A puzzle has been stirring up devoted purchasers of Dockers' widely recognized khaki trousers for men: What's causing items to fall from individuals' pockets upon sitting?
TL;DR
- Dockers customers complain about shallow pockets causing items to fall out.
- A 1.5-inch pocket depth reduction is cited as a major issue by loyalists.
- Brand management firms like ABG acquire and license brands, risking quality erosion.
- Nostalgia drives consumers to seek out older brands, but quality concerns persist.
“My change and keys fall out sitting,” posted Robert C. Concerning his Dockers Men’s Classic Fit khakis. “Excellent with major exception of front pocket depth,” commented Disappointed Loyalist, who submitted a one-star assessment of a pair of pebble-brown Signature Classic Fit pants. “These are actually 4-star pants,” explained IWearPants in a web-based review thread. “Unfortunately, they’ve committed the ultimate atrocity in fashion; they made the pockets too shallow.”
According to IwearPants' assessment, the pockets on his recently acquired Dockers are 1.5 inches shallower compared to his previous ones. He also issued a request: “If Dockers (or parent Levi Strauss) needs to raise the price by a couple of bucks per pair, so be it. Just give me back deep pants pockets on my Dockers.”
Levi Strauss is no longer the parent entity for Dockers; in May, it sold the brand over to brand ownership giant Authentic Brands Group (ABG) for a starting sum of $311 million, with the possibility of reaching $391 million contingent on results under Authentic’s stewardship. (ABG refused to provide remarks regarding the Dockers brand or its pocket dimensions.)
The Dockers pocket predicament—which some dismiss as an imagined problem—predates ABG’s ownership. But it shows the peril of a 1.5-inch difference—that razor’s edge between a loyal customer and one who abandons a product or company. Even the most beloved brands can become vulnerable following perceived changes or quality erosion that upset passionate consumers—and when heritage brands are purchased by holding companies like ABG, which seek to optimize and grow the brands globally, that passion can be a double-edged sword.
Dockers adopted a common strategy, one that numerous well-known brands have pursued lately. Brand management firms such as ABG, WHP Global, and Marquee Brands have compiled collections featuring numerous widely recognized brands. These entities have become the leading players in the fashion and retail sectors, generating approximately $50 billion in annual worldwide revenue.
These companies now hold ownership of well-loved American retail establishments, forming an extensive roster: WHP is the proprietor of Toys “R” Us and Babies “R” Us, alongside Anne Klein, Express, Bonobos, and Rag & Bone. Marquee manages the revitalized Martha Stewart brand, BCBG, Laura Ashley, and Isotoner. ABG, the dominant entity in this sector, presides over an expansive collection of over 50 labels, encompassing Eddie Bauer, Champion, and Reebok.
The ABG portfolio also encompasses ventures into the name, image, and likeness rights of several prominent figures, such as renowned soccer player David Beckham and celebrated basketball player Shaquille O’Neal. Furthermore, ABG holds the rights to the names and likenesses of iconic individuals from bygone eras, including Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, and Muhammad Ali.
A $1.4 billion deal for ABG to acquire a controlling interest in the Guess? Brand is anticipated to finalize in 2026 following a bidding war. Should this transaction proceed, Guess? Would rank among the most significant brands within the ABG collection, projected to elevate its yearly retail revenue to $38 billion annually. WHP's yearly retail sales currently stand at $7 billion, with Marquee's at $3 billion and showing upward momentum.
Globally, the broader brand licensing industry is growing rapidly—from $295 billion in 2024 to an expected almost $400 billion in 2029. That includes the brand-licensing arms within blockbuster companies such as Disney, which licenses its characters for toys and other merch, and the NFL, which licenses team jerseys. Rising consumer demand, star-powered celebrity endorsements, and the growth of virtual branding, in which a brand exists and sells to customers entirely online with no physical retail stores, have fueled this growth.
Brand management firms function uniquely, lacking a standardized methodology. Typically, these entities acquire a brand's intellectual property (IP), frequently during periods of financial hardship or insolvency. This commonly signifies that the brand management firms possess ownership of trademarks, emblems, copyrights, and creative assets, along with the authority to permit third parties to utilize the brands. Subsequently, the brand managers negotiate profitable licensing agreements with a collection of external associates responsible for production, distribution to vendors, promotional activities, and in-store presentations and transactions across diverse global regions.
