^ 
The stupid thing is, that if they were a lower price to begin with (let's say, around 40 - 45% less), so they were a slightly more reasonable (although, still way above the rate of inflation!) 20% more expensive than they were 3 or 4 years ago (rather than over 100% more!
); I, for one, would not object to paying full retail, most of the time (I used to buy many more bags at full retail than I do now).
Of course, I'd still like a bargain (who doesn't?), but if I really liked an item, I wouldn't consider it worth risking it selling out, by waiting for the sales (as I tend to do, now).
So, assuming I'm not alone, they might actually end up taking more money for their bags overall, than if they price them stratospherically and virtually all of them end up on the sales tables at 60% + off.
But, I suppose the designers aren't really bothered if the retailers can't sell the bags at full price, as long as they get their cut (which is the same whether the bags sell at full retail, or not).
Although, you'd think they would be a little concerned, as the retailers will, presumably, lower their future orders if they can't sell most of them without slashing the prices.
I think, because of the recent boom in bag sales, the designers are probably just seeing what they can get away with and I think, in the case of Chloe at least, they've found out that they've gone way too far.
The stupid thing is, that if they were a lower price to begin with (let's say, around 40 - 45% less), so they were a slightly more reasonable (although, still way above the rate of inflation!) 20% more expensive than they were 3 or 4 years ago (rather than over 100% more!
); I, for one, would not object to paying full retail, most of the time (I used to buy many more bags at full retail than I do now).Of course, I'd still like a bargain (who doesn't?), but if I really liked an item, I wouldn't consider it worth risking it selling out, by waiting for the sales (as I tend to do, now).
So, assuming I'm not alone, they might actually end up taking more money for their bags overall, than if they price them stratospherically and virtually all of them end up on the sales tables at 60% + off.
But, I suppose the designers aren't really bothered if the retailers can't sell the bags at full price, as long as they get their cut (which is the same whether the bags sell at full retail, or not).
Although, you'd think they would be a little concerned, as the retailers will, presumably, lower their future orders if they can't sell most of them without slashing the prices.
I think, because of the recent boom in bag sales, the designers are probably just seeing what they can get away with and I think, in the case of Chloe at least, they've found out that they've gone way too far.
