of the United Kingdom’s capitol city.
Homogenization, flattening, sameness, bland. Beige.
Our sector’s newsfeeds are currently flooded with the same set of synonyms (that are, ironically, homogeneous) due to a shared concern: that the industry is heading down a dangerous path where merchants lose sight of their core principles and, more specifically, their unique brand identity.
Everywhere we turn, we see competitors offering products that increasingly resemble each other. Not only that, but the way these products are then presented to their target audience has also lost that ever-important sense of individual creativity and innovation that is so inherent to the retail sector.
Marketing campaigns are launched in a copy-paste fashion, with teams solely focused on out-viraling each other. But arguably, what’s even worse is seeing the flattening of store design. Spaces once intended to be physical manifestations of brand storytelling now look indistinguishable and use the same sad combination of fluorescent lighting, chrome fixtures, and oak furniture.
When Data Drives Design Into a Dead End
I started teaching retail design eight years ago, building on my more than ten years of field experience in a variety of locations, roles, and retail format specialties. On the first day of each course, I begin the same way: I show students photos of physical stores and ask them to name the brand.
“This,” I tell them, “is the power of retail design.”
I may not be objective, but I believe few can argue when I say that the physical store remains the strongest tool a retailer can use to communicate its brand identity and connect with its target audience. Why? Because it is the only channel that offers the opportunity to create a complete, 360-degree sensory brand universe for customers to experience.
Even in today’s digital age, brick-and-mortar has a profound impact on customer engagement and loyalty. Studies conducted on customer expectations, especially Gen Z, reaffirm that they’re not just looking for products anymore; they’re looking for meaningful experiences. And while some brands are clearly paying attention and delivering incredible answers to this call, many are stuck in the “sameness trap.”
It started with H&M copying Zara, then Mango, followed by too many others to list. What I personally find even more confronting is the homogenization of brands within the same apparel group.
Below are store photos from three brands under the Inditex umbrella. On the left are the old concepts, while the latest openings are on the right. The flattening of brand distinction and sheer absence of design personality are too obvious to deny. Now, I struggle to find powerful visual models for the introduction exercise in my retail design courses.
What is driving this shift? What forces could possibly justify these retailers, especially a group as far-reaching and powerful as Inditex, making such decisions?
The shift toward retail sameness isn't accidental; it's algorithmic.
Retail industry discussions point to a few reasons: algorithmic homogenization, operational costs, and risk aversion, among others.
Indeed, I believe it is a combination of several factors. Operational concerns are dictating design decision-making. Many retailers, in a frenzy to maintain relevance and market share, are applying pure short-term ROI thinking to their store concepts. They’re looking for a big impact, fast, at the lowest operational cost possible. They look around to find what is successful and what is repeatable. They examine what competitors are doing, what’s trending, and what suppliers are selling as “guaranteed-to-win” solutions.
Looking for a magic bullet is a risky strategy that can catch even the most established retailers off guard. Walgreens’ store revamp debacle, led by disastrous smart fridges, perfectly confirms this point.
More store design teams are turning to AI for inspiration, forgetting that AI primarily relies on pre-existing knowledge to generate results.
When retailers turn to AI for design inspiration, they're essentially asking algorithms to remix existing solutions rather than create genuinely new ones.
These are not innovative outputs, just regurgitations and reimaginations of existing ideas. Melissa Minkow’s recent piece perfectly captures this point.
In the age of data-driven technology and computer-powered algorithms, human creativity is more associated with risk. The days when designers were given full creative freedom to explore and concoct new concept ideas are long gone. And the results are clear.
Sure, some of these stores look good purely on a technical level, but if customers can’t associate your brand with a space, how can you be sure they’ll come back to you versus your competitor? By losing sight of brand distinctiveness, you’re losing sight of your brand’s reason for being. And when you lose sight of that, how can you expect shoppers to care about your brand at all?
Critical Thinking as Competitive Advantage
How can we escape this endless loop of store design sameness? Short answer: by bringing critical thinking back into our daily practices. Countless studies, including my own doctoral thesis, have shown that retail success is first and foremost anchored in decisions that are brand and target customer-relevant.
Applying this very practically to retail design, I would invite decision-makers to always consider the three questions below:
- Does it make sense for my brand?
- Does it align with this specific store’s goal as part of my omnichannel strategy?
- Does it add something to my targeted customer’s experience?
Let’s dig in a bit. Brand relevance is first and foremost anchored in brand identity concerns. Does the decision I am making align with my brand’s core mission, its corporate values, brand personality, mission statement, and, more specifically, the promise I have made to my target customers? In this line of thinking, let’s not forget to consider the following: Is this decision unique to me?
Brand relevance also refers to operational concerns. These are just as essential as identity, but I approach them slightly differently than those decision-makers mentioned above. Operational decisions need to be anchored in a holistic omnichannel strategy, looking at a brand’s actions the way the target customer experiences them. Which channels are they using? For what purpose? The touchpoints must be complementary. If a brand has an eCommerce site, its stores should do more than sell products. This shouldn’t be news, but you’d be surprised how many brands lack a design vision beyond the point of sale.
