The Logo Conundrum

Nov 19, 2007 @ 1:56pm

Dior lip gloss ring.jpgLast week's Wall Street Journal showcased a New York City boutique that makes a point of excluding any clothes with right-in-your-face logos.


We kind of like this idea since we think dressing as a walking advertisement is pretty lame (and ugly.)

But the article got us thinking about something else:

How do the designers who put out these products, usually accessories, actually feel about them?

We understand why they design them- there's a market for people who want to show off that they can afford, say, a Louis Vuitton (as in, LOUIS VUITTON!) bag or a pair of huge, crystal-encrusted Dior shades. And, whether it's ethical or not, companies want to collect the hordes of money that these people are willing to drop on "status" items that bellow their net worth to everyone they walk by.

But we find that the people who are truly into fashion- as in, style instead of trendiness- wouldn't be caught dead with either of the above, or anything like them, and consider themselves apart from the people who buy into this heavily branded fashion. And this group of people, of course, includes designers - although we did see John Galliano in a "J'adore Dior" shirt, once.

Do you think designers ever think twice about perpetrating a hideous trend? Or does money matter too much to care?

Comments

posted by rachael

Nov 19, 2007 3:00PM

I think designers are smart, and know that there is a market out there for these items. They're generally less expensive and appeal to those who cannot totally afford the luxury lifestyle, but want a small piece of it. I think it targets teenagers mostly, those high school girls who may actually want a chanel bag but instead save up all their money for those terribly tacky diamond CC earrings.

I'm not going to lie, when I was 15 years old, I worked at the Gap for a few months. I hated the job with a passion, and only quit after I had earned enough money to buy a LV pouchette and a pair of Miss Sixty jeans. That may have been 8 years ago (wow that sounds like a lifetime), but the same idea still exists with teenagers today. And if designers can tap into the market (and possibly take advantage of the insecurities of teenagers and their perpetual need to fit in), I think it is a smart business move. Even if it does promote a "hideous trend".

avatar

posted by bighugforfashion

Nov 19, 2007 4:01PM

Money is the biggest motivation for most people, so I can't knock the designers who perpetuate the madness that is logo display.
I regret buying my Louis Vuitton in the logo canvas, if I were to but another speedy it would be in EPI leather or maybe damier canvas. Ultimately I think it is tacky to display your logos but some feel that if I am going to spend the money on it, everyone should know what it is.
I personally think that the people to whom logos matter are insecure and if it makes them feel better about themselves,then great.

posted by Jacqueminette

Nov 19, 2007 4:27PM

In the end, designers have to be about the bottom line. I believe this is where you draw the comparison between those who design for a luxury house and artists who have patrons. Eventually, the art will have to be sacrificed in the name of capital, and who can blame them for it?

This idea can be extrapolated to the world of haute couture. Since it isn't about making money anymore, the designers can run free and truly express their vision.

avatar

posted by guest

Nov 19, 2007 4:34PM

I have been trying to avoid logos for many years now. I wear my khakis to shreds because I can't stand the thought of buying them with that tag on the back. Same with polo shirts. About the only label I can stand is the Levi's one.....
Check out the novel Pattern Recognition by William Gibson. In the novel the protagonist, Cayce, has an actual allergy towards logos.
Until these designers begin to pay me to wear their stuff, I'm going to do all I can to avoid advertising for them.

avatar

posted by guest

Nov 19, 2007 5:08PM

I think we're all forgetting that the designer is not the only one 'running the show' for these major brands. I doubt they even have a say in the matter. The ubiquity of (horrible) logo-ed clothing & accessories is a business decision, pure and simple -- because even the best fashion houses make most of their money in (easily logo-ed) accessories. These products exist for the express purpose of giving consumers a way to buy into the fantasy of the core designed brand at a relatively lower price point.

Personally, if I were to spend a lot of money on a designer product it would be enough for me to know that it was well-designed and constructed. But clearly some people do need the external & obvious validation of a logo, and as long as there's a market for it the suppply chain will roll on...

avatar

posted by guest

Nov 20, 2007 2:15AM

I'd love to hear a real answer to this...from Pierre Cardin. He's the godfather of it all.

posted by holly golightly

Nov 20, 2007 11:07AM

The idea of this boutique thrills me. However, when reading this article my blood started to boil as I thought of all the women I know or even had to see on the way to work this morning that subjected me to their pajama-patterned-logo-trophies. We all know the truth is, if you have the money, you don’t need to let anyone know. It angers me thinking that women, intelligent, professional women think that a repetitive logo stamped across leather is a respectable display of style and class.

Post Your Comment