A few years later during my pre-teens, when the “in-but-not-quite-designer” brands came into play I was ready to make my move. I wanted to start shopping at Abercrombie, where all my friends were getting the “coolest” new fashions. The Abercrombie Empire is a mystery in itself, as the clothing is mainstream, outrageously-expensive, nothing-special attire. But thanks to the A&F marketing geniuses, every middle-school girl wants to have their entire wardrobe from that shop. I remember saying to my mom, “what if my friends and I don’t shop there…the store will close down!”
BINGO.
Not that my mom was entirely convinced by that argument, but it has supported my own social conscience for spending too much money on clothes, entertainment and other material goods that I do not need. I justify my spending because of the mentality that if no one buys these seemingly “immaterial” products, the companies will go out of business, unemployment will increase and the economy will shrink. Moral of the story…shop till you drop (on a macro scale of course).
Designers, entrepreuners, inventors, and other business professionals have created a world of wealth based on toys. Not to mention the impact material goods have on globalization. These items are not only helping the US, but other national economies as well based on product exports and imports on which we thrive.
But just because these playthings are popular and exist, should we really regard those driving the industry with that much more clout?
New York Fashion Week starts Friday and in honor of the soon-to-be-released fall 2010 trends, I would like to introduce you to those who are dictating your lives based on your desires to keep up with the Jones’.
From last year’s Fashion Week….
It might be nice to be able to make a fortune off of the above. These outfits may be seemingly ridiculous, but in fact they make up the majority our GDP. Well, that is clothes combined with other non-durable goods and services. Maybe these designs specifically aren't a huge contributing factor, but so much of our consumer spending is on material items. Whatever keeps the world turning.
As Derek Zoolander was once told, "Fashion, a way of life inspired by the very homeless, the vagrants, the crack whores that make this wonderful city so unique."
It really is staggering how much of a financial force the fashion industry is. LVMH, which owns Fendi, Louis Vuitton, Marc Jacobs and other luxury brands such as Moet last year made revenues in excess of €17.2 billion. It has over 77,000 employees and operates 2,300 stores worldwide. These are absolutely astronomical numbers - particularly when we consider that they specialize only in luxury products.
ReplyDeleteIf we grow up valuing materialism, which I'd expect is not uncommon in capitalism-oriented economies where such an emphasis is placed on what you own and the connotation of it, then its not hard to see how we can grow up valuing these “in-but-not-quite-designer” brands as you describe. And from that we'd move toward purchasing more premium products for their perceivably more desirable connotation or designs.
More fascinating, I think, however, is the product placement of these luxury items where celebrities are sponsored to wear them or they're used in movies non-discreetly. And of course, who can ignore the emphasis of having the worlds most attractive people wearing the items to further create the image of desirability. Just as Abercrombie and Fitch seeks to do in its rather risque ads.
No matter what the product there's an image of desirability that its marketing team seeks to create - with Grey Goose it might be the appearance of wealth, and with Pokemon it might just be fitting in with the latest trend but you can't say these particular efforts have been unsuccessful.
Interesting discussion in class today! I think part of the "materialism" issue really depends on the culture and your background. Personally, I've never owned a single thing from Abercrombie or Hollister...actually I don't remember the last time I set foot in one of those stores to watch my friends shop (or laugh at the ridiculous prices).
ReplyDeleteI was one of those kids in middle school that was teased for not "fitting in." I'll admit that for a time in the early years it hurt me. I couldn't comprehend the values that my parents, coming from India, were instilling in me. Soon however, I had a revelation...screw this! How about I just buy what feels good and is priced right (meaning clearance racks not designer brands)? Today, I still get the occasional "head to toe look/judgment) I could care less...I thank my parents all the time for this. Thanks to their sacrifice, living within their means(often below it) and our emphasis on need vs. want...our family has been able to travel the world. Something I believe is worth a lot more than that $500 purse. Plus, if you really want to look at it this way, it's helping the economy while, in my opinion, providing the largest possible return.
To clarify, fashion and the fashion industry itself does not make up a majority of our GDP, but rather consumption, and the spending of Americans' disposable income on items for consumption like clothes, cars, houses, vacations, etc. But as you stated, consumption, greed (the desire for more), and downright materialism is what built this economy, what sustains this economy, and what will keep it growing in the future.
ReplyDeleteI have posted on numerous blogs about this issue and am happy to have finally found somebody who agrees with me. WHATEVER WORKS. It would be great if the desire to save or save the environment or donate our earnings to charity and less fortunate drove the economy and built America into the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen...but it is simply not that way. Employment, income, and the like are what allows us to seek happiness and the American dream. Our desire for promotion, the next step-up, and the next best thing (for better or for worse) are what makes all of this possible, and I am happy to see that you recognize that.