recognized.

i was overjoyed to see a new york time fashion & style piece entitled ‘brand recognition is the issue.’ indeed, suzy menkes dipped her foot into, what i consider, a complicated pool that enables a designer to register his/her vision with a consumer.

what is it about a brand that allows it to be recognized? forget logos, advertisements, and shopping bags, but for someone to stop and say “that shirt could only be yves saint-laurent,” or “that woman is clearly dressed in head-to-toe balmain.” and furthermore, how does a brand hold on to its singular vision year after year, without appearing repetitive or boring? even the late, the great lee mcqueen, with his wildly disparate collections, maintained a consistency that made his fans and critics alike proclaim that he ‘did it again.’

it boils down to how every other strong-willed company, whether in consumer goods, cars, or cigarettes, has survived over the years: staying true to the brand essence. for instance, upscale department store neiman marcus recently reported strong sales. while people are certainly beginning to spend more {sheepishly raising hand}, neiman marcus never traded down, even during the longest gloom of the recession. instead, they focused on building out their lower priced sub-brands. if the department store had deeply discounted {a la saks 5th}, consumer perceptions of the giant’s luxury would have similarly lowered.

recessionary tactics notwithstanding, the example is timeless and applies to the fashion designers dilemma. staying true to a vision, even during tough times, is better in the long term to preserve a brand’s image. what if phoebe philo had succumbed to the 80s glam dominated by balenciaga/balmain? first, it would have looked cheap; this isn’t philo’s vision, nor one she could authentically fake. secondly, what a refreshing vision she has created of stripped down glamour which has spawned so much popularity and been echoed by the luscious collections of stella mccartney and chloe.

another benefit is that, most of the time, consumers like to know what they’re getting when they associate with a brand. consumers don’t like to be surprised. that’s why hoards of tourists in new york city decide to dine at the olive garden rather than seek out a mind-blowing meal hidden in tribeca; they know precisely what they will be getting. i’m not calling this type of behavior unadventurous, we all have loyalty to certain brands. consumers generally like to know what they’re getting for their money.

if i need something for an upcoming soiree, and don’t feel like spending a lot of money, i know i’ll find something appropriately glamorous, inexpensive, and of relatively high quality at zara. something cheap and trendy? h&m. something expensive and conservative? lord & taylor. something reasonable and minimalist? uniqlo. something utterly out of my price range and gorgeously timeless? ysl.

the funny thing is that, season after season, none of these brands feel boring to me. that’s because these companies employ teams of highly talented people with impeccable eyes for style and who apply it convincingly to a unique brand. buyers, researchers, and brand managers attend every opening, event, fashion show, and hit the streets to find the latest trend to incorporate into their brand {indeed, one of the best parts about fashion week is seeing what all the attendees are wearing}. it doesn’t have to be blatant or obvious, but a hint of something, done ‘just so’ in order to weave the element into the brand’s essence.

the same is for personal brand. the men and women with the most incredible style always have and will remain true to their brand while never appearing boring. my boyfriend’s wardrobe is a fraction the size of mine, yet he never looks anything less than immaculate, and has remained true to his own unique style his whole life.  i think it’s incredible that knowing what to expect needn’t be boring, and in fact, is often the key to the longevity and success of both companies and people.

stripped.

i recently listened to cathy horyn’s video round up of milan fashion week. the written review can be read here. in the article and her audio commentary, horyn explores what we too often forget during all the madness of the fashion weeks: that the designers are producing social commentary. yes, the street style snaps are lovely and inspire legions of young fashion fans via web to revamp their daily uniforms. yes, i love flipping through the runway shows – and recently, watching live-stream video of the shows themselves – and devouring what the designers have cooked up. and yes, i even look at the fashion week trend reports to check whether my beloved daily silhouette hasn’t been deemed outdated, even if it wouldn’t matter if it were – we should all dress to suit our frames. but still.

paris "voguettes" at fashion week

but what these twice-yearly fashion spectacles, media frenzies, and celebrity free-for-alls really represent in terms of culture is a commentary on what is going on in modern times. fashion is always looking to the future, but it must be a very real future, not an imagined one. while fashion wouldn’t be fashion without the fantasy, wearable designs should reflect what a real woman’s lifestyle requires. horyn’s observations of the milan shows are summed up by a stripped down, serious, yet energetic take on modern ready-to-wear.

we live in serious times, and one must be pared down, hard-working, and energetic to not simply hold down a job today, but succeed in it. gone are the heady days of conspicuous spending, flashy jewels, overstuffed ‘it’ bags, and well, job security. since the recession hit, my look has gone from floral, printed, and colorful, to dark shades of slim, functional, easy-to-wear and easy-to-think-about pieces.  this allows me to whiz to work without a second thought.

