Like really now -- who needs this stuff? Especially when you can just go to Aldi or Tchibo (or any of a number of other discount retailers readily visible at nearly every shopping mall in Germany) and buy essentially same stuff (minus the logos, of course) for 1/10th of the price. So perhaps a better title might be:
“Fashion generates revenue, and handsome pay-outs. But is basically pointless. And a soul-sucking waste of time.”
I suppose I'm Vastrm's target customer. I love polos and have a closet full of $100+ polos to prove it.
This said, I'm not really drawn to the offering:
1. I personally don't have a problem with fit. Many brands already offer different options (i.e. classic, slim, ultra-slim) and I'd find it hard to believe that there is a large number of individuals in the target market who can't find a brand that offers a satisfactory fit. If you're interested in wearing attractive, comfortable clothing, identifying the brands and fits that you like really isn't a big deal. And once you've done this, you generally don't need to revisit.
2. This isn't a suit. I have little interest in spending time designing a polo or seeking a more "perfect" fit for casualwear. Vastrm seems far less efficient than "take a trip to the mall."
3. I wouldn't consider myself a label snob, but the label and visible branding that often accompanies it is always reasonably going to be a part of the value proposition when it comes to clothing.
> Nike swoosh. Adidas symbol. Kappa's posed back-to-back figures, etc. Abecrombie & Fitch's giant A&F on every thing. Ball caps with logos. None of this sounds vaguely familiar?
That is expensive trash, not fashion. If I go to a nice restaurant in a big city, people aren't wearing that crap.
I'm not so sure B&O brand strategy is going for poor-people-signaling-wealth demographic - think LV or Gucci printed luggage boarding a Spirit flight. You need a mass market brand-recognition and the product has to be pretty ostentatious for that, which doesn't really mesh with with Danish minimalism.
For what it's worth I've got a bunch of late 90s/early 2000s B&O stuff and I've had exactly one person that recognized the speakers.
W isn't supposed to be "good design". What they are is "stylish". They cater to image & brand-conscious people just like Prada or Versace. I assume it's a profitable niche.
Sure, they are obviously very high-quality products, but they are clearly not worth the money you are paying for them. You're very obviously paying primarily for the opportunity to brag that you've got a "genuine Birkin". It's like those silly restaurants putting gold flakes on food: you can't taste or smell it, so you're paying solely for the opportunity to be ripped off.
If you've got money to burn, why not get a fully-custom product made exactly to your wishes by a local atelier and end up with a far superior product for the same price? What's the point if you can't even fully enjoy the fruits of your labor?
Beyond a certain threshold they're just making shit up to make ever more exclusive stuff for rich people to spend their surplus on, without adding any more value than exclusivity itself.
The funny thing is that the exclusive brands are crap at delivering actual value in their products compared with mass market manufacturers. A Lamborghini is a piece of junk compared to a top of the line VW and will look like dogshit after five years. Similarly, lots of the most expensive men's clothing you can buy in upmarket boutiques will be falling apart after two washes. Don't even get me started about haute couture fashion.
The point is that once you've pushed the envelope on quality and good design, all you can add is higher price to make a product exclusive. So the rich will actually give money for nothing - high price is an aim in itself, even at the expense of real virtues. Which is really weird.
I agree with gumby's comment, and also wanted to add that.. I can afford the most expensive clothes you can imagine. I really can. But since I was a teenager I always disliked paying someone £€$ in order to become their walking bilboard. I equally dislike when I give my car for service, and the garage sticks 1-2-3... stickers with their logo, without asking me. If they want advertising space, they should pay for it.
My typical 'uniform' is jeans and some long-sleeve shirt, the ones you buy from Primark for £5 or £10. I have searched for similar items without logo and I can't find anyting decent. Even Patagonia sticks a logo.
They can keep their brand to themselves. If Burberry makes a long-sleeve the way I want it, without any isnignia, and the quality matches the price, I will gladly cough up the £100 to buy it, because I know it will last me 10 years. Until then, I am keeping my money - my money. :)
The cheap Gucci / LV stuff has the biggest logos. Their expensive stuff is generally quite subtle which is pretty interesting.
From a clothing point of view, the worst thing that premium mediocre does is break the relationship between price = quality, which as a consumer is just depressing.
Let me also add, in many other categories, I've rarely found a correlation between price, brand, and quality.
Worst luggage I ever owned was Rimowa. It was the most expensive I've bought and broke several times. They'd fix it, but who wants to spend their vacation taking their luggage to the repair shop (and lugging it full from the airport to the hotel while it's broke)
Worst and most expensive jacket I ever bought, Paul Smith, got a hole in the main pocket within 30 days and the hanging hook in the collar broke in 2 weeks.
Worst jeans I ever bought, Diesel. Ripped in 1 month.
reply