Another Fashion Magazine

In my quest to find a men’s style magazine that caters to me (and, I think, some readers of this blog) I occasionally try one of the high-end fashion magazines to see what it has to offer.

This month, I tried Another Man.

It certainly differentiates itself from the lad’s mags of this area, such as GQ, Arena, Esquire, by its intellectual aspirations. The main body of photo shoots is interspersed with extracts from several historical manifestos – the surrealists (“psychic automation in its pure state”) to Dadaists (“say yes, say no”), futurists (“rebel against the tyranny of words”) to Dogme 95 (“I am no longer an artist”). But there seems to be no attempt to link these manifestos, interesting as they are, to the shoots. Each is not a theme; it is instead, one is tempted to say, a pretension.

The commissioned writing has a similar bent. While some of this is superb – in particular Jon Savage on the Zazous and Philip K Dick on how to write science fiction – it is a handful of pages and the journalist copy is rather unoriginal and unconnected. You can’t help feeling the Nick Cave interview would be better written by someone at Mojo. And the short description of a band averaging 16 years in age that disparages anyone that can play an instrument is bizarre.

But Another Man inevitably falls down more on its fashion coverage more than anything else. While it doesn’t necessarily describe itself as a fashion magazine, it does dedicate well over half the magazine the fashion shoots and advertising – so it is here you would expect it to deliver.

Instead, there are spreads showing men with plastic rings, a glass sculpture and a Christmas decoration on their heads. Most have one piece of actual clothing on, though this may be a wool blazer worn as a skirt (not sure this is what Kenzo intended) or an oversized jumper (a rather kind description for a potato sack that goes over the head and reaches to the knees, with an alarming cartoon face painted on the front and a red grille to look through).

This is not to say that there is nothing worthwhile in here. One shoot takes students and artists in King’s Cross and Shoreditch and has some wonderful combinations of bohemian yet understated clothes. But it is 16 pages out of 320. And where’s the fashion/style editorial? A one page interview with Paul Smith. Two sparse spreads about how artists want to be in fashion and vice versa.

I presume there are many people out there for whom Another Man is the perfect magazine. But it is certainly not serious about fashion, let alone style.

Bookmark, Share or Email this article   •  Leave a Comment

DAKS

When the Simpson family opened their polished Art Deco doors on Piccadilly in 1936, it was to welcome gentleman interested merely in ‘quality clothing.’ So honest and simplistic were traders of old; very few enterprises now, opened to any amount of fanfare, find the trumpets muted and the drums silenced. Branding now is a marketing puzzle, honesty is a currency little used. New brands have to be seen to be groundbreaking or highly luxurious. Stalwarts like Burberry have been reclassified as ’aspiration-worthy luxury brands’ whereas to the oldest customers they simply make good rainwear. Similarly Vuitton, though certainly always a brand favoured by the better off, have seen their classification morph from ’luggage manufacturer’ into something ludicrous and impossible such as ’interstellar luxury logo-peddlers.’ It seems incredible that in 2008 a brand could be launched on such ancient and hallowed ground as Piccadilly with anything less than monstrous hyperbole.

Simpson’s, famous for their sturdy and reliable clothing, especially a particular pair of trousers with a patented self-supporting waistband, became DAKS (apparently a portmanteau of ’Dad’s slacks’) and DAKS Simpson came to be appreciated by the set who are largely, sartorially simple; minor royals, OBE’s and aging peers. Indeed, despite their initial marketing humility, I can almost hear the echo of a possible advertising punch; ’Something simple? Come to Simpson’s’

However, the DAKS of recent times, compared to the 1930s era of uniting ’quality’ with ’simplicity’ stands alone - a brand apart from its historic beginnings. Whereas the DAKS of old appealed to those with dicky hearts, wireless radios and soup-stained cardigans, the modern DAKS is challenging other British titans for the crown of “contemporary-retro-luxe“. And is that a re-branding you see?  Has DAKS left it’s humble roots and taken on some of the burden of dragging period English styles up and down the runway? Well, largely, it has. Whereas the Simpson’s brand seemed devoid of swank, the new DAKS, while not exactly bling-bling, is not shy of daring, although it should be noted that DAKS remains true to the patriotically nostalgic Simpson’s alumni; top hats and umbrellas make more than a few appearances at the DAKS shows. But there is certainly no sign of the innovation which caused the Simpson’s of the 30s to be filing patents.

