[Geminiz06]

Don't get me wrong, I think that it's nice, that someone can have the quality/craftmanship of a name brand for less.

But, I for one can't stand that their isn't at least a name change when these products go to target. If it's a different line within the same company, then give the new target products a different name, and put made by Botkier or Gryson etc. The products are not made of the same quality materials, yet the name stays the same.

I just don't like the idea of me saving so so long to buy a Botkier or a Gryson, just to have the name itself become GENERIC.

Sorry JMHO...Anyone else feel this way?

[ShimmaPuff]

Originally Posted by Geminiz06

...I think that it's nice, that someone can have the quality/craftmanship of a name brand for less....The products are not made of the same quality materials...

You seem to be disagreeing with yourself a little bit on the quality issue.

What I would think would be comforting, is the assurance that a company whose products you admire can be counted on to do what is in its best interests!

[lovinalotofbags]

I see nothing wrong with it even I were buying strictly high end designer. I think it is the feeling you get whatever you pay for something. You know what you paid for it, that should only matter. I like to see clothes from a designer that do not cost an arm/leg.

Me for one do not like to pay a lot for clothes. I save that for shoes and handbags.
We all have her own opinions and what we consider is important to us.

[Geminiz06]

Originally Posted by ShimmaPuff

You seem to be disagreeing with yourself a little bit on the quality issue.

What I would think would be comforting, is the assurance that a company whose products you admire can be counted on to do what is in its best interests!

I meant the style factor, and yes I think that technique wise, there will be quality there. But we all know that a Gryson Bag that retails for 1000.00 isnt going to be made of the same material as one that is made for 59.00.

And, Yes I do think that it's great that everyone can get a stylish bag at different price points. I know there are certain price points that I am not willing to go past. That's not what my concern is. It's more the naming of the item

It's just that, I would think that when a brand does this (makes a seperate line) they would change the name of the products that are being made.
To me it becomes an issue when people can't differentiate the 2 products. Like with Rafe handbags, now some sellers on eBay aren't saying that its a Target Rafe bag verses the Expensive one.

I am not in anyway knocking anyone from not spending alot on clothing or accessories. That's not what I mean, if thats the way it came off. My problem is how they present the products by naming them the same. And if the product was only being found in boutiques, and then it became mass marketed. It somehow looses it's uniqueness (lol thats not a word ).

I myself buy all things whether its clothing or accessories not for the brand, but because I like the item. I have no problems in buying a 5.00 skirt. In fact, I have on many occasions, and have then purchased it in every color. Which makes me feel great that I got such a bargain.

Again this is just me thinking on the topic. I like the idea of them going to target but then I also see a draw back. I am not in anyway trying to knock the company for making products more accessible, at different price points. Just wanting to know if anyone else felt like that too.

[amanda]

Everyone gets in a snit over this every time a new handbag or shoe designer is announced, and frankly, I'm kind of sick of the elitism that's inherent in it.

If you buy something, buy it because it's beautiful, well-made, and you have to have it. Buy it because the product itself, regardless of what is written on the tag, is something that you enjoy owning. Don't concern yourself with what others are buying, not buying, or aspiring to buy. It's none of your business. If your choices are made for the right reasons, then the purchases of others or the business decisions the company makes afterwards do not matter at all. If you've bought something and been invested enough in its label to have the other items that a designer makes cause you irritation, you've wasted your money and bought into the hype that the marketing people hoped you would in order to charge you just a little bit more for whatever you're buying.

In short, don't be a pod person. It's not attractive.

[SonyaPhi]

I see your frustration, it's not so much the elitism but the exclusivity. When I buy something I buy because I like it of course , but also to be different, not part of the crowd, so to speak. So when something is available at Target Soooo many people will be walking around with it, that it loses it specialness*(?).

[bagnshoofetish]

I'm trying to understand the point as well here.
Are you saying that owning a Botkier bag now loses its luster for you now that they are available at Target? If the one you own is of superior quality and you know this, why would you psych yourself out to believe the value is diminished now that Botkier may offer other bags at Target? Whether or not they change the name of the line should not matter to you. Buy the products that please you. If Target offered an exclusive LV line and I did not like the quality, I would not purchase it but would still enjoy my old Louis'. If someone wanted to buy the new LV Target line, more power to them. Doesn't ruin my LV experience. I can't spend too much energy worrying what companies are doing to increase their bottom line. Once my purchase is made regardless of where its made, they could sell their wares in McDonald Happy Meals for all I care.
On a similar note, I loved when Philip Starck and Michael Graves lent their talents to designing different houseware lines to the masses via Target. It introduced innovative design to a whole new demographic of people who otherwise would never have known what modern design was or that these guys even existed.

[IntlSet]

The first thing that came to mind was the French makeup line Bourjois. It's not that I have a problem with buying Bourjois at Target. It's just that when I want to pay $15 for a single eyeshadow, I'd prefer to do it in a pretty environment with a lax return policy like Sephora. I am totally unmotiviated to buy expensive goods at cheap discount stores like Target. It's not about elitism or anything else -- after all, Bourjois already is pretty much a drugstore line in its native France and I enjoy using it.

As for the "bridge" lines that the OP is refering to that Botkier and Gryson produced for Target -- I understand her primary point. I don't believe for a second that the designers actually had a hand in the products... nor do I think they're any better-made than an average handbag to be found at Target.

