Motley Fool Money - A Denim Moat

Episode Date: March 21, 2024

Getting into the jeans business is harder than it may seem. (00:13) David Meier and Deidre Woollard discuss: - Chewy’s customer growth problem. - If Chewy is the future of veterinary care. - The picks and shovels play behind sports betting. (14:42) Mary Long interviews Lauren Sherman, fashion reporter for Puck on two retailers looking for a turnaround. Companies discussed: CHWY, SRAD, GES, GAP Claim your Epic discount: www.fool.com/epic Host: Deidre Woollard Guests: David Meier, Mary Long, Lauren Sherman Producer: Ricky Mulvey Engineers: Rick Engdahl, Tim Sparks Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Indeed. Stop waiting around for the perfect candidate. Instead, use Indeed sponsored jobs to find the right people with the right skills fast. It's a simple way to make sure your listing is the first candidate C. According to Indeed data, sponsor jobs have four times more applicants than non-sponsored jobs. So go build your dream team today with Indeed. Get a $75 sponsor job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply.

Let the March madness begin. Motley Full Money starts now. Welcome to Motley Full Money. I'm Deidre Willard here with Motley Fool analyst, David Meyer. David, how's your Thursday going? It's going great. How's yours? Pretty good.

Well, I wanted to dive in first and talk about Chewy. You know, this company is interesting. We're talking about it before we got started recording because we've seen this stallout in customer growth. And they're telling us it's we're going to be there. through at least the end of this year and next year. I mean, you've got this growth in sales per customer. People love their pets, right?

They're spending on them. Total sales per person, they're at $555 a year. So that's up nearly 13%. So that's awesome. But this customer growth thing, how worried should we be about it? So clearly you should be worried. You'd never want to see, you know, above the top line metrics sort of stall out. But I think a little context is going to be important.

here. During the pandemic, there was a pet boom. And I think there's been a little bit of a, quote-unquote, bust, if you will. We still have the pets, though. We still have pets, but I, you know, anecdotally, you know, shelters are unfortunately seeing a rise in the number of animals that are coming in, whereas shelters had no animals at one point, at least in, you know, around in my areas. So there's a little bit of that mix going on and a little bit of, you know, economic uncertainty, okay, I get that from management. But I think, you know, I think we have to work through that boom, if you will, get past that and get on a more normal trajectory. But as you said, people who have pets still spend money on their pets for a variety of reasons. And, you know,

when we look at some of the profitability metrics, management is still focused on, yes, making sure that they take care of the current pet owners, but also making sure that their business is more efficient, generating a little bit higher profit margins, generating a little more cash flow, which is a good thing. Well, and the authorship numbers, you know, I always look at that with Chui because it's so impressive, up 8% in the quarter, up nearly 15% for the year. I mean, it's amazing. And 85% of the business is non-discretionary.

So, you know, we're not going to stop feeding our pets. But is there competition with Amazon, Walmart, others that might offer something cheaper? And if we get toward a place where people are really watching their wallets, is that a concern? Yes, to all of that. Yeah. I mean, first of all, right, the technologies available and the infrastructure in place for a wide variety of businesses, right, to get product to people quickly, efficiently, that's going to benefit the consumer. We get it in the form of lower prices and faster delivery times, and everybody, especially the Amazon's and Walmart's of the world, they have the ability to do that.

But to your other point, there is some brand loyalty with Chewy. Look, I have a nice big porch in front of my house, and I'm doing my part. There are Chewy boxes on my porch and my neighbor's porch and my other neighbor's porch all the time. So I don't think it's necessarily just price. I think there's something more to it. And so far, you know, Chewy's been able to use that to their advantage. But obviously, they got to keep working because the competition is not going to slow down. Well, that loyalty aspect is interesting. I mean, one of the things we always talk about is like, you know, they send you flowers. If your pet dies, they do all these little things, which is awesome. And they've been able to keep that even as they scaled.

but I wonder how that translates to their big news. So, you know, a few quarters ago the news was we're going international, we're going to Canada, and they're there, and that's going. But now their big news is Chewy Vet Care. So planning to open four to eight clinics this year. First one, I think, is going to be near their HQ in Florida. And they say this adds a total addressable market of $25 billion, which is very substantial. I don't know, though.