A central inquiry for this flourishing sector, frequently involving private equity investors, concerns the potential for profitability in the renewed existence of these brands, salvaged from near extinction, without compromising their quality. Occasionally, the revitalized iterations of these formerly celebrated brands achieve remarkable triumphs. Conversely, in certain instances, they may devolve into "zombie brands," producing substandard goods that engender bewilderment and a sense of betrayal among purchasers.
“Licensing can genuinely keep a brand alive when it’s losing momentum,” said Armando Zuccali, CEO at private financial services firm Gag London Equity Capital which partners with businesses and operating partners. “The risk is when it becomes the whole strategy and everyone starts chasing royalties and door count to hit numbers. That’s usually when the products being to slip, quietly at first.”
The brand management playbook
This enterprise fundamentally relies on high-volume transactions: Firms specializing in brand administration acquire intellectual property they feel could generate greater income with appropriate promotion. Purchasers frequently profess commitment to the ethical stewardship of cherished brands, yet a fundamental conflict exists within the concept: Should the objective be to revive and enhance a brand's appeal, the imperative to deliver rapidly, affordably, and on a massive scale to boost licensing income might result in what detractors label “enshittification”—a slow deterioration of standards as brands prioritize quantity above worth.
Instead of manufacturing stuff itself, the industry relies upon a vast network of “operating partners”—companies that license the brand and do the heavy lifting of producing and selling products. The brand management companies typically inspect and approve the products for sale, but the design, craftsmanship, and manufacturing are all handled by the operating partners, explained Sonia Lapinksy, managing director in fashion retail at the consulting firm AlixPartners.
Some critics assert that certain brand management firms provide minimal supervision, enabling their operating partners to affix brand names to a wide selection of inferior goods. According to Lapinsky, operating partners occasionally engage the same design teams and vendors previously utilized by a brand before its acquisition to preserve consistency; however, issues may arise when these operating partners act dishonestly or resort to cost-cutting measures.
Zuccali from Gag London Equity Capital, having managed retail property developments across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, stated that a brand's core identity typically endures a licensing transaction only when the initial product development groups retain control. This control is exercised through approving materials, verifying manufacturing processes, conducting site visits to production facilities, and resisting any proposals for expediency. “If that stops happening, the brand becomes a logo anyone can rent,” he further commented.
Skepticism frequently arises when firms overseeing brands dismiss the original creators and founders who once held tight reins on every production detail. This could involve, for example, inspecting global manufacturing sites to verify the stitch density on trousers or ensuring suits feature functional buttonholes rather than ornamental ones.
Lapinsky stated that “In theory, there should be some standards with these arrangements that maintain a level of quality,”. “Or else eventually the products won’t sell, and the brand managers won’t be able to collect the royalties.”
It’s a matter of balancing quality with quantity, explained Aaron Duncan, a former creative director for global licensing at Playboy Enterprises and an associate professor and chair of global fashion management at Fashion Institute of Technology. But when the operating partners have bet on the brand by guaranteeing a fee to the IP owners, they sometimes “go rogue” to ensure their return on investment, he said.
Duncan, who has overseen worldwide strategy and commercial growth for labels such as Barbie and Hot Wheels, recounted an instance with a licensee who established a dedicated retail space within Seoul for another brand, which he is unable to identify due to a non-disclosure pact. Duncan stated that he had not authorized this retail setup, and it did not align with the brand's desired look and feel. Although the majority of associates conduct their ventures with integrity, he mentioned, he has also encountered clothing producers who covertly granted sub-licensing rights for a brand to additional manufacturers. By the point this was uncovered, the unapproved merchandise was already available for purchase. “Most of the time, you’re not even finding out about it until someone goes shopping in a mall in the middle of nowhere and sees it,” stated Duncan. “That’s the danger.”
Duncan further stated that those income-producing strategies might diminish the brand's appeal. Furthermore, if a collaborator has tarnished the brand's reputation, restoring its luster can prove challenging.
The nostalgia paradox
What's prompting shoppers to return to cherished brands from earlier times? According to brand strategist Jean-Pierre Lacroix, nostalgia is a significant factor, and this sentiment stems from three urges, especially among younger demographics: apprehension, and the desire for a mental reprieve; the pursuit of less common brands; and the influence of key figures.
“The undercurrent is there’s a lot of anxiety in the marketplace right now, and people are looking for a way of escaping this anxiety,” said Lacroix. “The wars, the tariffs, the instability of the marketplace, the lost jobs, AI—all these things are unsettling for people.”
Brands from the past can soothe, he said, allowing anxious consumers “to live in the past where it was a great life.” For Gen Z, who wasn’t even born when many of these brands were in their heyday, the appeal is complex: Influencers seeking to be unique are using unboxing videos on YouTube and TikTok to showcase products beloved by their parents’ generation.
