- Posted 11/20/08 at 6:45 AM
- branding, fashion
- Leave a Comment
H&M clearly on 'Target'
Have you been following the H&M groupies?
Better question, how could you have missed the crowds as they were lined outside the H&M store in Herald Square last week (and other various parts of the world) for the release of the Comme des Garçons collection? Perhaps you thought it was just another Apple launch. It had that kind of fervor, after all. The groupsters were gathering up armloads of affordable couture and even though the strictly enforced “only two same-style items per person” rule was supposed to deter the velvet-rope crowd from emptying inventory too quickly – shelves were just that. Emptied. Yet magically, pieces from the fashion and cash-starved elite immediately cropped up Ebay, i.e., an allegedly $24.99 polka-dot shirt selling for $100-plus buckaroos!
The designers at Target don’t make this kind of hullaballoo among consumers… what gives?
In September, Target gathered 22 of its designers to headline the launch of their “Bullseye Bodegas,” quasi-stores that were carefully peppered around Manhattan to unload deep discounts on its already discounted threads for a limited time (of course). But don’t feel bad if you missed it. Seeing Kiehls in a Target store caused more of a stir in the media (and an accompanying jolt in the aisles). But beyond the Kiehls phenomenon, some of the Target merchandise in the bodegas apparently erred closer to bodega than bullseye. Not one of “Tar-zhey’s” best moments.
From inception, Target has not been far from the fashionista’s radar. Target, eerily, has known that “cheap chic” was a worthy category to own and a trend that would last. Target has also known that it’s best to use shorthand to speak to the upscale discount-shopping audience. Give them names they already know – Michael Graves, Cynthia Rowley, and until recently, insider design favorite Isaac Mizrahi. To their great credit, they have trained us well – mass market never looked so good. But as in any other category, a brand’s competition will thicken, its genius gleaned and audience anxiously revved up for more. So what about exploring names that are not so household?
The collaborative effort between Comme des Garçons and H&M is incredibly intriguing – the proliferation of consumable couture. Think about it: H&M hits us with Madonna, Stella McCartney and Roberto Cavalli… big names, big appeal, big reach. Not such a surprise overall. Then there’s Comme des Garçons’ Rei Kawakubo, whose work has long been unattainable for the masses… until now. The lines of prestige are truly blurring. H&M seems to be playing it closer to the Apple playbook than Target’s, by focusing on creating desire. After all desire is a luxury and luxury is addicting.
So, even though we’re tightening our belts, we want our belts to be Gucci-esque. Consumers want the feeling of splurge, splurge, splurge, though it’s time to save, save, save. And when you’ve got Comme des Garçons at H&M, you get both. A little bit of branding genius that’s satisfying for all.
I am 
recent comments
I totally agree. And nothing wrong about being patriotic.
Great insights…I don’t think the audience cares who wins the awards, they just want to see the “show” so they have something to talk about the next day…and BTW- the Chrysler commercial was my favorite! Anything that promotes America building something again is ok with me…I guess I’m just a sucker for patriotism…
Nice article! It makes a great deal of sense. These companies spend so much to attain new clients but rarely put forth the effort to keep their existing ones happy. Everything is an argument or an angle. I guess they think we will forget.
I ask this lovingly Steve: by any chance, are you wearing a tie and nursing a martini?
Looking at Obama’s overall rising star these past years (and especially thinking back to who even knew his name prior to 2004), he is a media genius indeed. Yet at the same time, just as he’s not a Muslim (although 24% of the public still thinks he is), he’s also not the political Messiah his campaign painted him to be. In offering an opinion about this widening disparity between the myth and the man, which any Brand Girl is entitled to do, I simply pointed out some of his media missteps since taking office. Speculating that Obama might be a one-term prez unless he gets his media act and his policy act together—and playing nice with one another—is no more a diss than thinking Derek Jeter was playing kinda dirty when he faked getting hit by a pitch to get on base. That’s not dissing, and it’s not even playing party politics. It’s just stating the obvious.
And ’cause I can’t resist: when out with a girl, especially a bipartisan one, allow her a chance to take a full swing when at bat in a pennant battle of the minds. I’ll bet the house that she’ll get beyond first. And she won’t have to fake a thing either.
Funny piece but a faulty premise.
Obama is still a media genius. He’s controlling the debate and has accomplished more in his first two years than any President since FDR. Sure his approval numbers are down but we are in a the middle of a severe recession. Regan’s numbers were similar in 1982.
He has tried to be bipartisan but what does he get for it? The GOP even filibustered small business tax cuts (until two GOP senators who are retiring broke off yesterday). The public knows this. While they are anti-incumbent, they trust the GOP less than the Dems. And despite the GOP’s concerted efforts to block efforts to stimulate the economy (so they can hope to pick up more seats), the economy will turn around and the the POTUS’s appoval ratings wil improve with the rise in GDP.
And when out with boys, especially thoughtful ones, it’s probably not a good idea to diss Obama; not if you want to get to first base.