The consequences of affordable collections

[fashionista-ta]

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

But in that package isn't there also a nugget of the designer's creativity/thought process/ideas/style? I think there is ...

 

[classic1908]

This is an interesting discussion. But several fashion houses have had diffusion lines for years, albeit those who are more mainstream and have business intentions (Ralph Lauren as key example).
My thing is do you: buy what you want. If you don't want the democratization of design, don't spend the $$$.

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

^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.

and not only the high streets...
take a look at all those LV bags with "LV" all over them
ppl do not get those because of the creativity into making the bag, they get those because it says LV on them and they get to show off a label.
to be, this is worse than the affordable versions of brand name things

 

[Diorling]

Oh, Lena. I agree w/ you completely, it's a new way to market. It's brilliant.

 

[lucy92]

cheap stuff is the bread and butter of the industry. that's why these perfume contracts are so necessary...perfume is considered a good cheap "entry point" for consumers to buy into a fashion house....

stella mccartney's company was in debt and trying to make a profit in 2005. the 1 million she got from the H&M deal helped (but even that didnt get her into the black). and as of right now, she still hasnt made a profit! her new organic skin care line costs a lot of money. if it was a cheaper item, then she would have an easier time marketing it and selling it.

before tara jarmon had her line for target her stuff wasnt even sold in ANY US stores for retail. maybe with the name brand recognition that she may have now she can eke out a deal for boutique space or a department store space.

i think maybe another luring point for designers considering getting involved with mass retailers is that they want to know more about cheap sourcing and how to make their higher end stuff more cheaply made, thus ensuring a wider profit.

but i think that the whole "democritization" of fashion doesnt work for all. for example walmart tried a desperate bid to ape target and it failed. walmart hired mark eisen and nobody really cared. they had pull all the skinny jeans off their floors and go back to selling largely basics, because the skinny jeans werent right for their customers.

 

[classic1908]

cheap stuff is the bread and butter of the industry. that's why these perfume contracts are so necessary...perfume is considered a good cheap "entry point" for consumers to buy into a fashion house....

stella mccartney's company was in debt and trying to make a profit in 2005. the 1 million she got from the H&M deal helped (but even that didnt get her into the black). and as of right now, she still hasnt made a profit! her new organic skin care line costs a lot of money. if it was a cheaper item, then she would have an easier time marketing it and selling it.

before tara jarmon had her line for target her stuff wasnt even sold in ANY US stores for retail. maybe with the name brand recognition that she may have now she can eke out a deal for boutique space or a department store space.

i think maybe another luring point for designers considering getting involved with mass retailers is that they want to know more about cheap sourcing and how to make their higher end stuff more cheaply made, thus ensuring a wider profit.

but i think that the whole "democritization" of fashion doesnt work for all. for example walmart tried a desperate bid to ape target and it failed. walmart hired mark eisen and nobody really cared. they had pull all the skinny jeans off their floors and go back to selling largely basics, because the skinny jeans werent right for their customers.

I was reading about Wal-Mart's issues a couple of days ago. To me, that was a case where they surely didn't do any market research before expanding. The article indicated their core customer was a 5'2" size 14, and you know good and d*** well that skinny jeans don't work on that body type, so they had to pull back Metro7 and limit its distribution.

 

[zamb]

cheap stuff is the bread and butter of the industry. that's why these perfume contracts are so necessary...perfume is considered a good cheap "entry point" for consumers to buy into a fashion house

very good post Lucy92 ,
i like were the discussion is going..........

 

[JJohnson]

Perfume is the cheapest way of someone attaining high fashion and I also think designer eyewear is becoming quite popular.

 

[reese06]

Perfume is the cheapest way of someone attaining high fashion and I also think designer eyewear is becoming quite popular.

I definitely agree. I think the reason why accessories such as bags, sunglasses, perfumes, cosmetics have become so popular is because they are items that people can wear/use on an everyday basis. For those that can't just go out and buy a $900 Chanel blouse, that is how they feel that they are buying into the company. For example, I don't have $500 for a Gucci shirt because with a shirt I feel like you can't wear it as often and I'm probably going to be able to buy one shirt. But with sunglasses or a bag which I still don't "really" have the money for, I can wear/carry that everyday so I feel like I'm getting more out of it so I'm willing to save and spend the money on that, "Getting more bang for my buck". Accessories are what drive these high fashion brands for that reason I think. Think I maybe got off topic, Sorry.

