super shops

Ok, so, last week I was busy being 13 and hanging around at the mall and saw a 3x life size Express add featuring what appeared to be Caroline Trentini. This week I see K.Kloss pouting for Topshop (picture above). Hot on the heels, is the news that the newest Vic. Secret angels are none other than mamacitas muy caliente, Arelenis Sosa and Sessliee Lopez. Are mid-market retailers hoping that by shelling out buckets of cash for these high fashion faces they will entice more shoppers into their tumbleweed ridden stores? Granted, though, Express is the only one of the three that has been consistently hurting for business. Kloss for Topshop makes sense since she is age appropriate for the consumer and T.Shop has Kate Moss for Topshop, elevating their brand above that of -ahem- Express. I hope the new angels read their contracts for Vicky's well, as the Wexner mondo-brand mandates that the girl's cannot change their look in any way shape or form while under contract. Granted, for two fresh faces the only more lucrative contract would be a fragrance/beauty campaign. I should also note that Gap has a ton of perfectly symmetrical faces for their Christmas adds: Angela Lindvall, Erin Wasson, Anja Rubik, among others. If this trend keeps up, I am calling that mid-western women will get up in arms (again) about the unrealistic standards of beauty that, this time, Gap/Express/XYZ are pushing on them. Hey, no one ever hated on Cindy Crawford for Kmart people!

"vintage" balenciaga

Fashionista had a post about Balenciaga mag-ads from 2000 and today. I am kind of partial to the 2000. There is wear-ability, directness, accessibility with out losing the air of luxury. I still appreciate the molded forms from ss08 and the de-constructed ease of fw08 and surely I will find beauty in the offerings for ss09. My point lies in that these ads are shown, most often, in up-market women's magazines, vogue, W, harper's bazaar, et al which, especially in American, you cannot throw a Chloe bag at the editorial section without landing on a page that is entirely recreating a Balenciaga runway look. So, why rehash the same look for the ads? The consumer has seen, most likely, the $3000 dress on the runway, in the editorial, and now must see the same thing posed against ad for horse-face's newest vomitous fragrance. Ads are inherently for sellin' and I appreciate the ads that make that a possibility for the consumer. The 2000 ad below and it is kind of refreshing to see two gorgeous people, a dog tee shirt, and a horse without the haughtiness that luxury ads can often impart.

le freak c'est chic

maybe you have noticed, stayin' up late at night, watching cops or re-runs of cheaters, interspersed between ads to talk to hOt cHixXX in yr area and bowflex commercials are poorly directed spots for 'chickdowntown.com'. maybe you haven't noticed. if so, totally your loss. these commercials look like they should be for high class call girls and if it weren't for the micro-designer run down at the end of the commercial. i gather it is a shopping website since it lists brands such as see by chloe, current/elliot, among others. they also have two page ads in lucky, elle, etc. have i gone to this website? hell no. if they have see by chloe and current/elliot, two brands that are oft sold out then, why do they need to advertise on late night cable television? i can understand the magazine ads, but even those are just a rundown of the brands the site sells. print and television ads are pricey and not something you see generally trusted high-end retailers-barneys, saks, bloomingdales-throwing cash into. what consumers are they trying to reach? ones that aspire to mid-range fashion pages and love joey greco (im not hatin')? that consumer sect doesn't usually have $400 to drop on a brocade miniskirt and would sooner buy the 'designer inspired' version from forever21. if you are trying to expand your customer base there are less sketchy ways of doing it that don't involve product-placing yourself between phone sex line commercials and erectile disfunction ads, just sayin'.