I would also encourage brands to explore complementarity at the individual store level. Ask yourself: How can each individual location add something unique to the brand story I wish to create for my customers? As a retail designer, I will forever be grateful to Aesop for pioneering this idea and for doing it so well that it has become mainstream and expected among consumers.
As already addressed above, it’s essential to see and experience things from the target customer’s perspective. As a result, you should ask yourself whether an initiative is adding something valuable and meaningful to your customer’s experience. Think back to Walgreens as an example: did those digital fridge doors add anything meaningful to customers’ lives? Of course not. If anything, they made customers’ lives harder.
While it’s important to keep an eye out for the latest trends, pay attention to our competition, integrate new technologies, and leverage AI, let’s do so in a critical and intentional manner. It is up to us to tease the value out of these trends and technologies by asking probing questions about how they can serve a unique brand purpose.
What better example of this done right than the activation below from Hermes? The luxury fashion house holds an annual event called “le saut d’Hermes,” an equestrian jumping competition in Paris’ Grand Palais.
This, on its own, is a great example of an activation that is truly unique to the brand and its heritage. This year, however, they went even further by integrating a VR experience into their iconic Rue de Sevres store and inviting customers to jump on trampolines in front of a screen and act out live horse jumping.
Does this deliver on customer trends and expectations? Yes!
Does it integrate tech innovation? Yes!
Could any other brand have done this specific activation? No!
Education Gap: Retail Design Needs Academic Recognition
Reclaiming our critical thinking is a first step, and a critical one.
The next step is to ensure it does not get lost again by teaching the next generation of retail professionals. This brings us to a topic that I believe is not sufficiently addressed: retail design education.
Retail design truly is a specialty field. Those practicing it require myriad competencies ranging from interior design, marketing and branding, customer psychology, research, management, and much more. Yet, as of this article’s publishing, only a handful of educational institutions across the globe offer retail design as an educational pathway.
I often receive messages from well-established retail players asking me to send my students to them, as their specialty training has made them highly sought-after in the workforce. Yet when I reach out to schools suggesting they consider adding retail design to their curriculum, supporting my call with such testimonials from the field, the answer is always a resounding “no, thank you.”
Why? Because institutions that are in the best place to integrate this specialty are those teaching interior design and architecture, and the mentality in those faculties is that their field is noble and commerce is “dirty.” Little do they realize that commerce plays a much more constructive role in society than we are often told. (As you likely know already, being a Future Commerce reader.)
As a true believer in the beauty and future of our industry, I will continue to challenge these schools. By setting aside their pre-conceived notions, they would come to realize that educating their students in commerce would significantly enhance their employability. However, I am also increasingly tempted to explore an alternative to retail design education.
Allow me to share my dream: in the new omnichannel norm, our field requires practitioners to hold even more competencies and collaborate much more closely with other functional teams. Why not envision an educational structure encapsulating training for the entire retail ecosystem? A place where all students would be required to follow a core curriculum covering the “basics” of retail, including that essential critical thinking skill I mentioned above. They would have access to specialty courses in business, management, communication, marketing, product development, branding, web design, UX design, interior design, and other areas that make up the modern retail experience. Students with different professional finalities would learn to cohabit, understand each other’s roles, and collaborate with a shared objective from the very start, effectively recreating the real-life working scenario they will face after their graduation.
It may just be a dream for now, but with the right support, including perhaps from some of you, I hope to see it come to life one day.
Some Final Thoughts
I grew up with dystopian projections of the future, reading 1984, watching the incredible film Brazil, and enjoying the just as moving Pixar work WALL-E. These visions of the future, where human individuality is lost, have always greatly frightened me. And yet it seems we are inching closer every day to them becoming a reality.
I take comfort in seeing how people walking down the street still display their unique identity through physical appearance, especially apparel and accessories. And while social media algorithms sometimes bring us into swirling feeds of sameness, these platforms still create opportunities for users to express their unique individuality.
So why is the retail sector going in the opposite direction? And more importantly, how long do we have before this current direction in retail leads to serious societal impacts? With modes of self-expression diminishing and critical thinking slowly disappearing, are we not coming closer to the reality of “blue is the new red”?
I am thankfully an optimist at heart, so seeing the concerned posts on “Retail LinkedIn” actually reassures me that I am not alone in my feelings of distress. More than anything, that gives me hope that retail still has a bright future ahead: one where innovation does not come at the cost of uniformity.
Together, let’s continue to question and build the retail sector and society we want to live in.
—----
Elisa Servais, PhD., is a retail design expert combining 12+ years of practice in Shanghai, London, and Brussels with 8 years in academia, researching and teaching this specific discipline. Her doctoral thesis aimed to gain a better understanding of valuable in-store experiences, with a special focus on gathering insights to better design these. She currently offers various consultancy services as a means to share her passion, expertise, and call for a more strategy-driven, holistic, omnichannel, collaborative, and inclusive approach to retail design practices with as wide an audience as possible.
Website: elisaservais.com
Homogenization, flattening, sameness, bland. Beige.
