“In fashion, one minute you’re in… and the next minute, you’re OUT.” Stephen Foley writes, Why American Apparel is Going out of Fashion:

It is impossible to say if there is a straight line from the salacious gossip – usually culled from the sensational lawsuits that the company attracts – to the financial peril in which American Apparel finds itself, but this much is clear: it is no longer the hottest place to shop. An equally bright and breezy foreign interloper, Uniqlo, is expanding fast on its home turf; H&M and Zara are buzzing with bargain-hunting fashionistas, hip to styles that change in those stores faster than they ever change at an American Apparel.

A fickle hipster clientele has moved on to other things? Never woulda believed it.

From Gawker.com

Foley cites Gawker media as AA’s thorn in their side. American Apparel’s PR department is no match for Gawker’s solicitation of the real story from former employees.

In regard to the recent article about Grooming, it is 100% true. Not only do they have it on paper, they also have a team from “corporate” who come to the stores just to see what we’re wearing. Just a couple weeks ago, a posse of power tripping nineteen year olds came in (literally everyone from this corporate fantasy land is a maximum age of 20) and made me go to the bathroom and wash my makeup off (and by makeup I mean a splash of liquid eyeliner and mascara and nothing at all hooker inspired). And then they scolded me for not being on the sales floor. Also, whenever we get considered for raises/promotions, we’re required to have our photos sent in for approval. My co-worker was recently denied a spot as Manager because she didn’t fit the company image. I have no idea why we continue to work there. And more importantly how are none of us involved in a lawsuit?

And it goes on and on, a litany of examples of an entire company of individuals riding the crest of last decade’s trend waves (and competing with each other to see who could do blow with the boss) with no clue how to evolve the brand into a post boom zeitgeist.

But the financial troubles go deeper. In-store sales are still running down 10 per cent, while the rest of the high street has tiptoed out of recession, suggesting a bigger malaise among shoppers.

Worse, the company jacked up its debt levels to fund its expansion just as the slowdown hit, and its failure to get back into profit means it will almost certainly breach promises to its lenders at the end of this month. London-based investor Lion Capital bailed the company out with a loan a little over a year ago; as it totters under the weight of $91.4m (£64.6m) in debt, Lion will have to decide if it wants to turn that debt into a share of the company, or put American Apparel into bankruptcy.

This is a company that has been built on the personality and creativity of Dov Charney. If his power is waning, there are plenty of critics who will declare that this is no bad thing.

I suppose I’d better invest in that lifetime supply of thigh high socks pretty soon. (the only thing I buy there. If I could find them anywhere else I would.)

When Simon Doonan, Creative Director of Barney’s, (one of the handful places where fashion forward designers have access to the rare slice of edgy yet wealthy clientele that can afford their pieces), the extremely influential guy who the rest of the fashion industry knows to pay attention to… when Simon Doonan declares The Death of Trends then it’s a zeitgeist shift worth pondering. There are still going to be shapes and norms that we collectively select (whether you follow them or rebel against them) but I see this as more of a backlash against the accelerated cycle of the spending on disposable clothing hamster wheel and a coalescing around an iconic vocabulary of modernist elements; classics that are tweaked and revised with the times.

photo by Roxanna Lowit for the Jewish Daily Forward

Doonan writes for the Observer:

Fashion is no longer icy and aloof. Fashion is a massive, forgiving, ambiguous melting pot where people and trends can dig in their Lee Press-On nails and hang on for years and years without ever being out.

He goes on to list a few examples:

Uggs. Style pundits may have broadcast their out-ness for years, but last week’s snowy streets were packed with Uggs-sporting fashion plates.

There is a delicious personal irony in this example given that back in 2004 Uggs were cited in a lengthy discussion in Fashion Theory class as an example of trendy for trendy’s sake. Even though this trend might have been initiated by celebrity sitings, (so awesome to slip on between takes on outdoor shoots) could it be that they’ve had staying power because those who bought them discovered they were super comfortable and well made and lasted forever?

Skinny jeans. Despite their supposed out-ness, they have managed to become a fashion staple, especially when tucked into riding boots. Tally ho!

Key term, “Fashion Staple.” So they became ‘in’ a few years ago as the bootcut finally reached mass market saturation, but could it be that one fashion staple was traded in for another? Could it be that people want fashion staples?

