Designers selling out

[baklanyc]

Ah, finally, it's official! I was wondering how long it was going to be before they announced it. I know of another designer or two working with Target and it's hard not to jinx the deals by mentioning them too early. I think Paul & Joe will translate well for the lower price point.

Here's a question for TFS posters: do you have any negative reactions to these more established but not necessarily 1st tier designers doing lines for Target? It was a big discussion especially among some designers I know who'd been approached about whether or not it would be seen as a negative influence on their brands, but with the strength of their advertising and the precedent set by other lower-priced but designer-infused lines like H&M, it seems that there isn't as much of a stigma to deal with.
Thoughts?

 

[Baizilla]

^

Obviously collaborating with Target will get these designers more commercial attention.. however, I see it as a desperate sign to get one step closer to becoming "mainstream" and recognized by the majority. I feel something like that would become too commercial in the end, I'd rather see them letting their designs and reputation proceed them.

Talking about high street stores x designers, I'm very disappointed of Rei.. but that belongs to another thread

 

[lucy92]

abaete pairing up with payless is disgusting.

the designs are hideous!

then again i never liked abaete in the first place.

 

[Erin]

Smart move for Target, smart move for Target.

 

[faust]

Ah, finally, it's official! I was wondering how long it was going to be before they announced it. I know of another designer or two working with Target and it's hard not to jinx the deals by mentioning them too early. I think Paul & Joe will translate well for the lower price point.

Here's a question for TFS posters: do you have any negative reactions to these more established but not necessarily 1st tier designers doing lines for Target? It was a big discussion especially among some designers I know who'd been approached about whether or not it would be seen as a negative influence on their brands, but with the strength of their advertising and the precedent set by other lower-priced but designer-infused lines like H&M, it seems that there isn't as much of a stigma to deal with.
Thoughts?

I think it all depends on what they make. If it's a $250 Puma sneaker, and the only difference from the $50 one is "Jil Sander" on it - then I have a problem. If the line is indeed designed, then I think it's at least worth looking at. I actually think Stella does a decent job for Adidas, for example. Not that Paul&Joe is exactly a design label (in my humble opinion, that is) - they are more of a glorified sportswear brand.

 

[tott]

^ Good point faust.

In general, I get the feeling that established power house designers gain a lot from the publicity and confirm their labels "luxury" status, while lesser known designers will only lose credibility because they sell out...

Right or wrong?

 

[Labeladdict2]

I don't like it...

I appologize in advance for sounding snobby. *I'm not really* It just makes me kind of sad that all of these designers are jumping on the bandwagon to acheive "mainstream" success. Why? The less accessible a line is, the more coveted it is. I mean, what next?... Chanel for JCPenney??It's nice that "real" people get to feel luxurious, but this trend is going too far....

credit: melaniatrump.com

 

[masquerade]

ugh, fashion is a business. companies that sell ridiculously expensive clothing dont make money. that is why isaac mizrahi ended up at target in the first place, he went broke

anyway, what im trying to say is that fashion is about making money in the end and its kinda ridiculous to think that they shouldnt try to expand. commercial success is a good thing. its better for them if people know who they are and can buy them

besides, target, over the years, has gained credibilty and a bit of a hipster cool sort of thing. it is not on the same level as jc penny. just like lagerfeld for h&m

 

[Labeladdict2]

besides, target, over the years, has gained credibilty and a bit of a hipster cool sort of thing. it is not on the same level as jc penny. just like lagerfeld for h&m

you're right on that one. And of course business is about making money. I just hope they don't sacrifice the style just to reach the masses. That's my point.

No problems 448 xoxo

 

[lucy92]

stella mccartney has yet to make any money for her parent company.

they arent even breaking even at this point.

 

[tott]

^ I guess that's why she's moonlighting for Adidas and H&M...

 

[baklanyc]

/\ Did you find that it hindered Stella's own brand's exclusivity by designing clothes that were so covetable at H&M, or did it actually help because her name got out? That's one of the arguments FOR going to a place like Target or H&M: visibilty with people who may not necessarily recognize the brand. We who read a lot of fashion know a lot of names, but the average American (who, arguably, may not even be the target customer for the brand to begin with) does not. Luella and Paul & Joe are hardly well-known in the US, so I'm not sure what kind of caché they would get by selling at the mass level.

On the other hand, Thomas O'Brien is actually doing a great job with his furniture line at Target and I feel like it hasn't diluted his brand at all. I saw some of the pieces and they're actually great (although some were of lesser quality). Plus Target is maintaining an even more aggressive campaign to heighten its own caché - a recent catalog of home decor looked higher end than pricier lower-priced brands like Crate & Barrel & Pottery Barn.

In the end, I think it helps those brands that design for Target & H&M make money, which despite the exclusivity of many pricey designer brands, these companies are really lacking to continue to grow. Although Karl Lagerfeld did it as a challenge, one that I think forever raised the bar for these lower-end chains.

