Designers selling out

[Lena]

ditto, i see all this like a new facade of licencing really and licencing is been proven bad for 'high profile' brands, Cardin is a very good example indeed tott

 

[tott]

^ "Short-term licensing" would be a good way of describing it!

Win-win.

 

[Ianastar]

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.

I'm not saying to make it "cheap"............I'm saying that I would like to see limited pieces not a whole complete line.

Of course it would be great to see a less expensive line with great quality...........I mean who doesn't want that????

 

[baklanyc]

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.

This is exactly what I've been seeing with some of my designer friends who are involved with mass market retailers like Target and H&M.

I've noticed that designers who are very protective of their nascent brand equity try all that much harder to maintain their design quality with respect to handing off their designs to another manufacturer who can only use "cheaper" methods and materials. It makes the designers spend more time figuring out how to make mass production values and cheaper materials look better and still look like their brand, because essentially, that's what the mass retailers want - the look that led them to ask these designers to design for them in the first place. It's a challenge when you're known for simple, clean shapes in cashmere to suddenly have to deal with cotton and synthetics - how do you translate your aesthetic? What clever ways of tranferring your brand equity can you employ? And how can you do so without being ashamed of the final product?

In the end, these deals are about two things, which may or may not be in this order to a particular designer:
1) additional cash flow so they can do more with their own brands
2) additional brand recognition via the mass retailers' advertising.

The second one is trickier, of course, because you aren't necessarily targeting (no pun intended) your *designer* audience with a mass retailer. But that doesn't mean that a higher-end client won't see the ads and remember your brand name. I can't afford most full-on Aero furniture, but damn, there are a few lamps that Thomas O'Brien made for Target that I absolutely love (and not just in pictures - a designer friend bought them even if he had no room to place them because they looked so good, and all the friends that visited his apartment couldn't believe they were from Target). And frankly, all these bigger names make the mass brands like H&M & Target 'cooler' by association, so they become less and less of a problem to have your name associated with.

It's an interesting new paradigm in the current shopping climate. Licensing designer names isn't that new, but the way they are marketed by mass retailers seems different nowadays. Well, to me at least.

 

[lucy92]

ditto, i see all this like a new facade of licencing really and licencing is been proven bad for 'high profile' brands, Cardin is a very good example indeed tott

so's DKNY.
blech!

 

[Lena]

It makes the designers spend more time figuring out how to make mass production values and cheaper materials look better and still look like their brand, because essentially, that's what the mass retailers want - the look that led them to ask these designers to design for them in the first place. It's a challenge when you're known for simple, clean shapes in cashmere to suddenly have to deal with cotton and synthetics - how do you translate your aesthetic? What clever ways of tranferring your brand equity can you employ? And how can you do so without being ashamed of the final product?

karma

 

[stilettogirl84]

I wear contacts and used to wear glasses and at the glasses shop notice all kinds of frames from gucci prada ect- right along side of all the "no name" brands that are there- and without that much price difference. I think this diminishes the observed value of the designer brands- makes them seem less special

 

[lucy92]

I wear contacts and used to wear glasses and at the glasses shop notice all kinds of frames from gucci prada ect- right along side of all the "no name" brands that are there- and without that much price difference. I think this diminishes the observed value of the designer brands- makes them seem less special

true, but all those high fashion companies give the licenses to only two eyeglass companies in italy (luxxotica or saphilo). and they are made in italy.

 

[cosmogrl5]

I honestly do not believe that customers who buy designer lines in Target and H&M believe they are purchasing lux high-end clothing. For many younger customers, I think they probably feel, "Selma Blair wears Isaac Mizrahi dresses, so I can be like her if I wear something that Isaac Mizrahi designed." In other words, it is partly celebrity worship and wanting to have some similar to what they have. For the designer, this is a great opportunity to make money and really get their names out there across the masses--aside from those who are familiar with fashion. For instance, my boyfriend would NEVER know of Nicole Miller, Luella Bartley, or Isaac under normal circumstances, but he does now because he sees JC Penney and Target commercials on tv. To me, I would rather have the real thing, but I find it interesting to see what designers are putting out there to the masses.

 

[rach2jlc]

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.

Lol... don't forget that it came with a dustbag that said "Jil Sander" on it, too. B)

But, you are totally right. I have a pair and, when I first received them, compared them to my Del Mundo's (price $39.99) and found that the leathers were nearly identical.

John

 

[faust]

Lol... don't forget that it came with a dustbag that said "Jil Sander" on it, too. B)

But, you are totally right. I have a pair and, when I first received them, compared them to my Del Mundo's (price $39.99) and found that the leathers were nearly identical.

John

Talk about minimalism

 

[stilettogirl84]

Talk about minimalism

 

[softgrey]

This is exactly what I've been seeing with some of my designer friends who are involved with mass market retailers like Target and H&M.

I've noticed that designers who are very protective of their nascent brand equity try all that much harder to maintain their design quality with respect to handing off their designs to another manufacturer who can only use "cheaper" methods and materials. It makes the designers spend more time figuring out how to make mass production values and cheaper materials look better and still look like their brand, because essentially, that's what the mass retailers want - the look that led them to ask these designers to design for them in the first place. It's a challenge when you're known for simple, clean shapes in cashmere to suddenly have to deal with cotton and synthetics - how do you translate your aesthetic? What clever ways of tranferring your brand equity can you employ? And how can you do so without being ashamed of the final product?

In the end, these deals are about two things, which may or may not be in this order to a particular designer:
1) additional cash flow so they can do more with their own brands
2) additional brand recognition via the mass retailers' advertising.

The second one is trickier, of course, because you aren't necessarily targeting (no pun intended) your *designer* audience with a mass retailer. But that doesn't mean that a higher-end client won't see the ads and remember your brand name. I can't afford most full-on Aero furniture, but damn, there are a few lamps that Thomas O'Brien made for Target that I absolutely love (and not just in pictures - a designer friend bought them even if he had no room to place them because they looked so good, and all the friends that visited his apartment couldn't believe they were from Target). And frankly, all these bigger names make the mass brands like H&M & Target 'cooler' by association, so they become less and less of a problem to have your name associated with.

It's an interesting new paradigm in the current shopping climate. Licensing designer names isn't that new, but the way they are marketed by mass retailers seems different nowadays. Well, to me at least.

i agree with pretty much everything you have said here...

and i think on of the major differences and advantages of this sort of arrangement is the HUGE advertising budgets that the mass retailers have now...they really do a great job with that and it makes a world of difference....the people working on the mass market campaigns are very often the same people working on high end designer campaigns...