Historically, how has the buying function in apparel retail been set up?

The function really has evolved over the years but fundamentally the structure is via at this top of the department. The buyer will be concerned with a particular product area. There will be the network buyer for that particular retailer and they will work alongside a merchandiser. I'll go through what those business analysis roles are. The structure underneath that would be an assistant buyer and then we'd have an administrative assistant. Depending on the number of SKUs that we were managing for the number of options that we were managing would depend then on the size of the team required to deliver that.

Buyer, merchandiser and then alongside that a design function who would be there to help us have a look at trends and decipher trend from a number of different sources. The buyer sits really in the middle of the function and draws from a number of areas in order to formulate a range. Those areas would be historical information i.e what we've sold in previous seasons. The merchandiser would be generating that analysis in order to inform the buyer of potentially things like key blocks of stock. If, for example, we have always sold a black legging as a product block.

We would look at how many of those leggings we'd sold in the previous year. Was it on trend or off of trend? Whether there are things that we needed to do to update that? Did we need to re-look at the price? How many units did we need to buy this year versus last year? Was it a growth area or a decline area? We would look at that as an initial in order to build the blocks that created then the range. Black leggings might be one of them. You might say if it's a trouser department you might have denim in there, smart trousers, casual trousers and we build each of those areas up accordingly.

If there was a history that we could call on, we would then put the trend element on top of that and say, "Well, actually this year, is it a trouser season or a skirt season?" and this is all the information we would then pull from the design function, and the design function would be drawing their information from the catwalks. They would be drawing information from street trends, they would be drawing information from celebrity trends. There's all sorts of information they would be pulling to feed into the buyer. Things that play on that as well would be things like colour.

What sort of colours were on trend? What colours were just basic colours? The range would be built up accordingly taking into account all of those elements and really that's the starting point of the buying function. As we approach a season all has to be time critical because also obviously we source from overseas so we have to build in lead time into our decision-making processes. We would have a cycle that we would go through. For example, an autumn-winter season. We would start planning that autumn-winter season in January. For example, January 2019 we will be looking to plan and strategize for intake coming through in May, June and July which would be transitional autumn winter.

Then into full autumn winter come August, September. That planning cycle would start in the January of that year. We would really look to build the range up. That range would then be signed off as the parameters that the building blocks, the sales plan would be signed off. "Yes, we're going to go for that sales plan. Is it plus or minus on the year and how that sales plan is built up." We would then as buyers have done the work on the product in the background. Whilst we're doing all this analysis, we would be working on the product as well.

We'd be saying to ourselves, "Okay, is that the right fabric base? Do we need to fill some new fabric base? What are the new fabric bases or the new yarns that are coming through and where can we get them from? Do they work for our price point?" We would be developing product with our design teams to start forming the actual product that goes into that range build. We would be working with our supply base. We would be going out into the supply base. Traveling out to see that supply base in the country of origin to be able to work on product at that country of origin and start to negotiate the prices.
We would have an idea of where those prices would be as we go further into the planning cycle. What we have to be armed with in order to go into these negotiations with our supply base is an understanding of things like the price of cotton, labor cost in the country of origin and any potential risk in terms of transport costs which may be fluctuating.

All the information that we would need to be armed with it in order to go into that negotiation. In order to know that the prices that we were getting were realistic and were based on some level of fact as opposed to a price that has no relevance to the product itself. The role is a very multifaceted role. This is what appeals to me.

I feel I'm a creative. I love to be creative, to create something physical and to see that product that you've created walking down the high street if you're in high street retail. There's nothing better than that buzz of seeing someone actually walking around in your product. That creativity from fabric choice through to to actual product. Or even further back from that, the idea created through a number of different influences, a number of different places, to create potentially a new product or a new product area. That creativity appeals greatly to me.

Alongside that, this ability to analyze, to understand and be able to interpret analysis, being able to use that analysis in a business orientated fashion. Essentially, we're dealing with millions of pounds. They're numbers on a page, but you have to understand what those numbers really mean and how you can manage the risk, there's always a risk associated, because if you only did what you always did you would go backwards. It's a constantly evolving role that has many facets to it. It has a real creative edge but equally has a very clear business element to it. For me it balances a wonderful mix of skills. For me that's the excitement.

What kind of person gets involved in a role like this?