 

[zamb]

I definitely agree. I think the reason why accessories such as bags, sunglasses, perfumes, cosmetics have become so popular is because they are items that people can wear/use on an everyday basis. For those that can't just go out and buy a $900 Chanel blouse, that is how they feel that they are buying into the company. For example, I don't have $500 for a Gucci shirt because with a shirt I feel like you can't wear it as often and I'm probably going to be able to buy one shirt. But with sunglasses or a bag which I still don't "really" have the money for, I can wear/carry that everyday so I feel like I'm getting more out of it so I'm willing to save and spend the money on that, "Getting more bang for my buck". Accessories are what drive these high fashion brands for that reason I think. Think I maybe got off topic, Sorry.

well........ where do we draw the line here, If people are more willing to spend on items such as bags, shoes, perfume, eyewear etc . can we blame the designers for focussing thier businesses on these products as opposed to the clothing?
can we then be upset at the designers who make "unwearable" impractical clothing, if it gives them the coverage they need to move the aforementioned products from off the shelves?
Or focussing on cheaper collections that have a wider and larger market, and thus more profitability.
After all, a designer has to stay in business.

 

[Lena]

no matter how cheap a designer's secondary line will ever be, it wont possibly reach the low point of a $20 blouse at any mass market chain store

i cant see the fact that public is obsessed with the illusion of 'luxury' as possitive.
working in fashion made me personally immune to most of 'big names' and quite allergic in spending my hard earned money buying 'lux'

good quality and innovative design doesnt -and shouldn't- come cheap

imo, people should get off their identity hang ups and start enjoying fashion regardless of labels and status
spending impulsively on indie designers is the best thing the consumer can do for supporting creative talent and helping fashion develop towards the next level.. getting a quick, cheap, desperate no-matter-what instant 'designer fix' from the mass market is just making the industrialists -and not the designer- richer

Originally Posted by lucy92
cheap stuff is the bread and butter of the industry. that's why these perfume contracts are so necessary...perfume is considered a good cheap "entry point" for consumers to buy into a fashion house....

right.. but creativity or quality is not really the focus of the industry, this is the job of the independent designer, cheap stuff is the 'big boys' playground

as for the suggestion that designers enter mass market in order to 'steal the tricks' it's such a naive outlandish utopia, it makes me sad
tricking the market can never ever work, since only big time mass market industrialists are able to make it in an increasingly competitive outsourcing environment.

it takes a huge production to be able to really use the 'tricks' of mass market strategies, and the money designers get from their 'affordable' contracts is a complete rip off on the long term.

burning the candle both ends isnt helping creativity at all

i prefer to see designers sticking up with their own marketing rules (or creating new ones) and mass market keeping clear from 'high fashion'

it's only my personal opinion, but designers wont get any longtime profits by slaving the industrialists

(excuses for the unbearably long and passionate post)

 

[Scott]

^and you so speak my language,darling

 

[retailqueen]

i'm sorry but this thread wreaks of snobs and elitits, i really didn't want to anser but here i go.

will 'mass market production affect luxury goods' ?. No definetly no, it doesn'
t matter if prada does a collection for h &m or gasquere does one for top shop, there will still be `outrageously priced items that most people can't afford'. Its not just about catering to a certain class. Its also creating an image, a brand, hype. Besides, the poor only get pooreer and the rich get richer. there will always be a demand for luxury good, so don't worry, its not the end of the world, the peasants won't be owning Birkins, its ok


and people going on about 'its poor quality, blah blah blah' well, flokd buy clothes form that shop on a regular basis, they know that its poor quality, so WTF are they suppose to do? Rob a bank to buy couture? no people buy what they can so if a designer does a collection for the high street shop, and charges a few extra £, what the hell is the problem? let the common folks wear what they want, for whatever reasons they want to. . It deosn't affect you anyway, since you don't wear such rubbish clothing

 

[zamb]

i'm sorry but this thread wreaks of snobs and elitits, i really didn't want to anser but here i go.

