Fashion Notebook

Lessons in Branding: Levi's 2.0

If you haven't already, check out this story about Levi's "Jumpin' In" online viral campaign.

Now, I'm sure a lot of your out there at the apparel companies are salivating over the whole online thing, but you're probably pretty uncertain how to go about doing it. After all, you're already beset with fickle consumers whose whims seem to change with the season and who are constantly pounding on the  castle door with cries of "More! More! More!" so why move into the web where EVERYONE is fickle and decisions are made in less than a nanosecond?

Well, consider this example.

That "Jumpin' In" campaign—which features online videos of teens, well, jumping into their jeans through a mélange of backflips, roof dives, etc., and launched May 5 to build buzz for the "Live Unbuttoned" global campaign for the brand's flagship 501 collection—snatched some 3.5 million hits in 10 days. And if that doesn't factor into your media membranes, here's some more traditional fodder: The spots got play on "Good Morning America" and coverage from the Grey Lady's new style challenger Wall Street Journal.

Here's our comic-strip style flip book of a scene from one of the viral videos, which by the way, we think are totally stunning in an "I can't believe he freakin' did that" kind of way.

"[Jumpin' In] was supposed to be a small seeding activity," Robert Cameron, vp-marketing at Levi Strauss, San Francisco, told journo Gregory Solman at our sister-pub Adweek. "We didn't know it was going to blow up. So we're meeting with BBH on how to chase this. What do we do to adjust the strategy and ride the wave?"

Listen, you've heard this from us and our friends a million times already. The online space, and viral videos in particular, don't necessarily guarantee the kind of success that you can see here with Levi's version. But they do allow you to experiment, without the expense of a real test market, with some creative that just might pique consumer interest in a similar way. And you know who can explain this better than we can? Kevin Kells, the CPG sales head over at Google. Kells might be more in the niche of beauty and, well, packaged goods marketing, but what he has to say about the online thought process for ad creatives is, in our humble estimation, universally applicable.

Here's an exerpt from our convo with him a while back:

          Brandweek: What do you tell CPG marketers who still rely on traditional print and TV buys?                  Kevin Kells: I tell them that online advertising is more efficient, but that they have to look at               sponsored links as doorways that take your consumer where they want to go, where you can add
          value to their life. The problem is that traditional media is ingrained for many of those CMOs and
          marketers. They have 30 years of data on TV and magazines. So even though it's easier to get ROI
          figures from online ads, you’re up against 30 years of market data.

 
BW: Would you revolutionize those departments to have them doing it all online?
KK: No. It’s not to say that they should stop doing that stuff, but there’s a way to go a little deeper online around consumer insights. Instead of focusing on a small amount of creative, they should be making more. They should be making 1,000 digital assets a year as opposed to three television assets.
 
BW: Does what you’re suggesting require multiple times the amount of creative?
KK: Yes. That’s an obstacle and that’s paralyzing to them. Conceptually now we’re beginning to get them to know that they need to be online with different stories and they have the infrastructure. But in order to put all of those assets in the right place, someone does have to make them. That can be solved by more efficiency. There’s a clunky system right now between the client and their multiple agencies. That’s why you see the emergence of agency networks like WPP.

OK, class dismissed for now. Next time, we'll take a look at those other web items that are probably giving you both a surge of excitement and perhaps some sweaty palms: widgets, the online applications that you've no doubt seen on your kids (or hey, maybe even your own) Facebook and MySpace profiles, or, if you're chic tech nerds like us, those wonderful things that pop up when you hit F12 on your Apple computer.

Lessons in Branding: How Diesel Fuel For Life Rocketed the Brand to the Top of the Fragrance Market, With Just One Launch

So no doubt you've all seen the ads for Diesel's first foray into
the fragrance category, Fuel For Life, right? (If not, check out these trés sexy photos, at right and below, left). Well, what you probably didn't know is that this one fragrance has shot the Diesel name up to the top of the men's cologne business.

According to figures from NPD Group, the fragrance was the No. 3 overall launch (across men's and women's fragrances) for 2007, despite the fact that Diesel had no history in the category. What's more, through February 2008, the fragrance is solidly within the Top 10 Men's Colognes, ranked by sales.

