No Love for the Underground
October 20, 2006 | 12:00am
In a country where raw talent lurks on every corner and creativity is on tap like cheap draft beer, it’s sad to know that there are still those who will exploit it without even batting an eyelash.
When a top retail brand endorsed by top-billed artistas and internationally celebrated pop singers has over 90 outlets, including franchises in China and the Middle East, it’s astounding to witness its inability to deliver even a shred of originality. Perhaps the brand got too confused enumerating its corporate goals and somehow managed to rank the creative process below marketing strategy and expansion. Maybe everyone was too caught up jumping on the iconic rock and roll image bandwagon (even if there can only be one Tom Ford) to notice that there was actually no substantial product to carry it.
Things weren’t looking up for the brand. Billboards littered the city skyline with lackluster catchphrases attempting to integrate fashion 101 with moral values. After failing to communicate to the target demographic by stating the obvious, marketing honchos decided to pull out all the stops. A recent campaign involving two beautiful, talented and prominent sweethearts of the endorsement world depicted the brand in a different light, with an edgier image. Despite the fact that they had touched on a subject that had already been done by the likes of Diesel, Marithé et François Girbaud and Victoria’s Secret, the brand retained the public’s attention in the face of bad reviews. This wild, new marketing strategy may have had many fashionistas wrinkling their noses, but heads were turning nonetheless.
It was a few months after this that a group of young fashion designers gaining distinction for their avant-garde pieces was approached to style a shoot for a publication. The shoot would allow them to bring in their creations among major brands, granting them exposure to a more mainstream demographic. Still undergrads, they had been taken under the wing of an underground store featuring reworked vintage couture. This fashion house was a forerunner of the indie fashion world. Having befriended and clothed notable acts in the music industry (like Kitchie Nadal and Barbie Almalbis) and making the occasional (and highly distinguished) appearance on the glossies’ annual Best Dressed lists, these pioneers of the now rampant vintage trend eagerly sent their charges to work. Excited to receive an offer of such magnitude, the protégés jumped at the opportunity to style their first fashion shoot, without so much as asking for an honorarium or signing a release form. It was about love, after all.
Imagine the apprehension of these designers upon discovering later that photos of their clothes had been used to promote the retail brand they had worked with. The initial shock of the ordeal soon turned to chagrin when they were informed that photos from the shoot had been posted in practically every store of the retail giant. Some of them had even been used as billboards along two major avenues in the city. As if that wasn’t enough of a blow to bear, the pins that for years had been tagged as a trademark of theirs were being sold as products of the brand that had betrayed them.
No attempts by the brand were made to placate them and avert the intellectual property faux pas. The damage was done. When does a giant in its right see fit to prey on the naiveté of the underdog? How does crossing the line with contemporaries happen so blatantly when the rules should be very clear to apparent veterans in the industry?
It’s depressing to learn that corruption doesn’t spare anyone in this country. How are we supposed to be proud of the talent we have when merit is given only to the ones who patent it first? It’s unfair to those who work as hard as they do to produce something truly outstanding and original. What’s worse is that those who get hurt the most are the ones who concede to put themselves out there. These people willingly share their talent with nothing but good intentions, yet they are the first to take a knife in the back from the corporate world. It’s no wonder many underground operations are so hesitant to expose their brilliant capabilities to the mainstream.
Those who have been in similar situations need not fret. At least after having fallen victim to a scam as low as that, the young and gifted designers can walk away knowing that their creativity will always be there to fall back on; their ideas will never cease to produce work that is nothing short of visionary. The big bad retail giant, on the other hand, may run into some trouble usurping the imagination of its next victim. The moral of this fable is simple: Sign a release. If you don’t, then make friends with lawyers and plenty of writers. By publicizing your grievances, they can do the best justice they can. Perhaps, in this case, the pen is mightier than the store.
Wisdom and wisecracks are always welcome at whippersnappergirl@hotmail.com.
When a top retail brand endorsed by top-billed artistas and internationally celebrated pop singers has over 90 outlets, including franchises in China and the Middle East, it’s astounding to witness its inability to deliver even a shred of originality. Perhaps the brand got too confused enumerating its corporate goals and somehow managed to rank the creative process below marketing strategy and expansion. Maybe everyone was too caught up jumping on the iconic rock and roll image bandwagon (even if there can only be one Tom Ford) to notice that there was actually no substantial product to carry it.
Things weren’t looking up for the brand. Billboards littered the city skyline with lackluster catchphrases attempting to integrate fashion 101 with moral values. After failing to communicate to the target demographic by stating the obvious, marketing honchos decided to pull out all the stops. A recent campaign involving two beautiful, talented and prominent sweethearts of the endorsement world depicted the brand in a different light, with an edgier image. Despite the fact that they had touched on a subject that had already been done by the likes of Diesel, Marithé et François Girbaud and Victoria’s Secret, the brand retained the public’s attention in the face of bad reviews. This wild, new marketing strategy may have had many fashionistas wrinkling their noses, but heads were turning nonetheless.
It was a few months after this that a group of young fashion designers gaining distinction for their avant-garde pieces was approached to style a shoot for a publication. The shoot would allow them to bring in their creations among major brands, granting them exposure to a more mainstream demographic. Still undergrads, they had been taken under the wing of an underground store featuring reworked vintage couture. This fashion house was a forerunner of the indie fashion world. Having befriended and clothed notable acts in the music industry (like Kitchie Nadal and Barbie Almalbis) and making the occasional (and highly distinguished) appearance on the glossies’ annual Best Dressed lists, these pioneers of the now rampant vintage trend eagerly sent their charges to work. Excited to receive an offer of such magnitude, the protégés jumped at the opportunity to style their first fashion shoot, without so much as asking for an honorarium or signing a release form. It was about love, after all.
Imagine the apprehension of these designers upon discovering later that photos of their clothes had been used to promote the retail brand they had worked with. The initial shock of the ordeal soon turned to chagrin when they were informed that photos from the shoot had been posted in practically every store of the retail giant. Some of them had even been used as billboards along two major avenues in the city. As if that wasn’t enough of a blow to bear, the pins that for years had been tagged as a trademark of theirs were being sold as products of the brand that had betrayed them.
No attempts by the brand were made to placate them and avert the intellectual property faux pas. The damage was done. When does a giant in its right see fit to prey on the naiveté of the underdog? How does crossing the line with contemporaries happen so blatantly when the rules should be very clear to apparent veterans in the industry?
It’s depressing to learn that corruption doesn’t spare anyone in this country. How are we supposed to be proud of the talent we have when merit is given only to the ones who patent it first? It’s unfair to those who work as hard as they do to produce something truly outstanding and original. What’s worse is that those who get hurt the most are the ones who concede to put themselves out there. These people willingly share their talent with nothing but good intentions, yet they are the first to take a knife in the back from the corporate world. It’s no wonder many underground operations are so hesitant to expose their brilliant capabilities to the mainstream.
Those who have been in similar situations need not fret. At least after having fallen victim to a scam as low as that, the young and gifted designers can walk away knowing that their creativity will always be there to fall back on; their ideas will never cease to produce work that is nothing short of visionary. The big bad retail giant, on the other hand, may run into some trouble usurping the imagination of its next victim. The moral of this fable is simple: Sign a release. If you don’t, then make friends with lawyers and plenty of writers. By publicizing your grievances, they can do the best justice they can. Perhaps, in this case, the pen is mightier than the store.
BrandSpace Articles
<
>