Social psychologist Clay Routledge, an expert on nostalgia, noted in the New York Times that approximately 60% of Gen Z would prefer to travel back to the era before iPhones existed. This preference might account for their pursuit of concrete, non-digital activities such as collecting vinyl records, assembling photo albums, and engaging in board games.
Champion-branded athletic footwear has returned following their near absence. They're favored because they satisfy certain essential criteria, according to Lacroix—a label that, unlike Nike, possesses a distinctiveness setting the wearer apart, along with a sentimental appeal suggesting superior craftsmanship.
Champion invented the hoodie in the 1930s, and engineered it for pro-athletes to stand up to repeated wear and tear, weather, and travel. Under ABG’s stewardship, Champion is on its front foot again, with a new partnership to sell at Target and a fashion-forward focus. Its products are being marketed as high-quality and substantial—with a trademarked reverse weave to resist shrinking.
The Martha Stewart moment
Marquee Brands now owns Martha Stewart, a brand that includes home and garden items, media, and the image of its founder, and it serves as an example of the nostalgia trend. It also shows how a brand management firm can utilize and enhance a beloved brand by attracting new followers and patrons. The company relaunched Stewart’s foundational 1982 publication Entertaining in November, having observed that it was being sold for substantial sums on eBay, according to Marquee CEO Heath Golden.
As part of a significant promotional campaign, Stewart, who holds the distinction of being America's inaugural self-made female billionaire and a cultural icon whose popularity has persisted for many years, has been actively participating in media appearances this autumn. She was a guest on the Today program to talk about her latest book, simultaneously preparing comforting mushroom and Tuscan tomato soups suitable for cooler weather. Additionally, partnerships are in place: Consumers have the opportunity to purchase seven of the dessert recipes featured in Stewart’s book from Crumbl Cookies locations.
“Martha Stewart is having a moment,” said Mark Weber, a podcaster and former CEO of Calvin Klein, The Donna Karan Company, PVH Corp, and LVMH. “She looks great, and she’s out there in front of the public and creating demand.”
However, the domesticity expert's brand also serves as an example of potential pitfalls when a brand is acquired by new proprietors focused on swift improvements. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia debuted on the stock market in 1999, appraised at $2 billion, and generated almost $1 billion in yearly retail revenue in the late 1990s and early 2000s—subsequently changing ownership several times after reaching that zenith. In 2004, subsequent to Stewart's five-month incarceration stemming from insider trading allegations, the stock cratered, ultimately depreciating by 70% of its worth. In 2015, the brand management firm Sequential Brands Group acquired Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia for $353 million—a steal at under one-fifth of its highest valuation.
Under Sequential’s stewardship, the brand failed recover its previous cachet. Sequential went out of business after bankruptcy proceedings ended in 2022, but a former executive who spoke anonymously because they still work in the industry said the company made the mistake of attempting to saturating the retail market with Stewart’s brand. “The company wanted Martha Stewart’s name on every single product category from picture frames to sneakers to face cream,” the executive said. With a lifestyle brand meant to evoke aspirational entertaining, that indiscriminate strategy undermined the narrative of curated or special products, the veteran exec added.
Marquee Brands purchased Martha Stewart from Sequential in 2019 for an even smaller sum, $215 million. However, Stewart’s brand seems to have flourished under Marquee. By 2021, Stewart’s merchandise was generating approximately $900 million in total annual retail revenue, reaching 70 million homes. Forbesestimated The Martha Stewart Kitchen collection, featuring cabinetry, countertops, and shelving, is projected to achieve $1 billion in retail sales during the current year.
Golden told Coins2Day that the company mines nostalgia, but it also invests heavily in consumer data and updates products and marketing for more modern tastes. “We love our 19 brands like we love our children,” said Golden. Along with nostalgia, consumers crave authenticity, and Martha Stewart has it in spades, he said.
Furthermore, Stewart possesses a robust social media presence, boasting nearly 3 million followers on Instagram, where she shares content her admirers affectionately refer to as “thirst trap” images, featuring herself, interior design elements, and scenes from her property, such as homegrown garlic and chrysanthemums.
Social platforms have fundamentally altered how businesses generate interest and demand, according to Weber. “We’re in the want business,” “We’re in the business of creating a craziness in you to go out and buy something new.”
