To: tips@fashionista.com

From: mid-villagebaby@fashion.com

Hey Kiddos,

Saw Ms. Wintour last night walking on Sullivan Street at Bleecker. The fur-wrapped editor was accompanied by a man dressed half-old school, half-hobo. She teetered across the street with her arm in his, much taller than I’d have guessed.

If wearing sunglasses at night is wrong…

xoxo

Today’s Monday!!

Originally, we were going to bring you Our Best Fashion Moments of 2008, like the time Britt went to the Chanel show and actually shed a tear, or the time Narciso held Natalie’s hand at the Rainbow Room, and her friend had to hold her up after.

But then we thought, 2008 is so last year, so let’s fantasize about what’s to come, hm?

Our Best Fashion Moments of 2009:

1. We’ll be at McQueen in March, front row of course, and from backstage will emerge Kate, who will strut the runway, twirl, and wink in our direction.

2. In February during New York’s week, we’re sure it’ll be raining, yet we’ll be able to find the only cab heading to the Armory. We’ll be getting in about to shut the door, and then he’ll be right there - Marc, on the corner, shivering in his kilt, desperate for a ride to his show. We’ll smile, motion, and that’ll be the amazing story we tell everyone when they ask how our F by Marc line started.

3. Ok, a plausible one: Due to the lower Fashion Week foot traffic, third row at Margiela…?

And what are your fashion dreams for 2009?

“I just designed a low-cut jersey in boring colors like taupe and gray or faded blue.” - Jane Birkin, on the design process for her Lutz & Patmos capsule, in WWD.

Faran and I spent a luxurious day at Barneys pre-Christmas.

We reveled in $300 Miu Miu, $150 Christian Louboutin and I walked away with three little black dresses - Alexander Wang, Marc, Phillip Lim - for less than the original price of one.

Most of our time was devoted to shoes.

I slipped on ruffled Prada pumps, sequined Miu Mius, cap-toed Chanels and t-strapped Balenciagas, all signature AW08 shoes, and wondered what one does with such distinct pieces post-season.

I couldn’t take them home. They’re still too expensive (season-specific things tend to be). But for those who do shell out $4000 on the Prada lace skirt or $5000 for that Alexander McQueen military jacket, what do you do with them?

Do you wear the piece every single day until it’s ripped to shreds and then relegate it to the back of the closet? Do you treat it like the rest of your wardrobe, occasionally broken out and always met with sqeals of, “OMG! Fall 08!”? Do you wear it once and then stash it away for twenty years so that when you do wear it your friends fall at your feet with envy and ask which amazing vintage store you’re hiding from them?

Or do I only think about this because I covet it all for a month before moving on to the next impossibly gorgeous, unattainable piece of runway history without actually seeing any of it in my closet?

Yesterday, the Times dissected the state of Conde Nast’s ad sales, concluding that only magazines that “cast a wider net” in terms of who they allow to advertise in their publication are doing well right now, but that Conde’s long-standing position of never negotiating their prices with advertisers may turn out to be a good long-term plan and “a fair approach to pricing”.

Meanwhile, the International Herald Tribune reports that Conde Nast has been diversifying (and thereby reinforcing) their advertiser base by actually creating campaigns themselves, like the ones they did for LG, Lexus, Grey Goose and Dillard’s, via “in-store events, parties and television programs,” during 2008.

By creating these ad campaigns, Conde’s masterminded a few things:

1. They demand that all campaigns created in-house, are also only published in-house. So, In Style, owned by Time Inc, will never have one of the ads created by Conde Nast Media Group - unlike Vogue, Lucky or Allure, all published by Conde.

2. Since they’re already guaranteeing ad space in their magazine and website real estate for these advertisers by making their campaigns, they also create the campaigns at relatively low costs, which is appealing to both the advertisers and to Conde Nast - basically, they’ve invented a system in which they spend a little (in making the campaigns,) yet guarantee a lot (the ad revenue, exclusivity, the luxury of not having to go “down-market” with their advertiser base) in return.

This, in addition to recent news that Conde would be making many more dollars through more online video content, makes us think that Conde may not be faring as badly as people think, despite recent issues - After all, the chief marketing officer of LG did say, “At the end of 2009, we potentially will have spent more with Conde Nast versus a year ago.”

Which, in this environment, is pretty impressive, no?

The internet is helping circulate the rumor that Amy Winehouse is set to design a capsule collection for Fred Perry, a British label that produces clothes like these.

But frankly, we don’t buy it yet, because:

1. Remember that “fashion and makeup” line that was announced about a year ago, then never mentioned again?

2. Remember when Roberto Cavalli hired her on as a sort of brand ambassador, and she was supposed to show up to events wearing Cavalli?

Yeah, we remember, too. Plus, Amy for argyle sweaters and polo tees? Um…

Over the holidays, NexCen’s failing Bill Blass name was finally bought by a company called Peacock International Holdings LLC, for just $10 million. For a moment, it looked like some random company might be able to resurrect the brand everybody had already said goodbye to, but that was put to rest this morning with the release of further details:

The sale of Bill Blass Ltd did not include Bill Blass Couture, only the trademarks of Bill Blass Ltd (meanwhile, NexCen’s selling the assets from Bill Blass, including the office furniture from their Seventh Avenue showroom a la Alessandro Dell’Acqua).

Translation? Peacock International Holdings purchased the Bill Blass name, but not the functioning company (or so it appears at this time - the Bill Blass saga has had a few twists and turns that might not be through). So instead of continuing the clothes with the same factories, people, designers, etc, they could continue the business with completely different people, even a completely different aesthetic if they feel like it, and still call it “Bill Blass Ltd.” Basically, they could even slap the name on oatmeal, and nobody could stop them.

Thought it’s unlikely - if anything, we sense nightgowns and hosiery are on the way…

To: Tips@Fashionista.com

From: Atthe@Meeting.com

Happy New Year!

And have you heard that Men’s Vogue is actually folding altogether? It looks like they’re scrapping the whole poly-bagged thing.

xoxo

[Editor’s Note: If you know what’s going on, you know what to do…]

“Uptown is represented by a fantastically detestable office rival of Whitney’s, Olivia Palermo, who has provided the show’s single greatest contribution to the nomenclature of reality TV by referring to herself not as a socialite but as a “social.” This has the benefit of confirming for whoever might actually be wondering that she is in no position to unseat Anne Bass. If you ask me, Olivia is the only reason the cameras ever ought to be in the DVF headquarters, given how little appears to go on there beyond pointless staff meetings underscoring the urgency of fashion week.

Olivia is the uptown not of Brearley and Yale but of ostentatious dressing and dumb luck. She transmits her ding-dong thoughts in imperious glares, and reeks of the insecurities of entitlement. She wants to make sure Whitney understands who she is, though we are given no idea of where in the world the Palermo name is supposed to resonate. At a press event for Manolo Blahnik, she tells Whitney she got her first pair of the designer’s heels for her coming-out party, then says it again after she has claimed that Manolo himself is a family friend even as he barely appears to recognize her.

The City is not the advertisement for New York that The Hills, with its dreamily shot opening-credit sequence, is for Los Angeles. There seems to be West Coast bias at play because Manhattan is made to look boxy and claustrophobic and, so far at least, is evoked primarily by images of the meatpacking district at night. In only one shot, of Whitney and Jay together, does New York seem like a place of possibility and does The City look as it should, like a Woody Allen movie for people who might stumble on a copy of The New York Review of Books and wonder why there are no ads for Chanel.” - The New York Times, on The City, and the city.