My only question is why it took Lands’ End management so long to extricate themselves from Sears. Lands’ End has a following and still reasonable brand equity, notwithstanding the historical challenges it’s faced. Lands’ End is on the right track: 1.) get out of Sears, 2.) continue to build out its online business, including third-party marketplaces and 3.) open stores slowly and carefully – don’t overbuild.

For decades Lands’ End has been predictable and reliable, and famous for customer service, and that didn’t change during the Sears years. The key going forward will be attracting a new generation of shoppers. It’s heartening to hear that mobile shopping is spiking.

The acquisition of Lands’ End was ill conceived from the start. Lands’ End is a brand with brand recognition and a loyal following. All the acquisition did is dilute some of both. The time for Lands’ End to extricate itself from the boring, drab, seldom-frequented Sears stores (that is a pity, too) is yesterday. Returning to its former self should not be an overwhelming task for Lands’ End. Best of luck to them.

Lands’ End could have been the bedrock to Sears apparel, if that was ever even possible. It’s certainly not Lands’ End’s fault that it didn’t happen. Lands’ End was the lipstick. Sears was the — well, you know. It’s not the fault of the lipstick. Lands’ End has a clear, obvious and believable brand promise. Solid quality. Fair value. No confusion. Applause for not getting seduced by what would have been an awkward quest for fashion.

Land’s End was always one of the better offers with Sears. So much so that it often looked incongruous among the awful ranges that Sears itself put together. I see no advantage to Lands’ End to partner with what remains a failing retailer. Sears brings it very little in terms of customers, demographic reach, or brand profile. Indeed, it probably damages Lands’ End to be associated with Sears. As such, it is a sound strategy to move on and focus on other routes to market.

Lands’ End’s online presence, ability to personalize offers, and maintaining quality merchandise have allowed the brand to grow while catering to a loyal customer base with a stream of relevant physical catalogs. I do not associate the brand with Sears (and haven’t for the last five years), and there isn’t a single good business argument for the relationship, however tenuous, to continue.

Bottom line, Lands’ End’s management should continue a focus on quality, increasing digital-mobile presence, and personalizing offers. Don’t dilute the brand by trying to be more for the sake of unsustainable growth. Stay with the long game.

Lands’ End still enjoys incredible customer loyalty but other players in the sensible basics space, like Duluth Trading, are ramping up. Lands’ End is smart to go the owned retail route. It’s the best way to showcase its arrays of styles and colorways. For Lands’ End, multiple purchases are the secret sauce and brick-and-mortar is the key ingredient.

Good management – good strategy. Getting out of the wake of the Sears tsunami was a huge blessing and being able to execute on its own strategy has proven to be a recipe for success. Continuing to build and execute on its digital strategy while smartly opening stores combined with a focus on attracting their next generation of shoppers will sustain the momentum.

It is good to see that Land’s End survived their time spent within the Sears ecosystem. I only wonder what took them so long to make their exit. Sears’ approach to managing (or mismanaging) so many iconic brands, including Land’s End (and Craftsman and Kenmore, etc.) still seems shockingly short-sighted. I am glad to see Lands’ End has thrived since their separation.

Having led the Lands’ End acquisition when I was at Sears it’s hard to be totally objective. But given that Sears never managed to mount a turnaround it is shocking that they hung with Sears as long as they did AND managed to survive some misguided brand pivots.

The key to Lands’ End success has always been knowing its core customer, being obsessed with quality/fit and understanding direct marketing (which started in catalogs and now has obviously migrated to the the online word).

The key going forward is to carefully broaden their audience (avoiding what I call the “customer trapeze”) and to lean into a harmonized retail experience with a much stronger physical presence (owned stores and potentially a partnership which is more on-brand).

Returning to their roots as a reliable company from which to direct order — and one with a few retail stores. Good to see. I hope they survive.

I’m concerned by the CEO quote about mobile ordering. If he thinks that’s significant, then Lands’ End has troubles. Mobile ordering is simply a different type of online ordering — not an end in itself. That means the increase he crows about is probably an across-the-industry increase.

Well there’s strategy and then there’s execution. Whether Lands’ End ever belonged in Sears seems well debated here … but I doubt few would debate that the execution of well assorted, and in stock positions in-store was ever achieved, leaving the strategy stranded.