Back
to top
Do you consider Polo Ralph Lauren a designer brand?
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Report
#3
It does have luxury lines for sure. It's just not an exclusively luxury designer brand like Gucci or Versace.
0
reply
(Original post by SpockAndRand)
It does have luxury lines for sure. It's just not an exclusively luxury designer brand like Gucci or Versace.
It does have luxury lines for sure. It's just not an exclusively luxury designer brand like Gucci or Versace.
The purple label is just as exclusive as Gucci or Versace.
0
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by Terminator01)
Depends on the line.
The purple label is just as exclusive as Gucci or Versace.
Depends on the line.
The purple label is just as exclusive as Gucci or Versace.
0
reply
Report
#6
This is a confusion of the RL lines.
Polo is one of the RL brands, and is on the lower end, mass market section. Purple is a seperate part of RL on the upper end.
Polo is one of the RL brands, and is on the lower end, mass market section. Purple is a seperate part of RL on the upper end.
0
reply
(Original post by Trinculo)
This is a confusion of the RL lines.
Polo is one of the RL brands, and is on the lower end, mass market section. Purple is a seperate part of RL on the upper end.
This is a confusion of the RL lines.
Polo is one of the RL brands, and is on the lower end, mass market section. Purple is a seperate part of RL on the upper end.
Would you still consider Polo designer though?
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by Terminator01)
You are right basically.
Would you still consider Polo designer though?
You are right basically.
Would you still consider Polo designer though?
0
reply
(Original post by Trinculo)
No. It's a high street fashion brand that has far more in common with Zara or H&M than anything that you might term "designer". I don't think there is anything within the Polo range that has been designed in any real way. They're overwhelmingly standard items in standards sizes that have been branded.
No. It's a high street fashion brand that has far more in common with Zara or H&M than anything that you might term "designer". I don't think there is anything within the Polo range that has been designed in any real way. They're overwhelmingly standard items in standards sizes that have been branded.
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by Terminator01)
In my opinion yes, but not luxury one.
In my opinion yes, but not luxury one.
Its no where near as exclusive (or expensive) as Burberry, Balmain, Hermes. But it's still a designer brand, just targetting a different sector of the market.
3
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by Terminator01)
But the prices are way higher than at Zara or H&M.
But the prices are way higher than at Zara or H&M.
For a better analogy - look at how Abercrombie used to sell its brands. It had Hollister, Gilly, Abercrombie & Fitch and Ruehl. It would be very very difficult to say with a straight face that the clothes were different. They weren't, but they were marketed at different demographics at different price points for the same clothes with different logos. You can see this today - A&F has a shop on Savile Row and is being pushed as a high end store, when it clearly has never been that. It's "natural" position in the marketplace was taken by Hollister. And guess what? It's been a spectacular failure because people don't like the idea of being charged two different pricepoints for what are obviously the same clothes and only a veneer of fiction covering it all. Hollister has literally nothing to do with Southern California. Gilly Hicks was not a real person, and has nothing to do with Australia. Ruehl was not a real place in New York.
This is overwhelmingly how clothes marketing is done, especially at the middle and top of the market. The same clothes are put in a different packaging, with expensive looking labels, and sold at a higher price point. They then hope that enough people will buy them to make more money than if they sold them at a lower price point. It's like Primark in reverse.
0
reply
Report
#12
I mean I can’t afford it and anything I can’t afford is immediately a luxury brand. We live for primark over here.
1
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by mnot)
Its designer.
Its no where near as exclusive (or expensive) as Burberry, Balmain, Hermes. But it's still a designer brand, just targetting a different sector of the market.
Its designer.
Its no where near as exclusive (or expensive) as Burberry, Balmain, Hermes. But it's still a designer brand, just targetting a different sector of the market.
0
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by Trinculo)
It is not "designer", it's clearly and knowingly a diffusion brand. The level of design involved in Polo products should make that clear. Nobody is designing anything, it's a branding exercise.
It is not "designer", it's clearly and knowingly a diffusion brand. The level of design involved in Polo products should make that clear. Nobody is designing anything, it's a branding exercise.
Now perhaps these are diffusional brands, I’m not familiar with this terminology, but I’m not a fashion connoisseur.
0
reply
(Original post by Trinculo)
That's a marketing decision, not a design decision.
For a better analogy - look at how Abercrombie used to sell its brands. It had Hollister, Gilly, Abercrombie & Fitch and Ruehl. It would be very very difficult to say with a straight face that the clothes were different. They weren't, but they were marketed at different demographics at different price points for the same clothes with different logos. You can see this today - A&F has a shop on Savile Row and is being pushed as a high end store, when it clearly has never been that. It's "natural" position in the marketplace was taken by Hollister. And guess what? It's been a spectacular failure because people don't like the idea of being charged two different pricepoints for what are obviously the same clothes and only a veneer of fiction covering it all. Hollister has literally nothing to do with Southern California. Gilly Hicks was not a real person, and has nothing to do with Australia. Ruehl was not a real place in New York.
This is overwhelmingly how clothes marketing is done, especially at the middle and top of the market. The same clothes are put in a different packaging, with expensive looking labels, and sold at a higher price point. They then hope that enough people will buy them to make more money than if they sold them at a lower price point. It's like Primark in reverse.
That's a marketing decision, not a design decision.
