Leadership Strategies

snhembrey

american_eagle.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >Leadership Strategies

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

MarketLine Case Study

American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. Reacting to a need for change

Reference Code: ML00017-015

Publication Date: May 2014

WWW.MARKETLINE.COM

MARKETLINE. THIS PROFILE IS A LICENSED PRODUCT AND IS NOT TO BE PHOTOCOPIED

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

OVERVIEW

Catalyst American Eagle Outfitters (AEO) has long been seen as the go-to for young adults seeking affordable fashion in the US.

However, as the overall apparel retail market has struggled, so too have AEO and its competitors. Revenue growth has

slowed and profits have fallen, both of which have negatively impacted share price. This case study analyzes the

company's recent results, the reasons behind them, compares them to some of AEO's peers, and examines the

company's turnaround strategies.

Summary  American Eagle Outfitters (AEO) is a clothing retailer that designs, markets and sells its own brand of clothing

and accessories. The company's product lines include denim wear, sweaters, fleeces, outerwear, graphic t-

shirts, footwear, personal care products, and accessories. AEO clothing has typically targeted the 15-25 year

old demographic and has long been seen as the go-to for young adults seeking affordable fashion in the US.

However, its fortunes have recently taken a turn for the worse, with revenues, net income, and share price all

seeing decline.

 While AEO has undoubtedly experienced mixed fortunes in terms of revenue and profit in recent years, it is

important to remember that it has remained profitable. In order to better understand the company's

performance, it must be looked at in the context of the US apparel retail market as a whole, as well as the

performance of its closest competitors, namely A&F, Gap, H&M, and Inditex. When AEO's performance is

analyzed in this light, the picture does not appear as gloomy as a cursory glance at the numbers may suggest

and, in some instances, the company has outperformed the market and/or its peers. This, however, suggests

that what really drives AEO's performance is its own strategic decision making, and the company must be wary

of the effect of markdowns, both financially and on its brand image.

 AEO's disappointing 2013 and erratic performance in recent years have caused the company and its

management to undertake some soul searching and acknowledge the need for change. The company has been

forced to take stock, analyze its practices and react. In early 2014, CEO Robert Hanson abruptly left the

company with many observers linking this to the financial results the company was about to announce. AEO has

also outlined plans for store closures and for a more selective approach to store openings, as well as a renewed

focus on its e-commerce operation. Operating in a saturated market has also forced AEO to devise

differentiation strategies revolving around social media engagement and an ethical 'Photoshop-free' advertising

campaign.

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Catalyst ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2

Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

American Eagle Outfitters: shrinking giant .......................................................................................................................... 6

What is American Eagle Outfitters? ................................................................................................................................. 6

American Eagle Outfitters: a brief history ..................................................................................................................... 6

American Eagle Outfitters financial results ...................................................................................................................... 7

American Eagle Outfitters: Financial performance FY2010-2013 .................................................................................... 9

Robert Hanson's turnaround plan brings short-term results ......................................................................................... 9

American Eagle Outfitters: Financial performance FY2014 ........................................................................................... 10

Markdowns reducing profit margins ........................................................................................................................... 10

AEO must target the trend of affordable fashion ........................................................................................................ 10

Not all performance factors are within AEO's control ................................................................................................. 10

AEO's financial results in context ...................................................................................................................................... 12

Menswear and womenswear markets in the United States ........................................................................................... 12

AEO's own strategies are what really drives performance ......................................................................................... 14

AEO compared to its competitors .................................................................................................................................. 14

Supermarkets and discount retailers a growing force .................................................................................................... 16

AEO reacting to need for change ...................................................................................................................................... 18

CEO Robert Hanson resigns ......................................................................................................................................... 18

AEO exits the childrenswear market .............................................................................................................................. 19

Strategic store closures and openings ........................................................................................................................... 19

Renewed focus on e-commerce .................................................................................................................................... 20

Improving brand image .................................................................................................................................................. 20

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 23

AEO must limit markdowns and return the brand to its former glory .............................................................................. 23

Appendix ........................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Sources ......................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Further Reading ............................................................................................................................................................. 25

Ask the analyst .............................................................................................................................................................. 26

About MarketLine .......................................................................................................................................................... 26

Disclaimer ...................................................................................................................................................................... 26

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: American Eagle Outfitters Inc. revenues, net income and growth FY2010-2014 ($m, %) ..................................... 7

Table 2: Wal-Mart & Target apparel revenues and growth, 2011-2013 ($m, %) ............................................................... 17

Table 3: AEO's company operated non-US store portfolio as of February 1, 2014 ........................................................... 19

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: American Eagle Outfitters Flagship store, Times Square, New York City ............................................................ 7

Figure 2: American Eagle Outfitters Inc. revenues and revenue growth FY2010-2014 ($m, %) ......................................... 8

Figure 3: American Eagle Outfitters Inc. net income and net income growth FY2010-2014 ($m, %) .................................. 8

Figure 4: US menswear market revenues and growth 2008-2013 ($bn, %) ...................................................................... 12

Figure 5: US womenswear market revenues and growth 2008-2013 ($bn, %) ................................................................. 13

Figure 6: Growth of AEO's revenues vs. US menswear and womenswear markets, 2008-2013 (%) ............................... 13

Figure 7: Year-on-year revenue growth of AEO and some of its major competitors, 2011-2013 (%) ................................ 15

Figure 8: Year-on-year net income growth of AEO and some of its major competitors, 2011-2013 (%) ........................... 16

Figure 9: Former CEO Robert Hanson .............................................................................................................................. 18

Figure 10: aerie real model ............................................................................................................................................... 21

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS: SHRINKING GIANT American Eagle Outfitters (AEO) is a clothing retailer that designs, markets and sells its own brand of clothing and

accessories. The company's product lines include denim wear, sweaters, fleeces, outerwear, graphic t-shirts, footwear,

personal care products, and accessories. AEO clothing has typically targeted the 15-25 year old demographic and has

long been seen as the go-to for young adults seeking affordable fashion in the US. However, its fortunes have recently

taken a turn for the worse, with revenues, net income, and share price all seeing decline.