Filson clothing, used as an example of 'American Workwear' trend on brand consultancy blog "We Are The Market"

Of course, now that the skinny jean is headed for eventual  mass market saturation, it will eventually go the way of the mom jean (which has been ‘out’ almost long enough to be revived…), so it’s not as if the trend cycle is no longer. But given that ‘fast fashion’ retailing cycles had accelerated to the point of new trends every six weeks, could it be that more and more consumers are weary of this and seeking alternatives?

These alternatives - especially to spending too much - have been found for the past few decades in the ‘indie’ and ‘alternative’ subcultures continued fascination with vintage. As these ‘trends’ arise in the vintage industry about which items are hot and eagerly sought after, it was a natural progression for designers to use said items as inspiration for re-issues.

Wordsworth Boot in Moss Green - John Fluevog, from Libby's Steampunk Gift Guide at Steampunkworkshop.com. Someone buy these for me! *covet*

For buyers, designers, retailers and marketers wondering what the new face of consumption might look like in a post meltdown economy, Jake von Slatt and Bruce Sterling offer a vision of steampunk philosophy so eloquently stated I had to include it in its entirety. It’s a challenge to voluntary simplicity, which he claims as boring. And can be a lot of work. (no kidding!) The steampunk philosophy allows us to embrace and enjoy and even spend a lot of money on beautifully functional well crafted things things in our daily lives. What is disdained is the excessive, the filler, the junk, the disposable.

I stumbled upon this on the Steampunk workshop site:

The definition of steampunk is still a fluid and flexible thing, and that’s exactly how I like it.  When we talk about what steampunk is we talk in generalities and we leave a lot open for interpretation and thus creativity. But there are some memes in steampunk which are recurring. One of those is the rejection of a disposable economy, a belief that there is value in the finely made, and that participation in today’s race to the bottom, to the lowest price, to quantity over quality, is ultimately injurious.

Bruce Sterling (a steampunk icon in his own right) wrote about the value of fine things in his Last Veridian Note:

It’s not bad to own fine things that you like. What you need are things that you GENUINELY like. Things that you cherish, that enhance your existence in the world. The rest is dross.

Do not “economize.” Please. That is not the point. The economy is clearly insane. Even its champions are terrified by it now. It’s melting the North Pole. So “economization” is not your friend. Cheapness can be value-less. Voluntary simplicity is, furthermore, boring. Less can become too much work.

The items that you use incessantly, the items you employ every day, the normal, boring goods that don’t seem luxurious or romantic: these are the critical ones. They are truly central. The everyday object is the monarch of all objects. It’s in your time most, it’s in your space most. It is “where it is at,” and it is “what is going on.”

It takes a while to get this through your head, because it’s the opposite of the legendary of shopping. However: the things that you use every day should be the best-designed things you can get. For instance, you cannot possibly spend too much money on a bed – (assuming you have a regular bed, which in point of fact I do not). You’re spending a third of your lifetime in a bed. Your bed might be sagging, ugly, groaning and infested with dust mites, because you are used to that situation and cannot see it. That calamity might escape your conscious notice. See it. Replace it.
…
Get excellent tools and appliances. Not a hundred bad, cheap, easy ones. Get the genuinely good ones. Work at it. Pay some attention here, do not neglect the issue by imagining yourself to be serenely “non-materialistic.” There is nothing more “materialistic” than doing the same household job five times because your tools suck. Do not allow yourself to be trapped in time-sucking black holes of mechanical dysfunction. That is not civilized.

From Michael Bastian's Fall/Winter 09 collection

Luxury you say? But this guy here on the runway, it looks like he just piled on the vintage clothes. And forgot to button his shirt cuffs… But according to David Coleman of the NY times, Michael Bastian’s clothes are quite in demand, recession notwithstanding.

In the four years since he left his job as the fashion director of Bergdorf Goodman Men to start his own label, Mr. Bastian has found surprising success with an agenda so modest it almost seems radical: to give men slimmed-down, spiffed-up versions of the all-American clothes they have long loved. Military shirts, khakis, wool tweed trousers, rugby shirts, ski sweaters, two-button suits, polos, Western shirts, swim trunks. A lot of designers toss around the phrase “classics with a twist,” but Mr. Bastian delivers: the right classics and the right twist.

His semiannual shows are not wildly produced fantasies of tomorrowland or yesteryear that send the fashion press into raptures. At his informal runway presentations, the clothes just look … good. You don’t think: Yes, it really is all about the 19th-century samurai right now. You think: I want those pants.

