Fashion Notebook

Lessons in Branding: How Steve & Barry's Does a Lot With a Little

OK, so if you haven't read our news story (you know, that OTHER
job we have), about Steve & Barry's launching a new collection of
branded "Sex and the City" t-shirts and tank tops ahead of the year's least-anticipated and most-loathed premier (to us), check it out here. If you're link-a-phobic, here's the brief:

"Further cashing in on the stars of HBO's hit show Sex and the City, Steve and Barry's has launched a collection of branded T-shirts and tank tops designed by leading actress Sarah Jessica Parker.

The collection, with all items priced under $9, hit cheap n' chic retail stores last week, ahead of the May 30 premiere of Sex and the City: The Movie at theaters nationwide. The T-shirts and tank tops come with printed phrases including "I'm with Mr. Big" and "I (Heart) Sex and the City," as well as images of the characters from the TV series."

"Millions of women have flocked to our stores since the launch of Sarah Jessica Parker's Bitten brand last year, and Sex and the City: The Movie merchandise is a perfect complement to that collection," said Howard Schacter, chief partnership officer at Steve & Barry's, New York.

OK, so why does this matter, and why, as we contend in the headline to this post, do we see it as a brilliant example of doing "a lot with a little." Well, pretty much, it's because Steve & Barry's is likely to get a groundswell from this, selling not only these t-shirts, but also more items from the "Bitten" collection that the retailer trotted out from Sarah Jessica Parker (she of the Skeletor visage, pictured left, in that show that proffers female empowerment but really ends up, sing it with us Obama, "more of the same," in our humble opinion, and that of others) last year. And better yet, they'll do it—again—with barely a cent spent on advertising.

This isn't a groundbreaking marketing idea—big film coming up, you've already got a product tie-in to one of the characters, so plug her again and ride the film's publicity and boon in related Internet searches to see the sales needle get a lift—so why aren't more people doing it?

Well, the answer to that might be that they're just too damn rich. And that's not a slight.

Think about it. When we're flush, it's all dinners at BLT Prime and brunch at Essex, but when we're broke, it's poulet roti chez nous with rosemary and other fresh herbs, that serves two and, we dare say, tastes just as good as the same dish at either of those tony joints. Leftovers are broken down into chicken salad, the bones boiled into a chicken soup. And presto! We've got lunch for days. And for about half the cost of a porterhouse at BLT. Sure, we definitely got way more out of cooking the chicken at home and getting creative with stretching the meals, but that's because we had to. And once our coffers are full again, you'd better believe we'll redefine dinner—like retailers and apparel companies define a "launch"—as a strictly Tourondel affair. N'est ce-pas?

So what if the big agencies and brands just starved their budgets on a few projects and saw where it went? Listen, we're not saying that Nike should book Sharapova for a tennis commercial and then forego a TV spot, but maybe test out an anemic cash flow on a smaller project and see what the creatives come up with. You never know where the results might lead. Maybe even straight to sales.

Stay tuned to see how well the "Sex and the City" tops do. You know we are.

Lessons in Branding: Why the Woody Allen Vs. American Apparel Case Is Actually Kind of Funny

If you hadn't heard already, director Woody Allen is suing
American Apparel for $10 million, for using his image,
without permission, in one of its outdoor campaigns in May 2007.

The campaign features a photo of Allen, dressed as a Jewish rabbi in his 1977 Academy Award winning film Annie Hall, beside Hebrew script that translates to "The Holy Rebbe." (See photo, right.)

While the lawsuit is certainly interesting—or maybe not really, we find legalese to be somewhat tiresome and who isn't suing anyone else these days?—the whole situation has us kind of perplexed, then chortling, then perplexed again.

So first, you take an ego-maniac like Allen (Full disclosure: we love Allen's work; Annie Hall makes our top 10 movies of all time, though our boyfriend pulled a gifting gaff for our last anniversary by getting Manhattan, still a good movie, but it no Annie, and, for the record, we don't care if it's the deluxe edition and we once mentioned it was "our real favorite Allen movie."), and you use him in branding that doesn't, well, directly promote him and his work.

