It's All About the Details

One of my first entries in this blog was about how many high-end fashion designers are lobbying Congress to get copyright laws to get design protection for their garments. An article in Wall Street Journal's Weekend Journal touches on a solution luxury clothing makers are settling for now: making their items even more detailed and luxurious. This makes them harder to copy, the WSJ reports:

That means in some cases the difference between high-end clothes and low-end copies is clearer than it has been in years -- and that's exactly what some designers had hoped for. Graeme Black, who recently stepped down as chief designer of womenswear at Ferragamo to focus on an eponymous line, says part of his goal in creating cocoon-shaped coats and jackets with draped collars and puffy sleeves for both labels was to set them apart from mass-market styles.

While it's sort of a "no-duh" that cheaper versions of runway designs would be made with cheaper elements, it's interesting to see exactly how a fashionable garment fares when these cost-savings are factored in. To achieve their own version of "dressmaker detail" in jackets with puffed sleeves, JCPenney uses plastic snaps instead of metal ones, its vice president of trend said in the story. Fewer buttons are also used, compared to ones found in a couture collection, the WSJ reports.

Kohl's, which recently launched its Simply Vera by Vera Wang line, says its most popular item is polyester bubble skirt. But, of course, there is a key difference between its Simply Vera bubble skirt and another one found in Ms. Wang's designer collection: it's less dramatic. "It resembles a stiff, expensive brocade but has a flatter shape than the poufy bubbles featured on designer runways," the WSJ reports.

Kohl's says this is on purpose, that it would be too "out there" for its decidedly more conservative customers. I definitely buy that.

Sometimes, though, it seems cost-savings hurts the design, and the effect, of fashion garments, and this is where high-end designers win their battles with cheap knock-offs. The WSJ ends the article with the Fashion Institute's John Mincarelli assessing the differences between a $3,165 Lanvin dress, a best seller at the Intermix boutique, and a similar H&M dress, that sells for $59.50:

[The Lavin dress] features a distinct 'leg-of-mutton' sleeve, which is puffy at the shoulder and tapered at the wrist… the sleeve is hefty enough to hold its shape and the stitching at the wrist, and arm-holes have been sewn so that each sleeve has retained the same amount of volume.

By comparison, a $59.50 H&M dress with similarly shaped sleeves looks 'limp,' he said. The dress, which features pin-tuck stitching at the upper arm to 'pouf it up' and a tapered wrist, is made of fabric that isn't tightly woven enough or beefy enough 'to hold its shape when its being worn,' he said.

At the end of the day though, what really matters is the consumer who is buying these pieces, whether at the high-end or in the mass market. The WSJ article seems to suggest that, despite cheaper fabrication, consumers are willing to buy cheaper fashion pieces, so long as they still bring about the same effect. The story cites a 24-year old actress who bought several trendy things at a Manhattan Zara, including a "cape-like jacket." She called her purchase "beautiful."

As I have mentioned in previous blogs, I think it's important to keep in mind that the shoppers who go into Zara looking for cute clothing and those who similarly go into Bergdorf's for designer garb usually aren't the same shopper. Sometimes there might be a little crossover, but usually, the girl who spends $50 on a knock-off coat at H&M, isn't going to Barneys later to see what she was missing.

Still, as this article points out, you get what you pay for. I'm sure designer garments will last several seasons. I'm not sure you can say the same for items at Target or H&M. But I think consumers are savvy enough to know that—and know when something they buy is worth spending more money for and when it isn't.