I have had the pleasure of knowing Alexis Kantor, former VP at Target, since she attended the first ever PI Apparel event in London in 2013 and I like to think we gelled immediately. Alexis not only became a recurring authority on fashion tech at our events, but also a personal friend and PI champion. When I think of Alexis I think of strength and of heart. Whether it’s been her leading digital fashion initiatives and teams; being a compassionate mother to her own child and to others in the queer community; competing in powerlifting competitions and more, one thing is always for certain: Alexis is steadfast at doing big and amazing things with a passion and drive that is nothing short of impressive.
Now, after almost two decades at Target, Alexis is on the lookout for a new opportunity and it seemed like an amazing moment to pause, reflect and learn from all she has accomplished in that time as an impactful leader in Fashion Tech.
Hello you and welcome to Seamless! Thank you for taking the time to sit down with me today.
Please, are you kidding me?! I was talking to Sandy (Gagnon) – my 3D co-conspirator at Target, and of course a good friend of PI too – the other day and I was like ‘Sandy, you know how this goes…Michael asks for something and you just say yes, because it’s Michael!’ You just have this power over me…I will say yes to you always!
Good to know and it explains how I’ve roped you into so many things over the years! Let’s start with this: Alexis, please share with our readers a brief overview of who you are and your professional journey thus far.
Well, I am Alexis Kantor and I am a Mom, a spouse, and I’d like to think, a good sister and daughter too! I have always strived to be a great leader; one that walks into work everyday and tries to make it better, more conscientious and responsible.
I am also a queer woman. For a long time I wanted to just get my head down, work hard and be awesome at everything I did. But it became apparent early on that being awesome wasn’t enough; I also needed to be impactful in the right ways. I have always made it my mission to be a leader that creates a culture where everybody can bring their whole selves to the table, live their truth and not feel like a square peg in a round hole.
In terms of my professional career, I got to have my first formal fashion experience with Maidenform and this gave me a view of the whole ecosystem. Very early on, I felt the impact (both good and bad) that you as an individual could have up- and downstream and I loved that. The fact that you’re part of a literal global value system and that you can make a difference really struck a chord with me.
This then quickly turned into an internship with Cacique, and then a Technical Design role with Victoria’s Secret. I loved the engineering aspect, as well as the creative process; I loved the idea of building suspension bridges out of ornate lace. I got to experience elements of Design, Color Development, Fabric Development, Sourcing and also Technology, and got the opportunity to work overseas which was great.
And then in 2002 I joined Target as a Technical Designer and stayed there for 21 years. When I left I had advanced to the leadership level as VP of Owned Brand Strategy & Operations, executing brand strategy and operations, as well as directing a team of ~200 in Design & Development, Product Safety & Quality, Sourcing & Development, Data Analytics, Strategy, Technology and Transformation.
It’s been a wild ride!
That it has! So all in, you’ve had a 30+ year career so far working in Fashion/Retail in some capacity; how did your love of, and experience with, technology, evolve over that time?
I was very lucky when I was at Victoria’s Secret because the one thing they were never afraid of was trying to get you upskilled with good tools so you could move faster. Great drive but arguably the wrong purpose. Nevertheless, we were never cautious or hesitant there when it came to technology and that had a lasting impact on my own drive and curiosity.
Target was a slightly different story at first. Despite being amazing in so many other ways, when it came to technology within engineering and design, we were properly cobbling things together with Scotch tape and staples for a while. I remember trying to navigate what we had and, in this one instance, I kept getting stuck til someone just said ‘just keep pressing enter until it goes away’. I remember thinking surely there has to be a better way of working than this.
Fortunately, we were lucky to have leaders who listened and began to understand how important evaluating new technologies was, especially in terms of taking on the boring, manual tasks that were taking people away from the types of work they loved and what we’d hired them to do. It was evident to me then that freeing up people to be human, creative and passionate was what mattered the most for long term success.
Especially when you’re in a giant and established organisation, you are up against some pretty hefty legacy systems and old-school ways of thinking and working. You’ve got to make people understand why a spider web of a suite of tools that is inter-connected and seamless, is way better in the long-term than buying a thousand different smaller licences to save money upfront.
I love technology and I don’t think it is hard. It is the cultural transformation associated with technology that is hard, and is what can make or break any change.
That’s a great segue into our next question because when we originally met, 3D adoption was a huge technology project for Target and I know you guys were early movers in the field. How did you approach its adoption?
Well, when we started out in 3D for apparel, it was ugly. There were very few technology options out there and they weren’t good. The functionality just wasn’t there and the tools available just didn’t connect to anything. It was like an extra standalone piece and it was hard to convince people that there was any value in it.
We started talking to Automotive and Aerospace companies because we figured they were doing it better than anyone else plus were working on much more complex products than we were so surely there could be some learnings. And off the back of those conversations, we actually invested in one of these tools but it was way too powerful for what we needed; our Designers needed a Honda and we got them a Ferrari. We very openly acknowledged that we’d made a mistake and that this had likely set us back eight steps.
It was a steep learning curve and I’ve always been the first to admit that there are things we should have done differently…
Anything specific you’d be willing to share with our readers?
Oh, absolutely! Well, like I said, we started with the hardest thing – apparel. The technology just wasn’t ready when we started and we should have started somewhere else that was easier. For anyone starting out now, this shouldn’t be an issue but it was very much for us back then.
