its prior period No. 9 ranking in the Fall survey. The BP (Brass Plum) department
was frequently cited in the survey response next to Nordstrom. Despite losing 3ppt
share (from 9% to 6%), Nordstrom represents one of the fastest climbers in the female
upper-income student survey.
Also moving into the top five among females was The Buckle (No. 4, 4% share),
replacing American Eagle (No. 2, 10% share). We think this dynamic is somewhat
interesting as the other specialty retailers are known for fashionable and differentiated
product (Nordstrom, Forever 21, American Eagle, and Urban Outfitters).
On a concentration basis, the top five brands preferred among females accounted for
roughly 49% share, down from 51% in the Fall but up from 43% share in Spring 2011.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 51
April 2011
Exhibit 51
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING BRANDS
PREFERRED, MALE
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2011
Nike
Action Sports Brands
Polo Ralph Lauren
American Eagle
Kohl's
% Total
27%
12%
11%
7%
3%
Fall 2010
Nike
Action Sports Brands
American Eagle
Hollister
Polo Ralph Lauren
% Total
23%
20%
8%
5%
5%
Spring 2010
Action Sports Brands
Nike
American Eagle
Hollister
Polo Ralph Lauren
% Total
21%
17%
10%
7%
3%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Brand Preferences – Males
•
•
•
•
For males responding to our brand preference question, the top five brands for all three
relevant periods (current, sequential, and prior year) are largely consistent, with the
most notable exception of Nike maintaining the No. 1 spot for second consecutive
season and Hollister slipping out of the top five (to No. 8, 2% share) with Kohl’s
moving up to No. 5 (3% share). In the last survey iteration, Nike replaced Action
Sports Brands as the top male clothing brand of choice for the first time in survey
history. Nike’s 4ppt sequential move and 10ppt year-over-year move is a big move; this
represents Nike’s highest share and rank in our ten year survey history. It’s unclear as
to what is driving the meaningful move higher among males, although we think a
packed sporting calendar and subsequent aggressive marketing campaigns have
propelled the brand. Nike’s Air Jordan, Air Force One, and skate sub-brands have
enabled the brand to remain relevant despite degradation in share among the technical
and fashion athletic classifications. Expanding the Nike brand into other sports such as
snowboarding and skateboarding has likely also helped the brand gain share. Pacific
Sunwear has rolled out Nike 6.0 (action sports - surf/snow/BMX/moto/ski/wake shoes) hard shops in a majority of their stores, which could further propel growth.
We reiterate that the No. 2 ranking and 8ppt share loss (to 12% from prior period’s
20%) for Action Sports Brands could be the result of fewer Western region survey
responses. However, as noted above, Nike is aggressively pursing the action sports
market which could be softening the Action Sports Brands category. For the Action
Sports Brands category, the Fall 2008 iteration marked its highest mark in terms of
mindshare at 28%. We note that action sports continues to abound in the market:
Zumiez opened net 23 new stores in 2010 (+6%) and plans to open 44 this year
(+11%), and VF Corp has said that it plans to add $5 billion in revenue over the next
five years through a variety of efforts with the outdoor (The North Face) and action
sport (Vans) categories central to the growth.
Relative to the prior season, Polo Ralph Lauren gained 3ppt (11% share), American
Eagle slightly lost share (from No. 3 to No. 4, and Kohl’s jumped from No. 7 to No. 5.
Polo Ralph Lauren continues to replace Abercrombie & Fitch in the top five brands;
For the 4th consecutive survey, Abercrombie & Fitch has not been able to re-emerge
into top five. Prior to Fall 2009, Abercrombie & Fitch had been ranked among the top
five male preferred brands since our survey’s inception.
One interesting development this survey cycle pertains to the Gap. Among UpperIncome males, Gap ranked No. 7 (2%) from the Fall survey. This upward movement
was a significant 17 spot improvement over its prior No. 24 (1%). In Spring 2010,
52 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Gap’s ranking was No. 19. We note that Gap appears to be connecting with male teens
but not female teens.
On a concentration basis, the top five brands among males accounted for 60% share,
roughly the same as its 61% share in the Fall and up from 58% in Spring 2010.
•
As we monitor brand choices among teens, we are able to identify underlying themes in
preference. Many of these distinctions have roots in media influences, broader pop culture,
and trend direction from boutique brands and fashion design centers. In the following
section, we highlight a few of these key themes that have emerged in recent periods: the rise
of Action Sports Brands, the growth in Fast Fashion during the cycle transition, the
convergence of fashion and athletics, and the degree to which a (lack of) brand
concentration signals potential cyclical changes in spending.
Key Highlights: Brand Preferences – Action Sports Lifestyle
The Action Sports lifestyle continues to resonate with teens, but the category’s share
fell from the No.1 ranking, a position held since Fall 2008, to No. 4 in Spring 2011. The
category’s share fell to 8%, driven by 12% share capture among males and 3% among
females.
Importantly, we had fewer West region survey responses this cycle than in Fall 2010
period. In Fall 2010, 35% of upper-income responses were from the West compared
with 23% in our Spring 2011 survey. Results from the West typically favor Action
Sports Brands and we believe a significant portion of the category’s decline in share in
this survey is due to the geographic shift in responses.
Collectively, teens named 19 unique brands and retailers in the Action Sports Brands
category.
•
•
•
Exhibit 52
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – ACTION SPORTS BRANDS
MENTIONED
Brands Mentioned / Number of Responses
9.0%
65
8.0%
60
51
7.0%
50
6.0%
38
40
30
16
20
20
34
24
24
30
5.0%
33
27
4.0%
19
3.0%
2.0%
10
10
1.0%
0
0.0%
# of Brands Relative to # of Responses
Brands Mentioned
70
# of Brands
Clothing Brand
Preferences – Action
Sports & Boardsport
Brands
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 53
April 2011
Exhibit 53
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – ACTION SPORTS BRANDS
SHARE BY GENDER
Spring 2002
Fall 2002
Spring 2003
Fall 2003
Spring 2004
Fall 2004
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
19-survey avg
Males
% Mindshare
8%
9%
13%
14%
8%
21%
20%
15%
16%
19%
17%
22%
17%
28%
18%
21%
21%
20%
12%
% Rank
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Fem ales
% Mindshare
3%
5%
8%
5%
4%
5%
4%
4%
4%
5%
7%
3%
4%
8%
7%
7%
5%
5%
3%
% Rank
8
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
6
7
3
8
6
3
3
4
6
5
5
17%
1
5%
5
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Among males, the category share declined to 12% from 20% in Fall 2010 while the
rank remained at No. 2. On a year-over-year basis, the rank fell one position and share
declined from 21%.
Among females, the category fell in share to 3% but rank was flat on a sequential basis
and improved one position to No. 5 year-over-year.
We believe a key to growth for many Action Sports lifestyle brands is evolving
women’s assortments. Relative to the 19-survey average share of 5% and No. 5 rank,
our most recent survey suggests females continue to shy away from Action Sports.
While the boundaries were at one time distinct between segments within the action
sports lifestyle, we argue that the lifestyle has grown beyond participation through
access to media and growth of national retailers such as Pacific Sunwear and Zumiez.
The presence of brands in the familiar mall-based specialty environment has blurred
the buying behavior between “hard core participant” and “aspirational teen.”
In addition, we believe Nike’s growing share may understate the share of Action Sports
as the company’s has been gaining share in the category through its Nike SB and Nike
6.0 brands. Both Nike SB and Nike 6.0 received votes for the most popular footwear,
and we believe some of Nike’s increasing apparel and footwear share is driven by these
brands.
Similarly, evolution of the lifestyle has created crossover brands, which may have had
roots in one boardsport segment but now are widely accepted and worn by anyone
interested in the broader lifestyle. For the reasons listed above, it is becoming
increasingly difficult to distinguish what is truly an “action sports lifestyle” authentic
or inspired brand. We expect this convergence trend to continue, particularly as many
of the vertically integrated specialty retailers test similar looks, particularly in the
54 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
•
•
•
•
•
•
graphic tees, denim (skater skinny), and fleece (all over print) categories. Teens named
19 brands which we have included in our Action Sports category but there were an
additional 5-10 brands which could be included, if we were to expand the definition of
Action Sports brands. Teens identified six different retailers of Action Sports brands.
We also witnessed several retailers capitalizing on the popularity of Mixed Martial
Arts (MMA) and brands in the street culture category. These become a natural
component of assortment planning as many consumers who grew up in the action
sports community are aging into other fashion lifestyles including these rock, street,
and crossover categories. As a reminder, we have not included MMA brands in our
Action Sports rankings.
When consolidating our results across genders, Pacific Sunwear continues to command
the leading mindshare (40%) within the Action Sports category. The retailer’s share of
Action Sports did increase from 34% in Spring 2010 and 30% in Fall 2010. In addition,
the company maintained its No. 1 rank within Action Sports for females and males.
Zumiez commanded 6% share, up from 5% in Fall 2010 but down from 14% in Spring
2010.
For females, identification with the lifestyle has been historically tied to the retailers
that sell the product and our most recent iteration was no different. Pacific Sunwear
commanded 50% share, up from 38% in Fall 2010 and down from 71% in Spring 2010.
In total, girls listed five unique brands/retailers versus 12 in Fall 2010, seven in Spring
2010 and 10 during Fall 2009.
In total, retailers accounted for 61% of the category vote while individual brands
accounted for 39%. This is in contrast with males, where 55% of the category share is
attributed to retailers and 45% to individual brands.
For males, Pacific Sunwear commanded 38% share, up from 29% share in Fall 2010
and 27% in Spring 2010. Zumiez commanded a 7% share, up from 5% share in Fall
2010 but down from 16% in Spring 2010.
Compared with a 19-survey average share of 10.4%, the category captured 8%
mindshare in our current survey.
Exhibit 54
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – ACTION SPORTS BRAND
SHARE
19-Survey Average = 10.4%
20%
18%
18%
16%
12%
11%
10%
10%
7%
8%
6%
14%
13%
14%
5%
8%
12%
10%
9%
9%
11%
9%
12%
13% 13%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 55
April 2011
Exhibit 55
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – ACTION SPORTS BRAND PREFERENCES
ACTION SPORTS BRANDS PREFERENCES - UPPER INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - ALL STUDENTS
Rank
1
2
3
4
6
8
Spring 2011
Brand
% AS
Pacific Sunw ear
40%
Name Withheld
10%
Volcom
8%
LRG
6%
Zumiez
6%
Hurley
4%
Vans
4%
Anchor Blue
3%
DC
3%
Fox Racing
3%
Quiksilver
3%
8 brands tied for 12th place
Action Sports Brands 100%
Fall 2010
% Total Rank Brand
% AS
3%
1
Pacific Sunw ear
30%
1%
2
Name Withheld
7%
1%
3
Volcom
6%
0%
4
LRG
5%
0%
Zumiez
5%
0%
6
Obey
4%
0%
Quiksilver
4%
0%
8
Billabong
3%
0%
RVCA
3%
0%
Vans
3%
0%
11 Fox Racing
3%
Hurley
3%
13 DC
2%
Papaya
2%
6 b rands tied for 15th place
8%
Action Sports Brands 100%
Spring 2010
% Total Rank Brand
% AS
4%
1
Pacific Sunw ear
34%
1%
2
Zumiez
14%
1%
3
Volcom
9%
1%
4
Quiksilver
7%
1%
5
Vans
4%
1%
6
Name Withheld
3%
1%
7
Billabong
3%
0%
DC
3%
0%
FOX Racing
3%
0%
LRG
3%
0%
Sun Diego
3%
0%
12 Evisu
2%
0%
Famous Stars & Straps
2%
0%
Hurley
2%
13 brands tied for 15th place
12%
Action Sports Brands 100%
Fall 2009
% Total Rank Brand
4%
1
Pacific Sunw ear
2%
2
Volcom
1%
3
Zumiez
1%
4
Hurley
1%
Quiksilver
0%
6
Vans
0%
7
DC
0%
8
Anchor Blue
0%
9
Fox Racing
0%
Gen X
0%
Nomis
0%
Name Withheld
0%
0%
13%
% AS
35%
11%
10%
5%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Action Sports Brands 100%
Spring 2009
% Total Rank Brand
% AS
5%
1
Pacific Sunw ear
43%
1%
2
Volcom
15%
1%
3
Zumiez
11%
1%
4
LRG
6%
1%
5
RVCA
4%
1%
6
Name Withheld
3%
0%
13 brands tied for 7th place
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
14%
Action Sports Brands 100%
% Total
5%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
12%
ACTION SPORTS BRANDS PREFERENCES - UPPER INCOME SURVEY - FEMALE
Rank
1
2
3
Spring 2011
Brand
% AS
Pacific Sunw ear
50%
Name Withheld
29%
Volcom
7%
Anchor Blue
7%
Roxy
7%
Action Sports Brands 100%
Fall 2010
% Total Rank Brand
2%
1
Pacific Sunw ear
1%
2
Papaya
0%
Name Withheld
0%
4
Billabong
0%
No Fear
Obey
Ocean Pacific
Roxy
Sun Diego Boardshop
Vans
Volcom
Zumiez
3%
% AS
38%
13%
13%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
Action Sports Brands 100%
Spring 2010
% Total Rank Brand
% AS
2%
1
Pacific Sunw ear
71%
1%
2
FOX Racing
5%
1%
karmaloop.com
5%
0%
lf
5%
0%
Rainbow s
5%
0%
Roxy
5%
0%
Zumiez
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
Action Sports Brands 100%
Fall 2009
% Total Rank Brand
4%
1
Pacific Sunw ear
0%
2
Anchor Blue
0%
Hurley
0%
Papaya
0%
Roxy
0%
Volcom
0%
Zumiez
8
Fox Racing
Name Withheld
Vans
5%
% AS
65%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
2%
2%
2%
Action Sports Brands 100%
Spring 2009
% Total Rank Brand
% AS
5%
1
Pacific Sunw ear
73%
0%
2
Zumiez
9%
0%
3
DC
5%
0%
Volcom
5%
0%
Roxy
5%
0%
Rainbow s
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
Action Sports Brands 100%
% Total
5%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
ACTION SPORTS BRANDS PREFERENCES - UPPER INCOME SURVEY - MALE
Rank
1
2
3
5
8
11
Spring 2011
Brand
% AS
Pacific Sunw ear
38%
Volcom
9%
Zumiez
7%
LRG
7%
Vans
5%
Hurley
5%
Name Withheld
5%
Fox Racing
3%
DC
3%
Quiksilver
3%
Sw ell
2%
Truth Soul Armor
2%
WeSC
2%
Element
2%
Girls Skateboard Company 2%
Billabong
2%
BC Surf And Sports
2%
Anchor Blue
2%
Action Sports Brands 100%
Fall 2010
% Total Rank Brand
% AS
4%
1
Pacific Sunw ear
29%
1%
2
Volcom
7%
1%
3
LRG
6%
1%
Name Withheld
6%
1%
5
Quiksilver
5%
1%
Zumiez
5%
1%
7
Obey
4%
0%
RVCA
4%
0%
9
Billabong
3%
0%
Fox Racing
3%
0%
Hurley
3%
0%
Vans
3%
0%
13 DC
3%
0%
4 b rands tied for 14th place
0%
0%
0%
0%
12%
Action Sports Brands 100%
Spring 2010
% Total Rank Brand
% AS
5%
1
Pacific Sunw ear
27%
1%
2
Zumiez
16%
1%
3
Volcom
12%
1%
4
Quiksilver
9%
1%
5
Name Withheld
4%
1%
Vans
4%
1%
7
Billabong
3%
1%
DC
3%
1%
LRG
3%
1%
Sun Diego
3%
1%
9 brands tied for 11th place
1%
0%
19%
Action Sports Brands 100%
Fall 2009
% Total Rank Brand
% AS
6%
1
Pacific Sunw ear
23%
3%
2
Volcom
13%
2%
3
Zumiez
12%
2%
4
Quiksilver
6%
1%
5
Hurley
5%
1%
Vans
5%
1%
7
DC
4%
1%
8
Gen X
2%
1%
Nomis
2%
1%
12 brands tied for 10th place
Action Sports Brands 100%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
56 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Spring 2009
% Total Rank Brand
% AS
5%
1
Pacific Sunw ear
30%
3%
2
Volcom
20%
3%
3
Zumiez
12%
1%
4
LRG
8%
1%
5
Name Withheld
4%
1%
RVCA
4%
1%
7
Evisu
2%
1%
Unit (BMX)
2%
1%
Fallen
2%
Univ
2%
Adio
2%
Vans
2%
Dans Comp (BMX)
2%
RVCA
2%
Quiksilver
2%
One Industries
2%
Sun Diego
2%
21%
Action Sports Brands 100%
% Total
5%
4%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
18%
April 2011
Exhibit 56
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – BOARDSPORT CLOTHING BRANDS PREFERRED, ALL
STUDENTS
Rank
1
2
3
5
8
Spring 2011
Brand
Volcom
LRG
Vans
Hurley
DC
Fox Racing
Quiksilver
Girls Skateboard Co.
Truth Soul Armor
Billabong
Roxy
Element
Spring 2009
Brand
Volcom
LRG
RVCA
Adio
Dans Comp (BMX)
DC
Evisu
Fallen
One Industries
Quiksilver
Rainbow s
Roxy
RVCA
Unit (BMX)
Univ
Vans
Spring 2007
Rank Brand
1
Quiksilver
2
Billabong
3
Hurley
4
Burton
Element
Volcom
7
CCS
DC
Spring 2005
Rank Brand
1
Quiksilver
2
Volcom
3
Billabong
4
Hurley
5
Element
etnies
7
DC
Rank
1
2
3
4
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Spring 2003
Brand
Quiksilver
Billabong
Roxy
Volcom
Vans
Ocean Pacific
Hurley
Tilt
DC
Kikw ear
% BS
22%
15%
11%
11%
7%
7%
7%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
Rank
1
2
3
% BS
37%
13%
7%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
% BS
20%
12%
12%
8%
8%
8%
4%
4%
% BS
34%
28%
13%
9%
6%
6%
3%
% BS
24%
21%
18%
12%
9%
6%
3%
3%
3%
3%
5
8
10
12
Fall 2010
Brand
Volcom
LRG
Obey
Quiksilver
Billabong
RVCA
Vans
Fox Racing
Hurley
DC
Papaya
Anchor Blue
CCS
Element
Matix
Ocean Pacific
Zoo York
% BS
11%
9%
8%
8%
6%
6%
6%
5%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Fall 2008
Brand
% BS
Volcom
20%
Quiksilver
13%
Billabong
8%
Hurley
6%
LRG
6%
Vans
6%
7
No Fear
5%
8
Fox
4%
9
DC
3%
Element
3%
Famous Stars & Straps
3%
Oakley
3%
Rainbow
3%
RVCA
3%
Sw ell
3%
12 brands tied for 16th place
Fall 2006
Rank Brand
% BS
1
Volcom
20%
2
Hurley
15%
3
Quiksilver
15%
4
Billabong
8%
5
Roxy
7%
6
Fox
3%
RVCA
3%
8
17 brands tied for 8th place
Fall 2004
Rank Brand
% BS
1
Volcom
37%
2
Quiksilver
30%
3
Independent
4%
Hurley
4%
Von Zipper
4%
Roxy
4%
etnies
4%
DC
4%
9
Bullhead
2%
Ocean Pacific
2%
Fall 2002
Rank Brand
% BS
1
Quiksilver
19%
Roxy
19%
3
Billabong
16%
4
Hurley
10%
Volcom
10%
6
Rusty
6%
Vans
6%
8
DC
3%
Forum
3%
Independent
3%
Tilt
3%
Spring 2010
Brand
Volcom
Quiksilver
Vans
Billabong
DC
Fox
LRG
8
Evisu
Famous Stars & Straps
Hurley
11 Element
If
Rainbow
Roxy
RVCA
Stussy
The Hundreds
w esc
Zoo York
Spring 2008
Rank Brand
1
Volcom
2
Quiksilver
3
LRG
4
Billabong
DC
6
Hurley
7
Element
O'Neill
RVCA
Zoo York
Rank
1
2
3
4
Spring 2006
Brand
Quiksilver
Volcom
Billabong
DC
Hurley
Roxy
Element
6
Aqua
Spring 2004
Rank Brand
1
Quiksilver
Ezekiel
3
DC
4
O'Neill
Volcom
Hurley
Roxy
Billabong
9
Burton
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rank
1
2
3
Spring 2002
Brand
Quiksilver
Roxy
DC
Hurley
Rusty
% BS
22%
16%
10%
6%
6%
6%
6%
4%
4%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Fall 2009
Rank Brand
1
Volcom
2
Hurley
Quiksilver
4
Vans
5
DC
6
Fox Racing
Gen X
Nomis
9
billabong
Element
Famous
Hundreds
LRG
Roxy
RVCA
Zoo York
% BS
23%
10%
10%
9%
6%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Fall 2007
Brand
Quiksilver
Volcom
Billabong
DC
Famous
Hurley
Krew
LRG
Obey
Vans
% BS
22%
20%
8%
7%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
% BS
43%
17%
11%
9%
9%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
% BS
31%
21%
12%
5%
5%
5%
5%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
4
% BS
18%
18%
14%
9%
9%
9%
9%
9%
5%
Fall 2005
Brand
Volcom
Quiksilver
Ezekiel
Billabong
Hurley
Rusty
6
Burton
O'Neill
Fall 2003
Rank Brand
1
Roxy
2
Billabong
Quiksilver
Volcom
5
Ezekiel
Hurley
Vans
8
Atticus
Element
Kikw ear
% BS
41%
22%
8%
5%
5%
5%
3%
3%
% BS
17%
13%
13%
13%
9%
9%
9%
4%
4%
4%
% BS
60%
20%
7%
7%
7%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 57
April 2011
Key Highlights: Brand Preferences – Boardsport Brands
While Action Sports lifestyle sales continue to lag behind other areas of the broader apparel
market, our survey demonstrates that many small brands make up this industry and brand
proliferation, combined with an unbalanced exposure to housing impacted states, may be
bigger versus a loss of interest in the lifestyle. We note teens continue to vote for Action
Sports/Boardsport Brands, but note the ranking has fallen to No. 2. Due to the continued
popularity of boardsport brands and the culture it represents, we carve out boardsport
brands as a category in order to evaluate brands and associated spending trends. Please note
our boardsport category excludes Action Sports retailers such as Pacific Sunwear, Zumiez,
Sun Diego, etc. and looks specifically at the brands themselves. As mentioned above, Action
Sports brands remain well entrenched in the teen lifestyle and culture, representing 8% of
total votes, down from 13% in Fall 2010 and Spring 2010.
•
•
•
•
•
Clothing Brand
Preferences – Fast
Fashion
In terms of Boardsport brands specifically, we note Volcom remained in the top spot
with 22% share, up from 11% in the Fall and in line with the 22% total share last
Spring. This survey also marks the seventh consecutive time that Volcom has been
listed at the top of the category.
Vans share increased to 11%, up from 6% in Fall 2010 and 10% in Spring 2010. This is
Vans’ highest ranking in the history of our survey and is a strong indicator of the
brand’s recent domestic success.
Quiksilver’s share fell to 7% and the No. 5 ranking. However, the DC brand had a
similar share and ranking which is an improvement over Fall 2010 and is at the highest
level in our last six surveys. In addition, Roxy received a 4% share and the No. 8
ranking.
LRG share climbed to a 15%, a new high for the brands, and remained in the No. 2
position.
Given the relevance of this category and retailers’ desire to capture spending dollars
from teens, we continue to see a heightened focus from Target, Kohl’s, Macy’s and J.C.
Penney on the category. We note, Tony Hawk in Kohl’s, a dedicated Action
Sports/Young Men’s departments within Macy’s, J.C. Penney’s RS by Sheckler, and
Target’s Shaun White apparel line. We believe this is evidence that the category is far
beyond the coastal beach towns of California and Florida and will continue to grow
with additional distribution opportunities domestically and internationally.
Key Highlights: Brand Preferences – Fast Fashion
•
•
•
•
As the fashion cycle has matured, teen girls are showing an increased propensity to
purchase Fast Fashion items to complement and extend the life of their branded
wardrobes.
Collectively, Fast Fashion retailers (including Charlotte Russe, Forever 21, Wet Seal,
H&M, Mango, rue21, and Zara) accounted for approximately 32% mindshare among
teen girls surveyed, up from 29% in Fall and slightly down from 33% in Spring 2010
and above a seventeen survey average of 18%. The 32% share marks the second largest
share capture in our survey history.
The Fast Fashion share gains are impressive considering most Fast Fashion retailers do
not advertise or use any marketing other than social media.
With the proliferation of fashion blogs and increased editorial content in magazines
that show average consumers how to dress like celebrities, teens are encouraged to be
fashionably creative and stylish. We believe this has played into Fast Fashion’s success
and is one of the reasons we do not see this trend slowing down. High end fashion
58 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
•
•
•
•
•
designers support the Fast Fashion industry by collaborating with the retailers (i.e.
Lanvin for H&M or Jil Sander for Uniqlo).
Fast fashion retailers are typically preferred for their affordable pricing followed by
their merchandise assortments. Aggressive discounting during the holiday ’08 and early
Spring ’09 seasons created comparative pricing across branded and Fast Fashion
retailers and may have limited the share capture by Fast Fashion companies.
That being said, where value and immediacy in trend are paramount to the consumer
purchase, Fast Fashion retailers continue to win share on an aggregated basis. From
our survey, female students noted that fashion is a more important consideration than
brand 76% of the time.
For females, within the Fast Fashion category, Forever 21 was the most preferred with
22% share, up from 18% share in the Fall and 20% in Spring 2010. and 19%. H&M
was No. 2 with the same sequential share 2% share as in the Fall. Wet Seal follows at
No. 3 and Charlotte Russe placed at No. 4.
It is interesting to note that Upper-Income females 32% share capture is 2ppt higher
than average-income females’ 30% capture.
Our 17-survey Fast Fashion average rose from 17% in the Fall and 16% last Spring to
18% this season.