To a polo-playing chum of mine, DAKS always represented good, solid English quality. It was never glitzy or glamorous, but it was appreciated for what it was and preferred, in many cases, to brands of more, shall we say, ‘youthful’ appeal; in much the same way that some people just prefer a steak and kidney pudding to a saffron risotto with scallops and white truffle.

Now, DAKS is a brand on a diet. Gone is the steak and kidney, but it’s certainly not forgotten. The overall look is still very English; some elements late Victorian to Edwardian (indeed some of the more avant-garde ensembles have a ’green carnation’ aura to them) others are more reminiscent of the 20s and 30s. Some of the chaps you half expect to be holding a well-worn teddy bear in true Seb Flyte fashion, some of them look more like erstwhile companions of Max Beerbohm but the brand message is strong: DAKS is now very serious about design.

Bookmark, Share or Email this article   •  Leave a Comment

Bedside Reading: “Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster”

I wrote recently about how luxury has been downtrodden over the years, and how our own quest to live the good life has fueled the demand for cheap opulence. It’s a fascinating issue because it ties together the impact of social stratification, class change, privilege and the common leveler of the retail market.

“Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster” is a captivating analysis of this very subject. Not since Thorstein Veblen and his Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions has this topic be analyzed so thoroughly and frankly, Deluxe leaves Veblen in the dust.

Tracing the history of what we now know as the luxury retail industry, author Dana Thomas takes the reader on a trip through history and around the world as she tracks the paths of groundbreaking craftsman like Louis Vuitton and Christian Dior as they give birth to the luxury business. Thomas, a fashion and style writer for publications like the Newsweek, the New York Times Magazine, Harper’s Bazzar, and the Washington Post, has an incredible grasp of the subject matter.

Along with her exhaustive research, Thomas interviewed numerous fashion industry figures who give an insider’s perspective to the luxury industry, both before and after its mass market makeover. Most notable are her discussions with and about Bernard Arnault, the ruthless CEO of Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessey (LVMH). The description of his transformation of several small companies dedicated to an elite clientele into a corporate behemoth focused on market saturation is both enlightening and saddening.

With more on the buying habits of Japanese women, the root of the “It Bag” phenomenon and how luxury became just another commodity product, it is fascinating reading on an equally fascinating subject.

Bookmark, Share or Email this article   •  Leave a Comment

Online Shopping & Men

Last year, I read an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal that discussed how luxury makers who traditionally target women are taking aim at the men in their lives. While this is not a particularly new trend, the intensity and focus surrounding the effort is definitely growing.

I also read about Longchamp reviving its line of men’s bags, and it turns out that was only the opening salvo. Hermes, Louis Vuitton, Cartier, Lanvin, and even Dolce & Gabbana have all ramped up their menswear related offerings.

While men are beginning to actually shop more like women, achieving the same level of brand loyalty is still an elusive goal. Generally speaking men are still more comfortable switching brands if one maker does not carry a desired product.

Men also appear to be taking that hunter/gatherer shopping approach to the mall. In 1995 52% of men bought their own clothes, compared to 75% in 2006. In addition, the menswear segment of the retail landscape has become quite profitable as guys across the board ease into the role of acquisitive spender. After observing this growing trend, retailers are taking action.

For example, in 2007, Tiffany & Co. and Hermes both opened new stores in the Wall Street district of New York City. Each of these locations specifically target male shoppers. The Hermes store even has a separate salon dedicated to its custom tailored clothing; the first of its kind in any Hermes outlet.

In this past week’s Wall Street Journal, another layer was added to the mix: Internet shopping.

