Faking It

Orgasms, British accents, smiles – people fake a lot of different things in life. Sometimes certain situations merit a little faking here and there, but for the most part faking is usually regarded as a bad thing. Especially in the world of fashion.
The allure of purchasing a counterfeit fashion good is undeniable. By their very nature, objects produced by high fashion companies are expensive, and finding authentic pieces at a discount is nearly impossible. Companies like Louis Vuitton establish their image by guaranteeing that their items never go on sale, so what’s a fashionista with a strict budget supposed to do? Turning to a world of knockoffs seems like a reasonable option. After all, big cities like New York are chock-full of places to purchase knockoffs and sometimes the replicas are indistinguishable from their authentic counterparts, sold on Madison Avenue for ten to twenty times the price. Clearly, you’d be an idiot NOT to take advantage of these cheaper alternatives!
Sadly, this isn't the case. In a world where customers are hooked on bargains, consumers are increasingly more intent on owning status symbols for a fraction of the cost, meaning they are more willing to purchase fakes to satisfy that craving. While buying the occasional counterfeit Versace wallet or Prada handbag might not seem like a devastation to the entire fashion industry, the World Customs Organization states that the fashion industry loses up to $9.7 billion dollars every year to counterfeiting. Louis Vuitton handbags, whose canvases are emblazoned with the noticeable and familiar LV monogram, have become the most relentlessly knocked-off bags in fashion history, with reportedly only 1% of purses in circulation being authentic. Some people assume that this widespread copying is a form of flattery, but the brands certainly do not. Giorgio Armani, who has been having trouble trying to eliminate the sale of knockoffs in China, admits that having his brand counterfeited “is flattering, because it means that you are doing the right thing,” but also proclaims that “it is a problem, and something is going to be done.”
The something to which Armani is referring is litigation. Brands like Kate Spade and Louis Vuitton have taken matters into their own hands by employing private investigators to find where knockoffs of their brands are being sold, then suing the dealers. A good example is the recent LVHM and Christian Dior Couture (segment of Dior not owned by LVMH) suit filed against ebay.fr in 2006 for “not doing enough to fight the problem of counterfeit items on the site.” Using their tremendous financial power, the brands usually defeat unlicensed retailers of counterfeit goods in court, however the process is arduous and time consuming, and ultimately fashion companies can only deal with a small fraction of illegal activity.
Perhaps you don’t feel bad taking a little money from the big-time fashion corporations. After all, they comprise a multi-billion dollar industry, and tycoons like Bernard Arnault (chairman of LVMH and the richest man in France) certainly need the money less than you do. Well, part of the reason that the real goods are so expensive is because of the conditions in which they are produced. The majority of luxury products are produced in the United States, Italy, and France, where working conditions are strictly monitored and employees are provided with a variety of benefits. Items produced on the black market (often in factories in developing nations like China, Vietnam, and Thailand) on the other hand, are not monitored and therefore workers are not guaranteed anything. Laborers are often forced to work in sweatshops, characterized by unsafe conditions, long hours (not 50 hours a week long - long, like 90 hours a week long) and child labor, sometimes by kids as young as 8 years old. Furthermore, the profits made by counterfeiters rarely see their way back to the workers, but more often fund more illegal activities, such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, and terrorism.
Lastly, there is the social stigma surrounding these products. The quality of knockoffs is often shoddy at best, with glue holding the seams together instead of thread, zippers that don’t easily close, and “leather” that sweats and wears out quickly. Often, your money is better spent on a quality, non-brand name bag sold at a legitimate retailer than on a fake. After all, think about why you want to buy a black Chanel leather handbag over a nondescript black leather handbag sold at JC Penny. Quality? Sure. Style? Perhaps. Status? Now that’s the one. And by buying a fake, you are faking that status. You’re pretending to be totting a $1,000 dollar handbag, when you maybe spent $50. In Sex in the City, Carrie Bradshaw goes with Samantha to buy a fake Fendi bag in LA, but upon seeing the bags, she decides against it. She narrates, "I should have liked them. But staring into that trunk, they no longer looked like elegant Fendi bags, they just looked cheap. And even if everyone else thought it was real, I’d always know my bag came from a cardboard box in a trunk deep in the valley. [At least when you] wait for the real thing, you know it’s one of a kind and special or something." So what does it mean when you care about status so much that you would buy a cheap, poorly-made, and morally questionable item? Well, it means that your designer brand-name obsession has gone much too far.