Exhibit 57
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – FAST FASHION PREFERENCE
17-survey average = 18%
33%
35%
25%
24%
25%
20%
20%
17%
15%
10%
32%
29%
30%
11%
13%
8%
14%
12%
9%
14%
16%
16%
10%
5%
0%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 59
April 2011
Clothing Brand
Preferences – Brand
Concentration
We track share concentration as a key indicator of potential inflections in spending
patterns, particularly as it relates to the prospects of a return to a status brand cycle.
Exhibit 58
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING PREFERENCE
CONCENTRATION
All Students
Fall 2001
Fall 2002
Spring 2003
Fall 2003
Spring 2004
Fall 2004
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
Top 5
39%
47%
47%
43%
35%
43%
47%
45%
48%
47%
51%
51%
43%
47%
41%
46%
47%
51%
48%
Top 4
34%
42%
42%
38%
30%
39%
40%
41%
44%
41%
45%
45%
39%
43%
35%
39%
40%
44%
41%
Top 3
29%
33%
33%
31%
25%
33%
32%
32%
35%
33%
37%
37%
33%
36%
30%
31%
32%
35%
34%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
•
Clothing Brand
Preferences – By
Geographic Region
In aggregate, results of our Spring 2011 survey suggest a second data point in a broader
reversal in brand preference concentration. After a meaningful drop in concentration in
Spring 2008 and Spring 2009, teens are beginning to return to brands also preferred by
their peers – this has historically been an early signal of a return of the status cycle. The
48% share of the top five brands is relatively close to the 51% peak share in Spring
2007, Fall 2007, and Fall 2010.
We call out the prior low in Spring 2004 where the top five brands accounted for 35%.
This marked the beginning of a three year period of significant reinvestment into the
fashion category, tied to a denim bottoms cycle. Brand concentration peaked in Fall
2007, approximately one to one and half years after the spending cycle peaked (Spring
2006).
We subdivide our upper-income student survey results into three primary regions:
West/West Coast, Northeast/Mid-Atlantic, and Midwest. We continue to believe climates,
seasonality, product availability (retailer penetration), and traditions create inherent
variability in regional trends. West Coast and Northeast regions tend to be trend-leading
areas with the Midwest a trend follower. That said, we often see wide variances in brand
preferences and a growing correlation between leaders and laggards over time.
60 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 59
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING BRAND
PREFERENCES, BY GEOGRAPHY
West
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rank
1
2
3
5
Rank
1
2
3
4
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2011
Brand
Action Sports Brands
Forever 21
Nike
Nordstrom
American Eagle
Fall 2010
Brand
Action Sports Brands
Nike
American Eagle
Hollister
Nordstrom
Spring 2010
Brand
Action Sports Brands
Nike
Nordstrom
Forever 21
Hollister
Fall 2009
Brand
Action Sports Brands
Nike
Hollister
Nordstrom
American Eagle
Spring 2009
Brand
Action Sports Brands
Forever 21
Nike
Urban Outfitters
Nordstrom
Midwest
% Total
11%
10%
9%
9%
7%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
% Total
21%
10%
7%
7%
7%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
% Total
22%
7%
6%
4%
4%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
% Total
19%
12%
6%
6%
5%
Rank
1
2
3
4
% Total
21%
7%
7%
5%
5%
Rank
1
2
3
4
Fall 2008
Brand
% Total
Action Sports Brands 32%
Nordstrom
7%
Forever 21
5%
Nike
5%
American Eagle
4%
Spring 2008
Rank Brand
% Total
1
Action Sports Brands 24%
2
Nordstrom
8%
3
Hollister
6%
4
American Eagle
5%
Nike
5%
Fall 2007
Rank Brand
% Total
1
Action Sports Brands 29%
2
Hollister
10%
3
Nordstrom
6%
4
Nike
5%
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
4%
American Eagle
4%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2011
Brand
Nike
Forever 21
Action Sports Brands
American Eagle
The Buckle
Fall 2010
Brand
Nike
Action Sports Brands
Forever 21
American Eagle
The Buckle
Spring 2010
Brand
Action Sports Brands
Nike
Hollister
American Eagle
Forever 21
Fall 2009
Brand
Action Sports Brands
Hollister
American Eagle
Forever 21
Nike
Spring 2009
Brand
Hollister
Action Sports Brands
Nike
Abercrombie & Fitch
Aeropostale
American Eagle
Fall 2008
Brand
Hollister
Action Sports Brands
American Eagle
Nike
Forever 21
Spring 2008
Brand
Hollister
American Eagle
Action Sports Brands
Abercrombie & Fitch
Aeropostale
Fall 2007
Brand
Hollister
American Eagle
Abercrombie & Fitch
Action Sports Brands
Nike
Northeast/Mid-Atlantic
% Total
18%
10%
9%
6%
6%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
% Total
19%
11%
10%
9%
6%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
% Total
14%
12%
10%
6%
5%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
% Total
14%
10%
7%
6%
6%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
% Total
16%
13%
7%
5%
5%
5%
Rank
1
2
3
4
% Total
16%
14%
9%
5%
4%
Rank
1
2
3
% Total
21%
9%
8%
7%
5%
% Total
21%
11%
9%
6%
5%
Spring 2011
Brand
Nike
Polo Ralph Lauren
American Eagle
Forever 21
Action Sports Brands
Fall 2010
Brand
American Eagle
Forever 21
Nike
Hollister
Action Sports Brands
Spring 2010
Brand
Forever 21
American Eagle
Action Sports Brands
Nike
Hollister
Fall 2009
Brand
Forever 21
American Eagle
Action Sports Brands
Nike
Urban Outfitters
Spring 2009
Brand
Hollister
American Eagle
Forever 21
Nike
Action Sports Brands
% Total
16%
12%
11%
10%
6%
% Total
12%
11%
9%
7%
7%
% Total
14%
10%
9%
8%
6%
% Total
20%
9%
9%
7%
5%
% Total
12%
8%
6%
5%
5%
Fall 2008
Brand
% Total
Forever 21
17%
Action Sports Brands 12%
Abercrombie & Fitch
7%
American Eagle
7%
5
Hollister
7%
Spring 2008
Rank Brand
% Total
1
American Eagle
10%
2
Action Sports Brands
9%
3
Forever 21
6%
Hollister
6%
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
4%
Fall 2007
Rank Brand
% Total
1
Forever 21
13%
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
10%
3
American Eagle
10%
Hollister
10%
Action Sports Brands 10%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 61
April 2011
Key Highlights – Clothing Brand Preferences, By Geographic Region
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
When comparing results across regions, we note the similarity in brand preference.
Nike, Action Sports Brand, Forever 21, and American Eagle appeared among the top
five in all three regions.
Each region had one unique retailer in the top five: Nordstrom in the West, The Buckle
in the Midwest, and Polo Ralph Lauren in the Northeast.
Polo Ralph Lauren was the highest ranked of these regionally preferred brands,
capturing the No. 2 position in the Northeast without having been in the top five in any
region since Fall 2007 (when we began recording this information). Polo Ralph Lauren
replaced Hollister from a year ago Spring, possibly indicating a trend shift back to
classic preppy.
Nordstrom continues to be uniquely preferred in the West region. For the seventh
consecutive survey, the premium department store was included in the top five in the
West (No. 5, 9%) but did not appear in either the Midwest or Northeast. Similarly,
The Buckle appeared in the top five in the Midwest (No. 5, 9%) for the second straight
season but not in the West or the Northeast.
Historically, concentration among top five brands tends to be higher in the Midwest
and West. This survey cycle, the Northeast was the highest at 54% compared to last
season’s 46%. The Midwest demonstrated 49% concentration against last season’s
55% and the West had the lowest brand concentration at 46% versus the Fall’s 52%.
The weakness in the West can probably be rationalized through our lower survey
turnout (which explains the significant Action Sports Brands decline of 10ppt). This
compares to Spring 2010 results of Northeast and Midwest at 47% share and West at
43%. The higher the concentration, the more similarly teens are dressing like their
peers while lower concentrations signal teens demonstrating more variability in their
fashion brand preferences.
We note, in particular, the disparity in share capture by the No. 1 brands in certain
regions, which accounted for a significant portion of the dispersion in concentration. In
the Midwest, Nike captured 9ppt more than its No. 3 brand ranking in the West (9%
share). Whereas Action Sports Brands captured an 11% share at No. 1 in the West, the
brand captured a lower share (6%) at the No. 5 position in the Northeast. Interestingly,
Forever 21 carried the same share (10%) across all three regions, which probably
speaks to its popularity and mainstream fashion aesthetics.
62 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 60
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING BRAND PREFERENCES, WEST
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2011
Brand
Action Sports Brands
Forever 21
Nike
Nordstrom
American Eagle
Fall 2010
% Total Rank Brand
11%
1
Action Sports Brands
10%
2
Nike
9%
3
American Eagle
9%
Hollister
7%
5
Nordstrom
Spring 2010
% Total Rank Brand
21%
1
Action Sports Brands
10%
2
Nike
7%
3
American Eagle
7%
Hollister
7%
5
Nordstrom
Fall 2009
% Total Rank Brand
21%
1
Action Sports Brands
10%
2
Nike
7%
3
Nordstrom
7%
4
Forever 21
7%
Hollister
% Total
22%
7%
6%
4%
4%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2009
Brand
Action Sports Brands
Forever 21
Nike
Urban Outfitters
Nordstrom
Fall 2008
% Total Rank Brand
21%
1
Action Sports Brands
7%
2
Nordstrom
7%
3
Forever 21
5%
4
Nike
5%
5
American Eagle
Spring 2008
% Total Rank Brand
32%
1
Action Sports Brands
7%
2
Nordstrom
5%
3
Hollister
5%
4
American Eagle
4%
Nike
Fall 2007
% Total Rank Brand
24%
1
Action Sports Brands
8%
2
Hollister
6%
3
Nordstrom
5%
4
Nike
5%
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
American Eagle
% Total
29%
10%
6%
5%
4%
4%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2007
Brand
Action Sports Brands
Hollister
Abercrombie & Fitch
Nordstrom
Nike
Fall 2006
% Total Rank Brand
20%
1
Action Sports Brands
11%
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
8%
Nordstrom
7%
4
Polo Ralph Lauren
6%
5
American Eagle
Nike
Spring 2006
% Total Rank Brand
28%
1
Action Sports Brands
6%
2
Nordstrom
6%
3
Abercrombie & Fitch
5%
4
American Eagle
4%
5
Hollister
4%
6
d.e.m.o.
Kohl's
Fall 2005
% Total Rank Brand
17%
1
Action Sports Brands
8%
2
Nordstrom
7%
3
American Eagle
5%
4
Hollister
5%
Abercrombie & Fitch
3%
3%
Spring 2005
Rank Brand
1
Action Sports Brands
2
Hollister
Nordstrom
Urban Outfitters
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
Gap
Fall 2004
% Total Rank Brand
22%
1
Action Sports Brands
6%
2
Nordstrom
6%
3
American Eagle
6%
Abercrombie & Fitch
5%
5
Gap
5%
Hollister
Spring 2004
% Total Rank Brand
22%
1
Action Sports Brands
8%
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
6%
3
Nordstrom
6%
4
American Eagle
4%
d.e.m.o.
4%
Fall 2003
% Total Rank Brand
17%
1
Action Sports Brands
11%
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
10%
3
Nordstrom
4%
4
American Eagle
4%
5
Name Withheld
Hollister
Spring 2003
Brand
Action Sports Brands
Abercrombie & Fitch
Polo Ralph Lauren
Name Withheld
Gap
Old Navy
Fall 2002
% Total Rank Brand
20%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
14%
2
Action Sports Brands
8%
3
Old Navy
5%
4
Nike
5%
5
Gap
3%
Polo Ralph Lauren
Spring 2002
% Total Rank Brand
14%
1
Action Sports Brands
7%
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
6%
3
Fubu
5%
Anchor Blue
5%
Guess
5%
Old Navy
Name Withheld
% Total
13%
8%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
Rank
1
2
3
4
6
% Total
17%
10%
7%
6%
6%
% Total
16%
10%
9%
7%
3%
3%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
•
•
•
•
•
West Coast teens remained true to their heritage for yet another season, with Action
Sports Brands commanding the No. 1 mindshare position for the 17th survey iteration
in a row and in 18 of the last 19 survey periods.
Within the Action Sports Brands grouping, we include boardsport and active lifestyle
brands, many of which are rooted in West Coast culture, surf & skate, motocross, and
related music.
At 11% share, the category (Action Sports Brands) is off from its Fall 2008 peak of 32%
share, down from Spring 2010 and Fall 2010 at 21%.
With respect to concentration, the top five brands accounted for 46% mindshare in the
region, down from 52% in Fall but up from 43% in Spring 2010. The variance in
concentration from the sequential period (6ppt) is due primarily to a 10ppt loss for
Action Sports Brand and a 2ppt gain for both Nike and Nordstrom.
Most notably in the West, Forever 21 made it back on the top five brands for the West
region after a three season absence, which was interesting due to the California origins
(and high West Coast store concentration) of the brand. Forever 21 bumped Hollister
out of the top five.
American Eagle continues to hold a top five ranking in the West (No. 5, 7% share).
While its 7% share count has held constant for the past three survey iterations,
American Eagle’s ranking fell 2ppt. American Eagle is a Mid-Atlantic/Northeast brand
and its West Coast performance shows its fashion range.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 63
April 2011
•
Rounding out the top ten brands in the Western region were Abercrombie & Fitch
(No. 6, 3% share) and Levis, Kohl’s, and Macy’s (sharing No. 7, 2% share).
Exhibit 61
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – ACTION SPORTS BRAND PREFERENCES, WEST
Rank
1
2
3
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Brand
% AS % Total Rank Brand
% AS % Total Rank Brand
% AS % Total Rank Brand
% AS % Total
Name Withheld
30%
3%
1
Pacific Sunw ear
21%
4%
1
Pacific Sunw ear
21%
5%
1
Pacific Sunw ear
15%
3%
Vans
13%
1%
2
Name Withheld
12%
3%
2
Volcom
19%
4%
2
Volcom
11%
2%
Pacific Sunw ear
9%
1%
3
Volcom
7%
2%
3
Quiksilver
10%
2%
3
Quiksilver
9%
2%
LRG
9%
1%
4
Zumiez
6%
1%
Vans
10%
2%
4
Hurley
7%
1%
Anchor Blue
9%
1%
5
RVCA
5%
1%
5
Sun Diego
7%
2%
Vans
7%
1%
7 brands tied for 6th place
Obey
5%
1%
6
LRG
5%
1%
6
Gen X
6%
1%
Quiksilver
5%
1%
Name Withheld
5%
1%
Name Withheld
6%
1%
2 brands tied for 8th place
10 brands tied for 8th place
7 brands tied for 8th place
Action Sports
100%
11%
Action Sports
Rank
1
2
3
6
Brand
Pacific Sunw ear
Volcom
LRG
RVCA
Name Withheld
One Industries
Quiksilver
Sun Diego
Unit (BMX)
Univ
Action Sports
100%
21%
Spring 2008
Spring 2009
% AS % Total Rank Brand
37%
8%
1
Volcom
19%
4%
2
DC
7%
2%
Quiksilver
11%
2%
4
Sun Diego
7%
2%
5
Element
4%
1%
Hurley
4%
1%
LRG
4%
1%
O'Neill
4%
1%
Pacific Sunw ear
4%
1%
RVCA
Zumiez
100%
21%
Action Sports
Action Sports
100%
22%
Spring 2008
% AS % Total Rank Brand
42%
10%
1
Volcom
12%
3%
2
DC
12%
3%
Quiksilver
8%
2%
4
Sun Diego
4%
1%
5
Element
4%
1%
Hurley
4%
1%
LRG
4%
1%
O'Neill
4%
1%
Pacific Sunw ear
4%
1%
RVCA
4%
1%
Zumiez
100%
24%
Action Sports
Action Sports
100%
19%
Fall 2007
% AS % Total Rank Brand
% AS % Total
42%
10%
1
Sun Diego
16%
5%
12%
3%
Volcom
16%
5%
12%
3%
3
Pacific Sunw ear
14%
4%
8%
2%
4
Name Withheld
10%
3%
4%
1%
5
DC
8%
2%
4%
1%
Quiksilver
8%
2%
4%
1%
7
Billabong
4%
1%
Surf Ride
4%
1%
Vans
4%
1%
9 brands tied for 10th place
4%
1%
100%
24%
Action Sports
100%
29%
Spring 2007
Rank Brand
% AS % Total
1
Pacific Sunw ear
25%
5%
2
Billabong
11%
2%
Hurley
11%
2%
Quiksilver
11%
2%
Name Withheld
11%
2%
6
Zumiez
7%
1%
7 brands tied for 7th place
Action Sports
100%
20%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Because of the strength in the Action Sports Brands category in the Western region, we
have provided a more in-depth look as to the key brands/retailers garnering share.
Action Sports Brands (as a group) commanded 11% mindshare in the Western region.
Vans ranked No. 2 with 13% share, its largest share capture to-date and a 3ppt increase
from Spring 2010 (No. 3 (tied), 10% share).
Former No. 1 Pacific Sunwear slipped to the No. 3 position with a 9% share,
significantly down from its 21% capture in both Fall and Spring 2010. While Pacific
Sunwear has remained among the top preferred destinations for teens in the West since
we started segmenting our survey responses by category, we do note that the retailer
has become more “fashion” Action Sports.
Volcom (7% share) was ranked No. 3 in Fall 2010 (7% share) despite dropping 12ppt
from its No. 2 and 19% share in Spring 2010. In our Spring 2011 cycle, Volcom tied for
sixth with seven other brands/retailers and is Volcom’s lowest share capture since we
started tracking Action Sports Brands by region (9 survey periods).
Zumiez and Quiksilver were both part of the group tied for No. 6.
We note Anchor Blue filed bankruptcy in December and is no longer operating stores,
but Perry Ellis did purchase the intellectual property assets in March.
64 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 62
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING BRAND PREFERENCES, MIDWEST
Spring 2011
Brand
Nike
Forever 21
Action Sports Brands
American Eagle
The Buckle
Fall 2010
% Total Rank Brand
18%
1
Nike
10%
2
Action Sports Brands
9%
3
Forever 21
6%
4
American Eagle
6%
5
The Buckle
Spring 2010
% Total Rank Brand
19%
1
Action Sports Brands
11%
2
Nike
10%
3
Hollister
9%
4
American Eagle
6%
5
Forever 21
Fall 2009
% Total Rank Brand
14%
1
Action Sports Brands
12%
2
Hollister
10%
3
American Eagle
6%
4
Forever 21
5%
Nike
% Total
14%
10%
7%
6%
6%
Spring 2009
Brand
Hollister
Action Sports Brands
Nike
Abercrombie & Fitch
Aeropostale
American Eagle
Fall 2008
% Total Rank Brand
16%
1
Hollister
13%
2
Action Sports Brands
7%
3
American Eagle
5%
4
Nike
5%
5
Forever 21
5%
Spring 2008
% Total Rank Brand
16%
1
Hollister
14%
2
American Eagle
9%
3
Action Sports Brands
5%
4
Abercrombie & Fitch
4%
5
Aeropostale
Fall 2007
% Total Rank Brand
21%
1
Hollister
9%
2
American Eagle
8%
3
Abercrombie & Fitch
7%
4
Action Sports Brands
5%
5
Nike
% Total
21%
11%
9%
6%
5%
Spring 2007
Brand
Hollister
American Eagle
Abercrombie & Fitch
Action Sports Brands
Forever 21
Fall 2006
% Total Rank Brand
20%
1
Hollister
14%
2
American Eagle
10%
3
Abercrombie & Fitch
6%
4
Action Sports Brands
4%
5
Kohl's
Spring 2006
% Total Rank Brand
22%
1
Hollister
12%
2
American Eagle
9%
3
Abercrombie & Fitch
8%
4
Action Sports Brands
5%
5
Hot Topic
Fall 2005
% Total Rank Brand
19%
1
Hollister
16%
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
8%
3
American Eagle
6%
4
d.e.m.o.
4%
Action Sports Brands
% Total
22%
13%
10%
5%
5%
Spring 2005
Brand
Hollister
Abercrombie & Fitch
d.e.m.o.
Action Sports Brands
6 brands tied for 5th
Spring 2003
Rank Brand
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
2
Hollister
3
Name Withheld
4
Banana Republic
5
Polo Ralph Lauren
Fall 2004
% Total Rank Brand
15%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
14%
2
Forever 21
5%
3
Hollister
5%
4
buckle
5
Action Sports Brands
Fall 2002
% Total Rank Brand
11%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
8%
2
American Eagle
8%
3
Wet Seal
7%
4
Name Withheld
5%
5
The Buckle
Nike
Spring 2004
% Total Rank Brand
16%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
11%
2
Hollister
10%
3
d.e.m.o.
9%
4
Gap
7%
5
Name Withheld
Spring 2002
% Total Rank Brand
22%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
9%
2
Name Withheld
7%
3
Wet Seal
6%
4
American Eagle
5%
5
Gap
5%
Fall 2003
% Total Rank Brand
13%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
7%
2
Hollister
7%
3
Name Withheld
6%
4
Forever 21
4%
Action Sports Brands
% Total
19%
11%
10%
7%
7%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rank
1
2
3
4
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rank
1
2
3
% Total
14%
11%
8%
6%
6%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
•
•
•
By region, we have observed the most variability in brand preferences in the Midwest
but note recent surveys indicate stability in top five brands (all repeats from Fall with
one difference in Spring 2010).
Nike commanded the No. 1 position with 18% share, slightly down to Fall 2010’s 19%,
and 6ppt greater than a year ago Spring’s 12% share. Nike grabbed the No. 1 this past
Fall for the first time ever in our 19 period regional survey history.
Hollister did not make it back into the top five brand preference in the Midwest after
being displaced last survey cycle. The brand has gradually ceded share since Spring
2009: after ten surveys at the No. 1 position, beginning in Fall 2004, Hollister moved to
No. 2 in Fall 2009, No. 3 in Spring 2010, and No. 6 in both the Fall and in our current
survey.
The remaining brands in the top ten in the Midwest were: Hollister (No. 6, 3% share),
Urban Outfitters (No. 7, 3%), and Gap, Polo Ralph Lauren, and Macy’s (tied at No. 8,
2%).
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 65
April 2011
Exhibit 63
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING BRAND PREFERENCES, NORTHEAST
Spring 2011
Brand
Nike
Polo Ralph Lauren
American Eagle
Forever 21
Action Sports Brands
Fall 2010
% Total Rank Brand
16%
1
American Eagle
12%
2
Forever 21
11%
3
Nike
10%
4
Hollister
6%
5
Action Sports Brands
Spring 2010
% Total Rank Brand
12%
1
Forever 21
11%
2
American Eagle
9%
3
Action Sports Brands
7%
4
Nike
7%
5
Hollister
Fall 2009
% Total Rank Brand
14%
1
Forever 21
10%
2
American Eagle
9%
3
Action Sports Brands
8%
4
Nike
6%
5
Urban Outfitters
% Total
20%
9%
9%
7%
5%
Spring 2009
Brand
Hollister
American Eagle
Forever 21
Nike
Action Sports Brands
Fall 2008
% Total Rank Brand
12%
1
Forever 21
8%
2
Action Sports Brands
6%
3
Abercrombie & Fitch
5%
American Eagle
5%
5
Hollister
Spring 2008
% Total Rank Brand
17%
1
American Eagle
12%
2
Action Sports Brands
7%
3
Forever 21
7%
Hollister
7%
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
Fall 2007
% Total Rank Brand
10%
1
Forever 21
9%
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
6%
3
American Eagle
6%
Hollister
4%
Action Sports Brands
% Total
13%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Spring 2007
Rank Brand
1
Hollister
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
Forever 21
4
American Eagle
Nordstrom
Action Sports Brands
Fall 2006
% Total Rank Brand
10%
1
Hollister
8%
2
Urban Outfitters
8%
3
Abercrombie & Fitch
7%
4
Guess
7%
Nordstrom
7%
Spring 2006
% Total Rank Brand
20%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
12%
2
Hollister
10%
3
Nordstrom
7%
4
Aeropostale
7%
Anthropologie
Urban Outfitters
Action Sports Brands
Fall 2005
% Total Rank Brand
22%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
20%
2
Hollister
10%
Macys Inc.
5%
Action Sports Brands
5%
5
Polo Ralph Lauren
5%
5%
Spring 2005
Brand
Hollister
Abercrombie & Fitch
d.e.m.o.
American Eagle
Name Withheld
Guess
Action Sports Brands
Spring 2003
Rank Brand
1
American Eagle
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
3
Guess
4
Action Sports Brands
5
d.e.m.o.
6
Name Withheld
Fall 2004
% Total Rank Brand
22%
1
Guess
12%
Abercrombie & Fitch
10%
3
Hollister
7%
d.e.m.o.
7%
5
Name Withheld
7%
Kohl's
7%
Mandees
Fall 2002
% Total Rank Brand
14%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
13%
2
American Eagle
9%
3
Name Withheld
8%
4
Gap
7%
5
d.e.m.o.
6%
Action Sports Brands
Spring 2004
% Total Rank Brand
15%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
15%
2
American Eagle
13%
3
Name Withheld
13%
4
Hollister
5%
5
Guess
5%
5%
Spring 2002
% Total Rank Brand
18%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
7%
2
Banana Republic
7%
3
Name Withheld
6%
4
American Eagle
5%
5
Gap
5%
Fall 2003
% Total Rank Brand
15%
1
Abercrombie & Fitch
12%
2
Action Sports Brands
8%
3
Guess
6%
Name Withheld
5%
American Eagle
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rank
1
2
3
4
Rank
1
2
3
4
% Total
19%
9%
9%
9%
7%
% Total
15%
8%
5%
5%
5%
% Total
14%
8%
7%
6%
4%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
•
•
•
•
For teens in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic region, American Eagle fell to No. 3 (11%
share) from its No. 1 position (12%) share in the Fall but only gave up 1ppt. American
Eagle has been able to support itself in the Northeast region for the past eight survey
cycles (four years).
Similar to the Midwest, Nike was the No. 1 preferred brand in the Northeast/MidAtlantic region with a 16% share, rising a substantial 7ppt from Fall (No. 3, 9% share).
