February 9, 2007

U.K. Women Pounce on New Fashions

Share: LinkedInRedditXFacebookEmail

By Bernice Hurst, Managing Director, Fine Food Network

In English-speak, clobber refers to clothes, particularly those that are good
quality and/or conspicuous. “Clobbered,” according to Cassell’s Dictionary
of Slang
, therefore means “well dressed.” Of course it also means to either
hit hard (or be hit hard). Both definitions apply in the headline to Simon
Mills’ feature in the Guardian about the phenomenon of mass hysteria
when a big name designer produces a limited edition line for a high street
retailer.

Interviewing George Davies, mastermind of both retailers and fashion
lines including Next, George at Asda and Per Uno at Marks & Spencer, back at
the beginning of the oh-so-wannabe 21st century, the subject turned to “the
vicissitudes and psychologies of female shoppers… When women find a store
selling desirable goods at the right price they will go in and wreck it. And
the more it is wrecked, the more they will be drawn to it… and then they’ll
wreck it even more.”

Mr. Mills goes on to describe his own experience, witnessing the arrival of Karl Lagerfield’s collection at H&M’s flagship store in London. “Queues out of the door, burly security guards, women clutching multiple carrier bags stuffed with booty, women denuding chrome rails of merchandise like lions stripping meat off an oryx carcass, the brittle crunch of plastic hangers being trampled underfoot.” There were similar scenes, he says, when Stella McCartney unveiled her first cheap chic collection at H&M in 2005 and, more recently still, at Gap when a batch of Roland Mouret’s dresses arrived.

These are not isolated incidents. According to Mr. Mills (and news stories published on each succeeding launch day), Britain’s female population reverts to jungle-like behavior at the mere sniff of a designer dress. And for once, size doesn’t matter. There is no time to try things on. If it doesn’t fit, there is always eBay where prices soar well beyond cheap. Barely minutes after the store’s doors open and the first sales are registered, clothes are being re-sold online. Whether purchased for love or profit, the clothes are purchased at record speed. By Hour 2, let alone Day 2, shelves are often bare.

There are several, equally cynical, explanations for what is hopefully a phenomenon (rather than an every day pattern). Many women feel more like the celebrities whose lifestyle they envy if they “share” a designer. Others see a way to make a fast buck out of others even more star-struck than they are. Designers see a way to make a fast buck out of finding a greater number of customers through high street stores. And finally, retailers see a way to make a fast buck and get more customers through the door if they are perceived to be selling something special.

As Mr. Mills puts it, “one can’t help feeling that there is something Marie Antoinette-ish about the way that designer fashion cake is dangled in front of teeming, proletarian customers for a limited period, before it is cruelly snatched away again, only to reappear on eBay at double the price.”

Discussion questions: Do you agree with Simon Mills that women are attracted to purchase this cheap chic clothing from top designers to pretend they have something in common with celebrities? Have any experiences such as those described here occurred in the U.S.? How can retailers better handle the rush for high demand products, whether they are a new line from a fashion designer to the latest and greatest electronic gadget?

Basically, it’s all about cheap chic. As prices come down while the perception of exclusivity goes up, women may find it easier than ever to change their wardrobe (or their mood) along with the season. If wearing clothes designed by someone who also designs for the celebrities they admire makes them feel better about themselves, where’s the harm? Isn’t everyone equally entitled to look and feel beautiful?

Discussion Questions

Poll

5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Charles P. Walsh
Charles P. Walsh

Might this phenomenon be explained by considering an analogy? Probably not, but here goes anyway.

The “proletariat” male in the U.S. purchases “off the rack” relatively inexpensive accessories for their trucks and cars by the, excuse me, truck load.

This impulsive purchasing can transform their ho-hum not-too exclusive truck into a “custom” machine. It is the appearance of exclusivity and uniqueness that they seek and get.

Who knew it was so simple?

Dick Seesel
Dick Seesel

The lines form around the block at H&M when they launch an “exclusive” collection, and now Target is developing more “fast fashion” in-and-out collections by designers not always represented in their stores.

It’s about affordable luxury (or the perception of luxury) and aspirational brands. Knowing that you are wearing designer apparel, no matter where you bought it or what you paid for it, is an ego boost to the customer and will build her loyalty to the stores that market the “thrill of the hunt” most effectively.

Joel Rubinson

The notion of “affordable indulgence” was well explored by the book “Trading Up,” where they talk about the new luxury which is accessible rather than exclusive (Coach rather than Gucci). Target validates this and takes it one step further into “affordable indulgence for the everyday person.” I think that this is another example of that principle at work…working class folks finding affordable ways to feel a little special. I would think that this is more of a hip and fun thing to do than it is a celebrity connection per se.

