The consequences of affordable collections

[justinleaddict]

Yes. I agree (w/ jared). Nobody here has taken into consideration the people who cannot afford a lot of Luxury. I would think that you people would recommend high street because it is of a higher quality than H&M and such... but you aren't even taking the quality into consideration. You label it is tacky... which isn't fair.

 

[Diorling]

Yes. I agree (w/ jared). Nobody here has taken into consideration the people who cannot afford a lot of Luxury. I would think that you people would recommend high street because it is of a higher quality than H&M and such... but you aren't even taking the quality into consideration. You label it is tacky... which isn't fair.

We're talking about the consequences of highstreet on fashion. Good for those who cant afford luxury, do what you like. But its nothing truly special, since everyone owns it. I like exclusivity in fashion.

I never said it was tacky! I said it's gonna go out of style in a few years, maybe after the next H&M collaboration it'll be tired. I just find it annoying in a way that EVERYONE is now wearing the V&R for H&M collection, it's really annoying, glad I havent seen anyone else w/ my arrow print buttondown.

 

[JJohnson]

The fatal consequence of affordable collections...

your entire collection being common!

Nothing you created would be unique. Everyone would be wearing it.
The fashion industry, honestly, would be slowly reduced to an abyss of nothingness. Gawd no.

I dont think it's going to result to this...

 

[justinleaddict]

We're talking about the consequences of highstreet on fashion.

Yes i read the title of the thread.

I just want people to realize that not everyone who wears D&G is a label wh*re...

 

[JJohnson]

Wow this is a bitchy thread...ouch!

 

[zamb]

Oh,, im sure it doesnt take a Vuitton worker that long to make a bag and look at how much it sells. Honestly, if you're working in a factory and you're skilled, I'm pretty you can whip out items in no time...the illusion of how much items cost really interests me. Anyone care to comment?

well......... this is the thing that often eludes people who are not viewing fashion from a designer/ businessmans perspective.

Let me give you an example of something that happened to me this week.
I bought four rolls of fabric for my Fall 2007 collection, after paying for the fabric at the store i had to leave it there until a later date.
reason being, i couldnt carry it on the train with me, and if i were to take a cab with it, that would be an additional $70 that had to be calculated into the final cost of the garments made from the fabric,
If i were to ship ity, the shipping cost would have to be calculated into the final cost of the garment.
im trying to communicate that there are a lot more things that go into the price of a product than just the cost of the materials and the labour that produces the product.... all of these things have to be paid for, and since the only means of making money is through selling the prioducts we have to seel ot at a price that enables us to pay for these things

things such as:
shipping fabrics
patterns
phonebill
buying equipment
threads
buttons
hiring pr cpompanies
staging fashion shows
paying a staff
mailing invitations
creating lookbooks
paying for shorooms
shipping garments to stores
etc.

all of these have a price which effectively inflate the final cost of the garments.
obviously selling in large quantities help to keep costs down, as if i were to sell 1000 pieces of a garment made from the fabric, if i took a cab that would mean only seven cents per garment, which is not much, however if i were to sell only ten pieces made from the same fabric that would mean an additional seven dollars to the wholesale cost of the garment , which is a lot for a small design company..................

 

[sammigirl25]

Okay. I do agree that not everyone can afford "high fashion" but we're talking about "major" collections. Maybe it wouldn't be tacky, just overexposed. Think about when you buy an article of clothing, and then you find three other people on the street wearing the same exact thing.

Now imagine that with labels like Gucci. Dior. Lanvin.

I couldn't fathom.

 

[zamb]

we are having an interesting and intelligent discussion, please ladies and gentlemen,
be civil and respectful of each other, i do not want for us to start throwing mud........

thank you.

 

[JJohnson]

we are having an interesting and intelligent discussion, please ladies and gentlemen,
be civil and respectful of each other, i do not want for us to start throwing mud........

thank you.