Last Spring, Nike was ranked No. 4 with an 8% share. The rising popularity of Nike in
different regions is a strong statement to the brand’s marketing and product efforts.
On a sequential basis, the most notable change among the top five brands besides
Action Sports maintaining its No. 5 rank (6% share, down slightly from 7% in the
Fall), is Polo Ralph Lauren’s jump to No. 2 from No. 6 and doubling its share from 6%
to 12%.
Also absent for the fifth survey in a row is Abercrombie & Fitch, which ranked No.11
at 2% share, lower than its No. 6 and 3% share but higher than its No. 12 position at
2% share from last Spring. While Abercrombie & Fitch shares the same preppy look of
Polo Ralph Lauren, the price points are becoming more divergent and the survey results
points toward higher spending in this region.
When looking at concentration, the top five brands accounted for 54% share, up from
46% share in the Fall and 47% in Spring 2010. Nike and Polo Ralph Lauren were 28%
66 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
•
Footwear Brand
Preferences – All
Students
of the concentration, higher than the Fall’s 23% and year ago Spring’s 24% but roughly
equal to Nos. 3-5’s 26% concentration.
Rounding out the top ten preferred brands in the Northeast were: Nordstrom (No. 6,
3%), Hollister and Kohl’s (tied No. 7, 3%), and Urban Outfitters (No. 10, 2%).
Similar to the apparel preference survey, we ask students to list their favorite footwear
brands in order of preferences. We tally the top choices and rank brands according to the
number of mentions across the group.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 67
April 2011
Exhibit 64
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – FOOTWEAR BRAND PREFERENCES, ALL STUDENTS
Spring 2011
Brand
% Total
Nike
42%
Vans
7%
UGG Australia
5%
Steve Madden
3%
DSW
3%
3%
Converse
Nordstrom
2%
TOMS
2%
9 Payless
2%
2%
Adidas
Spring 2009
Rank Brand
% Total
1 Nike
33%
2 UGG Australia
7%
3 Vans
7%
4 Puma
5%
5 Steve Madden
4%
6 Foot Locker
4%
7 Converse
4%
8 Adidas
3%
Journeys
3%
10 Payless
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Rank
1
2
3
4
6
8
9
Spring 2007
Brand
% Total
Nike
20%
10%
Steve Madden
Puma
7%
Adidas
6%
DSW
4%
Vans
3%
Converse
3%
Nordstrom
3%
Payless
2%
Journeys
2%
Spring 2005
Brand
% Total
Nike
17%
Steve Madden
9%
Converse
5%
Puma
4%
Reebok
4%
Adidas
3%
Journeys
3%
Foot Locker
3%
Aldo
2%
Birkenstock
2%
Spring 2003
Brand
% Total
Nike
23%
Steve Madden
12%
Adidas
7%
Nine West
4%
Skechers
4%
K-Sw iss
3%
Birkenstock
3%
Converse
3%
Vans
2%
DC Shoes
2%
Fall 2010
Brand
Nike
Vans
Steve Madden
Converse
DSW
UGG Australia
7 Adidas
8 Journeys
9 Payless
10 Nordstrom
Fall 2008
Rank Brand
1 Nike
2 Vans
3 Steve Madden
4 Converse
5 Adidas
6 Puma
7 Rainbow
8 UGG Australia
9 Journeys
10 Payless
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
% Total
39%
10%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
% Total
28%
6%
6%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Fall 2006
Brand
Nike
Steve Madden
Adidas
Puma
5 Vans
6 Nordstrom
7 Converse
K. Sw iss
9 DC Shoes
10 New Balance
Reebok
Fall 2004
Rank Brand
1 Nike
2 Steve Madden
3 Adidas
4 Journeys
5 Converse
6 New Balance
7 Bakers
Foot Locker
9 Vans
10 Aldo
% Total
15%
10%
6%
5%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
Fall 2002
Brand
Nike
Steve Madden
Adidas
New Balance
K-Sw iss
Puma
DC Shoes
Skechers
Birkenstock
Converse
% Total
29%
13%
9%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
% Total
20%
7%
5%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Spring 2010
Brand
% Total
Nike
42%
Vans
10%
UGG Australia
5%
Converse
5%
Steve Madden
3%
3%
Puma
Adidas
2%
Foot Locker
2%
2%
DC Shoes
10 ALDO
1%
Spring 2008
Rank Brand
% Total
1 Nike
31%
2 UGG Australia
5%
3 Steve Madden
5%
4 Adidas
5%
5 Puma
4%
6 Vans
3%
7 Foot Locker
3%
8 Converse
2%
9 DSW
2%
10 New Balance
2%
Payless
2%
Spring 2006
Rank Brand
% Total
1 Nike
20%
2 Steve Madden
11%
3 Adidas
7%
4 Converse
4%
5 Puma
3%
Vans
3%
7 Bakers
3%
8 DC Shoes
2%
9 K Sw iss
2%
10 Payless Shoes
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
Spring 2004
Brand
% Total
Nike
22%
Steve Madden
10%
Adidas
9%
New Balance
5%
Foot Locker
2%
Diesel
2%
Bakers
2%
Puma
2%
Converse
2%
Nine West
2%
Nordstrom
2%
Vans
2%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
68 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Fall 2009
Brand
Nike
Vans
Steve Madden
UGG Australia
Converse
Puma
Adidas
Payless
DC Shoes
Journeys
Fall 2007
Rank Brand
1 Nike
2 Steve Madden
3 Adidas
4 Puma
5 Vans
6 Foot Locker
7 Coach
8 DC Shoes
9 Rainbow
10 Payless
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fall 2005
Brand
Nike
Steve Madden
Adidas
Converse
Puma
Vans
New Balance
DC Shoes
Journeys
Reebok
Bakers
Fall 2003
Rank Brand
1 Nike
2 Steve Madden
3 Adidas
4 Skechers
5 Bakers
6 Vans
7 Nordstrom
8 Aldo
K-Sw iss
Converse
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
% Total
35%
7%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
% Total
29%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
% Total
17%
10%
6%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
% Total
15%
12%
7%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
April 2011
Key Highlights – Footwear Brand Preferences, All Students
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For the 18th iteration of our survey (since we began including questions related to
footwear brands), teens in our upper-income student survey overwhelmingly picked
Nike as their No. 1 preferred footwear brand with 42% of the vote. This level is up
from 39% from the Fall, equal to 42% last Spring, and up from 35% in Fall 2009, 33%
in Spring 2009, 28% in Fall 2008, and 31% in Spring 2008. The 3ppt gain this Spring
can be traced to a 6ppt gain in male preference for Nike this season. No other category
within our survey has had one single brand dominate the No. 1 position as long or to
the level of share that Nike has achieved among teens with respect to their footwear
brand preferences. Almost one out of every two teens lists Nike as their favorite
footwear brand. Clearly, this is a testament to the company’s heritage in the technical
and performance-based athletic footwear category but also to the iconic nature of
Nike’s vintage fashion items, sport celebrities, and broad channel distribution. We
highlight that of the students who identified Nike as their favorite footwear brand,
about 40% mentioned a specific product or sub-brand, such as Nike Air Jordan, Nike
Air Force 1, or Nike Dunks – all three which are retro versions of once-popularized
performance athletic shoes. Other products mentioned included Nike Shox and Nike
Skate.
At 42% share, Nike trumped the No. 2 brand Vans by an approximate multiple of 6x
and achieved more share than the combined total of the next ten brands. Vans’ share
fell on a sequential and year-over-year basis from 10% to 7% to capture the second
position but matched 2009 levels.
UGG Australia moved higher in the rankings to No. 3 (5%) from its prior period No. 5
(3%) position. Since it first appeared in the top ten preferred footwear survey back in
Spring 2008, UGG Australia has exhibited volatile movement on a sequential basis (updown-up-down) and tends to rank higher in the Spring survey (possibly from the
March survey following on the heels of Winter).
All five brands from Spring 2010 and Fall 2010 carried over into the current Spring 2011
survey: Nike, Vans, Steve Madden, UGG Australia, and DSW, with the exclusion of
Converse (No. 4, 4% share in the Fall to No. 6, 3% share this season). DSW has not
made the top ten Upper-Income preferred footwear list since Spring 2008 (two and a
half years ago) and has never achieved back-to-back top five status until now.
Concentration among the top five brands totaled 60% share, down from 63% share in
Fall 2010, and 64% in Spring 2010. The decrease relative to the Fall is due to a tie at
No. 5 between DSW and UGG Australia. The decrease from last Spring is due to the
3ppt loss by Vans and a smaller Steve Madden share (No. 4, 3%) compared to
Converse (No. 4, 5%). Share concentration among the Nos. 2-5 brands was largely
consistent with prior periods.
A notable mover into the top ten was TOMS shoes, which ranked No. 21 (1%) in the
Fall survey but now is tied for No. 7 with Nordstrom. We’ve noticed positive reaction
to the TOMS brand during our high school tours. TOMS has been expanding
distribution and collaborating with outside designers (i.e. this Fall, the brand will be
collaborating with Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen’s The Row for TOMS + The Row
cashmere-blend slip-on). We note students are aware of the TOMS One for One
mission of providing a pair of new shoes to a child in need with every purchase.
Journeys (No. 11, 2%) did not repeat its top ten appearance from the Fall (No. 8, 2%).
The retailer had maintained steady rank over three of the last four survey iterations.
Journeys carries essentially all brands included in our top ten, with the exception of
retailers Foot Locker and ALDO, and remain the leading destination targeted
specifically toward teen footwear.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 69
April 2011
•
•
Footwear Brand
Preferences – By
Gender
The bulk of the top ten brands besides TOMS entry and Journeys exit remained the
same from Fall. We still remain intrigued by the inclusion of DSW and Payless, which
represent off-price shoe retailers.
With Nike at 42% and the vulcanized canvas trend at 10% share, over half of all
footwear preferred by teens is either Nike branded or low-profile styled. We think the
low-profile designs tie back to the strength in the Action Sports Brands category in
apparel.
In the following exhibits, we segment our footwear brand preferences dataset by gender.
Females tend to spend more per year on footwear-related items than males. In addition,
females tend to shop more frequently for footwear. We expect both of these differences to
be evident in brand preference results.
Exhibit 65
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – FOOTWEAR BRAND PREFERENCES, FEMALE
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
Spring 2011
Brand
Nike
UGG Australia
Steve Madden
DSW
Vans
TOMS
Nordstrom
Converse
Payless
Journeys
% Total
14%
10%
7%
7%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
Spring 2009
Brand
Nike
UGG Australia
Steve Madden
Converse
Journeys
Puma
Vans
Payless
ALDO
Nordstrom
% Total
22%
14%
8%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2007
Rank Brand
1
Steve Madden
2
Nike
Prada
4
DSW
5
Nordstrom
6
Payless
7
Converse
8
Journeys
9
Adidas
Vans
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2005
Brand
Steve Madden
Nike
Converse
Puma
Journeys
Aldo
Payless
Birkenstock
DSW
Reebok
% Total
16%
8%
8%
6%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2010
Brand
Nike
Steve Madden
Vans
UGG Australia
DSW
Converse
Payless
Journeys
Nordstrom
Sperry Top-Sider
% Total
14%
9%
7%
7%
7%
6%
4%
4%
4%
3%
Fall 2008
Brand
% Total
Nike
12%
Steve Madden
11%
Converse
7%
Rainbow
6%
Vans
5%
UGG Australia
5%
Payless
4%
Journeys
3%
Nordstrom
3%
DSW
3%
Puma
3%
Fall 2006
Rank Brand
% Total
1
Steve Madden
13%
2
Nike
8%
3
Puma
7%
4
Nordstrom
5%
5
Converse
3%
6
Adidas
3%
Payless
3%
Rainbow
3%
UGG Australia
3%
10 3 brands tied for 10th place
Spring 2010
Brand
Nike
UGG Australia
Vans
Converse
Steve Madden
Coach
DSW
Foot Locker
Journeys
10 ALDO
Bakers
Puma
Spring 2008
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
UGG Australia
3
Steve Madden
4
DSW
5
Payless
6
Puma
7
Coach
8
Converse
9
Nordstrom
Rainbow
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
% Total
15%
10%
9%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
% Total
20%
9%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
10
Spring 2006
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Brand
Steve Madden
Nike
Bakers
Converse
Adidas
Payless
Puma
Nordstrom
Aldo
Rainbow
% Total
15%
9%
6%
5%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
70 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
% Total
26%
11%
8%
8%
5%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
8
10
Fall 2009
Brand
Nike
Steve Madden
UGG Australia
Converse
Vans
DSW
Nordstrom
Journeys
Payless
Coach
% Total
18%
9%
9%
7%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Fall 2007
Brand
Nike
Steve Madden
Coach
Puma
Payless
Rainbow
DSW
Journeys
Old Navy
Foot Locker
% Total
16%
14%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Fall 2005
Brand
Steve Madden
Nike
Converse
Journeys
Bakers
Puma
Adidas
DSW
Payless
Nine West
Nordstrom
% Total
19%
7%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
April 2011
Key Highlights: Footwear Brand Preferences – Female
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nike’s strength was supported by a No. 1 rank and 14% share among females, flat to
Fall but down from its 26% share in Spring 2010. The brand has ranked at the top for
girls since Fall 2007.
Most notable among top brands are UGG Australia and Vans, in our view. UGG
Australia gained 3ppt to 10% from 7% in the Fall and jumped from the No. 4 rank to
No. 2 this season. Vans, a VF Corporation brand, lost 2ppt share from Fall 2010 and
3ppt from Spring 2010; overall, Vans has been in the top ten preferred footwear list for
females the last 2-3 years.
With the top five brands repeating from the Fall, the only difference is the preference
order: Nike remains the most preferred brand, UGG Australia rose to No. 2 from No.
4, Steve Madden lost a rank and share (No. 3 and 9% from prior No. 2 and 7%), DSW
held its 7% share from the Fall and rose 1 spot to No. 4, and Vans shifted from No. 3
(7%) to No. 5 (5%) this Spring. The brand preferences include a broad-based style
representation of sport (Nike), fashion (Steve Madden and UGG Australia), casual
(Vans) and off-price (DSW).
Missing from the top ten when compared to the prior season was Sperry Top-Sider
(No. 16, 2%), which ranked higher in the male survey (No. 9). Missing from the prior
Spring were Coach, Foot Locker, Journeys, ALDO, Bakers, and Puma.
We note the popularity of Nordstrom for female teen shoes, which has been in our top
ten list 10 out of 13 surveys. No other department store (i.e. Bloomingdales, Lord and
Taylors, Belk, etc.) ranks this highly among female teens.
Looking at concentration, the top five brands accounted for approximately 44% share,
flat to Fall although well below the 58% share in Spring 2010, the 48% share in Fall
2009 and 52% share in Spring 2009. This compares to concentration among the top
five brands in men’s at 81%. Brand preference among females is much less
concentrated, suggesting that females tend to purchase brands across various styles and
wardrobe intentions – dress, casual, performance, athletic, and crossover. The lack of
concentration on a relative basis is linked primarily to the degree to which Nike
commands share among males (66% among males versus 14% among females).
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 71
April 2011
Exhibit 66
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – FOOTWEAR BRAND PREFERENCES, MALE
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
Spring 2011
Brand
Nike
Vans
Adidas
DC Shoes
Converse
Puma
Finish Line
Foot Locker
Sperry Top-Sider
New Balance
% Total
66%
8%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
Spring 2009
Brand
Nike
Vans
Foot Locker
Puma
Adidas
Asics
Converse
DC
New Balance
Payless
% Total
44%
10%
6%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Spring 2007
Brand
Nike
Adidas
Puma
New Balance
DC Shoes
Champs
DVS Shoe Co.
K. Sw iss
Reebok
Vans
% Total
38%
11%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Spring 2005
Brand
Nike
Adidas
Reebock
New Balance
Vans
Converse
Foot Locker
DC Shoes
DVS Shoe Co.
Diesel
Etnies
% Total
30%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
8
9
Fall 2010
Brand
Nike
Vans
Adidas
Converse
Finish Line
New Balance
DC
Puma
Asics
Under Armour
Fall 2008
Brand
Nike
Vans
Adidas
Puma
DC Shoes
Converse
Foot Locker
Champs
Etnies
10 Adio
Finish Line
Fall 2006
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Adidas
3
Vans
4
DC Shoes
Reebok
6
K. Sw iss
New Balance
8
Puma
9
Emerica
Etnies
Foot Locker
% Total
60%
12%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
% Total
46%
7%
6%
4%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
% Total
34%
8%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Spring 2010
Brand
Nike
Vans
Adidas
Puma
DC Shoes
Foot Locker
Converse
New Balance
Reebok
Skechers
Timberland
Spring 2008
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Adidas
3
Puma
Vans
5
DC Shoes
Foot Locker
New Balance
8
Converse
9
Finish Line
10 Asics
Reebok
Spring 2006
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Adidas
3
Vans
4
K Sw iss
New Balance
6
DC Shoes
Puma
8
Converse
Finish Line
10 DVS Shoe Co.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
% Total
56%
12%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
% Total
47%
7%
5%
5%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
% Total
33%
12%
6%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
72 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Fall 2009
Brand
Nike
Vans
Puma
Adidas
DC Shoes
Foot Locker
7
Asics
8
Converse
9
Reebok
10 Sperry Top-Sider
Under Armour
Fall 2007
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Adidas
3
Puma
4
Vans
5
DC Shoes
6
Foot Locker
7
New Balance
8
K Sw iss
9
Reebok
10 Etnies
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
% Total
53%
9%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
% Total
41%
8%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Fall 2005
Brand
% Total
Nike
25%
Adidas
9%
New Balance
6%
DC Shoes
5%
Puma
4%
Vans
4%
Converse
3%
Reebok
3%
Lakai
3%
2 brands tied for 10th brands
April 2011
Key Highlights: Footwear Brand Preferences – Males
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Footwear Brand
Preferences – By
Geographic Region
Males have represented a larger portion of our survey responses in the last six cycles,
which is reflected in the consolidated preference share across apparel and footwear
brands.
Nike captured 66% mindshare in our most recent survey iteration, which is above the
prior season’s 60% and meaningfully above last Spring’s 56% mindshare. The brand
bested the No. 2 ranked Vans by a ratio of 8:1. Looking at the top ten brands, Nike’s
share (66%) outperformed the collective share of the remaining 120 brands (34%).
Nike has been steadily increasing its mindshare among males, beginning at 25% in Fall
2005, growing to 33% in Spring 2006, 34% in Fall 2006, 38% in Spring 2007 and into
the 50%-plus range in the last 18 months. Our most recent iteration represents Nike’s
highest share capture to-date. As mentioned in our Spring research report, gains in
share are naturally moderating and could begin to reverse as the cycle matures and as a
new fashion/bottoms-driven apparel cycle reemerges.
Concentration among the top five brands was 81%, up from 79% in the Fall, 77% in
Spring 2010, 73% in Fall 2009, 69% in Spring 2009 and 66% in Fall 2008. Nike gained
6ppt from Fall, Vans and Adidas maintained the same rank (with Vans losing 4ppt of
share), Converse maintaining the same share (2%) but ceding one rank, and DC Shoes
rising from No. 6 in the Fall to No. 4 (with the same share, 2%).
On a sequential basis, the top five brands preferred by males were consistent for the
Nos. 1 thru 3 positions, while the No. 4 and No. 5 positions changed from Converse
and Finish Line in the prior season to DC Shoes and Converse in this current study.
Looking at brands ranked Nos. 5-10, there was some variability from the prior year
and prior season. Moving into the top ten from the Fall 2010 period were Sperry TopSider and Foot Locker replacing Asics and Under Armour. When compared to the prior
year, Reebok, Skechers, and Timberland fell from the top ten, replaced by Sperry TopSider and Finish Line.
Historically, low-profile sneakers, fashion athletic, and retro inspired footwear have
been pervasive themes in men’s footwear. It used to be that if we add collective share
for Vans, Adidas, Puma, DC, Converse, and New Balance, approximately one in every
five share points among males was attached to these brands. With the dominance of
Nike, this brand/trend preference has been pulling back. We note that Nike has
invested in the fashion athletic and surf/skate market, possibly accounting for Vans,
Adidas, Puma, DC, Converse, and New Balance softness. We still believe that the
hook-up with footwear and accessories is growing more prevalent as the fashion cycle
matures.
Similar to our clothing brand preferences, we subdivide our footwear brand preference
results into three primary regions: West, Northeast/Mid-Atlantic, and Midwest.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 73
April 2011
Exhibit 67
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – FOOTWEAR BRANDS PREFERRED, BY REGION
West
Rank
1
2
3
4
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Spring 2011
Brand
Nike
Vans
Steve Madden
UGG Australia
Nordstrom
% Total
31%
20%
7%
3%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Fall 2010
Brand
Nike
Vans
Steve Madden
Converse
Nordstrom
% Total
33%
19%
7%
4%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
Spring 2010
Brand
Nike
Vans
Steve Madden
Converse
UGG Australia
Fall 2009
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Vans
3
Steve Madden
4
Converse
5
Puma
Spring 2009
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Vans
3
Steve Madden
4
Converse
5
UGG Australia
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Fall 2008
Brand
Nike
Vans
Steve Madden
Rainbow
Converse
DC Shoes
Spring 2008
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Vans
3
Rainbow
Steve Madden
5
UGG Australia
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Midwest
% Total
28%
24%
8%
5%
4%
% Total
30%
17%
6%
5%
2%
% Total
23%
20%
9%
8%
5%
% Total
20%
16%
8%
7%
3%
3%
% Total
25%
8%
7%
7%
7%
Spring 2011
Brand
Nike
DSW
TOMS
Converse
UGG Australia
Fall 2010
Brand
Nike
Vans
DSW
Sperry Top Sider
Journeys
Adidas
Spring 2010
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Vans
3
Puma
4
UGG Australia
5
Converse
Fall 2009
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Puma
3
Vans
4
UGG Australia
5
Converse
Spring 2009
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Puma
3
UGG Australia
Vans
5
Adidas
Rank
1
2
3
5
Fall 2008
Brand
Nike
Puma
Adidas
Converse
Vans
Spring 2008
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Adidas
Puma
4
UGG Australia
5
DSW
Payless
Northeast/Mid-Atlantic
% Total
41%
6%
4%
4%
4%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
% Total
45%
7%
5%
3%
3%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
% Total
48%
6%
5%
5%
4%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
% Total
37%
6%
5%
4%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
% Total
38%
9%
4%
4%
4%
Rank
1
2
3
% Total
34%
6%
6%
6%
4%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
% Total
33%
6%
6%
4%
3%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
5
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
74 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Spring 2011
Brand
Nike
UGG Australia
Vans
DSW
Converse
Nordstrom
Fall 2010
Brand
Nike
UGG Australia
Converse
DSW
Vans
Steve Madden
Spring 2010
Brand
Nike
Vans
UGG Australia
Converse
Foot Locker
Fall 2009
Brand
Nike
UGG Australia
Steve Madden
Converse
DSW
Spring 2009
Brand
Nike
UGG Australia
Foot Locker
Steve Madden
Adidas
Converse
DSW
Nordstrom
Fall 2008
Brand
Nike
Steve Madden
UGG Australia
Rainbow
Converse
Spring 2008
Brand
Nike
Steve Madden
Foot Locker
UGG Australia
Adidas
Coach
% Total
49%
6%
3%
3%
3%
3%
% Total
40%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
% Total
45%
6%
6%
4%
3%
% Total
36%
8%
7%
5%
4%
% Total
31%
14%
7%
7%
2%
2%
2%
2%
% Total
22%
11%
7%
6%
4%
% Total
29%
6%
5%
5%
3%
3%
April 2011
Key Highlights: Footwear Brand Preferences – By Region
•
•
•
•
•
Comparing footwear brands preferred across regions, we note the strength in Nike at
31% in the West, 41% in the Midwest, and 49% in the East. This compares to 33% in
the West, 45% in the Midwest, and 40% in the Northeast in Fall 2010. Relative to the
prior year, Nike ceded share in the West and Midwest but gained share in the
Northeast (9ppt).
The group of brands listed in the top five was somewhat consistent across regions –
Nike, Vans, Converse, Steve Madden and UGG Australia were included. In the West,
fashion footwear brand Steve Madden ranked No. 3; in the Midwest, TOMS ranked
No. 3; in the Northeast, Converse ranked No. 3. While the No. 1 brand was consistent
across all regions, there is regional crossover amongst the remaining four brands within
the top five positions. This crossover in brand preference among the top five is
something we have noticed over the years.
When comparing concentration, the top five brands account for 66% in the West, 63%
in the Midwest, and 56% in the Northeast. This compares to 69% in the West, 67% in
the Midwest, and 65% in the Northeast in our Fall 2010 survey. The West and
Midwest experienced a decrease in concentration while the East jumped 9ppt from the
Fall and increased 4ppt from Spring 2010.
We acknowledge that share concentration typically peaks at the peak of the branded
cycle and increased dispersion occurs as the cycle enters transition. The volatility in
recent measures is evidence of broader industry uncertainty surrounding an emerging
apparel fashion cycle. Further, as Fast Fashion continues to garner a higher percentage
share among apparel purchases, it frees dollars within the consumer wallet for
spending on related footwear products.
By monitoring share concentration and spending levels, we note that the footwear cycle
typically peaks roughly two to three years following apparel cycle peak (last peak
Spring 2006) as consumers roll their brand-based dollars into the category following a
major apparel replenishment cycle (particularly a bottoms-based cycle).
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 75
April 2011
A V E R A G E - I N C OM E S T U D E N T S U R V E Y – B R A N D
PREFERENCES
In the following section, we detail results of our average-income student survey brand
preference study. This is the 13th cycle of our survey. As with our upper-income student
survey, we ask students to list their favorite brands/retailers in order of preference. The
students in our online survey type their responses into blank fields, thus generating an
unaided list of brand preferences. We tally each student’s top choice to populate our
preferred brand ranks and share rates.
Clothing Brand
Preferences – All
Students
We begin by reviewing clothing brand preferences for all students surveyed. As mentioned,
concentration of responses based on geographic location can have varying degrees of
impact on our survey results and must be considered when comparing current results to
prior periods.