I'm a little skeptical here. I'm pretty loyal to the vet that I use. If they became a Chewy vet, I'd probably still go there. I don't think that's happening anytime soon. But I'm thinking about this move because it kind of reminds me of what we're seeing in person care, right? Like CVS has the Minute Clinic that you can get, you know, Walmart is doing this, Walgreens is doing this. Everybody's, you know, Kroger's doing it. Everybody's putting a clinic in the stores.

This is similar and yet different because Chewy doesn't do physical retail. Yes. So, I agree. It's similar, but not quite the same. And the way I might look at this is, I compare it to something that I'm seeing in the dentist market, which my daughter and her husband are both dentists. And one of the things that she worries about it as a dentist and he worries about it as a dentist is, how can I practice without necessarily owning a practice? There's, there's huge. huge challenges to be able to do that. So, if Chui can provide, let's say, the space and some of the infrastructure to a vet with that who doesn't have to take on the additional risk of actually owning and operating a practice in terms of the financial risk of these things can be expensive, right? It could provide some incremental benefit to Chui as well as perhaps make more vets available

which also, if they're at a good price point, as well as taking advantage of the Chewy brand, maybe you get incrementally additional pet visits to a vet where you can use Chewy's infrastructure in order to get the things that you need from them. So I think I can make the case that it's good, but I can see where, you know, exactly where you're coming from, where this is out of your experience level, right? This is not necessarily what you're good at. The good thing is I see single-digit openings. This doesn't seem like a big thing.

We're going to roll out a multi-hundred of these in a year. No, we're going to try, we're going to see how it goes, and we'll adjust accordingly. So that should control some of the risk from a financial standpoint. help them get maybe a cheap way to get some data to figure out, is this viable? Yeah. Well, you've sort of convinced me there because I'm like, wait a second. That could be almost like a franchise model. But yeah, I'm glad it's a small test because, but I'm also wondering if this is just they had to do something, right? I mean, there's only so much time that you can talk about like, hey, we're cutting costs. We've got efficiencies and we have

no customer growth. So you sort of have to have something else that shows that there's a plan. I would say there's probably a little more emphasis on that in terms of, hey, they're certainly feeling the pinch of the above the top line metrics not going well. But I would also hope that from a corporate evaluation standpoint, that they've run some numbers. And this is not a, this is an adjacent for them, right? This is not a coming out of left field type event. So I agree this seems different, but again, within their sphere of influence, not a big test, not going to cost them too much. And the other thing that I thought was interesting that they mentioned was they've already staffed it.

There's people who want to do this. And so hopefully that could be a good sign. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Well, I want to move on, David, I know you're a sports guy, and you happen to be wearing a shirt today that is cluing me into the baby that you're a March Madness guy. But we're getting ready for the playoffs. You know, we've got NBA, NHL wrapping up March Madness. It starts today.

This feels like the perfect time to talk about sports radar, which you've covered. And it also reported yesterday. I'm not really familiar with this one. But I looked at the presentation and the third year of over 20% top line growth, that stood out to me. I'm like, huh. So it sounds to me like it's a picks and shovels play for sports betting. Is that what it is? Spot on, as usual.

So Sport Radar is a Swiss-based company. And what it does is it licenses data packages from sports leagues around the world. So when I say around the world, I literally be. around the world, like cricket leagues in India and soccer leagues in South America, sports leagues in the United States. Wherever there's a sport, they want to be licensing data from the leagues. And what they do with that is transform that into betting opportunities. So they have a lot of experience.