Our sector’s newsfeeds are currently flooded with the same set of synonyms (that are, ironically, homogeneous) due to a shared concern: that the industry is heading down a dangerous path where merchants lose sight of their core principles and, more specifically, their unique brand identity.
Everywhere we turn, we see competitors offering products that increasingly resemble each other. Not only that, but the way these products are then presented to their target audience has also lost that ever-important sense of individual creativity and innovation that is so inherent to the retail sector.
Marketing campaigns are launched in a copy-paste fashion, with teams solely focused on out-viraling each other. But arguably, what’s even worse is seeing the flattening of store design. Spaces once intended to be physical manifestations of brand storytelling now look indistinguishable and use the same sad combination of fluorescent lighting, chrome fixtures, and oak furniture.
When Data Drives Design Into a Dead End
I started teaching retail design eight years ago, building on my more than ten years of field experience in a variety of locations, roles, and retail format specialties. On the first day of each course, I begin the same way: I show students photos of physical stores and ask them to name the brand.
“This,” I tell them, “is the power of retail design.”
I may not be objective, but I believe few can argue when I say that the physical store remains the strongest tool a retailer can use to communicate its brand identity and connect with its target audience. Why? Because it is the only channel that offers the opportunity to create a complete, 360-degree sensory brand universe for customers to experience.
Even in today’s digital age, brick-and-mortar has a profound impact on customer engagement and loyalty. Studies conducted on customer expectations, especially Gen Z, reaffirm that they’re not just looking for products anymore; they’re looking for meaningful experiences. And while some brands are clearly paying attention and delivering incredible answers to this call, many are stuck in the “sameness trap.”
It started with H&M copying Zara, then Mango, followed by too many others to list. What I personally find even more confronting is the homogenization of brands within the same apparel group.
Below are store photos from three brands under the Inditex umbrella. On the left are the old concepts, while the latest openings are on the right. The flattening of brand distinction and sheer absence of design personality are too obvious to deny. Now, I struggle to find powerful visual models for the introduction exercise in my retail design courses.
What is driving this shift? What forces could possibly justify these retailers, especially a group as far-reaching and powerful as Inditex, making such decisions?
The shift toward retail sameness isn't accidental; it's algorithmic.
Retail industry discussions point to a few reasons: algorithmic homogenization, operational costs, and risk aversion, among others.
Indeed, I believe it is a combination of several factors. Operational concerns are dictating design decision-making. Many retailers, in a frenzy to maintain relevance and market share, are applying pure short-term ROI thinking to their store concepts. They’re looking for a big impact, fast, at the lowest operational cost possible. They look around to find what is successful and what is repeatable. They examine what competitors are doing, what’s trending, and what suppliers are selling as “guaranteed-to-win” solutions.
Looking for a magic bullet is a risky strategy that can catch even the most established retailers off guard. Walgreens’ store revamp debacle, led by disastrous smart fridges, perfectly confirms this point.
More store design teams are turning to AI for inspiration, forgetting that AI primarily relies on pre-existing knowledge to generate results.
When retailers turn to AI for design inspiration, they're essentially asking algorithms to remix existing solutions rather than create genuinely new ones.
These are not innovative outputs, just regurgitations and reimaginations of existing ideas. Melissa Minkow’s recent piece perfectly captures this point.
In the age of data-driven technology and computer-powered algorithms, human creativity is more associated with risk. The days when designers were given full creative freedom to explore and concoct new concept ideas are long gone. And the results are clear.
Sure, some of these stores look good purely on a technical level, but if customers can’t associate your brand with a space, how can you be sure they’ll come back to you versus your competitor? By losing sight of brand distinctiveness, you’re losing sight of your brand’s reason for being. And when you lose sight of that, how can you expect shoppers to care about your brand at all?
Critical Thinking as Competitive Advantage
How can we escape this endless loop of store design sameness? Short answer: by bringing critical thinking back into our daily practices. Countless studies, including my own doctoral thesis, have shown that retail success is first and foremost anchored in decisions that are brand and target customer-relevant.
Applying this very practically to retail design, I would invite decision-makers to always consider the three questions below:
- Does it make sense for my brand?
- Does it align with this specific store’s goal as part of my omnichannel strategy?
- Does it add something to my targeted customer’s experience?
Let’s dig in a bit. Brand relevance is first and foremost anchored in brand identity concerns. Does the decision I am making align with my brand’s core mission, its corporate values, brand personality, mission statement, and, more specifically, the promise I have made to my target customers? In this line of thinking, let’s not forget to consider the following: Is this decision unique to me?
Brand relevance also refers to operational concerns. These are just as essential as identity, but I approach them slightly differently than those decision-makers mentioned above. Operational decisions need to be anchored in a holistic omnichannel strategy, looking at a brand’s actions the way the target customer experiences them. Which channels are they using? For what purpose? The touchpoints must be complementary. If a brand has an eCommerce site, its stores should do more than sell products. This shouldn’t be news, but you’d be surprised how many brands lack a design vision beyond the point of sale.
