Getting More That What You Pay For: Stores New Marketing Tactics

Money is tight and while people are becoming more and more reluctant to open their wallets, maybe they should reconsider. Stores, like the one shown left, are grasping for customers, and as the economy continues in its downward spiral they are starting to think of new, more cost efficient ways to get foot traffic into their businesses most of which include give-aways, parties, or even free career advice classes. So while wallets are closing and staying closed, you may want to think again. A customer could get more than what they pay for when walking into a store today. All types of clothing stores, from small privately owned boutiques to almost all the major department stores have been affected negatively from the worst recession since the Great Depression. These falling net incomes are forcing stores to re-think and re-strategize in order to stay afloat during these hard times. In an article titled In the Money: Department Stores Re-size for Recession it states, “…department stores and specialty clothing retailers are ultimately in the same boat during this financial crisis, because both face the challenge of getting consumers through the door during a difficult retail environment.” So what are some of these stores doing in order to maintain customers? The answers came from examining two separate posts, one from “The Cut”, New York Magazine’s online blog titled "Hey Men, Boutiques Want to Get You Liquored Up ", and the other an article from msnbc.com’s business section, "Small Retailers Get Creative to Keep Shoppers". Both posts talk about the lengths which stores are willing to go in order to maintain clients. In examining the two posts I was able to compare the differing marketing tactics for women’s stores as opposed to stores catering primarily to men. Some of these tactics are surprising and seem to be novel, including free alcohol, tarot card readings, hot dogs, and even blood pressure screenings. Although some of these strategies may get more people to the store it remains to be seen whether that can equate to higher sales. This has not stopped stores from trying though, and in this economy doing something is better than nothing. My responses to both posts can be found here and also at their sites.

"Hey Men, Boutiques Want to Get You Liquored Up"
Comments

It is no surprise that a good way to entice men is with liquor and a big screen TV. It seems only a matter of time before retailers caught on to this idea, and it appears to be a great one in getting men to stay in a store. While it is not necessarily new; high-end women’s boutiques have been giving out champagne long before the recession, this is at a whole new level. Some stores have a full bar in hopes of luring men with scotch, beer, or anything else they may desire. Men, although there are exceptions, are notorious for their dislike in lingering in stores and shopping around for clothes. This marketing tactic is cunningly smart. Not only does it make men want to hang around a little longer, but also may lower inhibitions to spending money. For example, in the Wall Street Journal article “Belly Up to the Bar and Buy Some Jeans” it quotes one customer saying the beer did make him relaxed and also made him stay in the store longer. Ultimately, this customer did walk away with a pair of $200 pants. However, there can be other negative implications that seem to be overlooked. In your post, the main point is that you feel women’s stores should also carry alcoholic beverages to attract and keep women shopping. While this tactic may be successful in stores for both genders there are some problems which were not addressed. Firstly, retail employees are not trained in checking ID’s in order to ensure they are only serving customers who are over 21. Because of this there could be legal implications if the store is caught serving minors or simply not checking for identification. It is an added training skill that must be implemented in order for this marketing tactic to be safe and legal. However, even in these steps are taken serving alcohol may still be breaking the rules. In an article titled “Bubbly May Get Boot as Shops Face Penalties for Serving Alcohol” it explains, “It's illegal, if you're not a licensed premise, to serve alcohol.” Although stores are able to get around the rules by having special events or private functions where alcohol is legal, it is not legal to simply give out alcohol every day of the week while business is being conducted. In general, the law seems to look the other way, but is this practice safe? With untrained staff who are ultimately breaking the law this might not be worth the cash it may or may not bring to the store.

