June 20, 2008
Elle Survey: Eight Percent of Women ‘Recession-Proof’
By Tom Ryan
According to a survey commissioned by Elle Magazine, eight percent of all women in the U.S. are “recession proof” shoppers. At the median age of 29, this shopper is affluent with a median household income of $62,000: 65 percent were in the workforce, and only 52 percent worked full-time. Elle states they are passionate shoppers with 57 percent spending over $2,000 or more per year on clothes and 40 percent spending $750 or more per year on accessories and footwear.
The survey was conducted by MRI Interactive based on a national population sample of women aged 18-49.
The majority of these “recession proof shoppers” will splurge on shoes (75 percent), handbags (70 percent), beauty (68 percent), evening/special occasion products (63 percent), jeans (63 percent), jewelry watches (57 percent) and weekend clothes (52 percent) – but not outwear/coats (41 percent) nor workout clothes (18 percent).
Eighty percent are willing to pay more for the latest fashions and 81 percent agree that “price is not the most important factor – it’s getting just what I want.” Also, 79 percent agree “there are times that I buy clothing without even looking at the price.”
For 2008, 53 percent of recession-proof shoppers will spend as much or more than they did in 2007, compared to 34 percent of all other shoppers who will do the same.
About half of the 1,534 women surveyed shop in retail stores to look at, browse or purchase clothes or accessories on a weekly basis.
Discussion Questions: Are “recession proof” shoppers beyond the reach of most mass-market retailers? What must retailers do to attract these consumers and grab a larger share of their shopping dollars?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Well around here $62,000 is considered to be “working poor” and the $750 a year on shoes and accessories might get you something decent at Goodwill. Someone at Elle has no concept of money and the study appears to be flawed. Recession proof? With an income of only $62,000 a year I don’t see any women splurging on anything.
Women in that age group are “shoppers”. They may purchase a designer bag and shoes but will always ferret out the bargains for other items – quality products at good prices. The mass merchants will hold strong with these consumers as long as they execute with good prices, quality and service.
Almost no one is “recession proof.” Even the independently wealthy, living on investment income, react to general economic conditions when those conditions reduce their income and assets.
I don’t find this surprising in any way. I’m one of those shoppers.
It’s been pointed out that Wal-Mart has been winning by keeping to the core (a bit of a simplification; they’ve actually made the prospect of picking up multiple core items in one visit much more appealing and likely), Sam’s on the other hand is focusing on bringing Kirkland-like quality to its premier private label, Member’s Mark, and bringing newness, innovation and the element of surprise into assortments. This is Sam’s deliberate recessionary-and-beyond strategy and no doubt it is meant to draw in more affluent customers…or at least to keep from boring them to tears as many retailers seem to be doing. Check out our blog coverage of Greg Spragg’s presentation in Bentonville yesterday (Sam’s EVP of merchandising). http://www.nmbblog.com
In terms of apparel, the downturn is certainly a factor; however, so is lack of trend and creativity. Design houses and branding firms have been so focused on pumping up the volume on high-margin accessories, handbags and shoes, that apparel has become directionless. An interesting turn to shop H&M, Zara, Mango and the rest, only to find that their current advantage is to get already-weak trends a couple of weeks earlier than everyone else. Yawn!
I think Liatt has it exactly right (in fact, I laughed out loud when I read the comments).
Since when do $2000/year shoppers constitute “big money” when they only represent 8% of the population?
Obviously you go after shoppers who don’t even look at a price tag with unique and interesting products. I suppose if those same shoppers spend a total of $2000 a year, you’re probably Steve and Barry’s and no one has to look at the price tag–it’s $8.98.
Weird indeed.
What a weird article. Why focus on 8% of the population with an average income of $62,000? And what proof is there that they are recession proof? Could it be that these women all read “Elle” and that “Elle” conducted this “research” to draw in more advertisers?
Not sure any consumer is entirely recession-proof…but obviously, Wal-Mart is!
Kudos to them for sticking with their positioning during the “upscaling” of the rest of American retailing over the last 10 years. That’s looking like genius strategy now, when in fact, they just stuck to their guns through thick and thin.
While other brands are paying a price now for over-expanding a niche idea, Wal-Mart has flourished by sticking with what they know works best.
