or Connect
DenimBlog.com › Welcome to the DenimBlog Community! › General Topics › Chat › True Religion at Target
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

True Religion at Target - Page 3

post #51 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaiSurf View Post
That's a good point. Target is much more accessible than Nordie's, Saks, NM, etc. Also, some people (minorities especially, like myself) may not feel comfortable shopping at high-end retail establishments because of that certain hidden air of discrimination (racial, socioeconomic) that exists at some of those places.
It's interesting that you guys bring this up. Trends are always fleeting, and people pay for the exclusive aspect. Many companies build their brands like private country clubs. The fact that the materials for a quality (i.e. ringxring, heavy guage, good yarn, good hardware, etc.) pair of denim jeans usually runs no more than 15 USD is testament to how much the MSRP is inflated (laundry prices not included, as this is where a lot of variability can kick in). Don't take offense to this, but I feel that trends start out as exclusive clubs that're meant to exclude people like you, me, and pretty much the majority of posters on this forum (i.e. everday folks). As a result, those who want their wealth to be known will move on when they feel the brand is has become commonplace. Blahh's comments exemplify this point.

Speaking of which, the whole discussion actually reminds me of an interesting phenomenon on why poor people are attempting to look rich through labelling, whilst rich people are dressing down their look. LA Guy from styleforum sums this up pretty well:

"Actually, it has a fair bit to do with socio economic status, and extends beyond clothes, but Manton, for example, notes this in his book about clothing in particular. Because "rich" clothing is now attainable by the "poor", the "rich" (in the general sense of the word, take it as you will) wear styles that the poor (or formerly poor) dare not imitate, for fear of well, appearing poor (and having attained the signs of wealth, both the poor and the and newly rich do not want this). Thus you see the old rich wearing "American Trad" clothing, which is beat to hell, and kids from the Ghetto wearing everything looking fresh."

To conclude, I do think that this thread has shown how some people are buying into the brand strictly for the label. As was mentioned earlier, TR is fairly played out, and its availability at Walmart and Costco will further degrade its reign as a status symbol. And in all fairness, I don't see it reaching Diesel's longevity as a designer brand. Therefore, some of its wearers may be due for a new wardrobe...
post #52 of 146
all this means is that now even 'regular' folks will see TR are an abomination of denim!
post #53 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Fagateur View Post
It's interesting that you guys bring this up. Trends are always fleeting, and people pay for the exclusive aspect. Many companies build their brands like private country clubs. The fact that the materials for a quality (i.e. ringxring, heavy guage, good yarn, good hardware, etc.) pair of denim jeans usually runs no more than 15 USD is testament to how much the MSRP is inflated (laundry prices not included, as this is where a lot of variability can kick in). Don't take offense to this, but I feel that trends start out as exclusive clubs that're meant to exclude people like you, me, and pretty much the majority of posters on this forum (i.e. everday folks). As a result, those who want their wealth to be known will move on when they feel the brand is has become commonplace. Blahh's comments exemplify this point.

Speaking of which, the whole discussion actually reminds me of an interesting phenomenon on why poor people are attempting to look rich through labelling, whilst rich people are dressing down their look. LA Guy from styleforum sums this up pretty well:

"Actually, it has a fair bit to do with socio economic status, and extends beyond clothes, but Manton, for example, notes this in his book about clothing in particular. Because "rich" clothing is now attainable by the "poor", the "rich" (in the general sense of the word, take it as you will) wear styles that the poor (or formerly poor) dare not imitate, for fear of well, appearing poor (and having attained the signs of wealth, both the poor and the and newly rich do not want this). Thus you see the old rich wearing "American Trad" clothing, which is beat to hell, and kids from the Ghetto wearing everything looking fresh."