"Small Retailers Get Creative to Keep Shoppers"
Comments

What won’t stores do to maintain customers in this economy? Your article really shed light on the extent and effort clothing stores are willing to go to stay in business during these times. Although some ideas are fun and innovative, like getting a tarot card reader or free knitting workshops, one has to ask themselves is this really going to work. While the article states it does bring a sense of community to the businesses does this translate to dollars? It seems to me like an added expense that might not have any return. And during a time in the economy where every expense should be spared it appears almost fruitless unless it is truly helping the business. In the article it states, “Do these perks translate into dollars? Not necessarily — and it costs money to pay for entertainment and refreshments. Still, shop owners think it’s worth a try.” My question is why? Coming from a small town that has a very strong sense of community I do understand these tactics in order to engage in personal connections with potential clients, but as the article points out it doesn’t really seem to be doing what it is supposed to be doing; making money. In your article it says a “neighborhood walk sponsored by local businesses also helped” although it goes on to say, “It helped bring people in…” Nowhere did it mention whether the increase in foot traffic correlated into an increase in sales. So, although I commend these businesses to try novel ideas to keep coming to their stores the costs could out weigh the benefits when looking at the bottom line. Clothing stores should continue these tactics as long as they keep their expectations in check. These parties and workshops may be good for getting people in the store, but do little to make people buy anything.

Green Fashion: Help or Hype?

Green is not merely a color palette in fashion anymore. Like many other industries, it has also begun to “go green” in attempt to become more environmentally friendly. As hybrid cars and organic eating have become more and more popular, the fashion industry has also jumped on the bandwagon in using eco-friendly materials and different means of production. This week University of Southern California’s newspaper, The Daily Trojan, reported on a green fashion show taking place on campus the last Friday in March. This green show promoted designers who have all taken steps in becoming environmentally friendly. In the article JJ Jiang, the president of A.L.I.V.E (Always Living in View of the Environment) who put on the event, stated “The fashion show is a great opportunity to put on an entertaining event and at the same time try to appeal to [different groups] interested in fashion and the environment.” That being said, this week I decided to delve into earth conscious fashion and find out what exactly green clothing means. Although many labels are introducing green lines or clothes that are supposedly less harmful to the environment I was surprised to learn what it takes, or rather how easy it is, to be considered green. Before buying something because it is “green” it is important to understand what this may or may not mean. Furthermore, in realizing the lack of regulation in the green industry, I purpose putting guidelines on what measures must be taken before a company is able to label itself green.

Green can mean many different things depending on the industry. In fashion alone it has many meanings, some more legitimate than others, although all of them are able to call themselves eco-friendly. There is a wide range of materials and types of production that are considered green. For example, the use of un-dyed or naturally dyed organic fabrics reduces the industry’s carbon footprint by not creating harmful waste and byproducts. Also, companies that use wind energy or only use factories with fair wages and humane conditions overseas can be considered green. However, there are also companies that seem to be cheating the system. These players concern seem to be less about the environment and more about the appearance of caring for the earth and the steeper price tag that comes with it. In an article titled Green Fashion: Is It More Than Marketing Hype? it states that some companies take advantage of the lack of regulation. For example, Banana Republic introduced a green line with names such as “Leaf Tee” and “Bamboo Printed Wrap”. These names do indicate eco-friendliness. However, these clothes are not green in the least. So how are they able to call themselves green? The price tag; the tag is made out of recycled paper. Not only are they able to call themselves “green” companies, but they are on the same platform as those that use completely eco-friendly materials or use green production. In the same article by Gloria Sin she explains this is called “greenwashing”, when companies lie about environmental claims. She states, "…marketers often employ tactics that paint products greener than they actually are." This hardly seems fair considering the extent some companies are willing to go in order to help our planet while others are simply cheating. So why do these companies bother at all? Firstly, green clothes equal a higher price. People are generally willing to pay more for something when they feel they are doing it for a purpose or cause. Second, as being green begins to be more popular it is becoming a demand rather than a want from consumers. Finally, although eco-friendly clothes are able to increase the price, it is not profitable for companies in the beginning therefore some cheat for the higher price tag without actually making a big effort to become green. In an article by Amy Lieberman she quotes Leslie Hoffman, director of Earth Pledge, who speaks about the hesitation some clothes companies have about going green. She states, “It [the sustainable transition] takes some effort, and let's assume that time and effort equal money.” Money is at the root of for-profit companies, and the fashion industry is not different. Where companies see time and effort without the reward of increased revenue the earth will continue to suffer. However, if companies can see past the first few years of investment in sustainable resources, it is possible to see a return. In an article published in the UK it states, “Although 57% of UK manufacturers report no measurable return on investment from their green strategies in the past year, over 40% of manufacturers still feel that green initiatives are key to cost reduction strategies in the coming year." It takes patience to see these returns, but in the end it can both reduce a companies cost while simultaneously helping the earth. Some companies, however, only see short term goals and will keep cheating the system, especially because there are no regulations in place.