What is American Eagle Outfitters? American Eagle Outfitters (AEO) was founded in 1977 and is a clothing retailer that designs, markets and sells its own

brand of clothing and accessories. The company's product line includes denim wear, sweaters, fleece, outerwear,

graphic t-shirts, footwear, personal care products and accessories. These products are sold under American Eagle

Outfitters and aerie brand names. The company has grown rapidly to become a multi-billion dollar business on the New

York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and a leader in the field of youth/young adult fashion.

As of February 1, 2014, the company operated 944 American Eagle Outfitters stores and 122 aerie stand-alone stores.

The company also had 66 franchised stores operated by its franchise partners in 12 countries and the company's online

retail operation ships to 81 countries.

AEO clothing has typically targeted the 15-25 year old demographic and has long been seen as the go-to for young

adults seeking affordable fashion in the US. Operating in this space puts AEO in direct competition with a number of

major apparel retailers such as Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F), Forever 21, Gap, H&M, and Inditex.

American Eagle Outfitters: a brief history

The first AEO store opened at the Twelve Oaks Mall in Novi, Michigan in 1977 and specialized in apparel and

accessories for the great outdoors. It was not until 1990 that the company introduced the private-label merchandise for

which it has since become famous, and it was this move that catapulted AEO to the point that it undertook an IPO and

started floating on the NASDAQ stock exchange in 1994.

1998 saw AEO commence online retail operations using the portal ae.com and, in the following year, it opened its first

flagship store in downtown San Francisco. The dawn of the new millennium signaled something of a growth spurt as

AEO opened its 500 th

store in 2000 and in 2001, saw revenues surpass the $1bn mark. 2001 and 2003 saw AEO open

stores in Canada and Hawaii, its first outlets outside mainland US and, in 2006, the company launched a new brand,

aerie, aimed at women and specializing in underwear.

In the same year, AEO was ranked number one in the US in jeans sales among 15-25 year olds above all other specialty

retailers. Furthermore, according to the company's website, AEO was also named as the number one brand college

students cannot live without in 2006, demonstrating the fashion retailer's success in attracting and retaining its key target

demographic.

In 2007, the company listed on the NYSE and, the following year, it entered the childrenswear market by offering its

newly-established 77kids online. 2009 witnessed the opening of a new four-floor flagship store in Times Square, New

York. The company continued to dominate the youth fashion market, selling a record 4.2 million pairs of jeans during the

back to school period in 2009.

In 2010, the company became a global entity, opening stores in Dubai, Kuwait, Hong Kong, Russia, and China, and also

opened its first dedicated childrenswear store under the 77kids brand its home city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

By this point, AEO had established itself as a major player in the US apparel retail market, capable of competing with the

likes of A&F and Gap, and with serious ambitions of becoming a global player to challenge established giants such as

H&M and Inditex.

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

Figure 1: American Eagle Outfitters Flagship store, Times Square, New York City

SOURCE: Donna Alberico for The New York Times M A R K E T L I N E

American Eagle Outfitters financial results In terms of both revenues and profit, AEO has experienced mixed fortunes in recent years, with growth for the financial

years ended in January 2012 and 2013 being bracketed by falling revenues and net income in FY2011 and FY2014. The

results for FY2014 are of particular concern as they are far from insignificant and follow what seemed to be the success

of CEO Robert Hanson's turnaround strategy. Table 1 shows the company's revenues and net income for the period

2010-2014.

Table 1: American Eagle Outfitters Inc. revenues, net income and growth FY2010-2014 ($m, %)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Revenue ($m) 2,991 2,968 3,120 3,476 3,306

Growth (%) -0.8% 5.1% 11.4% -4.9%

Net Income ($m) 169 141 152 232 83

Growth (%) -16.8% 7.9% 53.0% -64.3%

SOURCE: Company Filings M A R K E T L I N E

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

Figure 2: American Eagle Outfitters Inc. revenues and revenue growth FY2010-2014 ($m, %)

2990.5 2967.6 3120.1

3475.8 3305.8

-0.8%

5.1%

11.4%

-4.9% -6%

-4%

-2%

10%

12%

14%

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

$ m

Revenue ($m) Growth (%)

SOURCE: Company Filings M A R K E T L I N E

Figure 3: American Eagle Outfitters Inc. net income and net income growth FY2010-2014 ($m, %)

169

140.6

151.7

232.1

82.9 -16.8%

7.9%

53.0%

-64.3%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

20%

40%

60%

100

150

200

250

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

$ m

Net Income ($m) Growth (%)

SOURCE: Company Filings M A R K E T L I N E

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

American Eagle Outfitters: Financial performance FY2010-2013 Between FY2010 and FY2013, AEO successfully grew revenues by almost half a billion dollars and net income grew by

37.3% to hit $232.1m. This came in spite of a year-on-year revenue fall of 0.8% in FY2011 and bottom line shrinkage of

16.8% during that same period.

This means that the growth was driven by AEO's performance in FY2012 and FY2013, in particular FY2013. This upturn

in fortune coincided with the appointment of Robert Hanson as company CEO. Hanson had previously held a number of

high-ranking positions at one of AEO's major rivals in the denim wear space, Levi Strauss & Co., the most notable being

that of Executive Vice President and President of Global Levi's from September 2010 to November 27, 2011. Hanson

was brought in and tasked with returning AEO to growth.

Robert Hanson's turnaround plan brings short-term results

Hanson had overseen a period of growth at Levi Strauss & Co. that had seen revenues grow by 8% during his tenure as

Executive Vice President and President of Global Levi's and Randal Konik, an equity analyst at investment bank

Jefferies, described Hanson as heading up a management team that was 'best-in-class' at AEO.

Hanson came in with a clear turnaround strategy that primarily revolved around offering fashion items that were more 'on-

trend'. Hanson felt that AEO's product lines were failing to attract shoppers, which in turn was necessitating heavy

markdowns. Upon assuming the role of CEO, Hanson stated that he felt AEO required sharper styles in store so as to

negate the need for heavy markdowns. Furthermore, by delivering products that meet the needs of fashion conscious

teenagers, AEO would be better able to compete with the likes of A&F (particularly its highly successful Hollister brand)

and fast fashion retailers, such as Inditex's Zara and Forever 21.

