Fashion Becoming Too Mainstream?

there is a reason why in america, consumerism and religious fevor is one in the same.
the head honchos high up are praying we all don't convert to buddhism.



edit: although, in terms of fashion, that would be an INTERESTING underground movement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sharonnn said:
The term "fashion" (in this context) refers to "a prevailing or preferred manner of dress, adornment, behavior".. The term "mainstream" is defined as "the prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity"..

Hence "fashion" itself IS "mainstream".. For something (such as a particular type of style of bags, for example) to be considered as "fashion/fashionable", it has to be widely accepted/adopted (whether by grandmas, fashionistas or even 12 year olds). Those not accepted are "avant garde".

Hope I'm making sense here. ^_^

hello sharonnn, you make total sense:

but fashion has a shadow, a secret fundamental truth, and that is that Fashion is NOT a democracy.

True Fashion MUST distinguish itelf from the lower-classes, except to mine those lower classes for ideas and resources.

when the common folk are thin, the fashionable are fat.

when the common folk are fat, the fashionable are thin.

and when designers cater to the mainstream, they are looked down upon in various ways that say - "we are better than you. you don't belong here."

but never directly, as that would seem vulgar somehow.

as long as you dispose of the ideas of equality and democracy, and see the world of fashion as an elitist, feudal aristocracy of sorts, it all makes sense. :flower:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheSoCalledPrep said:
Well then commonfolk, GET THIN so I can get fat
:lol: :lol: :lol:

the real joke is that, in actuality, you can do whatever the hell you want.:woot:
 
Hmmm ... I didn't realize Coach had ever been exclusive. I see *everyone* carrying it here, and this is not exactly a fashion capital.

What is and always will be exclusive is taste. When I was in high school I did buy the occasional item from Kmart. Kmart's no longer here, but if they did have a Birkin equivalent I probably wouldn't buy it because I don't really care for Hermes bags. Hermes also leaves a bad taste in my mouth due to the attitude I associate with their customers. Look at Oprah's Hermes moment--and I see the same type of thing here. Some of the folks around here who carry Hermes are extremely conscious of it. It looks like inside they're dying to yell, "Look look look at my new alligator Birkin! Yes, I jumped the list, ask me how!" It's too bad that these folks are so insecure that the most important thing they believe they have to offer is a Birkin. I'm sorry, but how boring.

My idea of taste and style is that you present yourself primarily, what you're wearing and carrying is secondary (at least), and the presentation should not vary based on whether you're wearing "high" or "low" or both on a particular day.

Money has never bestowed taste, and this is a great part of the world to see that demonstrated any day of the week.
 
PS Lady Muck makes some excellent points. Not sure everyone realizes how much they're revealing about themselves on this thread? :shock:

I also am very much in favor of the distinguishing surgery for the superrich. May I recommend a Frida Kahlo eyebrow? Or perhaps the Jacqueline Wildenstein catwoman look? I looooove this idea. Of course plastic surgery is now available to the masses so it will take some doing to come up with something that can't be copied--nonetheless, I can't wait.

Also want to say, I don't believe that people with lower incomes' aspirations are in any way pitiful. Poignant, perhaps, but the American Dream is all about aspiration, about being in a different place tomorrow than yesterday. True, when it's all channeled into LV accessories it's a terrible waste, but the basic aspiration is often admirable.

What does stray into pitiful territory is incidents like Oprah having a hissy fit because Hermes won't let her in after hours when they're preparing for a big event. I understand it can be hard to figure out what's happening due to racism, sexism, or something else entirely, but c'mon.
 
I was just catching up on the thread and the whole microchip thing reminds me of what I got for my dog. I wonder if she can get into some clubs?
 
sharonnn said:
The term "fashion" (in this context) refers to "a prevailing or preferred manner of dress, adornment, behavior".. The term "mainstream" is defined as "the prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity"..

Hence "fashion" itself IS "mainstream".. For something (such as a particular type of style of bags, for example) to be considered as "fashion/fashionable", it has to be widely accepted/adopted (whether by grandmas, fashionistas or even 12 year olds). Those not accepted are "avant garde".

Hope I'm making sense here. ^_^
yes, you are. fashion is fashion is fashion. no one owns it - and no one should take it seriously, either. get over yourselves, fashionistas. really.

uh, besides....coach? let them have their coach. :yuk:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fourboltmain said:
I was just catching up on the thread and the whole microchip thing reminds me of what I got for my dog. I wonder if she can get into some clubs?

i'm sure she can fourboltmain ^_^
 
Maximum Luxury
As luxury brands move into the mass market, they need a new way to make the superrich feel special. Welcome to the 'experience economy.'