While it should be up to the company whether they want to go green and help the environment or not, companies should not be able to pretend they are aiding the earth when others are actually earning their green label. Putting a price tag of recycled paper, although better than nothing, is not the same as producing a green product through either the production or the materials. There should be criteria put in place in order to call a company green. Recycled tags, which have little to nothing to do with the actual product, should not count. As long as there are no rules, companies will continue to take advantage of the positive connotations of what it means to be green without actually doing so. On University of Southern California’s campus some of the companies who are actually making a conscious effort to be green were celebrated while also aiding individuals to understand the importance of eco-friendly clothing. These companies’ reputation should not be harmed because of others who are unwilling to change until it is proven economically viable. They are piggybacking on those who are actually making a difference and until regulations are put in place consumers will not know whether they are paying for green clothing or a green price tag.

Barbie's 50th Anniversary: Reason to Celebrate?

One of the most famous fashion icons is turning 50. She has had over one hundred careers, thousands of styles, and she is plastic. Barbie’s 50th anniversary marks her half century as one of little girl’s favorite dolls. Mattel launched Barbie in March 1959 and has since become one of their most successful and most notorious toys. During New York Fashion Week there was a special tribute to Barbie’s iconic trends. American designers, including Diane Von Furstenberg and Calvin Klein, designed life size outfits for models to strut down the runway, chronicling Barbie’s past looks (seen left) and extended into future fashions. However, Barbie's 50th milestone is not being celebrated without debate. While Barbie has had huge victories, she has also had many failures. Controversies surrounding her career choices, her disproportionate body, and some of her doll friends are once again coming to the forefront. The same time as her birthday, officially March 9th, came the release of a new Barbie, Totally Stylin’ Tattoos Barbie. Barbie has been a teacher, astronaut, and doctor, just to name a few. Along with a lengthy list of professions, Barbie can now add tattoo enthusiast. Not everyone is elated with the new doll, which features a purple tattoo gun and dozens of tattoos that can be placed anywhere on Barbie or a child’s skin. This week I have examined a post by JR Raphael for The Inquisitr, which takes a closer look at the new dolls reception from the public. Additionally, I reflected on a post entitled “Barbie Gets Edgy New Makeover” by Emerald Catron. This post also speaks of Barbie’s new look, but in addition the author examines West Virginia’s State Delegate Jeff Eldridge’s campaign for a ban on not just Tattoo Barbie, but all of them. My response to both these posts may be found below, as well as at their respective sites.

“Tattooed Barbie Stirs Up Controversy”
Comment

Some parents do not love Barbie’s new affinity for tattoos. Though, as your post states, Mattel thinks Stylin’ Tattoo Barbie can be used as a creative outlet for children, parents are not as enthused. Parents criticize TV shows and movies for makings today’s youth more violent, sexualized, or rebellious, they are following the same theory with Tattoo Barbie, without taking any responsibility themselves. Firstly, if parents do not buy the doll for their daughter she will not play with it. It is the adults who have the power. Secondly, just because children are surrounded by media, and in this case a toy, does not mean parents can stop parenting. Instead of decrying a doll for possibly making a child want a tattoo, parents should talk to their kids about that decision. As one parent states, “Now she’s teaching our little girls how to apply tramp stamps.” That is giving Barbie a lot of credit. If parents do not want their daughter to have a “tramp stamp” then it is up to them to talk to their child. This goes for several situations. Just as parents should not rely on movies for their children to learn about sex, dolls should not teach kids behaviors, such as getting a tattoo, which is permanent and can be dangerous.

Furthermore, although there is abundant talk about the affect toys can have on a child’s behavior, there is no empirical research about the impact of Barbie on girl’s lives. Therefore, parents should stop putting responsibility on outside entities, and instead focus on relationships with their children. After all, parents are the one’s that should ultimately guide and shape a child’s decisions, not a toy. Stylin’ Tattoo Barbie is just that and should be treated as such.

