How do you feel about designers who have two brands a luxury and a contemporary brand?

[Sa26]

Hey girls do you think it’s good or bad for famous designers to own two brands (one high end and a contemporary brand) ?

the most famous which com to our minds Armani, Marc Jacobs and Michael Kors. I think Marc Jacobs descontinued his high end brand and stayed with the contemporary.

chloe recently joined the club with see by chloe.

I think it’s good maybe it can demenish a bit their luxury name but if you know about fashion you Know it’s not the same having Armani exchange and Emporio Armani.

but I think it’s a kind gesture from the designers to give something to everyone.
you Think how sweet of them to risk their big name and give it to the masses making them feel good.
better than limited lines for target or H&M make a less expensive brand always available who can’t spend on their luxury brand

 

[indiaink]

There’s nothing altruistic about it. They are following the almighty dollar, that’s all.

 

[Fimpagebag]

Hey girls do you think it’s good or bad for famous designers to own two brands (one high end and a contemporary brand) ?

the most famous which com to our minds Armani, Marc Jacobs and Michael Kors. I think Marc Jacobs descontinued his high end brand and stayed with the contemporary.

chloe recently joined the club with see by chloe.

I think it’s good maybe it can demenish a bit their luxury name but if you know about fashion you Know it’s not the same having Armani exchange and Emporio Armani.

but I think it’s a kind gesture from the designers to give something to everyone.
you Think how sweet of them to risk their big name and give it to the masses making them feel good.
better than limited lines for target or H&M make a less expensive brand always available who can’t spend on their luxury brand

Sorry, but I can’t agree. In my opinion it’s a marketing ploy rather than a beneficent gesture.

 

[pursekitten]

Hey girls do you think it’s good or bad for famous designers to own two brands (one high end and a contemporary brand) ?

the most famous which com to our minds Armani, Marc Jacobs and Michael Kors. I think Marc Jacobs descontinued his high end brand and stayed with the contemporary.

chloe recently joined the club with see by chloe.

I think it’s good maybe it can demenish a bit their luxury name but if you know about fashion you Know it’s not the same having Armani exchange and Emporio Armani.

but I think it’s a kind gesture from the designers to give something to everyone.
you Think how sweet of them to risk their big name and give it to the masses making them feel good.
better than limited lines for target or H&M make a less expensive brand always available who can’t spend on their luxury brand

There's no hard and fast rule. Some brands Chloé with See by Chloé doesn't jeopardize quality by much; See by Chloé goat skin has been hard-wearing and keeps well in my experience. Yet, other brands like Michael Kors have seen a quality downturn with their contemporary lines. Good or bad labels can only be awarded on a case by case bases for me.

 

[IntheOcean]

First of all, like others mentioned, there is absolutely nothing 'sweet' about it, it's just a business model to earn as much money as possible and be present on as many markets as possible. Louis Vuitton is here not to make pretty handbags for people to enjoy but to make money.

Do I think it hurts luxury brands when they create a more affordable line? Yes and no. It depends on the brand's popularity and other things. Ultra-luxury brands don't do that, as far as I know, because that would make them lose some of their value - they don't want to be more attainable, but the exact opposite.

Brands like Chloe and Armani, I think, did lose a bit of the 'fleur' of luxury, for lack of a better word, but they're still going strong. Marc Jacobs, sadly, is now making contemporary items only. It's a shame, really, they used to have really nice bags.

Burberry (there used to be Burberry London, which was cheaper, and Burberry Prorsum), seems to be doing great. It's all just Burberry now, if I'm not mistaken, no 'diffusion' line.

Michael Kors was always contemporary and their Michael Michael Kors subbrand is not going to damage the brand in any way, it's just an outlet type of line.