Hanson's opinion was that some of AEO's 'store fleet' had become tired and was in need of investment. The company

therefore earmarked significant funds for an overhaul of some of its stores, some of which revolved around the idea of

improving operational efficiency. The most notable example of this was the decision to set aside $250m to invest in new

point-of-sale (POS) and merchandise planning tech. Improvements in these areas are often targeted by apparel retailers

as a way of conveying what is and what is not selling well, as well as reducing inventory. Inditex's Zara chain of stores

excels in this field, going so far as to cease manufacture of unpopular lines.

Realizing the importance of e-commerce in an increasingly omnichannel retail environment, Hanson also placed an

expansion of AEO's online retail operation at the forefront of his plan. The company began construction of a new

distribution center in Hazleton, Pennsylvania to replace the existing site in Warrendale, Pennsylvania, a site which the

company's 2014 10-K describes as 'not physically or geographically capable of supporting the company's long-term

expansion goals.'

Hanson's turnaround plan worked in the short term, as revenue for the financial year ended January 2013 increased

11.4% and net income grew 53% to hit $232.1m. Total comparable sales increased 9% year-on-year, with positive

comparable sales in all quarters of the year.

For the year, AEO brand comparable sales increased 7%, aerie brand sales increased 6%, and AEO Direct increased

25%, with the company attributing this to 'strong merchandise improvements' that 'led to comparable sales growth across

the assortment.' In its 2013 10-K, AEO refers to a growing consumer appeal: 'The strength of our brand, combined with a

more distinct lifestyle point of view, is broadening our customer appeal.'

The company's efforts to change the way it operates also bore fruit in terms of operational efficiency. Lower product

costs, improved markdown rates and better inventory management led to a higher gross margin, as it grew by 330 basis

points to 40.0% (36.7% the previous year). This in turn saw the company's net profit margin increase from 4.9% in

FY2012 to 6.7% in FY2013.

Hanson's turnaround strategy seemed to be bearing fruit and the company spoke boldly of new store openings and

further international expansion, but FY2014 did not deliver the hoped-for, and perhaps expected, results.

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

American Eagle Outfitters: Financial performance FY2014 AEO's revenue growth, increased net income, improved profit margins and clear strategy impressed investors and,

during FY2013, the company's share price rose 41.1% to $20.21. The optimism proved short-lived and, during the course

of the following financial year, the company's share price declined by 28.3%. Although this was better than long-standing

rival A&F (declined 30.8% during the same period), that is hardly a ringing endorsement. The reason for this sharp fall?

Disastrous financial results that saw revenues fall 4.9% and, more importantly, net income plummet 64.3% as the

company returned to a policy of heavy markdowns.

Much of the good work of the previous year was undone in FY2014 as Hanson's turnaround strategy stuttered and

external factors, particularly the freak cold weather in late 2013, took effect. Total comparable sales for the 52 week year

decreased 6% over the corresponding 52 week period in the previous year, with negative comparable sales in all

quarters. AEO Brand comparable sales decreased 7% and sales of the specialist women's aerie brand fell 2%.

Markdowns reducing profit margins

The issue that Hanson had most vowed to fight upon becoming CEO, markdowns, also reared its head. What Konik

refers to as 'a promotional war zone' was in evidence with many retailers seeing increased evidence of consumer

brinksmanship, i.e. consumers waiting for markdowns before purchasing, resulting in a lower gross margin and a

scramble for a share of wallet. AEO's gross margin decreased 630 basis points to 33.7%, compared to 40.0% the

previous year and net income margin fell markedly from 6.7% to 2.5%, an all-time low for AEO. The company attributes

510 basis points of this decline to markdowns, showing the huge impact this trend is having.

While it is true to cite margin erosion as a key cause of net income decline, it is also important to note that the volume of

clothing sold by the company actually decreased too. In its SEC 10-K filing for the financial year ended January 2014, the

company refers to store transactions falling in the 'mid single-digits' and units per transaction falling by 'low single-digits.'

Although the company does not elaborate on this decline, it is evident that the company's issues do not lie solely with

pricing and that there is an immediate need to boost sales volumes by offering 'on-trend' fashion that appeals to the key

young adult market.

AEO must target the trend of affordable fashion

In order to appeal to its target demographic, AEO must prove that it is capable of tapping into changing consumer trends.

The most obvious change in terms of the fashion industry is a diminishing of brand/label importance. Young consumers

with little disposable incomes (such as the students AEO primarily targets) have shown a shift away from brand

consciousness in recent years, eschewing it for fashionableness. Nowhere has this been more evident than in Europe,

where discount clothing retailer Primark has expanded rapidly.

Primark specializes in cheap, fast fashion and operates over 250 stores across Europe. In April 2014, the chain – which

is owned by Associated British Foods – announced a surge in half-year revenues and profits. Revenue for the 24 week

period ended March 1, 2014 for Primark was up 14%, to £2,278m (approximately $3,561m), while a 13.1% increase in

operating margin contributed to a 26% rise in operating profit for the same period (£298m/$465.8m). This clearly shows

that young adults are willing to forego expensive, prestigious labels for cheaper garments provided they are 'on-trend.'

The bad news for AEO and its competitors across the Atlantic is that Primark has announced plans to enter the US

apparel retail market in 2015, starting with an ambitious 70,000 sq. ft. store in Boston, thus expediting the already urgent

need for them to adapt and focus on affordable, on-trend clothing.

Not all performance factors are within AEO's control

In its annual filing, the company also cites weak store traffic in North America during the financial year as a key reason

for its performance. Furthermore, it attributes this, in part, to the freak cold snap in the US during the 2013 holiday

season. According to Marie Polumbo of online investor website The Motley Fool, many retailers struggled during the

period, with foot traffic in retail locations down 15% over November and December.

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

This was partly responsible for some of the heavy discounting seen, as retailers tried everything they could to tempt

shoppers out of the warmth of their homes. A&F even went so far as to discount its entire store inventory by 50% during

select time periods, meaning that each such sale had less of an impact on the company's bottom line.

AEO's store portfolio shows something of a concentration in northern states that were most affected by the weather,

meaning the effect may have been disproportionate. For example, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin alone

account for 130 stores, more than 13% of the company's US total (excluding Puerto Rico), but while this will undoubtedly

have helped to temper a usually busy period, it must not be seen as the root cause of a dismal year.

