1.) In Case You Were Wondering Why Scarves Are Suddenly Everywhere (Again):
“For many Muslims the question isn’t ‘Should I veil?’ It’s ‘How should I veil today to match my outfit?’ . . . Women from New Jersey to Jakarta are trying new ways of wearing wraps taught on YouTube or showcased on runways. They’re wearing silk print scarves and scarves from The Gap, sheer scarves with sequins and hot-pink frilly scarves, scarves awash with the Fendi logo. Whatever the look, hijabistas share one style principle: This is not their mother’s head scarf.”
As per usual, when you see a fashion trend surface, you just need to follow the money to find out the where and why.
Scarves have certainly experienced a style resurgence due to the renewed focus on layering (Note: I now have two sure-thing gift giving options: handbags and scarves), but it takes a broad cultural movement — such as Muslim women adopting Western designer scarves to satisfy religious requirements — to rocket-launch an accessory trend from “mild blip on the Vogue radar” to “cash-register shaking on the Richter scale“.
Nothing inspires designers to jump on a bandwagon and get busy like a sudden uptick in demand — now we don’t just have scarves, we have a wide variety of brand identities stamped onto strips of high-(and low)-end fabrics. Never let a brand promotional opportunity pass you by!
A video clip below of Western designers introducing veils and headcoverings in their Fall 2009 collections:
Hmmm, offering items that consumers actually want turns out to be a successful way of producing accessories in a recession, who would have thought?
Speaking of getting all new-fangled and oh-so-cutting-edge about product design, big design houses are taking the next, radical, near inconceivable step of asking what the customer wants (*GASP!*) — “Increasingly desperate to sell things in the recession, luxury labels are trying to give consumers exactly what they want through a groundbreaking, technologically advanced method known as asking them.”
Concetta Lanciaux, head of Switzerland-based Strategy Luxury Advisors, is quoted by Women’s Wear Daily as saying, “‘We’ve never really asked, ‘What does the customer need?’…. In fashion we’ve not paid much attention to size and fit. These things that seemed minor before will become central for people,’ she said.”
To which the Guardian U.K. responded: “Since when has size and fit not been central for the customer? What world do these people live in? Ah, we give up.”
Maybe even luxury Spa chains could use a little more customer feedback: “Spa Chakra, the luxury spa company that provides comprehensive health and wellness care in such posh locations as the Ritz-Carlton in Marina del Rey and the Grand Hotel Park in Gstaad, Switzerland, has filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection. The company filed the voluntary petition for bankruptcy protection with the Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York on December 10. The downturn in the economy is credited with being a major factor to the company’s difficulties.”
Spa Chakra also owns and operate Guerlain Spa, which should prick up the ears of many a perfume fanatic.
2.) Carolina Herrera Bets on Russia for Business:
“The 70-year-old designer is betting — just like Armani, who descended on the Russian capital in October — that Russian fashion followers, once known for their exuberant spending, will help expand her business. Other designers remain uncertain about the country’s recovery from a recession that wiped out a tenth of its economy in gross domestic product terms in the first half of the year.”
Is it China, India, Russia, Dubai? Who are the consumers that will kick in the spending and save the struggling luxury houses? It’s like watching a game of tug-of-war between optimism and reality as fashion houses rush from region to region in search of that elusive quarry knows as “The Big Spender”.
Though some designers retreat as hastily as they parachute in — both Alexander McQueen and Stella McCartney closed their Russian boutiqes only a year and a half after opening (the McQueen and McCartney brands are part of the Gucci Group, which is a subsidiary of global luxury corporation PPR).