So how'd they do it? With an ad campaign that didn't only win over consumers, but also won awards, picking up the Fragrance Advertising of the Year via the Fragrance Foundation, in both the men's and women's category. So when we're drooling over the eye candy in both of these shots, it's for a reason. This stuff really IS solid gold.

Wanna hear more? Well, you can ready all about it in our article "Filling It Up With Premium." If you're link-a-phobic, here's a taste:

It's no secret that most every fashion brand wants to break into the fragrance business. And with good reason. While the market is fickle, materials can be found on the cheap, the bottles have a long shelf life and their contents are less prone to the more dramatic trend overhauls that characterize luxury apparel. Because customers will actually pay up to $80 for a little bottle of the stuff, the profit margins smell loveliest of all. But Diesel knew it was facing an uphill battle as an unknown in the space, which was presumably behind its decision to partner with L'Oréal, Paris, for its first foray into the category.

It's also why the introductory support broke many of the traditional rules L'Oréal applies to marketing and launching its ever-expanding portfolio of fragrances. First there was the aforementioned antimarketing viral campaign in the weeks leading up to the August 2007 launch. (Some subsequent print ads announced that the fragrance was "finally legalised.")

Next, when it came to traditional brand advertising (chiefly print and TV), the campaign took a more-is-more approach. Rather than one TV spot, the company created six, via agency FFL Paris. Instead of two, static print ads, one for men and one for women, that feature either a celebrity or single model, FFL created four executions, each of them utilizing a new model to express the individuality of the fragrance. The tag read simply: "Are You Alive?"

"For us, this was an ambitious project," said Ulli Lindauer, vp-marketing of L'Oréal European designer fragrances. "There is a moment captured in the photography that is a universal moment of feeling alive. It was about the brand giving each of us the opportunity to be an individual."

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.

Lesssons In Branding: Is Vera Wang the Next Martha Stewart?

Vera Wang, a high-end designer who has made a name for herself over the past two decades creating wedding gowns (with price tags to match, and photo'ed, right), is now opening her own wedding registry—a first in the designer market. Which kind of surprises us, and then, eh, not so much, and then we're all like: "Hey why did no one think of this before?!"

(Full disclosure: It was a late night, and stayed up party with the Cuervo people waaay past our already respectably late bedtime, so if we seem a little dazed today, it's not you, or Vera for that matter. It's us, sweetcakes.)

Anyhow... back to the relevance. VeraWangonWeddings.com will allow not only custom registries for engaged couples, but also a breakdown of runway trends, e-commerce, couples quizzes and wedding planning ideas from Wang herself.

But the bridal registry and e-commerce site is only the tip of the branding iceberg for Wang. In a series of moves similar to those of the one-woman empire orchestrated by love-her-or-hate-her-you-betta- respect-her Martha Stewart, the designer has recently expanded into diverse categories such as bedding, home goods and stationary. Additionally, Wang launched a collection for Kohl's stores late last year.

"Our authoritative position in bridal and bridal registry has allowed us to leverage this [consumer] trust into a lifestyle brand," said Wang. "The next logical step is to capitalize on our relationship with the client over the course of their lives. Our objective is to continue to grow our lifestyle product offering and keep pace with the evolving needs of the consumer."

Wang added that, moving forward, her company is exploring expansion into furniture, decorative fabrics, rugs, lighting and even a Wang-branded line of paint. Now we just won't know who's jungle green to trust when we repaint the bathroom: Vera's or Ralph's?

But what's to stop Wang from becoming like others who burst into multi-category expansions like Bill Blass or Halston, and getting less than sterling results? (Take "less than sterling" to mean abominable here, dears.) Well, apparently, it's because, as Dylan used to croon in that nails-on-a-chalkboard voice: The times they are a-changin'. And so are consumers and designers, y'all!

"We're at a different time for both consumers and designers; and I think Vera is really capitalizing on the ability to do both high and low in the design realm," said Wendy Liebman, CEO of WSL Retail, New York. "The level of sophistication and level of exposure of shoppers has changed and that acceptance, through what's gone on with H&M's designer collaborations, has really opened a door."