Oh zam

 

[JJohnson]

Yes, I understand many of those items are allocated into the items sold, but still the price at which they sell items allow for a HUGE margin of profit, something not compared to a smaller designers. If Vuitton ever happens to lose money, I'm sure the spirits side of the company is there to reinforce it. Also, I was commenting more on the efficientness of workers who do the repetitious purse making.....it seems so efficient and smooth, and sell for a high price. Of course a company has to make money that's the name of the game, but my point was that I feel high street shops are allowing people who can't afford the vuitton to be able to have something nice or at least sometthing that makes them feel good about themselves compared to the "illusion" of paying so much for a Vuitton when one is broke....I like high fashion myself, but I'm not buying it any time soon. But then again wouldnt everything we say be different if we were all rich....

 

[Deleted member 7575]

We're talking about the consequences of highstreet on fashion. Good for those who cant afford luxury, do what you like. But its nothing truly special, since everyone owns it. I like exclusivity in fashion.

I never said it was tacky! I said it's gonna go out of style in a few years, maybe after the next H&M collaboration it'll be tired. I just find it annoying in a way that EVERYONE is now wearing the V&R for H&M collection, it's really annoying, glad I havent seen anyone else w/ my arrow print buttondown.

You make a valid point, but part of the exclusivity in fashion is derived from one's own personal style rather than what can purchased.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

well......... this is the thing that often eludes people who are not viewing fashion from a designer/ businessmans perspective.

Let me give you an example of something that happened to me this week.
I bought four rolls of fabric for my Fall 2007 collection, after paying for the fabric at the store i had to leave it there until a later date.
reason being, i couldnt carry it on the train with me, and if i were to take a cab with it, that would be an additional $70 that had to be calculated into the final cost of the garments made from the fabric,
If i were to ship ity, the shipping cost would have to be calculated into the final cost of the garment.
im trying to communicate that there are a lot more things that go into the price of a product than just the cost of the materials and the labour that produces the product.... all of these things have to be paid for, and since the only means of making money is through selling the prioducts we have to seel ot at a price that enables us to pay for these things

things such as:
shipping fabrics
patterns
phonebill
buying equipment
threads
buttons
hiring pr cpompanies
staging fashion shows
paying a staff
mailing invitations
creating lookbooks
paying for shorooms
shipping garments to stores
etc.

all of these have a price which effectively inflate the final cost of the garments.
obviously selling in large quantities help to keep costs down, as if i were to sell 1000 pieces of a garment made from the fabric, if i took a cab that would mean only seven cents per garment, which is not much, however if i were to sell only ten pieces made from the same fabric that would mean an additional seven dollars to the wholesale cost of the garment , which is a lot for a small design company..................

But Louis Vuitton is a HUGE company, the costs are far less because of the scale is so large. In fact I'm sure they secured cost effective ways to obtain and manage materials, transportation, and distribtion.

Actually, there was just a article not too long ago describing how they were restructuring their factory set up to make it cheaper. As it had existed it was still in the same vein of traditional crafstmen workshops but with the restucturing it will head towards a very labor savy and mass-output oriented model.

 

[JJohnson]

But Louis Vuitton is a HUGE company, the costs are far less because of the scale is so large. In fact I'm sure they secured cost effective ways to obtain and manage materials, transportation, and distribtion.

Actually, there was just a article not too long ago describing how they were restructuring their factory set up to make it cheaper. As it had existed it was still in the same vein of traditional crafstmen workshops but with the restucturing it will head towards a very labor savy and mass-output oriented model.

Indeed...Im pretty sure LVMH owns most of the vinyards in france. Also, I remember hearing LV burns unsold older stock. I highly question this!! It seems quite destructive and against their purpose to burn items that have such a high opportunity cost! I wish I had an insider to comment on this.... Anyway, a mass production business models seems quite appropriate for LV, yet the price is driven by what people think it is. People feel a LV bag is of top quality, carefully made in france and sealed with a kiss. Yes, it may be made in france but not 100%. Only 30% of the final product is needed to say "Made In." Even if it is made in France, I'm sure it's quick and efficient as possible- time is money. Also, there are MANY rich and middle class people who purchase LV bags. There's a lot in circulation so exclusivness isnt a suitable argument. If you really want a LV it's doable. I'm sure most people buying LV knows nothing about their production...Actually a LV bag doesnt seem that "expensive" overall the materials for 1 bag could range about $50 tops? It's just leather with a print, and a few detailing...disregarding special orders, I think they're making a hell of a lot of profit off each bag, even with all operating and administration expenses included...damn that Arnault who's worth 18 billion!