For a better analogy - look at how Abercrombie used to sell its brands. It had Hollister, Gilly, Abercrombie & Fitch and Ruehl. It would be very very difficult to say with a straight face that the clothes were different. They weren't, but they were marketed at different demographics at different price points for the same clothes with different logos. You can see this today - A&F has a shop on Savile Row and is being pushed as a high end store, when it clearly has never been that. It's "natural" position in the marketplace was taken by Hollister. And guess what? It's been a spectacular failure because people don't like the idea of being charged two different pricepoints for what are obviously the same clothes and only a veneer of fiction covering it all. Hollister has literally nothing to do with Southern California. Gilly Hicks was not a real person, and has nothing to do with Australia. Ruehl was not a real place in New York.
This is overwhelmingly how clothes marketing is done, especially at the middle and top of the market. The same clothes are put in a different packaging, with expensive looking labels, and sold at a higher price point. They then hope that enough people will buy them to make more money than if they sold them at a lower price point. It's like Primark in reverse.
For one, PRL has an actual designer behind them. The clothes are marketed as such because they belong to a famous designer and offer premium materials and design.
I disagree on Ambrecrombie being pushed towards high end. Having a store on Savile Row means nothing for a fashion label meant for kids.
Ambrecrombie was always a store brand, that offered premium teen clothes.
While PRL is nothing special, they are a step above high street in quality, design, reputation, and price.
0
reply
Report
#17
(Original post by Terminator01)
However, in my experience, PRL is on another level quality wise and design wise compared to all the other brands you mentioned.
For one, PRL has an actual designer behind them. The clothes are marketed as such because they belong to a famous designer and offer premium materials and design.
I disagree on Ambrecrombie being pushed towards high end. Having a store on Savile Row means nothing for a fashion label meant for kids.
Ambrecrombie was always a store brand, that offered premium teen clothes.
While PRL is nothing special, they are a step above high street in quality, design, reputation, and price.
However, in my experience, PRL is on another level quality wise and design wise compared to all the other brands you mentioned.
For one, PRL has an actual designer behind them. The clothes are marketed as such because they belong to a famous designer and offer premium materials and design.
I disagree on Ambrecrombie being pushed towards high end. Having a store on Savile Row means nothing for a fashion label meant for kids.
Ambrecrombie was always a store brand, that offered premium teen clothes.
While PRL is nothing special, they are a step above high street in quality, design, reputation, and price.
Polo is essentially Haagen Dasz. They've added eggs and sugar to normal ice cream and then made a marketing decision to increase the price to make it appeal to different people - who then believe that their purchasing at the higher price creates the reputation and branding.
Last edited by Trinculo; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
(Original post by Trinculo)
What is the high street, then? You can buy Polo clothes on pretty much any high street or shopping centre.
Polo is essentially Haagen Dasz. They've added eggs and sugar to normal ice cream and then made a marketing decision to increase the price to make it appeal to different people - who then believe that their purchasing at the higher price creates the reputation and branding.
What is the high street, then? You can buy Polo clothes on pretty much any high street or shopping centre.
Polo is essentially Haagen Dasz. They've added eggs and sugar to normal ice cream and then made a marketing decision to increase the price to make it appeal to different people - who then believe that their purchasing at the higher price creates the reputation and branding.
Designer diffusion lines are still designer IMO unless the price is too low.
For example I don't consider Guess to be designer but some people do. IMO it's too cheap for designer
PRL still has designer prices. There's a lot more to it then what people see in outlet malls.
0
reply
Report
#19
(Original post by Terminator01)
High street is Primark or Burton.
Designer diffusion lines are still designer IMO unless the price is too low.
For example I don't consider Guess to be designer but some people do. IMO it's too cheap for designer
PRL still has designer prices. There's a lot more to it then what people see in outlet malls.
High street is Primark or Burton.
Designer diffusion lines are still designer IMO unless the price is too low.
For example I don't consider Guess to be designer but some people do. IMO it's too cheap for designer
PRL still has designer prices. There's a lot more to it then what people see in outlet malls.
By your metric, there would be no reason why Primark couldn't just close 90% of their stores, mark up their prices by 1000%, hire better looking staff and all of a sudden they'd be "designer".
The problem is that people toss around the word "designer" which was supposed to mean haute couture - but now indicates anything with somebody's name on it. That's not "designer". That's branding.
0
reply
(Original post by Trinculo)
This is why I say Polo is like Haagen Dasz. It's simply a marketing decision. Change the presentation and hike the prices.
By your metric, there would be no reason why Primark couldn't just close 90% of their stores, mark up their prices by 1000%, hire better looking staff and all of a sudden they'd be "designer".
The problem is that people toss around the word "designer" which was supposed to mean haute couture - but now indicates anything with somebody's name on it. That's not "designer". That's branding.
This is why I say Polo is like Haagen Dasz. It's simply a marketing decision. Change the presentation and hike the prices.
By your metric, there would be no reason why Primark couldn't just close 90% of their stores, mark up their prices by 1000%, hire better looking staff and all of a sudden they'd be "designer".
The problem is that people toss around the word "designer" which was supposed to mean haute couture - but now indicates anything with somebody's name on it. That's not "designer". That's branding.
RL was always a respected designer, you need to build that reputation. Ralph Lauren is not just "anyone"
Pricing is what makes something designer mostly. It influences everything
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