In comparison to our upper-income student survey students (top 25% of households based
on income), we believe our average-income student survey sample more closely resembles
shopping characteristics of students in median-income households.
That being said, we acknowledge two important factors: 1) The propensity to spend and
the dollars attributable to Upper-Income households dictates much of the sales trends
evident in specialty teen retailers (the 80/20 rule); and 2) Despite the variances in average
household income, many of the same brands appear in both groups, suggesting the
aspirational positioning of many specialty teen brands and retailers.
76 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 68
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING BRAND PREFERENCES, ALL STUDENTS
Spring 2011
Brand
American Eagle
Nike
Forever 21
Action Sports Brands
Hollister
Aeropostale
Polo Ralph Lauren
Abercrombie & Fitch
Buckle
Kohl's
Fall 2010
% Total Rank
Brand
10%
1
American Eagle
10%
2
Hollister
9%
3
Nike
8%
4
Action Sports Brands
7%
5
Aeropostale
5%
6
Forever 21
5%
7
Polo Ralph Lauren
3%
8
Buckle
2%
9
Abercrombie & Fitch
2%
10 Kohl's
Spring 2009
Brand
American Eagle
Action Sports Brands
Hollister
Nike
Forever 21
Aeropostale
Abercrombie & Fitch
Polo Ralph Lauren
Hot Topic
Rocaw ear
Spring 2007
Rank Brand
1
American Eagle
2
Hollister
3
Action Sports Brands
4
Abercrombie & Fitch
5
Nike
6
Aeropostale
7
Old Navy
8
Polo Ralph Lauren
9
Hot Topic
10 South Pole
Spring 2005
Rank Brand
1
American Eagle
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
3
Hollister
4
Aeropostale
Old Navy
6
Action Sports Brands
7
d.e.m.o.
8
Nike
9
Name Withheld
10 Gap
Fall 2008
% Total Rank Brand
10%
1
American Eagle
10%
2
Action Sports Brands
7%
3
Hollister
7%
4
Nike
5%
5
Aeropostale
5%
6
Forever 21
3%
7
Abercrombie & Fitch
3%
8
Polo Ralph Lauren
2%
9
Rocaw ear
2%
10 Hot Topic
Fall 2006
% Total Rank Brand
14%
1
American Eagle
11%
2
Action Sports Brands
9%
3
Hollister
6%
4
Abercrombie & Fitch
5%
5
Aeropostale
4%
6
Nike
3%
7
Polo Ralph Lauren
2%
8
Old Navy
2%
9
Baby Phat
2%
10 J.C. Penney
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
% Total Rank
Brand
% Total Rank
Brand
% Total
12%
1
American Eagle
11%
1
Action Sports Brands 10%
9%
2
Nike
8%
2
American Eagle
10%
8%
3
Action Sports Brands
8%
3
Nike
8%
8%
4
Hollister
7%
4
Hollister
8%
7%
5
Forever 21
6%
5
Forever 21
7%
6%
6
Aeropostale
5%
6
Aeropostale
6%
5%
7
Polo Ralph Lauren
4%
7
Polo Ralph Lauren
3%
3%
8
Buckle
4%
8
Buckle
3%
3%
9
Charlotte Russe
2%
9
Abercrombie & Fitch
2%
2%
10 Abercrombie & Fitch
2%
10 Hot Topic
2%
Hot Topic
2%
Spring 2008
Fall 2007
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
11%
1
American Eagle
13%
1
American Eagle
16%
11%
2
Action Sports Brands 10%
2
Hollister
12%
10%
3
Hollister
9%
3
Action Sports Brands
7%
6%
4
Nike
6%
4
Nike
5%
5%
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
4%
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
5%
4%
6
Forever 21
3%
6
Aeropostale
4%
3%
7
Aeropostale
3%
7
Hot Topic
3%
3%
8
Polo Ralph Lauren
3%
8
Old Navy
2%
2%
9
Rocaw ear
2%
9
Forever 21
2%
2%
10 Old Navy
2%
10 South Pole
2%
Spring 2006
Fall 2005
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total
14%
1
American Eagle
12%
1
American Eagle
13%
8%
2
Hollister
10%
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
9%
8%
3
Abercrombie & Fitch
8%
3
Hollister
8%
6%
4
d.e.m.o.
7%
4
d.e.m.o.
8%
5%
5
Action Sports Brands
5%
5
Action Sports Brands
7%
4%
6
Nike
4%
6
Aeropostale
4%
3%
7
Aeropostale
3%
7
Nike
4%
3%
8
Old Navy
3%
8
Old Navy
3%
3%
9
Hot Topic
2%
9
Polo Ralph Lauren
3%
3%
Wal-Mart
2%
10 Hot Topic
2%
% Total
13%
10%
7%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 77
April 2011
Key Highlights: Clothing Brand Preferences – All Students
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Teens in our average-income student survey independently named 271 different brands
this survey cycle, compared to 268 brands in the Fall, 385 brands in Spring 2010, 560 in
Fall 2009, 500 in Spring 2009, 394 in Fall 2008, 376 in Spring 2008, and 298 in Fall 2007.
We make special note that the number of brands cited has run counter to the fashion
cycle – the larger the number of brands (the greater the share dispersion) during
troughs in the spending cycle; the smaller the number of brands (the higher the
concentration) the more near to peak of the cycle.
On a concentration basis, the top five brands preferred by average-income student
survey respondents accounted for 44% share, flat to Fall, and above the 40% share in
Spring 2010, more in line with 42% in Fall 2009, and 40% in Spring 2009. The top three
brands (as a group) accounted for 29% share, again flat to Fall, but up 3ppt from the
27% share of Spring 2010. At its peak in Fall 2007 (3 years ago), the top three brands
accounted for 34% of the preference share.
Average-income survey students selected American Eagle Outfitters for the third
consecutive season as their most preferred brand. AE captured 10% of the preference
vote, losing share by 2ppt after increasing share by 1ppt in the Fall. The AE brand
returned to the top position in Spring 2010 (11%) after being unseated in our Fall 2009
survey by Action Sports Brands.
Relative to Fall 2010, Hollister ceded 3 ranks and 3ppt share to the No. 5 position in
this survey. In our Fall survey, Hollister moved 2ppt higher into the No. 2 position,
gaining 2ppt for a 9% share; at the time, the brand had not been in the No. 2 position
since Fall 2007. Hollister has been oscillating between the Nos. 3 and 4 positions for a
number of survey sessions but has never ranked this low (No. 5) since our survey
inception. Despite Hollister’s weak showing, Abercrombie & Fitch maintained share
(3%) and slightly increased rank from No. 9 in the Fall to No. 8, up from No. 10 (2%)
last Spring, and up from No. 9 and 2% share in Fall 2009.
Forever 21 made significant share gains this season, increasing 3ppt and jumping 3
positions to No. 3 (9%) from Fall’s No. 6 (6%). While the only Fast Fashion retailer in
the top ten list, it has been in the top ten the past eight survey cycles (4 years) and the
No. 3 rank is its highest position and share capture to-date.
Action Sports Brands as a group has risen steadily over the last four years but fell to the
No. 3 position in Spring 2010. In our most recent survey, Action Sports Brands
maintained the same 8% share and No. 4 rank as in the Fall, slightly lower than its No.
3 rank in Spring 2010. The group held the No. 3 rank position in Fall 2007 and had
been rising steadily since that point. The group had accounted for roughly 10%-11%
share in each survey cycle since Spring 2008 but ceded 2ppt of share to 8% in our last
two iterations. We view the recent survey update as a possible deterioration point
(although it held steady at 8%) since there has been no growth in share capture. The
volatility in mindshare capture is somewhat concerning, particularly given a much
higher position and share representation among our Average Income Student Survey
respondents.
Nike continues to dominate both the Upper-Income and Average-Income surveys, with
a No. 1 rank in Upper-Income and No. 2 rank in Average-Income. For Average-Income
students, Nike gained 2ppt of share (10%) this season after holding the same 8% share
for the past three seasons – ranking No. 2 in the current cycle, No. 3 in the Fall, No. 2
in Spring 2010, and No. 3 in Fall 2009. Nike was No. 4 and a 7% share in Spring 2009.
Polo Ralph Lauren and Buckle were essentially in line with Fall 2010 when profiling
brand rank, although the Buckle (2%) lost 1ppt and Polo Ralph Lauren (5%) was flat.
These results were similar to last Spring.
78 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
•
•
•
Kohl’s emerged in the top ten preferred brands for the first time, commanding the No.
10 position with 2% share and displacing Charlotte Russe from the prior period. We
consider Kohl’s to be a variation of the dominant Fast Fashion preference we are
observing among young women across demographic profiles.
Aeropostale declined in rank to No. 6, losing 2ppt from the Fall’s No. 5 position and
7% share. The 2ppt share gain last season was given back and this Spring’s results
mirror last Spring. This is an important consideration as the brand continues to work
through improvements in merchandise quality and fashionability at a time when it is
feeling the competitive promotional pricing stresses born from the current economic
environment. While teens may not indicate preference toward the Aeropostale brand,
we do think they are assigning purchases given the inherent trend towards value in a
down spending cycle. However, other teen retailers’ increased promotional stance
could be distancing some teens from the Aeropostale brand.
The top ten group of brands was consistent (as a group) on a sequential basis. Relative
to the prior year, no brands fell out or were added to the top ten. On a year-over-year
basis, Charlotte Russe and Hot Topic fell out of the top ten, replaced by Kohl’s.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 79
April 2011
Clothing Brand
Preferences – By
Gender
We have segmented our average-income student survey brand preferences by gender. Many
of the same brands appeared on both gender preference lists while others were preferred by
only males or females.
Exhibit 69
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING BRAND PREFERENCES, FEMALES
Spring 2011
Brand
Forever 21
American Eagle
Hollister
Aeropostale
Action Sports Brands
The Buckle
Kohl's
Wet Seal
rue21
Charlotte Russe
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
17%
1
American Eagle
12%
1
Forever 21
12%
1
Forever 21
10%
2
Forever 21
11%
2
American Eagle
11%
2
American Eagle
8%
3
Hollister
10%
3
Hollister
8%
3
Hollister
6%
4
Aeropostale
8%
4
Aeropostale
5%
4
Action Sports Brands
4%
5
Action Sports Brands
5%
5
The Buckle
5%
5
Aeropostale
4%
6
The Buckle
5%
6
Action Sports Brands
5%
6
The Buckle
3%
7
rue21
3%
7
Charlotte Russe
4%
7
Charlotte Russe
3%
8
Abercrombie & Fitch
3%
8
Wet Seal
3%
8
Wet Seal
2%
9
Kohl's
3%
9
rue21
3%
9
Abercrombie & Fitch
2%
10 Wet Seal
2%
10 Abercrombie & Fitch
2%
10 rue21
Hot Topic
2%
Spring 2009
Brand
American Eagle
Forever 21
Hollister
Action Sports Brands
Aeropostale
Abercrombie & Fitch
Wet Seal
Charlotte Russe
The Buckle
Hot Topic
Spring 2007
Rank Brand
1
American Eagle
2
Hollister
3
Abercrombie & Fitch
4
Action Sports Brands
5
Aeropostale
6
Baby Phat
Old Navy
8
Wet Seal
9
Name Withheld
Forever 21
Hot Topic
Spring 2005
Rank Brand
1
American Eagle
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
3
Hollister
4
Aeropostale
5
Old Navy
6
d.e.m.o.
Name Withheld
8
Gap
9
Forever 21
10 Kohl's
Fall 2008
Spring 2008
Fall 2007
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
11%
1
Hollister
12%
1
American Eagle
13%
1
American Eagle
9%
2
American Eagle
12%
2
Hollister
11%
2
Hollister
9%
3
Forever 21
8%
3
Forever 21
6%
3
Aeropostale
7%
4
Action Sports Brands
6%
4
Action Sports Brands
6%
4
Abercrombie & Fitch
6%
5
Aeropostale
6%
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
5%
5
Action Sports Brands
3%
6
Abercrombie & Fitch
4%
6
Aeropostale
4%
6
Forever 21
3%
7
Wet Seal
4%
7
Wet Seal
3%
7
Charlotte Russe
3%
8
Charlotte Russe
3%
8
Baby Phat
2%
8
Wet Seal
2%
9
Rocaw ear
3%
9
Charlotte Russe
2%
9
Hot Topic
2%
10 Baby Phat
2%
10 Old Navy
2%
10 Old Navy
Fall 2006
Spring 2006
Fall 2005
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
16%
1
American Eagle
15%
1
Hollister
12%
1
American Eagle
13%
2
Hollister
9%
2
American Eagle
11%
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
7%
3
Abercrombie & Fitch
8%
3
Abercrombie & Fitch
9%
3
Hollister
5%
4
Aeropostale
6%
4
d.e.m.o.
6%
4
Aeropostale
4%
5
Baby Phat
5%
5
Aeropostale
4%
5
d.e.m.o.
3%
6
Action Sports Brands
4%
6
Forever 21
4%
Action Sports Brands
3%
7
Forever 21
4%
Action Sports Brands
4%
7
Forever 21
3%
Old Navy
4%
8
Old Navy
4%
8
Old Navy
2%
9
Hot Topic
3%
9
Hot Topic
3%
9
Urban Outfitters
2%
10 Wet Seal
2%
10 Kohl's
3%
10 Wet Seal
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
% Total
13%
10%
8%
7%
7%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
% Total
17%
13%
5%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
% Total
13%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
% Total
13%
10%
8%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Clothing Brand Preferences – Females
•
•
•
Females in our average-income student survey demonstrated their brand preference
consistency relative to prior seasons with only slight variation in rank and share.
In terms of share concentration, the top five brands accounted for 45% share, slightly
down from 46% share in the Fall, up from 42% share in Spring 2010, 44% in Fall 2009
and 42% in Spring 2009.
Forever 21 regained the top spot among female brand preferences from American
Eagle. American Eagle and Forever 21 swapped positions in our Spring survey from the
Fall survey. Forever 21 distanced itself from American Eagle with a 17% share capture
80 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
•
•
•
•
•
over American Eagle’s 10%. Forever 21 has now been the No. 1 ranked brand in three
of the past four surveys, but American Eagle has been No. 1 in eight out of the past 13
survey iterations.
The Nos. 3 to 6 ranks are identical to last season: Hollister (No. 3), Aeropostale (No.
4), Action Sports Brands (No. 5), and The Buckle (No. 6). However, brand share
capture did vary slightly to the negative on a sequential basis: Hollister lost 2ppt to 8%,
Aeropostale lost 2ppt to 6%, Action Sports Brands lost 1ppt to 4%, and The Buckle
lost 1ppt to 4%. The share loss appears to have come at Forever 21’s 6ppt gain.
Relative to Spring 2009, Aero has been rising in rank from No. 5 to No. 4. Hollister has
maintained the No. 3 position since Spring 2009 after being in the No. 1 or 2 positions
since Spring 2006.
Abercrombie & Fitch did not make the top ten female preferred brands, narrowly
missing and placing at No. 11 (2%) after rising two positions to No. 8 (3%) in the Fall
after being No. 10 (2%) in Spring 2010. Abercrombie has been slowly falling in rank
the past few years; this iteration reversed a bit of upward movement in share capture
from the Fall.
Action Sports Brands maintained its No. 5 rank from Fall. The category had inched
back up to No. 5 (5%) after slipping a bit in rank and share last Spring (No. 6, 5%).
Fast fashion retailer rue21 fell two spots to No. 9 (2%) this season after a series of
upward brand moves: No. 7 (3%) in the Fall, No. 9 (3%) in Spring 2010, and No. 10
(3%) in Fall 2010.
However, two Fast Fashion retailers advanced positively in our female Average-Income
survey. Wet Seal gained 2ppt from the prior season’s No. 10 (2%) ranking to this
season’s No.8 rank (3%). As well, Charlotte Russe came in at No. 10 (2%) after not
being in the top ten last season (but No. 7(4%) last Spring). Four of the ten brands in
the top ten are Fast Fashion retailers, identical to last Spring, which further supports
the growing importance of this concept to teens.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 81
April 2011
Exhibit 70
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – CLOTHING BRAND PREFERENCES, MALES
Spring 2011
Brand
Nike
Action Sports Brands
American Eagle
Polo Ralph Lauren
Hollister
Aeropostale
Abercrombie & Fitch
Levis
J.C. Penney
Wal-Mart
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
18%
1
Nike
16%
1
Nike
16%
1
Nike
12%
2
American Eagle
12%
2
Action Sports Brands 13%
2
Action Sports Brands
11%
3
Action Sports Brands 11%
3
American Eagle
10%
3
American Eagle
8%
4
Polo Ralph Lauren
9%
4
Polo Ralph Lauren
7%
4
Hollister
6%
5
Hollister
8%
5
Hollister
6%
5
Polo Ralph Lauren
4%
6
Aeropostale
6%
6
Aeropostale
4%
6
Aeropostale
3%
7
Abercrombie & Fitch
3%
7
Levis
2%
7
SouthPole
2%
8
Levis
2%
8
Buckle
2%
8
Hot Topic
2%
9
Hot Topic
2%
9
Abercrombie & Fitch
2%
9
Levis
2%
10 Wal-Mart
2%
Hot Topic
2%
10 Abercrombie & Fitch
Spring 2009
Brand
Nike
Action Sports Brands
American Eagle
Hollister
Polo Ralph Lauren
Aeropostale
Abercrombie & Fitch
Levis
Rocaw ear
SouthPole
Spring 2007
Rank Brand
1
Action Sports Brands
2
American Eagle
3
Nike
4
Hollister
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
6
Aeropostale
7
Polo Ralph Lauren
8
Old Navy
South Pole
10 Hot Topic
Spring 2005
Rank Brand
1
American Eagle
2
Abercrombie & Fitch
3
Hollister
Action Sports Brands
5
d.e.m.o.
Nike
7
Old Navy
Polo Ralph Lauren
9
Aeropostale
10 Gap
Fall 2008
Spring 2008
Fall 2007
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
14%
1
Action Sports Brands 17%
1
Action Sports Brands 14%
1
American Eagle
14%
2
Nike
12%
2
American Eagle
13%
2
Hollister
10%
3
American Eagle
10%
3
Nike
12%
3
Action Sports Brands
6%
4
Hollister
7%
4
Hollister
6%
4
Nike
5%
5
Polo Ralph Lauren
4%
5
Polo Ralph Lauren
5%
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
4%
6
Aeropostale
3%
6
Abercrombie & Fitch
3%
6
Polo Ralph Lauren
2%
7
Hot Topic
2%
7
Rocaw ear
2%
7
Aeropostale
2%
8
Abercrombie & Fitch
2%
8
Aeropostale
2%
8
South Pole
2%
9
Wal-mart
2%
9
Hot Topic
2%
9
Hot Topic
2%
10 Rocaw ear
2%
10 South Pole
2%
10 Old Navy
Fall 2006
Spring 2006
Fall 2005
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
% Total Rank Brand
13%
1
American Eagle
12%
1
American Eagle
12%
1
American Eagle
12%
2
Action Sports Brands 12%
2
Hollister
8%
2
d.e.m.o.
9%
3
Nike
8%
3
d.e.m.o.
8%
3
Action Sports Brands
9%
4
Hollister
6%
4
Nike
8%
4
Abercrombie & Fitch
5%
5
Polo Ralph Lauren
6%
5
Abercrombie & Fitch
7%
5
Nike
4%
6
Abercrombie & Fitch
5%
6
Action Sports Brands
6%
6
Polo Ralph Lauren
3%
7
Aeropostale
4%
7
Wal-Mart
4%
7
Hollister
2%
8
J.C. Penney
4%
8
Polo Ralph Lauren
3%
8
Old Navy
2%
9
Old Navy
3%
9
Old Navy
3%
9
Aeropostale
2%
Rocaw ear
3%
10 J.C. Penney
3%
10 Kohl's
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
% Total
15%
14%
10%
7%
5%
5%
2%
2%
2%
2%
% Total
16%
11%
11%
10%
5%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
% Total
12%
11%
10%
7%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
% Total
12%
9%
6%
6%
6%
6%
4%
4%
3%
3%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Clothing Brand Preferences – Males
•
•
•
For males responding to our average-income student survey, brand share and rankings
were somewhat similar to prior periods, with only a minor exception. Of the top ten
brands, nine were consistent on a sequential basis and eight on a year-over-year basis.
Sequentially, J.C. Penney replaced Hot Topic at the No. 9 position (2%). Hot Topic
declined to No. 11 (2%). Year-over-year, J.C. Penney and Wal-Mart replaced last
Spring’s The Buckle (No. 8, 2%) and Hot Topic (tie No. 9, 2%) at the Nos. 9 and 10
positions, respectively. The Buckle ranks No. 15 (1%) in this survey cycle.
Nos. 1 thru 8 brands this Spring are identical to Fall’s survey except for Action Sports
Brands flipping positions with American Eagle and slight variations in share capture.
Nike gained 2ppt to 18% share at the No. 1 spot.
The noteworthy movement within the male average-income brand preference survey
was the swapping of rank between the Nos. 2 and 3 positions. Action Sports Brands
moved up one rank to No. 2 (12%) from the prior period No. 3 (11%), in effect
replacing American Eagle and moving AE to No. 3 (11%) from its prior period No. 2
82 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
•
•
•
•
•
Clothing Brand
Preferences – Action
Sports & Boardsport
Brands
(12%). These two brands have been battling the Nos. 2 and 3 positions for the past five
survey cycles, with Action Sports Brands grabbing the No. 2 spot four of the past five
surveys. Prior to Spring 2007, American Eagle had ranked at No. 1 among males’
preferred brands in our average-income student survey. The brand had been losing
modest share in each survey (among males and females) since then but appears to have
stabilized within the last two years.
With respect to share concentration, the top five brands accounted for 56% share, flat
to Fall, up from 52% in Spring 2010, up from 51% in Fall 2009, and up from 49% share
in Spring 2009. This compares to females where concentration among the top five
brands was closer to 45%. Males tend to show relative concentration in their apparel
purchases when compared to their female counterparts. This has been a trend we’ve
observed over several survey cycles, most likely attributable to higher number of female
retail stores and females’ stronger propensity to shop.
Nike moved into the No.1 position in Spring 2009 and maintained its leadership in Fall
2009, Spring 2010, Fall 2010, and now Spring 2011. The brand had achieved No. 2 in
Fall 2008, No. 3 in Spring 2008 and No. 4 in Fall 2007. The brand is showing a steady
increase in preference among males. The brand captured 18% of share, 2ppt above Fall
2010 and Spring 2010’s 16% share, up from 15% in Fall 2009, 14% in Spring 2009, and
12% share in Fall 2008.
Polo Ralph Lauren maintained its No. 4 rank for the third consecutive season, slightly
down (8%) from Fall’s 9% share but up 1ppt from year-ago Spring (7%). For the past
three seasons, Polo Ralph Lauren has eclipsed Hollister.
Hollister maintained rank at No. 5 with 6% share, equal to its Spring 2010 rank but
down 2ppt in share from Fall (8%). Hollister’s recent performance is still down from
No. 4 and 7% in Fall 2009 and No. 4 and 6% in Spring 2009. The brand had ranked as
high as No. 2 (11% share) in Fall 2007 and has been falling since.
Aeropostale was stable at No. 6 although losing 2ppt from the prior season (6%) with
equal share compared to Spring 2010 among males.
Key Highlights: Brand Preferences – Action Sports Lifestyle
•
•
•
•
The Action Sports lifestyle continues to resonate with teens as the category’s share
remained at 8%. The No. 4 ranking was in line with Fall 2010 but dropped one
position from Spring 2010.
Among males, the 12% share compares to 11% in the Fall and 13% last Spring. Action
Sports ranking improved one position sequentially to No. 2, but was flat from Spring
2010.
Share among females declined to 4% compared to 5% in Fall 2010 and Spring 2010.
However, the ranking improved to No. 5 relative to No. 5 in the Fall and No. 6 last
Spring.
Collectively, teens named 44 unique brands and retailers in the Action Sports Brands
category.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 83
April 2011
Exhibit 71
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – ACTION SPORTS BRANDS
MENTIONED
Brands Mentioned / Number of Responses
2.5%
65
60
51
53
2.0%
# of Brands
50
40
30
34
24
20
44
40
38
1.5%
32
24
1.0%
20
0.5%
10
0
0.0%
Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Exhibit 72
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – ACTION SPORTS BRANDS
SHARE BY GENDER
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
13-survey avg
Males
% Mindshare
6%
10%
6%
12%
13%
11%
14%
17%
14%
14%
13%
11%
12%
% Rank
3
3
6
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
Fem ales
% Mindshare
0%
5%
4%
4%
5%
5%
6%
6%
7%
7%
5%
5%
4%
% Rank
5
6
6
4
5
4
4
4
4
6
5
5
12%
2
5%
5
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
Among males, the category share was 12%, up from 11% in Fall 2010 and down
slightly from 13% in Spring 2010. The category ranked No. 2, which is a one position
improvement from the Fall and in line with Spring 2010.
84 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
# of Brands Relative to # of Responses
Brands Mentioned
70
April 2011
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Among females, the category fell in share to 4% from 5% in the previous two surveys,
but rank was flat on a sequential basis and improved one position to No. 5 year-overyear.
We believe a key to growth for many Action Sports lifestyle brands is evolving
women’s assortments. Relative to the 13-survey average share of 5% and No. 5 rank,
our most recent survey suggests Action Sports brands are not gaining share among
female teens.
While the boundaries were at one time distinct between segments within the action
sports lifestyle, we argue that the lifestyle has grown beyond participation through
access to media and growth of national retailers such as Pacific Sunwear and Zumiez.
The presence of brands in the familiar mall-based specialty environment has blurred
the buying behavior between “hard core participant” and “aspirational teen.”
In addition, we believe Nike’s growing share may understate the share of Action Sports
as the company has been gaining share in the category through its Nike SB and Nike
6.0 brands. Both Nike SB and Nike 6.0 received votes for the most popular footwear
and we believe some of Nike’s increasing apparel and footwear share is driven by these
brands.