When East Met West: Examining the Japanese Fashion Market

While China has been the new obsession for fashion companies seeking new territory, Japan was the first Asian market to openly embrace Western luxury brands into their economy and it remains the country with the third largest retail spending in the world. When the Japanese economy took off in the late 1960’s, the large Japanese middle-class found that they were ready to start living a more grandiose life-style. In another country, one might have expected to see the construction of impressive mansions, but in densely populated cities like Tokyo, this proved to be an impossible feat. Instead, the Japanese turned to high fashion, dressing themselves in expensive silks and furs, and accessorizing with lavish jewels and expensive leather wallets and handbags. Japanese consumers claimed that they decided to buy luxury products for reasons of durability, yet researchers believe that a larger sociological mentality plays a bigger role in the Japanese obsession with high fashion. Japan is both a classless (85 percent of Japanese citizens believe themselves to be middle-class ) and conformist society, and the combination of the two makes them very receptive to brand marketing. Dana Thomas writes that, “by wearing and carrying luxury goods covered with logos, the Japanese are able to identify themselves in socioeconomic terms as well as conform to social mores. It’s as if they are branding themselves.”
With the Japanese focusing on logo-centric fashion brands, it is no wonder that Louis Vuitton is so successful in the country. Vuitton pioneered the Japanese market when it began retailing in five different Tokyo department stores in March 1978 and another in Osaka six months later. In the first year, those six stores sold 5.8 million dollars worth of Vuitton products and had doubled sales to $11 million by 1980. In 2007, it was estimated that approximately 2/5 of the Japanese population owned a Vuitton product. Vuitton’s success let countless other fashion houses, such as Prada, Gucci, and Hermès to try and get their products to Japanese consumers. Clay Chandler, journalist for Fortune Magazine, writes that even “after the ‘bubble economy’ burst, with Japan’s jobless rate hovering at an all-time high, stocks languishing, and bankruptcies raging - shoppers still can’t get enough $4,000 handbags and $1,500 shoes. The fashion industry is counting on shoppers in the industrial world’s sickest economy to keep it afloat.” Today, analysts estimate that 20 percent of all luxury goods are sold in Japan and another 30 percent to Japanese citizens traveling abroad, meaning that Japanese buy half of all luxury goods sold in the world today.
While the market in Japan has been historically important for the luxury goods industry, it may soon be giving way to markets like China, Russia, and India. The Economist reported in September 2008 that the Japanese star of the luxury goods industry may be losing its shine, as sales slid in Japan for brands such as Hermès, Gucci, Tiffany, Chanel and Armani. Pioneer brand Louis Vuitton experienced a six percent slide in the first six months of 2008, the first time sales have dropped for the company since its arrival in the country in 1978.
Many factors play into the decreasing demand for high fashion in Japan. Primarily, the weak economy and the steady appreciation of the euro against the yen in recent years have made it more difficult for Japanese customers to bring themselves to buy European luxury imports. Furthermore, the population of young, single, wealthy Japanese citizens still living at home with their parents (and subsequently, a large customer base for ostentatious purchases) is starting to age, leaving fewer fashion-crazed consumers in their place. Lastly, it seems as though tastes are starting to change in Japan regarding luxury purchases – there is more of an interest in craftsmanship and long-term value in each purchase, instead of simply buying logo-covered status symbols. The important question is whether Japan is an isolated example, or whether it signals a broader shift in consumer values, as explained earlier in the paper. If customers in other developed countries are no longer impressed by logos, will the big brands change their companies’ images or will they come to rely more heavily on fast-growing emerging economies, where the new rich will continue purchasing status and glamour at any price?

LoVe Louis Vuitton

Without a doubt, Louis Vuitton is the dominant fashion brand of the world today, generating more money in sales than any other brand in the luxury market. Louis Vuitton was founded in 1854 in Paris by Monsieur Louis Vuitton, who was a master trunk-maker for members of the French aristocracy. While he started out with one single shop on the Rue des Capucines, Vuitton’s merchandise became so popular that only five years later he was able to start expanding his business, purchasing land throughout France in order to set up workshops where his products could be manufactured. He worked with his son, Georges Vuitton, who designed the famous monogram canvas in 1896 and then registered it as the company trademark in 1905. This monogram logo now adorns a variety of Louis Vuitton products, from bags to belts to neckties and has become synonymous with the brand itself. Even as monarchies began to crumble, Louis Vuitton continued to expand as more and more people wished to buy into the dream of luxurious living. War in Europe hurt Vuitton immensely however, and little was done in terms of growth until the early 1980’s, when Henry Racamier (son-in-law of Renée Vuitton) took over and began vertically integrating the company. He opened Vuitton-owned and operated boutiques, effectively cutting out the middleman and increasing profit margins by 40 percent. In 1984, Vuitton went public on the Paris Bourse and the New York Stock Exchange, and the company’s sales had reached $143 million, turning the once small, family-owned business into a global corporate giant.
While Racamier brought Vuitton onto the world stage, the current Chairman of LVMH, Bernard Arnault, is responsible for making the brand what it is today. After a hostile acquisition of the company in April 1990, Arnault began revamping the company’s image – recreating the old notions of luxury travel and reinvigorating the design side of the company. Louis Vuitton quickly evolved from a luggage company into a fashion company, which produces everything from ready-to-wear clothing for men and women, to accessories such as wallets, sunglasses, scarves, and jewelry. Creative Director of Vuitton, and currently the world’s most celebrated designer, Marc Jacobs says that the brand’s image today is all about “mass-produced luxury. Vuitton is a status symbol. It’s not about hiding the logo. It’s about being a bit of a show-off.” This notion of mass-produced luxury and recognizable status has become intertwined with the brand, and is largely responsible for keeping Louis Vuitton so successful throughout the years, despite whatever downturns might be occurring in the economy at the time.

