“One is never over or under dressed in a little black dress.” – Karl Lagerfield 

We take it for granted, but the “Little Black Dress” was not always a thing. Believe it or not, the LBD is a fairly recent fashion invention. Women of today accept it as a staple of the modern woman’s wardrobe, but the history of the little black dress is less than 100 years old.

Image: Vintage Style via Shutterstock

The Birth of the Little Black Dress

The LBD has a relatively short history in the history of fashion. It was Coco Chanel who first created the LBD in the 1920s. Chanel’s creation, which first appeared in Vogue magazine in 1926, was a deceptively simple drop-waist sheath dresses in black. It quickly became “the” dress for ’20s flappers.

Prior to this period black clothing was a symbol of mourning (made popular during the Victorian era) and most women would not have worn black except in mourning. Chanel, inspired by the peasant widows of World War I, elevated the black dress into a chic and elegant piece. Chanel also marketed the dress as “the dress” that every woman should own for its versatility and practicality. It was this notion that led its to staying power–the Great Depression made frugality a necessity for many.

Image: Film Noir via Shutterstock

The Next Chapter for the LBD: “New Look” and the Era of Hollywood Glamour

The LBD had a new life under the Christian Dior’s post World War II “New Look” and under the new influence of Hollywood glamour. The utilitarian necessity of the Depression era LBD was a thing of the past, but Dior and Hollywood reinvigorated the LBD and made it the dress of choice for Hollywood divas and temptresses. Stars like Rita Hayworth and Ava Gardner, both of whom epitomized the femme fatale in film noir, added to the glamorous image of the LBD.

Image: Inspired by Breakfast at Tiffany’s via Shutterstock

“Breakfast At Tiffany’s”: Audrey Hepburn and Givenchy

When one thinks of the LBD in film, Audrey Hepburn may be first to come to mind. She and Hubert de Givenchy made the LBD of the 1960s a cultural icon. His “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” design is easily counted amongst the most iconic movie dresses of all time (with only Marilyn Monroe’s white “Seven Year Itch” dress being more well known) and easily the most famous little black dress.

It was this design that cemented the LBD as fashion royalty. The timeless style will forever denote polished sophistication (at least until the next fashion icon comes along).

Image: LBD via University of Salford

The Little Black Dress of Today

Whether long or short, the little black dress is now a staple in most every woman’s closet. It is appropriate to wear to work, while running errands, or out for the evening on the town, and, yes, it still works at funerals. The key to the occasion is in the design and the styling, of course. One can truly never go wrong with adding another little black dress to a wardrobe.

Related on EcoSalon

8 Tips on How to Accessorize a Little Black Dress

The Definitive Guide to Wearing All Black This Summer (You Know, Like a Badass)

Beyond the LBD, it’s Eco Fashion With an Attitude: On Trend

Top Image: Little Black Dress via Shutterstock

The post The History of the Little Black Dress appeared first on EcoSalon.

SeriesInundated with marketing messages, Americans adjust their spending belt.

In part 1 and 2 of this series, we looked at the tricks of the trade and the psychology behind the advertising end of marketing. In this article we look at what sales and marketing tactics are covering up: The quality corner-cutting that’s happening as we’re simultaneously being driven into a consuming frenzy.

I love a bargain. This weekend I thought I officially became the queen of treasure hunting when I found a mint condition Christian Dior cashmere coat at the thrift store. When I checked out the label, I found a tiny label stating “Made in America.” Made in America? Christian Dior’s couturier is based in Paris, this little detail gave me reason to pause, and question the authenticity of my find. It could not be coming from the actual Dior couture house with that country of origin label. The question begged to be asked: who designed this coat?

On another day, I headed straight for the sales rack at J Crew, finding three t-shirts for just over the price of one. And on another occasion, when I was strapped for cash and running short of underwear, I’ll admit that I made myself go to T.J. Maxx in search of some fresh pairs among the $6.99 Calvin Klein styles mixed in with the no-name brands for $2.99. I’m totally guilty of buying some of both. But at the moment of that purchase, I was just thankful to find underwear that fit the budget and even some that seemed to save me a few pennies.