I would also encourage brands to explore complementarity at the individual store level. Ask yourself: How can each individual location add something unique to the brand story I wish to create for my customers? As a retail designer, I will forever be grateful to Aesop for pioneering this idea and for doing it so well that it has become mainstream and expected among consumers.
As already addressed above, it’s essential to see and experience things from the target customer’s perspective. As a result, you should ask yourself whether an initiative is adding something valuable and meaningful to your customer’s experience. Think back to Walgreens as an example: did those digital fridge doors add anything meaningful to customers’ lives? Of course not. If anything, they made customers’ lives harder.
While it’s important to keep an eye out for the latest trends, pay attention to our competition, integrate new technologies, and leverage AI, let’s do so in a critical and intentional manner. It is up to us to tease the value out of these trends and technologies by asking probing questions about how they can serve a unique brand purpose.
What better example of this done right than the activation below from Hermes? The luxury fashion house holds an annual event called “le saut d’Hermes,” an equestrian jumping competition in Paris’ Grand Palais.
This, on its own, is a great example of an activation that is truly unique to the brand and its heritage. This year, however, they went even further by integrating a VR experience into their iconic Rue de Sevres store and inviting customers to jump on trampolines in front of a screen and act out live horse jumping.
Does this deliver on customer trends and expectations? Yes!
Does it integrate tech innovation? Yes!
Could any other brand have done this specific activation? No!
Education Gap: Retail Design Needs Academic Recognition
Reclaiming our critical thinking is a first step, and a critical one.
The next step is to ensure it does not get lost again by teaching the next generation of retail professionals. This brings us to a topic that I believe is not sufficiently addressed: retail design education.
Retail design truly is a specialty field. Those practicing it require myriad competencies ranging from interior design, marketing and branding, customer psychology, research, management, and much more. Yet, as of this article’s publishing, only a handful of educational institutions across the globe offer retail design as an educational pathway.
I often receive messages from well-established retail players asking me to send my students to them, as their specialty training has made them highly sought-after in the workforce. Yet when I reach out to schools suggesting they consider adding retail design to their curriculum, supporting my call with such testimonials from the field, the answer is always a resounding “no, thank you.”
Why? Because institutions that are in the best place to integrate this specialty are those teaching interior design and architecture, and the mentality in those faculties is that their field is noble and commerce is “dirty.” Little do they realize that commerce plays a much more constructive role in society than we are often told. (As you likely know already, being a Future Commerce reader.)
As a true believer in the beauty and future of our industry, I will continue to challenge these schools. By setting aside their pre-conceived notions, they would come to realize that educating their students in commerce would significantly enhance their employability. However, I am also increasingly tempted to explore an alternative to retail design education.
Allow me to share my dream: in the new omnichannel norm, our field requires practitioners to hold even more competencies and collaborate much more closely with other functional teams. Why not envision an educational structure encapsulating training for the entire retail ecosystem? A place where all students would be required to follow a core curriculum covering the “basics” of retail, including that essential critical thinking skill I mentioned above. They would have access to specialty courses in business, management, communication, marketing, product development, branding, web design, UX design, interior design, and other areas that make up the modern retail experience. Students with different professional finalities would learn to cohabit, understand each other’s roles, and collaborate with a shared objective from the very start, effectively recreating the real-life working scenario they will face after their graduation.
It may just be a dream for now, but with the right support, including perhaps from some of you, I hope to see it come to life one day.
Some Final Thoughts
I grew up with dystopian projections of the future, reading 1984, watching the incredible film Brazil, and enjoying the just as moving Pixar work WALL-E. These visions of the future, where human individuality is lost, have always greatly frightened me. And yet it seems we are inching closer every day to them becoming a reality.
I take comfort in seeing how people walking down the street still display their unique identity through physical appearance, especially apparel and accessories. And while social media algorithms sometimes bring us into swirling feeds of sameness, these platforms still create opportunities for users to express their unique individuality.
So why is the retail sector going in the opposite direction? And more importantly, how long do we have before this current direction in retail leads to serious societal impacts? With modes of self-expression diminishing and critical thinking slowly disappearing, are we not coming closer to the reality of “blue is the new red”?
I am thankfully an optimist at heart, so seeing the concerned posts on “Retail LinkedIn” actually reassures me that I am not alone in my feelings of distress. More than anything, that gives me hope that retail still has a bright future ahead: one where innovation does not come at the cost of uniformity.
Together, let’s continue to question and build the retail sector and society we want to live in.
—----
Elisa Servais, PhD., is a retail design expert combining 12+ years of practice in Shanghai, London, and Brussels with 8 years in academia, researching and teaching this specific discipline. Her doctoral thesis aimed to gain a better understanding of valuable in-store experiences, with a special focus on gathering insights to better design these. She currently offers various consultancy services as a means to share her passion, expertise, and call for a more strategy-driven, holistic, omnichannel, collaborative, and inclusive approach to retail design practices with as wide an audience as possible.
Website: elisaservais.com
Homogenization, flattening, sameness, bland. Beige.
Our sector’s newsfeeds are currently flooded with the same set of synonyms (that are, ironically, homogeneous) due to a shared concern: that the industry is heading down a dangerous path where merchants lose sight of their core principles and, more specifically, their unique brand identity.