 

[JJohnson]

Oh regarding huge businesses I forgot to mention, when you buy in HUGE bulk e.g. material, buttons, etc... your variable costs approach 0 e.g. Walmart's success. Therefore bigger companies know how to keep price as low as possible with biggest profit...after all it's a business

 

[zamb]

But Louis Vuitton is a HUGE company, the costs are far less because of the scale is so large. In fact I'm sure they secured cost effective ways to obtain and manage materials, transportation, and distribtion.

Actually, there was just a article not too long ago describing how they were restructuring their factory set up to make it cheaper. As it had existed it was still in the same vein of traditional crafstmen workshops but with the restucturing it will head towards a very labor savy and mass-output oriented model.

well, yes i can agree with you, but also i could go another route and argue that thier costs are more because they have way more people to pay (presidents, vice precidents design director, etc. )
also for ad campaigns, top models and a myriad of other things.
also take companies like Dries Van Noten, Rick Owens etc. that do not own thier own factories and cannot operate in a manner in which Dior or Vuitton does.
as a matter of fact, exept for maybe Lagerfeld, almost all the designers making thier skills and ideas available through these deals are smaller independent designers like Giles, Sophia, Thakoon, Batista etc.
so it is to a certain degree for want of money why some of these designers are doing it...........

and i am just thinking about something right now.
we have not seen a large amount of designer appointments to high fashion brands lately, not like what happened in the mid to late nineties (and early 2000's) when Jacobs, Galliano, Rodrigues, McQueen etc. were appointed to large companies, part of thier reason for taking some of these jobs was to earn money to fund thier own companies.
since maybe there are not much of these Jobs available, this could be the newest (and most readily available) way for independent designers to raise capital for thier own ventures, albeit less long term and less glamorous

 

[zamb]

im going to bed.
Goodnight everyone
I will take up the subject again tommorow
God sparing..................

 

[Lena]

guys, i really think you dont see the real issue here..
an 'affordable designer item' by any mass producer, it is only 'designer' because they decided so.. it's the same old basic mass production quality, sold 'wrapped' in a designer's name, there is not much difference if one owns a V&R from H&M than owning anything 'non designer' by H&M
it's not a matter of snobbism, it's a matter of a two way rip off, both for the consumer and the designer.
unfortunately, some people obsessed by not being able to afford designer items are falling quick in the 'trap' thinking that they finally can get their hands on 'designer items'

sad to say these remain mass market / low quality products no matter what

it will be useful to read the whole Guardian article which i linked on the previous page and take the journalist's points in concideration

 

[Scott]

wait. I thought the topic was really about how this affects the perceptions and economics of high fashion in general. Does it give or take away certain notions? Of course,it's more affordable,these mass market lines. But it's also an illusion. People somehow expect an actual design element and quality when these people do these lines. But like Lena said,it's basically the same mass produced stuff you already see but only it comes wrapped in a designer name.

so by that,when you compare anything and anyone like I mentioned myself,of course it doesn't affect real fashion because anybody with any kind of an eye knows they're not really the same.

 

[Scott]

^and the latter,I say also because we have actually been dealing with this for alot longer than people probably realise. Long before these ventures. High-fashion corporation/conglomerates have been playing to the masses for a while now,even if they're not honest about it. Just look around you and you will see;all the street vendors with their knock-off's...the catalogue of advertisments in Vogue and the like.

 

[fashionista-ta]

You make a valid point, but part of the exclusivity in fashion is derived from one's own personal style rather than what can purchased.

EXACTLY.

I still maintain that it's those who are less than confident of their own personal style who are overly concerned about exclusivity

I can't imagine a single thing wrong with more beauty and less ugliness in the world. Sign me up.