Let’s repeat that: “the right classics and the right twist.” This is why you want those pants. And those who purchase said pants aren’t just being practical…

The closest Mr. Bastian comes to a signature look is that apotheosis of laissez-faire wear: cut-off shorts. He has carried them every season, priced at roughly $600.

He is, at least, open about his prices. “It’s crazy,” he said. “I can’t even afford my clothes.” A dress shirt from his line can cost $425; pants, $550; a sport coat, $1,150.

I don’t care how amazing they are - $600 cut offs are NOT practical. But when they are selling out they must be insanely desirable to a target demographic with money to burn.

From Michael Bastian's Fall/Winter 09 collection

This is stealth wealth my friends, it reflects a post-meltdown anxiety when investment dressing questions include “Will I this come in handy in a post apocalyptic Mad Max world?”

“It was about escape,” he said. “I was designing that collection when the world was falling apart, and I thought, ‘God, what are guys possibly going to want?’ So I had this idea of getting just those things you love, things you’d stuff in a duffel bag, and just going. The things you’d save if your house was on fire.”

But you know what I think the real secret to his success is? His focus on his clientele as he eschews the celebrity ego:

He himself has heard people describe him as “a merchant” more than a designer.

“Is that supposed to be a slap?” he wondered. “A compliment? The hardest thing is to take something familiar and make it better. The easiest thing is to create something no one has ever seen before. There’s a reason no one’s ever seen it — because someone tried it, and it didn’t work in the real world.”

Aspiring designers everywhere need to read that. A few more ideas to consider…

“What he does just nails it,” said Dr. Lawrence Piro, a physician in Los Angeles. “He takes these iconic things, like Nantucket reds or an old ski sweater, and he makes the cut and material newer and fresher. He doesn’t eliminate the iconic thing the way designers often do. They’ll go too far to make it their own thing, and Michael gets it just right and stops.”

“Gets it just right.”

At Bergdorf, Mr. Bastian adopted the store’s practice of making lists of things he thought should be in the store. When he couldn’t find them at fashion shows, he had them made for the store’s private label. After working at Bergdorf for almost five years, he took a solo idea — a line of plain, nicely tapered khakis — to Mr. Burke, who encouraged him to go out on his own.

The backbone of the new venture was simple: that list of things he knew guys wanted.

Here’s a phenomenon to debate in future posts - design to fill a market niche, anticipating consumer desires versus design to explore and play with one’s sartorial visions and convincing the customer to buy.

from S+ark by Ballantyne

Jasmin Malik Chua writes for Treehugger, Anti-Fashion Designer Philippe Starck Creates Sustainable Fashion Collection:

French designer Philippe Starck is broadening his reach to include ready-to-wear clothing for men and women. Just don’t call it “fashion,” s’il vous plait.

“Although the work of [its] creators is fantastic, I will never be idiotic enough to do fashion,” the father of the Juicy Salif juicer and the Louis Ghost chair told Le Figaro newspaper just before the collection launched in Florence last week. “The public will take maybe three years to understand the concept. It’s not fashion. We won’t be very big in the newspapers. The clothes are non-photogenic. But intelligent people will know to discover us.”

He claims he’s sidestepped fashion. I say that’s not possible if you’re trying to sell expensive clothes to the “intelligent” people (translate: hipsters with advanced degrees in creative fields who can afford designer cashmere). Slower under the radar fashion that is inaccessible to the masses, perhaps, but fashion nonetheless.

Because the essential ingredient of fashion - be it a garment, electronic gadget or even an idea - is that it is of the moment and somehow captures the zeitgeist. What Starck - and presumably his clientele - are trying to dissociate themselves from is the garish, trendy, disposable frenzy of junky garments of malls and H & M’s across the globe. But he still can’t escape the imperative to offer something novel that will inspire those with discriminating tastes to buy.

The real anti-fashion?

Johnston's of Elgin men's cashmere v-neck sweater

Good ‘ole v-neck cashmere sweater. You can find versions of these that are 50 years old and look just like this one; grandpa cut and all. Now that’s anti fashion.

But if super cool Starck can make investing in, wearing and keeping highly functional and aesthetically pleasing garments that are built to last a concept that catches on and grants status to the tastemakers, then I’m all for it.

Lizzie Davies writes for the Guardian UK:

Convinced that rising concern over the sustainability of mass consumerism will encourage more people to look for longer-lasting solutions to their wardrobe dilemmas, Starck believes the time has come for clothing to develop a conscience. “It’s the right time to launch this collection. We are starting something that cannot not work, and that will be followed,” he said.