Unfortunately, all of the underwear bought that day fell apart faster than any underwear I’ve ever owned. The shoddy underthings went straight into a bag for Goodwill and I had to head to the store once again not long after my purchase. Let’s just say, I had gotten exactly what I paid for.

The Fine Print That Bargain Hunters Miss

There’s nothing like the feeling you get when you find an unbelievable bargain in fashion. Unfortunately, 99% of the time the “unbelievable bargain” is just that. Discounted sales and fashion “bargains” are actually marketing tactics that encourage us to buy more stuff, much of which we don’t necessarily need. The sales tactic: overvalue the nicely displayed full price products in the front of the store so that customers get excited about the discounted stuff on the overcrowded, back sales racks. This encourages us to visit the store more often to look for sales to avoid missing the deal. However, usually when you buy items on sale, you’re in fact paying the price closer to the items actual make-value (just above how much it cost to make it).

Recent reports show that this tactic is now beginning to backfire on the the retailers, especially those who would like to maintain their product quality and regain profit growth to pre-recession profits. Even JC Penny, who in past years held as many as 590 annual promotional, sales and coupon events, has decided it’s time to change their sales tactic.

Not All Designer Labels Are Created Equal

Sales racks aside, what about finding “designer labels for less” in department stores and at discount retailers like T.J. Maxx? What of my “made in America” Christian Dior coat which originally would have been sold in an American department store like Nordstrom’s rather than at the House of Dior? We all equate designer labels with higher quality and value, but in the world of fashion not all designer labels are created equal.

Many successful designer brands have multiple tiers of product qualities that their brands sell to reach a broader market: high end lines for the investment shopper, middle market lines for the value shopper, and low end licensee lines for the bargain shopper. Quality is more closely monitored at the top of the market where the customer is paying a premium and recognizes and expects high quality goods. Quality slides through the middle market where the customer wants better design but is not as aware of the difference in the quality of the make, and the only thing that remains “designer” in the cheaply made bargain basement find is the designer-logo-label stitched in the back.

Vogue, January 1949. Which would you be more likely to purchase: An lower quality no-name umbrella for $15 or a Dior jacquard logo umbrella for $25? The two are probably made at the same place.

That low end product is more or less designed by the factory that works with a brand’s licensing partners. Their only objective is to make easy to produce, lower cost garments for high volume mass production. The designer brands who are named in the labels of these items, in turn, get a nice cut of the sales profit for allowing the use of their logo and brand name. The use of their logo or label in turn push the sales into a frenzy that might not have been possible on an equivalent average or sub-par product.

The Path That Leads To a Global Market Profit Is Licensing

So, how does a Dior Coat come to be made in the USA? It all comes down to licensing agreements (that work kind of like fast food franchises) and the label in my coat tells the tale of how this works.
Back in 1947, Christian Dior and his business partner, Jaques Rouet, were some of the first in the fashion business to pioneer license agreements with international factory partner companies. Before then, being a clothing designer/producer meant you either owned a local factory or a couture house and basically did all of the design and production – albeit tightly monitored – under one roof.

For Dior, who owned his own couture house, fashion was his legacy and he intended to see that legacy, as well as his fortunes, grow. By 1947, he had already set up licensing agreements with production partners to manage lines of furs, socks, perfume, ties and clothes in regional production areas around the globe, thus being able to extend his brand and multiply his sales by selling product in local markets all over the globe near his license producers’ locations. Most likely, Dior would have sent a sketch and a swatch of fabric for the factory to follow and the factory would fill in all the blanks of the details on how to make it.

With a status label like Dior, his licensee partners could sell much more product than they might otherwise, because the couture house’s name was well known among the fashionable society and was considered highly desirable. Meanwhile, Dior could turn his focus toward marketing and advertising his house as a high-end, luxury market brand. This new business model allowed him to continue presenting his exuberantly priced couture collections without the pressure of needing to make a profit on haute couture because the licensed products that he barely touched were making enormous profits behind the scenes.

