Fascinating! These kind of posts are my jam, thank you for doing a deep dive into the 10-K for us! A lot of the best business ideas take something that was once only accessible for the top % of people, and make it available to the masses. RTR allows the average consumer to experience designer fashion, and 'work with a stylist' for $100 a month. This appealed to me, but when I tried out a subscription I just hated it! Nothing I really wanted was available, and only 2 items from my shipment fit well.
Thank you for the kind comment! Yes, I completely agree - the core idea of RTR is really special but the execution has been...lacking. If they could, somehow, improve the quality of the rental services, I think they could be really successful!
This was a fascinating read! Thank you so much for sharing your deep dive! I’ve never been into rental as I struggle with the idea of things being shipped back and forth so much plus all the cleaning feels unsustainable. I tend to buy an event wear piece, wear it a lot and retire it for a few years and then take it out again. Has worked well for me so far.
This is so fascinating and really made me think, thank you! I'm not sure that "power" quite fits over "empower," but it is an intriguing choice – one that absolutely makes me want to indulge in some English nerdery. Aside from the fact that "empower" is a branding cliché, I think the word suggests a *less* active form of responsibility – if you claim you are empowering someone to feel their best, this might mean guiding them, helping them on their journey, or enabling their confidence to flourish (without being the source of that confidence). I think of "empowering" as a kind of validation and liberation, a way to help facilitate a process that has already begun. In other words, this branding is supposed to say, "hey, you possess power already, and we want to help you wield it."
To "power" someone, conversely, sounds more direct or involved. While its first invocation ("Our mission is to power women to feel their best every day") could easily be replaced with "empower," the second is a bit more complicated ("We’ve continued to expand our closet over the past decade, powering our community to save time, money and have more fun getting dressed. All while contributing to a more sustainable future of fashion"). Here, "power" constructs RtR's growth as an entrepreneurial solution to time-consuming, expensive, boring/stressful, and unsustainable shopping experiences. It centres the company, I think, as the primary source of change, rather than the consumer. Their later claims about having "changed the fashion industry" through a "rental revolution" seem pretty in line with this – they're framing their main selling point as innovation, a new way to shop and engage with fashion, rather than building a relationship with consumers through a clear brand identity (which would be difficult to create, given that its inventory is necessarily composed of other brands). In contrast, Lululemon's mission statement ("Helping our collective be well in every aspect of their lives – physically, mentally, and socially") rhetorically constructs a sense of community and solidarity. It says, "hey, we see you in your efforts and want to assist you."
There's so much more to say about the way "power" is invoked in conversations around shopping, too – "purchasing power" is centred around the consumer, for example, so it's interesting to see RtR using "power" to centre themselves. They know they are a service, not a classic fashion brand, and I can't tell if that awareness is to their benefit or detriment.
Wow this was an AMAZING deep dive, thank you for sharing! SO interesting that RTR is using "power" to center themselves, when the consumer is really "powering" the data that gets sent back to brands. So glad to have found your substack!
this is super interesting! RTR has never appealed to me for so many reasons that you mention here. it is not in fact environmentally friendly, and it does not address our urge to scroll, buy, receive, return. furthermore, to pay large sums of money for try ons and return most of it off the bat seems… spendy. i would probably end up wearing things i don’t like just to get my money’s worth. and if i did actually love anything i’d just rather buy it and wear it for a long time.
Im always shocked at how much money these big companies are losing and aren’t profitable!
SAME!
I completely agree!
Fascinating! These kind of posts are my jam, thank you for doing a deep dive into the 10-K for us! A lot of the best business ideas take something that was once only accessible for the top % of people, and make it available to the masses. RTR allows the average consumer to experience designer fashion, and 'work with a stylist' for $100 a month. This appealed to me, but when I tried out a subscription I just hated it! Nothing I really wanted was available, and only 2 items from my shipment fit well.
Thank you for the kind comment! Yes, I completely agree - the core idea of RTR is really special but the execution has been...lacking. If they could, somehow, improve the quality of the rental services, I think they could be really successful!
amazing, I LOVE this breakdown. I am kinda spinning on the idea that they are in the business of gathering and selling data. Mind blown!
Thank you for the support! I couldn't believe it either.
This was a fascinating read! Thank you so much for sharing your deep dive! I’ve never been into rental as I struggle with the idea of things being shipped back and forth so much plus all the cleaning feels unsustainable. I tend to buy an event wear piece, wear it a lot and retire it for a few years and then take it out again. Has worked well for me so far.
I love the idea of retiring a piece for a few years and then bringing back out again! Thank you for the kind comment!
thank you so much for the mention ❤️ thought this article was soooo interesting!! would love if you made this a series :)
Of course! Hmmm, great idea, perhaps a monthly or quarterly thing? Thanks for the support!
This is so fascinating and really made me think, thank you! I'm not sure that "power" quite fits over "empower," but it is an intriguing choice – one that absolutely makes me want to indulge in some English nerdery. Aside from the fact that "empower" is a branding cliché, I think the word suggests a *less* active form of responsibility – if you claim you are empowering someone to feel their best, this might mean guiding them, helping them on their journey, or enabling their confidence to flourish (without being the source of that confidence). I think of "empowering" as a kind of validation and liberation, a way to help facilitate a process that has already begun. In other words, this branding is supposed to say, "hey, you possess power already, and we want to help you wield it."
To "power" someone, conversely, sounds more direct or involved. While its first invocation ("Our mission is to power women to feel their best every day") could easily be replaced with "empower," the second is a bit more complicated ("We’ve continued to expand our closet over the past decade, powering our community to save time, money and have more fun getting dressed. All while contributing to a more sustainable future of fashion"). Here, "power" constructs RtR's growth as an entrepreneurial solution to time-consuming, expensive, boring/stressful, and unsustainable shopping experiences. It centres the company, I think, as the primary source of change, rather than the consumer. Their later claims about having "changed the fashion industry" through a "rental revolution" seem pretty in line with this – they're framing their main selling point as innovation, a new way to shop and engage with fashion, rather than building a relationship with consumers through a clear brand identity (which would be difficult to create, given that its inventory is necessarily composed of other brands). In contrast, Lululemon's mission statement ("Helping our collective be well in every aspect of their lives – physically, mentally, and socially") rhetorically constructs a sense of community and solidarity. It says, "hey, we see you in your efforts and want to assist you."
There's so much more to say about the way "power" is invoked in conversations around shopping, too – "purchasing power" is centred around the consumer, for example, so it's interesting to see RtR using "power" to centre themselves. They know they are a service, not a classic fashion brand, and I can't tell if that awareness is to their benefit or detriment.
Wow this was an AMAZING deep dive, thank you for sharing! SO interesting that RTR is using "power" to center themselves, when the consumer is really "powering" the data that gets sent back to brands. So glad to have found your substack!
this is super interesting! RTR has never appealed to me for so many reasons that you mention here. it is not in fact environmentally friendly, and it does not address our urge to scroll, buy, receive, return. furthermore, to pay large sums of money for try ons and return most of it off the bat seems… spendy. i would probably end up wearing things i don’t like just to get my money’s worth. and if i did actually love anything i’d just rather buy it and wear it for a long time.
+1 to wearing things I don't like just to get my money's worth - I definitely did that when I used RTR and that doesn't leave you feeling your best.