jil sander fall 2010

the collection that best represents this is raf simon’s designs for jil sander. among the most successful of the milan collections, his clothes are utterly streamlined and tailored, all paired with flat black boots, and look serious without seeming boring. everything is essential, nothing superfluous. what other sentiment would the modern working woman want to convey? furthermore, his collection has enertia, which to me is directly translates to raw ambition.

now, in paris, phoebe philo is taking that modern momentum and running with it at celine.  her clothes for fall 2010 ready-to-wear are ‘grown-up, flattering, simple but sexy. in her own words: “strong. powerful. reduced.”‘ and, of course, wildly successful. it’s these types of collections that are resonating with women the most today. and i can understand that; who can bothered with high glam, high gloss, high maintenance these days? even if i go all out, it’s a hint of sequins, or perhaps a ultra-high heel, but these are still understated and held against a dark, functional, and slim palette. perhaps this type of look is what is the most confident. women don’t need unnecessary extras to show that they’re strong and stylish, in order to show that they’re “with it.” instead, a quiet confidence and economy of design works better at representing a woman’s strength.

celine fall 2010

i tend to think that these designers act as modern-day soothsayers, showing us the future of form, function, and femininity. we’re working harder, are more connected through a digital lifestyle, and have less time to waste worrying about the mundane. the future is lightning fast, shouldn’t we be dressed for it?

heritage.

recently, powerful luxury brands like louis vuitton and gucci went crafty with their communications. they took to playing up their rich heritage rather than a holistic focus on the future. in an age where everything is online, live-streamed, tweeted,  blogged, and in 3d {especially in the fashion industry; see also: burberry rtw fall 2010}  it seems inconsistent to focus on the past, non?

advertisement for vuitton

quite the opposite. while fur, leather, feathers, and overt glamour certainly ran rapid all over the fall 2010 runways, the reality is that consumers have a new level of consumption {less of it}, and a new level of trust of large companies {much less of it}.  however, we’re still a consumer society, for better or worse, and that means people will always consume. the onus is now on the brand to shift their representation to those consumers. thus, heritage, trust, craftsmanship, longevity, and most importantly, meaning, must be top of mind.

of course, shoppers, especially young ones, will continue to open their wallets for the likes of forever21, zara, and h&m. those brands do not have heritage, nor do they attempt to create one {although i recently saw an h&m photoshoot featuring erin wasson; her shoes were referenced as “vintage h&m”}.

this strategy is most definitely confined to the luxury goods customer. why? because they will most likely always have some source of disposable income. the rich stay rich. but the rich aren’t rich because they spend money frivolously. luxury brands know this, and while their image and products inherently scream high quality and exclusivity, it still takes some convincing to nudge a customer into dropping a few thou on a pair of boots.

so why heritage? why not simply focus communications on quality and exclusivity? because luxury customers are still people, and they still need comfort. these are tough times, and if a brand can promise an escape into a better past, when craftsmanship and quality were worth something, a customer may more easily be convinced that say, a vuitton “heritage” wallet is worth the money.

i recently attended a talk at the museum at fit about the history of resort fashion. one thing that struck me about the photographs {many of them over 40 years old} was how timeless the clothing appeared. i asked the lecturer about it, and she responded by saying that these clothes represent carefree memories for people. when resort fashion was developing, people of means took their vacations in places like the south of france, when travel was a luxury. the memories associated with resort fashion are cheerful and warm. why would anyone want to change that sentimental image?

brands aren’t just associating their heritage with their products. for example, prada recently released a 700+ page book which retells their storied past, complete with insider interviews and beautiful photographs. an a-list book launch helped bring it to the public eye and remind consumers that prada isn’t just an expensive bag that bitchy editors carry around.  similarly, hermes, founded in 1837 by thierry hermes as a saddle shop, is planning a decadent equestrian event at le grand palais in paris to showcase, among other things, its longevity.

these tactics not only work to communicate a brand “story,” {which is utterly important in creating customer affinity} but also helps to show that the products have long-term value. the “story” helps to add the narrative that stays in the consumers mind long after the high from buying the hermes scarf has faded away.

new gucci ad campaign

the real trick for luxury brands, and something in which the aforementioned burberry has proved a gold standard, is to balance modernity with heritage. i love seeing headlines like gucci to launch heritage ad campaign and live stream catwalk. luxury brands run the risk of losing their edge and becoming stodgy if they focus too much on heritage, yet can lose customer loyalty if they push the technology card too far. as luxury buyers become increasing informed and cautious of both spending money and trusting big companies, marrying heritage with accessible modernity is a solid bet for the future.