When Austin’s Blackmail announced their first annual Little Black Dress contest and several of my friends entered, it prompted a fair amount of discussion as to what, exactly, is a Little Black Dress? (LBD in fashion lingo.) And what separates the LBD from just a dress that happens to be made of black fabric? (A review of the show production can be found in the previous post.)

Gail Chovan MC's Blackmail's LBD contest (photo: First Samples)

In an earlier post on the LBD, I focused on Zarah Crawford’s use of the term chic pauvre (of which she considered the LBD an ideal example) in an article for the NY Times Style Magazine. Let’s consider Crawford’s description:

In 1926, Coco Chanel revolutionized fashion with the introduction of a little black day dress in crepe de Chine, an idea that proved so culturally pervasive that today most women own at least one L.B.D. and the term itself has entered the lexicon as a metaphor for utilitarian chic.

…The 1929 stock market crash assured the dress’s ascendancy, as overnight it became unseemly for women to flaunt their wealth. Although extremely expensive, this so-called chic pauvre (poor style) allowed the wearer to telegraph her status to other members of the social elite.

With that in mind, here are some highlights from the Blackmail contest:

Virtuoso Award to Chia's LBD (photo: Disco Gerdes)

My Virtuoso Award goes to Chia. This dress was exquisitely crafted, the detail work phenomenal, the fit impeccable and the silhouette in line with the upcoming iconic shapes of this decade. I want this dress. And I thought Moser was dead wrong when he slammed the design as being ‘too eighties.’ While that might have been a derogatory comment 10-15 years ago, he clearly hasn’t read a single fashion magazine or been into a trendy store in the past three years because the return of the eighties has gone from being daring news to pretty much ubiquitous. There is also a distinct difference between copying and eighties dress and referencing elements of the era. That dress did not happen in the eighties. (I know, I was there for the first go-round. An eighties dress would have had shoulder pads not just shoulder focus.)

contest winner Leslie Fender (photo from Austin 360)

The Timeless Classic Award goes to Leslie Spencer, the contest winner. Her dress was also impeccably tailored and fit beautifully. Its shape could have been from the late 30’s to early 60’s. The flower was a bit distracting for me, but it was a clever way to add some splash for the contest. Remove it and you’ve got a fantastic stealth style.

Stealth Award to Jen Delk's LBD (photo: Disco Gerdes)

And speaking of, my Stealth Award goes to Jen Delk’s kimono sleeve a-line sheath. It was simple, yet beautifully constructed. It is the perfect balance of flattering but classy. The roomy but not exaggerated kimono sleeve is another upcoming silhouette of the decade. Buying this dress now will give you many solid years of style. Moser trashed her choice of an inexpensive polyester fabric but I think the issue is more complex than that. Jen put forth a valid argument that Austin has extremely limited fabric shopping options and her fabric was comparable with what one would find in mid-range mall stores. But considering the ‘extremely expensive’ criteria for an LBD, the painstaking construction would have been better served in a silk shantung (which Jen plans to purchase to make one of these for herself.)

Jennifer Raish's LBD (photo: First Samples)

Runway Award to Jennifer Raish (photo Disco Gerdes)

The Runway Award goes to Jennifer Raish’s crocheted dress that looked right out of style.com’s slideshows. Coincidentally, the NY Times’ Bill Cunningham featured the lace/crocheted phenomenon this weekend for his ‘On the Street’ audio slideshow. Talk about the Wow factor - everyone was in awe of this dress, myself included. This piece is, however, a great discussion topic for what defines an LBD. Stunning though it is, I don’t think it technically has the stealth and utilitarian qualities to be an LBD. Although who knows, a decade from now this could be the next basic layer.

Gotta Have It Award - Tina Sparkle's LBD (photo: Disco Gerdes)

And the Gotta Have It Award goes to Tina Sparkles’ wool tunic that was snapped up immediately. Rumor has it that the show’s sponsor, Gail Chovan, wanted it for herself - the highest complement from a woman who knows a good LBD when she sees it. Tina’s dress is subtle, utilitarian, sexy and of the moment. While I don’t think it hit’s Crawford’s ‘extremely expensive’ mark, either, it is perfectly suited for Austin’s laid back style.