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

AEO'S FINANCIAL RESULTS IN CONTEXT While AEO has undoubtedly experienced mixed fortunes in terms of revenue and profit in recent years, it is important to

remember that it has remained profitable. In order to better understand the company's performance, it must be looked at

in the context of the US apparel retail market as a whole, as well as the performance of its closest competitors, namely

A&F, Gap, H&M, and Inditex. When AEO's performance is analyzed in this light, the picture does not appear as gloomy

as a cursory glance at the numbers may suggest, and the company in some instances has outperformed the market

and/or its peers. This however, suggests that what really drives AEO's performance is its own strategic decision making,

and the company must be wary of the effect of markdowns, both financially and on its brand image.

Menswear and womenswear markets in the United States For all the talk of heavy discounting and falling volumes in the US apparel retail market, the two sectors in which AEO

operates, menswear and womenswear, have actually seen consistent growth, with the former outperforming the latter in

recent years. Consequently, AEO's revenue growth does not appear to be closely linked to the market's overall

performance but is rather more dependent on the strategic decisions the company's management takes.

Figures 4 and 5 show the recent performance of both the US menswear and womenswear markets according to

MarketLine data.

Figure 4: US menswear market revenues and growth 2008-2013 ($bn, %)

96.4 98.4 101.2

111.1 119.2

126.9

10%

12%

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

$ b n

Revenue ($bn) Growth (%)

SOURCE: MarketLine: Menswear in the United States M A R K E T L I N E

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

Figure 5: US womenswear market revenues and growth 2008-2013 ($bn, %)

159.0 161.7 164.3 174.0

181.4 187.0

100

120

140

160

180

200

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

$ b n

Revenue ($bn) Growth (%)

SOURCE: MarketLine: Womenswear in the United States M A R K E T L I N E

As these figures show, both the US menswear and womenswear markets continued to grow even during the height of the

recession in 2008/2009. Where it has been consistent in terms of uninterrupted revenue growth, AEO has been anything

but, with growth in FY2012 and FY2013 bracketed by decline in FY2011 and FY2014. What is noticeable however, is that

in some of the years in which AEO did record increased sales, it registered a higher increase than the market as whole.

In other years, its growth was lower and, in 2009, AEO saw decline while the menswear and womenswear markets

continued to grow. Figure 6 compares the revenue growth of AEO to that of the US menswear and womenswear markets

between 2008 and 2013.

Figure 6: Growth of AEO's revenues vs. US menswear and womenswear markets, 2008-2013 (%)

10%

15%

20%

25%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Menswear Womenswear AEO revenues

SOURCE: MarketLine, Company filings M A R K E T L I N E

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

Please note that to make this comparison meaningful, AEO's financial years ended January have been used for the

previous year, i.e. January 2014 = 2013 growth as 2013 accounts for 11/12 of that period.

AEO's own strategies are what really drives performance

What Figure 6 shows is that while the fortunes of the menswear and womenswear markets overall do have an impact on

AEO's fortunes, it seems that what AEO does in terms of in-house strategy has a greater bearing. In 2012, Robert

Hanson assumed the role of company CEO and implemented a turnaround strategy that primarily revolved around

offering fashion items that were more 'on-trend', improving operational efficiency, and reducing markdowns. In the short

term, the company was highly successful in these aims, particularly the latter as gross margin grew by 330 basis points

to 40.0% (36.7% the previous year). It is no coincidence that the success of a more 'on-trend' product range with

something of a fast fashion feel came in 2012 when, in terms of growth, AEO easily outperformed the market. In 2013,

when AEO returned to the damaging habit of significant markdowns (gross margin fell 630 basis points to 33.7%), its

growth was lower than that of both the menswear and womenswear markets.

What AEO risks by pursuing a policy of significant markdowns is a devaluation of its brand. By reducing prices to shift

inventory, the company is contributing to consumer brinksmanship as buyers will know there is a sale coming soon. This

sends out a message that the company does not have great faith in its product and pricing. AEO also risks inhabiting the

no-man's land between premium and cheap: if it continues to discount heavily, it will lose brand cachet and a premium

image, but will still not be able to compete with large general merchandisers and supermarkets such as Target and Wal-

Mart. AEO must therefore decide whether it wishes to compete with such retail giants at the low end of the market, or

whether it wishes to retain a more premium image and compete with 'on-trend' youth and fast fashion retailers such as

A&F, Gap, and Inditex.

AEO compared to its competitors A look at AEO's recent results in isolation paints a somewhat gloomy picture with the need for heavy markdowns

negatively impacting both revenue and profits. However, for a truer picture of the company's performance, its results

must be compared to those of its peers. Figures 7 and 8 compare AEO's revenue and net income growth to its closest

competitors and these show that AEO's performance is, with the exception of FY2014, very similar to its peers.

Furthermore, even in FY2014, its performance is actually better than that of A&F. Please note that to make this

comparison meaningful, AEO's financial years ended January have been used for the previous year, i.e. January 2014 =

2013 growth as 2013 accounts for 11/12 of that period.

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

Figure 7: Year-on-year revenue growth of AEO and some of its major competitors, 2011-2013 (%)

-20%

-10%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2011 2012 2013

American Eagle

Abercrombie & Fitch

Gap

H&M

Inditex

SuperGroup

SOURCE: Company filings M A R K E T L I N E

As Figure 7 shows, SuperGroup outperformed the market significantly in 2011 and 2013, but it is important to note that

SuperGroup's revenues are much lower than the other five retailers shown (roughly one sixth of AEO's), meaning that

any noticeable rise in sales will have a greater impact. When compared to what is traditionally seen as its closest

competitor, A&F, AEO's performance does not seem as bad as it perhaps does from a cursory glance at the financial

statements. A&F's growth in 2011 far outstripped that of AEO but, once Hanson's turnaround strategy was implemented

in 2012, performance was similar, with AEO's growth slightly exceeding that of its rival. The two continued to track each

other in 2013 with both seeing falling revenues. This explains why AEO and A&F saw share price drops of 28.3% and

30.8% respectively during the course of 2013.

