Designers selling out

[tricotineacetat]

What kind of an alternative do you have as a high end fashion designer to reach a different/younger market, except from going high street? I actually find most attempts of designers to do less expensive secondary lines (anything ittierre, RAF by Raf Simons, etc.) to be absolutely not worth mentioning as the pricepoints are often just the entrance level of what they are already doing in their mainline collections, it's still not as democratic as it is supposed to be.

I don't really have anything against designers doing "cheap" as on an H&M pricepoint level, but it often lacks consideration that the clothes will end up being made differently and under cost-cutting circumstances that are entirely different than their mainline collections.

The whole design approach and concept of the collection must be entirely different than what they already doing so tha it doesn't compete with what they are already doing. Miuccia Prada put it well when she said she would want it to look entirely different than either Prada or Miu Miu, made entirely from inexpensive fabrics.

Of course this approach doesn't work well with every designer (can you imagine people like Olivier Theyskens doing cheap floor-length skirtsuits in... ummm, sweatshirt fabric?), but why not in cases like Hedi Slimane or Raf Simons (cut-off sweatshirts, washed cotton parkas, drainpipe pants, printed tees and canvas sneakers - all of which are rather functional than luxurious garments)?

 

[tricotineacetat]

on the sidenote, there is companies like Cheap Monday that benefit well from the fact that certain designers don't consider working on a low-budget collection... their 50 € jeans work absolutely well with any designer gear and are often sold in the very same shops in which you can also find high-profile brands.

 

[Lena]

i dont think designers actually bring in any new customers by ging 'supermarket' cheap.. this kind of client who buys the target /designer product will just wait for the next target/designer line, wont really jump into being a faithful eg. Paul&Joe or Stella client.
its a very oportunistic attitude on both ends (both for the designer/mass market end and the consumer end)

a fake illusion of luxury, thats all

 

[rach2jlc]

For top-tier designers, I think that going "mass market" hurts them. For lesser known designers, or second-tier designers, I think it could only help them.

For these top brands, like Chanel or Gucci or even Prada (or, for an individual designer, somebody like Tom Ford or Valentino), they've spent years and TONS of money trying to create an aura and an image of luxury around them. Much of this aura revolves around being inaccessible at every level (after all, is there REALLY a reason why their t-shirts are often $150 or more?) and expensive. So, for them to do a mass market or low price collaboration would hinder the image that they've so painstakingly (and expensively) tried to produce.

For lesser known designers or second-tier designers (like Paul&Joe), I think it only helps them. They don't have a particular "image" about them outside of hardcore fashion fans. BUt, what it does is gets their name, their ideas, and their "philosophy" to a much wider audience. So, whereas nearly everybody has heard of Chanel, I doubt that any but a few have heard of Paul & Joe or Stella McCartney. However, in doing these collaborations, they are getting their name out. And, as Warhol said, all publicity is good publicity. They don't really have an "image" to hurt, I don't think. I mean, I don't really think of ANY particular image of Paul & Joe, Mizrahi, Proenza S, or Stella McCartney (except that her dad was a Beatle). But, through these collaborations, there name is disseminated and I can then look up MORE info about them that I wouldn't have otherwise.

John

 

[tricotineacetat]

I am always hearing words like "luxury" thrown into the discussion, I think that's exactly what these less expensive collections should not be seen as. As I said before, if it is inexpensive, than please without the illusion of designing something that echoes what had already been designed in the mainline with cheaper fabrics and production. Neither Stella nor Karl were playing with the idea of something decidedly inexpensive, so what ended up in the shops were flirty cocktail dresses and blazers... not really the sort of stuff you would usually buy on a low pricepoint, and it's a given that the quality just cannot keep up with any luxury brand.

Those that could work well on a high street level would be designers with an urban sensebility, somebody that is not subjected to couture or highly craftsmanship-oriented clothing.

I find it really interesting to compare fashion to industrial design, with people like Philippe Starck and others designing products from high end to low key, I just wonder why people can't see clothing also from a dry point of view as they would with any other type of design, a product that has to fulfill a certain purpose?

 

[Scott]

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

Oh definitely. I think it would be really naïve for people to go into these places expecting high quality merchandise.

 

[Scott]

I just wanted to add too,because I might've come off as rather hypocritical but my point is that if the endeavour has integrity and respect for talent behind it I see nothing wrong with it. I get this from Target's ventures and also in TopShop. And with the case of people like Stella,P&J and Luella...these people are actually more commercially oriented in their mainlines anyway so it's not as if they're selling their utter creative souls to make a profit. I mean,it's not as if these people are like Zowie Broach and Brian Kirby etc. You could accuse somebody like Viktor & Rolf of selling out because they actually made such an extraordinary transisiton from being completely creative to doing lines for La Redoute catalogue.

 

[JohnPaulMiller]

I find it really interesting to compare fashion to industrial design, with people like Philippe Starck and others designing products from high end to low key, I just wonder why people can't see clothing also from a dry point of view as they would with any other type of design, a product that has to fulfill a certain purpose?

I think it has a lot to do with the "exclusiveness factor". Nobody cares if BMW makes $25k el-cheapo (for BMW that is) model, so long as the $125k one remains distinctive.

The challenge to BMW is to somehow not cannibalize their high end sales with cheaper models. This is why most automakers (and designers) run two or three makes (or labels).

The reuse (leverage) the existing engineering (designs), into different products for different people.

You're not going to design heated seats and gyroscopically balanced seats for the Scion line. Those are for the Lexus customer. Same with hand lined dresses, decollage, patterns retain ease and actually fit right, fabric wasting gathering that's actually done right, etc.

