The Body Shop – Good Luck or Good Marketing?

Introduction to Marketing: Theory and Practice. Adrian Palmer (2012). Oxford University Press

The Body Shop may have grown rapidly during the 1970s and 1980s, but its founder, the late Dame
Anita Roddick publicly dismissed the role of marketing. Roddick ridiculed marketers for putting the
interests of shareholders before the needs of society. She had a similarly low opinion of the financial
community, which she referred to as 'merchant wankers'. While things were going well, nobody
seemed to mind. Maybe Roddick had found a new way of doing business, and if she had the results to
prove it, who needed marketers? But how could even such an icon as Anita Roddick manage
indefinitely without consulting the fundamental principles of marketing? By embracing ethical issues,
was she way ahead of her rivals in understanding the public mood, long before the major retailers
piled into Fairtrade and 'green' products? Or did the troubles that the Body Shop suffered in the late
1990s indicate that a company may publicly dismiss the value of marketing while the going is good,
but sooner or later it will have to come back to earth with good old-fashioned marketing plans?
Roddick had been the dynamo behind the Body Shop. From her first shop, which opened in Brighton
in 1976, she inspired the growth of the chain of familiar green-fronted shops, which in 2006 comprised
2,100 stores in 55 countries around the world. She was the first to introduce socially and
environmentally responsible business onto the high street and was talking about fair trade long before
it became a popular corporate buzz word. Her pioneering products included naturally based skin and
hair care preparations, such as Fuzzy Peach Bath and Shower Gel and Brazil Nut Conditioner. Her
timing was impeccable, coming just at a time when increasingly affluent consumers were becoming
concerned about animal testing and the use of chemicals in cosmetics. She had not gone down the
classic marketing route of understanding consumer trends and then developing the appropriate
products with the right positioning. She simply had a passion for humanely produced cosmetics and
was just lucky with her timing—more consumers were coming round to her view just as she was
launching her business. As for planning a promotion campaign, she didn't really need to do very much
at all. With her boundless energy, outspoken views, and unorthodox dress sense she was continually
being talked about in the media. Her flair for publicity won free editorial space for the Body Shop
worth millions of pounds.

Much of the company's success has been tied up with its campaigning approach to the pursuit of social
and environmental issues. But while Roddick campaigned for everything from battered wives and
Siberian tigers to the poverty-stricken mining communities of southern Appalachia, the company was
facing major problems in its key markets. Yet until the late 1990s she boasted that the Body Shop had
never used, or needed, marketing. By the late 1990s the Body Shop seemed to be running out if steam,

1
with sales plateauing and the company's share price falling—from 370p in 1992 to just 65p in 2003.
What was previously unique about Body Shop was now being copied by others, for example, the Boots
company matched one of the Body Shop's earliest claims that it did not test its products on animals.
Even the very feel of a Body Shop store—including its decor, staff, and product displays—had been
copied by competitors. How could the company stay ahead in terms of maintaining its distinctive
positioning? Its causes seemed to become increasingly remote from the real concerns of shoppers.
While most UK shoppers may have been swayed by a company's unique claim to protect animals, how
many would be moved by its support for Appalachian miners? If there was a Boots or a Superdrug
store next door, why should a buyer pay a premium price to buy from the Body Shop? The Body Shop
may have pioneered a very clever retailing formula over twenty years earlier, but, just as the product
range had been successfully copied by others, other companies had made enormous strides in terms
of their social and environmental awareness. Part of the problem of the Body Shop was its failure fully
to understand the dynamics of its marketplace. Positioning on the basis of good causes may have been
enough to launch the company into the public5 mind in the 1970s, but how could this position be
sustained? Many commentators blamed Body Shop's problems on the inability of Roddick to delegate.
She is reported to have spent much of her time globetrotting in support of her good causes, but had
a problem in delegating marketing strategy and implementation. Numerous strong managers who had
been brought in to try to implement professional management practices apparently gave up in
bewilderment at the lack of discretion that they had been given, and then left. The Body Shop's
experience in America had typified Roddick's pioneering style which frequently ignored sound
marketing analysis. She sought a new way of doing business in America, but in doing so dismissed the
experience of older and more sophisticated retailers—such as Marks & Spencer and the Sock Shop,
which came unstuck in what is a very difficult market. The Body Shop decided to enter the US markets
not through a safe option such as a joint venture or a franchising agreement, but instead by setting
up its own operation from scratch—fine, according to Roddick's principles of changing the rulebook
and cutting out the greedy American business community, but dangerously risky. Her store format
was based on the British town centre model, despite the fact that Americans spend most of their
money in out-of-town malls. In 1996 the US operations lost £3.4 million.

Roddick's critics claimed that she had a naive view of herself, her company, and business generally.
She had consistently argued that profits and principles don't mix, despite the fact that many of her
financially successfully competitors have been involved in major social initiatives. Critics claimed that,
had Roddick not dismissed the need for marketing for so long, the Body Shop could have avoided
future problems. But by the early 2000s it was paying the price for not having devoted sufficient
resources to new product development, to innovation, to refreshing its ranges, and to moving the

2
business forward in a competitive market and fast changing business environment. It seemed that
heroes can change the rulebook when the tide is flowing with them; but adopting the disciplines of
marketing allows companies to anticipate and react when the tide begins to turn against them. 2006
turned out to be a turning point for Body Shop. In that year, the cosmetics giant L’Oréal acquired the
company for f652 m. L’Oréal was part owned by Nestle, and both companies had suffered long
disputes with ethical campaigners. L’Oréal had been the subject of boycotts because of its
involvement in animal testing, and Nestlé had been criticized for its treatment of third world
producers. Ethical Consumer magazine, which rates companies' ethics on its 'Ethiscore' immediately
down rated Body Shop from a rating of 11 to 2.5 out of 20 following the takeover by L’Oréal. A
contributor to the magazine commented about Body Shop: 'I for one will certainly not be shopping
there again and I urge other consumers concerned about ethical issues to follow my example. There
are plenty of other higher scoring ethical companies out there.' Not to be outdone, Roddick dismissed
claims that she was 'selling out to the devil' by arguing that she would be able to use her influence to
change L’Oréal from inside the company. Suppliers who had formerly worked with the Body Shop
would in future have contracts with L’Oréal, and through an agreement to work with the company for
25 days a year Roddick would be able to have an input into its ethical sourcing decisions.

Roddick died soon after selling out to L’Oréal and obituaries agreed that she had made a difference to
the world. She certainly put a lot of energy into her mission and had been lucky with her timing. But
critics were more divided on whether she was a good marketer for the long haul, after all it is relatively
easy to make money when the tide is going with you and your luck is in, but much more difficult to
manage a changing and increasingly saturated marketing environment. Like many entrepreneurs who
have been good creating things, but not so good at maintaining them, was it simply time for Roddick
to hand over to classically trained marketers who could rise to this challenge?

Marketing Myopia

Orientations on Firm

Holistic Marketing Philosophy (Orientation)