Understanding Fashion Controversies: The Marc Jacobs Case Study

According to a 2004 article entitled Ethics of the Fashion Industry, “politics and fashion have never been a trendy mix”. Formerly, designers and fashion companies with strong messages about “global welfare” were most often considered unappealing to the masses. Fashion has always been an industry obsessed with mass marketing and appealing to the largest amount of [wealthy] customers they can, so why "stir the pot", and risk offending potential clients who would have otherwise made a purchase? I can’t think of anyone more suited to answer this question than Marc Jacobs, creative director of Louis Vuitton and his own Marc Jacobs brand. Since I am not personally friends with Marc Jacobs, I will have to walk you through his affinity for fashion controversy myself.
Let’s start with the Louis Vuitton Monogram Joke bags, created in late 2007. These bags were created when Marc teamed up with Richard Prince, American painter and photographer, who created a line of “joke” themed paintings in the 80’s. It was these joke paintings that fueled the inspiration for a new, colorful twist on the monogram print created by the Paris Fashion House 112 years ago. The only perceived problem with the bags is the text sprawled across them. Jokes like “Every time I meet a woman who can cook like my Mother....She looks like my Father” and “My wife went to the beauty shop and got a mud pack. For two days she looked beautiful. Then the mud fell off” adorn all of the bags, and unsurprisingly, many people hate them. On Bagsnob.com, a reviewer wrote that the jokes were “lame ass jokes your 80 year old sexist uncle tells” and many commentators on the site backed up the review saying:

“The biggest joke of all is the LV label. Is there no concern for devaluing the brand?”

“What woman on this planet would want to be seen with this bag? For me, this is in the same category of offensive as that swastika bag.”

“I think Marc left rehab more messed up than he was before. This line is becoming a joke (no pun intended).”

But the controversy doesn’t just stop there. In mid-2008, just in time for gay pride parades across the globe, Jacobs released the "Rebel Pride" shirt, designed by Jon Lynn. The shirt had many elements typical of gay pride: stars and rainbow flags. The caveat- it was superimposed on the confederate flag, an image displayed with prominence in the South during the Civil War. As a result, the confederate flag is deeply associated with racism, intolerance, and the United States' very own bible-belt. Not exactly what gay pride is all about, is it? Commentators on Out.com said:

“I think it's more for the shock-value than anything else. I mean, if the meaning behind it is so elusive then what's the point?”

“I'm from and live in the Deep South and will always consider the confederate flag offensive. I can only imagine how hurtful it must be for black people.”

It seems risky to offend both women and the gay community, two HUGE consumers of high fashion. So why not take the advice “Ethics of the Fashion Industry” has to offer and avoid alienating your biggest clients? Let me try to explain what I see in both the bags and the t-shirt (I think they’re both great).
I think that sexism and homophobia are both serious issues facing American society, but I also believe avoiding discussion of the subjects all together is the WORST possible way to deal with them. Keeping divisive issues like this secret and taboo ensure their long-lasting persistence within a culture. Marc Jacobs forces us to consider issues like sexism by placing them out in the open for all to see and discuss (and check out the blogosphere- they have been discussed plenty!).
I think women brave enough to carry the Monogram Joke bag are the same women that are strong enough to stand up to men and assert their individuality. The bag is being carried by women who are literally saying to the world, “I have a handle on sexism; I use it to carry my makeup”. And gay men and women sporting the “Rebel Pride” t-shirt are saying, “I can cover up a symbol of racism with one of acceptance”, a message revered by the gay, and various other minority communities. To end, I want to clarify that I am not one to give blind praise to a designer because he is currently dominating the fashion world. I saw the Marc Jacobs collection for Fall/Winter 08/09 – I was appalled. But as for these two fashion controversies, I think Marc's ideas are innovative and direct. It might not be for everyone to own, but it certainly should be something everyone can appreciate.