Purpose The current rapid growth of internet-based commerce is putting pressure on brick-and-mortar retail outlets due to an urge to redefine the role of store spaces from sales channel to, among others, a branding instrument (Hines & Bruce 2008, Nobbs et al 2013). Differentiation in the fashion business being mostly based on non-tangible, emotional, produt attributes, fashion brands recognise the importance of offering a three dimensional environment in order for people to ‘experience’ the brand (WGSN 2014, Lea-Greenwood 2013, Easey 2008). The increased amount of flagship and (or) concept stores must be understood in this context. However, given the need for a clearly identifiable brand identity, one could argue that, depending on a brand’s idiosyncratic identity, sometimes a flagship store might be superfluous, or else it should present different features and chatracteristics. So for instance the introduction of what are commonly know as ‘third spaces’ in stores goes at the expense of space where garmets could be stocked, and thus impacts an important metric like turnover per square meter. Hence, in the context of flagship stores, the questions arise of 1) should every fashion brand have a flagship store? or else: 2) given that a brand has a flagship store: is there a relationship between its symbolic value some flagship store’s characteristics? Design/Methodology The methodological stance in this paper is mainly interpretative, as we aim at a richer understanding of the relationship between branding and retailing. At first a large number of qualitative data (22 interviews and 678 store observations) have been collected about characteristics of flagship stores around the globe. Afterwards the brands, owners of the stores, have been classified according to their Glue Value, i.e. according to the benefits that the symbolic value of the brand implies. We have then looked for a corrispondence between the store features and the brand that would reflect the Glue Value dimension. Findings We have found partial evidence of a correspondence between the glue value of a brand and its flagship store’s characteristics. We hypothesise this might be due to two main reasons 1) brands with a lower glue value tend to profile emotional rather than functional values, and attempt to portray that in a store with mixed results (literally). Secondly it is clear that the location and ownership of the store has a major impact on the need to fulfill ‘harder’short term financial goals (like e.g. turnover per square meter). Limitations One main limitation in this study is the self-selection bias. As normally brands with a higher glue value feel the need for a flagship store , the data could be richer and results more valid if we did include data from a wider range of store typologies. Social/Managerial implications The outcomes suggest that brand owners are seldom aware of the longer-term strategic function of their stores. Especially given the growth of internet based transactions, we offer a framewokr for brand owners to rethink the role of their stores in the context of their branding strategy. Also we suggest that, as with strategy (cfr Michael Porter) making a unique and definitive choice about the role and function of a store is increasingly important for the perception of a brand’s identity. Originality To our knowledge som eauthors suggest a relation between branding and distribution strategy, but little work has been done that tends to infer a relationship between a brand’s characteristics and the physical characteristics of its retail outlets.

• Karinna Nobbs(London College of Fashion)
• Marco Mossinkoff(Amsterdam Fashion Institute)