When compared to the so called 'big-three' of Gap, H&M, and Inditex, AEO's performance also appears better than upon

initial glance. In 2011, only Inditex saw stronger revenue growth and, in 2012, AEO outperformed all of its rivals.

However, as AEO returned to a policy of significant markdowns in 2013, its revenues declined while Gap, H&M, and

Inditex all saw growth.

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

Figure 8: Year-on-year net income growth of AEO and some of its major competitors, 2011-2013 (%)

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

20%

40%

60%

80%

2011 2012 2013

American Eagle

Abercrombie & Fitch

Gap

H&M

Inditex

SuperGroup

SOURCE: Company filings M A R K E T L I N E

As Figure 8 illustrates, an analysis of net income growth paints a similar picture. Only Inditex saw stronger growth in

2011, while AEO was only bested by A&F in 2012. However in 2013, only A&F (77%) saw a bigger fall in net income than

AEO's 64.3% as both companies suffered from the effects of heavy discounting, most notably A&F's '50% off our entire

inventory' sale during holiday season 2013. Interestingly, 2013 saw all of these retailers, with the exception of Gap,

record either decline (AEO, A&F), or growth of less than 2% (H&M, Inditex, SuperGroup). Gap fared much better with net

income growth of 12.8%, but even this represented a significant fall from the 36.3% registered a year earlier.

The erratic growth performance of these leading specialist apparel retailers suggests that they are struggling to come to

terms with cautious consumers, and that their offerings may no longer be quite what the majority of consumers are

seeking. However, with the combined menswear and womenswear market in the US growing by 4.4% in 2013, there is

growth to be gained, thus casting doubt on some of the companies' claims of reduced spending and adverse weather

ruining the market. The question is: who is providing the great threat to these specialist apparel retailers?

Supermarkets and discount retailers a growing force With many of these large, global specialist apparel retailers underperforming the market in 2013, other retailers must be

accounting for growth. In the US, the biggest threat to the likes of AEO, A&F, and Gap is coming from large supermarket

and discount retail chains like Wal-Mart and Target Corporation (Target), both of whom have become significant players

in the US apparel retail market.

In FY2013, 7% of Wal-Mart's revenues were derived from the sale of apparel, while at Target, it was 19%. Interestingly,

these percentages have remained unchained in 2011, 2012 and 2013, but as both these companies have increased

overall revenues over that period, their apparel businesses are growing.

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

Table 2: Wal-Mart & Target apparel revenues and growth, 2011-2013 ($m, %)

2011 2012 2013

Wal-Mart 31,039.12 32,592.28 33,115.32

Growth

5.0% 1.6%

Target 13,008.54 13,672.40 13,793.24

Growth

5.1% 0.9%

SOURCE: Company filings M A R K E T L I N E

Even these players saw a slowing of the growth in apparel sales in 2013, but their performance is broadly in line with that

of most of the major apparel players and significantly better than that of AEO. The sheer size of the revenues generated

from apparel sales by these companies (Wal-Mart's is over 10 time greater than AEO's total revenue) show that they are

serious players in the market.

Where these companies have excelled is in tapping into changing customer trends and sentiment. Cost-conscious

shoppers have become less concerned about labels and more interested in fashionable, affordable clothes and the likes

of Wal-Mart and Target have succeeded in satisfying this need.

Target in particular stocks a mix of well-known brands, such as Converse, Dickies, and Levi's, and its own exclusive

Target labels like Merona and Mossimo. These are all competitively priced as Target leverages its significant buyer

power. Wal-Mart does offer some well-known brands like Fruit of the Loom and Wrangler, but also has a significant

number of own brands including George, Faded Glory (basic menswear and womenswear and Wal-Mart's primary

clothing brand), No Boundaries (affordable fashion aimed at AEO's core teenage market), and Simply Basic (women's

casualwear).

A quick look at Wal-Mart's offering reveals the problem faced by the likes of AEO. A quick search conducted on the

supermarket chain's e-commerce site for the No Boundaries brand reveals 239 items priced between $0 and $20, and

only one No Boundaries brand product (a 2 pack skinny cargo pants) priced over $20 ($24). Wal-Mart is the world's

largest company by revenue and so exercises a great deal of buyer power over suppliers that allows it to remain

profitable even while charging such low prices. Furthermore, the likes of Wal-Mart and Target have a whole host of other

product lines they can use to make profit and can therefore, in theory, even afford to use apparel as a loss leader. AEO

cannot and, as the effects of heavy markdowns show, AEO must not try to compete in this space as it simply does not

enjoy the economies of scale that these larger, more diverse retailers do. If it does attempt to occupy this discount space

of the market, it is highly likely to fail in the long term.

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

AEO REACTING TO NEED FOR CHANGE AEO's disappointing 2013 and erratic performance in recent years have caused the company and its management to

undertake some soul searching and acknowledge the need for change. The company has been forced to take stock,

analyze its practices and react. In early 2014, CEO Robert Hanson abruptly left the company with many observers linking

this to the financial results the company was about to announce. AEO has also outlined plans for store closures and for a

more selective approach to store openings, as well as a renewed focus on its e-commerce operation. Operating in a

saturated market has also forced AEO to devise differentiation strategies revolving around social media engagement and

an ethical Photoshop-free' advertising campaign.

CEO Robert Hanson resigns On January 22, 2014, AEO announced that CEO Robert Hanson had left the company with immediate effect after only

two years in the role. It came as something of a surprise, as Hanson had been described as part of a 'best in class'

management team, and his turnaround strategy had initially borne fruit during 2012 as AEO greatly improved operational

efficiency and significantly reduced the number of markdowns. Despite a disappointing 2013, Hanson had been expected

to remain in the role so his departure took the markets by surprise. Upon announcement of the news, and the fact that

former CEO Jay Schottenstein would succeed him on an interim basis, AEO's stock fell 4%.

AEO has remained tight-lipped on the reasons for Hanson's departure, causing some observers to theorize that he was

effectively sacked. However, with no clear evidence to corroborate this view, Hanson's leaving must be seen as a shock

resignation following a challenging fiscal year.