Similarly, evolution of the lifestyle has created crossover brands, which may have had
roots in one boardsport segment but now are widely accepted and worn by anyone
interested in the broader lifestyle. For the reasons listed above, it is becoming
increasingly difficult to distinguish what is truly an “action sports lifestyle” authentic
or inspired brand. We expect this convergence trend to continue, particularly as many
of the vertically integrated specialty retailers test similar looks, particularly in the
graphic tees, denim (skater skinny), and fleece (all over print) categories. Teens named
44 brands which we have included in our Action Sports category but there were an
additional 5-10 brands which could be included, if we were to expand the definition of
Action Sports brands. Teens identified 11 different retailers of Action Sports brands.
We’ve also witnessed several retailers capitalizing on the popularity of Mixed Martial
Arts (MMA) and brands in the street culture category. These become a natural
component of assortment planning as many consumers who grew up in the action
sports community are aging into other fashion lifestyles including these rock, street,
and crossover categories. As a reminder, we have not included MMA brands in our
Action Sports rankings.
When consolidating our results across genders, Pacific Sunwear continues to command
the leading mindshare (38%) within the Action Sports category. The retailer’s share of
Action Sports declined from 48% in Fall 2010 but was flat compared to Spring 2010. In
addition, the company maintained its No. 1 rank within Action Sports for females and
males. Fox Racing returned to the No. 2 position with a 7% share and Vans moved up
to No. 3 with a 6% share. DC’s 5% share was in line with Fall 2010 and up from 4% in
Spring 2010. Zumiez commanded 4% share, down slightly from 5% in Fall 2010 but in
line with Spring 2010.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 85
April 2011
Exhibit 73
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – ACTION SPORTS BRAND PREFERENCES
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Brand
%AS % Total Rank Brand
%AS % Total Rank Brand
%AS % Total Rank Brand
Pacific Sunw ear
38%
3%
1 Pacific Sunw ear
48%
3%
1 PacSun
38%
3%
1 PacSun
Fox Racing
7%
1%
2 Hurley
6%
0%
2 Hurley
7%
1%
2 Fox Racing
Vans
6%
1%
3 Zumiez
5%
0%
3 Fox Racing
7%
1%
3 LRG
DC
5%
0%
DC
5%
0%
4 Volcom
6%
0%
4 Zumiez
Zumiez
4%
0%
5 Fox Racing
5%
0%
5 LRG
6%
0%
5 DC
Hurley
4%
0%
6 LRG
4%
0%
6 Vans
5%
0%
6 Volcom
LRG
4%
0%
7 Volcom
3%
0%
7 DC
4%
0%
7 Hurley
Billabong
3%
0%
8 Name Withheld
3%
0%
8 Zumiez
4%
0%
8 Quiksilver
Name Withheld
3%
0%
9 Quiksilver
2%
0%
9 Quiksilver
2%
0%
9 Billabong
Volcom
2%
0% 10 Vans
2%
0% 10 Roxy
2%
0% 10 Famous
Papaya
2%
0%
Spring 2009
%AS % Total Rank Brand
%AS % Total
37%
4%
1 PacSun
31%
3%
6%
1%
2 Volcom
7%
1%
6%
1%
3 Fox Racing
7%
1%
5%
0%
4 LRG
6%
1%
4%
0%
5 Hurley
5%
1%
4%
0%
Zumiez
5%
1%
4%
0%
7 Billabong
4%
0%
4%
0%
8 Quiksilver
4%
0%
3%
0%
9 DC
3%
0%
3%
0%
10 Roxy
3%
0%
Action Sports
100%
100%
8%
Action Sports
100%
7%
Action Sports
100%
8%
Action Sports
10%
Action Sports
100%
10%
ACTION SPORTS BRANDS PREFERENCES - AVERAGE INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - FEMALE
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Rank Brand
%AS % Total Rank Brand
%AS % Total Rank Brand
%AS % Total Rank Brand
1 Pacific Sunw ear 57%
2%
1 Pacific Sunw ear 67%
3%
1 PacSun
53%
3%
1 PacSun
2 Name Withheld
6%
0%
2 Papaya
7%
0%
2 Rainbow
9%
0%
2 Roxy
Fox Racing
6%
0%
Fox Racing
7%
0%
3 Fox Racing
7%
0%
3 Fox Racing
4 Roxy
4%
0%
4 Name Withheld
5%
0%
Roxy
7%
0%
4 Rainbow
5 Anchor Blue
3%
0%
5 Roxy
3%
0%
5 Billabong
5%
0%
5 Name Withheld
Volcom
3%
0%
6 Zumiez
2%
0%
Papaya
5%
0%
6 Zumiez
Zumiez
3%
0%
Volcom
2%
0%
7 Hurley
2%
0%
7 Papaya
8 brands tied for 8th place
Ocean Pacific
3%
0%
8 Quiksilver
2%
0%
8 Anchor Blue
11 brands tied for 9th place
Name Withheld
2%
0%
9 Billabong
Volcom
2%
0%
10 Hurley
Zumiez
2%
0%
Volcom
Action Sports
100%
4%
Action Sports
100%
4%
Action Sports
100%
5%
Action Sports
Spring 2009
%AS % Total Rank Brand
%AS % Total
53%
4%
1 PacSun
47%
3%
6%
0%
2 Roxy
8%
1%
6%
0%
3 Rainbow
8%
1%
6%
0%
4 Fox Racing
6%
0%
4%
0%
Zumiez
6%
0%
4%
0%
6 Papaya
5%
0%
3%
0%
Volcom
5%
0%
2%
0%
8 Billabong
3%
0%
2%
0%
9 Anchor Blue
2%
0%
2%
0%
10 Name Withheld
2%
0%
2%
0%
100%
7%
Action Sports
100%
7%
ACTION SPORTS BRANDS PREFERENCES - AVERAGE INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - MALE
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Brand
%AS % Total Rank Brand
Pacific Sunw ear 31%
4%
1 Pacific Sunw ear
Vans
8%
1%
2 Hurley
Fox Racing
8%
1%
3 DC
DC
6%
1%
4 Zumiez
LRG
5%
1%
5 LRG
Hurley
5%
1%
6 Fox Racing
Zumiez
5%
1%
7 Volcom
Billabong
4%
0%
8 Quiksilver
Quiksilver
3%
0%
9 Vans
CCS
3%
0%
10 Zoo York
CCS
RVCA
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
%AS % Total Rank Brand
%AS % Total Rank Brand
40%
4%
1 PacSun
27%
4%
1 PacSun
9%
1%
2 Hurley
9%
1%
2 LRG
7%
1%
3 LRG
7%
1%
3 Fox Racing
6%
1%
4 Volcom
7%
1%
4 DC
5%
0%
5 Vans
7%
1%
5 Zumiez
4%
0%
6 Fox Racing
6%
1%
6 Quiksilver
3%
0%
7 DC
5%
1%
7 Volcom
3%
0%
8 Billabong
4%
1%
8 Hurley
3%
0%
9 Zumiez
4%
1%
9 Billabong
2%
0%
10 Element
3%
0%
10 Famous
2%
0%
Quiksilver
3%
0%
Vans
2%
0%
Spring 2009
%AS % Total Rank Brand
%AS % Total
28%
4%
1 PacSun
20%
3%
9%
1%
2 LRG
8%
1%
6%
1%
3 Volcom
7%
1%
6%
1%
4 Hurley
7%
1%
5%
1%
5 Fox Racing
6%
1%
5%
1%
6 Quiksilver
5%
1%
5%
1%
7 Vans
5%
1%
5%
1%
8 DC
5%
1%
4%
1%
Zumiez
5%
1%
4%
1%
10 Billabong
5%
1%
4%
1%
Action Sports
100%
100%
100%
12%
Action Sports
10%
Action Sports
100%
13%
Action Sports
14%
Action Sports
100%
14%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
•
•
•
For females, identification with the lifestyle has been historically tied to the retailers
that sell the product and our most recent iteration was no different. Pacific Sunwear
commanded 57% share, up from 53% in Spring 2010 and down from 67% in Fall 2010.
In total, females listed 19 unique brands/retailers versus 15 in Fall 2010, 19 in Spring
2010 and 25 during Fall 2009.
In total, retailers accounted for 49% of the category vote while individual brands
accounted for 51%. This is in contrast with males, where 42% of the category share is
attributed to retailers and 58% to individual brands.
For males, Pacific Sunwear commanded 31% share, up from 27% share in Spring 2010
and down from 40% in Fall 2010. Vans’ share increased to 8% and rank increased from
No. 5 in Spring 2010 to No. 2 in Spring 2011. DC share slipped slightly on a sequential
basis to 6%, but improved from 5% in Spring 2010. Zumiez share slipped slightly on a
sequential basis to 5%, but improved from 4% in Spring 2010.
Compared to a 13-survey average share of 10.4%, the category captured 8% mindshare
in our current survey.
86 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 74
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – ACTION SPORTS BRAND
SHARE
13-Survey Average = 8.0%
12%
11%
10%
10%
9%
7%
6%
10%
8%
8%
8%
10%
7%
8%
8%
5%
4%
4%
2%
0%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 87
April 2011
Exhibit 75
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – BOARDSPORT CLOTHING BRANDS PREFERRED, ALL
STUDENTS
Spring 2011
Brand
Fox Racing
Vans
DC
Hurley
LRG
6
Billabong
7
Volcom
8
Quiksilver
9
Famous Stars & Straps
Element
Oakley
Obey
Spring 2009
Rank Brand
1
Volcom
2
Fox Racing
3
LRG
4
Hurley
5
Billabong
6
Quiksilver
7
DC
8
Roxy
9
Rainbow
10 Famous Stars & Straps
Rank
1
2
3
4
% BS
15%
13%
10%
8%
8%
6%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
% BS
12%
11%
10%
10%
7%
6%
6%
5%
Spring 2007
Rank Brand
% BS
1
Hurley
20%
Volcom
20%
3
LRG
9%
Quiksilver
9%
5
Billabong
7%
FOX Racing
7%
7
Famous Stars & Straps
5%
8
Element
4%
Krew
4%
10 8 brands tied for 10th place
Fall 2010
Brand
Hurley
DC
Fox Racing
LRG
Volcom
Quiksilver
Vans
Papaya
9
RVCA
Zoo York
CCS
Billabong
Fall 2008
Rank Brand
1
Volcom
2
Famous Stars & Straps
3
LRG
4
Billabong
5
FOX Racing
6
Hurley
7
DC
8
Quiksilver
9
Vans
10 Akademic
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fall 2006
Brand
Quiksilver
Volcom
Fox
Hurley
Billabong
LRG
Rainbow
Roxy
Burton
DC
% BS
14%
11%
11%
8%
7%
5%
5%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
% BS
11%
8%
8%
8%
8%
7%
7%
6%
4%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
Spring 2010
Brand
Hurley
Fox Racing
Volcom
LRG
Vans
DC
Quiksilver
Roxy
Element
3 brands tied for 10th
Spring 2008
Brand
Famous Stars & Straps
Fox Racing
Hurley
Volcom
LRG
Billabong
Quiksilver
DC
Roxy
Vans
% BS
14%
13%
11%
11%
10%
8%
5%
4%
4%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
% BS
13%
10%
9%
8%
8%
7%
7%
6%
5%
4%
Rank
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
8
9
10
Fall 2009
Brand
Fox Racing
LRG
DC
Volcom
Hurley
Quiksilver
Billabong
Famous Stars & Straps
Vans
Roxy
% BS
12%
12%
8%
8%
7%
7%
7%
6%
6%
5%
Fall 2007
Brand
Fox Racing
Quiksilver
LRG
Famous Stars & Straps
Volcom
Billabong
Rainbow
Vans
Element
DC
Zoo York
% BS
15%
12%
11%
8%
8%
8%
8%
7%
5%
3%
3%
% BS
14%
11%
8%
8%
7%
6%
5%
5%
4%
4%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Brand Preferences – Boardsport Brands
While Action Sports lifestyle sales continue to lag behind other areas of the broader apparel
market, our survey demonstrates many small brands make up this industry and brand
proliferation, combined with an unbalanced exposure to housing impacted states, may be
bigger versus a loss of interest in the lifestyle. We note teens continue to vote for Action
Sports/Boardsport Brands, but note the ranking remains below the No. 1 ranking achieved
in Fall 2009. Due to the continued popularity of boardsport brands and the culture it
represents, we carve out boardsport brands as a category in order to evaluate brands and
associated spending trends. Please note our boardsport category excludes Action Sports
retailers such as Pacific Sunwear, Zumiez, Sun Diego, etc. and looks specifically at the
brands themselves. As mentioned above, Action Sports brands remain well entrenched in
the teen lifestyle and culture, representing 8% of total votes, similar to Fall 2010 and Spring
2010.
•
•
In terms of Boardsport brands specifically, Fox Racing took over the top spot with
15% share, up from 11% in the Fall and 13% last Spring.
Vans share increased to 13%, up from 5% in Fall 2010 and 10% in Spring 2010. This is
Vans highest ranking in the history of our survey and is a strong indicator of the
brand’s recent domestic success.
88 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
•
•
•
DC’s rank fell one position sequentially to No. 3, but climbed from No. 6 in Spring
2010.Quiksilver share slipped to 4% compared to 5% in the Fall and Spring.
Volcom share slipped to 5% compared to 7% in Fall 2010 and 11% in Spring 2010. The
brand’s rank also declined to No. 7 compared to No. 5 in Fall 2010 and No. 7 in Spring
2010.
Given the relevance of this category and retailers’ desire to capture spending dollars
from teens, we continue to see a heightened focus from Target, Kohl’s, Macy’s and J.C.
Penney on the category. We note, Tony Hawk in Kohl’s, a dedicated Action
Sports/Young Men’s departments within Macy’s, J.C. Penney’s RS by Sheckler, and
Target’s Shaun White apparel line. We believe this is evidence that the category is far
beyond the coastal beach towns of California and Florida and will continue to grow
with additional distribution opportunities domestically and internationally.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 89
April 2011
Footwear Brand
Preferences – All
Students
In the following exhibits, we detail results of our brand preference survey for footwear. As
with our clothing survey, we ask students to fill in their responses in blank fields, thus
generating an unaided list of footwear brands.
Exhibit 76
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – FOOTWEAR BRAND PREFERENCES, ALL STUDENTS
Spring 2011
Brand
Nike
Vans
Converse
Sperry Top-Sider
UGG Australia
Journeys
Adidas
Payless
DC Shoes
Puma
Spring 2009
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Vans
3
Converse
4
Adidas
5
DC Shoes
6
UGG Australia
7
Puma
8
Journeys
Payless
10 Sperry Top-Sider
Spring 2007
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Adidas
3
Puma
4
Vans
5
Converse
6
K Sw iss
7
Rainbow
8
Journeys
New Balance
10 Payless
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2005
Brand
Nike
Adidas
Payless
K Sw iss
Steve Madden
New Balance
Bakers
Journeys
Vans
Reebok
Puma
% Total
45%
7%
5%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
% Total
40%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
% Total
29%
6%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Fall 2010
Brand
Nike
Vans
Converse
Adidas
Journeys
Payless
Foot Locker
Sperry Top-Sider
Puma
UGG Australia
Fall 2008
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Vans
3
Adidas
4
Converse
5
Puma
6
Journeys
7
Foot Locker
8
DC Shoes
9
Payless
10 Old Navy
Fall 2006
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Adidas
3
Vans
4
Puma
5
Converse
New Balance
7
Steve Madden
8
K Sw iss
9
Foot Locker
10 Payless
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
% Total
46%
5%
5%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
% Total
42%
5%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
% Total
34%
6%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Spring 2010
Brand
Nike
Vans
Converse
Puma
UGG Australia
6
Adidas
7
Journeys
8
DC Shoes
9
Foot Locker
10 Sperry Top-Sider
Spring 2008
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Vans
3
Adidas
4
Converse
5
Puma
6
Journeys
7
Payless
8
DC Shoes
9
Steve Madden
10 New Balance
Spring 2006
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Adidas
3
Converse
4
K Sw iss
5
Vans
6
Steve Madden
7
Puma
8
Foot Locker
9
New Balance
10 Payless
Rank
1
2
3
4
% Total
43%
5%
5%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
% Total
37%
4%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
% Total
31%
9%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2009
Brand
Nike
Converse
Vans
Adidas
Puma
Journeys
DC Shoes
Payless
Sperry Top-Sider
Foot Locker
Fall 2007
Brand
Nike
Adidas
Puma
Vans
Converse
Journeys
DC Shoes
Foot Locker
Steve Madden
Finish Line
Fall 2005
Brand
Nike
Adidas
K Sw iss
Steve Madden
Vans
Puma
Reebok
Journeys
Converse
Foot Locker
New Balance
% Total
43%
6%
5%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
% Total
40%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
% Total
31%
10%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
% Total
24%
9%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Footwear Brand Preferences – All Students
•
•
In our Fall 2010 survey, average-income student survey respondents listed 226 different
footwear brands, down from 257 in Fall, 310 in Spring 2010, 412 in Fall 2009, 353 in
Spring 2009, and 351 brands listed in our Fall 2008 results.
With respect to share concentration, the top five brands accounted for 61% share, flat
to Fall, up from 59% in Spring 2010, 60% in Fall 2009, 54% in Spring 2009 and 57% in
Fall 2008. Share concentration among the top three brands was flat on a sequential
basis at 56%, up from 53% in Spring 2010, and 54% on a year-over-year basis. The
high concentration levels indicate students’ preference for popular footwear brands.
90 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nike remains the most preferred footwear brand among teens responding to our
average-income student survey, with a resounding 45% share, just slightly down from
46% in Fall but up from 43% in Spring 2010 and Fall 2009, and 40% in Spring 2009.
Nike commands share roughly 6.4 times that of the No. 2 brand, Vans, at 7% share.
Nike has been named the top brand over the last 13 survey iterations, peaking in our
Fall survey at 46%. The brand has maintained relative consistency in share capture
over the last three and a half years (seven survey cycles), fluctuating 9ppt from 37% in
Spring 2008 to 46% in Spring 2010.
Vans and Converse maintained the No. 2 rank (7% share) and No. 3 rank (5%) share
from the prior period. Sperry Top-Siders (No. 4, 3%) moved up 4 spots from its Fall
2010 No. 8 position and 6 spots from its No. 10 position last Spring. Adidas, formerly
No. 4 in the prior period, declined to No. 7 (losing 1ppt).
A notable mover was UGG Australia, which had returned to the top ten in the Fall
survey (tie No. 9, 2%) after the brand’s absence in Fall 2009. This Spring the brand
ranks No. 5 (2%) versus last Spring’s No. 4 (3%) rank. From our high school visits, we
notice more and more teen girls wearing UGG Australia slippers to school; at a lower
price point (approximately $80 compared to +$150 boots), we believe more entry level
prices is attributing to wider accessibility among average-income students.
The balance of the top ten was largely consistent with Fall 2010 with some rank and
share movement. Relative to the prior year, DC Shoes replaced Foot Locker in the top
ten list. DC Shoes ranked No. 9 (2%), which was a 2ppt move from Fall’s No. 11 (2%).
Foot Locker dropped to No. 13 after its No. 7 ranking in the Fall (same 2% share).
Another notable mover this survey cycle is Sperry Top-Sider. A classic and preppy
shoe, Sperry Top-Sider increased 1ppt and moved 2 spots to No. 4 from Fall’s No. 6.
We view Payless as the Fast Fashion shoe retailer and despite dropping 2 spots in the
rank (No. 8, same 2% share) from Fall (No. 6); we see its top ten presence, along with
Journeys, as stronger brand building of shoe retailers against shoe brands.
On a concentration basis, the top ten footwear brands accounted for 71% share, equal
to Fall 2010, up from 69% in Spring 2010 and Fall 2009, 64% in Spring 2009, and 67%
in Fall 2008. Share among the top five brands was consistent sequentially at 61%,
slightly down from 62% in Fall 2010, up from 58% in Spring 2010, and 59% in Fall
2009.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 91
April 2011
Footwear Brand
Preferences – By
Gender
We segmented our footwear brand preference data by gender in an effort to better
distinguish between classifications and styles, in addition to brands. Females listed 178
unique footwear brands while males listed 106 footwear brands.
Exhibit 77
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – FOOTWEAR BRAND PREFERENCES, FEMALE
Spring 2011
Brand
Nike
Vans
Converse
UGG Australia
Payless
Journeys
Sperry Top-Sider
DSW
TOMS
Steve Madden
Spring 2009
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Converse
3
Vans
4
UGG Australia
5
Payless
6
Journeys
7
Steve Madden
8
Sperry Top-Sider
9
Puma
10 Rainbow
Spring 2007
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Puma
3
Vans
4
Converse
5
Adidas
6
Journeys
Rainbow
8
Payless
9
Steve Madden
10 K Sw iss
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
Spring 2005
Brand
Nike
Adidas
Payless
Steve Madden
Bakers
Journeys
etnies
Vans
K Sw iss
Finish Line
Fall 2010
% Total Rank Brand
25%
1
Nike
7%
2
Converse
7%
3
Vans
5%
4
Journeys
4%
5
Payless
4%
6
UGG Australia
4%
7
Steve Madden
3%
8
Sperry Top-Sider
3%
9
Adidas
2%
10 Foot Locker
Fall 2008
% Total Rank Brand
26%
1
Nike
6%
2
Vans
5%
3
Converse
5%
4
Journeys
4%
5
Payless
4%
6
Old Navy
3%
7
Puma
3%
8
Foot Locker
3%
9
Steve Madden
3%
10 Sperry Top-Sider
Fall 2006
% Total Rank Brand
21%
1
Nike
7%
2
Steve Madden
5%
3
Vans
5%
4
Adidas
5%
5
Converse
4%
6
Puma
4%
7
Payless
3%
8
Foot Locker
3%
9
Journeys
3%
10 Rainbow
Spring 2010
% Total Rank Brand
29%
1
Nike
7%
2
Converse
5%
3
UGG Australia
4%
4
Vans
4%
5
Journeys
3%
6
Payless
3%
7
Steve Madden
2%
8
Puma
2%
9
DSW
2%
10 Foot Locker
Spring 2008
% Total Rank Brand
29%
1
Nike
5%
2
Converse
5%
3
Payless
4%
4
Journeys
4%
5
Puma
3%
6
Vans
3%
7
Steve Madden
3%
8
UGG Australia
3%
9
DSW
2%
10 Sperry Top-Sider
Spring 2006
% Total Rank Brand
25%
1
Nike
5%
2
Adidas
4%
3
Steve Madden
4%
4
Converse
4%
5
Vans
4%
6
Journeys
3%
Payless
3%
8
K Sw iss
3%
Puma
2%
10 Foot Locker
% Total
28%
6%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
% Total
24%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
% Total
24%
6%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2009
Brand
Nike
Converse
Vans
Journeys
Payless
Puma
UGG Australia
Steve Madden
Sperry Top-Sider
Old Navy
Fall 2007
Brand
Nike
Puma
Journeys
Vans
Converse
Adidas
Steve Madden
Bakers
Payless
Old Navy
Fall 2005
Brand
Nike
Adidas
Steve Madden
Journeys
K Sw iss
Puma
Nine West
Converse
Foot Locker
Rainbow
Vans
% Total
28%
8%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
% Total
30%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
% Total
23%
9%
6%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
% Total
18%
7%
6%
6%
5%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Footwear Brand Preferences – Female
•
•
Females continue to align their footwear preferences with their apparel selections,
considering footwear to be an important accessory item.
Nike commanded the top spot once again, for the 13th survey iteration in a row. At
25% share, the brand lost 4ppt sequentially and year-over-year. Nike remains a top
brand of choice given its broad distribution across channels and extensive collection of
both fashion and performance footwear. We note our Nike brand captures all Nike
logo sub-brands but does not aggregate independent Nike Inc. brands such as
Converse, Cole Haan, etc.
92 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The top ten brands had two new brands included in this Spring’s survey and two
brands that were excluded. DSW rejoined the group at No. 8, following an absence in
Fall’s survey but similar to its No. 9 rank from last Spring. TOMS shoes appeared in
the top ten for the first time, at No. 9. TOMS shoes was ranked No. 16 in the Fall and
No. 18 last Spring. Foot Locker and Adidas, Nos. 16 and 18 respectively, lost share
from their Fall Nos. 10 and 9, and Spring’s Nos. 19 and 10. We view TOMS shoes and
DSW as a lot more fashion-forward than Foot Locker and Adidas, which aligns with
our results from the clothing brand preferences.
Nos. 2-5 were consistent with Fall’s survey with Vans at No. 2, Converse at No. 3,
UGG Australia at No. 4, and Payless at No. 5.
Positive share movers include Vans (No. 2 from No. 3), UGG Australia (No. 4 from
No. 6), Sperry Top-Sider (No. 7 from No. 8). Sperry Top-Sider has progressed nicely
since last Spring’s No. 11 rank, and we note students listing the brand several times on
their wish list.
Negative share movers were Converse (No. 3 from No. 2), Journeys (No. 6 from No.
4), and Steve Madden (No. 10 from No. 7).
UGG Australia, having moved into the top ten in Spring 2008, falling out in Fall 2008,
returning in Spring 2009 at No. 4, falling out in Fall 2009, moving back into the top ten
in Spring 2010 at No. 3, and moving lower in our Fall survey to No. 6 now moves up to
No. 4 rank with a 2ppt gain (5%). We believe the brand’s reach is expanding more
towards adults, although Average-Income students are still receptive to its relatively
high price points (most items $100-plus). We have noticed UGG slippers are trending
well with female teens and the lower price point (approximately $80) provides for a
nice and affordable purchase.
Journeys dropped two spots to the No. 6 rank from the prior season’s No. 4 (same 4%
share) and Payless held steady at No. 5 for two survey iterations (4%). Both footwear
retailers had moved up one rank, to Nos. 4 and 5, respectively, in the Fall from Nos. 5
and 6 in Spring 2010.
With respect to share concentration, the top five brands preferred by females accounted
for 47%, down from 49% share in Fall 2010, 48% share in Spring 2010 and Fall 2009,
and 45% in Spring 2009.