will 'mass market production affect luxury goods' ?. No definetly no, it doesn'
t matter if prada does a collection for h &m or gasquere does one for top shop, there will still be `outrageously priced items that most people can't afford'. Its not just about catering to a certain class. Its also creating an image, a brand, hype. Besides, the poor only get pooreer and the rich get richer. there will always be a demand for luxury good, so don't worry, its not the end of the world, the peasants won't be owning Birkins, its ok


and people going on about 'its poor quality, blah blah blah' well, flokd buy clothes form that shop on a regular basis, they know that its poor quality, so WTF are they suppose to do? Rob a bank to buy couture? no people buy what they can so if a designer does a collection for the high street shop, and charges a few extra £, what the hell is the problem? let the common folks wear what they want, for whatever reasons they want to. . It deosn't affect you anyway, since you don't wear such rubbish clothing

well i am neither a snob,nor an elitist, and i dont think it is fair of you to accuse the other wonderful people here of so being,
we are having a very nice discussion actually, and it is not that serious ......... so take it easy.
Clothes might be a neccessity, but its not a life saving neccessity ( at least not in the summer)
i was born very poor, and in my young life, (just turned 30) i have managed to put myself in a position where if i stay focused and continue to work hard, i could become very rich,( i am comfortable now and being rich is not my primary goal anyways.........), i didnt have to sell my soul or compromise my integrity to be where i am today, so, no one can tell me about being poor, i know what poor is because i lived it for the greater part of my life, i know what it is to go to bed hungry, i know what is is to be homeless, i know what it is to be a janitor and to not have good shoes (now i own far more shoes than i can wear) so i understand the needs and problems of being poor.
however, being poor doesnt stop one from dreaming, nor trying to live ones dream, after all, God help those who try to help themselves.
Where i might be an elitist is in my refusal to accept mediocrity and lack of resources as a legitimate excuse for trying to better ones life, where there is a will there is a way,
and the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.........

and yes, i do believe it is, and will continue to affect the luxury good market...........in more ways than one.we are seeing it already

also. dont mean to be rude....... but please , try to spell the designers names correctly, there are threads on most of them here, so a little research might help if you are unsure of the correct spelling...............

good luck
God bless
Zamb

 

[Caffeine]

Interesting discussion. I don't want to move too far from the original question, and I happened to think about it last Sunday when i was at Barneys.
I saw racks of Sarafpour clothing there. They were marked down 40% off but people didn't seem to be crazy about the sale. Why? When you can spend 1/10 of the price to buy similar cardigans with lace overlay at Target, why do you pay so much more for a tiny little bit of quality improvements? I think that the Target line is hurting Sarafpour.
She was never a hyped designer, and she chose to offer exactly the same design at Target as the ones in her mainline. Big mistake. Lace is a kind of thing people either hate or love. For the ones who love the lace, they need to pay A LOT MORE to buy a good lace item. But many people don't like to pay THAT much. If they can live with the $40 target cardi, why pay $400 (sale price)?
I think that in the case of target's Go International line, it's smart for designers to offer their bread and butter designs, but they need to be careful to differentiate the quality and the fit they offer. The rich who spends thousands on a sweater don't want to see the same design on mass market. If the designer does that, she/he might lose the high end customers.

 

[Caffeine]

Also I think that it pushes teh designers to think more. Remember P&S commented that they never thought that Target could reduce the cost by that much without compromising as much on quality. I think that it taught the two young men a good lesson on production. If they are able to consider their production process, they might be able to offer more affordable luxury clothes (such as basic well cut trousers) to gain more customers and potentially make more profit by increasing the volume they are selling.

 

[zamb]

i'm sorry but this thread wreaks of snobs and elitits, i really didn't want to anser but here i go.

will 'mass market production affect luxury goods' ?. No definetly no, it doesn'
t matter if prada does a collection for h &m or gasquere does one for top shop, there will still be `outrageously priced items that most people can't afford'. Its not just about catering to a certain class. Its also creating an image, a brand, hype. Besides, the poor only get pooreer and the rich get richer. there will always be a demand for luxury good, so don't worry, its not the end of the world, the peasants won't be owning Birkins, its ok


and people going on about 'its poor quality, blah blah blah' well, flokd buy clothes form that shop on a regular basis, they know that its poor quality, so WTF are they suppose to do? Rob a bank to buy couture? no people buy what they can so if a designer does a collection for the high street shop, and charges a few extra £, what the hell is the problem? let the common folks wear what they want, for whatever reasons they want to. . It deosn't affect you anyway, since you don't wear such rubbish clothing

well i am neither a snob,nor an elitist, and i dont think it is fair of you to accuse the other wonderful people here of so being,
we are having a very nice discussion actually, and it is not that serious ......... so take it easyclothes might be a neccessity, but its not a life saving neccessity ( at least not in the summer)
i was born very poor, and in my young life, (just turned 30) i have managed to put myself in a position where if i stay focused and continue to work hard, i could become very rich,( i am comfortable now), i didnt have to sell my soul or compromise my integrity, so, no one can tell me about being poor, i know what poor is , i know what it is to go to bed hungry, i know what is is to be homeless, i know what it is to be a janitor, to not have good shoes (now i own far more shoes than i can wear) so i understand the needs and problems of being poor.
however, being poor doesnt stop one from dreaming, nor trying to live ones dream, after all, God help those who try to help themselves where i might be an elitist is in my refusal to accept mediocrity and lack of resources as a legitimate excuse for trying to better ones life.