“Barbie Gets Edgy New Makeover”
Comment

Many things need to be put on the political agenda today, especially in this economic crisis; Barbie is not one of them. West Virginia State Delegate Jeff Eldridge apparently does not agree. In your post you quote Eldridge as stating, “I just hate the image that we give to our kids that if you're beautiful, you're beautiful and you don't have to be smart.” Who says Barbie is not smart? She is a doctor, lawyer, veterinarian, nurse, teacher, and the list continues. Granted, she is also a fairy princess, but I do not think it is accurate to assume Barbie’s looks have anything to do with her IQ. One of Barbie’s most controversial identities was Teen Talk Barbie; in which on of her phrases was “math class is tough.” However, Mattel quickly corrected the talking computer chip when the American Association of University Women attacked the company. Because the company was so receptive to the complaint back in the early 1990’s I think it only shows how concerned the company is about Barbie’s reputation. Barbie is everywoman. She can be as smart or dumb as a child’s imagination will take her. Eldridge states he is concerned that Barbie has an unhealthy body image, but he neglects to note any of the positives Barbie possesses.

While toys are becoming more technologically driven, they in turn, are creating a lack of imagination it takes to play with them. It takes creativity when playing with a doll like Barbie. The world of pretend and make believe are getting pushed aside for video games and TV programming. This is the true travesty. Video games can harm childhood development in several ways including lack of social interaction. Although I do not think these should be banned any more than Barbie should, they are much more detrimental. Barbie uses imagination and social interaction. She is far less harmful than other games children play. Barbie’s possess many positive qualities which Eldridge is choosing to overlook. Barbie has been around for 50 years, and we will be lucky and in no worse condition if she is around for 50 more.

Michelle Obama: Stimulating the Economy with Fashion?

Our country made history this year by electing the first African American President, however in the fashion world the spotlight is shining not on him, but on the First Lady. While campaigning through the primaries into elected office Michelle Obama’s wardrobe has caught a considerable amount of attention. This begs the question of whether the press has their priorities straight. There are several comments criticizing the press for such frivolous stories whereas others feel it is anything but. Many are calling Michelle Obama a fashion icon and a hopeful savoir of the fashion industry during a time of economic hardship. Although, as I will point out, there is some truth in the latter, it is quite a stretch to first label Michelle Obama a “fashion icon” and secondly to call her a “savior of fashion”. After all, without her where was fashion going to go? Certainly, even in this economy, fashion is here to stay. But what role does Michelle Obama play in this world of style? She is one of the most publicized females both in politics and recently, in fashion. Bearing testament is Vogue’s March issue with the First Lady on the cover. Though I would argue Michelle Obama is not a fashion icon, a category with the likes of Jackie Kennedy and Katharine Hepburn, she does have an impact on the fashion economy in a positive light. Not only has she helped up-and-coming American designers become noticed, she also brings a refreshing style to the White House that might just stimulate the economy with her clothing decisions and inspire women to keep buying.

Michelle Obama may have the presence in the media to help the suffering fashion industry, but some do not approve of her wardrobe, or her use of White House employees. In a recent article by Byron York he questions what the social secretary of the White House was doing at New York Fashion Week. The answer is quickly revealed that she was Michelle Obama’s eyes at the tents for runway shows such as Carolina Herrera, Donna Karan, and Marc Jacobs. The article goes on to contemplate whether the First Lady’s choices of haute couture clothes are appropriate during this “widespread economic misery”. York states, “…in this economy that is inflicting hardship on so many, the first lady is celebrated for her new vision of haute couture, while her social secretary socializes with the most glamorous names in the world of fashion. Change has indeed come to Washington.” However, the article chooses not to acknowledge that Michelle Obama is just as comfortable and often seen wearing affordable, off the rack clothing. Regardless of whether the First Lady’s clothes come straight from the New York runways or from middle priced stores, it does not make her a fashion icon, not yet anyway. Yes, she wears clothes, sometimes designer, sometimes not. And yes, she is a breath of fresh air from Laura Bush’s boring suits, but this does not put her in the same fashion league of great icons. Great women in fashion are those that start a trend, have a look, are imaginative and step beyond the scope of what fashion is at that moment. Jackie Kennedy did this with her famous Jackie O wide rimmed sunglasses, and Katharine Hepburn is an icon for her high-waisted trousers when women were rarely seen wearing pants. Michelle Obama, although usually well dressed, has not shown an ability to move fashion down a new path. As Helen Job, a trend forecaster, notes “When you think about a fashion icon, it's somebody who has this ability to influence the public to such a degree ... to change the direction (a style) is going in.” The new First Lady has not yet had this effect so it is extremely premature to call her a fashion icon. However, this does not mean she does not have influence. Being a fashion icon and having influence over American women’s purchasing are two very different things.