Licensing one's name is an old story -- a lot of designers over-licensed their names to cheap products in the 1980's and never recovered. Think Izod. I do believe that in the long run, it hurts the brand. At the end of the day, while a few PFers may overlap in buying Temperley for Target and Temperley's $2,000 dresses (I'm not one of them... I have a four-figure Temperley dress, I love the line and I have zero interest in anything they have or will produce for a discount chain), or Gryson for Target and Gryson's $700 bags, they are the minority. It's great when a designer is known and loved -- a very different story when they're more obscure, like Gryson. It sticks out in my mind that Gryson is that brand found at Target. I frankly have no idea where else Gryson is sold or what any of the other more pricey Gryson bags look like. I can't be the only one.

[IntlSet]

I'm reading the responses above and see a lot of words tossed around like "elitism" and "exclusivity." I'm confused, because I don't believe this really is an issue involving either of them -- rather, it's how a designer chooses to "brand" themselves, and a powerful branding tool is which stores you choose to carry your items. To allow a cheaper version of your handbag/dress/etc. to be sold at a giant discount chain like Target, very near the toilet paper and shaving cream, says "We're egalitarian and contemporary, and we love the high-low mix." But the problem is when there is no high-low mix. It's just low. Not enough people know about the high-end portion of the brand, and people (like me) begin associating Gryson/Botkier/what have you with Target. Consequently, when Target-Gryson starts selling like crazy, and the streets are flooded with Target-Gryson rather than Actual-Gryson, what do we all think happens to the brand? I am FAR less informed about handbag lines than most people here which is why I hold that view. But then, most of America isn't as informed as the Purse Forum.

[amanda]

Originally Posted by IntlSet

I'm reading the responses above and see a lot of words tossed around like "elitism" and "exclusivity." I'm confused, because I don't believe this really is an issue involving either of them -- rather, it's how a designer chooses to "brand" themselves, and a powerful branding tool is which stores you choose to carry your items. To allow a cheaper version of your handbag/dress/etc. to be sold at a giant discount chain like Target, very near the toilet paper and shaving cream, says "We're egalitarian and contemporary, and we love the high-low mix." But the problem is when there is no high-low mix. It's just low. Not enough people know about the high-end portion of the brand, and people (like me) begin associating Gryson/Botkier/what have you with Target. Consequently, when Target-Gryson starts selling like crazy, and the streets are flooded with Target-Gryson rather than Actual-Gryson, what do we all think happens to the brand? I am FAR less informed about handbag lines than most people here which is why I hold that view. But then, most of America isn't as informed as the Purse Forum.

What irritates me is why does the brand identity matter anyway? Aren't smart consumers constantly fighting against buying in to what the brand means or what the brand is trying to tell us? If the brand identity plays any sort of significant role in our purchasing choice, isn't that kind of unfortunate? I think it is. If some random person on the street thinks your bag might be from Target, why does that matter, as long as the bag performs the essential functions for which the bag was purchased? Unless the essential function was for the bag to make you look wealthy and elite. That's the only difference in function that a diffusion line would make, as far as I can tell.

Take Kooba, for example. I have several Kooba bags, and I love them. Use them often, if not constantly. What far outnumbers the number of Kooba bags I like, however, are the number of Kooba bags that I absolutely loathe. Should those bags, which I think are tacky-looking and not stylish, decrease my enjoyment of the bags that I find beautiful, comfortable to wear, and useful for the purpose for which they were made? No. I think we can all agree that not only would that be asinine, but it would be an enormous waste of thought and energy. If I posted an exasperated thread titled "Is anyone else tired of Kooba making ugly bags that make my cute bags look bad?", I think we'd all know how well THAT would go over.

And also, Annie, I understand to a certain extent your example of makeup, but it's full-price makeup that's being sold, and that's not the case with the bags. They're Target priced for the Target experience.

My point is that the bags you have haven't changed, but the exclusivity might have, a bit. And if you're paying hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in an attempt to buy exclusivity, then that's not Target's problem.

[PinkSuadeSoho]

I'll just add my little .02 cents in here...I haven't been to Target in YEARS. Not by choice though. Simply because they don't have them where I live. I can't wait to check Target out in the near future. I have heard that they did a major overhaul and have some really nice items. I never thought I would be so excited to see that red dot :)

[purly]

I think it's cool to see Gryson at Target. People are less likely to buy fake Gryson bags now -- there's no point when you can get the real thing for the same price and quality as any fake.

[scarlett_2005]

I don't see what the big is. It's very simple, if you don't like the bags at Target don't buy them. I would much rather see someone carrying a Gryson from Target than a hideous fake.

[Lvbabydoll]

^Yeah I agree.
And to be honest, I'm not into the "nicer" Gryson bags simply because I'm not very familiar with the line, but I've seen a couple that I wouldn't hesitate to buy from the Target line.
It's for that reason that I love the "Go" designers' lines that they bring in. I have a bunch of clothes from those lines and an absolutely adorable striped Isaac Mizrahi cardigan that I love. All say "(designer name) for Target" on the label. Do I care? Not in the least, so long as it's cute.

[alatrop]

I checked out the Gryson bags at Target out of curiosity and they seemed so cheap...I mean, what is the point of putting the name on it anyway? So people can have a real Gryson/whatever bag? I feel like the clothing lines were a bit better, but the quality doesn't compare.

I would rather buy some no-name brand than buy the lower end line of a high-end designer. Target clothes are still Target clothes, IMO. (not that there's anything wrong with that, but putting a designer name on Target clothes doesn't make them any better in quality or anything)

I'm not trying to sound snobby, not my intention. I shop at Abercrombie, for crying outloud, haha. It's just a really clever marketing ploy to get middle-class America in the mind-set that they're owning "designer" goods; it's a mind game.