Key Highlights: Footwear Brand Preferences – Males
•
•
•
•
•
•
For males in our average-income student survey group, Nike captured 64% share, up
1ppt from Fall’s 63% share and up from 61% in Spring 2010, 59% in Fall 2009 and
56% in Spring 2009. Nike captured over 10x the share of the No. 2 brand Vans (6%).
Nike gained 1ppt share from Fall 2010, 3ppt from Spring 2010, 5ppt from Fall 2009 and
8ppt from Spring 2009, and achieved its peak share rate in 13 survey iterations. Our
share figures suggest that Nike captures more than half of all mindshare among males
when they consider their favorite footwear brand. We note Nike includes product lines
sub-branded including Jordan, Air force Ones, etc.
Nos. 2-5 was consistent with the Fall’s survey, with Vans at No. 2, Adidas at No. 3,
Converse at No. 4, and DC Shoes at No. 5.
All the top ten brands remain consistent with the Fall survey (no inclusions or
exclusions).
DC Shoes, which traditionally has maintained the No. 4 position, reinforced its rank
and share (3%) at No. 5 for the second consecutive survey cycle.
Sperry Top-Sider increased share by 1ppt and rank by two positions from the Fall
survey. Foot Locker fell 3 positions to No. 9 from No. 7 and lost 1ppt (1%).
Absent from the top ten preferred brands for males is Journeys, which failed to break
into the top ten. While Journeys does appear to be preferred among females, we are
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 93
April 2011
•
somewhat surprised that the retailer does not appear among preferences for males.
That said, we recognize many brands listed by young men are sold at Journeys.
Journeys ranked No. 12 among males in our most recent survey iteration, up from No.
14 in the Fall, No. 13 in Spring 2010, and 16% in Fall 2009.
With respect to share concentration, the top five brands accounted for 78% share, flat
to Fall, up from 76% in Spring 2010, 73% in Fall 2009 and in Spring 2009. Remarkably,
the top ten brands account for 86% share, up from 84% in the Fall, 82% in Spring
2010, 80% in Fall 2009 and 80% in Spring 2009. Eight in ten preference votes are
captured in eight brands (Nike, Vans, Adidas, DC Shoes, Puma, Converse, Asics, and
Sperry Top-Sider) and two retailers (Foot Locker, Finish Line).
Exhibit 78
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – FOOTWEAR BRAND PREFERENCES, MALES
Spring 2011
Brand
Nike
Vans
Adidas
Converse
DC Shoes
Puma
Sperry Top-Sider
Finish Line
9
Foot Locker
10 Asics
Spring 2009
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Vans
3
Adidas
4
DC Shoes
5
Converse
6
Puma
7
Foot Locker
8
New Balance
9
Asics
Finish Line
Sperry Top-Sider
Spring 2007
Rank Brand
1
Nike
2
Adidas
3
Puma
4
Vans
5
New Balance
6
K Sw iss
7
Converse
8
Reebok
9
Footlocker
10 DC Shoes
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2005
Brand
Nike
Adidas
K Sw iss
New Balance
Puma
Reebok
Foot Locker
Doc Marten
Vans
Converse
DC Shoes
Fall 2010
% Total Rank Brand
64%
1
Nike
6%
2
Vans
3%
3
Adidas
3%
4
Converse
2%
5
DC Shoes
2%
6
Foot Locker
2%
7
Puma
2%
8
Finish Line
1%
9
Sperry Top-Sider
1%
Asics
Fall 2008
% Total Rank Brand
56%
1
Nike
6%
2
Adidas
5%
3
Vans
3%
4
Puma
3%
5
DC Shoes
2%
6
Converse
2%
7
Foot Locker
2%
8
Finish Line
1%
9
New Balance
1%
10 Asics
1%
Fall 2006
% Total Rank Brand
37%
1
Nike
8%
2
Adidas
6%
3
New Balance
4%
4
Vans
3%
5
Puma
3%
6
Reebok
3%
7
K Sw iss
2%
8
Converse
2%
9
Adio
2%
Foot Locker
Spring 2010
% Total Rank Brand
63%
1
Nike
6%
2
Vans
4%
3
Adidas
3%
4
DC Shoes
2%
5
Puma
2%
6
Converse
1%
7
Foot Locker
1%
8
New Balance
1%
9
Finish Line
1%
10 Sperry Top-Sider
Spring 2008
% Total Rank Brand
55%
1
Nike
5%
2
Adidas
4%
3
Vans
3%
4
DC Shoes
3%
5
Puma
2%
6
New Balance
2%
7
Converse
1%
8
Finish Line
1%
9
Reebok
1%
10 Adio
Spring 2006
% Total Rank Brand
44%
1
Nike
8%
2
Adidas
4%
3
K Sw iss
4%
4
Vans
4%
5
New Balance
3%
6
Reebok
3%
7
Converse
2%
8
Puma
2%
9
Etnies
2%
10 DC Shoes
DVS Shoes
% Total
61%
5%
4%
3%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
% Total
52%
6%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
% Total
38%
12%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
% Total
31%
10%
5%
5%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
94 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
9
Fall 2009
Brand
Nike
Vans
Adidas
DC Shoes
Converse
Puma
New Balance
Finish Line
Foot Locker
Asics
Fall 2007
Brand
Nike
Adidas
Vans
Puma
DC Shoes
K Sw iss
New Balance
Converse
Finish Line
Foot Locker
Fall 2005
Brand
Nike
Adidas
K Sw iss
Reebok
Vans
New Balance
Converse
Etnies
Puma
DC Shoes
% Total
59%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
% Total
53%
7%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
% Total
39%
10%
5%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
April 2011
A T HL E T I C B RA N D P R E F E R E N C E S
Brand Preferences –
Athletic Brands – All
Students
Key Highlights: Brand Preferences – Athletic Brands
In our recently completed teen survey we found that the top two athletic apparel
brands remained unchanged: Nike remains No. 1 and Under Armour is No. 2 in both
the upper-income student survey and the average-income student survey.
Historically, the athletic brand category has been dominated by Nike, with Under
Armour, Adidas, Jordan, Puma and The North Face competing for the remaining
positions in the top five. However, we have found that Nike has substantially
accelerated mindshare gains in the latest two surveys.
We display five periods of data below to review, but will focus on recently collected
responses for Spring 2011 survey with some commentary on any material changes from
the prior surveys.
•
•
•
Exhibit 79
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – FAVORITE SPORT
FAVORITE SPORT - UPPER INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - ALL STUDENTS
Spring 2011
Rank
Sport
Fall 2010
Sport
Spring 2010
Sport
Fall 2009
Sport
Spring 2009
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
1
Basketball
12%
1
Football
11%
1
Basketball
12%
1
Basketball
12%
1
Sport
Basketball
2
Soccer
10%
2
Soccer
10%
2
Football
10%
2
Soccer
10%
2
Soccer
% Total
3
Football
8%
3
Basketball
10%
3
Soccer
8%
3
Football
10%
3
Football
9%
4
Running
6%
4
Running
6%
4
Baseball
8%
4
Volleyball
6%
4
Volleyball
7%
5
Baseball
5%
5
Sw imming
5%
5
Running
6%
5
Baseball
5%
5
Running
6%
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
13%
9%
FAVORITE SPORT - UPPER INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - FEMALE
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Sport
Fall 2009
Sport
Spring 2009
Rank
Sport
% Total
Rank
Sport
Sport
1
Soccer
9%
1
Soccer
11%
1
Soccer
10%
1
Soccer
13%
1
Volleyball
13%
2
Sw imming
9%
2
Volleyball
10%
2
Volleyball
10%
2
Volleyball
10%
2
Running
% Total
9%
3
Running
9%
3
Sw imming
8%
3
Running
9%
3
Sw imming
8%
3
Soccer
9%
4
5
Volleyball
Tennis
7%
7%
4
5
Running
Dance
8%
7%
4
5
Basketball
Sw imming
9%
8%
4
5
Dance
Cheer
8%
8%
4
5
Softball
Dance
9%
8%
Sport
FAVORITE SPORT - UPPER INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - MALE
Spring 2011
Rank
Sport
Fall 2010
Sport
Spring 2010
Sport
Fall 2009
Spring 2009
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
1
Basketball
16%
1
Football
18%
1
Football
16%
1
Football
19%
1
Sport
Basketball
2
Football
14%
2
Basketball
14%
2
Baseball
14%
2
Basketball
17%
2
Football
% Total
16%
3
Soccer
11%
3
Soccer
10%
3
Basketball
14%
3
Baseball
9%
3
Baseball
10%
4
Baseball
9%
4
Baseball
8%
4
Soccer
9%
4
Soccer
8%
4
Soccer
8%
5
Lacrosse
5%
5
Lacrosse
4%
5
Lacrosse
5%
5
Hockey
6%
5
Hockey
4%
18%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 95
April 2011
Exhibit 80
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – FAVORITE SPORT
FAVORITE SPORT - AVERAGE INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - ALL STUDENTS
Spring 2011
Rank
Sport
Fall 2010
% Total
Rank
13%
1
1
Basketball
2
Football
11%
3
Soccer
10%
4
Running
6%
5
Baseball
5%
Sport
Spring 2010
% Total
Rank
Basketball
14%
1
2
Football
13%
3
Soccer
9%
4
Volleyball
6%
5
Baseball
Sport
Fall 2009
% Total
Rank
Basketball
14%
1
Sport
2
Football
12%
2
Basketball
3
Soccer
9%
3
Soccer
4
Volleyball
6%
4
Baseball
5%
5
Running
6%
5
Volleyball
Football
Spring 2009
% Total
Rank
14%
1
Sport
Basketball
% Total
15%
14%
2
Football
13%
10%
3
Soccer
9%
6%
4
Volleyball
5%
6%
5
Sw imming
5%
FAVORITE SPORT - AVERAGE INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - FEMALE
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Sport
Spring 2010
Sport
Fall 2009
Spring 2009
Rank
Sport
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
Sport
% Total
Rank
1
Soccer
10%
1
Volleyball
12%
1
Volleyball
10%
1
Soccer
12%
1
Sport
Basketball
12%
2
Volleyball
9%
2
Soccer
10%
2
Basketball
10%
2
Basketball
12%
2
Soccer
% Total
10%
3
Running
9%
3
Basketball
10%
3
Soccer
10%
3
Volleyball
12%
3
Volleyball
9%
4
5
Basketball
Sw imming
8%
8%
4
5
Softball
Sw imming
7%
7%
4
5
Running
Sw imming
8%
7%
4
5
Sof tball
Sw imming
9%
8%
4
5
Sw imming
Running
8%
6%
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
FAVORITE SPORT - AVERAGE INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - MALE
Spring 2011
Rank
Sport
Fall 2010
% Total
Rank
Sport
Spring 2010
Sport
Fall 2009
Sport
Spring 2009
Sport
% Total
1
Football
21%
1
Football
22%
1
Football
21%
1
Football
25%
1
Football
22%
2
Basketball
17%
2
Basketball
18%
2
Basketball
18%
2
Basketball
19%
2
Basketball
19%
3
Baseball
10%
3
Baseball
10%
3
Baseball
10%
3
Baseball
11%
3
Baseball
4
Soccer
9%
4
Soccer
8%
4
Soccer
8%
4
Soccer
9%
4
Soccer
7%
5
Hockey
4%
5
Running
3%
5
Golf
3%
5
Golf
3%
5
Golf
3%
9%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Brand Preferences – Athletic Brands
•
•
•
•
Overall, in the upper-income student survey, basketball reclaimed the top spot with
12% mindshare, which is up from 10% in Fall 2010 and consistent with the Spring 2010
results. In the average-income student survey basketball remained in the top spot with
13% mindshare which was down 1ppt from the Fall 2010 and Spring 2010 surveys.
In the upper-income student survey, soccer was the No. 2 sport (10% mindshare) for
the second consecutive survey which is no surprise given the focus around last
summer’s World Cup. As for the average-income student survey football continued to
be No. 2, but mindshare was down 1ppt year-over-year.
Football was ranked No. 3 in the upper-income student survey with 8% mindshare,
while in the average-income student survey soccer was ranked No. 3 with 10%
mindshare.
In terms of gender, upper-income student survey females continue to rank soccer the
highest at 9%, although we note that mindshare has been falling. Average-income
student survey females also ranked soccer the highest at 10% mindshare although
volleyball and running rank a close second. For upper-income student survey males
basketball overtook football with 16% mindshare while average-income student survey
males continued to rank football as No. 1 with 21% mindshare.
96 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 81
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – ATHLETIC BRAND
PREFERENCES
PREFERRED ATHLETIC CLOTHING BRAND - UPPER INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - ALL STUDENTS
Spring 2011
Rank
Brand
Fall 2010
Brand
Spring 2010
Brand
Fall 2009
Brand
Spring 2009
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
1
Nike
56%
1
Nike
51%
1
Nike
47%
1
Nike
48%
1
Nike
Brand
43%
2
Under Armour
15%
2
Under Armour
18%
2
Under Armour
25%
2
Under Armour
25%
2
Under Armour
% Total
26%
3
Adidas
5%
3
Adidas
6%
3
Adidas
7%
3
Adidas
6%
3
Adidas
4
The North Face
2%
4
The North Face
2%
4
The North Face
3%
4
Soffe
2%
4
The North Face
4%
5
Jordan
1%
5
Mizuno
1%
5
Soffe
2%
5
Jordan
2%
5
Champion
Puma
2%
2%
6%
PREFERRED ATHLETIC CLOTHING BRAND - UPPER INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - FEMALE
Spring 2011
Rank
Brand
Fall 2010
Brand
Spring 2010
Brand
Fall 2009
Brand
Spring 2009
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
1
Nike
55%
1
Nike
49%
1
Nike
48%
1
Nike
46%
1
Nike
Brand
41%
2
Under Armour
15%
2
Under Armour
16%
2
Under Armour
19%
2
Under Armour
23%
2
Under Armour
% Total
26%
3
Adidas
6%
3
Adidas
7%
3
Adidas
8%
3
Adidas
7%
3
Adidas
6%
4
5
The North Face
Champion
3%
1%
4
5
The North Face
Mizuno
2%
2%
4
5
The North Face
Soffe
4%
3%
4
5
Soffe
The North Face
3%
2%
4
5
The North Face
Champion
5%
2%
PREFERRED ATHLETIC CLOTHING BRAND - UPPER INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - MALE
Spring 2011
Rank
Brand
Fall 2010
Brand
Spring 2010
Brand
Fall 2009
Brand
Spring 2009
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
1
Nike
57%
1
Nike
52%
1
Nike
46%
1
Nike
49%
1
Nike
Brand
46%
2
Under Armour
14%
2
Under Armour
19%
2
Under Armour
30%
2
Under Armour
27%
2
Under Armour
% Total
26%
3
Adidas
5%
3
Adidas
6%
3
Adidas
5%
3
Adidas
5%
3
Adidas
6%
4
5
Jordan
The North Face
2%
2%
4
5
The North Face
Jordan
2%
2%
4
5
Jordan
Puma
2%
1%
4
5
Jordan
Reebok
2%
1%
4
5
The North Face
Puma
3%
2%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Exhibit 82
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – ATHLETIC BRAND
PREFERENCES
PREFERRED ATHLETIC CLOTHING BRAND - AVERAGE INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - ALL STUDENTS
Spring 2011
Rank
Brand
Fall 2010
Brand
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Brand
Brand
Spring 2009
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
1
Nike
51%
1
Nike
48%
1
Nike
47%
1
Nike
45%
1
Brand
Nike
42%
2
Under Armour
16%
2
Under Armour
16%
2
Under Armour
19%
2
Under Armour
18%
2
Under Armour
% Total
19%
3
Adidas
5%
3
Adidas
6%
3
Adidas
5%
3
Adidas
7%
3
Adidas
4
The North Face
1%
4
Jordan
2%
4
The North Face
3%
4
Jordan
2%
4
Jordan
3%
5
Jordan
Puma
1%
1%
5
The North Face
2%
5
Jordan
2%
5
The North Face
2%
5
The North Face
2%
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
7%
PREFERRED ATHLETIC CLOTHING BRAND - AVERAGE INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - FEMALE
Spring 2011
Rank
Brand
Fall 2010
% Total
Rank
Brand
Spring 2010
% Total
Rank
Fall 2009
Brand
Brand
Spring 2009
Brand
% Total
1
Nike
50%
1
Nike
47%
1
Nike
47%
1
Nike
45%
1
Nike
44%
2
Under Armour
14%
2
Under Armour
13%
2
Under Armour
16%
2
Under Armour
15%
2
Under Armour
15%
3
Adidas
6%
3
Adidas
6%
3
Adidas
6%
3
Adidas
8%
3
Adidas
8%
4
5
The North Face
Puma
2%
1%
4
5
The North Face
Soff e
3%
1%
4
5
The North Face
Sof fe
4%
1%
4
5
The North Face
Sof fe
3%
2%
4
5
The North Face
Soff e
3%
2%
% Total
Rank
% Total
Rank
PREFERRED ATHLETIC CLOTHING BRAND - AVERAGE INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - MALE
Spring 2011
Rank
Brand
Fall 2010
% Total
Rank
Brand
Spring 2010
% Total
Rank
Fall 2009
Brand
Brand
Spring 2009
Brand
% Total
1
Nike
51%
1
Nike
48%
1
Nike
47%
1
Nike
44%
1
Nike
41%
2
Under Armour
17%
2
Under Armour
19%
2
Under Armour
21%
2
Under Armour
23%
2
Under Armour
23%
3
Adidas
4%
3
Adidas
5%
3
Adidas
5%
3
Adidas
5%
3
Adidas
5%
4
5
Jordan
The North Face
2%
1%
4
5
Jordan
The North Face
3%
1%
4
5
Jordan
The North Face
3%
1%
4
5
Jordan
The North Face
4%
1%
4
5
Jordan
The North Face
4%
1%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
Overall, Nike and Under Armour continue to dominate teen mindshare in both the
upper-income student survey and average-income student survey with combined
mindshare of 71% and 67%, respectively. These combined percentages are slightly
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 97
April 2011
•
•
•
down from the Spring 2010 upper-income student survey total of 72% and slightly up
from the Spring 2010 average-income student survey total of 66%.
In the upper-income student survey Nike grew its No. 1 mindshare from 47% in the
Spring 2010 to 56% currently and in the average-income student survey grew from 47%
to 51% over the same period. Under Armour remains firmly entrenched in the No. 2
position with 15% mindshare in the upper-income student survey and 16% in the
average-income student survey. We note mindshare in the upper-income student survey
has come down 10ppt from the Spring 2010 and down 3ppt in the average-income
student survey.
Results by gender tell a similar story: both genders rated Nike and Under Armour No.
1 and No. 2, respectively. In the women's upper-income student survey, Nike captured
55% mindshare (+7ppt from Spring 2010), while in the average-income student survey,
Nike captured 50% mindshare (+3ppt from Spring 2010). Men also continue to prefer
Nike with the brand getting 57% of the total vote in the upper-income student survey
and 51% in the average-income student survey. These are increases of 11ppt and 4ppt
from Spring 2010, respectively.
In both surveys, Under Armour continues well ahead of the No. 3 athletic apparel
brand (Adidas) and well behind Nike. In the upper-income student survey, The North
Face maintained its No. 4 spot with 2% mindshare (down 1ppt from Spring 2010) and
Jordan became No. 5 (1% mindshare) replacing Soffe from the Spring 2010. In the
average-income student survey, The North Face lost 2ppt of mindshare from the Spring
2010 survey but remained in the No. 4 spot while Jordan stayed at No. 5 losing 1ppt of
mindshare.
Exhibit 83
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – ATHLETIC BRAND
PREFERENCES, BY SPORT
UNDER ARMOUR VS. NIKE BY SPORT - UPPER INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - ALL STUDENTS
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2009
Sport
UA
NKE
Sport
UA
NKE
Sport
UA
NKE
Sport
UA
NKE
Sport
UA
NKE
Basketball
12%
88%
Football
34%
66%
Basketball
25%
75%
Basketball
19%
81%
Basketball
26%
74%
Soccer
10%
90%
Soccer
17%
83%
Football
49%
51%
Soccer
33%
67%
Soccer
31%
69%
Football
21%
79%
Basketball
13%
87%
Soccer
30%
70%
Football
45%
55%
Football
45%
55%
Running
Baseball
10%
31%
90%
69%
Running
Sw imming
15%
9%
85%
91%
Baseball
Running
33%
14%
67%
86%
Volleyball
Running
33%
29%
67%
71%
Volleyball
Running
40%
33%
60%
67%
% of total UA and NKE votes
Top five sports by gender
UNDER ARMOUR VS. NIKE BY SPORT - UPPER INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - FEMALE
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2009
Sport
UA
NKE
Sport
UA
NKE
Sport
UA
NKE
Sport
UA
NKE
Sport
UA
NKE
Soccer
11%
89%
Soccer
19%
81%
Soccer
43%
57%
Soccer
32%
68%
Volleyball
40%
60%
Sw imming
14%
86%
Volleyball
31%
69%
Volleyball
38%
63%
Volleyball
32%
68%
Running
30%
70%
Running
11%
89%
Sw imming
8%
92%
Running
14%
86%
Sw imming
21%
79%
Soccer
37%
63%
Volleyball
Tennis
42%
14%
58%
86%
Running
Dance
17%
9%
83%
91%
Basketball
Sw imming
18%
38%
82%
62%
Dance
Cheer
39%
57%
61%
43%
Softball
Dance
64%
38%
36%
62%
% of total UA and NKE votes
Top five sports by gender
UNDER ARMOUR VS. NIKE BY SPORT - UPPER INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - MALE
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2009
Sport
UA
NKE
SPORT
UA
NKE
SPORT
UA
NKE
SPORT
UA
NKE
SPORT
Basketball
9%
91%
Football
36%
64%
Football
60%
40%
Football
49%
51%
Basketball
20%
80%
Football
20%
80%
Basketball
12%
88%
Baseball
36%
64%
Basketball
22%
78%
Football
45%
UA
55%
NKE
Soccer
10%
90%
Soccer
15%
85%
Basketball
37%
63%
Baseball
23%
77%
Baseball
54%
46%
Baseball
Lacrosse
31%
35%
69%
65%
Baseball
Lacrosse
43%
33%
57%
67%
Soccer
Lacrosse
16%
59%
84%
41%
Soccer
Hockey
36%
28%
64%
72%
Soccer
Hockey
18%
40%
82%
60%
% of total UA and NKE votes
Top five sports by gender
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
98 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 84
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – ATHLETIC BRAND
PREFERENCES, BY SPORT
UNDER ARMOUR VS. NIKE BY SPORT - AVERAGE INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - ALL STUDENTS
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2009
Sport
UA
NKE
Sport
UA
NKE
Sport
UA
NKE
Sport
UA
NKE
Sport
UA
NKE
Basketball
16%
84%
Basketball
18%
82%
Basketball
15%
85%
Football
41%
59%
Basketball
17%
83%
32%
68%
Football
41%
59%
Basketball
Football
27%
73%
Football
Soccer
14%
86%
Soccer
20%
80%
Soccer
26%
74%
Soccer
24%
76%
Soccer
23%
77%
Running
Baseball
24%
29%
76%
71%
Volleyball
Baseball
17%
33%
83%
67%
Baseball
Running
39%
24%
61%
76%
Baseball
Volleyball
43%
21%
18%
57%
79%
82%
Baseball
Volleyball
Football
42%
28%
44%
58%
72%
56%
NKE
Sport
% of total UA and NKE votes
Top five sports by gender
UNDER ARMOUR VS. NIKE BY SPORT - AVERAGE INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - FEMALE
Spring 2011
Sport
UA
Fall 2010
NKE
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Sport
UA
NKE
Sport
UA
NKE
Sport
UA
Spring 2009
UA
NKE
Soccer
16%
84%
Volleyball
17%
83%
Volleyball
26%
74%
Soccer
26%
74%
Basketball
15%
85%
Volleyball
17%
83%
Soccer
23%
77%
Basketball
14%
86%
Basketball
16%
84%
Soccer
24%
76%
Running
21%
79%
Basketball
17%
83%
Soccer
32%
68%
Volleyball
21%
79%
Volleyball
30%
70%
Basketball
Sw imming
19%
15%
81%
85%
Sof tball
Sw imming
32%
17%
68%
83%
Running
Sw imming
25%
21%
75%
79%
Sof tball
Sw imming
44%
16%
56%
84%
Sw imming
Running
19%
16%
81%
84%
% of total UA and NKE votes
Top five sports by gender
UNDER ARMOUR VS. NIKE BY SPORT - AVERAGE INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - MALE
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2009
Sport
UA
NKE
SPORT
UA
NKE
SPORT
UA
NKE
SPORT
UA
NKE
SPORT
UA
NKE
Football
28%
72%
Football
32%
68%
Football
43%
57%
Football
42%
58%
Football
48%
52%
Basketball
15%
85%
Basketball
18%
82%
Basketball
16%
84%
Basketball
18%
82%
Basketball
18%
82%
Baseball
31%
69%
Baseball
34%
66%
Baseball
40%
60%
Baseball
46%
54%
Baseball
43%
57%
Soccer
Hockey
12%
29%
88%
71%
Soccer
Running
18%
23%
82%
77%
Soccer
Golf
16%
16%
84%
84%
Soccer
Golf
16%
31%
84%
69%
Soccer
Golf
20%
26%
80%
74%
% of total UA and NKE votes
Top five sports by gender
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Athletic Brand Preferences – Under Armour versus Nike
•
•
•
•
•
Under Armour’s brand continues to resonate well with teens, however, for the second
consecutive survey, mindshare loss to Nike accelerated in the majority of the top five
sports for both genders.
Football and baseball are historically strong for Under Armour, however, in both the
upper-income student survey and the average-income student survey mindshare has
fallen dramatically.
For young women in both the upper-income student survey and the average-income
student survey, Nike dominates four out of the top five spots (above 80% mindshare in
each of the four).
Under Armour’s brand is strongest within upper-income student survey volleyball and
average-income student survey running.