Michelle Obama has already helped the industry, and will continue to do so, in two ways. First, she wears up-and-coming designers rather than well-known labels to give the creators a chance in the spotlight. This helps the industry breathe new air into a staling commerce. Second, the First Lady buys off the rack at stores such as J. Crew, influencing women to purchase from these stores and sending sales through the roof. As Jason Wu, a young innovative designer whose dress can be seen on Michelle’s Vogue cover, points out, “In her own way, she is like a stimulus package for the fashion industry.” Michelle Obama’s clothes are in high demand, even if her fashion status has not reached an iconic level. Because of this she single-handedly does have an effect on the fashion economy. New York Magazine’s blog The Cut illustrates her impact for new designers stating, “She made up-and-coming designer Thakoon Panichgul a veritable fashion star when she wore one of his dresses at the Democratic National Convention." Fashion is a very hard business to break into and Michelle has the ability to shoot designers quickly up the ranks. It helps bring fresh imagination and ideas to the fashion world. She also makes women want to buy. For example, after Michelle wore a J. Crew outfit on the Tonight Show the website instantly saw a 64 percent increase in traffic. She caused a mad dash to the American store White House Black Market after wearing one of their dresses to The View. These examples show the First Lady encourages women to purchase at a time when budgets are tight, and this no doubt helps the industry.

The First Lady, although not an icon, does and is helping bring some cash into a dragging economy. Being one of the most photographed and followed women in America has its advantages. In an article titled “Michelle Obama to Save U.S. Fashion Industry?” a designer, Arnold Scaasi writes, “The First Lady is seen every day in some form of media, and what she looks like is copied by other women.” This copycat formula is working well in a time when people are very hesitant to dip into their pocket books. Although the First Lady is sometimes criticized for her high priced fashions, these people should look at the bigger picture. She is not just frivolously shopping everyday, but has already successfully started her role as someone to be admired for the good she is doing. So, for the people who are less-than-impressed by Michelle Obama’s wardrobe, there is a lot more to consider. Her impact can already be seen in her first few months as the First Lady in fashion and otherwise. In fashion terms she gets up-and-coming designer’s names out in the media and she boosts sales in middle priced stores. She has time to grow her styling clout and may very well be a fashion icon by the end of Barrack Obama’s first term. Meanwhile we can only hope that her fashions continue to be emulated and cause women to purchase. Any help in this economy, fashion or otherwise, we will take it.

Weight Dichotomy: Too Fat or Too Thin?

The controversy surrounding weight in the fashion world is on-going, and this week is no different. The issue of “too thin” has been talked about, demonstrated against, and boycotted since fashion’s inception; long before Kate Moss, the famously waifish model, was even born. The debate continues about whether fashion models who are extremely thin portray an unhealthy message to women and young girls around the world. People continually debate the correlation between young girls with eating disorders and the thin models seen in our media. On the opposite side of the coin, a newer debate is arising as to whether featuring overweight models also depicts this same unhealthy message in a different way. In this way it can be debated as to whether portraying and glorifying obese women in the media can also effect girls. Both scenarios sparked much interest in the blogosphere over the past few weeks prompted by two very different incidences. I examined a post by Tracey Lomrantz from Glamour’s fashion blog which responded to a popular MTV reality show titled “The City”. In the particular episode of “The City” the main character’s model friend is criticized severely for being underweight and questions soon arise as to whether she suffers from an eating disorder. The episode featuring Allie, the aforementioned model, gained attention in the blog world this week from people both criticizing and coming to the model’s rescue. In addition, I looked at another post by Amy Odell for New York Magazine’s blog The Cut entitled “Love Is Great, But Still Full of Not-Normal People”. The post responds to a recent magazine cover featuring a nude Beth Ditto, a rocker in the band Gossip, who is unquestionably overweight. These posts examine two distinct problems in the fashion world both of which question whether these differing images should be celebrated on runways and magazines. Both posts illustrate the too thin, too fat dichotomy in an industry full of contradictions. Bellow you can find my responses to both posts as well as on their individual sites.