One final note: At the risk of offending the mayor’s wife (one of the event judges, seen in the photo above) in no universe do rainbow tights - with animal print ankle boots, no less - fall into the stealth, utilitarian, expensive chic definition of an LBD. And Outside of Halloween or Burning Man, no woman over 25 should ever leave the house in these. Someone had to tell her…

What’s the trendiest thing around? Neutral understated classics, of course! From Gap.com today:

Maybe in decades past there was such a thing as a distinction between ‘fashionable’ clothes and ‘classic’ clothes that existed outside the system, safe bets for those who care about style, but wanted to escape perceived frivolity and excess. If there was such a time, be sure that it is no longer. What changed? Post-modernism and the main stream acceptance, even status, of vintage and thrift. Suddenly those literal classics became ‘cool’, were subsequently co-opted by mall vendors and thus now inexorably connected with the fashion system.

In the late 80s/early 90s the Gap was somewhat prescient of this desire to move away from 80s commercialized excess and the bourgeoisation of bohemia and rose to fortune making timely basics that seemingly eschewed fashion while simultaneously encouraging individual style. John Brodie explains it beautifully in his article for Fortune profiling then Gap CEO, Mickey Drexler:

Drexler is closely watched in his industry because of the way Gap, which he ran for 19 years, transcended retailing to become a pop-culture phenomenon. The reasonably priced pocket T’s, clean white store interiors, and the ads with icons like Miles Davis in khakis made Gap into a kind of iWear for the nation. Gap’s clothes were both mass and class, populist and cool.

Their infamous Annie Leibowitz ad campaigns (where, oh where can I get these images…) imbued these ordinary, mass market clothes with bohemian mystique by placing them on cultural icons in their ads that encouraged on to celebrate one’s individuality… by purchasing the same mass produced clothing as everyone else. (This oxymoron drove me batty at the time.)

The Gap’s financial troubles have been in the headlines for years, as well as their repeated attempts to capture the cool that they’ve lost. Their latest is another attempt to return to their roots and focus on the ‘classics’ they were known for. The ads are remarkably similar to the Liebowitz campaign of decades past - basic item + culturally cool tastemaker + black & white photography + text about individuality.

Eric Wilson for the NY Times analyzes Patrick Robinson’s designs for the Gap and whether or not this strategy will prove profitable. Notice the language:

…windows announce in big block letters that a “New Shape” is in store
…The clothes are indeed compelling. The trench coat and shirtdress styles and the muted colors — a variety of grays, browns and purple plaid — are at once basic and fashionable, a duality that could be either girly and pretty or androgynous in an Oliver Twist goes to a Nirvana concert sort of way. But will customers, especially those who look to Gap for jeans and T-shirts, get it?
Part of the reason is that the designs are selling, he said, citing a deep V-neck shirt and pull-on skirt introduced this summer as an illustration of how classic clothes could be fashionably updated.

And from Eric Wilson’s post runway analysis last February:

Gap has been struggling for years to strike a balance between affordable basics and interesting fashion looks

…he bristled at describing Gap designs as “basics.”

“These are just iconic, cool pieces that are classics, not basics,” he said. “The fit and the colors needed to be more relevant.”

Is this a viable strategy, especially considering the sheer volume of full-priced transactions needed to produce the numbers shareholders want to see across the Gap’s ubiquitous multitude of stores? Although the Patrick Robinson runway does have a cool, neo-grunge look, will enough of the customers that identify with this style cross the threshold of the Gap to get these? Or will the tarnished strip-mall image of the Gap stores themselves now add a patina of uncool to these pieces? The brand equity cannot be rebuilt in a day, but Wilson’s initial observations spell trouble:

Inside the Gap store, a few dozen customers were trying on $58 waffle-knit cardigans and blazers made of fleece. But for a better picture, one could stand outside on the street corner for 15 minutes and count shopping bags: 6 from Gap, 27 from Abercrombie on Monday; 8 from Gap, 38 from Abercrombie on Tuesday.

By now it should be obvious to anyone remotely clued in to environmental issues that the ever accelerating manufacture, packaging, shipping, warehousing and discarding of increasingly disposable stuff is not sustainable. Over the past two decades of watching continual retail growth of stores filled largely with redundant junk I’ve often asked myself “What if people just stopped buying as much of this?” And now, finally, I’m getting to see the answer unfold right before my eyes. The following excerpts are from the NY Times article by Eric Wilson, Flexing Your Buying Power, Dressing for Less and Less:

“Everything we pick up today has to pass a test,” said Candace Corlett, the president of WSL Strategic Retail, a consulting group. During a survey of shoppers in November, 60 percent of the respondents said they had recently begun to stop and reconsider clothing purchases before buying. “To me, that is the scariest thing for retail going forward, because that is a new habit,” Ms. Corlett said. “It’s not like in 2000, when we were just buying so much stuff. We are learning now what we call the cautious pause.”