We need to note here that Allen has found a way to finagle himself into nearly all of his movie scripts, and, in the aforementioned was, indeed the main character, so this guy is no stranger to an über-level of self-promo. So we have to imagine that Allen's real beef here not that there's a promotional image of himself out there, but rather than the said image isn't promoting him in a way that he totally controls. That's totally fair, and who would want their mug on an American Apparel ad, especially without their permission? (Though some of our friends have appeared in the ads, with their all-too-eager permission.)

According to press reports concerning the lawsuit, the case argues that the use of Allen's image in the billboards in Hollywood and New York were "especially egregious and damaging," and that Allen does not endorse products or services in the United States. Hmmm... We can think of a couple things Allen has done to himself that were more "egregious and damaging" than a few billboards with a still from one of his movies, but we'll get to that later. 

Second, you take a company that has made its name with 1970s porn-style ads that feature either moist looking hipsters or their rather sleazy looking bearded brethren. We're all for it, and love the gay-themed advertisements that they've done in publications like BUTT (anyone remember those "Bottoms...And Tops" spots?!, WARNING: NSFW. A tamer spot is pictured, below, left.), but, in the end, it's just kind of an edgy sex-sells play for the apparel company, you know, with a little vintage sleaze thrown in for good measure.

This oddly brings us back to Allen, someone who's rather a 1970s vintage cartoon character, who scandalized himself with what some would call a sleazy, sexual relationship with Soon Yi, the adopted daughter of Allen's former flame, Mia Farrow. So we kind of see the relevance from a marketing standpoint. In fact, in response to a query from The Jewish Daily Forward, American Apparel rep defined Allen as the brand's "spiritual leader." And if you think about it, it's kind of dead on. Better in the 1970s, sexually provocative, somewhat over-thought and overwrought (thinking lamé swimsuits and Celebrity), well these concepts all seem to define both the American Apparel and Woody Allen "brands."

Anyhow, we're not so impressed by the outdoor ads, but they sure got a lot of attention, so perhaps this whole weird mélange is worth its weight in branding gold. Still, wouldn't something it have been cooler if AA had superimposed Allen's face on one of their own hipster-hot models? Like this. So what's the lesson here folks? Well, it remains to be seen if these ads and the lawsuit move the needle any for American Apparel (as if they need it, the stores around here are always hopping with pretty, and some not-so-pretty, young things) and if that movement outweighs any legal costs, but if so, the lesson seems to be find someone both scandalous and (considered) brilliant in their field, someone who kind of relates to your own brand values, and then slap their image up on your billboards. Without all the hassle of asking.

We're not in favor of breaking the laws, per se, or abusing someone else's likeness, but do marketers really care about such meddling things as this, you know, provided it's still selling products?

Also, it's not like American Apparel hasn't ever been on the receiving end of image misappropriation issues, but for them, it actually turned out to be kind of a good thing. They were one of the faux sponsors in a Youtube spoof dubbed "The Hipster Olympics," in which contestants from Williamsburg, Brooklyn (our nabe, coincidentally, so the satire here does sting a bit) snort cocaine to get in the game, take MySpace photos, pick out ironic album covers, and dis normals.

When we asked what they thought about it, American Apparel director of corporate finance and development Adrian Kowalewski told us that since the spot wasn't "grossly defamatory" it wasn't such a big deal.

"It's quite flattering to us that our marketing would inspire someone to do a mock ad," Kowalewski added. "We think this is a reflection of how impactful our advertising has been to our audience."

So c'mon Woody, what's the big deal, man? Can't we all just, like, brand along? Anyways, I'll let you readers sort it out.

Check out the "Hipster Olympics" video, below.

Oscar Wrap-Up: Why Marketing Was the Night's Most Interesting Star

So if last night's ceremony, presenter banter, and Jon Stewart had us yawning in our
seats, at least the marketing plugs were there to wake us up! In fact, we might go so
far as to say that marketing was the real star of the show.