AEO must react swiftly and effectively in naming a permanent replacement, and finding the right man for the job is

crucial. While Schottenstein is seen as a safe, experienced hand, he is not believed to be a long-term solution. AEO must

ensure that the next CEO remains in the position for a long enough length of time to make a difference to the company's

direction. If it does not, and it lurches from one shot-term solution to another, it will cause concern among analysts and

investors and create the impression of a company with a scattergun approach to business and no clear, coherent

strategy. This is an impression that must be avoided at all costs.

Figure 9: Former CEO Robert Hanson

SOURCE: Pittsburgh Business Times M A R K E T L I N E

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

AEO exits the childrenswear market AEO first entered the lucrative childrenswear market in 2008 when it launched 77kids with a view to improving its

merchandise mix. 77kids was initially an online-only concept but, in July 2010, the first dedicated 77kids store opened in

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The company continued to expand the 77kids concept and, by mid-2012, there were 21 stores

in the US. In the company's SEC 10-K filing for the financial year ended January 2012, it discusses plans to open at least

one new 77kids store in the coming year.

However, the opposite happened, and AEO announced plans to close or sell the entire 77kids store portfolio in May

2012. The concept had failed to take off in the way the company’s management had hoped and, in FY2012, it recorded a

net loss of $24m on just $40m of sales. Hanson, still CEO at the time, decided the venture was therefore unviable and, in

what was a key part of the drive for greater operational efficiency, sold the chain to Ezra Dabah, former CEO of the

Children's Place.

Strategic store closures and openings In a bid to combat the fall in operational efficiency (as evidenced by a big slide in gross and net margins during 2013),

AEO has implemented a strategy of store viability assessment. The management has looked at the company's AEO and

aerie store portfolios and identified stores it feels are no longer aligned to the company’s strategic goals. In its most

recent 10-K filing, AEO announced plans to close 15-20 AEO stores and 25-30 aerie stores over the course of 2014.

The cut back on aerie stores has actually been in progress for a couple of years and is part of a drive for a more

balanced merchandise mix, as well as improved profit margins. In January 2011, there were 158 aerie stores but, by

January 2014, this had shrunk to 122. If AEO follows through with its plan, this could be as low as 92 by January 2015.

It would be wrong, however, to assume that, in a bid to improve profitability, the company is going on a store closure

spree. According to the most recent 10-K, AEO's retail square footage will actually grow in 2014 as the company shifts its

attention to a new store format, namely the larger 'factory store' format which it says is 'among our most productive

format.' So, in some locations, closed stores will be replaced by this newer format and, with 25 such openings planned,

the number of AEO branded stores is projected to actually grow in 2014.

One of the major issues AEO has encountered in the US is market saturation. The US apparel retail market has a whole

host of established players such as AEO, A&F, Forever 21, Gap, JCrew, and Urban Outfitters, as well as global giants

such as H&M and Inditex. With UK e-commerce sensation ASOS now offering free delivery to the US within six working

days, Amazon stocking significant apparel lines, and Wal-Mart and Target on the scene, the market is highly competitive.

This has been a key contributor to the need to discount heavily that has damaged profits so much.

This is a problematic issue for AEO, which derived 89% of its revenue from its home market in FY2014. In order to the

combat this, AEO is broadening its horizons and looking beyond US borders.

Table 3: AEO's company operated non-US store portfolio as of February 1, 2014

Country/Territory No. of stores

Canada 96

Mexico 6

Puerto Rico 6

China 4

Hong Kong 3

Total 115

SOURCE: Company filings M A R K E T L I N E

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

While AEO does currently operate over 100 stores outside of the US, as well as having 66 franchised stores operated by

its franchise partners in 12 countries, the company still exhibits a huge over-reliance on North America. Furthermore, the

fact that the US still accounted for 89% of all revenues in FY2014 (it accounted for 90% in FY2012), suggests that AEO

has so far failed to build a truly global business. Its announced plans to push further into Asia and Mexico, as well as

enter a new market in the shape of the UK (where A&F's Hollister brand has enjoyed particular success) is therefore

welcome news to investors.

Renewed focus on e-commerce e-commerce has become a global a global phenomenon and apparel retail has not escaped the convenience craze.

According to MarketLine data, online sales of apparel, accessories and footwear in the US reached $18.5bn in 2012,

accounting for 9.2% of the total online retail market. This has led to apparel retailers establishing and continuously

investing in state-of-the-art e-commerce platforms.

AEO's e-commerce operations comprise ae.com and aerie.com, both of which are what the company describes as

'online extensions of the lifestyle that we convey in our stores.' Online retail is one area in which AEO is performing well,

although it should be noted that significant growth in this space is part of a wider industry trend.

According to Forbes, AEO's online sales increased by 24% in Q1 2013, by 11% in Q2 and by 17% in Q3 and although

the company does not break down revenue by distribution channel, there is no doubt that its e-commerce operation is

experiencing significant growth. This is crucial in a market in which people are increasingly moving towards purchasing

online. According to Forbes, A&F now derives approximately 25% of its total revenues from online sales, and Urban

Outfitters 8%. If AEO is to compete with these rivals, it must target online sales. The company's strategy to invest heavily

in e-commerce and distribution capabilities is therefore prudent.

The company has particularly targeted its distribution facilities and invested significantly in improving on what it describes

as 'not physically or geographically capable of supporting the company's long-term expansion goals.' AEO will open a

new 1,000,000 sq. ft. omnichannel distribution center in Hazleton, Pennsylvania in July 2014, and phase out its

distribution center in Warrendale, Pennsylvania in 2015. Furthermore, AEO is rolling out a 'Buy Online Ship from Store'

program which will give stores order fulfilment capabilities and allow for faster deliveries as customers in, say, California,

can have an order sent from a local store rather than wait for it to be dispatched from the central distribution center

almost 3,000 miles away.

Improving brand image One of AEO's key challenges is to improve its brand image and somehow differentiate itself from the plethora of

competitors. Heavy discounting in recent years has negatively altered consumer perception of the brand, and AEO has

lost market share to brands seen as more youthful and trendy, most notably Forever 21. The company must therefore re-

establish itself as the go-to brand for fashion-conscious youths.

In a bid to do so, AEO has upped its social media presence and has been successful in driving consumer engagement.