Carlston Curle has been doing this for a long time. He's this founder and CEO. And they sell those betting opportunities to sports betting outfits around the world, like bookies in the UK, Draft Kings, Flutter, Fandul, things like that, as well as to media sites, content sites. So, CBS Sports, Facebook, wherever they think someone is going to want to interact and see a bet, they want to want to be there. But one of the other things that's happening is many leagues are trying to change the way that a non-in-person fan, what their experience is with a game. They have lots of technology development in terms of enhancing the viewing experience along with your

opportunity to make a bet before the game, a bet during the game, all these different things. And lastly, it's kind of a little bit maybe backwards to say this, but it's actually the United States, that's the emerging market here. As states are beginning to open up their sports betting opportunities, there's actually a considerable runway of growth in the United States. Yeah. Yeah, the amount of partnerships is pretty amazing. So they've got 800 betting operators, 400 sports leagues and federations, 900 media partners.

and I was surprised to find out that tennis is the number one or number two betting sport worldwide, which I found was really fascinating. NBA is number one here in the States. But this just seems the scope here is massive. Yes, it is. Almost 80% of their revenue comes from outside of the United States in probably a sport that, you know, not many people have seen, you know, cricket as an example. Well, so I want to go back to what you said about the changing the watching.

experience, because I've started to notice this a little bit in things that I've been paying attention to. You start to see more probability and, you know, AI is being layered in here. So it seems like this is, this is really changing how we see the game. Is there a place where this maybe gets to be too much? Like how much, you know, how many stats do we really need to see it? Is this going to, is this going to change the, I mean, I know why they're doing it so that we want to bet on every little thing, but is there a saturation point here? If there is, we haven't found it yet. That seems to be, because all the, again, all these creative ways of taking the data,

analyzing it, and turning it into a betting opportunity, there's still incredible demand for it. Where I think you probably have the most risk is actually the regulatory frameworks that each individual state is creating. So, what that means, what that might mean is if a state legislature can't figure out how they want to regulate it, that could delay the opening of a state to accept sports betting. They could also write where the taxation of the revenue might be too onerous and could prevent a state from, you know, prevent that as an opportunity for sport radar to get another revenue source. So I don't think we've hit the betting experience saturation point yet, but we'll find out because there's still plenty of demand out there. So did you fill out of bracket this year? I did. We have a little in-family bracket. Did you? I haven't. It's probably too late already.

Yeah, I think the first game started at one. Yeah. Well, thank you for your time today, David. Thank you, Deidre. We talk about a lot of stocks on the show, but it's just a peek at the Motley Fool's investing universe. This year, we're rolling out a new offering. It's called Epic Bundle. The service includes seven stock recommendations every month, model portfolios, and stock rankings, all based on your investor type. We're offering Epic bundle to Motley Fool Money listeners at a reduced rate.

As a thanks for listening to the show. So, for more information, head to Fool.com slash Epic. We'll also include a link in the show notes for you. Yesterday, we played the first part of my colleague Mary Long's conversation with Lauren Sherman, a fashion reporter for Puck. They discussed the incredible turnaround at Abercrombie and Fitch. Today, they look at two other retailers seeking a turnaround, and one that might be too big to succeed. Quick note, this conversation was recorded before guests reported its quarterly earnings.

So let's pivot to talk about some other fashion brands quickly that are maybe hoping for similar successes as Abercrombie's had recently. Yeah. Guess, which I was trying to think of a way to describe it. Like, is it entry-level luxury-type brand? But they acquired, in February, they acquired Rag and Bone, or announced their intention to acquire Rag and Bone. Can you kind of give us a peek behind the curtain of this deal, walk through maybe why it makes sense for Guess?

Yeah. So what I had heard previous, and I reported this, what I had heard a few months earlier was that Guess was in the middle least trying to raise funds to do a take private. Because like Abercrombie is an exception. The stock market is not kind to retail stocks, especially the last few years. And so they were trying to go private. And the pitch in the fundraising was that they were going to buy Rag and Bone, which has been owned by some private investors and a private equity fund for like the last 10 years. It's still pretty popular, but really reliant.

on and is heavy on denim. And it's interesting, obviously the through line with all these brands is that their success and their failures both come from being mostly denim brands. And so Ragamone's still a go-to for a lot of men, but it's not as relevant as it once was. And also, they're really relying on the off-price market. So they needed to be sold, the private equity firm that owned them, wanted to get out of the deal, and was being patient but was ready. And so they've entered this potential deal.