What a strange article. $62,000 in median income? “Splurging” $750 a year on shoes and accessories? THIS is considered a recession proof shopper? Sounds to me more like a “feel good” article in Elle to keep its target market out there, credit cards happily in hand, and its advertisers hopeful.
To be young, have no kids, and a money burning a hole in my pocket. Elle could have written this article about teenage boys and it might have had the exact same impact. There are certain categories of shoppers who don’t quite get the world around them and live for the “now” and without understanding the bigger picture around money and the market environment. I don’t put much stock in articles like these generated out of women’s magazines. They tend to be very short-sighted.
Woman and men of about that age cohort also are the holders of the highest credit card debt in the U.S. Does anyone else see a serious correlation between these recession-proof female shoppers in this age group and high credit card debt? Maybe Elle should do a little cross-tabulating.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Well around here $62,000 is considered to be “working poor” and the $750 a year on shoes and accessories might get you something decent at Goodwill. Someone at Elle has no concept of money and the study appears to be flawed. Recession proof? With an income of only $62,000 a year I don’t see any women splurging on anything.
Women in that age group are “shoppers”. They may purchase a designer bag and shoes but will always ferret out the bargains for other items – quality products at good prices. The mass merchants will hold strong with these consumers as long as they execute with good prices, quality and service.
Almost no one is “recession proof.” Even the independently wealthy, living on investment income, react to general economic conditions when those conditions reduce their income and assets.
I don’t find this surprising in any way. I’m one of those shoppers.
It’s been pointed out that Wal-Mart has been winning by keeping to the core (a bit of a simplification; they’ve actually made the prospect of picking up multiple core items in one visit much more appealing and likely), Sam’s on the other hand is focusing on bringing Kirkland-like quality to its premier private label, Member’s Mark, and bringing newness, innovation and the element of surprise into assortments. This is Sam’s deliberate recessionary-and-beyond strategy and no doubt it is meant to draw in more affluent customers…or at least to keep from boring them to tears as many retailers seem to be doing. Check out our blog coverage of Greg Spragg’s presentation in Bentonville yesterday (Sam’s EVP of merchandising). http://www.nmbblog.com
In terms of apparel, the downturn is certainly a factor; however, so is lack of trend and creativity. Design houses and branding firms have been so focused on pumping up the volume on high-margin accessories, handbags and shoes, that apparel has become directionless. An interesting turn to shop H&M, Zara, Mango and the rest, only to find that their current advantage is to get already-weak trends a couple of weeks earlier than everyone else. Yawn!
I think Liatt has it exactly right (in fact, I laughed out loud when I read the comments).
Since when do $2000/year shoppers constitute “big money” when they only represent 8% of the population?
Obviously you go after shoppers who don’t even look at a price tag with unique and interesting products. I suppose if those same shoppers spend a total of $2000 a year, you’re probably Steve and Barry’s and no one has to look at the price tag–it’s $8.98.
Weird indeed.
What a weird article. Why focus on 8% of the population with an average income of $62,000? And what proof is there that they are recession proof? Could it be that these women all read “Elle” and that “Elle” conducted this “research” to draw in more advertisers?
Not sure any consumer is entirely recession-proof…but obviously, Wal-Mart is!
Kudos to them for sticking with their positioning during the “upscaling” of the rest of American retailing over the last 10 years. That’s looking like genius strategy now, when in fact, they just stuck to their guns through thick and thin.
While other brands are paying a price now for over-expanding a niche idea, Wal-Mart has flourished by sticking with what they know works best.
What a strange article. $62,000 in median income? “Splurging” $750 a year on shoes and accessories? THIS is considered a recession proof shopper? Sounds to me more like a “feel good” article in Elle to keep its target market out there, credit cards happily in hand, and its advertisers hopeful.
To be young, have no kids, and a money burning a hole in my pocket. Elle could have written this article about teenage boys and it might have had the exact same impact. There are certain categories of shoppers who don’t quite get the world around them and live for the “now” and without understanding the bigger picture around money and the market environment. I don’t put much stock in articles like these generated out of women’s magazines. They tend to be very short-sighted.
Woman and men of about that age cohort also are the holders of the highest credit card debt in the U.S. Does anyone else see a serious correlation between these recession-proof female shoppers in this age group and high credit card debt? Maybe Elle should do a little cross-tabulating.