“Is Allie From "The City" Too Skinny To Model?”
Comment

It is as common to see skinny models strutting down the runway as it is to see animals in the wild. So why is it so unbelievable when one of those skinny models is depicted on a reality TV show? Although the model in question, Allie, is extremely thin so are the majority of models in the industry. This is not to say there is no problem in the industry as a whole, however it is sad when one particular girl becomes the sole victim of the attack. There are many famous models throughout history such as Twiggy, a famous 1960’s super model, and Kate Moss that epitomize the waif look and have been idolized for it. The question one needs to ask themselves is who is responsible for idolizing these images? In large part, we are.

While I recognize the negative impact that extremely thin models may have on women’s body image, it is in large part our own society that keeps these models employed. In one part of your post you touch on what Allie (shown left) says about the industry stating if the industry felt she was too skinny “She’d be losing jobs instead of landing them”. I'm interested to know what you think about that because it seems since she is getting jobs the industry is not concerned; probably because she is no thinner than the rest of the models. If people are really this outraged from seeing a skinny model on a reality show that may or may not have an eating disorder then to those people; don’t watch. Do not buy fashion magazines, go to fashion shows, or buy the designer’s product. It is the consumer who can wield power over what we deem acceptable. Personally, I feel that although some models are very skinny, Allie from “The City” included, it is not for us to say whether or not they have a problem. In a controversial move three years ago Madrid Fashion Week implemented a mandatory BMI of 18 on all models who would walk the runway. Those who had a BMI of less than that were banned from the runway. This had a backlash and did not solve any problems. Designers refused to comply and others felt this was a form of “reverse prejudice”, telling people they must weigh a certain amount. The bottom line is that these rules should not have to be implemented by a large bureaucratic organization, but rather designers and agencies should regulate themselves and look out for their own. Just as being extremely obese is unhealthy and threatens lives, being too thin has many of the same implications, and it is time the industry showed concern for this issue. For consumers, If they feel strongly about underweight models, they should chose action rather than berate a single model in an attempt to change the system.


“Love Is Great, But Still Full of Not-Normal People”
Comment

While underweight models and actresses grace the covers of a plethora of magazines every month, it is less common to see an overweight rock star such as Beth Ditto. However, you have to wonder whether idolizing someone like her, who is obese, is just as, if not more, dangerous than admiring some of the waifish models that stare out from runways and magazine covers. It is an interesting predicament. Katie Grand, the editor of Love states that it is fabulous that Beth Ditto is so comfortable with her body in order to pose nude for the cover and it allows others to see their own imperfections. While I agree with her to a certain extent, I do not think she is a better role model for women than an underweight model. Although, her confidence is great, her body is nothing to be envied. Not because she is unattractive, but because carrying that much weight is unhealthy. As the Guardian’s Jemima Kiss points out there are no other obese women featured in the magazine so as she states, if “the way she looks" (don't mention the "f" word!) is such a positive thing, why aren't there any other podgy people in the magazine?”. I find myself agreeing more with Kiss than Grand on this point. Other obese women are not featured in the magazine because it is not looked at as a positive thing, and that is not a bad thing. How can someone say that because she is comfortable being overweight she is a positive role model?

I am interested to know if you think it hypocritical to praise an obese woman on the cover of a magazine, while criticizing those who are possibly underweight. Should Beth Ditto be praised for being obese? Kate Moss and other models certainly take much criticism for being underweight so what is different about the two? While being both underweight and overweight are dangerous to one’s health, being overweight generally has more complications and risks than being underweight. Either way, both should not be idolized. I find it upsetting that people are so harsh on models that are dangerously thin, while Love magazine seems to be accepting of having women idolize someone who is obese. Although Beth Ditto may be more representative of our society than underweight models, she should be no more of a role model than Kate Moss to young girls.