I don't think it's closed yet. I assume that they'll do an announcement when it is, but to be bought partially by a guest, partially in this sort of split between guests and this licensing firm. And so I think the idea with guests, guess is the, it's still family run by the Marcianos. And Nico, the son, is, is sort of up and coming.

He wants to do really interesting things. They're based in Los Angeles. They're deep in the art world. They've had some issues with, you know, the senior, the elder Marciano's with some Me Too stuff, some legal stuff. So going private makes a lot of sense for them. And this new young Marciano is, it seems to be really excited and wants to do interesting new things. So the idea of buying Rag and Bone. I find it interesting from the guest perspective because guess has a very strong aesthetic and a very

strong DNA. They're sort of the opposite of what Abercrombie is doing. So they are, you look at the billboards on sunset or on La Cianica in L.A. and they look like they could have been shot 30 years ago. And in a way that it's interesting, it doesn't feel super dated. It feels dated, but it's also sort of charming and like a cool black and white sexy way. And you'll also see that guests has been distributed in bigger retailers like essence and these luxury brands to give it like you're saying this sort of fashion luxury adjacent feeling. And so Rag and Bone is similar that it sells at all the luxury stores. It's not crazy expensive. It's not cheap, but it is what they call contemporary price. And so they are almost sort of the more standard preppy go-to that

Abercombe no longer is. And so it doesn't make sense for guests to buy Rag and Bone. I would say that if what they're trying to do is build a little portfolio of great denim brands that have a loyal customer, then sure. And also they got a good deal on it. At one point it was a value at $250 million, and I think they paid, like, their part of the payment was only $39 million or something like that. So it was pretty low. So they got a good deal on it. And if they are going to go private and kind of build up this denim portfolio, it's interesting. And you have to also remember, the denim business is really based on supply chain and having those relationships. So if you have relationships with the manufacturers or you own the factories,

a lot of this stuff happens in LA, actually, but also in Turkey and Mexico, there are some in North Carolina, some really big hubs for denim making. If you have really great relationships on the supply chain and you're able to get good deals, you can have a great business. Because denim is one of the few things that people are willing to buy not on sale. And so the margins are pretty good, especially compared to other, types of clothing. Gap is another retailer that hasn't, it hasn't had a pretty past few years, I guess. Past 20 years. When we were talking about Abercrombie, you know, the focus of the story

seems to be Fran Horowitz and like what she's done to focus on product and turn around the brand. Gap's kind of had a lot of people coming in and out the door as CEO. Now they've got Richard Dixon. He stepped into the spot this past summer. I believe you had Art Peck helming the retailer from 2015 to 2019. Sonia Singal was ousted after two and a half years. Or Sonia. Yeah, that feels like a lot of turnover to me. Can you give us a peek behind the curtain of like the corporate machinations that are going on

there? Why are people leaving the job? What are the key issues that this retailer is facing? Oh, man. It goes back to Mickey Drexler, the merchant prince, the king of the mall. Mickey was the CEO of Gap in the 80s and 90s and made Gap what it is. today, as we know it. You know, prior to the 80s, Gap sold Levi's.

They didn't sell their own products. So he brought in, made it, you know, if Abercrombie was sort of the heritage preppy, Gap was the new American. And it totally changed the way people dress, the rise of casual Fridays, all of that stuff. And when Mickey was fired in the early 2000s after a couple bad quarters, he obviously went on to Jay Crew where he revitalized that brand and it sort of killed Gap for about 10 years

and then had its own problems. But when Mickey left, the family that owns Gap or now owns part of it, it's a public company, is the Fisher family, they really just never figured it out. They never were able to regain the magic. and I'd say, and it was such an important iconic brand more than any of these other brands

because it spanned generations. It was so important to my parents, me and also my little sister or whatever. It really did, it really did span the whole. It was a mono brand for a monoculture. And so people feel really emotional about, people feel really emotional about. gap in a way they don't with other brands. And, you know, in the mid-2000s, they brought in this guy who was a big cost cutter. Then they brought in art who came from management consulting and I think tried really, really hard to fix it, but was getting pummeled by fast fashion and didn't know

how to price things and didn't know what the consumer really wanted. Then Sonia, she was a sort of lifer there, but came from more of the tech and supply chain side and probably didn't get brand. And the other thing is they just have all these. It's in San Francisco. They have their executive lineup are people who have worked there, many of them since Mickey was the CEO, which is well over 20 years ago now. So it is, it's sort of one of these stories. And the family, the Fisher family, they're good people.