I think if the only thing you wanted to do was to be involved with fashion don't be a buyer because it's not as simplistic as that. It's not about just producing pretty stuff. Depending on which retailer you work for, your customer is your master. You have to be able to appeal to your customer and be very, very clear about your customer base and who she is and how she wants to shop, whoever that person might be.

You need to be very, very clear about who that customer is. There's no point saying, "Well, you know, I want to be involved in fashion and I'm only going to buy this kind of stuff." For me fashion design graduates are not necessarily the very best in this role because they will ignore the analytical side of the role and just want to produce pretty stuff they like. A good buyer is able to identify a product that is absolutely bulls eye targeted to their customer.

It's very much a trade or mentality and that's what you need to survive. That's what I look for in a buyer is somebody who can bring me something and say, "I don't like it, but I think it's going to sell." Has the ability to take risk and is able to assess the level of risk that they are taking and be able to understand what that risk is and what the potential downside and upside of that risk is. That's a much more rounded person than simply somebody who enjoys the creative aspects.

You could have both. At the end of the day you’ve got to be able to identify what your customer likes and ensure that each item that you're producing is right for your customer. For me the people that I look to, the people that I would say are going to be the future are those ones that can balance their creativity along side an ability to analyze an understanding of risk taking. That's the attributes I would be delighted to see and encourage in a buying team.

For women’s high street mid market fast fashion, we spoke a little about range and sales planning. We spoke about sourcing the supply base. What is changing in the way operations are structured? How do retailers set up their supply chain structure and organisation to match consumer demands?

Well what we're facing head on at the moment is a very rapid change in consumer habits with the rise of online. The traditional bricks and mortar retailers have been slow to understand the impact and the desire that the customer has to shop online as well as shop in bricks and mortar. We've been very, very slow in the industry to change the message where the pure players have really stolen a march on the rest of the traditional high street retailers.

The high street retailers are encumbered with cost that are very, very difficult to get rid of. The costs, for example, staff costs they have been all cut down to size. Obviously we've seen the CVAs (Company Voluntary Arrangements) that a number of retailers have been trying to undertake to reduce their cost.

I think historically (in the UK) there was a massive expansion in bricks and mortar. There was an idea that essentially the more shops you had that was the answer. I started with New Look where we had a very small portfolio of stores and to grow it to over a thousand stores, that is an immense store state. The reality now is that with the rise of online there is absolutely no need to have a thousand store estate.

To try and extricate yourself from those stores with those long-term leases has encumbered the speed with which the traditional brick-and-mortar retailers can move and can change. I think that has been a reality that we've seen played out in a number of cases over the last few years.

I think online is a massive issue. I think we had advantages. That's a whole different topic. If we look at supply base, which over my time in retail it's changed dramatically. When I first started we had a great deal of onshore sourcing where we sourced from very traditional mills, where we produced our own fabrics.

We had factories in this country that were owned, in some cases, by the actual retailers. Those all went as manufacturing in this country went. We pushed it into Europe. We then pushed further into the Far East, all for cost advantage.

Obviously, the dynamics in the Far East, initially in China, which was a big growth area for us, the labor costs were dramatically lower than what we'd been paying elsewhere as was fabric costs. All of that was able to be-- the transportation costs of getting that over to the UK were more than offset by the drop in actual cost price of the garment that we were getting when we went out to China.

China became saturated, so we moved again. We moved into Bangladesh. Bangladesh, again, now is getting to the point where the labor costs are starting to rise. The dollar is impacting us greatly.

So all the time it's a moving, changing scenario that we have to keep very much on top of. In fact the strange thing is is that now we're all moving a great deal of our products back into Europe because we're just not getting the advantage of the dollar in a lot of cases.

So it moves all the time, and that's the challenge, being able to keep it moving, making sure that you are flexible enough to not be tied up in certain supply bases. For example, if you look to an M&S supply base, it would be predominantly very long lead time, six to nine months, and it would be predominantly in the Far East and the Indian subcontinent.

The customer has changed from buying their clothes when we told them to buy them. If you wanted a coat you had to buy it in August because otherwise you weren't going to get the one you wanted, to actually the customer now going, "I don't need a coat in August, I want a coat when it's cold." That could be tomorrow, but it might not be till next week or the week after or next month or three months' time. We can't predict the weather.

