Conclusiones

France’s hold on the couture industry was beginning to wane, and perhaps that is why many of the couture houses became paranoid about stopping knock-offs – an affront to couture’s hegemony and the very essence of fashion itself, which traditionally

101 _{(Agins, 1999, 38)}

86

reinforced elitism. In the mid 1990s a true “knockoff war” between Yves Saint Laurent and Ralph Lauren gained media attention, with Laurent charging that the American Lauren had ripped off one of his tuxedo gowns. In 1995, the Chambre Syndicale attempted, unsuccessfully, to prevent photographers who attended fashion shows from leaking their photos online to their foreign competitors.102 As luxury-brand logos grew more prominent and more distinct, consumers lusted after the perfect purse or pair of sunglasses that would designate their “membership” into a certain “tribe” that “subscribes to that particular brand’s message and its ethics.”103 _{Counterfeiting has long been an}

issue in the luxury industry, but it really took off in the 1990s. Agins, in her book The End of Fashion, argues that this can be attributed to luxury’s democratization and the rise of China. She notes,

When luxury brands went democratic, they thought they could satisfy the middle market with lower-priced handbags and perfume. What executives didn’t count on was middle-market consumers satisfying their craving for higher-end items by buying fake versions that they could pass off as real. At the same time China evolved into a capitalist market economy and the world’s manufacturing center, with a new class of entrepreneurs who saw counterfeiting as a viable business. The convergence of the two – big demand and big supply – was cataclysmic. And it took luxury executives – and executives in most other industries – by

surprise.104

By 2004 the U.S. Department of Commerce estimated that American companies alone had lost between twenty billion and twenty four billion annually, and that just in New York City counterfeits resulted in an annual loss of up to one billion in taxes.105 _Knock-

102 _{(Agins, 1999, 43)}

103 _{(Agins, 1999, 272)} 104 _{(Agins, 1999, 274)} 105 _{(Agins, 1999, 274-275)}

87

offs that one can buy on the street, in New York City or Los Angeles’s Santee Alley, flourish because counterfeiters can make millions of dollars and are rarely caught and prosecuted, even though counterfeiting is a notoriously seedy business that too often relies on child labor and reportedly supports international terrorism with its profits.106

Another form of “copying” has become popularized by what has come to be called “fast fashion” retailers such as Forever 21 and H&M, which sell radically cheap clothing at a high turnover. These stores will rip off couture and ready-to-wear

collections, but are hardly ever sued for copyright infringement because they rarely copy the original design exactly. Copying fashion has always been widespread in the U.S. especially since 1941 when the Supreme Court ruled that intellectual property protection for designs violated antitrust laws.107 _{On the one hand, this seems deeply unfair to the}

aspiring designer whose $150 shirts are no longer appealing to the young fashionista looking for a cheaper knock-off version at a nearby fast fashion store. On the other hand, even some designers have argued that the mass copying of styles is what fuels newness and trends, leading to a more dynamic, creative industry. It is an “overt form” of “prestigious imitation” upon which the fashion industry is founded.108 _{Designers like}

Marc Jacobs have expressed the view that knock-offs are a form of flattery so to speak, a sign that his original designs are “desirable.”109 _{Tom Ford is of a similar mind, since he}

believes that the consumer who buys couture and the one who buys knock-offs are not

106 _{(Agins, 1999, 276)}

107 _{(Raustiala & Sprigman, 2006)} 108 _{(Braham, 2007, 362)}

88

the same.110 _{Interestingly enough, Tom Ford is often credited with “the new-era luxury}

profit formula” that sells marked-up accessories and handbags to the masses. Companies take especially large margins on designer handbags, which are often marked up to twelve times over the cost of production.111 _{One would think that with fast fashion flourishing,}

consumers would demand lower prices from high fashion, and yet this has not been the case. Why does couture sanction such overpriced goods? Author Elizabeth Cline of Overdressed describes it as an extension of the economic principal of Veblen goods in which products like fashion become more desirable as their price increases: “Clothing is very sensitive to this effect since it deals directly with personal expression and ego. We see it as an extension of ourselves, and it is the most visible way we can strut our

stuff.”112 _{Furthermore, it is worth reiterating that luxury clothing is actually a loss for}

most luxury brands. Cline continues,

But holding runway shows and putting actresses in designer dresses on red carpets is about branding, sometimes even more than it is about selling the actual clothes. The fashion serves to raise the profile of the designer in question, creating lust for their name and then driving sales to marked-up handbags, shoes, and profitable knickknacks.113

At the same time, Cline argues that consumers who shy away from the ridiculously high price tags of couture see cheap fashion as “a badge of honor, as proof that we are not one of those people who would ever pay too much for a designer name.”114 _{This is perhaps}

110 _{(Cline, 2012)} 111 _{(Thomas, 2007, 168)} 112 _{(Cline, 2012, 77)} 113 _{(Cline, 2012, 68-69)} 114 _{(Cline, 2012, 69)}

89

why the collaborations between designers and mass retailers like Target and H&M have proven to be so popular. When the ‘Missoni for Target’ collection shut down their website because of excessive demand, it reflected the desire for affordable clothing that also displayed a designer logo. These collaborations are profitable for designers, and help to contribute to their ‘brand’ by making them seem almost ‘populist’ in the eyes of their consumers. While not significantly profitable for the mass retailers, these

collaborations succeed in raising the amount of “media impressions,” which refer to a metric that gauges how often consumers see a reference of the collaboration in the media. The Missoni for Target collection was considered a huge success in that was featured in over forty magazines.115 And it contributed to the media discourse of fashion’s

‘democratization’ by giving consumers a chance to buy luxury items that were not usually afforded to them. And while couture designers traditionally attained status with their elite consumer base, selling clothes at retail markets like Target has become a “status symbol” in itself for “up and coming designers” who are trying to appeal to a larger, more diverse consumer base.116 It is worth asking whether these collaborations also help designers to take control of the knock-off market by producing lines that are similar in style but made of lesser quality. And yet, if this is the case, designers have been faced with consumer resistance. Many consumers have been able to “game” the system – buying collaboration pieces at retail, and then selling them for much higher prices on sites like eBay. In fact, consumers have sold some of these “knock off pieces” at prices higher than the “authentic” luxury pieces – thus cutting into the couture market.