For a look at what Herrera believes she can offer the Russian market, take a gander at the video clip of her Spring/Summer 2010 collection below:
In related news, designer and branded gold jewelry is finding a welcoming market among India’s young, emerging middle-class: “Nowadays, young Indians are opting for brightly lit showrooms with marble floors, glass display cases and professional salespeople — preferably at a company whose brand name implies social status and wealth . . . The precious metal is traditionally given to brides at the time of marriage as a store of wealth providing financial security, (but) ‘There is a shift in consumer tastes: working women in the 20 to 32 age group regard jewellery as an accessory and not just as an investment,’ Amit Bumb told AFP. ‘It is in this market that the brand names work.’”
Which is what the big luxury brands have been hoping for — an influx of newly middle-class consumers with a desire to flaunt economic status via brand names and logos. But while the jewerly industry is hopeful for a recovery, there’s talk that levels of global spending on jewelry will only recover to pre-new millenium levels: “high-end retailers will make a slower comeback than lower-priced jewelers. And when they do recover, they’ll return to levels comparable to 10 years ago, before credit conditions got out of hand . . . ‘What we just went through from [2002 to 2007], that was an abnormal period of unencumbered wealth,’ (Marshal Cohen, chief industry analyst at NPD Group research firm) said. ‘That was just ridiculous.’”
On the subject of sparkle, big jewelry chain Zales is performing abysmally, having closed 200 stores already t
his year yet still seeing plummeting sales: “Zale’s November same-store sales dropped 18.6 percent (compared to last year) in the crucial November month, well below CL King & Associates analyst William Armstrong’s forecast of no change.”
And on the subject of less than sparkly retail, Saks Fifth Avenue has announced that it will cut 116 jobs at its New York flagship store (after already announcing earlier this year that it would cut 9% of its entire workforce across the board): “Saks Inc has informed about 116 workers at its flagship Fifth Avenue store that they would lose their jobs by the end of January . . . The job cuts, which are in the cosmetics and fragrance department of the Manhattan store, are part of Saks’ move to let brands like Chanel, Lancome and Clinique fully staff the counters themselves.”
Hey, whatever happened to the lipstick effect?
3.) Louis Vuitton Drops Minstrel Sneaker Over Claims of Design Infringement:
“The luxury label has had to discontinue its ‘Minstrel’ sneaker design as part of its settlement with New Balance, who had filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against them . . . New Balance claimed in September that the all-gray ‘Minstrel’ (priced at $590) was a rip-off of its longtime “574″ model ($75) . . . ‘Louis Vuitton’s superior marketing ability and fame is likely to lead to reverse confusion because some relevant consumers will come to associate the 574 design with Louis Vuitton, not New Balance,’ the company’s lawyers said at the time.”
And if you look at the photo comparison at the link, you’ll see that New Balance wasn’t kidding — the Louis Vuitton Minstrel sneaker was a near carbon copy of the New Balance 574, just more refined. Which is ironic, considering that Louise Vuitton has a reputation for aggressively suing over issues of what it considers instances of trademark and copyright infringement.
4.) Ungaro CEO Resigns After Lindsay Lohan Disaster:
“Hot on the heels of his decision to keep Lindsay Lohan on as Artistic Advisor after her critically panned debut collection, the label’s CEO Mounir Moufarrige has resigned from the company . . . Moufarrige was the man behind the decision to recruit Lilo in the first place, after initially considering several showbiz personalities for the role including Madonna and Paris Hilton.”
Just a few weeks ago, there were reports that the collection was selling better than expected and the CEO was defending the appointment of Lohan as artistic advisor to the brand, but those “better than expected” sales numbers seem to have turned out to be false, with the only two big retailers carrying the brand dropping it for Spring in protest of Lohan’s involvement: “Both Neiman Marcus and Net-a-Porter, two of the only big shopping destinations where Ungaro can currently be bought outside of the brand’s own boutiques, have dropped the line for Spring 2010, according to representatives for the stores.”
Moufarrige claimed at the time that the involvement of Lohan was bringing the Ungaro brand more press coverage than it had experienced in years, but sometimes, negative attention isn’t better than no attention at all. But besides all that — Lindsay Lohan? What in the world did he think she was going to bring to the table? That decision is so bad and wrong all on its own that it will overshadow his previous good decisions (Stella McCartney for Chloe) and haunt him for the rest of his life.
