Pricing-New Designer Vs Established Designer

^ agreed
and like tott said, this is not a discussion about quality but about pricing

the biggest (and fatal) mistake i did when i was producing and distributing my own line was the fact that i was cutting down on profit in order to be more 'accessible'.. even though i was selling a lot at one point i had to stop because at the end i was just covering expenses, which obviously was beyond the point for keeping up with the growth
 
Lena said:
^ agreed
and like tott said, this is not a discussion about quality but about pricing

the biggest (and fatal) mistake i did when i was producing and distributing my own line was the fact that i was cutting down on profit in order to be more 'accessible'.. even though i was selling a lot at one point i had to stop because at the end i was just covering expenses, which obviously was beyond the point for keeping up with the growth

well, pricing and quality goes hand in hand, after all , we often argue within ourselves if some of the stuff we look at (and consider buying) is worth the money it is sold for based on the quality.

I went to a gen Art event yesterday and some of the stuff being sold there was really terrible in the quality, however these are designers who are charging (well not at the event, as it was a sample sale) or aspire to charge the same money as established designers.
I personally dont like to compromise on this level, i use the best quality silks, linens, cottons and woolens for my collections ( i hate man made fibers and rarely use them), ( i have a formula that keeps me going) however i dont make a lot of money (or no money at all:cry:)because of this. I keep my prices descent but i dont compromise on the quality of the product.
right now im trying to source a certain interfacing for my fall 2007 collection( the kind used in saville row jackets) and its hugely expensive, the challenge for me is to figure out how to use the things i need to produce the quality work i am happy with and still make a profit.
 
I haven`t read all the posts but I study Retaling management, and had exams in Pricing Strategi yesterday, so I can give all of you that want to learn more a "quick" answer.

Costs:
The main rule is to never think to much about the costs while pricing. The user of the apparel cares if it is cashmere or cotton(incremental costs and variable costs), but not if you spent alot on a expensive marketer, sewing machine, or rent, that is an avoidable cost(usually fixed costs).

For example you invest on a new sewing machine, you cant price your garments higher, the costumer does`t care. Designers that sell less have smaller margins in general because of their small scale, but you cant pass those costs on to the custumers.

Pricing

Traditionally pricing:
A pricer that uses the same Cost+markup theory because it carries an aura of financial prudence. Financiel prudence, according to this view, is achieved by pricing every product to a yield, a fair return over all costs. This is according to the book "the Strategy and Tactics of pricing" by Thomas T. Nagle and Reed K. Holden, a blueprint of mediocre finacial pricing(recomendend)
because you first make a product, then see the total costs of the products made, then look at how much you think you can sell and set a price that makes profit.
Product->cost->price->value->costumer

The Value based Pricing:
the only way to make good profits in the long run. look first at the costumers you are going to sell to, then see what their perseption of the value is, then you look at what the price can be set at, ad then look at the costs too see if it makes any profit to make the clothes, last you look at the product youre making.

Customer->Value->price->cost->product

That is why Dior homme can price a tee that costs 5$ to make, 150$(x30), but not a suit that costs 200$ for 6000$. they know that their custumers buy their tees for that price, but not their suits for that price.

But back to the question:
What should a new designer do?

Product life cycle is relevant to think about.
Who buys what in a certain part of the Products Life cycle?
The laggards dont pay as much as the innovators, but laggards and the majority are a much bigger segment(scale) etc

Growth
there are several growth strategies, but a newly started high end brand should never price their garments cheap, because when people dont know your brand, they check the price and the price indicates what the "quality" of the garment is. They have no other way to find out! A designer that starts selling clothes expensive can give rabates etc, but should never have a cheap retailing price! if you start off selling your clothes cheap people will always think that the quality is bad or mediocre. But if you price high, people will think they are buying quality.
The psykology: It is easier for LV to make a new brand "LV2" that sell cheap clothes, than it is for H&M to make a new brand that sells expensive clothes "H&M2". Even if "H&M2" clothes are much more expensive to make Luis Vuitton clothes they will have problems. Because of the price you assosiate with the mother brand.

