the role of fashion branding & marketing savvy

[delirium]

I need some help putting together my thoughts on the fashion industry. I would be interested in anyone's perspective.

"The point is, luxury brands cannot compete on product alone,” says Michel Phan, who teaches luxury brand management at the ESSEC Business School in Paris. “They all sell beautiful products and follow the same trends, so loyalty is low. Brands are seeking ways to connect to consumers and show how they’re different.”
NYT - Giving a Glimpse of How It Is Done

I'm not really sure what to think. On one hand, most mass consumer brands definitely have focused more on marketing rather than only on product, but marketing, traditional or not, is always going to be integral to business.

Furthermore, better "social media" marketing than others, right? I, at least, enjoy seeing the inner workings of the industry through videos like the ones from Guidi and getting to know the brand and founders more like the Aitor Throup live presentation. This social interaction is part of the appeal of SZ.

I respect designers which focus on product.
1) having a powerful vision of garments and "worlds"
2) executing these visions into a genuine, non-derivative product
versus
allowing the product to play second fiddle to "brand"

However, the other end of the spectrum is the designers that have gained cult followings while having completely shun "traditional" marketing. This, in and of itself, is an interesting marketing strategy, but it's still hype.

The bottom line is the product and brand vision, but I want to buy into a designer who's brand and persona are likeable - and who likes their customers (me?). As a result, it never hurts for a designer who cares to develop their brand and interact with customers.

Is branding important? How important is it to a fashion line? Should we care about the lives of the designers who's garments we enjoy? Should care about "marketing" and interacting with their customers?

[delirium]

no bites? :|

[syed]

Spent most of yesterday in a hospital bed so my thinking is a bit muddled, expect a proper post soon. Some initial thoughts...

Many designers say that people aren't buying clothing, they are buying an 'idea' or 'feeling' (Alber and Karl love those lines) behind the clothing. At least that is what they say to make the consumer think that the garment is unique and tailored for them, even if with megabrands that is sometimes far from the truth.

In times of recession you want to create something that appeals to individuality and the consumer on a more personal level, hence the swing back to handicrafts and traditional design - the guise of being non-mass produced is comforting, people feel like they are buying something that transcends disposable culture. People are more reluctant to spend their money, so you want to create something unique and that looks like value for money - whether that be a timeless classic for them to 'invest' in, or something handmade that took hours of labour.

I'm not saying the swing back to the traditional is purely a marketing trick in light of the recession (I think investing away from fast fashion is always a good idea), but those ideas have certainly been played upon to get certain sectors of mindless consumers to buy more. Heck the re-surge of Americana and all these work wear pieces on the high street as the 'latest trend' are testament to that. Turning traditional classics into a disposable trend To me it is like taking the one thing that is the very dichotomy of fast fashion, and then turning it into fast fashion.

You also get designers who succeed because of the marketing and cultural fuzz around their garments e.g. Hedi Slimane-era Dior Homme - not saying the garments weren't good, but they sold because of the huge social marketing around them. Dior Homme were amazing at marketing a lifestyle, or at least segments of a lifestyle, that people wanted to buy into. You saw the waif rocker boy models, you saw the bands, you saw the 'cool', and you wanted in.

In terms of your question and the workings of a brand, I do enjoy reading interviews and finding out as much as I can about a designer, because their design philosophy is important to me. I try to find designers who I respect and who, for want of a better word, I feel proud to wear. However that is at a personal level, I don't intend to tell everyone who the designer was or wear huge logos, rather it is something for me to appreciate. In a way I suppose I want to feel like I have a personal connection to the designer, even though I may never meet them.

Being able to see the design process, the creation, how things are done, helps in that you are given more of an insight. With most consumers they see the finished product, the label, and that is all they care about. Provided the handbag is expensive and has that Chanel logo, they don't care about the story behind it or the process. I think certain people, like those on SZ, definitely care about the story behind the garments.

We want to know about the process because it gives you a better understanding of what you are buying and what you are wearing. If you know that then you can make better choices about the pieces you buy and use to express yourself. If clothing is a form of expression, you have to know what those pieces were initially meant to express, even if you entirely change the meaning. Blind appropriation is never the best, because it can be misunderstood and lead to poor translation.

I want to know about Ann, I want to know about Rick, I want to know about Yohji, because I respect their work and want to know who created it and why. I think that is human nature. If you like a painting, you try to find out about the artist. If you really enjoy a meal, you want to meet the cook.

As to whether their entire lives ought to be made available to me and they ought to essentially become celebrity, I think not. They should share what they are willing to share, and anything beyond that is not my business or anyone elses. But yes, I would like to know everything about them with respects to their work and creative process.

[delirium]

just lost my post... gahh going through my thoughts again :)

well I think you have a lot of interesting thoughts and captured a lot of great points.

I particularly like your example of Dior Homme. That is definitely a brand that people bought into, and the brand contributing a significant amount to its value while having decently interesting clothing for the time.

I don't think there is anything weird about buying an item for an "idea." Or thinking about certain marketing when creating an item. In our day and age, product is a significant part of marketing, so the product's "story" is important.

I think I am trying to make a distinction between an individual product's marketing and the greater brand's "story"

How important is the overall brand vs the individual product? Would you what you thought was a very nice piece for a bargain price from a brand you disrespected (maybe not personally but overall)? Would you buy an expensive piece from a brand that you like - but that is similar or mediocre for the price?
How much is an individual piece from a collection enhanced by being a part of this designer's work or a certain collection? Is the story of the piece compounded by the story of the brand/ collection? How much is that worth?

Brand does play a role, and I think we do have to buy in. When we buy in, we want engagement - and the brand marketing plays a part in that, but just how much does it contribute?