haute-est couture.

galliano for dior, s/s 2010 couture

john galliano recently did what i had been waiting for: swoop in to paris and save fashion. i must admit, for all the fascinating, digital, collaborative, and democratic developments in the industry this past decade, true fashion – the real stuff of dreams – had become somewhat lost in the shuffle. please do not misunderstand, i applaud the various ways in which fashion has become accessible to a wider audience; were it not for the internet, i wouldn’t have a fraction of the information i’m privy to today.

however, in the past few months, the number of ‘celebrity collaborations’ have come to make me cranky. lohan for ungaro? sjp for halston? klum for the ‘with child?’ not to leave out all of the various actress-launched fragrances – as if one can wake up one morning and create a scent out of thin air – the public has no idea how complicated a process it is to truly inspire and produce a perfume.

really?

finally, and somewhat understandably, fashion magazines, once “shining beacons of hope” [in the words of nigel from the devil wears prada] have turned to features on smart shopping and good deals. these were once publications filled with art, not lucky magazine.

so when, at the christian dior haute couture show in paris, galliano showed a collection that was 100% whimsy and fantasy, i was overjoyed. this is art. this is escape. the show was like a wonderful movie or book that transports the audience to another time and place. as suzy menkes writes,”fashion needs emotion to both seduce and inspire and mr galliano delivers that with passion.”

more from dior s/s 2010

while personal style, street fashion, and bloggers certainly have their place in the quotidian portion of fashion, like any art form, there must also be the higher order, exalted part of it. this is true in regards to any art, whether it be literature, music, or sculpture. there must be a place for real craftmanship and experimentation to exist, and the sense that whatever the creation is, it is utterly unnattainable, except in one’s dreams.

pas-de-deux.

in a recent and astute blog post, helene of the luxe chronicles confronts the issue luxury brands have faced since the dismal christmas 2008 shopping season. specifically, the pressure from leading retailers to trim wholesale costs. what this means is that, in order to provide ‘luxe for less,’ luxury brands must reduce costs by using ‘less expensive fabrics, simpler designs, and fewer embellishments.’

i agree with helene in that the strategy can virtually kill a brand’s luxury status. first of all, a luxury brand is no longer a luxury brand if the quality of the pieces isn’t there. this, in turn, wipes out the brand’s reason for being, which is one of the more destructive actions a company can take during a downturn. a downturn is simply that, and economies, like history, have a way of repeating themselves. once people begin spending copiously again [which they will], a luxury brand that has been offering goods of lesser quality simply won’t be regarded as true luxury.

in fact, with the presence of so many cheaper mid-market selections [that look shockingly like the real thing] why would a luxury brand want to bring itself down to that level? it runs a very real risk of being swallowed into a sea of luxury brand knock-offs.

typical high street fashion

even the magnificent ines de la fressange, who serves as brand ambassador for the french luxury brand roger vivier, says she routinely studies street fashion so she can understand what not to advise:

“It’s really important to see what the street fashion is. In the luxury business if you see that something is sold very cheaply there is no point in trying to do the same kind of thing.”

so what is a luxury brand to do? helene recommends keeping the utmost quality of the goods, and instead focusing on creating an environment in the store that draws customers in. especially, she says, because ‘this area was often neglected by retailers during the boom years.’ mark tungate focuses an entire chapter in his book about this phenomena [and cites the example of how the once-stodgy british brand asprey was able to modernize itself almost entirely by updating its in-store experience].

asprey in london

when i was first interviewed for my current job back in july, i was asked about this very problem. french luxury brand cartier was a client of the firm and was contemplating some fairly horrid tactics to bring in more customers [some kind of buy-one-get-one-at-a-discount atrocity!]. the interviewer asked me how i would advise them instead.

i had remembered an article i had read that paul smith was one of the only luxury houses to profit during the recession. instead of cutting down the quality of his mens and womenswear, he instead opted for a volume play: selling his accessories like socks, wallets, and books. it’s somewhat similar to the recession-myth that women buy more lipstick during recessions [you can't buy the chanel shoes, but you can surely splurge on a tube of red lipstick]. this tactic certainly works. the quality is not compromised, neither is the brand, the company still makes money, and it comes out of the recession with no hard feelings.

a paul smith wallet

it is difficult in any industry to want to address nothing but the short-term by cutting costs and reducing prices. but to keep its long-term vitality, respect, and yes, profits, it requires the discipline to not lose sight of what a brand stands for. this is the surest way to survive any downturn and cross the finish line gleaming.