Things kicked off with some good designer plugs in the women's dress category. Headline news: Cotillard up, Kidman down. For a more comprehensive breakdown, check out our previous Oscar post, here. (Or, er, scroll below!)

But we left one of those ladies out of the line-up, because she was just such a good piece of marketing collateral that we thought her more appropriate for this part of the wrap-up. Drum roll please: Heidi Klum in that gorgeous red dress by John Galliano, a philanthropic tie-in for Coca-Cola, which ran its Red Dress campaign spots during the event. The dress (pictured, with Klum, below) will be auctioned off on MyCokeRewards.com, with proceeds going to the charity Heart Truth, which raises awareness about heart disease in women.

Then there were the commercials, and I have to say that the fashion set more than represented. The new J.C. Penney ads for the "American Living" collection seemed to translate well (at least, among our viewing audience last night in a cramped Brooklyn apartment), and everyone seemed pleasantly surprised by the American Express ads with Diane von Furstenberg. Both ads got some prominent sponsorship play before the commercial break had even commenced.

So for the fashion marketers, it seemed like the night sailed on smoothly, unlike Cameron Diaz's attempt to pronounce such difficult words as "cinematography" (again, we still don't understand why she gets Galliano's Dior dresses!).

And then there were these weird product plugs.

Here's Jon Stewart bemusedly futzing with his iPhone. If ever there were a completely smooth pitchman, Stewart's not one of 'em. In a lame segue, he talked about getting to catch up on all of the year's great films right there at the podium. (Because, you know, the square inches of the iPhone really help to communicate the Old West grandeur of "There Will Be Blood." Seriously, has Stewart even used this device?). Then of course, he announces that they're better viewed in widescreen. He turns the phone horizontally and the camera pans in for a great shot of the iPhone and Apple logo. In the end, it's not a bad plug, it's just, well, kinda shameless and we're sure that even those who aren't marketers recognized this little bit for the sham it is. Kind of like the Bluefly.com "Accessories Wall" in Project Runway or the numerous mentions Coke gets during American Idol.

And then there was this COMPLETELY SHAMELESS PLUG for the Nintendo Wii. Coming back from commercial, Stewart and the little girl from that Gospel choir, were engaged in a heated game of Wii Tennis, projected on enormous screens for the whole audience to see. No joke followed, no setup really introduced the plug. It was suddenly just there.  Check out the video below.

Do marketers seriously think the American public is this stupid that they wouldn't know a complete corporate shill when they see it? Why not give away sponsorship titles for the awards at this point? And the Oscar for the Coca-Cola Best Actress goes to... Marion Cotillard! Just think of it! She could thank Diet Coke, of course, for all of those days on set when she needed a fizzy drink that calmed her stomach but didn't contribute to any stress-induced weight gain. Well, that's if San Pelligrino doesn't get the award sponsorship first.

Now that we're mulling it, is this a bad idea? Everyone knows these shows are rigged shams anyways, I don't care how many staged videos I have to see of Frank Pierson being denied at the doors of Price Waterhouse Cooper.

Oscar Wrap-Up: Which Actresses Repped Their Brands the Best on the Red Carpet

So we're back after a late night staying up for that tired annual awards show: The  Oscars. (We know the show ended just after 11:40 our time, but we stayed up late bitching to our bicoastal friends about lame montages, good/bad dresses, and, like everyone else apparently, Diablo Cody).

Seriously, if it weren't our job to stay up  until the wee hours tracking who was wearing what, how they wore it, and how brands made their way onto the stage or in the commercial slots, we would have wrapped this up by 9:00 pm EST and sailed off to bed on a few DVR'ed episodes of "Paula's Home Cooking."

But, for better or worse, we stayed up, enduring less-than-pithy commentary by John Stewart, and some heartbreaking losses ("Surf's Up" losing out to "Ratatouille" for Best Animated Feature and "There Will Be Blood" losing out to "No Country For Old Men" for Best Picture). And it's a good thing we did, because the marketing, as far as we're concerned was the star of this year's drag-along show. But let's kick it off chronologically, with some of the more notable carpet dress-vertisements. (Note: All pictures per WWD. "Fierce Factor"s, our own judgment of how well the star wore her particular dress, set against how likely the placement is to boost the brand, are awarded on a 1.0-5.0 scale.)