Cheap Chic: The New Trend for Fashion Designers

Not surprisingly, in this economy almost everyone is out to find a great deal. It is no different in the world of high fashion, which is causing a major transition in which many designers such as Vera Wang, Karl Lagerfield, and Proenza Schouler, just to name a few, are designing for low budget stores like Kohl’s, Target, and H&M. Several of these designers are using their names on clothing lines at a price point well below that of their original high-end fashions. This fairly recent phenomenon has made “cheap chic” clothes and accessories a major trend in the fashion industry. Although it may seem risky for exclusively high-end designers to put their well recognized brand on low-budget lines in fear of becoming de-valued by their high-brow customers, it is also extremely lucrative, and if done correctly, can be avoided. During a time when Sharon Stone paired a Gap turtleneck with a Valentino skirt for the 1996 Academy Awards it seems only natural to blend high fashion with more cost effective clothing. Both designers and low-end stores alike have taken notice and created contracts to capitalize on this modern trend. The newest joint venture, announced this week, is between Target and Alexander McQueen, a prominent designer in the fashion world. Previews of the new line (seen above) emerged this week to great reviews. However, some disagree with this new trend thinking it will only harm the prestige of exclusive designers such as McQueen. Although there is some risk in hurting the their established brands, if done correctly, they are able to produce cheap chic clothes, collect huge revenue, tap into a new market, and over-all have no damage to their high-end line. In order for Alexander McQueen to be successful in this venture with Target, as many have been before him, there are a few things he should be keeping in mind to thrive in both the cheap chic and high fashion worlds.

Although these deals have become very popular and have extended beyond clothes into things such as accessories and home furnishing it is important, as stated above, that they are done correctly. There are a few things to keep in mind when creating a cheap-chic line. For example, designers should have a restricted time limit if they want to keep their original brand untarnished. By having a limited-time offer it creates exclusivity, much the same as price creates exclusivity for their high fashion line. It has been a mistake for designers such as Isaac Mizrahi, who lingered in the low budget world and whose name is now synonymous with Target. Lazaro Hernandez, one of the two designers of Proenza Schouler, made his voice heard on the issue stating that long-term deals between designers and Target can ruin a designer’s name eternally. When speaking of Mizrahi, he went on to say, “When you're there for the long haul, why is anyone going to go to Barneys and buy your clothes when they can get it at Target all the time?” Mizrahi, whose contract with Target ended this year, is now headed to Liz Claiborne in hopes of another successful cheap-chic venture. However, in doing so, it seems highly unlikely that Isaac Mizrahi’s name will ever again equate so synonymously with high fashion after such long stints in lower budget companies. Other mistakes designers have made when undertaking the cheap chic route is not differentiating between their low-end brand and their high fashion merchandise. Differentiation is important so the original customers who are willing to pay big bucks for designer couture are not alienated. After all, why would someone buy the original when it is replicated for a fraction of the cost? This can undermine the designer’s high income consumer. For example, in a blog about Target’s cheap chic lines it states Hayden Harnett created a fifty dollar bag for Target which looked identical to its original, which retails for $198.00. This not only infuriated customers who purchased the expensive bag, but also taints the reputation of the expensive label. Designers who have been most successful keep their cheap line separate from their expensive line by having two completely different stylings, while still stamping their name on both. Proenza Schouler for Target does this by creating entirely dissimilar day wear lines as to “not to turn off those who prefer their Proenza Schouler at Bergdorf.” This is an important distinction in creating a cheap chic line.