According to Forrester Research, men are also the alpha species when it comes to shopping online. We spend more, make fast decisions and as a group, tend not to return the stuff we don’t really want. As to the spending, another market research group found that in the previous three months, men dropped an average of US$2,400 online compared to women who spent closer to US$1,500. And men spent most of that money almost exclusively on luxury goods.

Retailers are responding to men’s web based demands as well. With this new insight into how men shop online, Brooks Brothers has cut in half the time it takes for images to pop up on its website’s pages - now literally a fraction of a second. This way, guys can quickly pull up what they want to see and decide on a purchase without losing interest because of loading delays. Brooks has also introduced a new tool that lets customers shop magazine and newspaper ads. Pull up the ad on the Brooks Brothers site and just roll your curser over any item you want to buy.

Many companies have expanded existing or created brand new men’s departments on their websites. Others are tweaking their sites to be more men-friendly. Neiman Marcus has revamped how it presents ties on your computer screen; where once you could only view nine at a time, now a whopping 52 instantly pop up.

This is handy because, just like in the bricks and mortar world, men don’t like to waste time shopping online. On average, a guy will take a third of the time a woman does to make a purchase. And once a sale is made, should the reality not match up with the dream, men return less than 10% of their apparel purchases while women return more than 20%.

Men are not yet the next women when it comes to shopping – online or otherwise – but maybe it doesn’t even matter. Men are now interested in shopping for themselves. They care about the experience and are more knowledgeable than ever before. If you are a retailer, that’s what you should really be focusing on.

Bookmark, Share or Email this article   •  Leave a Comment

Fashion Rolls in Its Own Muck

Apparently, there’s a war on. It’s a war of attrition, as designers from both sides throw model after model down the runway. They are battling for our wallets. The two entrenched sides are – again, apparently – narrow trousers and baggy trousers.

According to a feature in the Financial Times, on one side are Dolce & Gabbana, Dries Van Noten, Galliano, Antonio Marras, Vivienne Westwood and Giorgio Armanni. These apparently favour the baggy trouser, though I’m sure I’ve seen narrow suit trousers on D&G models just as frequently as wide ones. On the opposing side are Burberry, Roberto Cavalli, Daks, Costume National, Fendi, Prada and Marni. Though I’ve yet to try on a Daks suit that has narrow or cropped trousers.

Whatever the truth of it, this war feels like the fashion world rolling in its own muck. Having created a world that obsesses over people and brands, and insists on changing the hot new item every few weeks, fashion can now create its own little battles and stories, its own tiffs, face-offs and fights, all played out in an entirely artificial world.

The situation isn’t helped by fashion journalists. You can see them all crowding around the catwalks, all desperately looking for “this season’s trends”. They all have to go home and right exactly the same feature: what the runway shows mean you will be wearing (or should be wearing) next season. Because there are so many designers, with so many different ideas, a trend is hard to find. So journalists frantically cobble together examples from different shows, shoehorning one look into a trend. Sometimes journalists just give up – GQ’s coverage of the spring/summer shows went with theme of celebrating diversity.

Men’s suit trousers are the pinnacle of this self-involvement. Granted, trousers change over time. Jeans are narrower than they were three years ago. But suit trousers rarely change that much. Perhaps they lose or gain pleats, or cuffs. The rise has certainly lowered in the past ten years. But the idea that they are that affected by fashion is ridiculous.

Suit jackets are complicated. The number of buttons, width of lapels and padding of shoulders does change significantly. Ten years ago it was cutting edge to have four buttons. Today that figure is one. It’s not hard to work out what the man interested in permanent style should do: go for two or three. Equally with shoulders, lapels or vents – pick something that suits you (don’t go for a very natural shoulder if you already have rounded shoulders, like me) and stick with it through fashion changes.

But trousers aren’t complicated. They should be straight, not wide or skinny, and pleats/rise depends more on your figure than anything else. This (apparent) war just doesn’t affect men and their formal dressing at all. Ignore it and move on.

Pictures credit: men.style.com.

Bookmark, Share or Email this article   •  Leave a Comment