My TV automatically goes to NY1 when I turn it on and last night, I caught a choice bit covering Target’s Kaleidoscopic Fashion Spectacular. (Like, who the eff are you, the Beatles?)
‘Twas a celebrity-riddled event at the Standard Hotel – one for which the big box clearly busted out all high cost production bells and whistles in existence.
Runway show? Beotch please. Target built a hotel within a hotel, and showed the clothes via three-sided “rooms” instead. How META!
NY1′s coverage mirrored that of every other media outlet – models, stars, location, fashion insiders, Target’s creative director, etc. What’s the ONE GLARING OMISSION from this PR pageantry?
You have to be smart about how you spend your money these days to survive – in this capacity, no one’s smarter than Target. The company rakes in around three billion dollars a year, yet manages to abstain from indulging in trivial things like paying those who work in its factories overseas a living wage. Using the profits to improve on the environmental havoc wreaked by its plants and/or the quality of its production materials won’t up the net sales.
Better to invest in what really matters: Image, branding and media outreach. It’s easy to appear as an offshoot of the luxury goods industry when you’ve got enough cash to pay off Fashion to endorse you. (Nina Garcia, I’m looking at you, you walking excuse for an editorial authority).
Back to the clothes, which are oft framed as “Fashion, at a price.” Yes, in comparison with department stores and retail boutiques, that price is dirt cheap. Unfortunately for us shoppers, so is the item on which it’s stamped.
If it doesn’t fall apart after one wash, it looks really effing ugly after two weeks of reflection. It inevitably makes its way out of your closet, and BAM! You’re out $38.99 with nothing to show for it. That’s not what I’d call smart shopping.
Don’t buy into Target’s latest self-promotional horseshit. Be strategic about how you spend your clothing allowance.
It appears even my stellar brand knowledge is susceptible to trickery. In spite of similar name/logo styling, the Sevens Jean Shorts on which I previously posted are NOT 7 for All Mankind. The real deal also goes for around $17.00 at Buff Ex, so I’m guessing the buyers were tricked as well. Had these been $11.00 (the usual resale price for mid-range denim lines as opposed to those of the designer ilk) I’d have known something was up.
Whatevs. I still heart the shorts. Let’s move on, shall we?
So. Mulberry’s upcoming Target line is prompting all kinds of feigned excitement in ye old blogosphere. You have to be shitting me.
If Mulberry sanctions the cheap copying of itself, it gets a cut of the profits. If someone copies it without their consent, it doesn’t. Otherwise, they’re identical, and by that I mean they’re both inauthentic and made in sweatshops.
Stay tuned for additional kvetching and (more importantly) reduced-price Mulberry options. There’s a better way to get it for less than Target, and it’s called EBAY.
The Raincoat – dig the color, cut looks reasonably flattering.
The Ruched Skirt – meh overall, demerits for an in-between length that makes 90% of legs look stumpy. The hat – why?
The Snap Tape Dress – uber original, stellar snap detail, destined to be the rock star of an otherwise mediocre collection. I am, however, wondering how the open, lace-up neckline will respond to the challenge of supporting real, live breasts. Outlook not good.
The Sailor Dress – pattern, length and styling get a plus. The socks/heels combo – heinously distracting to the point of obscuring all the above.
The Ruffled Dress – eyes are burning due to an overly enthusiastic use of ruched tulle. A belated holiday party disaster made more offensive by an audacious $79.99 price tag. Forever 21 a much more reasonable alternative to cheaply-made party garb. Boo.
The Gown – I like the print, but for $69.99? Beotch please.
The Moto Leather Jacket – a $200 offense to eighties style, why spend that at Target when you can get a legit vintage jacket of decent quality for the same amount?
The Tuxedo Skirt – ruined by the bow tie. Like, we get it.
The Tuxedo Bodysuit – What. The. Fuck.
In honor of Earth Day, let’s talk about what happens when you cave for a $6 Tri-Blend Tank from a decidedly un-eco-friendly corporate chain. Whilst strolling with Krip the other day, we passed an American Apparel (home of the $18 Tri-Blend Tank); the following conversation ensued:
Krip: I bought three Tri-Blend Tanks from there the other day, and I was like, ‘Cheap JAP would kill me.’ Didn’t you find them for six bucks or something?
Krip: Then why aren’t you gloating?
Krip: They were crap, weren’t they?
Krip: I knew it!
That she did, and crap they were. While Target’s $6 poach from AA remains wearable in its current state, it took approximately three wash cycles for me to realize that sometimes, you really do get what you pay for. Pillage, in this case.
For those unfamiliar, Pillage is a phenomenon that occurs after many months of wear and tear: Your fave tee says ENOUGH to being tossed around violently in the wash cycle, and subsequently stages a coup in the form of little unsightly balls. Granted, I didn’t wash the $6 Tri-Blend Tanks in cold water, nor did I hang-dry them, but that’s neither here nor there. Nothing you wear should pill after mere weeks, and if it does – regardless of what it cost – you got ripped off. And by ‘you,’ I mean me. Pfft.
I’m considering a Fuzz Away Fabric Shaver, as it might be the tanks’ only salvation. What I’m not considering is another mass-produced garment in cheap material, tempting as its price may be.
This is not to imply that I’m a fan of eco-friendly apparel. Yes, it’s cool that tee’s made from plastic bottles: No, it’s not cool enough for its $65 pricetag. All that earth-obsessed jazz might be good for the planet in comparison with mass-produced brands, but manufacturing ANYTHING new burns up energy and creates waste. It follows that any thrifted purchase – even when you don’t need it, can’t afford it, weren’t thinking clearly, whatever – can always, ALWAYS be justified. Few things in this world are free. But Secondhand Shopping is the only thing of its kind that doesn’t cost the earth a cent.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Green Freaks. ;)
A few weeks ago, I snagged this uber classy, Ralph Lauren striped tank at Buffalo Exchange. Not POLO Ralph Lauren, not LAUREN Ralph Lauren – Ralph Lauren. Its tag bears striking similarity to the brand’s current high-end line, Black Label, so I’m going to give myself the benefit of the doubt and assess its original price point as on par with
Ralph Lauren Black Label Tops. And if I’m right (if…BAH!), this means the tank in question would have originally retailed for at least $100.
I got it for $12.50. Word.
Given my penchant for ripped tights, off-shoulder shirts and legwarmers (basically, the eighties) a striped, boat-necked tank is an uncharacteristically preppy purchase for me. I didn’t buy it because I’m considering upping the Classy ante in my wardrobe or anything. I bought it because its the perfect background canvas for something more risque. Something slightly ridiculous. Something not intended to be worn in public.
Something like this black satiny robe-turned-wrapdress from Target.
This easy-peasy robe-to-wrapdress transformation utilizes an item that’s become an essential in my DIY arsenal: Tight Strips. I simply hacked up a pair of hot pink tights into pieces, strung them together, knotted them to the ends of the robe’s ties, and poked a few strategic holes in the sides of the garment for threading purposes. I could illustrate the process with diagrammed drawings, but I don’t want to frighten you with my kindergarten-esque artistic skills more than once. The best way to visualize this undertaking is to familiarize yourself with the constructs of a legit wrapdress, and mimic its structure.
Robes in jersey-knit and/or satiny materials work best in this sitch, as they can masquerade as non-sleepwear fairly well. Going to town on anything in terrycloth or flannel is ill-advised.