No Brag, Just Drab

I’m a little confused about runway collections and showroom collections.

The Wall Street Journal reports that ever since high end retailers like Neiman Marcus and Saks posted their losses in the last quarter, designers are said to have scaled back on the fantasy and zeroed in wearability to attract customers.

First of all, this seems contradictory of what happens on the sales floor. Given that I’ve cited a while back that runway shows are simply “for show,” the showroom collections differ greatly from runway and are actually designed to be worn yet not glamorous enough to be on the runway. Just take a look at Neiman, Saks, Bergdorf, Barneys and Net-a-porter. They all carry designer labels, yet only a few of them (as pointed out by Net-a-porter) are straight off the runway. The rest has never seen the light of day except by the eyes of retail buyers.

If the runway collections are, dare I say, drab this Fall, then what will buyers expect to see in the showroom? Even more drab clothing? I don’t understand this logic from designers. Buyers should know that runway is just for entertainment (to some end) and that the real business goes down in the showroom. If you can’t impress them on the runway, how can you even make them want to come to your booth at the showroom? Aren’t runway shows supposed to be fantastical anyway? One would think a great runway show will make you even more excited for the showroom just to see what the designer has in stock. Besides, aren’t buyers able to look past the glitzy parade and look for potentials in the clothes? Why would they be offended if there was a display of obvious luxury when they very well know that the real collections are nothing of the sort?

A good example of this is Alexander McQueen. Just take a look at his Spring 09  collection on Style.com, and then go to Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue, Yoox.com, and Net-a-porter.

What one would expect in the retail stores

Less likely to see this	More likely to see this

Clearly some elements of the runway shows up in the inventory, but you also see pieces that were not on the runway in greater numbers on these sites.

What really interests me is the effect on the clientèle itself. If a runway show is said to be say,  offensive,  in a sense that it displays obvious luxury, how exactly will that affect sales? Shoppers won’t really see these pieces in store, so what difference does it make?

I believe price slashing (other than the recession) was a key move that could set back retailers in attracting clients to paying full price in the future. If a dress sells for $1500 and then sold at $300 (80% off), then what’s that really saying to shoppers? It sends such a negative message (from a retailer’s point of view) that shoppers can save money if they just wait it out. But how is this helping retailers in selling at full price in the future?

Even if designer clothes have suddenly been made “wearable” (eventhough it has always been wearable on the retail floor), it’s really the economy that will determine shopping behavior. The middle market that was once attainable  for high end retailers to attract are no longer biting the bait. Inventory will shrink and refocus on wealthier clientèle, and perhaps a new breed of “accessible luxury” will be created at more affordable prices than before. The question is, are high end designers willing to go that low? Or will a new breed of middle market designers emerge to cater to the now frugal masses? Perhaps bridge collections will have to be priced cheaper than before, or given an extra oomph in order to sell.

Whatever the case, year end results will give us a really good idea of how well the fashion industry has coped with the recession.

Image credits: style.com, net-a-porter, l’oreal fashion week