Wal-Mart Crashes the Fashion Party?

[fourboltmain]

This caught my eye: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20050928/bs_bw/nf200509280997db016

 

[VainJane]

Ugh, don't they realize that the majority of people who actually read Vogue avoid shopping at Wal-Mart?

IMO the kind of people who can afford to spend that much money on a Vogue (more than your average magazine) can also afford to shop somewhere other than Wal-Mart.

Not to be a snob, but the lowest I go is Target...and I refuse to buy clothes even there (because I am a b*tch sometimes ).

 

[Becky_da_da_da]

No suprise - I mean, Tesco probably paid a pretty penny for Naomi.

And they must have seen the huge steps H&M and TopShop have taken.

 

[tott]

Interesting...

But one thing in the article really boggles the mind: "Tommy Hilfiger would give Wal-Mart an entry into the rarefied world of designer chic"

Huh? Since when does Tommy Hilfiger belong in a "rarified world of designer chic"? It's just your average crappy prep as far as I'm concerned, and it's not even that high quality or executed very well.

 

[faust]

Interesting...

But one thing in the article really boggles the mind: "Tommy Hilfiger would give Wal-Mart an entry into the rarefied world of designer chic"

Huh? Since when does Tommy Hilfiger belong in a "rarified world of designer chic"? It's just your average crappy prep as far as I'm concerned, and it's not even that high quality or executed very well.

OMG, I was going to post JUST THAT LINE, before I saw your post!

Welcome to the 90's. What are they smoking?

Anyway, Walmart must die. It's the most exploitive, non-human capitalist enterprise.

 

[fourboltmain]

What shocked me the most was the ad campaign in Vogue. Anyone have scans of these ads? I dying to see them.

 

[tott]

Welcome to the 90's. What are they smoking?

(And for the record, I'll admit I have a soft spot for preppy looks... Only it can be done so much better.)

 

[faust]

What shocked me the most was the ad campaign in Vogue. Anyone have scans of these ads? I dying to see them.

Trust me, man - you don't want to see them.

 

[faust]

(And for the record, I'll admit I have a soft spot for preppy looks... Only it can be done so much better.)

Preppy looks were only in the mainstream mags. It was all "urban" wear in stores, but by Y2K black people realized that they don't need a white guy to tell them what to wear and he was replaced by Phat Farm, FUBU, etc...

 

[tott]

Yeah, I remember all these rappers in Hilfiger.

 

[BohemianBeauty22]

Walmart is hell on earth. Die, die, die!!!! Haven't they done enough by putting little businesses out?

 

[fashionista-ta]

Anyway, Walmart must die. It's the most exploitive, non-human capitalist enterprise.

 

[Kimkhuu]

Walmart is hell on earth. Die, die, die!!!! Haven't they done enough by putting little businesses out?

agreed...... absolutely HATE HATE walmart...... child labour...... NO THANKS!!!!

 

[Anastasia]

Ugh, don't they realize that the majority of people who actually read Vogue avoid shopping at Wal-Mart?

IMO the kind of people who can afford to spend that much money on a Vogue (more than your average magazine) can also afford to shop somewhere other than Wal-Mart.

Not to be a snob, but the lowest I go is Target...and I refuse to buy clothes even there (because I am a b*tch sometimes ).

I refuse to go to Wal-Mart as well, because of their business practices. My income is such that I probably should be shopping there, but I'd rather go without/make things stretch until I can afford it elsewhere. And I do think their clothes are hideous in design and quality. I shop at Target for household goods, the occasional dvd, etc, but the only clothes I've ever purchased there are teeshirts for sleeping. They are better quality than Wal-Mart, and you can find some quite nice things for your home at Target.

Anyway, my point in responding to this post was that there are people who are in a Walmart/Target income bracket and still enjoy reading Vogue and find a way to afford it. It's expensive on the newsstands, yes, but I got my year's subscription for $10 - and since I shop at Target for some things, I can afford that Just because you're poor/in a lower income bracket/forced to shop at a big store, doesn't mean you can't have/recognize style. You don't have to be able to afford to purchase the clothing to appreciate or love it

 

[Erin]

Ugh, don't they realize that the majority of people who actually read Vogue avoid shopping at Wal-Mart?

IMO the kind of people who can afford to spend that much money on a Vogue (more than your average magazine) can also afford to shop somewhere other than Wal-Mart.

Not to be a snob, but the lowest I go is Target...and I refuse to buy clothes even there (because I am a b*tch sometimes ).

I buy designer, yet I still shop at Wal-Mart. I prefer Target, if we're choosing... but if it's a late night and I have the urge to do some shopping, I'll head to Wal-Mart. Sometimes they have what the moms and pops stores don't, so I don't feel all that horrible about going corporate.

This article also highlights how low Hilfiger is going. I was kind of bummed when IM decided to go with Target, but I almost saw this coming for Tommy. His brand has been in trouble for a while now...

 

[faust]

I buy designer, yet I still shop at Wal-Mart. I prefer Target, if we're choosing... but if it's a late night and I have the urge to do some shopping, I'll head to Wal-Mart. Sometimes they have what the moms and pops stores don't, so I don't feel all that horrible about going corporate.

This article also highlights how low Hilfiger is going. I was kind of bummed when IM decided to go with Target, but I almost saw this coming for Tommy. His brand has been in trouble for a while now...

You really should try other choices. Wal-Mart is NOTORIOUS for using sweatshops, underpyaing their employees and union-busting.

 

[bagsnthings]

You really should try other choices. Wal-Mart is NOTORIOUS for using sweatshops, underpyaing their employees and union-busting.

Yes they are, and there was a special on them the other day where they was paying a woman in India $0.15 cent a hour.

The network that did the expose - got the woman a passport brought her to the states and showed her the same gym pant she was sewing for $0.15 a hour on the rack in the U.S. for $17.99. The woman was crying tears of frustration and then she got angry because she said she could barely afford to feed her family on $0.15 a hour and when she asked for a raise Wal-Mart said they were "reducing" hourly wages to $0.11. She went back home to India and started organizing the seamstress.

But, Wal-mart is not the only one playing that game, there are more in the sweatshop business then you think.

Wal-Mart's not stupid, they know what his numbers are this year. Thats why they pulled Hilfiger so they can get a designer on their "terms".

 

[Zen]

If you look at all the towns that Wal-Mart has shown up on, all the cool fun mom and pop's stores that are mostly family owned lose sales and disappear. Majority of towns with Wal-Mart in it has the highest poverty level. People only get paid the minimum wage, and their employees are deprived of some of the most commen things a human being should be allowed to have, like ten minute breaks. They make their workers go back up to a counter to service a customer while they are on lunch too. Wal-Mart can fire an employee with no cause. Wal-Mart also put in writing not to hire obese people to work for them. (talk about discrimination) Not to mention their clothing that they sell are made by children from Indonisia and those children are 4,5,6,7 years old and paid anywhere from 12 to 25 cents per hour. Talk about inhumane. Wal-Mart, all in all is C H E A P and white trashy, and the last time I was in that disgusting store was when I was 10 or something, and it smelled so bad!