and yes, i do believe it is, and will continue to affect the luxury good market...........in more ways than one.

also. dont mean to be rude....... but please , try to spell the designers names correctly, there are threads on most of them here, so a little research might help if you are unsure of the correct spelling...............

good luck
God bless
Zamb

 

[zamb]

Also I think that it pushes teh designers to think more. Remember P&S commented that they never thought that Target could reduce the cost by that much without compromising as much on quality. I think that it taught the two young men a good lesson on production. If they are able to consider their production process, they might be able to offer more affordable luxury clothes (such as basic well cut trousers) to gain more customers and potentially make more profit by increasing the volume they are selling.

Im glad we have PPL like you here who understand this industry and can make insightful and informative contributions to this dicussion

Thanks alot

 

[kimair]

I dont mind these affordable collections, I just dont want them to get out-of-hand. It's getting tiring. The new cool thing is for rich people to shop at cheap stores. I mean, American Apparel is the place to go if you're rich and want to show off how "with it" you are...I mean I see Birkins and Louboutins in there all the time!! H&M to a lesser extent...

...It's the new thing, wearing inexpensive, it's just a trend, it's a trend to be modest. Nobodies mindset has changed, the rich are just as pretentious as they've ever been, just now they want to be seen as "hip" and "modest" which now is dressing like a hobo.

the issue with this is really celebrity...
writers and editors applaud people like kate moss, the olsen twins and sienna miller for mixing high with low...
kate has been doing it for years and is on the best dressed list...
so the elite realized the way to look more individual is to mix it up, and it isn't about wearing designer and/or luxury from head to toe...
i don't see this as a trend...
as there is more focus on celebrity, there's more "trickle down effect," h&m, zara, topshop, etc. knocking off runway looks at a fraction of the cost...

designers realize that in order to make money, they need to do collaborations, have accessories, etc.
there was an article in wwd yesterday about the next crop of designers already having expansion plans...
phillip lim is scouting store locations and is looking to expand his shoe and handbag collections...
rodarte is also doing gloves, shoes and jewelry...
thakoon and maria cornejo and lela rose are all branching into shoes...

in the past, young designers would have taken forever to move into something other than clothes, but now we've seen with houses closing down that you need more just clothes to make money...

 

[retailqueen]

well i am neither a snob,nor an elitist, and i dont think it is fair of you to accuse the other wonderful people here of so being,

Never said you were, i wasn't addressing someone in particular

we are having a very nice discussion actually, and it is not that serious ......... so take it easyclothes might be a neccessity, but its not a life saving neccessity ( at least not in the summer)

i wasn't takin it 'seriously' i expressed my opinion , just like others did

i was born very poor, and in my young life, (just turned 30) i have managed to put myself in a position where if i stay focused and continue to work hard, i could become very rich,( i am comfortable now), i didnt have to sell my soul or compromise my integrity, so, no one can tell me about being poor, i know what poor is , i know what it is to go to bed hungry, i know what is is to be homeless, i know what it is to be a janitor, to not have good shoes (now i own far more shoes than i can wear) so i understand the needs and problems of being poor.

I'm pretty poor too, ands still have difficulties affording all the 'crap clothing' you talk about. And again i repeat, my response wasn't directed to you.

however, being poor doesnt stop one from dreaming, nor trying to live ones dream, after all, God help those who try to help themselves where i might be an elitist is in my refusal to accept mediocrity and lack of resources as a legitimate excuse for trying to better ones life.

yea, its one's right to dream, but not everyone can afford quality clothing. quality clothing requires alot of $ and if you don't have it you do what you can.

and yes, i do believe it is, and will continue to affect the luxury good market...........in more ways than one.

and I disagree, as long that there is an upper class, there were still be demand for luxury goods and there will still be middle class and working class peopel willing to own a bit of luxury. so it has 0 effec IMO.

also. dont mean to be rude....... but please , try to spell the designers names correctly, there are threads on most of them here, so a little research might help if you are unsure of the correct spelling...............

good luck
God bless
Zamb

mm, ok, i was in a hurry and typing fast, i really didn't think it was THAT important to spell some person name, cause you obviously seem to know who i'm talking about anyway