February 7, 2008
Payless Goes High Fashion on the Cheap
High fashion for the masses, at least in footwear, has been on display up and down catwalks during New York Fashion Week as models have strutted their stuff wearing shoes from top designers that are Payless ShoeSource exclusives.
Among the designers who have created for Payless are Abaete by Laura Poretzky, Lela Rose and Stacey Bendet for Alice + Olivia.
“Can you believe — Payless? They look like Louboutins (sold in luxury department stores and boutiques),” Ms. Rose told Reuters.
While Ms. Rose sells dresses that normally go for $1,000 and up, her shoe designs for Payless retail for $25 or less.
“Payless’ vision is to democratize fashion,” said Matt Rubel, chief executive officer and president of Payless. “Our philosophy has been to find the young emerging talent, then bring it to our customer at affordable prices.”
Ms. Poretzky had models showing off her new collection wearing gray ankle boots from her Payless collection. “It’s a great silhouette for skirts and pants,” she said.
Rachel Felder, a freelance style consultant, said of the Abaete shoes, “When money is tight, this is what people will buy.”
Ms. Bendet plans to show off her “Breakfast in Bed” line for Payless today. Her favorite from the collection are yellow half boots with a zipper on the back.
“I can see my uptown girl wearing that downtown shoe with a little black dress,” she said.
Discussion Questions: Will we see an increase in the number of high fashion designers who sign agreements with retailers serving the mass market? With the economy slowing, do you expect to see more luxury consumers trading down to designer clothing, footwear and accessories sold in outlets such as Payless?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
There is so, so much more to good design than “how it looks.” The quality of raw material, cut, construction, finishing, durability all are part of the equation. That, of course, is what is missing in the fake, knock-off, or inexpensive mass market “designer” products.
Respected designers such as Vera Wang and Issac Mizrahi have effectively recreated the “look” in some of their mass market offerings and have no doubt made a lot of money in doing so, but by all accounts have seriously damaged their reputations and credentials as top designers in the process.
Going forward, this is a choice/trade-off each fashion designer is going to have to make as they plot out their niche and legacy.
Luxury consumers also tend to have a plethora of fashion selections in their closets, so it is completely believable that they will add lower end retailers to the mix while still having a few key items that come from their designer boutiques and larger chain stores. Mixing and matching Payless with Saks is part of the luxury shoppers mentality so if there are more choices at a Payless, they will get more share.
New, fresh designer talents have many choices to consider today for their product placement. No longer is high-fashion reserved for Neiman’s and Saks. Target and Payless ShoeSource have rewritten the designer playbook by successfully signing exclusive designers and then doing a reasonable job a taking care of and nurturing these brands within an otherwise discount-oriented environment. The lower end of the luxury goods consumer group already shops in department stores and discounters.
The slowing economy will increase the percentage of designer fashion purchased outside of the traditional luxury channels. But the truly wealthy will not be lured by Alice + Olivia at Payless. They’re not giving up their Christian Lacroix pumps or their Manolo Blahnik slingbacks.
There is an aspect to this whole effort that really gets to the heart of the “value proposition.” As more consumers become value shoppers and the Baby Boom generation moves into their fixed income years, the retailers who offer good products at reasonable prices will thrive. The challenge for the designers is that on one hand they don’t want to dilute their image by offering products to the masses that are indistinguishable from their limited assortments but neither do they want to have massed produced products that fall apart and erode the image of their designer name. One way I guess they avoid this is by not working in the same categories.
As the article discusses we have a dress designer working in the footwear category. Which may have led to what seems to me to be an inappropriate fashion line; who wears their shoes in bed and what is with a “Breakfast in Bed” line of shoes?
Payless is on the right track, despite the name of the line, and as consumers continue to look for more value they will certainly benefit.
As long as Payless aligns with the right standards of styling and value, why not? It’s a smart way for Payless to compete more effectively with Designer Shoe Warehouse and the like, and a smart way for the appropriate footwear vendors to do business with one of the biggest shoe retailers out there. But there needs to be a lot of effort put into design and marketing: Think about the Marbury and Sarah Jessica Parker product lines at Steve & Barry’s as a good template.
If it is to work, it must be a match made in heaven.
Not every retailer could pair up with designer labels and make it successful. There are a number of variables which make the magic happen.
While it may not appear so at first blush, Payless shoes is no stranger to the magic. They have long outperformed many competitors including big box retailers, when it came to trend-right value footwear. Payless is nearly always on trend and carry a wide, but not very deep, assortment. Being able to execute this merchandising philosophy is dependent upon good operational and store level execution and point of sale. Payless seems to do that better than many.
Target is another example where the designer lines have traditionally done well and they are another example of a retailer with good trend DNA, store presentation and store level execution.
Without these key variables present, a designer line may simply get lost in the shuffle, or the store cachet simply won’t support the concept and failure will result.
Payless Shoes on the catwalk? I say “perfect timing.” The trade down phenomenon is showing itself in Martha Stewart for Kirkland and Vera Wang for Kohl’s.