For Liebman, Wang's strategy makes sense and she doesn't seem to be stretching the bounds of her brand potential. "The expansion into bridal registry is a logical one, and the home goods are the same . . . Certainly her work with Kohl's appears to be working," said Liebman. "When you look at what Bill Blass or Halston did, versus what Martha or Vera are doing now, you've got a convergence of a smarter shopper and a smarter designer."

Yes, yes, all well and good. And we think V might actually pull it off.

But if her marketing folks are reading this, please, please let us make one wish for how she rolls out home goods, particularly kitchen appliances. Forget the Today Show and get Ms. Wang's face on Food Network's "Paula's Party." We're salivating at the proposition of having Paul Deen (photo, left) do a wedding cake episode with Wang brought on as creative consultant, and having Deen shout out: "We're making weddings today, y'all, and I've brought along my good friend, hot cutter, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, howit creature... Oh whatever y'all, it's fashion designer Vera Wang!" The episode practically writes itself.

This is a sure-fire way to sell Wang, and her image, unequivocally to the lucrative Middle America and mass markets.

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.

Lessons in Branding: Why Going Logo-less Might Be A Good Idea For Luxury Brands During The Recession

There's an interesting  article today in the New York Times' "Thursday
Styles" section.

No, no, read on! It's not another critique of an out-of-touch story on youth trends or pandering pitch about how great the rich are and why we, the not-so-rich should thank our lucky stars they exist. Our friends over at Marx Marvelous have that end covered pretty well.

Rather, today, we're calling out a piece about the absence of logos on Bottega Veneta's luxury sportswear.

The piece, which can be read in full here, looks at how the Italian luxury label has revamped itself without going the route of high-profile monogramming or logoing.

Within the article, journo Ruth La Ferla, extolls the virtues of creative director Tomas Maier's consistent attention to high quality goods that hit the real deal in luxury, rather than merely the perception of luxury, and how his actions have driven the brand to a $500 million annual business, thereby making it the second highest earner for parent Gucci Group.

And then our favorite luxurist, Milton Pedraza, CEO of The Luxury Institute, chimes in to tell La Ferla that during a recession, the rich "don’t want to be screaming luxury right now...They don’t want something flashy that everybody else has. They are looking for unique handcrafted things that can’t immediately be reinterpreted at every level of the marketplace.”

The thing about logos, as we've long felt, is that they can cut both ways. In fact, we've been thinking about our own logo, for Fashion Notebook, which you can check out, at right, but the tech guys haven't yet gotten around to installing it. And maybe, now, we're thinking that's a good thing.

But back to the relevance.

Taking Vuitton, for example, when one of perhaps mass-affluent or aspirational means has laid down the dollars for a fashion piece that is truly of excellent quality, not to mention name recognition, it's, we think, safe to assume that we'd like others to know it. After all, that monogram tells others that we care about quality, perhaps that  we're hip to hot or established names in the industry, and, let's be honest, that we could afford to purchase it. In a sense, we want everyone else to know what that handbag, dress, or accessory was worth, and, by proxy, that we're worth something as well.

The problem, of course, is logos also tell us what everyone else is worth, too. And if we see a bunch of Louis Vuitton monograms on my friends' purses, or luggage, shoes, or, god help us, something bigger and obviously more expensive than the piece we bought, suddenly, Vuitton just doesn't seem so special anymore.

This is to ignore the further complications that arise from knock-offs. If everyone on Canal Street is rocking the monogram, and for a mere percentage point of what we paid, why we'd have a fit and would feel somewhat obligated to inform everyone we saw that, well, no, ours is in fact, real and then go into a litany about the stitching and leather quality that, at best, wouldn't gain us any friends, and, at worst, would lose us those we already count in our ranks.

And let's not forget that this isn't, obviously, just a Vuitton problem. Many other luxury brands feature highly-identifiable logos, monograms, or signature patterns on their products that identify the brand with all the subtlety of a bull horn. Think about those brands you recognize within seconds on some of the products worn by your friends: Coach, Gucci, Burberry, Chanel, Marc Jacobs, Dolce & Gabanna, DSquared, etc. 