By August 31, 1964, The New York Times reported on a trend which had designers putting their labels into items that they didn’t actually design. What Dior’s business savvy had started almost two decades earlier had evolved and turned into a full scale, industry-wide, fashion free for all. It started with designers lending out a few sketches to a manufacturer with their branded label attached as a stamp of approval, they then collected their fee and let the manufacturers take over from there. But as the New York Times reported, designers had their names on products they didn’t even recognize, let alone would ever admit to designing. One appalled Parisian designer even bemoaned that he had found his name on cotton gloves that were on sale in New York, cotton gloves apparently being something he would never have made.

Some designer brands were more careful than others to avoid the “white glove” scenario by adjusting their licensing contracts so that all products had to be be approved by someone in their company before they headed to the stores. But overall, the fashion industry fully embraced this new business strategy that left the product details up to the factory and licensing partner and let the designer brand reap the profits without having to do all the work. Many successful brands operate through license agreements today.

Couture house, Pierre Cardin, took it particularly far. With over 900 license agreements, Cardin had manufacturers producing everything from paper clips to automobile interiors with his logo stamped on them. His brand eventually flooded the market, so much so, that it lost its appeal to the “designer” customer and was downgraded to Sears status, where it is still sold today. Clearly Cardin didn’t mind. By that point he had become so wealthy building his brand through advertisements and selling his name, that he had no problem leaving the labors, and the quality control of couture behind him.

The fashion industry had finally figured out how to transform from providing a service – making clothes for people to wear – into a highly profitable business. Brands were able to achieve this by focusing on marketing the concept of their brand as a high end status symbol while selling stuff en masse to the middle and low markets through their license agents. The job of the designer now became to present lifestyle products and advertisement imagery through marketing to keep customers believing that even their lower priced lines were worth the higher price tag attached to the brand name.

What we’re left with after all of this are stores like Macy’s who sell “designer” labeled clothes that the designers barely touched, Calvin Klein underwear that has very little to do with Calvin, and stores like T.J. Maxx, Loehmann’s, and Marshall’s full of “designer brands for less” claiming that they’re selling the “real thing” and leftovers from the high end market. Far from the truth, the leftovers were all made specifically for those low end retailers and can be sold for up to twice as much.

Secret License Agents

So who are these secret agents producing the license product for Calvin Klein, Anna Sui, DKNY, Betsy Johnson, Tommy Hilfiger, Michael Kors, Ralph Lauren and friends? The same guys who are in charge of designing and producing all the no-designer-name stuff it sits next to at the stores where you find designer goods for less. Basically you’re just as well buying no-name underwear for $2.99 as paying double the price to have Calvin Klein’s logo. Some stores, like T.J. Maxx, even have a licensee design office of their own, designing products in the name of their licensee partners, like Calvin Klein, and for their own no-name label brands at the same time so they can handle the details on some of the products in their stores themselves.

An industry friend of mine (who will remain nameless) works in quality control at one of the licensing partners that produce goods for J.C.Penny, Sears, Burlington Coat Factory, Loehmann’s, and T.J.Maxx. She used to manage quality control for brands at factories all over the world. But her new job posed a much more troubling issue than workers not knowing how to hand stitch buttons properly.

“This is the easiest job I’ve ever had. Quality control? What quality control? We get one sample to fit, make color, print, fabric and trim comments on and to approve. Then it goes straight into production. We produce the goods so fast that by the time they hand me a sample to check and approve the quality, the item is already on the factory floor being cut and sewn for the bulk order. My comments can’t even be put into effect,” she says.

“I remember being called into my boss’ office once when there was ‘a problem.’ A jacket had come in with the lining literally shredding on the hanger. This was nothing new. But the real problem was that the item was going to a retailer that required testing (some of the bigger retailers, like JC Penny require every item to have a sample sent in for quality control testing) and this would never pass.”

Was the company going to take a hit and have to absorb the cost of the bum goods? I asked. “Nope. Do you know what they decided to do?” she asked me. “They had me take the sample to a tailor to have the bad lining taken out and replaced with a nicer quality lining. Then they sent that one sample in for testing. Of course it passed, but they just shipped the rest of the product as is, shredded lining and all. I’ve never worked with such unethical people in my 30 years of working in fashion.”

