So as previously mentioned a major way fashion is becoming more accessible is through collaborations between luxury designers and fast fashion brands. The fusion of these two polar fashion worlds has been successful in economic terms, publicity and consumer reach surely increases, however from a communication perspective, the fusion is completely incoherent.
H&M has successfully collaborated with prominent fashion labels that range from Karl Lagerfeld to Stella McCartney to bring high fashion to the masses. Their most recent collaboration - Lanvin for H&M was another worldwide success. Now, what happens when you combine the two brands together? What you get is the allegiance of two powerhouses – from the opposite spectrum of the fashion bubble.
But what are the implications behind this strategic alliance? For H&M, the collaboration was a no-brainer. For a fast fashion brand that offers affordable trendy clothing that reminds of the catwalk, bringing a renowned luxury designer to design a capsule collection is guaranteed immediate success. Lanvin’s creative mastermind Alber Elbaz’s designs for H&M sold out worldwide in a matter of hours. Fast fashion is all about ownership and consumption – lots and lots of it, because each single item is so cheap. There’s no admiration component at all. For the luxury brand, communicating prestige and status, as well as creating a sense of admiration is everything. When collaborating with fast fashion, an entirely new message is communicated – suddenly a brand that was meant to create luxury and exclusivity is downgraded to “massclusivity”. But what is the consumer really getting? Designer fast fashion collaborations end up costing more to many people because even though they would never buy the original designer, they buy the collaboration pieces. They are a crafty way of luring people to become consumers instead of admirers, of making them spend money on the brand they would never consider buying before because it is out of their range. So we spend more and more and get Made in China that carry a designer tag – a legal knock off.
Regarding the collaboration with H&M, Elbaz had a few interesting points to make. “I have said in the past that I would never do a mass-market collection, but what intrigued me was the idea of H&M going luxury rather than Lanvin going public.” Regardless of his intentions, by designing a capsule collection for H&M under the Lanvin name, he is in fact making Lanvin seem more accessible to the public. Why is Lanvin wasting its time communicating to the general public when the clientele they are meant to be catering to is very far from the general public - they are the fashion elite. So now we want to know your opinion. Does this collaboration in any way, diminish your perception of Lanvin as a prestigious brand?
Amen to that.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Lanvin people are crazy if they think this won’t tarnish their cred with their existing clientele. What loyal Lanvin client is going to happily greet the news that urban 20-something working girls are soon to be stalking the city streets with what will amount to officially sanctioned brand knock-offs?
Why don't you just save some money and go for the real thing instead of basically getting a knock off Lanvin product that probably too many people will be wearing too...
ReplyDeleteLey be honest, lanvin for h&m was no good. Even if they try to give some of the lanvin characteristic style they just couldn't. So, I don't think that lanvin usual customer saw this collaboration as a threat for the lanvin prestige
ReplyDeleteIf this NYTimes story is any indication of the Lanvin customer base, perhaps it won’t really matter as much as you think it might: “When societies become too rich and civilized, they decline and dissipate around the edges, and they begin to adopt as new and luxe signifiers normally associated with the peasantry. The rich seem to grow nostalgic for entropy after a few decades of being too shiny and clean. Even Marie-Antoinette built her Hameau de la Reine because she needed to dress like a dirty little milkmaid once in a while.” Ease up, wearing Lanvin doesn't mean you're not allowed to H&M does it?
ReplyDeleteExcuse me Mr. johnnyy but i think you are missing the point. Now, I’m fully of the Tom Peters school of thinking in that just because something’s inexpensive doesn’t mean it has to be ugly, and perhaps designers like Elbaz are repeating this mantra to themselves as they cash their H&M checks, genuinely believing that they’re offering a service to mass-market consumers by at least injecting some welcome style into the mix. But what message to you think this collaboration is honestly sending to loyal Lanvin customers: “Oh, you like our fifteen thousand dollar pearl, diamond and tulle-wrapped necklace? They’re selling a twenty-five dollar version at H&M, with the Lanvin name on it, too!” That's just ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThis was such a great read. I've always figured these collabs to be nothing but a marketing strategy: H&M gets to sell stuff that they essentially produced for a higher price tag and the luxury label gains exposure, plus a new target audience they could not otherwise reach who might end up purchasing a cheaper item of theirs (perfume, keychain, even shoes) in future. They already own an introductory product vaguely related to the brand, so this might tempt them to get more.
ReplyDeleteI can say that in Paris, most of the clothes didn't move all that much. Also worth noting is that only the tourists seemed to be buying this stuff. I guess the French know better, but then again, they are a little more discerning when it comes to quality.