While Under Armour appears to have lost mindshare in this Spring’s surveys we note
that the brand continues to be firmly entrenched as the No. 2 athletic apparel brand.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 99
April 2011
P O P Q U IZ ! F R E S H I N S I G H T S O N FA SH I O N
In-Class –
Demographic Data
In our sophomore Pop Quiz! in-class survey, we continue to gain insights on the “right
now” topics like denim, fashion relevance, up-and-down-trending brands and active
lifestyles.
For our Spring 2011 in-class survey, we had more than 450 students respond representing an
average age of 16.3 and a relatively balanced split between the genders (female, 55%; male
45%). We do not apply the zip code analysis to this in-class survey but note that the
majority of schools we visit in person are what we would characterize as “upper-income”
households when looking at demographics.
The primary topics on which we surveyed our students include perceptions and the
importance of fashion, the relevance of their wardrobe staple – denim, and insights into
how they spend time and money around their active lifestyles.
Exhibit 85
POP QUIZ! IN-CLASS SURVEY - DEMOGRAHPICS
Spr ing 2011
Fall 2010
Ave rage Age :
16.3
16.5
Ge nde r Split:
Female
Male
55%
45%
48%
52%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Fresh Insights on
Fashion Perceptions
The Kids Are Increasingly Price Sensitive From Fall 2010
When we ask about the most important factor when making a clothing purchase ranking
price-value, style-fashion, need using a scale of 1 (most important) to 3 (least important),
we found that in our Spring 2011 survey “price-value” saw an increasing shift of the “1most important” responses relative to “style-fashion” last Fall. That said, we note that
“need” seems to be less of a factor which could signal, on the whole, that teens are looking
to re-engage in spending, but dipping their proverbial toe in the water by being pricesensitive.
100 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 86
MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR WHEN PURCHASING CLOTHES
Spring 2011
Female
Male
Price
36%
35%
Style
34%
25%
Need
28%
34%
Fall 2010
Female
Male
Price
13%
20%
Style
50%
36%
Need
35%
40%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Delving further into the gender divide on fashion, we asked the students to decide on
whether “brand” or “fashion” is most important when making a clothing purchase. We are
noticing that “brand” ticked up four points among each of our polled student groups:
female and male. That said, “fashion” still takes the cake among our female shoppers at a
ratio of four-to-one. This, we believe, is further confirmation that retailers likely need to be
more fashion-driven (which entails process, data, design, and execution) as compared with
those focused on heavy logos and branding.
Exhibit 87
MORE IMPORTANT FACTOR WHEN PURCHASING CLOTHES
Spring 2011
Female
Male
Brand
18%
44%
Fashion
76%
51%
Fall 2010
Female
Male
Brand
14%
48%
Fashion
84%
50%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
What is “Fast Fashion?” Is it fast? Is it fashion? It’s both, but it’s rarely “logo.” During
the earliest era of our Taking Stock With Teens survey project from 2001 to 2005, Forever
21 (one of the more prominent national Fast Fashion retailers) danced around the lower
half of our Top 10 preferred retailers among female students. Beginning in 2006, Forever 21
emerged as a near consistent presence in the upper half of our Top 10 list and has held the
No. 1 or No. 2 position since Fall 2007 and continues in the No. 1 position in our most
recent Spring 2011 survey. So is it recession-friendly or preference for fashion? Only future
hindsight will be able to dictate for sure, but what is emerging as a sustainable trend is that
“she” prefers to scavenge for her own style in a fashion-relevant retail venue rather than
choose a uniform emblazoned with a logo.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 101
April 2011
Exhibit 88
THE RISE OF “FAST FASHION” USING FOREVER 21 AS A PROXY
SP'02 FA'02 SP'03 FA'03 SP'04 FA'04 SP'05 FA'05 SP'06 FA'06 SP'07 FA'07 SP'08 FA'08 SP'09 FA'09 SP'10 FA'10 SP'11
0
2
4
Rank
6
8
10
The rise in "f ast f ashion" best
demonstrated in Forever 21's
steady, consistent improvement
in rankings.
12
14
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Another way to calibrate the importance of fashion in a purchase decision can be
demonstrated in the question we asked students about watches. In countless meetings over
the past seven years, investors have questioned the relevancy of Fossil in an era of smart
phones—a perfectly logical assumption given that these kids don’t know a world without
cell phones and in most cases smart phones.
That said, when we asked those students who do wear a watch if they chose to wear one for
fashion-only or function-only (to tell time), female students choose fashion five-to-one.
Fashion. It’s a critical decision point when making clothing purchases. This is crucial for
investors to understand because of the margin implications the industry is facing as input
costs increase and price increases are likely to ensue.
End of Denim
Dominance? Not So.
Denim Intent to Purchase Increasing
A question we did not repeat this Spring but worth mentioning here is the current
ownership (in pairs) of denim—a key component to the teen wardrobe. Last Fall, we found
that 38% percent of the females we surveyed indicated they own 1 to 10 pairs of jeans with
another 19% indicating 10 to 15 pairs. Their male counterparts, in true need-based fashion,
cited a wardrobe of 1 to 5 pairs for 57% of the respondents with another 29% indicating
five to 10.
102 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 89
NUMBER OF PAIRS OF DENIM JEANS OWNED IN CURRENT
WARDROBE
Fall 2010
1-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
Female
24%
38%
19%
8%
20+
9%
Male
57%
29%
6%
3%
3%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
No doubt denim has appeared to be in the decline phase this past year. That said, it
appears the intent to purchase denim over the next six months is increasing from our Fall
2010 survey.
Exhibit 90
NUMBER OF DENIM JEANS INTENDED TO BE PURCHASED IN NEXT
SIX MONTHS
Spring 2011
Avg.
Female
5
Male
5
Fall 2010
Avg.
Female
4
Male
3
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
While experience has authored a pattern of fashion preference for non-denim pants (i.e.
khakis) in the Spring fashion cycle as compared with the Fall fashion cycle, we noticed that
the preference for denim over non-denim is still prevalent. Among females, denim declined
by four points to non-denim, which could be tied to the many options Spring brings for
“bottoms” among females: skirts, shorts, dresses, capris. Among our male students, denim
strengthened its wardrobe position by 6ppt. This, we believe, continues to show the
stability of this category as a dominant portion of the teen wardrobe.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 103
April 2011
Exhibit 91
INTENT TO PURCHASE PANTS – JEANS VERSUS NON-DENIM
Female
Male
Female
Male
Spring 2011
Jeans
Non-Denim
84%
14%
80%
18%
Fall 2010
Jeans
88%
74%
Non-Denim
11%
25%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Trending Down/
Trending Up: We
Show-And-Tell the
Brands
Show-And-Tell: Who’s Hot and Who’s Not
In our second Pop Quiz! in-class survey, we continue to ask the teens to tell us who is
falling out of favor. In our Spring 2011 survey, we also asked them to identify a brand they
just started to wear to gauge uptrending brands.
Similar to last Fall, Hollister, Aeropostale, and Abercrombie & Fitch are the top three most
frequently cited brands in our in-class survey when we asked female students to comment
on an unaided basis about the brand they no longer wear. We do note, however, that
Abercrombie & Fitch dropped from No. 1 to No. 3 in ranking and from 19% to 11% in
percentage of total votes.
When we asked the male students, we had a complete swap out of the top three most
mentioned brands in their naming of Gap, Adidas, and Aeropostale versus last survey’s
American Eagle, Hollister, and Abercrombie & Fitch.
Exhibit 92
BRAND NO LONGER WORN – FEMALE STUDENTS
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Spring 2011
Brand No Longe r Wor n
Hollister
A eropostale
A bercrombie & Fitch
Limited Too
Gap
Old Navy
Baby Phat
A merican Eagle
Skechers
Southpole (tied)
Wet Seal (tied)
% Total
16%
15%
11%
8%
6%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
104 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Fall 2010
Brand No Longe r Worn
A bercrombie & Fitch
Hollister
A eropostale
Limited Too
A merican Eagle
Gap
Forever 21
Levis
Old Navy
A pple Bottom Jeans
Baby Phat
% Total
19%
16%
15%
8%
4%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
April 2011
Exhibit 93
BRAND NO LONGER WORN – MALE STUDENTS
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
9
10
Spring 2011
Brand No Longe r Worn
Gap
A didas
A eropostale
Nike
A bercrombie & Fitch
DC
Southpole
Under A rmour
Hollister
A merican Eagle
% Total
10%
9%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
5
7
8
9
10
Fall 2010
Brand No Longe r Worn
A merican Eagle
Hollister
A bercrombie & Fitch
Gap
A didas
A eropostale
Southpole
Nike
Old Navy
Quiksilver
% Total
9%
8%
7%
7%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
We added the second question about new brands being worn by students and found an
interesting trend toward Fast Fashion in the top spot, Forever 21. This squares with our
preferred brands question in which Forever 21 ranks No. 1 as the preferred destination
among the “upper income” female students we poll.
Among the male students, Nike (including the Air Jordan brand), Vans, and Hollister rank
among the uptrending brands. With Nike and Vans taking the top two spots among our
“upper income” males, this too squares with the balance of our research project.
Exhibit 94
NEW BRAND STARTING TO WEAR – FEMALE STUDENTS
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Spring 2011
New Brand Starting To Wear
Forever 21
American Eagle
Aeropostale
Hollister
Urban Outfitters
(Name Withheld)
Victoria's Secret
Know Style (tied)
Abercrombie (tied)
Charlotte Russe (tied)
The North Face (tied)
% Total
15%
6%
5%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 105
April 2011
Exhibit 95
NEW BRAND STARTING TO WEAR – MALE STUDENTS
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
Spr ing 2011
Ne w Brand Star ting To We ar
Nike
Vans
Hollister
American Eagle
Levi's
H&M
Polo Ralph Lauren (tied)
Under A rmour (tied)
Abercrombie
Aeropostale (tied)
% Total
14%
6%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Broadly speaking, Nike has continued to strengthen during the course of our multi-year
research project. We started to use the Pop Quiz! survey format to gain insights into teens’
active lifestyles. We found that two-thirds of teens indicate they spend up to ten hours of
their week exercising or working out. They also spend a goodly amount of money on
active apparel per year—an average spend of about $121 by our calculation based on our
Spring 2011 survey.
Exhibit 96
TIME SPENT WORKING OUT OR EXERCISING PER WEEK
Spring 2011
Female
Male
0
5%
5%
1-5
44%
35%
Female
Male
0
7%
5%
1-5
42%
24%
6-10
26%
26%
11-15
11%
18%
16-20
5%
6%
21+
5%
6%
11-15
15%
19%
16-20
5%
10%
21+
6%
13%
Fall 2010
6-10
22%
26%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
106 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 97
ANNUAL SPEND ON ACTIVE APPAREL
Spring 2011
$0-$25
27%
27%
Female
Male
$26-$75
21%
24%
$76-$150
15%
11%
$151-$200
9%
7%
$201+
8%
14%
$151-$200
8%
9%
$201+
7%
11%
Fall 2010
$0-$25
31%
22%
Female
Male
$26-$75
32%
33%
$76-$150
18%
21%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
We added an open-ended question to this survey to gain insights into the popular fashion
trends in school. In tabulating the results, the teens indicated that two of the top three
fashion trends are shoe-related: Vans and TOMS shoes. Also worth mentioning, is that
denim continues to be popular among students—further confirmation in this category.
Exhibit 98
TOP FASHION TRENDS “RIGHT NOW”
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
Spr ing 2011
M os t Popular Fas hion Tre nd
Vans
Jeans / Skinny Jeans
TOMS Shoes
Leggings / Jeggings
Nike
UGG
Boots
Flannel / Plaid (tied)
Hollister
Polo Ralph Lauren (tied)
% Total
10%
9%
8%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 107
April 2011
SOURCES OF INFLUENCE
The teenage years are highly formative, and most teens’ decisions are influenced by a wide
variety of factors. In an effort to better understand which factors are the most influential in
driving teen purchasing decisions, we asked students to rank from a list which
considerations affect their clothing and footwear choices. Students were asked to rank the
following choices from 1 to 7: Friends, Internet, Magazines, Movies, Sports, Television, and
Other. The following exhibit details aggregative ranks for students across the nation.
Sources of Influence
– All Students
Exhibit 99
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – SOURCES OF INFLUENCE, ALL STUDENTS
SOURCES OF INFLUENCE - UPPER-INCOME STUDENt SCHOOL SURVEY - ALL STUDENTS
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Spring 2011
Friends
Internet
Television
Magazines
Movies
Sports
Other
Fall 2010
Friends
Internet
Television
Magazines
Sports
Movies
Other
Spring 2010
Friends
Television
Magazines
Internet
Movies
Sports
Other
Fall 2009 Spring 2009 Fall 2008 Spring 2008 Fall 2007 Spring 2007 Fall 2006 Spring 2006
Friends
Friends
Friends
Friends
Friends
Friends
Friends
Friends
Television
Television
Magazines
Television
Television
Magazines
Television
Television
Magazines Magazines
Television
Magazines Magazines
Television
Magazines Magazines
Internet
Internet
Movies
Movies
Movies
Movies
Movies
Movies
Movies
Movies
Internet
Internet
Internet
Internet
Internet
Internet
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Sports
SOURCES OF INFLUENCE - UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SCHOOL SURVEY - FEMALE
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Spring 2011
Friends
Magazines
Televsion
Internet
Movies
Sports
Other
Fall 2010
Friends
Magazines
Televsion
Internet
Movies
Sports
Other
Spring 2010
Friends
Magazines
Television
Internet
Movies
Sports
Other
Fall 2009 Spring 2009 Fall 2008 Spring 2008 Fall 2007 Spring 2007 Fall 2006 Spring 2006
Friends
Friends
Friends
Friends
Friends
Friends
Friends
Friends
Magazines Magazines Magazines Magazines Magazines Magazines Magazines Magazines
Television
Television
Television
Television
Television
Television
Television
Television
Movies
Movies
Movies
Movies
Movies
Movies
Movies
Movies
Internet
Internet
Internet
Internet
Internet
Internet
Internet
Internet
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Sports
SOURCES OF INFLUENCE - UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SCHOOL SURVEY - MALE
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Spring 2011
Friends
Sports
Internet
Television
Movies
Magazines
Other
Fall 2010
Friends
Sports
Internet
Television
Movies
Magazines
Other
Spring 2010
Friends
Sports
Television
Internet
Movies
Magazines
Other
Fall 2009 Spring 2009 Fall 2008 Spring 2008 Fall 2007 Spring 2007 Fall 2006 Spring 2006
Friends
Friends
Friends
Friends
Friends
Friends
Friends
Friends
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports
Sports (2)
Television
Television
Television
Television
Television
Television
Television Television (2)
Sports
Sports
Internet
Internet
Internet
Movies
Movies
Movies
Movies
Internet
Movies
Movies
Movies
Internet
Internet
Internet
Magazines
Movies
Magazines Magazines Magazines Magazines Magazines Magazines
Internet
Magazines
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Sources of Influence – Upper-Income Student Survey
•
•
For the 15th consecutive survey, upper-income teens identified “Friends” as having the
strongest influence over their clothing and footwear purchases. Interestingly, the
Internet is increasing in importance as a percentage of the total primarily because males
increased it as a more influential source than prior surveys; in the past, Television
ranked No. 3 in male influence, but for the second consecutive survey Internet now
holds the No. 3 spot. We cannot dismiss the significant impact and role of social media
in the life of a teen and we are beginning to see it as they rank the Internet higher as a
source of influence.
All that being said, receiving the affirmation of friends does not mean that today’s teens
are demonstrating similar brand choices as their friends – a trend we have been
108 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
•
observing consistently over the last three years. Through our survey program, we
would previously observe “clothing cliques” or groups of friends that are identifiable
by similar fashion brands or styles. Today, with greater choice, convergence of lifestyle
categories, spirit of independence, and the proliferation of media, we think teens are
more likely to desire to look different. This progression away from brand
concentration, in our view, has resulted in the successful emergence of Fast Fashion
retailers and the further segmentation of retail by age and lifestyle profile. We expect to
continue to monitor this trend in concentration closely, particularly as it relates to the
broader fashion cycle.
We also note that Magazines has historically ranked as a No. 3 source of influence
among all students, but for the second survey period in a row that position now
belongs to Television. The displacement of Magazines could be the result of more online access to television shows via laptops, smartphones, and tablets.
Exhibit 100
SOURCES OF INFLUENCE – AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY
SOURCES OF INFLUENCE - AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - ALL STUDENTS
Rank Spring 2011 Fall 2010
1
Friends
Friends
2
Internet
Internet
3
Television
Television
4
Magazines
Magazines
5
Movies
Movies
6
Sports
Sports
7
Other
Other
Spring 2010 Fall 2009
Friends
Friends
Television
Television
Internet
Internet
Magazines
Magazines
Movies
Movies
Sports
Sports
Other
Other
Spring 2009 Fall 2008
Friends
Friends
Television
Television
Internet
Internet
Magazines
Magazines
Movies
Movies
Sports
Sports
Other
Other
Spring 2008 Fall 2007
Friends
Friends
Television
Television
Magazines
Magazines
Internet
Internet
Movies
Movies
Sports
Sports
Other
Other
Spring 2007 Fall 2006
Friends
Friends
Television
Television
Magazines
Magazines
Movies
Movies
Internet
Internet
Sports
Sports
Other
Other
Spring 2006
Friends
Television
Magazines
Movies
Internet
Other
Sports
Spring 2008 Fall 2007
Friends
Friends
Television
Television
Magazines
Magazines
Movies
Movies
Internet
Internet
Sports
Sports
Other
Other
Spring 2007 Fall 2006
Friends
Friends
Magazines
Television
Television
Magazines
Movies
Movies
Internet
Internet
Sports
Sports
Other
Other
Spring 2006
Friends
Magazines
Television
Movies
Internet
Other
Sports
Spring 2008 Fall 2007
Friends
Movies
Television
Friends
Sports
Sports
Internet
Television
Movies
Internet
Magazines
Magazines
Other
Other
Spring 2007 Fall 2006
Friends
Friends
Television
Television
Sports
Sports
Internet
Internet
Movies
Movies
Magazines
Magazines
Other
Other
Spring 2006
Friends
Television
Sports
Magazines
Movies
Internet
Other
SOURCES OF INFLUENCE - AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - FEMALE
Rank Spring 2011 Fall 2010
1
Friends
Friends
2
Magazines
Magazines
3
Internet
Internet
4
Television
Television
5
Movies
Movies
6
Sports
Sports
7
Other
Other
Spring 2010 Fall 2009
Friends
Friends
Television
Television
Internet
Magazines
Magazines
Internet
Movies
Movies
Sports
Sports
Other
Other
Spring 2009 Fall 2008
Friends
Friends
Television
Television
Magazines
Magazines
Internet
Internet
Movies
Movies
Sports
Sports
Other
Other
SOURCES OF INFLUENCE - AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY - MALE
Rank Spring 2011 Fall 2010
1
Friends
Friends
2
Sports
Sports
3
Internet
Internet
4
Television
Television
5
Movies
Movies
6
Magazines
Magazines
7
Other
Other
Spring 2010 Fall 2009
Friends
Friends
Television
Television
Internet
Sports
Magazines
Internet
Movies
Movies
Sports
Magazines
Other
Other
Spring 2009 Fall 2008
Friends
Friends
Television
Television
Sports
Sports
Internet
Internet
Movies
Movies
Magazines
Magazines
Other
Other
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Sources of Influence – Average-Income Student Survey
•
•
For the 13th consecutive survey average-income teens identified “Friends” as having the
strongest influence over their clothing and footwear purchases. Similar to UpperIncome teens, Average-Income teens continue to raise the Internet as an increasingly
important influence factor in their lives. As mentioned earlier, we believe the pervasive
nature of the Internet on handheld devices coupled with social networking sites is
increasingly influential on teen lives.
Both average-income and upper-income teens share the same sources of influences this
survey cycle. In the Fall, Upper-Income teens had ranked Sports (No. 5) higher than
Movies (No. 6) but this Spring the positions were reversed.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 109
April 2011
Media Influences –
All Students
In order to appreciate the extent to which media influences teen fashion brand choices, we
polled respondents about what television shows and movies they are watching, music
artists/groups they are listening to, and magazines they are reading. While respondents were
permitted to indicate more than one answer, the following exhibits detail results based on
the student’s first choice in each category.
Exhibit 101
MEDIA INFLUENCES, MUSIC – UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY
The Grammy Goes To…
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2011
Wiz Khalifa
Eminem
Lil Wayne
Taylor Sw ift
Kid Cudi
Justin Bieber
Mac MIller
Drake
Lupe Fiasco
Linkin Park
% Rank
7% 1
6% 2
3% 3
3% 4
3% 5
2% 6
2% 7
2% 8
2% 9
1% 10
Fall 2010
Lil Wayne
Eminem
Drake
Taylor Sw ift
Kid Cudi
John Mayer
Wiz Khalifa
Trey Songz
Dave Matthew s Band
Lady Gaga
% Rank
7% 1
7% 2
4% 3
3% 4
3% 5
2%
2% 7
2%
1%
1% 10
Spring 2010
Lil Wayne
Drake
Lady Gaga
Taylor Sw ift
Justin Bieber
Trey Songs
Jay-Z
Keyshia Cole
Lady Antebellum
Brad Paisley
% Rank
11% 1
3% 2
3% 3
3% 4
2% 5
2% 6
1% 7
1% 8
1% 9
1% 10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2008
Lil Wayne
Jonas Brothers
Chris Brow n
Rascal Flatts
Rihanna
T.I.
Kanye West
Linkin' Park
Beatles
Coldplay
% Rank
15% 1
2% 2
2% 3
2% 4
2% 5
2% 6
2% 7
2% 8
1% 9
1% 10
Spring 2008
Lil Wayne
Rascal Flatts
Chris Brow n
Linkin' Park
Taylor Ww ift
Danity Kane
Kanye West
Blink 182
Jack Johnson
Nickelback
% Rank
7% 1
3%
2% 3
2% 4
1% 5
1% 6
1% 7
1%
1% 9
1% 10
Fall 2007
Lil Wayne
Rascal Flatts
Boys Like Girls
Kanye West
Linkin' Park
Fall Out Boy
Dave Matthew s
Red Hot Chili Peppers
T Pain
50 Cent
Blink 182
Soulja Boy
% Rank
5% 1
5% 2
3% 3
2% 4
2% 5
2%
2% 7
2%
2%
1% 10
1%
1%
Fall 2009
Lil Wayne
Taylor Sw ift
Drake
Jay-Z
Blink 183
Eminem
Jonas Bros.
Linkin' Park
Beyonce
Kings of Leon
Lady Gaga
Spring 2007
Rascal Flatts
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Justin Timberlake
The Fray
All American Rejects
Incubus
Cartel
Dave Matthew s
Jack Johnson
50 Cent
% Rank
11% 1
5% 2
2% 3
2% 4
2%
2% 6
2%
2% 8
1% 9
1%
1%
% Rank
6% 1
3% 2
2% 3
2%
2% 5
2% 6
2% 7
2% 8
2%
2%
Spring 2009
Lil Wayne
Taylor Sw ift
Lady Gaga
Blink 182
Kanye West
Rascal Flatts
T.I.