If these things are done correctly, especially during the recession, the capital gain for both the stores and the designers are astronomical, all without damaging the original high-end brand. Today more than ever consumers are looking for a bargain and celebrated creators such as Alexander McQueen (pictured right), with his new line named McQ Alexander McQueen for Target, are delivering. The line will launch starting March 4th of this year as the first line in Target’s new project titled Designer Collaborations. This new plan takes prestigious designers and allows them to create an accessible, affordable line for the masses. Most of the pieces for Target are under $100, which is consistent with other designers who create lines for stores in the same price range. So far, it has been a recipe for success. For H&M designer name lines such as Karl Lagerfeld, Stella McCartney, and Roberto Cavalli have sometimes sold out in mere hours, not even lasting in the store for a whole day. As for Target’s recent successes, their Go International program, similar to their newly introduced Designer Collaborations, takes the up-and-comings in the industry, which have included Proenza Schouler, Luella Bartley, and many others and makes over $100 million annually with their limited time offers. It is clear these partnerships are both giving consumers on a budget what they want while simultaneously creating huge revenue for the designer and the store. Not only are these partnerships establishing a new market by enabling price conscious consumers a taste of designer fashion, they are opening up an eventual new market for their high-end lines. The targeted consumer for exclusive high-priced brands is much different than that of the customers of Kohl’s, Target, and H&M. Where the latter consumers are very price conscious and unwilling to spend a lot of money on clothes, the target markets of haute couture have little to no price sensitivity. However, this does not mean that will not change. The cheap chic lines of designers such as McQueen, Lagerfeld, Wang, and others generally target twenty-somethings with modest discretionary income. However, as Anne Metz states while speaking of Target, “… the primary demographic of the GO International line (young, twenty-to-thirty-somethings) will get older, and they'll also get richer. If you tempt them with Target, eventually they'll follow you to Barneys.” The earlier a designer can make a fan of his or her work, even at the low-budget level, the more likely that person will be to continue to purchase the designers clothes when they have the means to afford it. While it is true that some consumers will be content to stay on the cheap chic path, others will certainly be drawn up the price ladder as their income becomes more excessive.

Though some consumers, usually those who are not intended for the cheap chic demographic, are hesitant in supporting high-end designers going the low-budget route it seems clear that if handled well this route can only be positive. Although there have been some designers, such as Isaac Mizrahi, who will most likely be unable to transition back into the high fashion world, most have become more successful and better known due to their lower budget, yet still chic designs. There is no reason to think McQ Alexander McQueen for Target will be any less successful than the designers before him, or any more likely to come out with a tarnished reputation. Nevertheless, in order to follow the successes it is important he follow the formula. Keep the low-end line limited in time and design, and differentiate between the McQ for Target and his original Alexander McQueen line, for which he is known and loved. As for his decision to become the newest designer to take on the low-budget trend, most fashionistas could not be more excited for March 4th to hit so they can snag Alexander McQueen at Target prices.

Following Fashion: Exploring the World of Trends

As a student hoping to find a place in the fashion world after graduation and an avid fashion enthusiast I decided to dedicate my blog to just that topic. My blog will delve into the world of fashion; its current issues, trends, and controversies. In my quest to create a legitimate and credible blog I searched the internet for sources that compliment this quest. I used many search techniques and sifted through a plethora of information to ensure my sources were both credible and informative in the fashion industry. Many of these sources can be found to the right of my blog under the linkroll enabling my readers to access the information themselves. The criteria for which I decided to add certain sites to the linkroll are based on both the Webby and IMSA standards. In searching for these sites I used many resources like search engines, online directories such as the Librarian’s Internet Index, and blog engines. To begin, I added prominent fashion magazine’s websites such as Elle, Harper’s Bazaar, and Style.com, where Vogue resides online. These magazines hold a great reputation for authority and content; both Webby criterion. Furthermore, these magazine’s websites are very visually stimulating, easy to navigate, and function extremely well. All of these standards pertain to the Webby criteria. Secondly, I added well-known shopping websites that are recognized for having the latest trends and celebrity style such as Shopbop. I also added some newspapers’ websites such as The New York Post which have fashion sections that generally have biographies of famous designers and featured stories on the fashion industry. Lastly, I looked at blogs through the blog search engines. I found the most helpful of these engines was Best of Web: Blogs. The blogs in my linkroll have credible writers and go into depth in content and opinions, both of which are important IMSA criterion. One blog titled The Cut is a blog from New York Magazine while others have a large following giving it authority such as WhoWhatWear. With these sources as my guides I aim to create a fashion blog that builds upon what is being said in the fashion world while adding my own opinion on these topics.