To use take big profits for each product is called a skimming price strategy, and is usually used in all products introduction and growth fase. The opposite is the Penetration strategi, Penetration strategy is used when it is a product wich is sold to the mass marked and price sensetive segment, and is always going to be cheap in the future. It rarely be sold for higher prices in the future unless it is products that makes the cosumer dependant of the product, like Microsoft or Playstations. If for example Playstation sell their machines cheap, they can later sell the games expensive, and make it hard for competitors to enter the market. But dont think this is the strategy is smart in the apparel buisness.
If H&M starts pricing higher, people will feel that they are paying too much, because of the price level it had before, even if they improved the quality equally to the raise in price.

bottom line:
to say a brand has to "earn" itself a reputation with nice and cheap clothes is according to we have learned wrong. Unless it is supposed to be a brand wich sells to the massmarket and pricesensetiv segment.

1.First look at the COSTUMERS. who are they?
Rich classy girls. A small, but price insensetive segment. Innovaters and early adaptors

2.The VALUE for them is to buy clothes that are exclusive and have great quality etc

3.Which type of pricing strategy is smart for me too use in the long run? Skimmingstrategy, it is a small segment, so scale can rarely be acheived. If they are satisfied they will come back, if they dont like it because it is to "cheap", they would never bought it anyways. Look at brands you want to be assosiated with and price in the same range, or even higher. Remember, better to price to high than too low. You can have "sales" more often (if you do it all the time costumers that pay full price will feel like fools). You can also give the costumers that you want to be associated with a "special price".

4.Costs;
the costs are obviously going to be high. The custumers are demanding expensive materials etc

5.Product;
What can I make to furfill their demands?
Avant-Garde Quality Apparel!!

Tip:
A good strategy is to sell your clothes to all the stores you want to be assosiated with and give them a price that just covers youre costs, but they have to price clothes expensive. They will earn alot selling your clothes, and promote it more. Customers will think it is a quality brand and you will get the costumers you want, the price insensetive, quality seeking segment.
Later when you have established your quality brand and are not longer in the early fase in the product life cycle, you can begin harvesting :smile:

This is why many new designers fail, they make clothes they like, find out how much they can carge and how much they can sell based on the price+markup strategy. Without thinking Product life cycle and value pricing

this is just a very small part in pricing strategy, but it is the most essential!
Hope you kind of understand how it works now.
 
Another thing that happens is when a designer that is stablished as a womenswear designer launches a menswear line, and the other way around. Take for example the case of Narciso Rodriguez whose womenswear line was succesful and worth the price, but when he tried to charge $700 for a pair of pants and so, for his menswear line, he did wrong.
 
what does everyone think about zac pozen's pricing? i think its outrageous. he has a LOT of investors. and i dont even think his stake in his own company is that big...i wonder if his line is even profitable.
 
a lot of celebs wear his stuff ... I think that for the recent premiere of the movie "The holiday" Kate and Cameron wore Zac ... it seems its all about the hype!!!
 
lucy92 said:
what does everyone think about zac pozen's pricing? i think its outrageous. he has a LOT of investors. and i dont even think his stake in his own company is that big...i wonder if his line is even profitable.

P. diddy ownsfifty percent of Zac Posens company, as to the other investors, i dont know the breakdown. One thing i never understood though .
When designers no longer have majority in the companies that bears thier names........can we really call it thier own?
 
^in that case, the design is their own, but the business is not theirs.
 
^ happens all the time :smile:

a warm welcome to aminos and thanks for sharing advice

back on topic, no indie designer decides to be expensive for sheer fun
actually i find most 'young and interesting' collections quite reasonably priced, considering all garments cost wholesale price X3 by the time they reach sell point.
a wellcut originally designed 400 euros blouse, is reasonable since the indie designer's company is selling it at around 130-140 euros wholesale.

i find that due to the current budget crisis most 'young' designers are seriously lowering their profit margin simply because they are scared.

Zamb, please do keep your prices -and quality- high, dont back up
wellmade collections are so hard to find.
 
does that mean that young designers that are stocked in Barney's should price their garment as high as the established designers in the same section? but quality wise, there is definitely a difference..
 
^ If you don't produce high-quality pieces, you can't very well demand high prices...

But if you do produce quality stuff, you should be careful to not undercharge as has been stated several times.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tott said:
^ If you don't produce high-quality pieces, you can't very well demand high prices...

But if you do produce quality stuff, you should be careful to not undercharge as has been stated several times.

well , what is the criteria used to determine quality, and after that is established, how do we use it to justify price.
also........ where does fabrication, innovation and technical difficulty in executing cetain pieces play a role in all this.
there are also a lot of garments that require hand finishing and such, to achieve a given result, these things can be labour intensive/ time consuming, but may not have anything to do with quality,
how should these play a role in pricing......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When I say "high quality" I mean that in the "shallow" and commonly accepted sense. That the material is high quality and that it's cut and sewn with care, that it has a sleek finish.