By Rana Foroohar
Newsweek International

July 25-Aug. 1 issue - The old lexicon of luxe hardly serves to describe the Celux Club, located inside Louis Vuitton's Omotesando building in Tokyo. The few hundred fashionistas, artists, celebrities, and other trendsetters deemed cool enough to pass the rigorous admission process and pay their $2,000 membership fee need a swipe card to enter the store. Once they’re inside, the shopping is epic—not only can members purchase the latest LV products, but they also get first dibs on limited-edition fare from other top brands. But Celux is more than just shopping—in recent months, members have enjoyed a lunch party with a sake master and watched the debut of the latest “Star Wars” in Japan (a week before 20th Century Fox’s own premiere). Next year the club will dip its toes into the ultra-high-end real-estate market, opening up a custom-designed apartment nearby.

This kind of luxury experience is the future. We're not saying that every big boutique will have 87 restrooms and a helipad like the newly remodeled Daslu store in São Paulo. But because goods at all levels are increasingly being commoditized, luxury shopping will have to move beyond simply offering expensive goods in a reasonably pleasant environment. To be successful, luxury brands must transform themselves from manufacturers and purveyors of fine goods into topnotch services that can make even the wealthiest elites feel more pampered and unique. In this Special Issue, NEWSWEEK explores this emerging redefinition of one of the world's most high-profile industries.

They'll still offer made-to-order suits, handcrafted bags and fabulous jewels—but will also toss in a day of indulgence in a private garden, membership to an in-store club, access to exclusive art exhibits and film screenings or purchases hand delivered anywhere (cab, airport, private island). Art and commerce will blur, as top architects create stores that attract sightseers, and brands fill their spaces not only with clothes, but with art.

Some companies may even move into new service industries—witness the recent launch of Armani- and Bulgari-branded hotels. Of course, the treatment of customers—which currently varies dramatically—will have to be stellar from start to finish. "If I'm going to spend thousands of dollars on something, I want the whole experience to be a fairy tale," says Milton Pedraza, head of the Luxury Institute, a market-research firm in New York that tracks the preferences of the world's wealthy. "We're living in the experience economy, and the customer is the star of the show."

The transition is already well underway, driven by the commoditization of goods from T shirts to $10,000 tote bags. The rich are getting richer, and there are more of them, creating demand that luxury-goods companies like Hermes, LVMH, Armani, Gucci, Tiffany, Prada and many others have rushed to fill. From the mid-1990s onward, the size of the major luxury brands exploded, as did their stock prices—during 1999, their record year, luxury indices climbed 144 percent, according to Bear Stearns. Top brands doubled their capital spending, building megastores and turning the shopping districts of cities like New York, London, Paris and Milan into luxe theme parks.

Now that consumers in the West can get great design practically any place (megastores, airports and High Street shops are hiring top-end fashion figures like Isaac Mizrahi and Karl Lagerfeld), luxury brands have shifted their attention to emerging markets. India, Russia and South America are booming. Analysts now forecast that China will be the world's most important luxury market by 2011. But by bringing luxury to the masses, brands like Armani have put themselves in a tricky position. As more products become available to more people, the pressure increases to offer something truly special. "Even as brands have tried to guard their luxury positions, they have also had to become more available to grow. You walk down the street in New York, and every fourth woman is carrying an Hermes Birkin bag," says investment banker Gail Zauder of Elixir Advisors, referring to a famous handbag with a two-year waiting list.

Couple this with the rise of fast fashion rip-offs of haute couture at stores like Zara and H&M, and it's no wonder that some of the wealthiest consumers in developed markets are beginning to spend their money on experiences like elite travel, spas or dining, rather than on goods that have lost the patina of exclusivity. In the United States, a fresh pool of aspirational customers (mainly wealthy minorities, baby boomers and Middle Americans new to luxury) has boosted sales in the short term. But the ultimate trend line in the Western world is downward: Merrill Lynch predicts that U.S. luxury sales will slide from 25 to 17 percent of the global market over the next 10 years. Europe will go from 26 to 20 percent over the same period.

That means that in much of the world, growth for luxury brands will come from grabbing market share from their competitors. In many cases, that means a return to what made luxury products desirable in the first place—their uniqueness. It's no accident that one of the fastest-growing brands of late is Bottega Veneta, owned by the Gucci Group. Its beautifully crafted leather goods have no logo, and its slogan, "When your own initials are enough," appeals to the top end of the market. Gucci CEO Robert Polet says sales were up 54 percent last year to 100 million euro, and he hopes to increase that fivefold. But after that, he says, "We'll let it level off. Not every brand should be a billion-euro brand."

Luxury brands are also padding the shopping experience by increasing their production of bespoke products. At the jewelry house Boucheron, sales of custom-made products are rising 15 percent a year, and it's not unusual for designers to work with customers for as much as two years on the creation of a product. The wildly successful American accessories company Coach spends $3 million a year on consumer research, with 5,000 top customers advising on prototypes.

