The consequences of affordable collections

[zamb]

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...

well, does this mean that the chances of an exclusively clothing design house (or one with largely clothing, say 80% of the product offerings) cannot (or rarely) be profitable in todays fashion climate.
and if so, how can a designer structure his or her business (with mainly clothing) to be profitable)

 

[reese06]

Zamb I honestly don't see how many of these houses would be profitable with just the sales and offerings of clothing. Dior, Gucci, Versace, Louis Vuitton, Hermes are all so successful because of their accessories IMO. Accessories are even what brought Versace out of the red and into black again. I think it would be hard for an exclusive label to make money just off of clothes. The general public can't afford something that they feel they can't wear often. But they can afford shoes, gloves, bags that they can carry for years.

 

[kimair]

well, does this mean that the chances of an exclusively clothing design house (or one with largely clothing, say 80% of the product offerings) cannot (or rarely) be profitable in todays fashion climate.
and if so, how can a designer structure his or her business (with mainly clothing) to be profitable)

i have to agree with reese...
clothing sales account for such a small percentage of sales at gucci and vuitton; it's mostly accessories...
even at armani/ralph/calvin/donna, i'm sure the majority of the sales are being made from the lower priced lines, home accessories, and perfumes...

stella mccartney and balenciaga have both been given deadlines to become profitable, and both have branched out in their offerings...
mccartney with h&m, adidas and her fragrances, and balenciaga with bags...
i mean, balenciaga clothing is expensive, and even the "affordable" lines (balenciaga.knits, balenciaga.pants) aren't cheap...

 

[fashionista-ta]

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, am wondering if perhaps the Barney's customer is just not interested in Sarafpour at any price? I thought photos of the Target stuff looked pretty good, but I haven't bought either price point ... I'm not a fan of that type of lace, and the way it's applied looks odd to me ... maybe it would be fair to say it was a weak collection overall?

 

[Lena]

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.

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.

excellent points there caffeine and i can see the sarafpour case as a perfect basic example

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.

this is beyond the point, if a designer incease the volume in order to get through better (as in cheaper) production or materials, theire quality will go down and then they will need to grow into messing with the mass market game, which in my view will eventually kill they 'quality & creativity' standards

on the accessories issue, luxe brands are depended a lot on accessories sales because the middle range customer is 'dying' to get a luxe 'fix' no matter if its just a perfume, a lipstick or a keychain

i believe the 'problem' lies in that people are going into any kind of extreme obsession just to feel the illusion of a luxury life.
its up to cnsumer to say 'i'm fine with mass market, i dont need luxury rip off' but this means one should be able to brake free from the 'celebrity' life brainwash.

conscious consumption is the newfound attitude to help people break free from slaving a 'fake' illusionist lifestyle
there is nothing wrong if we cant afford luxury, we wont die if we never ever own a 'designer' item.

we will still survive, the luxury labels (which depend heavily on 'milking' the misleaded middle and lower wage customer) may not

 

[Caffeine]

Caffeine, am wondering if perhaps the Barney's customer is just not interested in Sarafpour at any price? I thought photos of the Target stuff looked pretty good, but I haven't bought either price point ... I'm not a fan of that type of lace, and the way it's applied looks odd to me ... maybe it would be fair to say it was a weak collection overall?

possibly. But Barneys has carried her line for yrs, so I am sure there is a crowd who buys her clothes. Maybe it was a weak collection, but if I were her, I wouldn't offer similar design at target during the same season

 

[Caffeine]

I guess my original point was to say that P&S can increase their overall profitability by selling prada volume instead of their current volume

excellent points there caffeine and i can see the sarafpour case as a perfect basic example



this is beyond the point, if a designer incease the volume in order to get through better (as in cheaper) production or materials, theire quality will go down and then they will need to grow into messing with the mass market game, which in my view will eventually kill they 'quality & creativity' standards

on the accessories issue, luxe brands are depended a lot on accessories sales because the middle range customer is 'dying' to get a luxe 'fix' no matter if its just a perfume, a lipstick or a keychain

i believe the 'problem' lies in that people are going into any kind of extreme obsession just to feel the illusion of a luxury life.
its up to cnsumer to say 'i'm fine with mass market, i dont need luxury rip off' but this means one should be able to brake free from the 'celebrity' life brainwash.

