|
Thursday, January 31, 2008: I'm excited to announce a new collaboration with (the) Manolo (for the) Men 'blog. I'll keep writing longer pieces for this site, with shorter, snippier bits there. ManoloMen's Izzy will continue his magnificent-ness there, and I will add some sparkle of my own. Thanks to The Manolo!
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Is it a Brand or is it a shirt?
In looking at a few successful luxury fashion brands you might conclude that to have such a brand you need to have been founded over 100 years ago, originally run as a family business, and to have made things very well for a very long time: Louis Vuitton started with steamer trunks, Gucci with small leathergoods sewn in Florence, Abercrombie & Fitch as a premier sporting goods store. But today what is undeniably strongest about each of these companies, and dozens of others, is the power of their brand. It is their shopping bags, their stores, the locations of their stores, their advertising, their merchandising, and their window displays. The products may still be excellent, but the Brand (capital B indeed) is the 135-ton diesel locomotive that pulls everything else along.
Lord Rufus Albemarle has figured this out, and in creating his new line of shirts, ties, and pochettes, simultaneously developed his Brand: the logo, the expensive embossed shopping bags, and the story to back it all up. It is perhaps a wise choice. When I first met him at Saks Fifth Avenue, I found him charming, his shirts extremely well-made, and his fabrics very soft. My next thought was: why does the world need another expensive dress shirt line? Within the narrow retail category of men's dress shirts, and the very narrow category of men's dress shirts costing more than $400, there are only so many things you can do to make your shirts distinctive. There is Fray, Brioni, Kiton, Borelli, Charvet and surely a few more. All made by small Italian or French factories. With well-made details. And expensive fabrics. Now there is Albemarle. Why?
It turns out it's because Rufus, most recently an industrial designer, wanted to build a brand. Quality men's dress shirts seemed a good route. The shirts themselves are quite well-made, and unique to the marketplace in that the retailer can choose the level of handwork in their shirts: the basic but luxurious HS-2, the HS-4, or the princely HS-6. (They are priced accordingly.) His necktie collection is attractive and hand-sewn. The pocket squares are elegant, with hand-sewn edges. Rufus himself is quite fanatic about the quality of the shirts and the individual components; even though he is preparing his Brand to indeed be powerful, he has not lost even one detail in how a quality shirt is made or how color stories are told. He is thorough and precise about the details, and passionate about the aesthetics.
But isn't there something backwards here? For me, what makes an established maker attractive is its history, its reputation, and its seemingly humble origins. What makes a new maker attractive to me is the clear passion before all else, the evidence of blood, sweat, and tears. (Think of Trovata before they broke up, or the guys behind Operations.) Albemarle instead has the refined business approach of an established brand. The story is strong, the products are beautiful, the PR agency is already hired. In any other field that's the only way to start. (If the brand is going to be the locomotive, put it first.) For some reason I still see clothing differently. Perhaps I am still too romantic about it. Perhaps I could never be a businessman about shirts: I love them so much I don't want to see the business behind them.
In any case, I'm certain that you will soon hear about Albemarle elsewhere. You will notice the shirts in a store, or see the logo on someone's shopping bag. I doubt anyone thought we needed more shirts when the English shirt brand Thomas Pink was founded in 1984, either. Though if they're an indication of potential, Albemarle could do very, very well.
1 response(s) |
e-mail it | permanent link 
- - -
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
 |