The recession mindset is here, making the onset of an actual recession a bit academic at this point. Sure, if women feel that they can “pass” with the Payless brand (especially if the designer is called out), they’ll try it. Next up–economic chic. Recently a New York Times article cited the fact that Costco’s Black and White cookies were spotted at “the best houses in Washington.” This is the trendiness of thrift; whether saving is strictly necessary or not, it is unseemly to conspicuously consume.
Yep–perfect timing.
Many “respected designers” are money-losing businesses that only survive based on licensing fees. Couture houses show $30,000 dresses, but usually over 100% of the profit comes from licensing. Payless, Kohl’s, and Target can license their choice of upscale names. If the merchandise design is appropriate, and the licensing fees are low, why not?
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
There is so, so much more to good design than “how it looks.” The quality of raw material, cut, construction, finishing, durability all are part of the equation. That, of course, is what is missing in the fake, knock-off, or inexpensive mass market “designer” products.
Respected designers such as Vera Wang and Issac Mizrahi have effectively recreated the “look” in some of their mass market offerings and have no doubt made a lot of money in doing so, but by all accounts have seriously damaged their reputations and credentials as top designers in the process.
Going forward, this is a choice/trade-off each fashion designer is going to have to make as they plot out their niche and legacy.
Luxury consumers also tend to have a plethora of fashion selections in their closets, so it is completely believable that they will add lower end retailers to the mix while still having a few key items that come from their designer boutiques and larger chain stores. Mixing and matching Payless with Saks is part of the luxury shoppers mentality so if there are more choices at a Payless, they will get more share.
New, fresh designer talents have many choices to consider today for their product placement. No longer is high-fashion reserved for Neiman’s and Saks. Target and Payless ShoeSource have rewritten the designer playbook by successfully signing exclusive designers and then doing a reasonable job a taking care of and nurturing these brands within an otherwise discount-oriented environment. The lower end of the luxury goods consumer group already shops in department stores and discounters.
The slowing economy will increase the percentage of designer fashion purchased outside of the traditional luxury channels. But the truly wealthy will not be lured by Alice + Olivia at Payless. They’re not giving up their Christian Lacroix pumps or their Manolo Blahnik slingbacks.
There is an aspect to this whole effort that really gets to the heart of the “value proposition.” As more consumers become value shoppers and the Baby Boom generation moves into their fixed income years, the retailers who offer good products at reasonable prices will thrive. The challenge for the designers is that on one hand they don’t want to dilute their image by offering products to the masses that are indistinguishable from their limited assortments but neither do they want to have massed produced products that fall apart and erode the image of their designer name. One way I guess they avoid this is by not working in the same categories.
As the article discusses we have a dress designer working in the footwear category. Which may have led to what seems to me to be an inappropriate fashion line; who wears their shoes in bed and what is with a “Breakfast in Bed” line of shoes?
Payless is on the right track, despite the name of the line, and as consumers continue to look for more value they will certainly benefit.
As long as Payless aligns with the right standards of styling and value, why not? It’s a smart way for Payless to compete more effectively with Designer Shoe Warehouse and the like, and a smart way for the appropriate footwear vendors to do business with one of the biggest shoe retailers out there. But there needs to be a lot of effort put into design and marketing: Think about the Marbury and Sarah Jessica Parker product lines at Steve & Barry’s as a good template.
If it is to work, it must be a match made in heaven.
Not every retailer could pair up with designer labels and make it successful. There are a number of variables which make the magic happen.
While it may not appear so at first blush, Payless shoes is no stranger to the magic. They have long outperformed many competitors including big box retailers, when it came to trend-right value footwear. Payless is nearly always on trend and carry a wide, but not very deep, assortment. Being able to execute this merchandising philosophy is dependent upon good operational and store level execution and point of sale. Payless seems to do that better than many.
Target is another example where the designer lines have traditionally done well and they are another example of a retailer with good trend DNA, store presentation and store level execution.
Without these key variables present, a designer line may simply get lost in the shuffle, or the store cachet simply won’t support the concept and failure will result.
Payless Shoes on the catwalk? I say “perfect timing.” The trade down phenomenon is showing itself in Martha Stewart for Kirkland and Vera Wang for Kohl’s.
The recession mindset is here, making the onset of an actual recession a bit academic at this point. Sure, if women feel that they can “pass” with the Payless brand (especially if the designer is called out), they’ll try it. Next up–economic chic. Recently a New York Times article cited the fact that Costco’s Black and White cookies were spotted at “the best houses in Washington.” This is the trendiness of thrift; whether saving is strictly necessary or not, it is unseemly to conspicuously consume.
Yep–perfect timing.
Many “respected designers” are money-losing businesses that only survive based on licensing fees. Couture houses show $30,000 dresses, but usually over 100% of the profit comes from licensing. Payless, Kohl’s, and Target can license their choice of upscale names. If the merchandise design is appropriate, and the licensing fees are low, why not?