conscious consumption is the newfound attitude to help people break free from slaving a 'fake' illusionist lifestyle
there is nothing wrong if we cant afford luxury, we wont die if we never ever own a 'designer' item.

we will still survive, the luxury labels (which depend heavily on 'milking' the misleaded middle and lower wage customer) may not

 

[Caffeine]

on the accessories issue, luxe brands are depended a lot on accessories sales because the middle range customer is 'dying' to get a luxe 'fix' no matter if its just a perfume, a lipstick or a keychain
***************

I agree. Out of curiosity, I recently read through Gucci group's annual report. the biggest revenue is from leather goods. go figure.
Actually I was curious about the breakdown on McCartney and Balenciaga's lines, but of course there was none

 

[Alejandro]

this pisses me off...

basically fashion is for the rich, the others are f**k'd with the bad quality crap and awful fits.

but they target it for the younger market.

You see old hags on $1,200 mini skirts and old homos on Dior Homme

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

^dior homme would be much better off on me!

 

[Alejandro]

I don't care who wears it, if you can afford it, great, but don't look like a fool when you walk out the door.

I care about fashion targeting their looks and trends for the younger crowds, who ironically can't afford to follow them.

 

[ultramarine]

this is the scariest thread on the whole tFS imho ... so full of TRUTH ... and I mean ... its like ... gore in your face ... EEEk!

 

[Allius]

Well, first off I would like to say I am one of those consequences of designers making affordable designs. I am not at the age where I can afford "high fashion", nor was I born in a fortunate enough family to afford it.

Although quality and exclusiveness comes at an expensive price. I feel that when designers go affordable, it gives me an opportunity to dress like what I strive to dress like in the future (because I cannot afford designer prices right now).

After reading a couple post, I am getting the sense that people are afraid of designers going affordable because they are no longer fashionably "exclusive". But if you think that it is clothes that make you dress well, you got your sense of style all twisted.

 

[libby_bee]

here's the future of fashion, for anyone who is paying attention to reality..

who gives a F***

sorry to be a drag, but as much as I Looouuurve design/fashion (that's why I'm here!) with the insane amount of consumption of raw materials/finite resouces, what we might be more concerned about in the future is who gets the clean water to drink.

just another viewpoint..

 

[DJCNOR]

Libby bee, I think you're wrong on that one. I give you as exhibit one of my evidence a child's dress from Auchwitz made according to very current styles. It was made from the usual striped material with careful appliqued patches (turning the stripes differently) in the shapes of stars and hearts and such, if I remember correctly. In the very worst of circumstances, people need and actually seek out the distractions of such things. Art and creation, and fashion is a part of these, is a very real human need that will always be with us, even if the more "practical" world refuses to acknowledge that fact. The present extremes of consumption must eventually cease, but I think fashion is one of those areas that is up to dealing with that challenge. It is not by accident that one of the first areas in which fair trade and ecological considerations began their entrance into consciousness was fashion.

There is, however, something slightly unsavory about the already-haves exploiting the dress-your-kids-in-designer-clothes-and-let-tomorrow-worry-about-itself tendency among the have-nots.

 

[zamb]

this is the scariest thread on the whole tFS imho ... so full of TRUTH ... and I mean ... its like ... gore in your face ... EEEk!

well, in some ways i agree with you, , Also, what the truth does, is give us the oppoprtunity for a new and more accurate direction.................