So actually having the flexibility to say, "Do you know what? I'm going to buy this base range of coats and I'm going to generate the margin there, but then I'm going to keep back some budget so that I can go and buy a relevant product that I can bring in to be able to flex up that department spend, so that I'm not just sitting there looking at product coming in that the customer doesn't want to buy.

There are a number of things that are changing and the speed with which the customer is changing is exceptional.

It seems that New Look had a few big misses seasonally, and they've struggled to reach the consumer in a way that's relevant. What do you think caused this?

Yes, I think fundamentally when you grow a chain to the size that New Look grew to, and with the speed with which they grew it, what you tend to lose focus of is who your customer is.

For example, if you had a small building because you didn't have that much product and the budgets weren't that high, and you weren't having to have these massive departments with loads of people, the communication of who you are, of who your customer is, is relatively easy.
Once you expand that out into a very big organization as it became, as it has become and is to this day, a very large organization, the dilution of who that customer is, the idea of who that customer is is diluted and lost sight of.

I think, fundamentally, that that's something that has caused them massive amounts of problems is the fact that they've lost sight of who they are.
So, for example, New Look would have looked at the rise of the pure players and seen how they're losing business to them and then decided to chase after that customer. There's never been a young fashion retailer New Look, that's not who they are. New Look not a fashion leader, they're a fashion follower.
They don't want the absolute edge of trend right as it rises as a trend. Typical New Look customers don't want it then. They want it as it slightly peaks and comes over the other side, and then they'll be ready to buy into it.

Traditional New Look customers need to see that trend on various people or on their friend that's the fashion leader first and then they'll think, "Oh, actually, maybe I could buy into it in my way, and maybe I will have to give it a go." They need to see it probably for a good two, three, four months, possibly longer before they'll buy into it. They don't want it when the trend is hot as a fashion leader, they want it slightly afterwards.
I think New Look lost sight of who their customer was and when she wanted to buy those trends, and were swayed, of course, by a number of other people coming into the market and and took their eye off the ball.

I think what we can't ignore here is the value market in itself. When New Look started, it pretty much had the market to itself. It was a massive kind of leader in that whole value retail model.
As time went on, the market became more and more saturated and more and more value retailers came and started taking some of that business, and I think what, as I said earlier, if you don't evolve, if you can't evolve, then you, unfortunately, will go backwards.
I think there's two things and the lack of focus on customer and who they were appealing to, and understanding the saturation in the market and finding some level to be able to continue.
You have to look at the Primark model, and the Primark model has always been based on a, "We buy it at five pounds to sell it at ten." Very simple, which means that their prices are always way lower than somebody like New Look who is saying, "Actually, we're going to buy at five, but we're going to sell it as fifteen."

You're just not going to sell as much, and this is how the rise of Primark with their millions and millions of units that they're able to sell has come about. That rather caught New Look a little bit by surprise. I think the size of their organization, their inability to communicate to their teams, the true essence of their customer, they're sort of taking their eye off the ball in terms of looking at other people rather than concentrating on who they are. Again, being able to survive and change their model potentially in a saturated value market.

What are the consequences of missing on product?

Huge because of the availability of competitors to deliver that product in the market. It's one thing missing product in the old model without online. If the customer only ever shops in a handful of stores in the local area, they're not going to really know whether they've missed a trend or not. With the rise of online, everything is visual, everything is immediate, everything is available.

We can talk about the pure players but again ASOS is an absolute force in this market. The number of SKUs that they present to the customer, the number of options, the choice that they have available to the customer is just unbelievable. The ability, the ease with getting that product. I can shop up till nine o'clock tonight and it will be delivered to my house tomorrow. I don't even have to leave the house. Missing a trend now is just really scary because the customer will just go and buy it somewhere else. If you haven't got it, they're not bothered. There's no brand loyalty. I shall go somewhere else and pick up.

The trend this season is animal. The numbers that ASOS were delivering on animal alone were over £100 million this season alone on animal prints across all categories across all product areas. If you've missed that animal trend in your store, they'll just go and buy it somewhere else. The customer is very fickle.

How many times would you guess New Look have missed season in the last two years?