 

[lucy92]

/\ Did you find that it hindered Stella's own brand's exclusivity by designing clothes that were so covetable at H&M, or did it actually help because her name got out? That's one of the arguments FOR going to a place like Target or H&M: visibilty with people who may not necessarily recognize the brand. We who read a lot of fashion know a lot of names, but the average American (who, arguably, may not even be the target customer for the brand to begin with) does not. Luella and Paul & Joe are hardly well-known in the US, so I'm not sure what kind of caché they would get by selling at the mass level.

On the other hand, Thomas O'Brien is actually doing a great job with his furniture line at Target and I feel like it hasn't diluted his brand at all. I saw some of the pieces and they're actually great (although some were of lesser quality). Plus Target is maintaining an even more aggressive campaign to heighten its own caché - a recent catalog of home decor looked higher end than pricier lower-priced brands like Crate & Barrel & Pottery Barn.

In the end, I think it helps those brands that design for Target & H&M make money, which despite the exclusivity of many pricey designer brands, these companies are really lacking to continue to grow. Although Karl Lagerfeld did it as a challenge, one that I think forever raised the bar for these lower-end chains.

i heard the thomas obrien line isnt selling that well at target. they cut priced on a lot of pieces.

before lagerfeld, though stephen sprouse did designs for target.

 

[ilovepositano]

i love high fashion as much as the next label ho...

but bringing good design to the masses is good for everyone.

the retailer makes more money.

the designer makes money for the first time
and the consumer looks money.

it's almost like a public service. it's like designer hotels. thanks to the proliferation of ian schrager type boutique hotels, people can now stay at many small places that have modern decor and don't have to sleep on needlepoint pillows. i think the average american can definitely use something other than v-neck sweater and jeans!

afterall, my eyes- they are bleeding.

 

[susie_bubble]

I know I have said it before but it really does depend on the designer. Some designers can be democratised in and main stream-ified in this Target/H&M/Topshop way whilst other designers just really should not attempt it. I think the distinction needs to be clear enough between their mainlines and their high street collaborations so for those that buy their mainline don't feel like their look is being cheaply ripped off whilst at the same time, the cheaper line also has the maintain some level of quality. I think it's such a hard balance to achieve.

 

[faust]

ugh, fashion is a business. companies that sell ridiculously expensive clothing dont make money. that is why isaac mizrahi ended up at target in the first place, he went broke

anyway, what im trying to say is that fashion is about making money in the end and its kinda ridiculous to think that they shouldnt try to expand. commercial success is a good thing. its better for them if people know who they are and can buy them

besides, target, over the years, has gained credibilty and a bit of a hipster cool sort of thing. it is not on the same level as jc penny. just like lagerfeld for h&m

Interesting. Actually, plenty of companies that sell "ridiculously expensive clothing" make money. Also, Mizrahi shouldn't have been in the business in the first place, because he is a talentless hack. The only way he made the scene is because Queen Karla sponsored him in return for favors that should not be discussed on the forums. But even Karla's benevolence and industry influence could not counterbalance Mizrahi's lack of talent, and Chanel's investment in him cost them a pretty penny.

 

[Scott]

^teehee

I do agree with your former comment,Faust. As well as Susie's point about there being something distinct in the collections they do. I am never one for mass marketing just for the sake of making more money,believe you me,but somehow if it's in such a way at making your work a bit more accessible and still very interesting I say why not,really. P&J is still quite indie so maybe they're trying to get their names out there a bit more.

 

[em 692]

i agree with faust and Scott...

selling out for a designer is when they abandon their usual concepts in order to gain more attention or fame. they could design a more accessible line that is still essentially "them" without having to sell-out.

…the only fair way for them to be called a sell-out is if they changed their way of design in order to appeal to the mainstream market…

 

[aldn]

I don't think it hurts them. This lines are limted time only things so...yeah. It's not ike they put the same heart maybe they do maybe they dont but there will different material usage; etc.

 

[Lena]

I get the feeling that established power house designers gain a lot from the publicity and confirm their labels "luxury" status, while lesser known designers will only lose credibility because they sell out...

agreed..
we have discussed this before in various 'priceeee-cut collaboration' topics and as a 'retired' designer i still hold my point here.
a garment is more than design, its based on fabric quality and construction details which obviously cannot be included when mass produceed for a supermarket eg target/h&m/topshop.
the consumer gets the illusion of wearing 'design' when all he/she buys is just a 'better' version of the basic mass product.
i find this marketing approach hurting both the designer's reputation, their mainline sales and the consumer who's been cheated when believing that an actual x-design by target is a 'real' x-design.. sorry guys, but its not.

as a marketing trick it just boosts sales for fashion super market brands and tricks consumer in the illusion of a perfectly oximoron 'cheap luxury'

as a designer and as a consumer, i just say NO not me, i wont make any fat pigs fatter