Chris Brow n
8 artists tied for 9th
%
10%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
Fall 2006
Rascal Flatts
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Danity Kane
Dave Matthew s
Fray
Panic At The Disco
311
50 Cent
Fall Out Boy
Linkin' Park
Nickelback
%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Spring 2009
Dark Knight
Pineapple Express
Step Brothers
Tw ilight
Taken
Watchmen
Not That Into You
Role Models
Transformers
Fired Up
The Notebook
Fall 2006
Pirates of Caribbean
Talladega Nights
Wedding Crashers
Jackass 2
Step Up
She's The Man
Snakes On A Plane
The Notebook
Beerfest
Little Miss Sunshine
%
10%
8%
6%
4%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
%
8%
6%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Exhibit 102
MEDIA INFLUENCES, MOVIES – UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY
The Oscar Goes To…
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Spring 2011
Inception
The Hangover
The Fighter
Due Date
Step Brothers
Battle: Los Angeles
Social Netw ork
The Other Guys
Avatar
HP Deathly Hallow s I
% Rank
10% 1
6% 2
3% 3
3% 4
2% 5
2% 6
2%
2% 8
2% 9
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fall 2008
Dark Knight
Pineapple Express
Step Brother
Superbad
Notebook
Iron man
House Bunny
Tropic Thunder
Hancock
P.S. I Love You
% Rank
24% 1
8% 2
4% 3
4% 4
3% 5
2% 6
2% 7
2% 8
2% 9
1% 10
Fall 2010
Inception
The Hangover
Avatar
Step Brothers
The Last Song
Easy A
The other guys
Dinner for Schmucks
Takers
Toy Story 3
Grow n Ups
Spring 2008
Superbad
I Am Legend
300
Juno
27 Dresses
Transformers
American Gangster
P.S. I Love You
Step Up 2
Across the Universe
Never Back Dow n
The Notebook
% Rank
Spring 2010
12% 1
The Hangover
9% 2
Avatar
4% 3
Tw ilight: New Moon
2% 4
Blindside
2%
Dear John
2% 6
Transformers
2% 7
The Notebook
2% 8
Alice in Wonderland
2%
She's Out Of My League
2% 10
Law Abiding Citizen
1%
% Rank
Fall 2007
12% 1
Superbad
5% 2
300
5% 3
Knocked Up
4% 4
Transformers
3% 5
Disturbia
2% 6
Rush Hour 3
2% 7
Hallow een
2%
The Notebook
2% 9
Hair Spray
1% 10
Harry Potter
1%
1%
% Rank
16% 1
10% 2
4% 3
3% 4
3% 5
2% 6
2%
2% 8
2% 9
2%
Fall 2009
The Hangover
Transformers
Tw ilight
Inglorious Bastards
Dark Knight
The Proposal
Step Brothers
The Notebook
I Love You Man
Pineapple Express
% Rank
16% 1
7% 2
5% 3
3% 4
3% 5
2% 6
2% 7
2% 8
2% 9
2% 10
% Rank
22% 1
7% 2
6% 3
4% 4
3% 5
3% 6
2% 7
2% 8
2% 9
2% 10
Spring 2007
300
Step Up
The Departed
Borat
Talladega Nights
The Holiday
The Notebook
Pirates of Caribbean
Pursuit of Happyness
Devil Wears Prada
% Rank
12% 1
5% 2
4% 3
4% 4
4% 5
3% 6
3%
2% 8
2% 9
2%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
110 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Exhibit 103
MEDIA INFLUENCES, TELEVISION – UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY
The Emmy Goes To…
Rank
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
10
Spring 2011
Jersey Shore
Pretty Little Liars
SportsCenter
Family Guy
Tw o and a Half Men
Tosh.O
The Office
Glee
That '70s show
How I Met Your Mother
% Rank
9% 1
7% 2
4% 3
3% 4
3% 5
3% 6
3%
3% 8
2% 9
2% 10
Fall 2008
Family Guy
Gossip Girl
The Hills
ESPN
One Tree Hill
That 70s Show
House
The Office
Heros
Secret Life Am. Teen
Southpark
% Rank
7% 1
7% 2
5% 3
5% 4
5% 5
4% 6
3% 7
3%
2% 9
2% 10
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
Fall 2010
Jersey Shore
Family Guy
SportsCenter
The Office
That 70's Show
Gossip Girl
Pretty Little Liars
Southpark
Glee
Entourage
Tosh O
Spring 2008
Family Guy
One Tree Hill
SportsCenter
The Hills
Greys Anatomy
Southpark
America's Top Model
Lost
Scrubs
The Office
% Rank
Spring 2010
11% 1
Family Guy
6% 2
SportsCenter
4% 3
Bad Girls Club
4% 4
SouthPark
3% 5
Secret Life Am. Teen
2% 6
Jersey Shore
2% 7
George Lopez
2% 8
Lost
2% 9
90210
2% 10 Everybody Hates Chris
2%
% Rank
Fall 2007
8% 1
The Hills
6% 2
Family Guy
5% 3
SportsCenter
4% 4
Greys Anatomy
3% 5
Friends
3% 6
That 70s Show
3% 7
One Tree Hill
3% 8
America's Top Model
2% 9
The Office
2% 10
CSI
ESPN
Heroes
Southpark
% Rank
11% 1
4% 2
3% 3
3%
3% 5
2% 6
2% 7
2% 8
1% 9
1% 10
Fall 2009
Family Guy
That 70s Show
Gossip Girl
The Office
SportsCenter
House
One Tree Hill
SouthPark
The Hills
Secret Life Am. Teen
% Rank
9% 1
5% 2
4% 3
4% 4
4% 5
4% 6
3% 7
2% 8
2% 9
2% 10
% Rank
11% 1
6% 2
6% 3
5% 4
3% 5
3%
3% 7
3% 8
2% 9
2% 10
2%
2%
2%
Spring 2007
Grey's Anatomy
The Hills
SportsCenter
Family Guy
America's Top Model
That 70's Show
One Tree Hill
LOST
24
Heroes
% Rank
9% 1
7% 2
5% 3
5% 4
4% 5
4% 6
4% 7
4% 8
3% 9
3%
Spring 2009
Family Guy
Gossip Girl
House
The Office
That 70s Show
Secret Life Am. Teen
Scrubs
SportsCenter
24
Greys Anatomy
Southpark
Fall 2006
Family Guy
Grey's Anatomy
Laguna Beach
SportsCenter
Simpsons
LOST
The O.C.
That 70's Show
America's Top Model
House
South Park
%
8%
6%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
%
8%
7%
7%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Exhibit 104
MEDIA INFLUENCES, MAGAZINES – UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY
The Ellie Goes To…
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2011
Seventeen
Sports Illustrated
People
Cosmopolitan
ESPN
Playboy
Teen Vogue
Game Informer
Time
Vogue
Fall 2008
Seventeen
Sports Illustrated
Cosmopolitan
People
Vogue
ESPN
Teen Vogue
Cosmo Girl
Game Informer
US Weekly
%
21%
17%
9%
7%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
%
16%
12%
8%
6%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2010
Seventeen
Sports Illustrated
People
Cosmopolitan
ESPN
Teen Vogue
Game Informer
Playboy
Vogue
Time
Spring 2008
Seventeen
Sports Illustrated
Cosmopolitan
People
ESPN
Cosmo Girl
Vogue
Teen Vogue
Game Informer
Time
% Rank
17% 1
15% 2
10% 3
8% 4
6% 5
3% 6
3% 7
2% 8
2%
2% 10
% Rank
15% 1
12% 2
9% 3
5% 4
3% 5
3% 6
3% 7
2% 8
2% 9
1% 10
Spring 2010
Seventeen
Sports Illustrated
Cosmopolitan
People
Vogue
ESPN
Game Informer
Teen Vogue
Time
Playboy
Fall 2007
Seventeen
Sports Illustrated
Cosmpolitan
ESPN
People
Teen Vogue
Vogue
Cosmo Girl
US Weekly
Game Informer
%
18%
14%
12%
8%
4%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
%
20%
15%
7%
7%
6%
4%
4%
3%
2%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2009
Seventeen
Sports Illustrated
Cosmopolitan
People
Vogue
ESPN
PlayBoy
Teen Vogue
Rolling Stone
Game Informer
Spring 2007
Seventeen
Cosmopolitan
Sports Illustrated
People
Teen Vogue
Cosmo Girl
Vogue
Teen People
ESPN
Game Informer
Time
% Rank
19% 1
17% 2
11% 3
8% 4
5% 5
3% 6
2% 7
2% 8
2% 9
2% 10
% Rank
21% 1
13%
9% 3
5% 4
5% 5
4% 6
4% 7
3% 8
2% 9
1% 10
1%
Spring 2009
Sports Illustrated
Seventeen
Cosmopolitan
People
Teen Vogue
ESPN
Vogue
Slam
CosmoGirl
Time
Fall 2006
Cosmopolitan
Seventeen
Sports Illustrated
ESPN
Teen People
People
Teen Vogue
Vogue
Cosmo Girl
Time
%
17%
16%
14%
7%
4%
3%
3%
2%
1%
1%
%
13%
13%
9%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Sources of Influence – Upper-Income Student Survey
•
•
While it is hard to measure the influence that shows such as The O.C. and Laguna
Beach had on teen brand preferences, the rise in Action Sports Lifestyle brands from
five years ago would suggest there is a pervasive and powerful media message backing
the lifestyle. We note Jersey Shore, Pretty Little Liars and ESPN’s Sports Center all
landing on the scene this year in the top ten.
Viral and social marketing via the Internet is the latest buzz in the advertising
community. Efforts to connect with teens online are being planned by most retailers.
We have monitored and observed a significant increase the usage of email solicitations
and tie-backs to store purchases with online content. While it’s difficult to differentiate
responses identifying with “friends” as those that are electronically based, we suspect
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 111
April 2011
the connectivity craze makes peers even more influential in purchase decisions,
specifically around product categories that are status related such as clothing,
footwear, accessories, and mobile electronics. Informally, we have talked with teens
on our trips to schools and we believe teens are starting to become more comfortable
with business in this new media.
Exhibit 105
MEDIA INFLUENCES, MUSIC – AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY
The Grammy Goes To…
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2011
Lil Wayne
Eminem
Wiz Khalifa
Drake
Taylor Sw ift
Kid Cudi
Justin Bieber
Trey Songz
Nicki Minaj
Mac MIller
Spring 2009
Lil' Wayne
Day 26
Taylor Sw ift
Nickelback
Rascal Flatts
T.I.
Paramore
Jonas Brothers
Linkin Park
Beatles
%
9%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
%
7%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2010
Lil Wayne
Drake
Eminem
Trey Songz
Taylor Sw ift
Kid Cudi
Wiz Khalifa
Young Money
Gucci Mane
Paramore
Fall 2008
Lil' Wayne
Day 26
Rascal Flatts
Jonas Brothers
Danity Kane
T.I.
Talyor Sw ift
Rap (genre)
Linkin Park
Chris Brow n
%
9%
6%
5%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
%
11%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rank
Spring 2010
1
Young Money
2
Lil' Wayne
3
Lady Antebellum
4
Taylor Sw ift
5
Rascal Flatts
6
Black Eyed Peas
7
Nickelback
8
Linkin Park
9
Kid Cudi
10
Gucci Mane
Rank
Spring 2008
1
LiI Wayne
2
Cash Money Millionaires
3
Rascal Flatts
4
Danity Kane
5
Chris Brow n
6
Day 26
7
Taylor Sw ift
8
Linkin Park
9
Nickelback
10
Paramore
%
6%
6%
2%
3
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
%
7%
4%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2009
Lil' Wayne
Taylor Sw ift
Linkin Park
Rascal Flatts
Young Money
Day 26
Nickelback
All Time Low
Paramore
Drake
Fall 2007
Rascal Flatts
Lil' Wanye
Nickelback
Pretty Ricky
T.I. (rapper)
Kanye West
Red Chili Peppers
Fall Out Boy
Linkin Park
Paramore
%
6%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Exhibit 106
MEDIA INFLUENCES, MOVIES – AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY
The Oscar Goes To…
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2011
Inception
The Hangover
Due Date
Despicable Me
Avatar
Step Brothers
Just Go With It
The Last Song
Battle: Los Angeles
Never Say Never
Spring 2009
Tw ilight
Dark Knight
Step Brothers
Pineapple Express
Taken
Madea Goes to Jail
Role Models
The Notebook
Friday the 13th
Love & Basketball
%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
%
9%
5%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2010
Inception
Avatar
The Hangover
Takers
The Last Song
Love & Basketball
Eclipse
The Other Guys
The Expendables
Transformers 2
Fall 2008
The Dark Knight
The Notebook
Pineapple Express
Step Brothers
Superbad
Iron man
Love & Basketball
Never Back Dow n
Transformers
Wanted
%
5%
4%
9%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
%
12%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2010
The Hangover
Avatar
Blind Side
Dear John
Alice In Wonderland
Tw ilight: New Moon
Notebook
Law Abiding Citizen
Transformers
Love & Basketball
Spring 2008
Super Bad
I Am Legend
300
The Notebook
Juno
Step Up
American Gangster
Transfomers
Love & Basketball
Never Back Dow n
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
112 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
%
12%
8%
5%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2009
The Hangover
Transformers
Tw ilight
Step Brothers
The Notebook
Pineapple Express
Taken
The Proposal
District 9
Never Back Dow n
Fall 2007
Superbad
300
Knocked Up
Transformers
Hallow een
The Notebook
Disturbia
Rush Hour
Pirates of Caribbean
Harry Potter
%
8%
5%
3%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
%
10%
6%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
April 2011
Exhibit 107
MEDIA INFLUENCES, TELEVISION – AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY
The Emmy Goes To…
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2011
Jersey Shore
Pretty Little Liars
Family Guy
SportsCenter
Tosh.O
The Game
That '70s show
Teen Mom
The Office
Tw o and a Half Men
%
14%
8%
7%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2010
Jersey Shore
Family Guy
Sportscenter
That 70s Show
Teen Mom
The Office
Pretty Little Liars
House
South Park
SpongeBob Sq Pants
%
9%
7%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2010
Family Guy
Sportscenter
Secret Life Am. Teen
The Office
ESPN
16 And Pregnant
House
Spongebob
SouthPark
NCIS
%
7%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2009
Family Guy
Sports Center
House
That 70s Show
One Tree Hill
Secret Life Am. Teen
Gossip Girl
C.S.I.
The Office
Spongebob
%
7%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2008
Familly Guy
ESPN
The Hills
One Tree Hill
That 70s Show
House
Gossip Girl
C.S.I.
Spongebob
The Office
%
9%
6%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2008
Family Guy
Sports Center
The Hills
One Tree Hill
America's Top Model
C.S.I.
Lost
Grey's Anatomy
House
SouthPark
%
9%
5%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2009
Family Guy
Sportscenter
House
One Tree Hill
The Office
ESPN
The Game
NCIS
Gossip Girl
Scrubs
That 70s Show
Fall 2007
The Hills
Family Guy
Sportscenter
Grey's Anatomy
America's Top Model
C.S.I.
That 70s Show
South Park
Fresh Prince Bel Air
106 & Park (BET)
Simpsons
%
8%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
%
7%
6%
5%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Exhibit 108
MEDIA INFLUENCES, MAGAZINES – AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY
The Ellie Goes To…
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2011
Seventeen
Sports Illustrated
Cosmopolitan
People
ESPN
Game Informer
Vogue
Playboy
Teen Vogue
Time
Spring 2009
Seventeen
Cosmopolitan
Sports Illustrated
People
ESPN
Teen Vogue
Vibe
Playboy
Game Informer
JET
%
14%
10%
8%
8%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
%
15%
12%
10%
6%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall 2010
Seventeen
Sports Illustrated
People
Cosmopolitan
ESPN
Game Informer
Teen Vogue
Vogue
Jet
Vibe
Fall 2008
Seventeen
Sports Illustrated
Cosmopolitan
People
ESPN
Cosmo Girl
Vibe
Teen Vogue
JET
Vogue
%
19%
13%
9%
8%
5%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
%
14%
11%
8%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Spring 2010
Seventeen
Cosmopolitan
Sports Illustrated
People
ESPN
JET
Teen Voque
Vogue
Game Informer
Playboy
Spring 2008
Seventeen
Sports Illustrated
Cosmopolitan
People
ESPN
Cosmo Girl
Teen Vogue
Vogue
Playboy
Game Informer
%
16%
11%
10%
6%
4%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
%
15%
11%
10%
6%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fall 2009
Seventeen
Sports Illustrated
People
Cosmopolitan
ESPN
Teen Vogue
Vibe
Game Informer
Vogue
JET
Fall 2007
Seventeen
Sports Illustrated
Cosmopolitan
ESPN
Cosmo Girl
People
Teen Vogue
JET
Game Informer
Vogue
%
16%
9%
5%
7%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
%
14%
11%
7%
5%
5%
4%
2%
2%
1%
1%
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Key Highlights: Sources of Influence – Average-Income Student Survey
•
Given the ubiquity of the Internet in today’s society and access to content around the
globe we do not believe there are significant barriers for media influences in today’s
society. While some of the rankings for music, movies and magazines may vary
slightly, for the large part they move in lock-step with one another. Therefore, we
would direct you to our comments above on the upper-income teen media influences as
the same for average-income.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 113
April 2011
GIFT CARDS AND WISH LISTS
Gift Card
Redemption Rates –
All Students
Key Highlights: Gift Card Redemption Rates – All Students
•
•
•
Our upper-income student survey indicates 50% of teens use their gift cards within one
month of receipt, lower than 54% in Fall and Spring 2010 and slightly below 55% in
Fall 2009. Approximately 73% of gift cards are redeemed within three months of
receipt and 84% within six months.
Our average-income student survey indicates these teens are quicker to redeem gift
cards as 60% use their gift cards within one month of receipt, a bit lower than the 63%
redemption rate in Fall. Approximately 78% of gift cards are redeemed within three
months of receipt and 87% within six months.
Anecdotal conversations with teens during our high school visits reveal that some
students were holding back on gift card redemptions in favor of waiting for Spring
goods.
Exhibit 109
AVERAGE TIME TO REDEEM GIFT CARD – BY INCOME
Average Time To Redeem Gift Card
100%
80%
60%
40%
Upper-Income
Average-Income
20%
0%
Within One
Week
Within One
Month
Within Three
Months
Within Six
Months
Within Nine
Months
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
Wish Lists – All
Students
Key Highlights: Wish Lists – All Students
•
For our upper-income student survey, the car category became the most popular item
on teens’ wish lists. Cars does not just include automobiles but accessory items as well;
it was the surge in accessory requests that pushed the item into the No. 1 position. Carrelated items include repairs, paint, tires, electronics, and gas. The car category had the
received 15% of responses, up from 13% in Fall 2010
114 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ever popular gifts of money totaled 14%, an increase from Fall (10%) and Spring 2010
(8%).
Clothing fell to 11% and the No. 3 rank. We’ve noted that the number of students
wishing for clothing has been declining over the past several seasons (since Fall 2009).
Gift cards remained in the No. 4 position at 9%.
Shoes improved to the No. 5 (tied) rank (6%) from No. 7 (6%) in the Fall. We note
TOMS, Nike, and UGGs as requested brands.
Cell phones tied with Shoes for No. 5 which is the device’s highest rank in the history
of our survey.
Sporting goods, other and iPod/MP3 player all tied for the No. 8 position at 4%.
We note the top five wish list items (cars, money, clothing, gift cards, shoes)
collectively garnered approximately 56% share of wish list desires. This is below the
63% share in Fall 2009 and 62% share in Spring 2010. Our Fall survey had a 54% top
five share.
Exhibit 110
UPPER-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – WISH LISTS, ALL STUDENTS
Spring 2011
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
11
12
13
15
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Car
Money
Clothing
Gift Card
Shoes
Computer
Cell Phone
Sporting Goods
Other
iPod/MP3 Player
Accessories
Electronics
Video Games/Toys
Camera/Digital Camera
Pet
Fall 2008
Clothing
Gift Card
Money
Car
iPod/MP3 Player
Video Games/Toys
Accessories
Shoes
Computer
Sporting Goods
Cell Phone
Camera/Digital Camera
Musical Instrument
Other
Electronics
Fall 2010
% Total
15%
14%
11%
9%
6%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
% Total
16%
14%
13%
9%
7%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Clothing
Car
Money
Gift Card
Video Games/Toys
Computer
Shoes
iPod/MP3 Player
Cell Phone
Electronics
Sporting Goods
Other
Accessories
Musical Instrument
Camera/Digital Camera
Spring 2008
Clothing
Gift Card
Video Games/Toys
Accessories
iPod/MP3 Player
Sporting Goods
Shoes
Money
Cell Phone
Car
Personal Care
Electronics
Other
Computer
CDs/DVDs
Spring 2010
% Total
14%
13%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
% Total
22%
13%
11%
7%
7%
5%
5%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Clothing
Gift Card
Video Games/Toys
Money
Accessories
iPod/MP3 Player
Shoes
Other
Sporting Goods
Cell Phone
Personal Care
Electronics
Car
Computer
CDs/DVDs
Fall 2007
Gift Card
Clothing
Car
Money
iPod/MP3 Player
Video Games/Toys
Accessories
Cell Phone
Sporting Goods
Computer
Shoes
CDs/DVDs
Other
Electronics
Camera/Digital Camera
Fall 2009
% Total
27%
10%
9%
8%
8%
6%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
% Total
17%
17%
12%
11%
8%
7%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
Spring 2009
% Total Rank
% Total
17%
1 Clothing
22%
14%
2 Gift Card
16%
14%
3 iPod/MP3 Player
11%
11%
4 Money
8%
7%
Video Games/Toys
8%
6%
6 Accessories
6%
5%
7 Shoes
4%
4%
8 Sporting Goods
4%
4%
9 Other
4%
10
4%
10 CDs/DVDs
2%
11
3%
11 Cell Phone
2%
12
2%
Personal Care
2%
13
2%
13 Camera/Digital Camera
2%
14
2%
14 Electronics
2%
15
1%
15 Car
2%
Fall 2006
Rank
% Total Rank
% Total
1 Clothing
30%
1 Clothing
25%
2 Gift Card
9%
2 Car
12%
3 iPod/MP3 Player
8%
Money
12%
4 Accessories
8%
4 Gift Card
6%
5 Money
7%
5 Video Games/Toys
6%
6 Video Games/Toys
6%
6 I-Pod/MP3 Player
6%
7 Shoes
5%
7 Sporting Goods
5%
8 Car
4%
8 Accessories
4%
9 Sporting Goods
3%
9 Computer
3%
10 Personal Care
3%
10 Shoes
3%
11 Electronics
2%
11 CDs/DVDs
3%
12 Digital Camera
2%
12 Electronics
3%
13 Other
2%
13 Cell Phone
3%
14 Furniture/Home Goods
2%
14 Personal Care
2%
15 Cell Phone
1%
15 Digital Camera
2%
Computer
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Gift Card
Money
Clothing
Car
Video Games/Toys
iPod/MP3 Player
Accessories
Shoes
Sporting Goods
Other
Computer
Cell Phone
Musical Instrument
Camera/Digital Camera
Electronics
Spring 2007
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
•
•
•
In our average-income student survey, car-related items top the teen wish list again at
19% of the total.
Money is the second highest category at 14%, followed by clothing (12%), computer
(8%) and gift cards (6%). All five items reappeared on the top five list, with slight
changes to rank. Similar to upper-income student survey, clothing ranked lower this
survey cycle, falling from No. 2 to No. 3 despite a small increase in share from 11% to
12%.
Shoes fell 1ppt to 5% but maintained the No. 7 rank.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 115
April 2011
Exhibit 111
AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENT SURVEY – WISH LIST, ALL STUDENTS
Spring 2011
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Car
Money
Clothing
Computer
Gift Card
Cell Phone
Shoes
Video Games/Toys
iPod/MP3 Player
Other
Sporting Goods
Accessories
Electronics
Personal Care
Camera/Digital Camera
Fall 2010
% Total
19%
14%
12%
8%
6%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
1%
1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Source: Piper Jaffray & Co.
116 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Car
Clothing
Money
Gift Card
Computer
Cell Phone
Shoes
Video Games/Toys
iPod/MP3 Player
Sporting Goods
Electronics
Other
Accessories
Camera/Digital Camera
Musical Instrument
% Total
17%
11%
11%
9%
7%
6%
6%
6%
6%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
1%
April 2011
Important Research Disclosures
Distribution of Ratings/IB Services
Piper Jaffray
IB Serv./Past 12 Mos.
Rating
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
BUY [OW]
309
49.60
73
23.62
HOLD [N]
266
42.70
25
9.40
48
7.70
3
6.25
SELL [UW]
Note: Distribution of Ratings/IB Services shows the number of companies currently in each rating category from which Piper Jaffray and its
affiliates received compensation for investment banking services within the past 12 months. FINRA rules require disclosure of which ratings
most closely correspond with "buy," "hold," and "sell" recommendations. Piper Jaffray ratings are not the equivalent of buy, hold or sell, but
instead represent recommended relative weightings. Nevertheless, Overweight corresponds most closely with buy, Neutral with hold and
Underweight with sell. See Stock Rating definitions below.
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 117
April 2011
Important Research Disclosures
Analyst Certification — Jeffrey P. Klinefelter, Sr Research Analyst
Analyst Certification — Neely J.N. Tamminga, Sr Research Analyst
Analyst Certification — Sean P. Naughton, CFA, Sr Research Analyst
Analyst Certification — Adam F. Engebretson, CFA, Research Analyst
Analyst Certification — Jennifer Yung, Research Associate
Analyst Certification — Alex J. Fuhrman, Research Analyst
Analyst Certification — Jonathan N. Berg, Research Analyst
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.
Affiliate Disclosures: This report has been prepared by Piper Jaffray & Co. and/or its affiliate Piper Jaffray Asia Securities Limited, both of which are
subsidiaries of Piper Jaffray Companies (collectively Piper Jaffray). Piper Jaffray & Co. is regulated by FINRA, NYSE, and the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission, and its headquarters is located at 800 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55402. Piper Jaffray Asia Securities Limited is a
licensed corporation regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong ("SFC"), entered on the SFC's register, no. ABO154, and is
an exchange participant of The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited. Its headquarters is located at Suite 1308, 13/F Two Pacific Place, 88
Queensway, Hong Kong. Disclosures in this section and in the Other Important Information section referencing Piper Jaffray include all affiliated
entities unless otherwise specified.
Piper Jaffray research analysts receive compensation that is based, in part, on overall firm revenues, which include investment banking revenues.
Complete disclosure information, price charts and ratings distributions on companies covered by Piper Jaffray Equity Research can be found on the
Piper Jaffray website: http://piperjaffray.com/researchdisclosures or by writing to Piper Jaffray, Equity Research Department, 800 Nicollet Mall,
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Rating 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 technical research products are based on different
methodologies and may contradict the opinions contained in fundamental research reports.
• 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.
An industry outlook represents the analyst's view of the industry represented by the stocks in the analyst's coverage group. A Favorable
industry outlook generally means that the analyst expects the fundamentals and/or valuations of the industry to improve over the
investment time horizon. A Neutral industry outlook generally means that the analyst does not expect the fundamentals and/or valuations
of the industry to either improve or deteriorate meaningfully from its current state. An Unfavorable industry outlook generally means that
the analyst expects the fundamentals and/or valuations of the industry to deteriorate meaningfully over the investment time horizon.
118 | Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
April 2011
Other Important Information
The material regarding the subject company is based on data obtained from sources we deem 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 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.
This report is published in accordance with a conflicts management policy, which is available at http://www.piperjaffray.com/researchdisclosures.
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 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 authorised persons or exempted persons within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets
Act 2000 of the United Kingdom, or persons who have been categorised by Piper Jaffray Ltd. as professional clients under the rules of the
Financial Services Authority. Asia: This report is distributed in Hong Kong by Piper Jaffray Asia Securities Limited, which is regulated by the Hong
Kong SFC. This report is intended only for distribution to professional investors as defined in the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Ordinance
and is for the use of intended recipients only. 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 prior consent of Piper Jaffray & Co. Additional information is available upon request.
Copyright 2011 Piper Jaffray. All rights reserved.
11-0012
Piper Jaffray Investment Research
Taking Stock With Teens; Spring 2011 | 119
MINNEAPOLIS - Headquarters
800 Nicollet Mall
Suite 800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612 303-6000
800 333-6000
CHICAGO
Hyatt Center, 24th Floor
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
312 920-3200
800 973-1192
HONG KONG
Piper Jaffray Asia Securities Limited
Suite 1308, 13/F Two Pacific Place
88 Queensway, Admiralty
Hong Kong
+85 2 3755-2288
LONDON
One South Place
London EC2M 2RB
+44 203 142 8700
www.piperjaffray.com
NEW YORK
345 Park Avenue, Suite 1200
New York, NY 10154
212 284-9300
800 982-0419
SAN FRANCISCO
345 California Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94104
415 616-1600
800 214-0540
SHANGHAI
Unit 908, Platinum Building
No. 233 Taicang Road, Luwan District
Shanghai, CN 200020
+86 21 6135-7365