There's missing a trend completely or there's not having a confidence to back that trend, the scalability of that trend. That used to be something that New Look were incredibly good at. I think this is again where the actual personalities, the people behind these things, you would think otherwise you could just plunk anybody down in front of the information and hope that they come to the same conclusion. I think you have particular people in organizations who have that ability, that set of skills that I described earlier that ensure that trends are in the first place identified, in the second place assessed and in the third place are then scaled appropriately.
You might have hit animal, you might have got animal in your store but you may only have a couple of pieces of it which means that really you are not going to gain anything from that trend. You have to be able to say, "This is a massive trend. I'm going to take money from here, here and here in order to deliver that trend in a suitably concentrated way." The customer understands that that is a trend and that is what I must buy into this season. It's having a confidence behind that trend. I think that confidence is what I see as lacking in New Look over the last few seasons.

Again, that potentially because of the immense growth in a buying team that has meant that there's not the focus behind those trends necessarily. If you had a smaller team you'd be able to deliver that. It's a real difficult one to describe because you would suggest then that Inditex, Zara had a massive buying team, Primark massive buying team. It's the ability to be able to communicate and have those people in place to deliver and also having somebody who manages that process who's able to really pull that together.
I think potentially that's another thing that New Look have not had over the last few years. It's a number of factors. I believe they have lost a great deal of trend. It's not that they necessarily haven't had those trends they haven't had in a big enough way to really dominate the market.

Can we explore the relationship between missing trend or missing on product and gross margin and how that feeds through the discounting activity?

Yes. Well, I think that's been a bit a major feature over the last probably three years with New Look is the level of discounting they've had to do. This all comes back to the way that their supply base is mixed. They have said that what they want to achieve is X percentage intake margin. They've gone offshore as far as they can go predominantly in Bangladesh, predominantly in China and India, which is a very long slow supply chain. What that means is that you are having to take the call on product way ahead of the season.
What that means is you are potentially missing things closer to the season as the season approaches. Things change, influences change, someone will pick up on something and it will run and run. If all your money is tied up in long lead time in offshore while you're waiting for certain products to come in that means that you are not flexible enough to go and buy that product from somewhere in order to be in the front line of the customers' mind that you have that trend product. The product from the Far East from Bangladesh comes in after six or nine-month lead time. The customer doesn't react to it.
You brought hundreds of thousands of units, the customer does not react so you have to mark it down to shift that stock because in a minute the next phase of stock is coming in and you get to a point where the product, your shops do not have flexible rules. They are fixed rules with fixed fixtures and you have to get rid of the level of product that's sitting there that's not working so you have to discount it to get rid of it. What that then sets up is the idea in the customers' mind that actually you never have to buy anything full price because after a couple of times of doing that bring something in having to market down.

A customer just believes that actually why would they ever buy anything full price. That is where the kind of decline comes. It's the Debenhams Blue Cross model. Why would you ever buy anything in full price in Debenhams because in five minutes it's going to be on a blue cross? That's the consumer mindset. Unfortunately, if you back all your product into this long lead time, and it doesn’t sell it comes in which means you have to mark it down which means that actually your lovely intake margin of let's say 70% is eroded key achieved margin of-- potentially it could be as low as 30%. That then means that your business is severely affected. I think that's what they've been really suffering from for the last three year. Is they push their product too far in terms of lead time, they're not reactive enough, they're not flexible enough. They're having to use markdown as a tool to clear product and that itself in the customer's mind that actually where they're focused. I believe it's where they're really struggling.

Right. It's in terms of the impact on the gross margin from missing product and discounting for them.

Well, I think it's bad. That's exactly it. It is a massive impact on their gross margin. They're not-- because of the size of the organization, the ability to change that model is-- the realization is slow to come and then the ability to then find those new suppliers that can deliver that product from a shorter lead time, to your standards, to your price points et cetera, you don't do that overnight. That takes time. Unfortunately, that then impacts on the whole business and at the end of the day in retail, the product and what you sell it for is the fundamental driver of profit.

You mentioned that the emphasis on the intake margin. You could also have teams focusing on full price sales.

I think what will happen is that the senior management team will be scratching their heads trying to work out what the best thing is. Unfortunately, the industry is very, very focused on intake margin. It is a very difficult discussion to say, "You know what, this year I'm not going to focus on intake margin." So when you roll up all the departments and you get to a top line for your autumn winter '19, your actual intake margin-- if every buying merchandising team said, "Actually, I'm not going to focus on intake margin, I'm going to focus on, let's say, full price sales or net achieved margin," then the parameters at that business works too.
The mindset change, the shift required to go from an intake margin driven business to a net achieved margin business or full price sales business is quite a shift. I think what happens then is that product it becomes only-- of course, product is only what you pay for. If you're always talking about price, if a business is driven down a buying team, for example-- let's get back to the buying team. If a buyer is told, "Okay, you have to achieve a 70% margin and your price has to be within this price architecture, say between 9.99 and 14.99, what you can achieve for 70% margin at that sales price is very little.