To conclude, I do think that this thread has shown how some people are buying into the brand strictly for the label. As was mentioned earlier, TR is fairly played out, and its availability at Walmart and Costco will further degrade its reign as a status symbol. And in all fairness, I don't see it reaching Diesel's longevity as a designer brand. Therefore, some of its wearers may be due for a new wardrobe...
Love your response!!
post #54 of 146
Surprisingly, the Italian designers have maintained their exclusivity, while the American one sees the opportunity to expand big time and takes it. Capitalism baby! yeah!
post #55 of 146
Thread Starter 
I dont think there is anything wrong with buying the cool label of the moment. I wonder if TR feels like they have saturated the market and now is looking at different marketing approaches.
post #56 of 146
I agree that some people are getting too superficial. I don't think they will last long at Target but I defentiely don't think Target is for the meager.
post #57 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Fagateur View Post
The fact that the materials for a quality (i.e. ringxring, heavy guage, good yarn, good hardware, etc.) pair of denim jeans usually runs no more than 15 USD is testament to how much the MSRP is inflated (laundry prices not included, as this is where a lot of variability can kick in).
This is a bit misleading since marketing costs are not included in your analysis. Solely considering the cost of actual production is a bit shortsighted.
post #58 of 146
I agree that its not good for TRs image and most people who buy clothes at Target are not used to seeing $150 jeans and I dont think the response will be that great. I love Target but I think its weird to see $150 TRs beside $20 Mossimos. Anyway, they will most likely only carry them in "high income" stores.
Does anyone else think that Target may be doing this without TRs consent? Like how you can buy the "salon only" products at Target and its not legal for them to be selling them but they do it anyway.
I think the thing I am scared of is that I have spent so much money on TRs and if they lose exclusivety then I wont be able to sell them for anything in the future. Still I love TRs and I will not be getting rid of them all just b/c they are sold at Target.
post #59 of 146
You've got to take risks.

Target is taking a risk.

The designers obviously think that there is something to it - Target has driven more attention to Mossimo, Isaac Mizrahi, etc., than they've had in years.

Target's GO line should be doing well - though I am not sure about the actual figures.

Bottom line: The designers clearly feel it's a worthwhile risk for their brand. Target can go nowhere but up. I think it's bold & I hope it works.
post #60 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetta_07 View Post
Like how you can buy the "salon only" products at Target and its not legal for them to be selling them but they do it anyway.
There's nothing illegal about a non-salon selling a product marked as such.
post #61 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite42 View Post
This is a bit misleading since marketing costs are not included in your analysis. Solely considering the cost of actual production is a bit shortsighted.
Neither is logistics, storage, representation, design, etc. Nevertheless, marketing would just further my point, as TR pays less/article for their advertising than companies like Gap (who sell at lower price points no less).
post #62 of 146
threadlock somebody?
post #63 of 146
lol. stuck up? nah. is 150 dollars really anything to be proud of?
post #64 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Fagateur View Post
Neither is logistics, storage, representation, design, etc. Nevertheless, marketing would just further my point, as TR pays less/article for their advertising than companies like Gap (who sell at lower price points no less).
Also not a complete picture being painted with your True Religion and Gap comparison. Total aggregate advertising spending is hardly the relevant figure to use, especially when economies of scale dictates that TR spends much more of its budget on equivalent advertising. Nevertheless, when considering how small TR is vis a vis Gap, Inc., it takes a LOT of capital to create buzz about a product like a line of premium denim - especially when there's nothing spectacular about the product (but that point's really irrelevant). Thus, marketing hardly furthers your point.
post #65 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite42 View Post
Also not a complete picture being painted with your True Religion and Gap comparison. Total aggregate advertising spending is hardly the relevant figure to use, especially when economies of scale dictates that TR spends much more of its budget on equivalent advertising. Nevertheless, when considering how small TR is vis a vis Gap, Inc., it takes a LOT of capital to create buzz about a product like a line of premium denim - especially when there's nothing spectacular about the product (but that point's really irrelevant). Thus, marketing hardly furthers your point.
Economies of scale are further realized when a company is small. Gap was established in the 60s, and has most likely reached its ideal firm size. Given both the elasticity and price sensitivity of their market, Gap's profit margin is likely to be small per jean, whilst advertising only further cuts into said profit margin as dictated by game theory. If anything, Gap would be at risk of diseconomies of scale due to its large conglomerate state.

Regarding the buzz- it does take a lot of capital to create a buzz when starting out. Given that you seem to understand micro economics, I'm sure you remember the U-shaped marginal cost curve. TR started in 2002. It didn't start in 2006. So of course the company must invest before it can achieve profitability. At this point, TR is far out of the red, and they're basically carrying the momentum from the buzz they established.

To be more specific, TR's early marketing strategy was by word of mouth (they were giving out free jeans). Their Los Angeles location helped them in supplying the apparel to celebs like Jessica Simpson, who basically marked TR's breakthrough. To this day, TR's marketing doesn't encompass prime time television ads, but small scale print campaigns. If anything, the jean carries very specific branding (i.e. omegas, patch) that helps it market itself. In short, I'm not following as to how economies of scale dictates that TR's marketing is more costly than Gap's.
post #66 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetta_07 View Post
Does anyone else think that Target may be doing this without TRs consent? .