A new habit, but one essential to sustainable living. Retailers should be scared, because more than a few of them are going down. (more…)

In an earlier post I quoted an I am Fashion post from April of 2007 wondering if high-waisted trousers were going to take hold. Apparently, they’ve reached the tipping point into mainstream. Jess Cartner-Morley gives readers the scoop on next season’s must-have piece:

Once upon a time, long before It bags and power wedges, the fashionable girl aspired above all to the perfect pair of ultra-flattering black trousers….Then, suddenly, trousers disappeared from the fashion radar. We still wore them, of course, but as we fell in love with dresses, trousers were relegated to being basics: clothes to wear on weekend days.

This year, the dress is finally losing its hold over fashion. Next season’s must-have is not a cocktail dress, but an evening blouse. And now is the time to find the trousers to wear it with.

I found these Piazza Siempione trousers on Saks.com. Notice the smooth, fly-free front - no need to add extra bulk on the tummy. See how the long fly front on the gray pants draws attention to the tummy while adding bulk? Don’t they look uncomfortable? A side or back zip is extra feminine and usually more flattering. The leg on the Piazzas is full, but not too full. And the yoke provides a smooth waistband that’s not too high up, nor does it cut into you.

The new-look trouser sits proudly high on the waist. The slightly slouchy, flat-fronted trouser of five years ago - which British women adored for its its ability to make even pear-shaped hips look boyishly slim - is nowhere to be seen. The new style is more determinedly feminine, with a waistband that is in nodding distance of your actual waist. Think 1977 rather than 1997.

I’ve been having discussions with friends about the high-waisted trouser or jean. Will the high waist become a mandate, or just an option? What’s the difference? Consider how low rise, boot cut jeans became a mandate of sorts in that until recently it was difficult to find anything else. The high waisted tapered jean that had reigned as the norm for over a decade was now deemed the oh-so-unfashionable ‘mom jean’ and 40+ women everywhere who wanted to look current ditched them. But the wheels of fashion keep turning and the skinny jean became the new ‘it’ item. While in the hipster scenes skinny is everywhere and bootcuts are nowhere to be found, it hasn’t taken root as a new mandated norm because most women just can’t pull it off and haven’t bought into it. Just a year later flares (barely different than bootcut, but those in the know can tell instantly) are taking over skinnies as the new ‘it’ jean.

So back to the higher waist - option or requirement? Will those of us who remember the liberation our internal organs and breathing experienced by being released from the higher waistband be able to go back? Does this mark the moment I thought would never come for me, the moment that sends me into fashion middle-age, the moment where I say ‘I don’t care what fashion says, I’m sticking with the old ways?’

Ultimately, I’m guessing that the low-low rise has seen it’s day in the sun for a while, but that the high-high waist extreme is not going to take its place. I think that waists in general will rise a bit for a new norm. Hopefully, the looks that are more flattering will take root as designers all try different versions and a few settle in and become popular. This last pair of black pants - DKNY on net-a-porter.com - has the potential to become a flattering favorite for many women. I know I’ll be hunting for knock-offs I can afford.

WWD reports on what it takes to survive the downturn in the better sportswear category:

The survivors on the better floor appear to be the more updated designer diffusion lines, like Michael Michael Kors and Kenneth Cole. “The Michael Michael Kors better business is one of the company’s strongest-performing segments,” Idol said. “Overall, the nation’s economy has proven difficult but, given that, we have experienced growth of 45 percent against last year. That proves that, if the product is desirable, the customer will buy regardless of the economic situation.”

Once again, it has to be irresistible. She has to really, really want it. Enough to overcome that side of her that knows she shouldn’t be spending money in clothes. Common logic might hold that in tough times a customer would move toward the basics, not away from them. And if its something she already has, why buy a duplicate? But then again, what defines a basic? The photos in this post all came from the Michael Michael Kors website. None of them strike me as fashion forward; if anything these are shapes that were trendy a few years ago that have moved toward being more widely adopted. The new basics. Navy, khaki, off white versatile pieces - but shapes she may not already have but is ready to try now that she’s seen enough people wearing them. Another very important thing to consider is fact that very few clothing purchases are all that rational. Maybe there are men - and a few women - out there who stock up on the practicals once a year and call it done, but they’re hardly the demographic driving the industry. (more…)