Zac Posen For Target: A replica of the Posen evening dress Katherine Heigl wore to the 2007 Emmy Awards. Only 50 of these dresses were made for Target, retailing at $299.99. When fashion designers – or fashionable celebrities – “collaborate” with retail chains, it raises intriguing questions about the value we place on “designer clothes”. Just as the movie industry has invested heavily in logics of auteurism, so fashion’s fulcrum is the notion of a single creative vision, distilled in the ‘label’ and personified by the ‘designer’.
These collaborations owe their frisson to the presence of a famous name in a mundane retail environment where it usually doesn’t belong. Linking themselves with labels and designers adds a certain gloss to downmarket retailers.
In return, designers get to grow their brand without having to use their own logistical and marketing resources. The bargain is especially tempting for emerging designers.
Some collaborations operate more like designer diffusion lines exclusive to one retailer. There’s
Ksubi’s
Alba Fan Club, sold only at
Jeans West, and in August,
Sportsgirl will spin off
The Beautiful And Damned from jeans label
18th Amendment.
“
Sportsgirl were interested in us creating a one-off style for them and we thought we would go one step better by designing an entirely new brand,” designer
Rachel Rose recently told
Vogue Australia.
However, collaborations also tend to suffer from a perception of inferior workmanship and dull styling. They can cheapen a designer’s brand and erode its value to smaller boutiques that pride themselves on unearthing new talent and stocking ‘directional’ merchandise.
With new collaborations constantly entering the marketplace, it’s hard to remember the genuine excitement in 2004 when Swedish chain
H&M announced it was working with
Karl Lagerfeld. Could a couture designer adapt his creative vision to the tyrannies of the fast-fashion marketplace?
Turns out he could –
Lagerfeld’s range sold out within hours, and
H&M went on to collaborate with
Stella McCartney,
Viktor & Rolf,
Jimmy Choo,
Roberto Cavalli and
Comme Des Garçons. Celebrities designing
H&M ranges have included
Madonna and
Kylie Minogue, but the best-known celebrity collaboration is
Kate Moss for
Topshop, in May 2007.
In January 2006,
Target in the United States launched its
Go International house brand, which has featured
Proenza Schouler,
Alexander McQueen and
Thakoon Panichgul. US
Target has no corporate relationship with the Australian chain of the same name, whose first designer collaboration came in October 2006 with a range by
Alice McCall.
Recently, proudly fat singer
Beth Ditto’s collection for British plus-size chain
Evans has generated some old-school,
Lagerfeld-style buzz. The contrast with
Lagerfeld is delicious, considering that the once-obese German had railed against
H&M’s decision to sell his designs across their full size range. “What I designed was fashion for slender and slim people,” he harrumphed to German magazine
Stern.
Lagerfeld swore he’d never do a collab again, also complaining
H&M had deliberately made too few garments. “I find it embarrassing that
H&M let down so many people,” he said. “I don't think that is very kind, especially for people in small towns and countries in eastern Europe. It is snobbery created by anti-snobbery.”
Meanwhile, the
Designers For Target label earned notoriety in March 2007 for the frenzied consumer response to its
Stella McCartney collection. Spurred on by the novelty of international designer merchandise in a discount department store, shoppers splurged on huge and random armfuls of clothing, most of which ended up glutting eBay and being returned sheepishly to
Target stores.
These are the tensions that plague collaborative ventures: exclusivity versus availability; the ordinary versus the special; a designer’s vision versus consumers’ tastes.
“I’m in two minds – I’m yet to decide whether it’s good or bad,” says
Bianca Wiegard, director of
Fat boutiques. “From our perspective, as a boutique, cutting-edge retailer, it dilutes the brand for us. What these [designers] are doing, essentially, is selling the same collections that they’re selling to boutiques like us, but with cheaper fabrics.
“But obviously it gives designers the opportunity to get a huge injection of cash,”
Wiegard continues. “These big companies come along and they’re obviously targeting businesses like ours, so they’ll see who are the up-and-coming designers and then they’ll offer them cash upfront. A lot of the designers would never have seen that much money.”
Wiegard’s colleague
Ben Esakoff adds: “In this market, designers need opportunities, because it’s tiny. For them it’s that fine line between doing something really commercial and selling themselves out to their core market.”
Esakoff wagers that smaller retailers might actually benefit from the collaboration phenomenon. “It’s a different demographic to us at the cheaper end, but creating a cheaper brand makes it more aspirational, which
is beneficial for us,” he says. “The only thing that’s bad for us is if the brand is overexposed.”
It also doesn’t pay to underestimate consumers, who’ve become much less willing to be seduced on the promise of celebrity alone. They’re no longer the star-dazzled dupes who filled trolleys with
Stella McCartney clothes – indeed, proudly parading around in clothes identifiably from collaborative ranges carries a “Stella stigma”, a whiff of fashion illiteracy.
To succeed these days, collaborative collections must seem like meteorites landing, bright and hot, in a paddock. They’re only exciting if they arrive, fully realised, from somewhere else mysterious and inaccessible, and if they look radically different to everything else in that paddock.
A major criticism of
Romance Was Born for
Sportsgirl and
Josh Goot for
Target was that both labels replicated designs from their existing collections. Other collections, such as
TV for
Sportsgirl,
Chip Chop! for
Sportsgirl and
Zac Posen for
Target, disappointed blog commenters and fashion forum users who deemed them “bland” and “boring”.
Without that alien allure, more pragmatic considerations come into play… like uniqueness, price and wearability. “Wearable” is somewhat of a fashion industry euphemism for “unimaginative design”, but from the consumer’s perspective, it’s about quality fabrics and tailoring that make a garment look good when worn. For this reason,
Yeojin Bae’s
Target collection got a big thumbs-up from fashionistas.
No amount of hype about the designer will save garments that are deemed “overpriced” or “cheap-looking”. The clothes will hang forlornly in the stores forever, getting ignominiously cheaper and cheaper.
“I actually bought the
Gail Sorronda black denim skirt today for $4.86, because I needed something to paint my house in,” gloated one
Vogue Forums user.
The notion of ‘designer-ness’ alone won’t dazzle shoppers into buying anything. But there’s definitely a certain magic when designer/retailer collaborations yield something genuinely original.
This article first appeared in Design Reporter.