As far as the recession, the no-logo route is probably a good idea. After all, those who can afford luxury goods without batting an eye are usually so acclimated to that lifestyle that, well, they don't need to scream it, as Milton says, like the rest of us. And those customers are precisely the ones luxury brands need to be going after in times of serious economic downturns. Sound familiar? Yeah, we've said that before.

And we've also dished with Maier on his strategy. When we were writing that tome about the opportunities and potential pitfalls of lower-tier secondary collections for high-end designers, it was Maier who said (towards the end of the article) he would never consider such an extension because he felt that it would potentially overexposure of the handbag business that is the core of Bottega's sales.

"The philosophy of Bottega Veneta is to produce innovative designs with the highest quality materials and contemporary functionality," Maier told us at the time. "All of this comes with a cost that can't be recreated at a bridge level price."

What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not Mr. Maier's activities give the brand something of a glass ceiling when we're in economic boom times, and everyone is scrambling for top-end designer merchandise. Then again, at $500 million in annual sales, I don't think he's got anything to worry about.

Lessons in Branding: Why Isn't Missoni Playing Up Green Aspect of Collector's Edition "Aqua" Bottle?

We talk a lot about "green" these days, so much so that we have to be careful that we're not misusing the buzzword, and that we suss out the veracity of its usage in the numerous releases that  come across our desk each day.

But today, in a notice about a new collector's bottle for Missoni's land- mark "Missoni Acqua" fragrance, we also have to watch out for when we don't see the term used when it could so readily apply.

The bottle, which Angela Missoni sez was inspired by "the colors and textures of the Missoni scarf," is meant to be a  collector's bottle that will "bring a touch of color to every woman's day."

OK, well, wee see those inspirations, the multi-hued tassle and the iconic zig-zags cut into the metal ball that adorns the atomizer cap. The bottle is rather classic looking, if not bowling us over with design, and we could definitely see it fitting easily and comfortably on a vanity table, in a purse, or in checked luggage (mind those ounces, ladies!).

But what seems to be downplayed here is that, as a collector's bottle that the customer would allegedly wish to keep around longer than the life of the liquid fragrance it contains, the thing is refillable.  Which means of course less waste given that consumers would actually go to get the bottle refilled rather than just buying a new box.

This is the stuff of green people! The kind of thing that marketers everywhere are desperate to communicate about their brand. So why isn't Missoni doing it? Well, perhaps it's because they don't want to invite further scrutiny of the rest of their line, which likely isn't comprised of eco-friendly materials or manufacturing processes. After all, there is definitely a movement to have more investigation on green claims these days and who wants to be investigated by consumer advocacy groups pining for a bloody production story or a disproof of claims?

(Disclaimer: We don't actually know how Missoni operates its factories, but are operating under the assumption that the luxury Italian brand, like most other high-end labels, can't really operate in the green production world, at least not just yet.)

Anyhow, we feel this is a missed opportunity. Check out this latest Top of Mind from our print sister, Brandweek's, Robert Klara, a funny riff on green initiatives that actually save companies money and, more importantly, help build some good will with consumers.

Lessons in Branding: Making Sense of Louis Vuitton's First TV Spot, "Where Are You Going?"

If you haven't seen, first check out the 90-second spot from Louis Vuitton, "Where are you going?", the brand's first-ever TV ad, teased in the most recent earnings report. Creative per Ogilvy, Paris.

OK, what to make of this? First, our impression:

This feels a lot longer than it is. The existential question—"What is a journey?"—is explored through some pretty engaging imagery, and we have to admit, we watched all the way through to the end, and probably would have done the same had we seen it on TV (we don't have cable folks, we read). It recalls the print campaign, featuring Catherine Deneuve at a train station, lots of fog and smoke, revealing and concealing the lensman's subjects. And the soundtrack gets us in the mood for an Alejandro Iñárritu film. We're pleased to see that we're not bogged down with a bunch of branded product, and indeed feel that the spot makes an emotional connection. It's really a beautiful spot in a world full of uglies, and doesn't come off as pandering or offensive.

