come back FTW: brand extentions and controlled equity

Short story: American Mall Sportswear; goin' for the (amex)gold. Long story: Coach is buying back a BILLION shares to 'increase economic value for shareholders' i.e. increasing the individual value of shares, there-fore increasing brand equity and giving the overall brand a more profitable appearance. This is effectively, Coach buying themselves back from the shareholders, since they are a privately traded company they can't 'own' themselves, but buying back that many fucking shares really helps then guide who does own them. Since when did Coach become worth over a bill? Who do you know that has recently bought a Coach bag/boot/whatever? Coach was one of the first (after A&F in '98) 'mall' brands to reinvent itself as a up-market retailer with prices creeping in the the $1K territory for limited edition-or "heritage"-merch.
Following on it's heels is Jcrew, who opened its men's only "liquor bar cum haberdashery" in Tribeca. Again, exclusive merch such as vintage tie clips! Globe Trotter luggage! pre-chewed pencils by famous writers!!! Complete with a visuals scheme approved by Andy Spade.
This is in immediate timing with reports that J.Crew will issue an accessories only catalog replete with Norwegian leather goods and real gold and precious stone jewelry. These choices made to, apparently, increase the brand's perceived worth by the consumers while growing their customer base.
Even Gap is skipping along with brand boosters! Are you shocked? Probs not. The Gap flagship is partnering with Collette to make limited edition products which err more on the Collette side than the Gap side. This may be lost on what was Gap's majority consumer; seemingly more intended for consumers who (a) know what/where Collette is and (b) are probably buying their basics from Alexander Wang or at least Velvet. Though, still in the vein of making their products more worthwhile to the consumer.
All of these brands, with the exception of Coach (to my knowledge), have previously been playing the fast fashion game and turning over cheap, new, trend driven product by the truck-full to middling results. Gap suffering the most for the poor design judgment. Now, all seem to be making a 180 (that likely took 12-18 months to plan) away from un-sustainable design and trying to entice the consumer's limited budget with quality and not necessarily value. This all comes at incredibly good timing for the above brands as fast fashion retailers are being whipped with a cat-o-nine tails for contributing to the insane amount of waste on the earth! While, some articles read closer to the thesis that forever21 should be blamed for all the world's ecological problems most are dead-on with bringing to light that, yes, selling shitty product that has a minute shelf life will cause people to throw these items away faster. With notes on small movements for 'local' design by sustainable, independent designers who's pricing is a little higher due to the higher cost of NOT outsourcing to elementary school children who will never see an actual school. A movement that is encouraging to hear, but yours truly is still skeptical that in country that still pushes quantity over quality these brands will get off to a running start with their extensions and growth options. Though, I would love to be proved wrong.