AEO's Facebook page has 9.6 million likes, which is more than A&F, Gap, and Forever 21. At the time of writing, 57,586

people were talking about the page and over 240,000 had checked in as having been there – showing that not only has

the page amassed a large number of likes, but that those people are also actively engaging with it. When it comes to

Twitter, the company's @aeo account lags behind its competitors with 295,000 followers (for example A&F has 516,000)

but this number is increasing all the time. AEO's Instagram account is also approaching half a million followers

(approximately 448,000) showing that the brand is finding some success with engaging a young audience that puts social

media at the forefront of its social life.

In order to differentiate itself from the raft of specialist and non-specialist apparel retailers, AEO has pursued a marketing

campaign aimed at positioning it as more ethical than the competition. The use of size 0 models, as well as photo

retouching, has been heavily criticized in recent years and cited as a reason for many youngsters, particularly girls,

suffering from negative body image and even eating disorders.

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

While it is virtually impossible to prove the link between clothing marketing campaigns and these issues, it has

nevertheless been a controversial issue, and designers and retailers have found themselves under increasing pressure

to act.

This pressure intensified in May 2013, when comments made by A&F CEO Mike Jeffries to Salon magazine resurfaced.

In an interview, Jeffries stated: 'That’s why we hire good-looking people in our stores. Because good-looking people

attract other good-looking people, and we want to market to cool, good-looking people. We don’t market to anyone other

than that.'

These comments attracted a great deal of criticism as detractors pointed out a lack of A&F clothing for larger females

and, just eight months later, AEO announced a marketing campaign for its aerie brand that eschews the now ubiquitous

use of Photoshop, and uses models with breast sizes that represent the range. The campaign is a clear attempt by AEO

to distance itself from the likes of A&F and to show that is a more ethically sound company that cares about social

issues.

The company states that the campaign, called aerie real and launched in January 2014, is an effort to promote more

realistic body images for teens. Aerie models are pictured complete with dimples, tattoos, stretch marks and other

perceived 'imperfections' in what is a highly unusual move and one which can be seen as a direct response to the

renewed furor surrounding Jeffries' comments, and a strategy aimed at setting AEO apart from the competition.

Figure 10: aerie real model

SOURCE: aerie M A R K E T L I N E

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

AEO has promoted the campaign on social media sites using the hashtag #aeriereal and its aerie site states in large,

upper case font 'THE GIRLS IN THESE PHOTOS HAVE NOT BEEN RETOUCHED' as the company looks to spread a

'we use real models that represent you' message.

While AEO sees this is an ethical differentiator, others are less impressed, claiming it does not represent 'what girls really

look like.' Nina Ippolito of online current affairs website PolicyMic is scathing in her assessment stating: 'Unfortunately,

the resulting marketing campaign — while a tiny shuffle in the right direction — represents meager progress at best. At

worst, it's a calculated attempt to use the idea of body positivity for the sole purpose of selling teal and pink panties

printed with the phrases "spring breaker" and "true love." She is not alone in this view but even these ardent critics do

acknowledge that it represents a step in the right direction and that 'to be fair, photos from the American Eagle campaign,

which can be seen above, do seem slightly less airbrushed than the majority of their retail-ad counterparts: Models'

stomachs have depth and their skin has texture. Necks and abdomens haven't been hollowed out.'

While AEO has some way to go to convince some of its ethical marketing credentials, it certainly represents a step in the

right direction and one which its rivals have not taken. This gives AEO a platform it can build on as it looks to differentiate

itself in a congested marketplace and, if the company can take this a step further (plus size models perhaps), it may be

able to attract a customer base keen to rebel against unrealistic pressures created by the 'Photoshop culture'.

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

CONCLUSIONS

AEO must limit markdowns and return the brand to its former glory Since its inception in 1977, AEO has worked to establish itself as leading, go-to brand for fashion-conscious 15-25 year

olds looking for affordable but on-trend fashion. The company has enjoyed a great deal of success in its aim, turning

itself into a multi-billion dollar business and being named the number one brand college students cannot live without in

2006.

However, in recent years, the company has faltered as it has moved away from the fundamentals that made it successful

as it has attempted to compete in an increasingly crowded marketplace. The US apparel retail market has a whole host

of established players such as AEO, A&F, Forever 21, Gap, JCrew, and Urban Outfitters, as well as global giants such

as H&M and Inditex. With UK e-commerce sensation ASOS now offering free delivery to the US within six working days,

Amazon stocking significant apparel lines, and Wal-Mart and Target on the scene, the market is more serviced than ever.

In a bid to remain competitive in such a market, many retailers, AEO included, have resorted to significant markdowns as

they look to entice a frugal public into parting with its cash. In AEO's case, this has had a negative impact. Although

revenues and profits have continued to grow for the most part, the rate of growth has slowed and in the most recent

financial year, things took a turn for the worse.

In the 12 month period ended January 2014, revenues fell by 4.9% while net income plummeted 64.3% as the effect of

significant markdowns took hold. During that period, AEO's gross margin decreased 630 basis points to 33.7% and its

net income margin fell markedly from 6.7% to 2.5%, an all-time low. The company attributes 510 basis points of the gross

margin decline to markdowns, showing the huge impact this trend is having.

What AEO risks by pursuing a policy of significant markdowns is a devaluation of its brand. By reducing prices to shift

inventory, the company is contributing to consumer brinksmanship as buyers will know there is a sale coming soon and it

sends out a message that the company does not have great faith in its product and pricing. Furthermore, AEO risks

inhabiting the no-man's land between premium and cheap. If it continues to discount heavily, it will lose brand cachet and

a premium image, but will still not be able to compete with large general merchandisers and supermarkets such as

Target and Wal-Mart. AEO must therefore decide where on the apparel spectrum it wishes to position itself and a more

premium image would be a better option than trying to compete with discount retailers and supermarket chains that enjoy

much greater buyer power over suppliers.

A premium brand will make AEO desirable to youths again and reduce the need for the markdowns that have wreaked

havoc with its profit margins.