In other WTF? fashion moments, Vivienne Westwood has just announced a partnership with Lee Jeans: “The Vivienne Westwood Anglomania and Lee collection will be available to buy from Vivienne Westwood showrooms … and will comprise of 4 styles of jeans for men and 5 styles for women. The capsule collection will be complemented by denim shirts and printed tee-shirts. The line takes as it’s main inspiration the Vivienne Westwood archive with references to her seminal punk and pirate collections of the 1970′s and 80′s but also to the dynamic cuts she has since developed throughout her career.”
I can see how this benefits the profile of Lee Jeans, but I don’t see the benefit, beyond financial, for Westwood. It makes about as much sense to me as Alexander McQueen designing for Target, but perhaps this is all about the democratization of good design — just because a pair of jeans is inexpensive doesn’t mean they have to be ugly, which is why it makes good business sense for Lee to bring someone like Vivienne Westwood on board.
Below is a photo of Louise in a Vivienne Westwood shirt dress — the design is so simple and wearable that it looks almost effortless, but when you look more closely, you can see that there are curves, tucks and ruching elements to the item that create a more flattering visual than if the dress had been a more traditionally straight box-type of cut:
This is what separates a good designer from the ranks of the merely mediocre, and why I have to admit that Lee Jeans is smart to have signed Westwood to a deal.
A great quote about design is from Douglas Martin: “Questions about whether design is necessary or affordable are quite beside the point: design is inevitable. The alternative to good design is bad design, not no design at all.” And while I’m concerned that Lee Jeans will ultimately undercut Westwood’s designs by underfunding their production, I’d much rather see Lee Jeans designed by Vivienne Westwood than Lee Jeans not designed by Vivienne Westwood.
Dear lord, does this mean that I’m coming around to the idea of credentialed luxury designers working for low-market retailers? Resistance is truly futile.
5.) The Gap Uses Shoes from Barney’s in their Holiday Ad:
“The high-heel hiking-meets-construction boots (with the sassy red laces) worn by the models in that infamous cheering holiday commercial have become the subject of much speculation — were they perhaps part of that Pierre Hardy collection we’d heard so much about? — and Booth Moore from the LA Times finally got someone from Gap to reveal the truth: They’re Barneys Co-Op private label and they’re available for $395, though in tan only.”
Which is one of the dumbest recent moves I have ever heard of a company making. How could you be a full-service clothing retailer and feature another chain’s items in your holiday advertisements?
The author of the article speculates that maybe Gap was hoping that featuring shoes from Barney’s would bring style conscious women into Gap stores looking for them, and then Gap employees could sell them something from their own brand, but this could be considered a type of “bait and s
witch” which is, quite generally, frowned upon in advertising: “Excuse me? Oh, those shoes in the ads? We don’t actually carry them, but we do have some nice jeans and sweaters!”
The bait-n-switch ad is below, and the boots do look great with their clothing. It’s a shame that Gap doesn’t have talented enough design staff to come up with anything like them — which is, of course, why the boots are at Barney’s for $395.00 instead of at the Gap for $70.00:
My favorite observation: “They didn’t think people might watch the spot and want to, we don’t know, buy some of the clothing featured in it? Frankly, with that kind of logic, we’d advise the brand to just start outfitting the models in their print advertisements in Alexander Wang dresses and Christian Louboutin heels — we bet they’d get some serious foot traffic in the stores.”
It’s genius!
6.) Industry Quick Hits:
A.) Gray hair is stylish and trendy: “This is not only about silver foxettes going au naturel. This is a youth movement: from east London’s cool set to models on the Paris catwalks, women are throwing the tonsorial rulebook out of the window and going with the grey. Even Victoria Beckham and Karen O of Yeah Yeah Yeahs are getting in on the act by letting their own silver strands peep through.”