 

[tricotineacetat]

I think it has a lot to do with the "exclusiveness factor". Nobody cares if BMW makes $25k el-cheapo (for BMW that is) model, so long as the $125k one remains distinctive.

The challenge to BMW is to somehow not cannibalize their high end sales with cheaper models. This is why most automakers (and designers) run two or three makes (or labels).

The reuse (leverage) the existing engineering (designs), into different products for different people.

You're not going to design heated seats and gyroscopically balanced seats for the Scion line. Those are for the Lexus customer. Same with hand lined dresses, decollage, patterns retain ease and actually fit right, fabric wasting gathering that's actually done right, etc.

agreed, which is why i think that all the fabric consuming, handworked stuff is better preserved for the mainline business...

some clothes however are rather easy to produce and can be done under cost-cutting circumstances - take for example somebody as rick owens - his wrap jerseys and knits could do well on a lower-priced range just as they would in a high-end collection. on the other hand, it is only now that highstreet/lower priced labels really tap the potential of skinny jeans - Dior Homme's were kind of the only ones on the menswear market for a good amount of time, it is only now that we see companies like Acne doing strong in this business offering a more affordable alternative. I don't know, maybe I have got a very specific thing in mind with low key... something that has a simplicity and a functional aspect like Helmut Lang's stuff, done in rather simple fabrics like gabardine or washed moleskin (parkas, short blouson jackets,... simple jeans and flat front pants without fussy details, some nicely-cut jerseys and merino sweaters... and a pair of canvas sneakers).

 

[Ianastar]

I kind of like seeing some designer stuff that is available for a larger market at a lower price point. Such as the stuff with Target and H&M.

I do feel, however, that the designer should do limited pieces instead of a whole line. I don't feel they should sink all of their creativity into something that is going to be in Target.

You also have to wonder how this affects their name........for instance with Isaac doing so much for Target................will people see him as a "serious designer" if he tried to launch another major designer/couture/high fashion line??????


And you have to stop and think..............how much of THE DESIGNER is really in this. I'm sure Isaac has final say over stuff, and his name is then slapped on. But I don't see him toiling over his desk for hours sketching out stuff for Target.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ Well, Mizrahi *has* that line ... exclusively at Bergdorf's. Presumably people are buying it ...

I don't have a problem with anyone partnering with Target--it doesn't dilute the brand in my mind. What I'm not too fond of is how it's all designed for a very young customer. I think Chanel wouldn't make sense because it's an institution, but any designer whose designs aren't "overly" sophisticated would work, I think. Even Olivier now that he's branched out a bit would work--for H&M, though, not Target.

I'd like to hear from people who bought the designer H&M stuff--what do you think of the quality? Did you get a good deal?

 

[JohnPaulMiller]

I do feel, however, that the designer should do limited pieces instead of a whole line. I don't feel they should sink all of their creativity into something that is going to be in Target.

I think you may have it a little backwards... limited pieces for sure...
but why NOT make each one as great as it can possibly be within the production cost constraints?

After all, the invested creativity will be multiplied by thousands of units in production, compares to scant dozens of units in designer collections.

Just because it's cheap as in inexpensive doesn't mean it has to be cheap as in tacky.

 

[tott]

^ Absolutely. Sometimes great stuff comes out from limitations, when you have to think outside the box...

 

[JohnPaulMiller]

take for example somebody as rick owens - his wrap jerseys and knits could do well on a lower-priced range just as they would in a high-end collection.

I'm not familiar with that specific designer, but....

I think if you can already visualize low priced versions of his high end line, then he may be the worst candidate... at least from his own interests because he'll end up cannibalizing his main line. Not that target would care... but I don't see any synergy.

But imagine Gaultier, Cavalli, LaCroix, and so on doing a limited set for H&M? There's no way it would cut into his designer line... it's are just too elaborate and expensive to make in the first place.

 

[tott]

/\ 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?

It helped her get her name more out in the open, and I think it magically added a more exclusive, higher quality "shimmer" to her brand because she was "hand-picked" by H&M... But she was already well-known, if not a household brand...

 

[Bidwell]

Halston (remember him?) did a line for (shock-horror here) J.C. Penney in his day. British designers have worked for high street retailers since the 60's. Hussein Chalayan even did a stint a while back before any of this Stella/Karl/Isaac business. Of course, few knew of Chalayan and their lies the problem for both designer and Retailer.
Still, it beats just buying the perfume when you can have a whisper of the designer's signature goods.

 

[tott]

^ Exactly...

 

[Lena]

It helped her get her name more out in the open, and I think it magically added a more exclusive, higher quality "shimmer" to her brand because she was "hand-picked" by H&M... But she was already well-known, if not a household brand...

exactly, stella is so well known, she doesnt need h&m but only for $$ reasons, its h&m who needs stella, not vice versa..
with P&J i'm not sure how 'hot' their brand is in usa, in europe they are nothing much, so i really can see that target seem 'desperate' for a hint of 'designer' glam.

once again, imo a mass produced garment is not considered 'designer' just for having a 'signature' / licence on..
to me, a supermarket produced item remains a non 'designer' item, no matter if it has a licence to use a designer name or not

 

[Spike413]

I agree with Scott's last comments. To me, selling out implies somehow sacraficing your vision or whatever for financial gain. But for a designer who isn't necessarily making money from their main line to produce a lower cost line for a retail chain while still maintaining their brand identity, I don't see doing something to make money as selling out.

 

[tott]

a mass produced garment is not considered 'designer' just for having a 'signature' / licence on..
to me, a supermarket produced item remains a non 'designer' item, no matter if it has a licence to use a designer name or not

And the prime example of death by licensing would be Pierre Cardin I suppose... I don't know any other designer brand that has been so totally devalued during the years?