YES!! like I said w/ costco- TR sells its products to distributors-these distributors have very strict rules as to where they can sell them, when that certain distributor sold some past season tr's to costco-they got sued, and your're not finding any more trs at costco. So my prediction is that when TR corporate find out w/ distributor broke the contract they will sue them and the remaining TRs will be pulled from the shelves, and it seems like only one Target has gotten TRs-any other spottings??
post #67 of 146
Hotmomma, seems like you are taking this way too personal. Since when does having an opinion make you immature. I have a great sense of humor and just b/c I think a certain way does not mean I am not keeping it "REAL". Seriously, it's only jeans not world hunger...
post #68 of 146
OK, which Target? Was in MI over the weekend. Went brousing at Target in Rochester MI and Sterling Heights MI ( Mom of 2 @ Target every day) For some reason I am not buying this.
post #69 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimsmith View Post
You have no problem wearing target clothes, but dont want people to think you shop at target for clothes? what am i missing here?
I guess what I am ultimately saying is that I do not want the quality of a particular jean from Target to be of a lesser quality than what is sold elsewhere. Face it, we buy a certain jean because we like the way it feels on us. Again, I have no problem buying clothes from Target, but I do not want TR, antik, Joes, Coach, Dooney & burke to sacrifice quality to sell to the masses.

I know from first-hand experience that the Target by me sells Joes, Antik, Coach, & Dooney & Burke. I have not seen any TR, but will check today! I bought the Joes Jeans (cords). I thought they would be great to hang out in and not worry about them. No where on them do they say "joes for Target". They are the socialite style and made in the USA. They cost $79.99. If I get my camera back from being fixed, I can post some pics.
post #70 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by texasplayer View Post
actually hotmamma or whatever, it has nothing to do with being as you would say, a mature forum member.

if you would of stated it more from a brand name issue of selling such a product like this in target rather keeping it in exclusively in high end stores, then i gurantee everyone would of agreed with you, but you didnt.

basically your more worried about where they are selling something rather than what they are selling. If you go to saks and spend so much on true religions, why would you be ashamed of doing so at target for the same product?
that is EXACTLY how it was stated...

"i doubt they'll be there long. i don't think they'll go over well. people shopping at target (myself included) are not there to drop that kind of cash on one pair of jeans, no matter what the brand."

it is too earyl in the morning to try to give you a lesson on branding...

i am not worried about where they are selling anything! i do not own TR's (i personally don't like them), and i have never purchased anything at saks. you've obviously never read any of my posts, which is why your comments are so ridiculous! i'm probably the biggest "bargain shopper" here! i'd buy designer jeans at the gas station if they were cheap! the whole point of my original post, if you read it correctly, was that they wouldn't go over well in a gas-station, target, or any place of that nature, b/c of the branding standpoint. read LISAMARIE's post, she put it best!
post #71 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweckl View Post
TR's are the next Cavariccis anyway. In a year you'll spot those horseshoes and laugh.
why can't everyone be as humorous and carefree as you????
post #72 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite42 View Post
There's nothing illegal about a non-salon selling a product marked as such.
quite the contrary. it is very illegal for certain salon brands, i'll use aveda for example, to be sold outside of salons.
post #73 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by missmelon View Post
You've got to take risks.

Target is taking a risk.

The designers obviously think that there is something to it - Target has driven more attention to Mossimo, Isaac Mizrahi, etc., than they've had in years.

Target's GO line should be doing well - though I am not sure about the actual figures.

Bottom line: The designers clearly feel it's a worthwhile risk for their brand. Target can go nowhere but up. I think it's bold & I hope it works.
nicely put!
post #74 of 146
Thread Starter 
By the way, this was in the Commerce, Michigan Target store. I hope Target either stops completely with this premium label thing or continues to test market and incorporate more and more luxury clothing items into their stores. I hope some good wiill come from this. Target is the Neimans or Saks of the discount department stores. I would definately say a larger percentage of their customers can afford the designer denim than their rivals.

Maybe TR feels like they are established well enough to get away with this and not have much of an effect of their labels prestige. Also, it was funny how the girls at the check out had no clue what the "budda jeans" were and they freaked out when they price checked at $150.
post #75 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotmamma View Post
quite the contrary. it is very illegal for certain salon brands, i'll use aveda for example, to be sold outside of salons.
No. The "salon only" marking is put on by the manufacturers to control the channels of distribution of their products. When the product is sold to a given outlet, there is surely a clause in the sales contract that states that the product is only to be sold to salons or what have you. Some of these buyers may breach this contract (that's how the product ends up in non-salons), but that is not "illegal" to do. Further, there is nothing the manufacturer can do to prevent the buyer of the goods from selling them since there was no contractual agreement between them. It certainly isn't "illegal" for the products to be sold by non-salons.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Chat
DenimBlog.com › Welcome to the DenimBlog Community! › General Topics › Chat › True Religion at Target