The Marc Jacobs
Syndrome:
It is not about selling clothes.
Some major designers tailor their collections to please a small
group of New York editors. This insures them favorable reviews and
ties these very same editors' egos to the success of the designers' line.
This "preselling" of a collection is one of the major reasons why some
American designers perform so badly in the market place.
Marc Jacobs is a case in point. Annointed years ago as the darling
of the NY press because he was young, talented, charming, photogenic
and with a assured sense of self - he became a symbol of, and a rallying
point for, a group of young and not so young editors who purpose was to
establish their place in fashion by redefining American RTW.
When Marc was named as designer for the troubled Perry Ellis line he
spent a number of seasons trying to redefine the Ellis legacy while
still being true to his own fashion vision. Each season the debate in the
press
was "is Marc trying to be Ellis too much or not enough?" But most reviews
were supportive and his collection was always one of the most important
and popular shows of the season.
However the trend most tied to Marc Jacobs was the grunge look. Marc's
last
collection at Perry Ellis refected this fashion outlook. Friendly editors
were consulted during the design process-their thoughts and opinions
were solicited and incorporated in the look of the collection. Editors
like Elizebeth Saltzman, among others, heavily promoted the look, and
magazines like Mademoiselle featured the anorexic grunge queens on
their
covers.
After his last show some members of the out-of-town press shook their
heads
in disbelief. Quotes like "you cannot charge $1200 for a dress that looks
like it was bought in a second hand store and makes most women over the age
19 look ugly". Obviouly, the Perry Ellis Company agreed. Marc
was fired not because of his lack of popularity or editorial support, but
because of his bad taste as seen in the eyes of consumer.
Yet, in the words of an editor at British Vogue, the collection was significant
because it showed women that they had choices and they were not slaves to
any defined look or style. It was not really important, the editor went on
to say, whether the collection sold well or not, but rather that it was
"pointing the way for others to follow". It was up to the editors to educate
the consumer-by featuring the look on their editorial pages and explaining
the significance of the trend. Once the consumer understood the look she will
just naturally then go out and buy the clothes.
In other words, the editors will sell the look to the consumer. Well the women
just said "no". They simply did not buy the look. Advertisers began refusing to
place ads against editorial that seemed so out of place with main stream fashion.
Some editors who promoted the look were fired. Entire magazines were revamped.
Grunge became a dirty word.
The "new" Marc Jacobs continues to receive support from what is left of the New
York
"old guard" fashion elite. This may have more to do with the strength of his
personal
relationship with several of the top editors than to the innovation of
his design. If his latest collection does not sell again even with a little
help from his friends - all the dinners at Anna Wintour's home included -
it is because his vanity has gotten in he way of his considerable talent.
Marc Jacobs and some other designers have forgotten who they are.
They
are not rock stars, rocket scientists or Nobel Prize winners.
Their talent
lies in designing clothing that makes women beautiful. Perhaps if they
spent
more time doing that instead of trying to presell their creative efforts to
a very often guiless press they would actually earn the respect of those who
count the most: the women who buy their clothes!
