Designer Collabs: A recession-inspired sartorial phenomenon; reasonably priced access to iconic designers we'd otherwise never be able to afford. In theory, that is.
The price points of Target's in-house stuff might be reasonable, but whenever the chain partners with a fashion bigwig, something funny happens: Its perception of what constitutes cheap tends to shift, and not in the consumer's favor either. A designer slaps their name on a "collection" sold in the same place as Mossimo and Merona, and POOF! Suddenly, the tags are more boutique than big box. Weird.
Target puts the jay in Tar-jay with two designer collabs lines: GO International provides "affordable fashion created by emerging designers," and Designer Collaborations features well-established designers who "draw inspiration from a collaborative partner, muse or creative element." (Fashion is DEEP, people.)
The goal of both fast fashion initiatives? "To deliver the latest styles to contemporary female guests at the prices they expect from Target" (my italics).
Anyone who's ever fallen for Target's six-dollar tri-blend tanks (i.e. me) knows their lifespan to be approximately six laundry cycles long. While an uber cheap price tag doesn't excuse subpar quality, it certainly makes it more palatable. Therein lies the trade-off.
In between shopping for toiletries and cleaning products, I expect the opportunity for a quick fashion fix that won't break the bank. I expect to be able to get a few months of wear out of something fun, fab and monetarily inconsequential to my pittance of a shopping budget. I expect trendy and affordable to not be mutually exclusive terms.
I do not expect to see the number $139.99 on a jacket (real leather or no). Especially when I don't even know who the eff Tracy Feith is.
I understand the allure of snagging a bitchin' designer goodie for less. My hunch is that the quality of a given Designer X for Chain Store Y item isn't reminiscent of his or her Ready-To-Wear line: It's on par with the store's in-house merch. I'm willing to pay a bit more for a fashion bigwig's name, but triple, quadruple the amount of what the chain charges for its non-collabs stuff? Beotch please -- it's not like someone's sitting around hand-sewing the goods.
In a vacuum, Alexander McQueen priced at $69.99 isn't entirely offensive. But we don't live in a vacuum, reasonably priced is all relative, and paying that much for one item of clothing at Target is fucking insane.
I've never purchased anything GO International or Designer Collabs, so I can't honestly speak to whether or not it wears better than the store's in-house stuff. If higher cost denotes nicer quality, fine -- that's not my issue here. My beef is with Target's newfangled exclusivity.
Maybe I'm lusting after images of Anna Sui's Gossip Girl line now. But when I see the collection up close this September, the following will probs ensue: I'll try on some dresses, find one I'm nuts about, waffle for a bit, and ultimately deem dropping $80 on one piece from Target a bad idea. I won't leave the store feeling smart and responsible. I'll leave feeling unfulfilled, poor and pissed off... just like I do whenever I browse Barneys.
Target used to be a store where finding something we liked was akin to finding something we could afford; a medium that liberated its shoppers from the ickiness inherent in wanting what we can't have.
Now? It's just another place that enables fashion and its designer deities to do what they do best: Rip us off.
Follow Alexandra Sinderbrand on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cheapjap
Dont get me wrong I love Target, i just will not purchase their so called "designer" clothes.
Maybe you just have an acute case of "expensive designeritis," where if the piece of clothing or equipment does have double C's, intwined G's, hooked up LV's or some name you know, you don't want it. Good for you. More fun shopping at Target, and TJ Maxx and Ross for me and the millions of other women immune to designeritis.