 

[Scott]

totally agree with you DJCNOR*.

as for the whole accessory talk...i do think it helps keep designers afloat but it's never the primary focus as with alot of the big money brands. let's differentiate that now. for alot of indie/smaller designers it's a part of the identity of their work not a mere gimmick to make more money. One doesn't have to lose their integrity if they must as long as it's another area of the whole of their work. Not an entirely different identity. Look at Demeulemeester....Undercover....Van Noten and the like. Their accessories are extremely popular but it never takes away from the original collection....it's part of it all.

 

[zamb]

totally agree with you DJCNOR*.

as for the whole accessory talk...i do think it helps keep designers afloat but it's never the primary focus as with alot of the big money brands. let's differentiate that now. for alot of indie/smaller designers it's a part of the identity of their work not a mere gimmick to make more money. One doesn't have to lose their integrity if they must as long as it's another area of the whole of their work. Not an entirely different identity. Look at Demeulemeester....Undercover....Van Noten and the like. Their accessories are extremely popular but it never takes away from the original collection....it's part of it all.

well, thanks a lot scott, this is the same reason why i asked the questin in post #101,
in my own collections i have aways done some accessories , but they are only done to complete the look of the collection and i never sold any of them (even though going forward i intend to)
my business is largely a clothing business, and we already have a difficulty doing clothing, so its hard to invest in accessories as a separate category, especially when it requires a different kind of technical expertise to do it properly.
so the challenge and great metaphysical question is..........
how do we independent designers continue to make great quality , fashion forward clothing and manage to become profiatble ?
I have a formula that works for me but this is only possible because of my skill-sets and it only works to keep my business going, not neccessarily to grow it. and it is not wothout its fair share of challenges and limitations.
one undeniable reality rthat we must acccept if we are to go forward is that it is becoming increasinly difficult for small design companies to survive ................

 

[Scott]

^zamb,that's a question that has no substantial answer. My personal feeling is that if you continue to do what you do on a small scale and continue to make honest,genuine work,hopefully everything will come together. i mean,it's only a matter of time before all of this begins to fade and becomes redundant and tiring. as they say,fashion is fickle.

i know that's not the logical answer you were probably looking for but you have to keep the passion going when you do things on an independent basis. otherwise,there is no point to designing. especially,if you are unwilling to compromise your principles. which i'm hoping you aren't. i mean,i look at Zowie Broach and Brian Kirby as true examples....even with their sponsorship of AmEx(and a mutual respect for them as well for allowing them their freedom) they still have not compromised anything they do just to satisfy the capitalists and masses yet they have been extremely successful.

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

I think i'll take a perspective that not very many ppl are taking
there are a lot of indie designers out there, and generally (please don't take this as an attack, zamb, as i am generalizing) they think they're great and genius (that's why they design), and the reason why they don't succeed is because success is fickle. This may be true for some indie designers, but it's definately not true for every single indie designer out there.
On the other extreme, successful "high fashion" designers also tend to be quite arrogant and proud (not every single one, of course, but with success comes pride).
This makes me think: these designers should know that the average person who shops at target isn't the most fashion conscience; perhaps having a target collection is a different challenge. The designer is possibly thinking to himself or herself: will the average person appreciate what I do. the average person who doesn't pay that much attention to fashion aesthete. If you consider fashion an art, reaching out to the average person is quite a challenge. for instance, with painting, almost everyone can stand in front of monet and have a purely aesthetic understanding for what they see, regardless of whether or not they know anything about monet or impressionalism. but then you take that same person, who can understand that monet is beautiful, and put a painting of campbell soup in front of them, and the experience will definately not be the same (if the person is equally ignorant of wharhol as monet).
this is probably an extremely confusing post; the bottom line is that extremely rich, privileged people have access to high fashion. perhaps, sometimes the designers feel that these ppl wear their clothing for status rather than appreciation. by putting out affordable collections, they're asking a more objective audience to judge their work.
with indie designers, it's a different response. the rich, status-conscious will consider their designs more objectively, so they do not have the same need/desire to be judged by someone else