Everywhere we turn, we see competitors offering products that increasingly resemble each other. Not only that, but the way these products are then presented to their target audience has also lost that ever-important sense of individual creativity and innovation that is so inherent to the retail sector.
Marketing campaigns are launched in a copy-paste fashion, with teams solely focused on out-viraling each other. But arguably, what’s even worse is seeing the flattening of store design. Spaces once intended to be physical manifestations of brand storytelling now look indistinguishable and use the same sad combination of fluorescent lighting, chrome fixtures, and oak furniture.
When Data Drives Design Into a Dead End
I started teaching retail design eight years ago, building on my more than ten years of field experience in a variety of locations, roles, and retail format specialties. On the first day of each course, I begin the same way: I show students photos of physical stores and ask them to name the brand.
“This,” I tell them, “is the power of retail design.”
I may not be objective, but I believe few can argue when I say that the physical store remains the strongest tool a retailer can use to communicate its brand identity and connect with its target audience. Why? Because it is the only channel that offers the opportunity to create a complete, 360-degree sensory brand universe for customers to experience.
Even in today’s digital age, brick-and-mortar has a profound impact on customer engagement and loyalty. Studies conducted on customer expectations, especially Gen Z, reaffirm that they’re not just looking for products anymore; they’re looking for meaningful experiences. And while some brands are clearly paying attention and delivering incredible answers to this call, many are stuck in the “sameness trap.”
It started with H&M copying Zara, then Mango, followed by too many others to list. What I personally find even more confronting is the homogenization of brands within the same apparel group.
Below are store photos from three brands under the Inditex umbrella. On the left are the old concepts, while the latest openings are on the right. The flattening of brand distinction and sheer absence of design personality are too obvious to deny. Now, I struggle to find powerful visual models for the introduction exercise in my retail design courses.
What is driving this shift? What forces could possibly justify these retailers, especially a group as far-reaching and powerful as Inditex, making such decisions?
The shift toward retail sameness isn't accidental; it's algorithmic.
Retail industry discussions point to a few reasons: algorithmic homogenization, operational costs, and risk aversion, among others.
Indeed, I believe it is a combination of several factors. Operational concerns are dictating design decision-making. Many retailers, in a frenzy to maintain relevance and market share, are applying pure short-term ROI thinking to their store concepts. They’re looking for a big impact, fast, at the lowest operational cost possible. They look around to find what is successful and what is repeatable. They examine what competitors are doing, what’s trending, and what suppliers are selling as “guaranteed-to-win” solutions.
Looking for a magic bullet is a risky strategy that can catch even the most established retailers off guard. Walgreens’ store revamp debacle, led by disastrous smart fridges, perfectly confirms this point.
More store design teams are turning to AI for inspiration, forgetting that AI primarily relies on pre-existing knowledge to generate results.
When retailers turn to AI for design inspiration, they're essentially asking algorithms to remix existing solutions rather than create genuinely new ones.
These are not innovative outputs, just regurgitations and reimaginations of existing ideas. Melissa Minkow’s recent piece perfectly captures this point.
In the age of data-driven technology and computer-powered algorithms, human creativity is more associated with risk. The days when designers were given full creative freedom to explore and concoct new concept ideas are long gone. And the results are clear.
Sure, some of these stores look good purely on a technical level, but if customers can’t associate your brand with a space, how can you be sure they’ll come back to you versus your competitor? By losing sight of brand distinctiveness, you’re losing sight of your brand’s reason for being. And when you lose sight of that, how can you expect shoppers to care about your brand at all?
Critical Thinking as Competitive Advantage
How can we escape this endless loop of store design sameness? Short answer: by bringing critical thinking back into our daily practices. Countless studies, including my own doctoral thesis, have shown that retail success is first and foremost anchored in decisions that are brand and target customer-relevant.
Applying this very practically to retail design, I would invite decision-makers to always consider the three questions below:
- Does it make sense for my brand?
- Does it align with this specific store’s goal as part of my omnichannel strategy?
- Does it add something to my targeted customer’s experience?
Let’s dig in a bit. Brand relevance is first and foremost anchored in brand identity concerns. Does the decision I am making align with my brand’s core mission, its corporate values, brand personality, mission statement, and, more specifically, the promise I have made to my target customers? In this line of thinking, let’s not forget to consider the following: Is this decision unique to me?
Brand relevance also refers to operational concerns. These are just as essential as identity, but I approach them slightly differently than those decision-makers mentioned above. Operational decisions need to be anchored in a holistic omnichannel strategy, looking at a brand’s actions the way the target customer experiences them. Which channels are they using? For what purpose? The touchpoints must be complementary. If a brand has an eCommerce site, its stores should do more than sell products. This shouldn’t be news, but you’d be surprised how many brands lack a design vision beyond the point of sale.
I would also encourage brands to explore complementarity at the individual store level. Ask yourself: How can each individual location add something unique to the brand story I wish to create for my customers? As a retail designer, I will forever be grateful to Aesop for pioneering this idea and for doing it so well that it has become mainstream and expected among consumers.