Well, you know, if the only people left with money are the old fogies, perhaps it makes sense to cater to them just a bit? Me? I’m enjoying the hilarious idea that my graying hair is now all the rage. Baby Boomers, rejoice!
Along those same lines: Tough to let go for 70-something fashion designers — “The passing of the artistic torch is one of the most discussed subjects in the fashion world as it can make or break the survival of the brand – but no fashion house is willing to talk about it officially. Aside from Mr. Armani, the clock is ticking for a number of other fashion companies headed by 70-something designers including Ralph Lauren and Oscar de la Renta in the United States and Karl Lagerfeld at Chanel in France.”
Well, hell — no WONDER gray hair is stylish. I’m just surprised it’s not a required part of the Fashion-Forward’s uniform, which is just about the most perfect transition I could have hoped for my next tidbit:
B.) Christian Lacroix goes from designing haute couture to designing public sector work uniforms: “Starting next month, some 20,000 (French railway) employees will find going to work significantly more stylish in the new Lacroix gray and purple outfits. Women can change up their daily designer look with the selection of blouses, skirts and jackets, while men have pants, striped shirts and jackets to choose from, says the source.”
Somehow, the idea of polyester Lacroix doesn’t appeal. But hey, if Westwood can work her punk-ish Brit magic for staid Lee Jeans, then perhaps Lacroix can bring his special flourish to the daily work lives of French railway employees . . . ?
C.) Paris court rules against the little guy: Paris Court Throws Out Forgery Claim Against Chanel — “French fashion house Chanel prevailed in a forgery lawsuit brought against it four years ago by one of its small suppliers (World Tricot), in a case that grappled with who can take credit for the creation of expensive garments . . . World Tricot accused Chanel of copying its design of a white crocheted patch. World Tricot founder Carmen Colle said her company had proposed the design to Chanel in 2004, but the fashion house rejected it. Then, several months later, she said she spotted the same motif in the window of a Chanel boutique in Tokyo.”
I’m not surprised that the forgery claim was tossed out. Should World Tricot have prevailed in their claims against Chanel, it would have upended the couture business as we know it, and there are far too many powerful entities with vested interests in keeping things running just the way they are.
While Chanel was ordered to pay World Tricot for breach of contract (Chanel withdrew all work orders from World Tricot once the allegations of forgery were first aired), the ourt also fined World Tricot a substantial sum for what it called a “smear” campaign against Chanel — which is absurd, really, because World Tricot was only talking to the press about its claims against Chanel.
In other words, World Tricot was fined for speaking out publicly against what it considered to be Chanel’s bad-faith actions, which is obviously a message aimed at any other small firm with ideas in its head about complaining over the actions of any of the large luxury companies.
I understand Chanel’s position, that the complaints of World Tricot may have brought harm to Chanel’s reputation, but that’s why two parties go to court in the first place — to settle a dispute. For the court to award Chanel monetary damages essentially for being sued in the first place smacks of corporate favoritism.
D.) Advertising, where the worlds of fashion and cars can safely collide:
Mercedes Benz, meet Gareth Pugh.
E.) And last but not least, fragrance news: Clive Christian is concocting a new scent, his first in ten years (and he won’t tell anyone what it is!); Katie Puckrik encounters 80′s powerhouse Kouros and thinks it smells perfectly new-millenium (i.e. everything old is new again); and Kim Kardashian is “this close” to releasing her new fragrance, but she made news by consulting her fans over the direction of the overall scent (“vanilla? musk? fruity? floral? other?”) and preferred design elements for the bottle.
Hmmmm, weren’t we just talking earlier about design houses consulting their customers? How long do you think it will take before a giant like Chanel breaks down and starts polling the public over what it wants for a new Chanel perfume, and how the bottle should look?
Call me crazy, but what if Ms. Kardashian turns out to be on the cutting-edge of a full-blown industry trend?