Name: Amy Adams
Film: Enchanted
Dress: Proenza Schouler
Fierce Factor: 4.0
Our Take: Aesthetically, this is the perfect pairing. Adams' red hair and ivory white skin work wonders against the emerald gown. The edgy, classic appeal evokes a more colorful version of John Singer Sargent's "Madame X" or the femme fatale of H. Anglada- Camarasa's "Retrato de Sonia Klamery." Unfortunately, points off for that eye-gouging performance, though the girl did have to pimp her movie. Also, she's not that high-profile. 

Name: Penélope Cruz
Film: No noms this year, most recent was "Volver"
Dress: Chanel
Fierce Factor: 4.5
Our Take: Even so-so dresses look amazing on Penélope Cruz. Not only does the girl have extracurriculars to add to her hotness (Cruz speaks four languages! Name one of her American contempos that can claim that), but she can pull off designs that would look perhaps silly on a lesser body. Straight up: she's a stunner every time with no bad publicity to drag her down. With her small frame and captivating gaze really pronouncing this dress, Karl gets the most out of a rather ho-hum haute couture look.

Name: Cameron Diaz
Film: No noms this year, er, like every other year. Most recently, "Shrek The Third"
Dress: Dior by John Galliano
Fierce Factor: 3.0
Our Take: We will never understand why Diaz always gets Mr. Galliano's best. Don't get us wrong, the girl has a great frame, an established bold-faced name, and she photographs well. That, in and of itself, is worth the plug. But c'mon! Certainly the upper crust clientele doesn't want to share threads with Hollywood's leading empress of the Ditzy Dame shtick, right? And we're not going to hate on the pleats, like E! did. But, at the end of the day, it's a rather dull dress, on a very dull girl.

Name: Marion Cotillard
Film: "La Vie En Rose," WON: Best Actress
Dress: Jean Paul Gaultier
Fierce Factor: 5.0
Our Take: Perfect storm here, folks! Not was this fish-scale detailed mermaid dress equal parts daring and stunning for the red carpet debut, but its wearer walked away with the Best Actress award. And did so with one of the most genuine speeches we've seen in some time from the Oscars! As an added bonus for Mr. Gaultier, she's been the talk of the papers this morning, with pictures abounding. What she'll also likely add to that nice stew is that her figure looks like a real woman (admittedly, a thin woman) and she fills out the dress in a wonderfully tasteful way. This is as good as it gets!

Name: Nicole Kidman
Film: "The Golden Compass"
Dress: Balenciaga
Fierce Factor: 2.5
Our Take: What goes up must also come down, and the real low point (ok, with some obvious exceptions that we'll note later, we're lookin' at YOU, Diablo) came with this unfortunate placement on Nicole Kidman. Even preggers, she has the kind of body (read: alien model-esque) that could really show off some of Nicolas Ghesquiere's more ambitious designs, easily clinching the press coverage for the next day. Instead, she walked the carpet as a pretty, pregnant girl in a pretty boring black dress. And that diamond necklace just looked like a sad, glittery trapeze.

In summation, these were just a few of those that stood out to us last night. But we would be remiss if we didn't mention that, while Keri Russell looked great (as we imagine all women do) in the Nina Ricci gown, we were stunned that the label couldn't get more of an A-lister to work a look, especially following that stunning little yellow dress that worked so well on Reese Witherspoon last year! Also, all of our friends were screaming (screaming!) about Diablo Cody, and not in a good way. The dress was terrible, no wonder the maker has not appeared in any credits we've seen, and she looked like so many tired Betty Page-hipster-wannabes that we see most nights at Beauty Bar. (But we'd like to submit, for the record, that we liked "Juno".) Also, Tilda Swinton didn't do much for that Lanvin dress and that really makes us sad, because we love both of those names! We'll have to chalk that up, like the Kidman debacle mentioned above, to a stylist just making a poor choice, one for which the brand will suffer, or at best, not get any brownie points for.