 

[Liberté]

This was a trend years ago, now the brands increasingly produce different lines under the same brand umbrella, and it doesn't seem to hurt them much. But that doesn't mean that they don't have diffrentiated lines of products that target the same audience that would be targeted by a diffusion line to a certain degree. it's just not visible. Gucci is a great example where it has items exclusively made for the outlets and heavily branded (logo heavy) items at a lower price point. Some brands also release specific items that may target certain demographic, such as the heavily branded basic cotton t-shirts that have an enormeous mark-up, but are still accessible to most people who just want something branded to show off. The number of t-shirts with basically just a big brand name on them that are being made every season by brands is pretty good evidence of the trend.

 

[Mairaculi]

I think it's fine for designers to have two different brands in different price segments. As a lot of people already said, this is just a typical business concept - in most cases probably quality discrimination - and as long as the contemporary line is still good quality and does not devalue the luxury line, I'm good with it.
The only thing I don't like is when people buy the contemporary line but act like it's from the luxury line. Especially on the second hand market. On the platform I
usually use some people put their items under Chloé and only in like the third picture you can see the label and it's in fact See by Chloé...
Concerning Michael Kors, that's a contemporary brand in itself, I don't see the need for their Michael Michael Kors line.

 

[BrandSnob]

I think it depends on what they do with the diffusion brand. Michael Kors lost all respect. I don’t think I could wear his regular line at this point. However I think Marchesa and Versace do a good job of keeping their luxe actually luxe while allowing the diffusion brand to do what it’s meant to.

 

[pursekitten]

I think it's fine for designers to have two different brands in different price segments. As a lot of people already said, this is just a typical business concept - in most cases probably quality discrimination - and as long as the contemporary line is still good quality and does not devalue the luxury line, I'm good with it.
The only thing I don't like is when people buy the contemporary line but act like it's from the luxury line. Especially on the second hand market. On the platform I
usually use some people put their items under Chloé and only in like the third picture you can see the label and it's in fact See by Chloé...
Concerning Michael Kors, that's a contemporary brand in itself, I don't see the need for their Michael Michael Kors line.

Agreed. Nordstrom Rack and sometimes The Real Real or others post See by Chloé items under Chloé.

Also, every time I see anything with more words than the standard designer name (e.g. Michael Kors) it's like a red flag to watch for quality issues.

For years Kate Spade has rolled their outlet-only styles in with their boutique styles online, so someone can accidentally buy a potentially lower quality style and may not even know it unless they're familiar with the differences in designs and style numbers.

In other words, brands should be up front with their outlet/lower priced styles otherwise their boutique lines' reputations could lose customer trust. Not all outlet styles are poorly constructed or have thinner materials, but the concerns are in the back of my mind just the same.

 

[Sa26]

Agreed. Nordstrom Rack and sometimes The Real Real or others post See by Chloé items under Chloé.

Also, every time I see anything with more words than the standard designer name (e.g. Michael Kors) it's like a red flag to watch for quality issues.

For years Kate Spade has rolled their outlet-only styles in with their boutique styles online, so someone can accidentally buy a potentially lower quality style and may not even know it unless they're familiar with the differences in designs and style numbers.

In other words, brands should be up front with their outlet/lower priced styles otherwise their boutique lines' reputations could lose customer trust. Not all outlet styles are poorly constructed or have thinner materials, but the concerns are in the back of my mind just the same.

that’s cheating from the real real sellers to sell their own stuff. But that’s not the brand‘s fault.
now Kate spade having their outlet bags on their regular that’s is totally wrong.
actually all brands who do outlet designs should have a web page for them It would be an even better business. Maybe not amazing quality but what if you like better the designs of the outlet.

ive seen on YouTube videos of people visiting the MK outlet stores and there is a beautiful quilted bag. More Chanel like than their retail version of their newest quilted bag. maybe a lesser quality but I liked better the chain style of the bag.

so hey letting people visit a site just for their outlet products they would eran them even more money.
all brands own an outlet sub brand should do a webpage for them


you are all right about correcting me it’s not alturistic what they do on owning two brands, but I think it’s a great idea.