And I would have gone slower to go fast. I would have looked for a crisis faster, or more specifically, where 3D could have been an easy solution for said crisis. I would have taken longer to understand the individual pain points of each team and brand rather than trying to find a one-size fits all approach to roll-out. I would have avoided it being a technical design and engineering play first; I love Designers but they are perhaps the most difficult group of people to onboard to something like this and we should have played a longer game with them. I would have pushed for a better 3D Consortium within Target to be built from the start that was cross-functional, that helped communicate the opportunity and that could hold people accountable.
But we picked up on these things fast and before long made it a point that our vision was futuristic, bold and audacious, and at the same time made sure we went after easy wins that were well celebrated.
Both of these things helped build excitement and intrigue.
I hear you; if we’ve learned anything from the 11 years of PI, it’s that good technology strategy has a really massive human change component to it. Was there anything you did that you were particularly proud of?
Look, I’m impatient and when I know something is the right thing to do I sometimes just want to shout ‘get on the bus!’ But that’s stupid and doesn’t get you anywhere; your partners will start pulling away because you’re not co-creating with them. It’s simple psychology: people want to be seen, heard and valued.
So I’m proud that I acknowledged this early and reframed my approach. When you are onboarding people, you need to always be thinking: ‘what’s in it for them? How do we make it right? How are we building good business?’
I’m also proud that we were open and curious. Sandy and I were terrified at that first PI event we spoke at. We knew others were on the same journey as us but everyone was being super cryptic and we got it: why would anyone want to jump in the same boat with us when really all we’d ever known is competition? But still, we put ourselves out there and thankfully we got a great response. More started to share and be open and so we started getting a variety of insights and experiences that we all used to learn together.
This is why events like PI are so important so we can network and make connections. For us, the team at Coach was an incredible mentor to us; they named every roadblock we were going to hit and helped us figure out how to prepare which was invaluable!
I like to think that once we got people talking, that we all helped build a better playground and have all had a much better time playing in it since!
Our mantra has always been ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’; everyone is on the same journey and being open and honest can only serve to help the collective. I wanted to ask about 3D extension; when many set out on this journey, the intention is always to start small and then extend that utility out into the wider value chain. But many have failed to do this. How did you tackle this at Target and was it successful?
Good question and yes, I would say we were successful.
If you’re in a large organisation you likely have lots of disparate departments that are all using different technologies and in different ways. I would say one thing we did right is that we immediately connected with the Architecture team who were already thinking about how to connect these dots. With their help, we were able to pretty quickly figure out where the opportunities lay and how to approach the respective teams in the right way.
At the end of the day, no matter our function, we all want the same things right? To be quicker and more efficient, to reduce costs and waste, bring the best, most relevant products to customers and to help make money. It’s about understanding where 3D can fit into that workflow for different teams.
By connecting to those teams already using technology, we slowly but surely built trust and awareness and before long had this very big and strong cross-functional initiative in play.
It took us a bit of time to get the right people at that table, but we managed it in the end and that’s when the motor really started running. We had a great team pushing and doing and driving and exploring and creating. It was wonderful to see and with great results!
We are also hearing of a significant number of Brands stalling or even scaling back on their digital initiatives post-COVID. Why do you think that might be?
Without meaning to sound like a broken record, again because of people; we’re complicated! Look, those were a few weird years and I’m no psychologist but I think there is a lot of collective trauma that we are just ignoring and powering through.
3D was a reactive solution to an unpredictable crisis. A lot of the attention it got was born out of a very dark time and now people are trying to rebound back to what they thought was “the norm” and I get it!
And so for any company that is stalling or going backwards, I believe you will not only soon start failing to attract the next generation of talent, but you also will not be able to compete against those that are smarter, faster and more profitable than you.
Well said! And finally for today, I wanted to ask you about sustainability in relation to 3D. In the early days, sustainability seemed to be a central driver of 3D adoption but lately, that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Why do you think that is?
I would agree with your observations. I think it was a huge part of the storytelling originally, especially as there was hyper focus on CSR and ESG across the industry to publish reports about our impact. At Target, we started working with our CSR team early so that we could track the associated savings on water, energy, materials, you name it.
But that did change because there was, and is, a bigger factor at play here that goes beyond just 3D: in coming out of COVID, priorities shifted back to costs, growth and profitability and those things don’t always easily align with becoming more sustainable. I have seen sustainability and DEI initiatives be scaled back significantly.
But the reality is, the business model we have today has got to change and become more equitable and sustainable because that is what future generations of our employees and consumers are increasingly demanding and what is needed.
I also think that part of the problem is that the term ‘sustainability’ has historically been very environmentally-focussed. Not to say that the environment is not something we need to be actively working on, but we need to be thinking about it more broadly as well in terms of people too. Across our entire value chain, we should be giving more thought and consideration to: who are we working with; what conditions are they working in; what do they need to make their lives easier; and how can technology play a role in making things more equitable?
I will close with this…
Thank you so much for your time today Alexis and for all of your 3D insights! We look forward to meeting up again for Part 2 where we move beyond 3D and into topics including: leadership, DEI and your views on new(er) technologies. To be continued…
Have any questions or comments? Pop them in the comments section below and we’ll come back to you!