I think what then happens is that if you're so driven by intake margin, then the delivery of product that that buyer feels that they can bring is greatly reduced and greatly diluted. What happens is that, in terms of the buying team, they become focused on the wrong thing. They become focused on achieving a margin, which is a fictional number, it's just a number - rather than actually delivering what that product should be for that customer. I think, in a big organization, that comes from a management team who are only looking at numbers.

They're not looking at product, they're not looking at customers they're not looking at those customers changing habits.

How does that compare to ASOS, for example?

I would say that the focus of ASOS in every piece of information that you get out of ASOS in a public domain is about the customer, is about delivering product to the customer. There's very little discussion about anything else. It is truly focused on customer. Each of those buyers in those teams have a true focus on that, I believe. That means that that product stands out in terms of it's quality and it's value for money because that's really what the customer is looking for. They're looking for value for money whether that's in a £2 t-shirt or a £200 t-shirt. It's their perception of value for money.
That's really the key. Are you producing something at 14.99 that presents value for the customer? Consequently, if it doesn't, although 14.99 is all you're focused on is delivering that product, 14.99 with a 70% margin, that's not focusing. That, for the customer, is potentially not value for money. That's I think is then where teams become truly only focused on delivering numbers rather than on delivering products. I think that's where that difference comes with ASOS.

If you look at ASOS price architecture, it can go from an entry price point right up to the very highest price point. At each point, they're delivering value for money. I think that's the key there. This idea of incentivizing, I think that's really interesting because I think that potentially is a very not discussed area, not something that-- the incentive is to deliver a range that you-- potentially what I would want to see with my ranges is a range that achieves a full-price sell-through.

We would look to want to have 80% of our products sold at full price and 20% with markdown. That's the scenario. That's as simple as it is, really. That's what I would be incentivizing my teams to achieve. A full price sale for 80%, which will deliver a very nice profit. Unfortunately, if you're focused on price and margin, you potentially are not going to get that full-price sell-through because the customer will reject it at the price that you initially put it in at, and will only want to buy at a price they deem to be the value of that product, i.e. a marked down price, and so instead of an 80% full-price sell-through, you're ending up with a 30% sell-through at full price, and then your balance of your profitability is reduced.

I think that is beginning to turn, that is beginning to feel like the parameters we're talking about a lot more. To shift peoples minds in the senior management positions, where what they want to see is a 70% intake margin because they think that's the answer. That's not the answer. It's a difficult one. I think then the teams are incentivized in the wrong direction because they are incentivized to deliver a product that hits that margin, but it isn't a product that they necessarily believed to have the attributes that are deemed to be value for money or deemed to be, from the customer's point of view, the right product for them.

It's a difficult industry particularly when we're suffering with a number of headwinds that proves very difficult to keep teams focused on the job in hand.

I would say that the core customer of New Look hasn't changed. It is a woman who is somewhere between 25 and 45, has a family, so she has pulls on her purse strings in a number of other ways. She has kids to deal with and that's an expense that comes first in her life. Then after that, she will buy for herself. She wants value because she can't afford to have a great deal of her expenditure going on fashion. She wants to feel confidence from her retailer that it's okay to wear this thing. It's suitable, it's appropriate, you're not going to look like a fool when you're wearing it. That's the confidence that really New Look needs to be able to do when I think I've lost the ability to get the customer that confidence right now.

As I said before, she's a fashion follower. She does not want to be at the absolute pinnacle of that trend. She wants to be over the tip of that trend and on the other side of it and, so comfortable that quite a deal of people are already wearing that product, so she's quite comfortable in it.

The other thing is, as I mentioned before, is she wants value for money, and that value for money means quality is there for that product. It works for her. It fits her. That sort of sums it up. She is the majority of the population of this country. That was always the appeal. It was a wide appeal.
Product offering, which is where I think they narrowed it in terms of an age and a fashionability level, which is where they've lost that wide appeal that they had once. It's the Dorothy Perkins of value retailing. New Look was once that. Where DP inhabited that sort of mid-market level as does Next, those kinds of people. New Look was doing the equivalent of that at the valued price. That's really where I see it fitting.