But the problem we've got, ultimately, is the branding part. We have to feel that people for whom "The journey is life itself," probably aren't the same ones who want to shell out thousands for a suitcase. In fact, they'd probably spend the money that a Vuitton steamer trunk would cost on a fairly comfortable trip to Africa or Asia. Unless, of course, they're among those who prefer custom Vuitton luggage, and travel to India on a half-spiritual journey to connect a dysfunctional family (er, in case you hadn't already caught on, we're talking about The Darjeeling Limited here). So the message seems to be a disconnect with the product,  n'est pas?

And, now, point-counterpoint from two recent critiques:

From BryanBoy.com (AKA the twink blogger who actually got Marc Jacobs to create a handbag named after him): "I *LOVE* the commercial! It's quite moving and touching. In fact, the message is crystal clear to me. IMO, the folks at luxury powerhouse Louis Vuitton went back and paid homage to their roots: the art of travel. Afterall, travel is an integral part of the brand's DNA. Nowhere in this commercial you'll find the usual flash flash "bling" stereotype the average Joe associates with Vuitton. I think it's a nice little  flashback to the bygone era where only the traveling set knows about the historical and cherished by millions monogram."

From Pam Danziger (of luxury analysis firm, Unity Marketing, Stevens, Pa.): "It's atmospheric and evocative, yes, but LV has fallen into a trap that can catch many heritage-rich luxury brands, and that is thinking that brand image is the ultimate reason why people buy. In my research into the mindset of the luxury consumers, brand image plays a supporting, not a leading role in why people buy.  When affluent consumers buy a luxury brand, first and foremost they want outstanding quality.  Image may be a primary motivator for the 'aspirational' consumers who want to put on the trappings of a luxury life they have not yet attained, but not for the affluent shopper who has already made it. It is even questionable that the company's target consumers will get the brand identity message that is this commercial's primary objective.  When I viewed this ad, all I had were questions, but no answers.  'What is a journey?' is the question poised in this commercial, but the answer about why I need the Louis Vuitton brand to accompany me on my journey was left unanswered."

Anyhow, at least the ad has people talking, which is always good in this biz. Of course, Vuitton doing its first TV ad would naturally have every one talking. What remains to be seen is, as Danziger notes in her review of the spot, whether or not consumers (and critics) will go from talking to buying.

Lessons in Branding: Members Only Reexamines the Lookbook

Normally, lookbooks are the run-of-the-mill press materials that you  throw into a trusty bin (or, in our case, an unused aluminum beer cooler) and forget about until you need to do a trend report or look up the name of a garment that appeared in an ad.

Spiral bound, velo-bound, perfect bound, matte, natural or glossy, they're all pretty much the same. Which is why this one from Members Only—that brand you wore in the early the 80s, when we were still drooling and incoherent (it wasn't the cocaine honey, we were babies!!)—caught our eye.

It's done up as a scandalous spread from US Weekly or Life & Style or Star (whichever you like best), with the product previewed throughout the shoot and called out in caption boxes.

This approach works for two reasons:

1. It gets the attention of editors and industry types who normally have to sift through a bunch of crap from countless companies. We're not used to seeing this kind of stuff, so at the very least, it gets us to spend an extra few seconds (crucial!) looking through the materials before chucking it into the aforementioned trusty bin.

2. It lays out the looks in a lifestyle manner, practically doing the work (though none will admit so) of the stylist his/herself. Essentially, it gives us an idea of how the clothes would look in real life and suggests some styling options that seem viable.

But that's not to say that there aren't a few drawbacks to this more inventive format, chiefly that it's not necessarily very user friendly. For instance, it's not easy to flip through this for reference. The format requires the editor's eye to  jump to all manner of text boxes, which is detrimental for those editors trying to pull together a trend report or merely browse product to see what would be appropriate for an upcoming shoot. With the lookbook, utility cannot be underestimated.

Also, this male model is hideous. I mean, they're not all to our taste, and that's cool, but we're just not feeling this guy (and we LOVE skinny hipster guys). Also, "Poppi" was the best name they could come up with for the girl? Finally, the models appear to have like zero chemistry, which actually makes looking through the spreads all the more interesting, even if it's because we're laughing at the "Make Me a Supermodel" antics.

Still, it's a refreshing take on an industry standard that actually got us to take a look, and, well, write about it. Check out one of the spreads from the book, below. (Click to enlarge)