As already addressed above, it’s essential to see and experience things from the target customer’s perspective. As a result, you should ask yourself whether an initiative is adding something valuable and meaningful to your customer’s experience. Think back to Walgreens as an example: did those digital fridge doors add anything meaningful to customers’ lives? Of course not. If anything, they made customers’ lives harder.
While it’s important to keep an eye out for the latest trends, pay attention to our competition, integrate new technologies, and leverage AI, let’s do so in a critical and intentional manner. It is up to us to tease the value out of these trends and technologies by asking probing questions about how they can serve a unique brand purpose.
What better example of this done right than the activation below from Hermes? The luxury fashion house holds an annual event called “le saut d’Hermes,” an equestrian jumping competition in Paris’ Grand Palais.
This, on its own, is a great example of an activation that is truly unique to the brand and its heritage. This year, however, they went even further by integrating a VR experience into their iconic Rue de Sevres store and inviting customers to jump on trampolines in front of a screen and act out live horse jumping.
Does this deliver on customer trends and expectations? Yes!
Does it integrate tech innovation? Yes!
Could any other brand have done this specific activation? No!
Education Gap: Retail Design Needs Academic Recognition
Reclaiming our critical thinking is a first step, and a critical one.
The next step is to ensure it does not get lost again by teaching the next generation of retail professionals. This brings us to a topic that I believe is not sufficiently addressed: retail design education.
Retail design truly is a specialty field. Those practicing it require myriad competencies ranging from interior design, marketing and branding, customer psychology, research, management, and much more. Yet, as of this article’s publishing, only a handful of educational institutions across the globe offer retail design as an educational pathway.
I often receive messages from well-established retail players asking me to send my students to them, as their specialty training has made them highly sought-after in the workforce. Yet when I reach out to schools suggesting they consider adding retail design to their curriculum, supporting my call with such testimonials from the field, the answer is always a resounding “no, thank you.”
Why? Because institutions that are in the best place to integrate this specialty are those teaching interior design and architecture, and the mentality in those faculties is that their field is noble and commerce is “dirty.” Little do they realize that commerce plays a much more constructive role in society than we are often told. (As you likely know already, being a Future Commerce reader.)
As a true believer in the beauty and future of our industry, I will continue to challenge these schools. By setting aside their pre-conceived notions, they would come to realize that educating their students in commerce would significantly enhance their employability. However, I am also increasingly tempted to explore an alternative to retail design education.
Allow me to share my dream: in the new omnichannel norm, our field requires practitioners to hold even more competencies and collaborate much more closely with other functional teams. Why not envision an educational structure encapsulating training for the entire retail ecosystem? A place where all students would be required to follow a core curriculum covering the “basics” of retail, including that essential critical thinking skill I mentioned above. They would have access to specialty courses in business, management, communication, marketing, product development, branding, web design, UX design, interior design, and other areas that make up the modern retail experience. Students with different professional finalities would learn to cohabit, understand each other’s roles, and collaborate with a shared objective from the very start, effectively recreating the real-life working scenario they will face after their graduation.
It may just be a dream for now, but with the right support, including perhaps from some of you, I hope to see it come to life one day.
Some Final Thoughts
I grew up with dystopian projections of the future, reading 1984, watching the incredible film Brazil, and enjoying the just as moving Pixar work WALL-E. These visions of the future, where human individuality is lost, have always greatly frightened me. And yet it seems we are inching closer every day to them becoming a reality.
I take comfort in seeing how people walking down the street still display their unique identity through physical appearance, especially apparel and accessories. And while social media algorithms sometimes bring us into swirling feeds of sameness, these platforms still create opportunities for users to express their unique individuality.
So why is the retail sector going in the opposite direction? And more importantly, how long do we have before this current direction in retail leads to serious societal impacts? With modes of self-expression diminishing and critical thinking slowly disappearing, are we not coming closer to the reality of “blue is the new red”?
I am thankfully an optimist at heart, so seeing the concerned posts on “Retail LinkedIn” actually reassures me that I am not alone in my feelings of distress. More than anything, that gives me hope that retail still has a bright future ahead: one where innovation does not come at the cost of uniformity.
Together, let’s continue to question and build the retail sector and society we want to live in.
—----
Elisa Servais, PhD., is a retail design expert combining 12+ years of practice in Shanghai, London, and Brussels with 8 years in academia, researching and teaching this specific discipline. Her doctoral thesis aimed to gain a better understanding of valuable in-store experiences, with a special focus on gathering insights to better design these. She currently offers various consultancy services as a means to share her passion, expertise, and call for a more strategy-driven, holistic, omnichannel, collaborative, and inclusive approach to retail design practices with as wide an audience as possible.
Website: elisaservais.com
Homogenization, flattening, sameness, bland. Beige.
Our sector’s newsfeeds are currently flooded with the same set of synonyms (that are, ironically, homogeneous) due to a shared concern: that the industry is heading down a dangerous path where merchants lose sight of their core principles and, more specifically, their unique brand identity.