Lead time in terms of from country of origin?

Yes I’m thinking about how in today’s market you need to structure your supply chain to have a chance of succeeding for the customer base that you've just described.

As I was saying earlier, I think traditionally, she has not been to the idea of "buy now, wear now". This idea that she'll see something and she'll want it straight away. That is a relatively new thing, it's probably six, seven years. We've been really working to that "buy now, wear now". Fundamentally, that's where the first of fashion element comes from. That's where she wants. She wants that fast fashion. In the past, because New Look were so focused on this trend as it almost peaked on the other side as I've described, the lead times could be much longer because we weren't doing it at the time that everybody else was doing it or the fashionistas were doing it. We were doing it a little bit behind.

We could go out to these places on six or nine months lead time. As the customer has become more savvy, as the customers become more aware, and as the trend is moving much faster as indeed it is now because of the availability of, I believe, the move to a very visual environment, were bombarded with images every second of every day.

Social media has become a major force in that. They will see the trend much quicker. The trend will come quicker and leave quicker, so you have to be much, much faster to be able to get into that trend and get out of that trend. That's where New Look has been, over the last few years, tied up in this long lead time. They haven't had that flexibility to be able to deliver the trend when the customer wants it. That's where I think they've fallen down.

So, how would you structure the buying and merchandising function that you look to deliver in the market environment that you've described for us today?

I honestly would say that the structure in terms of buying, merchandising, and design, the only thing I think we would change-- We wouldn't necessarily change the buying function. You would have some sort of administrative assistance potentially. The element that I think you will increase which would really give you an advantage, would be design. If you look to the Inditex models, the Inditex model is very design-heavy and only from the production of design, if you like. Those designers are churning out design after design after design as they go into production. They're very, very fast and into tech. They buy wide, so the width offer is wide with a depth that is quite shallow whereas if you looked at someone like New Look, they would buy a much narrower width of options of choice for the customer but much deeper in terms of volume.

If you want to move to a faster model, what you need is the ability to churn those products, those ideas, those actual physical kind of, okay, what are we going to do with this product now? That comes from a designer being able to sit down and design it. Usually a new print. A different way of cutting a pair of trousers. It's the ability to produce those designs. If I was to do anything, I would be encouraging greater design elements. Very much that design element will need to fit say, for example, at the moment, a lot of retailers don't have a designer per area, they will have a designer that works maybe across a number of areas, and so they're very stretched in terms of workload to be able to produce enough design for that buyer to be able to put into work.

For me, I would be increasing the design element. I would be taking up very firmly in the buying function as opposed to a design function that just sits there during trend stuff that perhaps doesn't have any relevance to the customer. I would be really looking to increase the frequency of designs coming through so that I could increase my offer to the customer in terms of newness of which is what indicates very, very well in AZZARO model, which is regular, regular newness. The customer knows they either buy it now or they miss it. They have to wait for the next thing to come.

There's lots of different ways I would be looking at doing it, but I think the data sources unless you're primer where you're going to go, I'll buy it for 5 and sell it to 10, which requires volume behind it to be able to deliver enough profit in that model. Unless you want that, then the other way to go with is to be able to produce enough choice level of newness to drive that customer back to you to see what's new this week. That's what I would be now looking to do. That would be the change I would make.

The Evolution of Buying and Merchandising Functions in Mid-Market Fashion Retail

How has the buying function in apparel retail been set up historically? How is this changing as a result of the growth in online fashion apparel retail?

How should retailers reorganize our Buying and Merchandising teams to reflect the massive structural shifts that the industry is experiencing?

The Evolution of Buying and Merchandising Functions in Mid-Market Fashion Retail

Former Head of Buying at New Look

inpractise.com/articles/midmarketfashionmerchandisingandbuying

Why is this interview interesting?

Executive Bio

Claire Mclennan

Former Head of Buying at New Look

Interview Transcript

Related Content

Boohoo & UK Online Fashion

Former Director at Boohoo

ASOS, Zalando, & EU Fast Fashion

Former Sales and Marketing Director at Zalando

ASOS, Boohoo, & Online Fashion Retail Business Models

Former Product and Trading Director at ASOS

ASOS Marketplace: Third-Party Brand Perspective

Former Trading Director at ASOS & Current Ann Summers Director