For many people, Bleach is a scary word. Has it ever caused problems in your business?
When we expanded into the US, people found the name Bleach London really difficult to get their head around because they’ve been told that bleach is bad. And every few years we’ll go through it with a retailer or an investor, who’ll say, ‘Well, what about the name?’ We actually launched a permanent range called No Bleach London, and that’s made people annoyed as well, so I feel like I can’t win!
What was your experience like, working with Boots?
We were really lucky to get to work with Annabelle Franks who was setting up an incubator for disruptive beauty talent, to bring it into the Boots ecosystem. Bleach was an overnight success for them. It showed them the appetite among young people around the country to experiment with their hair in an accessible way. Sometimes, because of working in fashion, I look back and think, ‘Boots… Should we have done something else?’ but the brand visibility you get from Boots you cannot create in any other way. It’s the best marketing you could ask for.
“A question I ask is, ‘Can you name one female hairdresser?’ And nobody has ever had an answer”
And yet five years later you bought them out of the licence. Was that about wanting more control or because you could see opportunities for expansion beyond Boots?
I had always set my sights on global distribution, and much as Boots would have loved to offer that, it was just a bit slow for us. Having ownership of the licence is a natural conclusion for lots of brands. I just wanted to see what else was out there. But I have to say, when I see people start brands, ownership is a big thing for them and it was for us too, but sometimes I think they get that a bit wrong. I’ve come to understand that you’re better off having a smaller percentage of something amazing than 100 per cent of an idea that exists only in your bedroom.