Technical difficulty, innovative cuts and so on are bonuses but don't have much to do with the basic "materialistic" quality, and that's what matters first.

If you have flawless basic quality, you can probably get away with charging more for labour-intensive, complicated pieces because they are exquisite. If you don't, people will probably wonder why they should shell out big bucks for something which is only so-so executed...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tott said:
When I say "high quality" I mean that in the "shallow" and commonly accepted sense. That the material is high quality and that it's cut and sewn with care, that it has a sleek finish.

Technical difficulty, innovative cuts and so on are bonuses but don't have much to do with the basic "materialistic" quality, and that's what matters first.

If you have flawless basic quality, you can probably get away with charging more for labour-intensive, complicated pieces because they are exquisite. If you don't, people will probably wonder why they should shell out big bucks for something which is only so-so executed...
well , good, we are on the same page on this one............
 
What about celebrity lines though? They don't have to 'make up' the money they invest as urgently as up and coming designers... why does some ugly "brand" like House of Disaster..oops i mean Dereon... get to charge such high prices?
 
justlooking said:
What about celebrity lines though? They don't have to 'make up' the money they invest as urgently as up and coming designers... why does some ugly "brand" like House of Disaster..oops i mean Dereon... get to charge such high prices?

"the only way to make good profits in the long run. look first at the costumers you are going to sell to, then see what their perseption of the value is, then you look at what the price can be set at, ad then look at the costs too see if it makes any profit to make the clothes, last you look at the product youre making."

Because they CAN..its not like economics is based on who deserves what. They can charge alot because the people that buy the clothes will pay alot. If no one paid, the prices would go down! If the demand went up the prices could to.
 
I don't know if this is interesting but I look at the fashion shops around Auckland - here it's all about the small designer. Anyway I generally find the quality of the clothes to be terrible. They use flimsy cottons and still charge $400-500NZD. I saw one skirt half made with denim, the other half with cotton retailing for $450. I thought the skirt was cute but not enough for that price.

The thing that annoys me most is that these designers have really fancy shops, they may not be huge but they're on expensive fashion streets, that obviously pushes the price up. It's all so pretentious, I rarely see a piece that uses quality materials and cuts. I appreciate that they need to charge a bit more to cover their costs but I find the prices for the quality absolutely outrageous. They aren't even pushing the envelope it's all runway knockoff, things you'd expect to see in a cheap RTW sale.
 
zamb said:
P. diddy ownsfifty percent of Zac Posens company, as to the other investors, i dont know the breakdown. One thing i never understood though .
When designers no longer have majority in the companies that bears thier names........can we really call it thier own?
Somewhat, as long as they still design, but sometimes we as consumers hope they dont compromise their aesthetics based upon what the investors want :ermm: e.g. Gucci Group
 
Last edited by a moderator:
misssakura said:
I don't know if this is interesting but I look at the fashion shops around Auckland - here it's all about the small designer. Anyway I generally find the quality of the clothes to be terrible. They use flimsy cottons and still charge $400-500NZD. I saw one skirt half made with denim, the other half with cotton retailing for $450. I thought the skirt was cute but not enough for that price.

The thing that annoys me most is that these designers have really fancy shops, they may not be huge but they're on expensive fashion streets, that obviously pushes the price up. It's all so pretentious, I rarely see a piece that uses quality materials and cuts. I appreciate that they need to charge a bit more to cover their costs but I find the prices for the quality absolutely outrageous. They aren't even pushing the envelope it's all runway knockoff, things you'd expect to see in a cheap RTW sale.

I dont remember which thread i had posted in, but....... as i have said before, it seems to me that the culture and society that once produced the great designers seems to be dying.
there are designers working today that do not understand the principles of cut, shape and silhouette. they do not understand the principles of fabric performance and its uselfness in design. this does not mean that there arent really good designers coming out, its just becoming less and less.....
 
In my school, everybody went off to University to party and study subjects they didn't want to pursue after University (e.g. psychology). I only know one person who went off to do a physical trade, she now has an apprenticeship with an ironmonger, but honestly no kids nowadays leave school wanting to learn a valuable trade, carpentry, sewing etc. It's really sad, I understand that being a scholar is valuable but the trades that build our society, the trades that elevated us as a species are slowly being lost, and the worst thing is the current tradesmen and women, the few left aren't even appreciated for their valuable craft. It's tragic.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
210,767
Messages
15,127,217
Members
84,492
Latest member
velvetmuse
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->