I asked another friend of mine who has worked as a freelance designer in and out of one licensee company that had license agreements with Kenneth Cole and Calvin Klein, as well as producing several no-name lines that would sell at the same retailers that their licensee product would.

“We had to produce designs so fast, we didn’t have time to think about the finishings. Just fabric, sketch, maybe a button. Send it to the factory and leave the details to them to figure out,” she told me. “It was so easy, but the quality was terrible.”

But don’t they get customer complaints about the quality? I asked.

“Why would the stores ever complain? We’re giving them product that’s dirt cheap!” Apparently the customers who frequent these stores just take it for granted that their clothing is disposable. One or two wears out of them is all that is expected. This is also a part of the marketing strategy. It’s rare for anyone to make returns on product at the low end of the market, because it’s just not worth it. None of the product has any value to begin with.

According to Elizabeth Cline, author of Overdressed: the Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion, “In 1930, the average American woman owned an average of nine outfits. Today, we each buy more than 60 pieces of new clothing on average per year.” But according to economists, the average American household only spends 3.1% of their income on clothing, which is approximately 22% less than what Americans spent on clothing in the 1970s – this makes sense with 3 for 1 specials and bargain blowouts but when considering how logical it is for the planet, we might want to dive a little deeper.

Editor’s note: Industry insider Louise Lagosi is not the author’s real name and is used to protect her anonymity.

Image: Diego 3336, The Consumerist, Ell Brown

The post Fashion Marketing 101: What Discount Sales Cover Up appeared first on EcoSalon.

It’s a perverse pleasure watching the characters in Mad Men smoke and drink away without any fear of consequence. With the days of the three-martini lunch well and truly over – say nothing for the disappearance of mid-century bar accoutrements like chrome smoking stands and Murano glass table lighters – it’s reassuring to know that while the cocktail hour might not be as much fun as it was, the spirit of the dress which was named for it remains intact.

The nip-waisted, full-skirted New Look silhouette pioneered by Christian Dior dominated cocktail fashions thru the 50s. Thankfully, the gloves and hat were soon replaced with a great pair of heels.

Born in the years after World War I, the emerging cocktail culture corresponded with sweeping social changes that led to the independent “modern woman” venturing out into more diverse groups of people mixing in clubs, lounges and private cocktail soirées. Bridging the gap between an afternoon dress – suitable for afternoon tea – and a grand gown for attending evening balls, came the transitional cocktail dress, knee length and worn until the late 1950s with elbow length gloves and flirty little hats.

Sparkling in Paco Rabanne’s futuristic gold paillettes, Audrey Hepburn in Two for the Road.

Favoring fine fabrics such as satin, silk, velvet and silk jersey – and after the success of Chanel’s little black dress a.k.a the LBD in 1926  –  the color black, the short, often tight-fitting cocktail dress quickly became a desired item of attire for all women in the 1930s. For those in the progressive and fashionable Cafe Society, it became a uniform.

Julia Roberts memorably went searching for a dress for a night out in Pretty Woman. “I got a dress,” she proudly tells Richard Gere. “A cocktail one.”

From its early realization and onwards – Christian Dior’s (Dior in fact coining the term “cocktail dress” in the late 40s) full-skirted New Look, Givenchy’s elegant renderings worn immaculately by Audrey Hepburn in the 1950s classic’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s and Sabrina, to Paco Rabanne’s swinging shifts in gold paillettes and Halston’s essential draped disco dress for Studio 54 – the silhouettes, like the partying habits, have changed with the decades. Whatever your poison, the pleasures of a bold dress in a flattering fit with a face framing neckline can be both intoxicating and life-affirming.

Modern day Bon Viveur: Kate Moss in a lace-panelled cocktail dress by John Galliano for Dior Couture.