But hey, we're not bitching in a vacuum people. Drop us a line and let us know what you think, either here, or in the comments below!

Research Desk: What's the Price of Love? Average of $128 Spent on Valentine's This Year, And Men Lead the Charge

What's the price of love?

An average of $128 will be spent on Valentine's Day gifts this year, according to a new study from Brand Keys, New York, though Brand Keys founder Robert Passikoff said, in a statement, that the spending increase was about half the jump in 2006.

The study surveyed 1,200 men and 1,200 women between the ages of 18 and 60 about their purchase intent and celebration plans for the Feb. 14 holiday.  Turns out the guys end up dropping more cash, averaging spends of $166 versus $90 for the ladies. Younger respondents, pegged at 18-34, planned to spend the most, at an average of $162, ahead of 35-49 year olds with an average spend of $69, and those over 50, who planned to spend an average of $52 on Valentine's Day gifts.

Maybe I'm just a big grump, but my boyfriend and I are clocking in at $0, since we don't celebrate Valentine's Day. (Of course, it doesn't hurt that our anniversary falls the day AFTER Valentine's Day, so perhaps our splurge is just time-shifted).

Anyhow, onto the good stuff. While the fashion biz seemed to fall towards the back half, still a strong showing for those looking to market their fragrances, apparel and jewelry collections. Here's the Top 10 Valentine's Day Gifts for 2008:

                            

And for those of you looking to size up which celebrities you'll be wanting to seeding your product to, here's a round-up of the Top 10 Fantasy Dates, broken out by gender. Don't forget, the Oscars are just around the corner! Or are they?

Hey, we didn't make this list, so feel free to post your disagreements below. While we understand George Clooney's placement (though we feel Owen should be up there), we're a bit baffled by Rebecca Romjin's top slot. Seriously? Guys would rather date her than Angelina?

And notice who didn't appear? While Nicole Kidman got a nod, seems like Tom Cruise is out of the picture. Guess no one wants to date crazy anymore.

Marketing to Men: How Two Beauty Brands are Reaching the Elusive "Mook" Psychographic

When I saw Knocked Up for the first time on DVD, I kind of fell in love with Seth Rogen. The same thing happened when I watched Jonah Hill’s character saunter through frenetic, sexually frustrated dialog in Superbad (see Rogen pictured, far left, with film's stars, Michael Cera and Hill) earlier this year. These guys reminded me of an old college buddy of mine: a pot-smoking, hard-drinking good times guy whose “Madden 2004” soundtrack used to put me to sleep each night, and with whom I'd spend the weekends swollen with beer, hollering myself hoarse watching NCAA games at a local Irish bar. We'd rag on each other, compare girls we were dating (these were my pre-out days, and now we split down the middle, he'll go for Juno's Ellen Paige while I'll geek out over Cera), and our apartment was the kind of squalor that we've both promised we'll never live in again.

Because, you know, those days are over. But they're not really, and guys well beyond the college years are whooping it up, well, like guys in college.

If you haven't already, check out my most recent feature story, "The Mook Industrial Complex," here.

The term comes from a 2001 Frontline documentary (female counterparts were dubbed "midriffs") and they're the zeitgeist of the 18-34 year old male demo that represents about $1.02 billion in annual household income according to MRI reports.

The problem is, they're highly elusive and, what's more, even though you might think their humor beyond sophomoric, they are wizards at blocking out your marketing messages. Maxim's Rob Gregory told me that these guys receive roughly 3,000 impressions a day (if they live in an urban area, natch) and they block out about 90% of them. So going after the dude-bro is not as easy as slapping a scantily-clad woman on a 30-second commercial for beef jerky, say. But some brands have found a way to get through the clutter, and there's some good advice and strategy talk from the marketing honchos at Mitchum (unit of Revlon) and Axe (unit of Unilever).