In a bid to rebuild its damaged brand image, AEO has upped its social media presence and has been successful in

driving consumer engagement through these channels, showing that the brand is finding some success with engaging a

young audience that puts social media at the forefront of its social life. AEO has also sought to disassociate itself from

the highly criticized 'beautiful people' only image surrounding the clothing industry. AEO has pursued a marketing

campaign that does not retouch images of models and which uses models that it feels reflect its consumer base. This is

aimed at positioning it as more ethical than the competition and although AEO still has some way to go to convince some

of its ethical marketing credentials, it certainly represents a step in the right direction and one which its rivals have not

taken. This gives AEO a platform it can build on as it looks to differentiate itself in a congested marketplace.

When AEO briefly stepped away from a policy of significant markdowns in 2012, its profit margins increased noticeably. If

it is able to restore cachet to its brand by making both the name and the product desirable, it can shun heavy d iscounting

on a more permanent basis, and it is this that should see both its brand image and profits soar.

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

APPENDIX

Definitions Markdown – a reduction in price

Plus size model – a model that wears plus size clothing, where plus size is typically defined as larger than size 12 in

the US

Sources An Eagle That Carefully Plucks Its Feathers, The New York Times, February 3, 2010

www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/fashion/04CRITIC.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. – SEC Filings 10-K 2010-2014

http://investors.ae.com/financial-reporting/annual-report-10-K/default.aspx

Urban Outfitters And American Eagle Top Retail Picks For 2014, Jefferies Says, Maggie McGrath, Forbes, Jan 2, 2014

www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2014/01/02/urban-outfitters-and-american-eagle-top-retail-picks-for-2014-jefferies-

says/

American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. – MarketLine Company Profile

Primark Sees Profit Up 26% In Last Six Months, Sky News, April 23, 2014

http://news.sky.com/story/1247487/primark-sees-profit-up-26-percent-in-last-six-months

American Eagle can't fly in a tough retail environment, The Motley Fool, April 23, 2014

www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/04/23/american-eagle-cant-fly-in-a-tough-retail-environm.aspx

Menswear in the United States – MarketLine Industry Profile

Womenswear in the United States – MarketLine Industry Profile

Abercrombie & Fitch – SEC Filings 10-K 2011-2013

Gap, Inc – SEC Filings 10-K 2011-2013

H&M – Annual Reports 2011-2013

Inditex – Annual Reports 2011 & 2012

Inditex Financial Data

www.inditex.com/en/investors/investors_relations/financial_data

SuperGroup plc – Annual Reports 2011-2013

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. – Annual Report 2013

Target Corporation – SEC Filing 10-K 2013

American Eagle CEO Robert Hanson Resigns, Matthew Rocco, Fox Business, January 22, 2014

www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2014/01/22/american-eagle-ceo-robert-hanson-resigns/

American Eagle Outfitters' Omni Channel Initiatives Should Help It Remain Competitive, Forbes, February 28, 2014

www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/02/28/american-eagle-outfitters-omni-channel-initiatives-should-help-it-

remain-competitive/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/fashion/04CRITIC.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://investors.ae.com/financial-reporting/annual-report-10-K/default.aspx

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2014/01/02/urban-outfitters-and-american-eagle-top-retail-picks-for-2014-jefferies-says/

http://news.sky.com/story/1247487/primark-sees-profit-up-26-percent-in-last-six-months

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/04/23/american-eagle-cant-fly-in-a-tough-retail-environm.aspx

http://www.inditex.com/en/investors/investors_relations/financial_data

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2014/01/22/american-eagle-ceo-robert-hanson-resigns/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/02/28/american-eagle-outfitters-omni-channel-initiatives-should-help-it-remain-competitive/

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

The man behind Abercrombie & Fitch, Salon, January 24, 2006

www.salon.com/2006/01/24/jeffries/

American Eagle Won't Photoshop Models. But This Isn't "What Girls Really Look Like." PolicyMic, January 21, 2014

www.policymic.com/articles/79647/american-eagle-won-t-photoshop-models-but-this-isn-t-what-girls-really-look-like

Further Reading American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. – MarketLine Company Profile

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. – MarketLine Company Profile

The Gap, Inc. – MarketLine Company Profile

H & M Hennes & Mauritz AB - MarketLine Company Profile

Industria de Diseno Textil, S.A. – MarketLine Company Profile

H&M Hennes & Mauritz: Collaboration with designers – MarketLine Case Study

Inditex: Global fashion powerhouse – MarketLine Case Study

Supermarket fashion: a growing phenomenon – MarketLine Case Study

Menswear in the United States – MarketLine Industry Profile

Womenswear in the United States – MarketLine Industry Profile

Apparel Retail in the United States – MarketLine Industry Profile

http://www.salon.com/2006/01/24/jeffries/

http://www.policymic.com/articles/79647/american-eagle-won-t-photoshop-models-but-this-isn-t-what-girls-really-look-like

American Eagle Outfitters Inc. Case Study ML00017-015/Published 05/2014

Ask the analyst We hope that the data and analysis in this brief will help you make informed and imaginative business decisions. If you

have any questions or further requirements, MarketLine's research team may be able to help you. The MarketLine

Research team can be contacted at [email protected].

About MarketLine At MarketLine, we deliver accurate, up-to-date insights on over 30,000 companies, 300 industries, and 215 countries, as

well as the latest news and financial deal information from within your market and across the globe.

Established in 1997 when the Internet was in its infancy, we recognized the need for a convenient and reliable data

service to help our clients understand local and global markets and the companies operating within them.

In today’s information-rich world, sifting fact from fiction to pick out what’s relevant and what’s up to date has become the

new ‘holy grail’ in business information provision.

Our 170 dedicated research professionals aggregate, analyze, and cross-check facts in line with our strict research

methodology, ensuring a constant stream of new and accurate information is added to MarketLine every day.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means,

electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, MarketLine.

The facts of this report are believed to be correct at the time of publication but cannot be guaranteed. Please note that

the findings, conclusions and recommendations that MarketLine delivers will be based on information gathered in good

faith from both primary and secondary sources, whose accuracy we are not always in a position to guarantee. As such

MarketLine can accept no liability whatever for actions taken based on any information that may subsequently prove to

be incorrect.

mailto:[email protected]

Copyright of American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. - Reacting to a Need for Change is the property of MarketLine, a Datamonitor business and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.