 

[liliBuo]

As a consumer, if I want a contemporary bag I would go for brands like Polène or APC or Jacquemus or Coach, not overely expensive but great in what they do with a lot of creativity in their offering .. if I want to treat myself with something more lux then I would go for something that feels like "real luxury" that is more exclusive. So imo the brands you are talking about, dont feel luxurious enough compared to other luxury brands ( they cheapen themself with some of their lines) and at the same time are not as "cool" as some contemporary brands.... As others have said it's not kindness it's à buisness model...and one that doesn't appeal to me at all

 

[pursekitten]

@Sa26 Thank you for the insight on The Real Real! I didn't know sellers had free rein to list a bag under the wrong brand. Good thing to know for the future. I completely agree with you on having a clear, separate website for outlet items.

Below are a few Kate Spade details I've noticed during surprise sales and on their normal retail site, although someone correct me if this has changed in recent years:

• Outlet styles will mostly likely not have a dust bag
• Outlet style codes may start with W (warehouse/outlet style)
• Retail style codes will start with P

@liliBuo Agreed. Brands are clearly thinking about their bottom line with outlet styles. Yet, quality can very within boutique styles in recent years. I preferred not to carry lux/logo bags for work, since I noticed it affected coworker and partner perceptions. In the end, leaving that choice up to the buyer is the best idea instead of throwing everything together on one site without clear labels.

 

[Sa26]

@Sa26 Thank you for the insight on The Real Real! I didn't know sellers had free rein to list a bag under the wrong brand. Good thing to know for the future. I completely agree with you on having a clear, separate website for outlet items.

Below are a few Kate Spade details I've noticed during surprise sales and on their normal retail site, although someone correct me if this has changed in recent years:

• Outlet styles will mostly likely not have a dust bag
• Outlet style codes may start with W (warehouse/outlet style)
• Retail style codes will start with P

@liliBuo Agreed. Brands are clearly thinking about their bottom line with outlet styles. Yet, quality can very within boutique styles in recent years. I preferred not to carry lux/logo bags for work, since I noticed it affected coworker and partner perceptions. In the end, leaving that choice up to the buyer is the best idea instead of throwing everything together on one site without clear labels.

well I got the insight about the real real from another poster on this thread.
it’s not exactly a huge deal but some people sell their stuff saying I’m selling a chloe when they are actually selling See by Chole. which is kind of trying to cheat buyers.

but I so agree why can brands who own also an outlet line can’t sell it on a separate site, I’m sure they got lots of styles to sell on a separate site.

as easy as creating MK outlet. Com or Kate Spade etc.

anyway the things I’ve learned creating this thread, someone also here said Gucci also owns an outlet line. not A whole contemporary sub brand like Michael by Michael Kors or see by chloe. But having a small line to sell in I guess little more high end outlet stores.

 

[pursekitten]

Here's a great example of Kate Spade retail quality versus Kate Spade outlet style quality. You can see where corners were cut for the outlet style and nowhere does the outlet style say it was made specifically for outlets, in this case Nordstrom Rack. The misleading "comparable value" on Nordstrom Rack burns my biscuits tho, because not even the complex retail style has sold for USD 359.

Retail style code (on the left): pxrua325 ----------------------------------------------- Outlet style code (on the right): WKRU6437

 

[summerinx]

Wow that is a comically bad imitation. :O
I've seen other models of kate spade on nordstrom rack that do look exactly like the original version, but I wonder if they're subtly different/worse.

Here's a great example of Kate Spade retail quality versus Kate Spade outlet style quality. You can see where corners were cut for the outlet style and nowhere does the outlet style say it was made specifically for outlets, in this case Nordstrom Rack. The misleading "comparable value" on Nordstrom Rack burns my biscuits tho, because not even the complex retail style has sold for USD 359.

Retail style code (on the left): pxrua325 ----------------------------------------------- Outlet style code (on the right): WKRU6437

View attachment 5091159