Even when customized products don't contribute directly to the bottom line, they can help a company rebuild its image. When Burberry's distinctive check pattern was commandeered by C-grade pop stars, the label fought back by launching a limited-edition clothing line. Louis Vuitton makes most of its enormous margins on its off-the-shelf handbags, but likes to play up its origins as a bespoke luxury-goods maker. Says CEO Yves Carcelle, "You can come in and ask for a case for your violin, or if you are a tea master, perhaps a box for your tea set. You can have whatever you dream."

Increasingly, you can have it all in comfort, with entertainment thrown in. Customers in Louis Vuitton's Tokyo Omotesando store, for example, can relax with a glass of champagne and put their feet up in a VIP room. In Japan, which has the most developed consumer culture in the world, designer shops are tourist landmarks, many with eye-popping extras, like the Hermes art museum on top of its Ginza store. Prada's "epicenter" stores feature high-tech amenities like changing-room doors that can be frosted for privacy, then illuminated to display an outfit to onlookers. The company's New York store, designed by Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas, recently hosted screenings for the Tribeca Film Festival.

Prada, perhaps more so than any major luxury brand, has figured out clever ways to elevate clothes beyond commerce. Its new perfume was launched in a short film by Ridley Scott. For a show in Shanghai this May, Prada skipped the catwalk and scattered a collection of skirts around the landmark Peace Hotel—in the hallways, on the stairs, in the rooms. Marketed as an art exhibit, the display generated enormous buzz. "It gave us the opportunity to interact not only with fashion people, but with curators, media, business people and politicians," says Prada CEO Patrizio Bertelli—a clever way into a communist country with little fashion press. Boucheron, which recently launched its own store in Shanghai, took another route—it invited the 30 wealthiest people in the city to a four-hour, 10-course French dinner.

While such events are really the icing on the cake, some brands are launching entirely new service businesses to cater to consumers' longing for luxury experiences. Bulgari, the Roman jeweler, now has a branded hotel in Milan, and is launching another in Bali. Armani, which already runs a luxury mall on Milan's Via Manzoni complete with various branded shops, restaurants and a chocolatier, now plans to open its own hotel chain in 2008, starting with Milan and Dubai. Is this the start of a more profound shift in the luxury business, away from manufacturing and toward pure service? "Already, wealthy people have fractional ownership of things like jets, cars and boats. Why not jewelry, too? Why not clothing?" asks Pedraza of the Luxury Institute. "I could imagine luxury companies offering memberships that would allow people the use of all sorts of luxury items. After all, this stuff tends to depreciate."

Of course, there will always be luxury items that get better with age—heirloom jewelry, a vintage couture suit, a handcrafted leather trunk. But as the world gets smaller, most objects will continue to shrink in value. Time, and what we do with it, will only become more valuable. Viewed in this light, all luxury goods—even the kind sold at retail temples like Daslu—feel a bit beside the point. What is exciting is the possibility of adventure, and discovery, that a well-crafted shopping experience can offer.

It's no wonder, then, that the freshest concept to hit the luxury scene in recent memory are the "guerrilla" shops of Rei Kawakubo's Comme des Garcons. They open and close within a year in offbeat places including Warsaw, Helsinki and Ljubljana, Slovenia, as well as unfashionable areas of Hong Kong and Berlin. Opening costs are less than $2,000 per store, and no fashion people are involved—the company hands out clothes to eager entrepreneurs, who have included a Finnish linguist, a Chinese musician and a Polish statistician. The spaces have been used not only to sell clothes, but to show art, produce music and put out magazines. They are, of course, a huge hit with the fashion crowd. Comme president Adrian Joffe says he "wanted to give people an adventure." The lines outside these shops prove that a thrill is exactly what people are looking for.


From msn.com. I thought it was quite relevent to the discussion, although very looooong.
 
Art and commerce will blur, as top architects create stores that attract sightseers, and brands fill their spaces not only with clothes, but with art.

the shift from product to a consumer experience is the hot trend right now, but i don't think it will pass. simply peddling objects devoid of innovation to fill up space is now a cheap answer to a culture excessively over fed. current luxury is fast food: mcdonalds. the new direction would provide rich sensory experiences; similar to a farmer's market, where the consumer is meant to meander and hunt, engaging in the tactile and discerning. you could say this is an artful experience.

i am less impressed by the luxury driven services that boast exclusive art exhibits and film screenings, because it's not a smart solution becuase it's manifesting the same ideas from product to consumer services without asking if people really NEED it. changing the methods of administering the 'drug' is hardly innovative, and the karma will come back and bite them in the ****.