The quality risk
Neil Saunders, a retail analyst and consultant, stated that the significance lies not only in the immediate period following an acquisition but also in how the brand's worth increases throughout its existence. Saunders referenced Brooks Brothers, which was previously under ABG's ownership and is now part of an ABG-supported joint venture with J.C. Penney known as Catalyst Brands. He described it as a brand that has encountered initial difficulties it's striving to surmount. Catalyst serves as the brand licensee for Brooks Brothers within the U.S., managing design, sourcing, e-commerce, and retail operations domestically.
According to ABG, Brooks Brothers introduced some additional, less expensive apparel collections designated as “diffusion” lines, Saunders stated, but the garments were “a little bit shabby.” For the sentimental appeal to succeed, the items must still be of high quality and the cost must be appropriate, noted Saunders. “No one will buy into a brand or buy products from a brand just because there’s an element of nostalgia,” he commented. (Catalyst has not provided an official response to an inquiry for their thoughts.)
The ways in which a company deteriorates are not obvious but build up over time, and patrons typically notice it before anyone within the organization will acknowledge it, according to Zuccali. “The leather seems thinner; a zipper catches; buttons look fine in photos but feel cheap in the hand,” he stated. “Once trust breaks there, it’s really hard to get back.”
Any kind of quality degradation can alienate a brand’s most valuable customers, said Gabriella Santaniello, founder of brand consultancy A Line Partners. And some—especially the wealthier older customers who have personal allegiance to particular brands—are difficult to win back. “Gen X is the most likely to be disappointed in you if you’re a brand,” said Santaniello. “And they’ll hold a grudge—it’s harder for them to move on.”
Whispers have already begun about the fate of former Hollywood darling Badgley Mischka. The evening wear label was acquired for an undisclosed price in April by a joint venture between global brand licensing company Established Inc. And ACI Licensing, in a deal that saw the namesake cofounders Mark Badgley and James Mischka exit the company after more than two decades.
Andy Cohan, who serves as co-CEO and co-founder of ACI, stated that the exit of Badgley and Mischka won't significantly alter the brand. "We've embraced and upheld their perspective and brand strategy moving forward, with the aim of developing and truly expanding the brand."
According to Zuccali, shifts in leadership, such as the one occurring at Badgley Mischka, inherently involve unpredictability. “Their brand has such a specific sense of proportion and movement that it’s hard to put into guidelines,” he stated. “But in a year, maybe 18 months, we’ll know whether the collections still have that recognizable handwriting, or if they start shifting toward something more generic. I’m hoping for the former.”
Positioned for growth
Firms specializing in brand oversight are insistent that they are developing these brands and positioning them for enduring prosperity. Golden, the chief executive of Marquee, stated that the expansion in licensing ventures has taken place over the last ten years, with a combined value of “will only grow from here.” He mentioned that the approach is sufficiently driven by acquisitions and competition to engage in bidding contests for sought-after names, and Marquee is expected to acquire a minimum of two to three brands annually.
According to Golden, the current fragmented and geopolitically intricate global landscape presents difficulties for established brand corporations and individual brands aiming for worldwide expansion. He further commented that even the most robust enterprises are “looking to offload brands to us in an effort to extend their runway.”
Andy Dunn, who helped establish the men's clothing label Bonobos, expressed his satisfaction that the company he launched is flourishing under its current ownership structure. Dunn and his associates initially divested Bonobos to Walmart in 2017, followed by a sale to WHP Global in 2021. Dunn no longer holds any ownership stake within the organization but functions as a consultant. He purchased several pairs of shorts during a recent excursion to the Midwest, informing Coins2Day, and noted his delight that quality has been upheld and even enhanced. “I’m blown away by how much better the product has gotten,” stated Dunn. “The quality has only improved over the last five years.”
The difference boils down to continuity, Dunn said, noting that WHP kept on some technical design employees who have been with Bonobos for more than a decade. “Those factors around talent and heritage and investment, that can vary widely,” said Dunn.
Dunn said it has a certain irony—if you care about the product, money will follow but the problem comes when you only care about the money. “Money has faces,” said Dunn, quoting one of his mentors. “All money looks the same, but it’s different depending on who you take it from. In this brand management world, that’s true as well.”
Glenn McMahon, formerly the chief executive of high-end apparel companies St. John Knits and AG Jeans, and who previously occupied significant leadership positions at Giorgio Armani, Dolce & Gabbana, and other labels, has observed the friction between brands and their management firms for many years, and he believes the sector is ready for a revitalization. “People used to say brand management companies are where brands go to die,” he stated. “That’s changed.”