Oh, and for extra gross-out factor, check out some of the sites I had to go through for my research: Ebaum's World and College Humor. I can't guarantee that it's work safe, kids, so browse at your own risk.

Penelope Cruz-a-palooza: Mango's First U.S. Campaign Drops in February

Look for a new string of print, outdoor and online ads for
Mango in February 2008.

The Spanish fast fashion retailer will launch its first-ever US campaign this coming February. The creative will feature actress Penélope Cruz, who will continue to be the face of Mango for the spring and summer 2008 seasons. Check out the shots at right (click to enlarge). (In other Cruz news, the actress is currently working "Los Abrazos Rotos," or "Broken Hugs" in English, a new film with her director pal, Pedro Almodóvar, that is due out in 2008.)

The campaign, per Optimedia, New York, follows the launch of the brand's U.S. flagship store in Soho in late November, which brings their stateside store total to 11. The brand plans to open an additional 5-7 doors next year.

"We want to take as much advantage as possible of having Penélope as our brand image for this spring campaign as she represents the Mango style at its top level," Judith Rius, Mango's advertising director, told me recently, adding that the campaign was shot by photo duo Mert Alas and Marcus Piggott. Spend on the campaign was not available.

Cruz has gone deep with the brand recently, launching her own collection (designed by the actress in tandem with her sister, Mónica) at Mango in September.

The opening of the flagship store, as well as the plans to roll out a much more aggressive advertising campaign in the U.S. market, reflect the brand's growing investment overseas.

"From now on we are going to invest more in the U.S., and that starts with our new flagship in New York," Rius said. "We are really at the beginning in this country. We have over 200 stores in Spain, and only 11 in the United states so we have a lot more room to grow."

Introducing Reebok Entertainment: Movies from the Marketing Department

Can a marketing department that traditionally deals in print
images and 30-second TV spots, create an series of 30-minute short films?

Reebok seems to think so. The athletic company is rolling out "Framed," a series of athlete portraits that will air on IFC starting Dec. 14, created by Reebok Entertainment, a new division of the brand that will handle, per the company's statement, "all areas of entertainment, including music, arts and film."

The first installment sets up what the whole shebang will be like: television actress Emmanuelle Chriqui (don't worry, I didn't recognize the name either, then again, I'm not an Entourage fan) will jet set to Los Angeles and Las Vegas to conduct interviews with Baron Davis (below, left, with Chriqui, the Golden State Warriors star) about his passions, his life, and all that jazz. And Chriqui won't only be doing the interviews, she'll be directing, as will all of the actors, comedians and musicians that follow her in the series.

Future pairings in the works including Allen Iverson and rapper Nelly, Barcelón soccer star Thierry Henry and actress Paz Vega (star of indie foreign hit "Sex and Lucía" for you movie buffs), Red Soxer David Ortiz and Hispano-median Carlos Mencia. Call me a doubting Thomas, but I'm not sure how much faith I have in Nelly, Mencia or Chriqui's directorial abilities, particularly when it comes to the art crowd that frequents IFC. I'm only holding Vega from that list because, well, her past couple of movies have been pretty arty, or at the very least, titillating and pretty to look at, much like Vega herself.

"Through our first original television series, 'Framed,' we can show consumers sides to these global icons often unseen," said  Reebok's head of sports and entertainment marketing, Todd Krinsky, in a statement. "We're thrilled to be able to bring together Hollywood talent and our roster of top athletes to crate a unique viewer experience that lives outside of traditional advertising."

Which brings up a good point: what's the branding promotional value? Will the celebs be donning Reebok gear during these jaunts through their past and present lives? Will logos live on the bottom of the screen? Will there at least be a "brought to you by Reebok" slug? No answer on that yet: stay tuned.

Criticism aside, it is kind of an interesting idea and I know enough of my sports-fan friends who would likely tune in. I just have to wonder though, how will the Reebok content, though on a much different channel, present something those target viewers haven't already seen on one of several MTV programs, such as "Cribs," or "Diary"? One to watch, pun intended.