I mean I definitely have bought things that I like from brands that I respect and enjoy, and I think that enhances the piece.

On the flipside, I think on SZ there's a lot of brands that people don't buy into (myself included) and discount the brand's product because of not having respect for those brands.

An apt example is - would you buy what essentially are fast fashion knock offs at All Saints - for something that's well-priced, decent quality (or at least comparable quality) to Rick which is multiples higher in pricing and perhaps better materials but of similar durability?
Why not buy knock offs - if you're just looking for something to wear not necessarily art?
It's a branding issue. Who owns the fashion IP. and fast fashion being derivative - which in other words is not having a good story.

Another hypothetical - how much would you value products if they were anonymously made? what if you found something incredible at a vintage shop without a label and no indication of who it was made? (although that in itself i guess is kinda alluring because it's mysterious)

[neonrider]

interesting question. i'll put up some more thoughts later, but i'd say that brands as we know them are becoming more than the sum of advertising expenditure plus promotions plus retail design.

which is what the behemoths excel at--at the detriment of artisanship, authorship, etc, etc.

i think a great example of next-gen brand building is zappos (not the shoes it sells). it "communicates" in a very different way.

[PaintedBlack_7]

without babbling about nonsense

branding and marketing perhaps plays a greater role in fashion, than the clothing itself.

LVMH is a great example of this, there is not much design, or quality compared to more hand made pieces ( the thomas pink shirt i'm wearing feels cheap) but they sell constantly.

marketing plays a vital role in everything

[delirium]

neonrider, what do you mean by zappos? not sure i get it. i thought zappos was always about building a "[work] culture of happiness"

paintedblack, i agree with your sentiment. the way i think of it is that, marketing is basically all about building a narrative. however, i think the more important question is - how much should it matter?

[thehouseofdis]

I know the importance of marketing, in general, to create a successful brand but something that has always drawn me to the Belgian and generally to Japanese designers is that they typically have little to no advertising and marketing.

With companies like LVMH, Gucci. Prada, Chanel, I can't help think that a huge percentage of the cost to the consumer is going to pay for advertising and marketing. I would rather the money be put into fabrics and construction or even stores. I've always been of the mindset that if you need to advertise how good, or cool your product is, then it's not really that good.

[Atom]

With companies like LVMH, Gucci. Prada, Chanel, I can't help think that a huge percentage of the cost to the consumer is going to pay for advertising and marketing.

The clothes and accessories of the brands you mentioned are also usually very heavily logoed. These things go hand in hand, I suppose.

[PaintedBlack_7]

I know the importance of marketing, in general, to create a successful brand but something that has always drawn me to the Belgian and generally to Japanese designers is that they typically have little to no advertising and marketing.

With companies like LVMH, Gucci. Prada, Chanel, I can't help think that a huge percentage of the cost to the consumer is going to pay for advertising and marketing. I would rather the money be put into fabrics and construction or even stores. I've always been of the mindset that if you need to advertise how good, or cool your product is, then it's not really that good.

correct, the brands emphasize logos and dismiss quality or actual design.
most people have trouble applying this to any LVMH company, so i just provide them with the example of diesel jeans. they don't look good, are not built well and are covered in logos.

[galia]

I heard Diesel jeans made almost any ass look good. Dunno if it's true, but if it is, that's a form of design quality too

Never worn them personally, fortunately I couldn't afford them back in the days when I dressed like other people

[PaintedBlack_7]

I heard Diesel jeans made almost any ass look good. Dunno if it's true, but if it is, that's a form of design quality too

Never worn them personally, fortunately I couldn't afford them back in the days when I dressed like other people

Haha, well if you happen to wear recent Maison Martin Margiela, you are technically wearing Diesel. kind of ironic, the man who designed his clothing to be minimalistic and had a label that didn't even feature his name, later owned by a denim company that stamps their logo on just about every rivet, zipper and button of their jeans.

[123abc123]

correct, the brands emphasize logos and dismiss quality or actual design.
most people have trouble applying this to any LVMH company, so i just provide them with the example of diesel jeans. they don't look good, are not built well and are covered in logos.

I feel as though this also goes along with the previous idea that consumers are buying into a life style. It's almost like saying no matter the quality I payed, this much, for that piece (in which logos come in), and thus I belong to a certain segment in society. Like others said Karl is a great example of this, going against everything that Ms. Coco Chanel stands for he began to print the double C everyone is used to almost everywhere. Becoming a catalyze to produce a society that views fashion as the latest thing Paris Hilton is wearing.

Which also leads me to this question: What is it that you guys think of Lady Gaga? I know that most of you-if not all of you-hate celebrities but I feel as though through her PR genius she has used many talented fashion designers and has introduced the masses to amazing designers like that of Lee McQueen.... is she mocking the avant-garde world or expanding it and becoming the gateway for many to have a different perspective upon fashion?

[PaintedBlack_7]

I feel as though this also goes along with the previous idea that consumers are buying into a life style. It's almost like saying no matter the quality I payed, this much, for that piece (in which logos come in), and thus I belong to a certain segment in society. Like others said Karl is a great example of this, going against everything that Ms. Coco Chanel stands for he began to print the double C everyone is used to almost everywhere. Becoming a catalyze to produce a society that views fashion as the latest thing Paris Hilton is wearing.

Which also leads me to this question: What is it that you guys think of Lady Gaga? I know that most of you-if not all of you-hate celebrities but I feel as though through her PR genius she has used many talented fashion designers and has introduced the masses to amazing designers like that of Lee McQueen.... is she mocking the avant-garde world or expanding it and becoming the gateway for many to have a different perspective upon fashion?

i don't think she is anything special, all celebrities use stylists, she just told hers to get a certain look she can use to make money off of an image. and her record company markets her as some fashionista.