They care about it, but none of them really ever wanted to be running it. And so they dip in and dip out and they're involved, but they didn't want it the way that Don and Doris, the founders did. So it has just been one of these sad, sad situations. It's been one of these sad, sad, sad situations of the past 20 years of just back and forth, back and forth, when is it going to come back? When are we going to get our gap back? When are we going to get our mellow yellow commercial back from 1998 or whatever?

And I would say with Richard Dixon, they hired this guy from Mattel, who got a lot of lot of credit for the Barbie phenomenon. I would say that it should not all be given to him. He's a great executor and he has great relationships. But Anon Cretes, who became the CEO Mattel a few years ago, he is really the driver of that in partnership with Warner Brothers. And so Richard got a lot of credit for what happened with Barbie. And I would say he deserved probably a quarter of it. But he was already on the board of Gap and he had been observing Gap for the last year before he was appointed CEO. And I think it was a brilliant choice. He is driven. He wants to change things and he is not stuck on the past. That being said, Gap Inc is a large

business that includes Old Navy, which is the first or second largest apparel only retailer in the U.S. There is Banana Republic, which has been a struggle since they bought it in the early 80s. They've never really managed to figure it out. For a while, Mickey was able to do some stuff within the 1990s, but it's been a sort of albatross. They also own Athleto, which is like a very good active wear brand with good product that has faltered in the last few years. And then, you know, they've owned other weird things that they've sold like Intermix, a multi-brand retailer. So it's not just the Gap brand they're dealing with. It's all this other stuff.

And so so far I've been really interested. in what Richard has done. I thought the idea when you talked to executives who worked there, they really thought he would have fired more people at this point. But instead, you know, the athletic team is still pretty new. The old

Navy team is still pretty new. Instead, he's trying to get them on track and let them revitalize these brands. And he made this crazy move a couple of months ago where he hired the runway

and red carpet designer, Zach Posen to be the chief creative officer of Old Navy, of all the brands, Old Navy, and then also to essentially be a creative advisor to him on the gaping portfolio. And so a lot of the headlines have essentially said that Zach is designing Gap, which is not exactly true. So I think you will see them bring in someone else, maybe not a big name, but someone to kind of overhaul the Gap brand itself. But, you know, one of these things with Gap is it just feels too big to succeed. You say too big to fail. It's just so big.

And they tried to spin off Old Navy at one point. Maybe they'll try that again. It doesn't really make sense. You're never going to be able to really fix Gap in Banana Republic and Athleta if you have this giant $7 billion business that you have to reckon with that matters so much. But I would say early on, I've heard some stuff about, Zach's feedback to the old Navy team. He did indeed.

This is a really New York guy who really made like almost haute couture level stuff. He really has like he's there. He's living in San Francisco. He's involved. He did come to L.A. and made the rounds Oscars weekend. I saw him at a Georgio Armani party. And then also he went to the Vanity Fair party. So he still wants to be in the spotlight.

But he is really, he's really there every single day and is going to make some changes. All that being said, again, like, I just think if Gap owns Old Navy, if Gap Inc. owns Old Navy, it's just really hard to fix Gap and Banana Republic because you have to put the focus on fixing Old Navy because that's where the most sales and profits come from. So it's not an easy, it's not an easy task, but I do, I do give the board credit for hiring Richard. and not one of their, their lifers, because that's sort of what they have been doing for many years or a management consultant or something. They hired an executive with real experience

and has seen success in his career. And so let's see what happens. I think, unfortunately, or fortunately, I don't think he is going to play the Abercrombie playbook with Gap, which maybe he should. Just seeing it, I know that he has been advised to do so, and I don't think he will. So we'll see. Can he make, can he give gap magic? I don't know.

As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about. And the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against. So don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. I'm Dieter Wollard. Thanks for listening. We'll see you tomorrow.