We live in a consumer driven society that isn’t embracing uniqueness, but falling for the lowest common denominator of “sameness.” Note the depletion of local bodega’s on every block (they used to be everywhere) and the growth of brands like Duane Reade…seemingly everywhere (starbucks to go with your Gap anyone?).

Even in this city it would appear we’ve become too lazy to even cross the street or walk an extra block to find what we need, instead we need one of these stores on every (or every other) block.

While Marc may have had a great idea by creating an MJ hub in the village, I am fearful it is nothing more than empty consumerist excess.

I think it’s worth making the distinction between the Marc Jacobs
line, sold on Mercer rather than Bleeker, and Marc by Marc Jacobs.
The grown-up collection is informed by a much more fluid and less
predictable aesthetic, changing pretty dramatically from season to
season. You might be able to guess it’s Marc Jacobs, but you can’t
really guess what he’s going to do with it next. By contrast, the
Marc by Marc stuff looks basically the same from year to year, or at
least it gives the impression of looking the same while actually
evolving in fairly subtle ways to embrace shifting trends. Jeans are
more narrow, but not outrageously skinny; sweaters are bigger and
slouchier, but still festooned with tongue-in-cheek graphics or bows.
But the pretty frocks with slightly high waists and subtly puffed
sleeves are still there, as are the kids-style sweaters and cords with
large plastic buttons. What this means, for me at least, is that you
can think that you have either outgrown or grown tired of the concept,
and yet find yourself going back there and buying more stuff because
it’s become a source of staples — old favorites and new pieces that
give a nod to what’s happening in more drastic (and harder-to-wear)
fashion elsewhere.

I think it’s also worth commenting on the fact that the appeal of Marc
by Marc has always been that it’s pretty and demure and funky and
cheeky all at once, whereas most other fashion, especially when Marc
by Marc first became popular, aspires to sexiness or elegance or
minimalism, and does so without being cool enough to comment on
itself. Marc by Marc is like ironic dancing — it’s fun and it looks
good while rolling its eyes at the inherent silliness of the whole
venture. The weak spot in this facade is the childishness. “demure
and pretty and funky and cheeky” is basically a perfect description of
how under-eight girls look in a dress. Certainly, it’s how most of
the affluent white girls who buy Marc by Marc now looked when they
were under-eights in the eighties. And this may explain the $10
wallet success. It’s all part of the same, jokey, “kids playing dress
up/adults playing dress down” fantasy, and so they don’t seem cheap in
the way that a $10 keychain from Guess would. The idea of younger or
less moneyed girls buying a small piece of the party doesn’t seem
tacky or sad, because everyone in there is essentially buying into the
illusion that we’re younger and less moneyed than we are.

It might be reasonable to ask when we’re going to grow up. Or, in the
case of those of us who’ve been going to that store since we were
young 20s and are now approaching 30, when we’re going to accept that
we already have. And whether, if we do, it’s going to have a trickle
down effect so that younger women start wanting something a little
less cute, and more fierce. Is this what happened to, say, DKNY?

It might also be reasonable to compare the welcome one receives in
Mercer St. compared to the friendliness on Bleecker. It’s definitely
haughtier in Soho, which makes perfect sense, but it’s also a reminder
that the heart of the MJ empire is as exclusionary as Louis Vuitton.

that’s probably more opinion than you were after. I like the piece
very much. The picture’s great, too.

As for his “3rd line”….well, that will be most interesting in terms of how his investors at LVMH embrace it and how the public embraces it.

Guess time will tell!

I was shopping with a friend recently at The Gap. She considered a 4 dollar tank top with frills. I don’t know that she decided purchasing it in relation to the brand so much as on the price, but the same thing at Express (etc.) for 8 dollars, I think she would have picked up as a deal also, and felt more value from it due to the brand (even without a logo). That’s a little away from where you were going, but it does create something more to consider in the budget space.

There’s also the factor that having the $10 “toy” at checkout will be picked up as a gift for someone else – in some sense, everyone wins in the purchase – the customer feels like they found something cool and exclusive (as in MJ stores), the giftee feels like they are invited to that club as well (and subsequently picks something up from the store in the future), and the company takes in a decent profit (probably) and adds to their base.