Everywhere we turn, we see competitors offering products that increasingly resemble each other. Not only that, but the way these products are then presented to their target audience has also lost that ever-important sense of individual creativity and innovation that is so inherent to the retail sector.
Marketing campaigns are launched in a copy-paste fashion, with teams solely focused on out-viraling each other. But arguably, what’s even worse is seeing the flattening of store design. Spaces once intended to be physical manifestations of brand storytelling now look indistinguishable and use the same sad combination of fluorescent lighting, chrome fixtures, and oak furniture.
When Data Drives Design Into a Dead End
I started teaching retail design eight years ago, building on my more than ten years of field experience in a variety of locations, roles, and retail format specialties. On the first day of each course, I begin the same way: I show students photos of physical stores and ask them to name the brand.
“This,” I tell them, “is the power of retail design.”
I may not be objective, but I believe few can argue when I say that the physical store remains the strongest tool a retailer can use to communicate its brand identity and connect with its target audience. Why? Because it is the only channel that offers the opportunity to create a complete, 360-degree sensory brand universe for customers to experience.
Even in today’s digital age, brick-and-mortar has a profound impact on customer engagement and loyalty. Studies conducted on customer expectations, especially Gen Z, reaffirm that they’re not just looking for products anymore; they’re looking for meaningful experiences. And while some brands are clearly paying attention and delivering incredible answers to this call, many are stuck in the “sameness trap.”
It started with H&M copying Zara, then Mango, followed by too many others to list. What I personally find even more confronting is the homogenization of brands within the same apparel group.
Below are store photos from three brands under the Inditex umbrella. On the left are the old concepts, while the latest openings are on the right. The flattening of brand distinction and sheer absence of design personality are too obvious to deny. Now, I struggle to find powerful visual models for the introduction exercise in my retail design courses.
What is driving this shift? What forces could possibly justify these retailers, especially a group as far-reaching and powerful as Inditex, making such decisions?
The shift toward retail sameness isn't accidental; it's algorithmic.
Retail industry discussions point to a few reasons: algorithmic homogenization, operational costs, and risk aversion, among others.
Indeed, I believe it is a combination of several factors. Operational concerns are dictating design decision-making. Many retailers, in a frenzy to maintain relevance and market share, are applying pure short-term ROI thinking to their store concepts. They’re looking for a big impact, fast, at the lowest operational cost possible. They look around to find what is successful and what is repeatable. They examine what competitors are doing, what’s trending, and what suppliers are selling as “guaranteed-to-win” solutions.
Looking for a magic bullet is a risky strategy that can catch even the most established retailers off guard. Walgreens’ store revamp debacle, led by disastrous smart fridges, perfectly confirms this point.
More store design teams are turning to AI for inspiration, forgetting that AI primarily relies on pre-existing knowledge to generate results.
When retailers turn to AI for design inspiration, they're essentially asking algorithms to remix existing solutions rather than create genuinely new ones.
These are not innovative outputs, just regurgitations and reimaginations of existing ideas. Melissa Minkow’s recent piece perfectly captures this point.
In the age of data-driven technology and computer-powered algorithms, human creativity is more associated with risk. The days when designers were given full creative freedom to explore and concoct new concept ideas are long gone. And the results are clear.
Sure, some of these stores look good purely on a technical level, but if customers can’t associate your brand with a space, how can you be sure they’ll come back to you versus your competitor? By losing sight of brand distinctiveness, you’re losing sight of your brand’s reason for being. And when you lose sight of that, how can you expect shoppers to care about your brand at all?
Critical Thinking as Competitive Advantage
How can we escape this endless loop of store design sameness? Short answer: by bringing critical thinking back into our daily practices. Countless studies, including my own doctoral thesis, have shown that retail success is first and foremost anchored in decisions that are brand and target customer-relevant.
Applying this very practically to retail design, I would invite decision-makers to always consider the three questions below:
- Does it make sense for my brand?
- Does it align with this specific store’s goal as part of my omnichannel strategy?
- Does it add something to my targeted customer’s experience?
Let’s dig in a bit. Brand relevance is first and foremost anchored in brand identity concerns. Does the decision I am making align with my brand’s core mission, its corporate values, brand personality, mission statement, and, more specifically, the promise I have made to my target customers? In this line of thinking, let’s not forget to consider the following: Is this decision unique to me?
Brand relevance also refers to operational concerns. These are just as essential as identity, but I approach them slightly differently than those decision-makers mentioned above. Operational decisions need to be anchored in a holistic omnichannel strategy, looking at a brand’s actions the way the target customer experiences them. Which channels are they using? For what purpose? The touchpoints must be complementary. If a brand has an eCommerce site, its stores should do more than sell products. This shouldn’t be news, but you’d be surprised how many brands lack a design vision beyond the point of sale.
I would also encourage brands to explore complementarity at the individual store level. Ask yourself: How can each individual location add something unique to the brand story I wish to create for my customers? As a retail designer, I will forever be grateful to Aesop for pioneering this idea and for doing it so well that it has become mainstream and expected among consumers.