brands that aren't built on misleading promises such as dries van noten will not be affected, but will probably slowly and sleadily gain momentum. he was already keen on 'fashion' being a intimate experience as demonstrated by the type of fashion shows he'd throw: satisfying not only the visual, and the tactile but also the appetite.

comme des garcon's guerrilla shops are actually very pragmatic, and this is why it is so darn clever. cheap rent? market research fused into the actual shopping experience? a treasure hunt around the world in obscure locals? it is the farmer's market experience all over again. it is tailored to make you feel special without the fallacy. it is, as the old saying goes, form meets function. it is also the criteria for pure art.

edit: form meets function is often attributed to the bauhaus movement, but can be found in zen design criteria, and before that there was no art. design and art were one in the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
by the way there have been a lot of articles flooding the net about the 'experience economy' and businesses hiring creative individuals to get inside consumer's minds and infuse poetry in every day objects.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_31/b3945401.htm

There is, in fact, a whole new generation of innovation gurus. They are not the superstars of the '90s, such as Clayton Christensen, who focused on what might be called macro-innovation -- the impact of big, unexpected new technologies on companies. The new gurus focus more on micro-innovation -- teaching companies how to connect with their customers' emotions, linking research and development labs to consumer needs, recalibrating employee incentives to emphasize creativity, constructing maps showing opportunities for innovation.
Think out-of-the-box consumer experiences, and you get the idea of paradigm shifting. Old paradigm: corner coffee shops. New paradigm: Starbucks (SBUX ). Old: radio. New: satellite radio. Old: crowded electronics stores. New: Apple Computer (AAPL ) stores. Old: grungy, smelly circuses. New: Cirque du Soleil. Old: any airline. New: JetBlue Airways (JBLU ). Old: Macy's (FD ). New: Target (TGT ). Old: Earth-toned Birkenstock sandals. New: colorful beach "Birkis."

The evolution of the economy toward creativity has been underway for some time. Steve Jobs, of course, has turned Apple into the paragon of the creative corporation. Companies throughout the world are deconstructing Apple's success in design and innovation, and learning the lessons.

Storytelling is very important. Designers have found that placing a potential new product within an emotional story that connects with consumers raises the chances of success. The design of the new line of MINI_motion watches and driving shoes, for example, captures the story of the Mini Cooper's cool urban driving experience. It's about the driver, not the car


it's nice to know the populace of artistic thinkers aren't getting the shaft anymore.

if the study of political and religious institutions, economic and social patterns, philosophical and scientific ideas is indispensable for an understanding of what our civilization has been and is, why shouldn't the same be true of the study of our feelings...

octavio paz
 
The problem with this "luxury experience" concept (besides the fact that calling it that sounds soooooo cheesy) is that all of these services and things it promises to offer already exist. The only difference is that now companies like LVMH, Gucci, or Prada want to brand the experience and pretend they have something better and more exclusive to offer than the people who have been already offering whatever it is for years.

And of course they will never just let it happen in a natural, discreet way when it does, like "oh yeah we now offer this as well," but instead it will be some huge over-hyped event like the launching of those $40 million Prada 'epicenters' with all that was written about the computer controlled changing rooms that keep all the past info of the VIP customers linked to some worldwide SmartLabel Prada database of clothing sizes blah blah blah... They even had Rem Koolhaas, the Dutch architect who designed them, put out a book on the whole thing before the stores opened! And who since then, "superrich and dying to feel special" or not has actually put in the time and effort it must take to use any of that crap simply to buy a pair of shoes!? :innocent:
 
/\ :lol: they even touted that that store will never make enough money to pay for itself. now that's ultimate consumer luxury - the ultimate credit card! :woot: :P
 
Ah, I like these last few posts about the "experience economy". Interesting subject. I know that I like boutique shopping better than department store shopping. I walked into a winners once with a friend who regularly shops there, and while the prices are the same as the other stores I shop at, I just hated the "experience". I couldn't assimilate it. Just racks and racks and racks. i wanted to see manequins, I wanted nice tables with creatively folded sweaters, and some matching accessories displayed like a piece of 3d art. I wanted service people that I could ask questions of and who knew about the clothing there. I wanted attractive looking dressing rooms. :smile: I realise that a part of my joy in shopping is just browsing in a nicely laid out shop.

I do think that the extras that a store puts into their displays SHOULD be related to the actual "selling" of the clothes. TO make the experience more comfortable, to make trying them on a more relaxing or homey experience (rather then in a plain bland colour cubicle that you want to get out of as quick as possible), or displays that help the customer see the clothes in a different way.

Hm, on topic.... experience shopping has always been around, but i think it can be taken too far.... when it starts detracting from what you're selling for example. When you can't tell if you're in a clothes store or a museum or entertainment centre.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Statistics

Threads
210,680
Messages
15,123,577
Members
84,382
Latest member
ericbaig68
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->