SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An "accessible luxury" brand is buying a "high fashion" shoe and accessories brand for £896 million as American mall traffic continues to decline and consumers have gravitated towards either extremely cheap or extremely expensive fashion products:
Many upscale retailers are grappling with plummeting sales and tepid profits. Mall traffic in North America has declined sharply, and deep discounting tactics have resulted in some luxury labels losing much of their luster with core customers.
Shoppers who have traditionally been loyal to the so-called middle market have gravitated toward brands at extremes of the style, and price, spectrum. That has benefited e-commerce giants like Amazon, fast-fashion brands like H&M and Zara, and luxury houses like Gucci.
And it has left companies like Michael Kors — once the runaway leader of the "accessible luxury market" — exposed.
[...] The shoemaker was founded in 1996 by Tamara Mellon, then accessories editor at British Vogue, and the Malaysian cobbler Jimmy Choo. It shot to fame thanks to a slew of celebrity patrons, including Diana, the Princess of Wales, and the actress Sarah Jessica Parker, who embraced its signature sky-high stilettos and the vampish aesthetic for which it became known.
After three cycles of private equity ownership, it became the first luxury footwear brand to list on a public market in 2014. Prices range from $425 for flat shoes to $1,795 for over-the-knee suede boots, while small clutch handbags start around $700, according to Jimmy Choo's website.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 26 2017, @02:07AM (2 children)
Bullshit - "accessible luxury" is an oxymoron - if it's accessible it's not luxury.
The real terms, in chronological order:
- fast fashion [wikipedia.org] - initially, "Just-in-time manufacturing" in fashion industry (shorter cycle from design to shelf). After a while, closer to the "fast-food of fashion" meaning (= "supermarket fashion brands")
- disposable fashion [npr.org] - pretty things you buy cheap and wear once - I couldn't believe** watching a doco that such a thing exists [abc.net.au], but it seems it does. It also creates a huge waste disposal problem - looks like Australian dispose 6,000 kilograms of fashion and textile waste every 10 minutes.
The real meaning of all above: extreme consumerism and wastage.
--
** Personally, when I'm done wearing a short or a tee (4-5 years, at least 2 normal - public - wear, after which is a thing I'm wearing when doing chores or during the weekend), it becomes a (dusting) rag or shreds/twines to bind the tomato plant on the stakes or so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @05:12AM (1 child)
And the best part of all is how enjoyable you must be to know on a personal basis.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26 2017, @05:36AM
(Oh, why, of course... I made the purpose of my life to make myself the most enjoyable person by AC-es on SN, the supreme purpose of anyone living in this world really.
Or... was it getting to be most friended on FB? I can't remember).