As already addressed above, it’s essential to see and experience things from the target customer’s perspective. As a result, you should ask yourself whether an initiative is adding something valuable and meaningful to your customer’s experience. Think back to Walgreens as an example: did those digital fridge doors add anything meaningful to customers’ lives? Of course not. If anything, they made customers’ lives harder.
While it’s important to keep an eye out for the latest trends, pay attention to our competition, integrate new technologies, and leverage AI, let’s do so in a critical and intentional manner. It is up to us to tease the value out of these trends and technologies by asking probing questions about how they can serve a unique brand purpose.
What better example of this done right than the activation below from Hermes? The luxury fashion house holds an annual event called “le saut d’Hermes,” an equestrian jumping competition in Paris’ Grand Palais.
This, on its own, is a great example of an activation that is truly unique to the brand and its heritage. This year, however, they went even further by integrating a VR experience into their iconic Rue de Sevres store and inviting customers to jump on trampolines in front of a screen and act out live horse jumping.
Does this deliver on customer trends and expectations? Yes!
Does it integrate tech innovation? Yes!
Could any other brand have done this specific activation? No!
Education Gap: Retail Design Needs Academic Recognition
Reclaiming our critical thinking is a first step, and a critical one.
The next step is to ensure it does not get lost again by teaching the next generation of retail professionals. This brings us to a topic that I believe is not sufficiently addressed: retail design education.
Retail design truly is a specialty field. Those practicing it require myriad competencies ranging from interior design, marketing and branding, customer psychology, research, management, and much more. Yet, as of this article’s publishing, only a handful of educational institutions across the globe offer retail design as an educational pathway.
I often receive messages from well-established retail players asking me to send my students to them, as their specialty training has made them highly sought-after in the workforce. Yet when I reach out to schools suggesting they consider adding retail design to their curriculum, supporting my call with such testimonials from the field, the answer is always a resounding “no, thank you.”
Why? Because institutions that are in the best place to integrate this specialty are those teaching interior design and architecture, and the mentality in those faculties is that their field is noble and commerce is “dirty.” Little do they realize that commerce plays a much more constructive role in society than we are often told. (As you likely know already, being a Future Commerce reader.)
As a true believer in the beauty and future of our industry, I will continue to challenge these schools. By setting aside their pre-conceived notions, they would come to realize that educating their students in commerce would significantly enhance their employability. However, I am also increasingly tempted to explore an alternative to retail design education.
Allow me to share my dream: in the new omnichannel norm, our field requires practitioners to hold even more competencies and collaborate much more closely with other functional teams. Why not envision an educational structure encapsulating training for the entire retail ecosystem? A place where all students would be required to follow a core curriculum covering the “basics” of retail, including that essential critical thinking skill I mentioned above. They would have access to specialty courses in business, management, communication, marketing, product development, branding, web design, UX design, interior design, and other areas that make up the modern retail experience. Students with different professional finalities would learn to cohabit, understand each other’s roles, and collaborate with a shared objective from the very start, effectively recreating the real-life working scenario they will face after their graduation.
It may just be a dream for now, but with the right support, including perhaps from some of you, I hope to see it come to life one day.
Some Final Thoughts
I grew up with dystopian projections of the future, reading 1984, watching the incredible film Brazil, and enjoying the just as moving Pixar work WALL-E. These visions of the future, where human individuality is lost, have always greatly frightened me. And yet it seems we are inching closer every day to them becoming a reality.
I take comfort in seeing how people walking down the street still display their unique identity through physical appearance, especially apparel and accessories. And while social media algorithms sometimes bring us into swirling feeds of sameness, these platforms still create opportunities for users to express their unique individuality.
So why is the retail sector going in the opposite direction? And more importantly, how long do we have before this current direction in retail leads to serious societal impacts? With modes of self-expression diminishing and critical thinking slowly disappearing, are we not coming closer to the reality of “blue is the new red”?
I am thankfully an optimist at heart, so seeing the concerned posts on “Retail LinkedIn” actually reassures me that I am not alone in my feelings of distress. More than anything, that gives me hope that retail still has a bright future ahead: one where innovation does not come at the cost of uniformity.
Together, let’s continue to question and build the retail sector and society we want to live in.
—----
Elisa Servais, PhD., is a retail design expert combining 12+ years of practice in Shanghai, London, and Brussels with 8 years in academia, researching and teaching this specific discipline. Her doctoral thesis aimed to gain a better understanding of valuable in-store experiences, with a special focus on gathering insights to better design these. She currently offers various consultancy services as a means to share her passion, expertise, and call for a more strategy-driven, holistic, omnichannel, collaborative, and inclusive approach to retail design practices with as wide an audience as possible.
Website: elisaservais.com
Continue Reading...
THIS ARTICLE IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY
Insights and futurism for executives in eCom and Retail
Those things we shouldn’t say out loud? We say them on the private feed. Bi-weekly “after dark” podcasts and a members-only newsletter, just for subscribers.
Our research reports combine visionary thinking with data-backed findings from our own advisory panel, made up of leaders at brands you know and trust.
Upskill, cross-skill, and future-proof your teams with Future Commerce Learning, the leading digital eCommerce learning platform, created by professional educators.