Now & Then: The Trench Coat

Now & Then: The Bold Brow

Now & Then: The History of the Cuff

Now & Then: The History of Turtlenecks

Now & Then: The History of Tights

Now & Then: The History of Skinny Jeans

Now & Then: The History of the Chevron Stripe

Now & Then: The History of Penny Loafers

Now & Then: The History of Go-Go Boots

Now & Then: The History of the Poet Blouse

Now & Then: The History of Ladylike Gloves

The post Now & Then: The History of the Cocktail Dress appeared first on EcoSalon.

Questions over the price of our clothing – be it too cheap, the environmental cost of producing it, consumers shifting ideas about what luxury or true value actually is – all seem to go hand-in-hand when it comes to fashion. Regrettably, I have to admit that the crux of most conversations I have in the world we call “eco”, “fair-trade”, “sustainable”, “green” or (the most un-fun fashion moniker ever) “responsible” fashion always comes down to this, “How much more does it cost?”

With last year’s economic climate, getting more for less was an exceedingly relevant question. However, in 2011, things appear to be looking up. Timed with last week’s high profile Paris Couture Week there were a slew of news reports that customers of flagrantly expensive Haute Couture are increasing and that couture houses are thriving.

For the rest of us, couture fashion runways are an unobtainable but accessible indulgence. It’s when fashion watching goes from merely aiding the delight/dilemma of what to wear daily to the heart-pounding fantasy of a whimsical dreamscape. It’s fascinating to trace couture colors and details as they go on to inform and interpret a broader, mass market fashion story. (Remember Meryl Streep, as the Devil in Prada’s great soliloquy about the origins of skeptical assistant Andy’s cerulean blue sweater?)

“It’s been an excellent year for couture,” Sidney Toledano, CEO of Christian Dior, was heard saying from the sidelines of John Galliano’s runway show. “The young generation, even if they don’t buy, they want to go to the Internet and see the couture shows…The image is so strong, and this generation is looking for strong images.”

Back home in Northern California, I recently came across a look book of a sustainable line that is as substantial and arresting as the appeal Mr. Toledano speaks of. Sonoma County sustainable designer Emily Melville’s eponymous line was not originally conceived as “eco-fashion.” For her, “sustainability is actually a byproduct of my interest in creating the highest quality locally designed and produced, made-to-order luxury clothing. I don’t feel like there is always a clear dividing line between sustainable fashion and “conventional” fashion. Good design, good quality clothing, creating a connection between the consumer and the creator… these are the things I’m interested in.” With that in mind, I was delighted to ask Emily (currently taking some time out to have her first child) about the role price has in creating a strong brand image.

Vivienne Westwood was recently quoted saying “I was on the bus on Saturday going down to Whitehall. I just looked at everybody and there wasn’t one person who had a silhouette or stood out. They all looked like babies who had come out from a big washing machine – all easy-care jerseys and tights.” Your designs are the antithesis of this.

What a great quote. This is something I’ve observed as well, how there is this trend towards shabby, comfy, sloppy clothing. Where is the glamour? Where is the drama?  At the same time, I have to admit that I tend to dress for comfort a lot of the time too. I think some of it has to do with what a fast pace we are all expected to live by these days.

But there have always been people who just wear clothes rather than fashion. I am very inspired by the blog The Sartorialist; it captures images of women around the world who do stand out, who do find ways to create the glamour and the drama. I am always interested in looking at the way that women combine items, new pieces with vintage items, low price things with high price things. As a designer you create whole new looks every season, but that is not the way most women actually dress. That is something I like to keep in mind as I design – how will this jacket fit into her entire wardrobe, not just into my collection.

What are the eco credentials of your line? Who inspired you to design sustainably?

All my clothes are locally designed and produced here in Sonoma County. I’m creating garments that are made-to-order which hugely reduces the amount of waste I create. I strive to create timeless designs, and use the highest quality construction to ensure the longevity – and isn’t that what sustainable actually means? Whenever possible, I try to focus on natural, biodegradable, and fair-trade fabrics. I save all of my sample and production fabric scraps, which I either reuse or donate to a local charity.