115 _{(Wilson E. , 2011)} 116 _Ibid.

90

The author of an article on the Balmain/H&M collaboration points out, “With mark-ups like these, why spend your time (and money) hunting down the collaboration when you can score real, off-the-runway Balmain for less?”117 _{But what exactly is “real”? These}

questions are worth pondering:

This leaves open the possibility that even if we think we ‘own’ a designer label – after all, there it hangs in the wardrobe – our belief may be misplaced or at least open to question: leaving aside counterfeits, is our prized garment really the creation of the designer whose name is on the label, did the designer merely approve a licensee’s design, or did the designer even see it at all? And does this matter to us and if so, why? Is this comparable in some way to the differing reactions that we might have to possessing a work of art depending on whether it is an original (equivalent, perhaps, to haute couture), a limited edition, or simply an un-numbered print, and so on?118

These questions are especially relevant when considering the rise of off-priced apparel stores like T.J. Maxx and Ross, which sell brand name clothing at a fraction of the price. Much has changed since the golden age of department stores, when cities took pride in their ‘own’ Macy’s or Bloomingdale’s that catered to its local clientele. By the 1960s however, department stores took a hit as Americans began to embrace suburban life and flocked instead to their local malls, where they could count on discounters and sales. As discount stores like Mandy’s and T.J. Maxx exploded in the 1980s, department stores competed in “vicious markdown wars and continuous sales” and ultimately kicked out many of their bridge lines like Anne Klein and DKNY that were deemed too

expensive.119 _{With massive department store consolidations that saw Federated}

Department Stores (which owned Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s and several other chains)

117 _{(Coscarelli, 2015)}

118 _{(Braham, 2007, 362)} 119 _{(Cline, 2012, 27)}

91

merge with rival May Department Stores, smaller regional department-store chains could no longer compete and often shut down. Clothing in department stores are now generic and lack much of the charm and distinctiveness of department stores of the past.

This homogenization is why designer outlets and off-price stores like T.J. Maxx have become so popular, because they give consumers the chance to find designer labels at affordable prices. However, as the article “The Myth of the ‘Maxxinista” revealed, consumers are not actually getting the coveted pair of Calvin Klein jeans at a lower price. Instead, they are getting a pair of jeans that have been produced by T.J. Maxx, one of the brand’s licensees. Calvin Klein allows T.J. Maxx to put their prestigious label on their jeans in return for a percentage, usually between 5-20% of the wholesale price of the garment. In 2012 alone, the article cites that licensed goods accounted for 50% of Calvin Klein’s global retail sales, amounting to more than $3.8 billion in sales. The author argues that the practice is deceptive because consumers are not getting the supposed quality of ‘real’ designer jeans. One has to wonder though, whether consumers truly care about the quality as much as the prestige that comes with a brand.120

That is not to say that consumers may not miss the traditional shopping

experience. In an article about the online personal shopping site Stitch Fix, Anne Helen Peterson writes about how for many women, the act of consumption is a way to assuage lack in their lives. Thus, buying a cheap product may not provide a shopper with any real thrill or satisfaction. Forming a relationship with a personal shopper and then waiting in anticipation for their monthly box to arrive, however, brings back “the experience of

120 _{(Hallstein & Doyle, 2014)}

92

consumption as one of surprise and delight.”121 _{Peterson also argues that it gives women}

a community of support, as women post selfies of their new outfits on a Facebook page and receive validation from other members. Shopping has always served as a quick-fix solution for women to deal with their fears, insecurities, and failings living in a

patriarchal world. Yet, the site determines a woman’s style based on an algorithm – which does not include any clothing for plus-size women. It also relies on a woman having a sizeable wallet. Fashion can indeed be fun and inspire creativity and

confidence, but it is unclear as to whether tech companies are supporting these attitudes or “simply bolstering a giant feedback loop” in which taste is determined by a woman’s physical and financial ability to dress herself based on sexist and classist societal

expectations.

The proliferation of knock-offs, fast-fashion, designer-mass market

collaborations, and other forms of fashion production that increase accessibility to the consumers are appealing “technologies of the self” because embedded in them is the allure of democratization and aspirational promise (especially to women) that anyone can access privilege and prestige and be “someone.” And, it is also testament to the fact that young women are hardly oppressed subjects. The account of consumers buying and then selling Missoni’s collection, which may have put a dent in the actual couture line, is a testament to the potential for intervention and re-articulation of the fashion status quo. However, this revolutionary potential is embedded within conditions of capitalism that operates on people’s bodies in complex ways. First, cultural re-articulations that enable designer collaborations to be framed in democratizing terms are in fact obscuring

93

economic aims. After all, designers do capitalize hugely off of licensee and mass-market collaborations. Second, access to more choices in fashion does not necessarily signal more freedom. Consumption, as will be detailed in the next section on advertising, is often fueled by societal constructions of beauty, aesthetics, and tasted based on gendered, racial, and classed lines. Third, these forms of fashion production offer aspirational dressing at cheap prices for many women in the Global North, but do so by abusing the labor of poorer women both in the Global North and South. This issue of global labor fashion exploitation will be touched on in the last section of this chapter and developed more fully in chapter four.

VIII. Advertising: Manufacturing Desire to fuel consumption and the fashion