Lisa Bradner
Lisa Bradner

I think it’s much less about the celebrity connection than it is the thrill of victory that comes from getting a deal–bragging rights on a Stella McCartney, the confidence to walk down the street feeling chic and the smug knowledge that a)you paid a whole lot less than the other guy and b)you bested other women in a contest of wits and aggression. Everyone loves a bargain, regardless of how much money they have, a fact that Costco has exploited with great success. If you can get an expensive brand name at a steal it’s even better than everyday “cheap chic” a la Target. Mixing the two proves you’re cooler than anyone.

What can American retailers learn? I think there is a lesson about exclusivity. A lot of retailers tried this at Christmas time with general categories (consumer electronics, for instance) and ended up driving traffic but losing their shirts on margin and destroying the profitability of entire categories in the process. Retailers and manufacturers should think about the coup of taking a high end brand and blowing out a low end version rather than simply discounting the same every day product. Names draw in the traffic and if the pricing and design are right no one loses money. The retailer gets the cache of being associated with a high end brand (H&M’s strategy), the designer keeps their name relevant and valuable with a broader population and customers get to feel smug in the knowledge they got a deal.

Mark Lilien
Mark Lilien

There’s a big difference between a one-time publicity coup and a sustained long-term merchandising success. Both have their place, but they don’t have the same impact. Target’s success with Robert Graves was multi-year. No riots, just sustained excellent sales for a long time. Kmart had long-term success with Martha Stewart. Will H&M sustain the Karl Lagerfeld label?

5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Charles P. Walsh
Charles P. Walsh

Might this phenomenon be explained by considering an analogy? Probably not, but here goes anyway.

The “proletariat” male in the U.S. purchases “off the rack” relatively inexpensive accessories for their trucks and cars by the, excuse me, truck load.

This impulsive purchasing can transform their ho-hum not-too exclusive truck into a “custom” machine. It is the appearance of exclusivity and uniqueness that they seek and get.

Who knew it was so simple?

Dick Seesel
Dick Seesel

The lines form around the block at H&M when they launch an “exclusive” collection, and now Target is developing more “fast fashion” in-and-out collections by designers not always represented in their stores.

It’s about affordable luxury (or the perception of luxury) and aspirational brands. Knowing that you are wearing designer apparel, no matter where you bought it or what you paid for it, is an ego boost to the customer and will build her loyalty to the stores that market the “thrill of the hunt” most effectively.

Joel Rubinson

The notion of “affordable indulgence” was well explored by the book “Trading Up,” where they talk about the new luxury which is accessible rather than exclusive (Coach rather than Gucci). Target validates this and takes it one step further into “affordable indulgence for the everyday person.” I think that this is another example of that principle at work…working class folks finding affordable ways to feel a little special. I would think that this is more of a hip and fun thing to do than it is a celebrity connection per se.

Lisa Bradner
Lisa Bradner

I think it’s much less about the celebrity connection than it is the thrill of victory that comes from getting a deal–bragging rights on a Stella McCartney, the confidence to walk down the street feeling chic and the smug knowledge that a)you paid a whole lot less than the other guy and b)you bested other women in a contest of wits and aggression. Everyone loves a bargain, regardless of how much money they have, a fact that Costco has exploited with great success. If you can get an expensive brand name at a steal it’s even better than everyday “cheap chic” a la Target. Mixing the two proves you’re cooler than anyone.

What can American retailers learn? I think there is a lesson about exclusivity. A lot of retailers tried this at Christmas time with general categories (consumer electronics, for instance) and ended up driving traffic but losing their shirts on margin and destroying the profitability of entire categories in the process. Retailers and manufacturers should think about the coup of taking a high end brand and blowing out a low end version rather than simply discounting the same every day product. Names draw in the traffic and if the pricing and design are right no one loses money. The retailer gets the cache of being associated with a high end brand (H&M’s strategy), the designer keeps their name relevant and valuable with a broader population and customers get to feel smug in the knowledge they got a deal.

Mark Lilien
Mark Lilien

There’s a big difference between a one-time publicity coup and a sustained long-term merchandising success. Both have their place, but they don’t have the same impact. Target’s success with Robert Graves was multi-year. No riots, just sustained excellent sales for a long time. Kmart had long-term success with Martha Stewart. Will H&M sustain the Karl Lagerfeld label?

More Discussions