The biggest challenge for any small designer just starting out, whether their focus is sustainable fashion or not, is fabric. My vision required me to look beyond what was available in the “eco” fabric market and instead try to find what was the best quality in the fibers, finishes, and colors. Someday I dream of being able to find organic wools and cruelty-free silks that behave like luxury fabrics and that I can get dyed to any color with a natural dye. And hopefully my line will be become big enough that I can demand that kind of product in the market.

While I was studying for my MFA from the Academy of Art University in San Francisco, I took a course in Sustainable Fashion taught by Lynda Grose. That was probably the most challenging classes I took the whole time I was at AAU. Lynda is always questioning, always pushing you to think deeper about sustainability, and constantly pointing out how there are so many “catch-22’s” in the world of eco-fashion. That course sparked in me the desire to focus on small fashion, slow fashion, local production, hand-made garments. At the same time, I was being encouraged by my other instructors to cultivate my high-end designer sensibilities.

I love your classic color palette of charcoals, olives, steel gray and pale lemon. Did you intend to create a timeless, heirloom quality in a world of fast, disposable fashion?

That is exactly my intention. Clothes that will last for years, clothes that won’t ever go out of style, clothes that can work with other things in your wardrobe, clothes that you will pass on to your children… that is what I’m aiming for. There is no way that I could compete with the fast fashion that is out there. The only option for a small designer like myself it to aim for the opposite of that, to design for a woman who doesn’t want to change her entire wardrobe twice a year.

What is your price point? How do you persuade a customer to spend more on sustainable fashion?

My price points put me in the high-end, luxury market $600- $5000, depending on the piece. The question to me is less about persuading them to spend on “sustainable” and more about spending for quality and design. My hope is to create a relationship directly with the customer, so they feel like they understand where the garment is coming from, what the story is behind it.  When someone can see the hand of the designer in a garment, it takes on much more meaning, becomes more important to them and therefore is worth the extra money.

The post Fashion: Is This The Year You Pay More For Less? appeared first on EcoSalon.

A perennial fashion archetype, equestrian-chic has long been popular among those with the dream or the means for horse ownership. With a new appreciation for all that’s classic in clothing, it’s only a matter of course that riding styles are a AW 2010 trend that is already off and running.

Revived this time around by John Galliano’s romantic vision for Christian Dior’s Fall 2010 runway, the standard components were masterfully made modern in a memorable spread in Vogue’s February 2010 “Back in the Saddle” shoot by Raymond Meier and featuring Constance Jablonski.

And while the equestrian theme has been done many times before, it appears that fashion’s current shift from hungering for “it” bags to appreciation for simple and enduring classics is bringing out many of the bits and pieces necessary to assemble the look.

True and trusty wardrobe items like the knee-high riding boots, a single-breasted hacking-style jacket and turtlenecks alongside the recent return of jodhpur-style pants, saddlebag shaped purses and a trend for leather accented clothing.

All the ingredients are available to easily assemble the trend. And with the current color persuasion for restrained ivory, navy, black and caramel coupled with supporting trends for outdoor, rural looks that incorporate tweeds, herringbone and chunky sweaters –  its a look that’s champing at the bit for a shot.

Before saddling up, consider that bohemian, dandy, pirate or any other style archetypes worth plundering, aim to incorporate one element, maybe two, into your everyday wardrobe. Riding boots or Jodhpurs. A blazer, a turtleneck and skinny pants, instead of the jodhpurs. If you emerge from your closet flicking a whip against your thigh and wishing you had a top hat, it’s probably a clue you’ve trotted this trend too far.

Here’s some sustainable finds that are more than just good horse sense.

Feral Childe‘s beautifully-tailored (longer in the back, shorter in the front) blazer is made from surplus Italian stretch wool gabardine and is available October 1st. The inside is equally beautiful with classic Feral Childe print of emerald green scratch art.

Their Barringer Legging in silk and organic cotton jersey is a fun twist of equestrian and print.

Prairie Underground’s Carpenter jean with funky inner leg stitching are reminiscent of a riding pant, in an easy-to-wear-denim.

Cri de Coeur’s Ariel boot. Over-the-knee in textured faux leather.

The post Giddy Up! Equestrian Fall Flair appeared first on EcoSalon.