blueorchid
you soft and only
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,730
- Reaction score
- 4,792
I dunno, I've seen D&G licensed pasta...
Share your thoughts on the... 2024 Met Gala
You don’t necessarily look at things with the right angle…Let's talk about the fashion industry, please.
I always wonder if a collection is going to be produced (big quantity or very exclusive numbers) or the fashion show I'm looking at is just branding to sell shoes and bags. Which brands are the real main players of luxury pret a porter clothes? I heard d&g main business is pret a porter. Versace too. What about the parisian brands?
Why some brands relie on this model? Why don't they just show their bags in a show room? Is it less glamourous? Not to mention the conglomerates pulling the strings on all of this (except the independent brands).
And the million dollar question that plagues my brain: why does fashion relie so much on marketing? It was big before the internet, but now it's hemorrhagic. It doesn't make sense exclusive luxury brands having this much of exhibitionism towards the masses.
That's what I want to understand. How do these clothes exist? I can develop the idea of them being images, statements or even technical marvels like concept cars, and they serve that function well. Fashion clearly is dependent on marketing. It can't be totally elitist like furniture design or architecture. The system around it makes it exist. That's a fact. We liking it or not.You don’t necessarily look at things with the right angle…
You have to go from the preconceived idea that clothes you see on the runway exists. Indeed they exists because you see them.
There’s a creative intention behind it, a statement or whatever but they exists.
Then, there’s a business of fashion that revolve around those clothes. That’s where you have to put things into perspective and look at the brands and strategies.
The business of fashion has evolved but the reality is that it’s hard to maintain a business, expect big growth and rely only on clothes while maintaining a certain prestige.
And it’s a question of scales.
YSL is historically a fashion house. They makes 3 billions in sales. Their beauty entity is not integrated in the group. The fashion operation (RTW and shoes) represents 20% of their sales, with 12% for their clothes. 12% of 3 billions is huge already.
The last show may have been done for image, as a statement, to create a strong vision, it still had blouses and some suits people may wear that will probably influence what is going on in the stores.
The idea of showing bags in the showrooms is only relevant today if you are Hermes, Delvaux or brands like Louboutin and Pierre Hardy. Nobody wants to miss on the opportunity of having that huge platform that is social media. Clients go to boutiques asking for things they saw on social media.
You can afford to not show bags if you are also a big brand that can afford to advertise them in a different way. If you can send gift to celebrities and then have them in aggressive campaigns around the world, it can work.
Fashion relies so much on marketing because it’s like a mouse running on a wheel. Brands have to grow, financial goals have to be reached so collections have to be made, stores have to be filled and you have to create constant desire and sollicitate the consumer at all time.
The reality is that in a more pragmatic way, luxury brands, when well managed can never be hurt. No matter how seeing Birkin and Chanel bags seems banal through social media, it’s still rare for the mass IRL.
Vuitton is much more controlled than Gucci. Michele did a great job but they pushed it so much that it became banal. It backfired and now they have to restart over. No matter how aggressive Vuitton is with their marketing, the only place you can buy Vuitton products is Vuitton shops or shops in shops.