Posts in category "look for less"

Let’s Talk Knock-offs: Is Copying Designer Lingerie Ever Okay?

Left: Playful Promises ‘Etti’ Longline Bra via ASOS. Originally $78.93.
Right: Frederick’s of Hollywood ‘Sandra’ Longline Bra. Originally $34.00.

Has there ever been a more controversial subject in the fashion industry than this one? No matter your opinion on knock-offs, cheap copies of luxury goods are here to stay. After all, if there’s a market for people who want expensive items for lower prices (and there definitely is), there’s going to be a company that’s willing to cater to that market.

Some of these knock-offs are outright counterfeits and forgeries (i.e. they’re being advertised and sold as the authentic item) but many more of these knock-offs are “inspired by” replicas…where enough of the original design has been kept to make it recognizable, but not so much that legal action is justified or even possible. And it’s that second kind of knock-off that’s becoming more and more popular, even within the lingerie industry.

I know a lot of brands and designers read The Lingerie Addict, so I just want to acknowledge that I understand this post will probably ruffle some feathers (and doubtless bring me a few “You should never have written this!” e-mails). But the conversation on knock-offs (and if they’re ever justified) is already happening among lingerie consumers. Even if the subject is a little awkward to talk about, it’s one that very much needs to be discussed out in the open.

3 of these 6 photos are stolen. Another is a stock image.

Earlier, I made a distinction between outright forgeries and ‘inspired-by’ knock-offs and I just want to be clear that I am definitely not in favor of counterfeit goods. Counterfeits are always wrong, and there is nothing excusable about one brand stealing the images, copy, and marketing materials of another brand in order pass their merchandise off as someone else’s. However, that particular issue is not what this article is about. Instead, I want to focus on two somewhat grayer areas of knockoffs…prices and sizes.

Price Knockoffs:

Left: Marika Vera ‘Nydia’ Bodysuit. Originally $520.00.
Right: Ann Summers ‘Peony’ Bodysuit. Originally £40.00 ($62.00)

Make no mistake: quality lingerie is expensive, both in terms of materials (silk, lace, chiffon,satin, etc.) and in terms of labor. It takes a lot of time and effort to construct a bra, and if you’re one of the dozens of independent designers making pieces by hand or in small factory batches, you simply don’t have the volume to get the lower manufacturing costs a larger brand can. And in the same way a global intimates empire will pass their cost savings on to customers in the form of lower prices, smaller brands have to pass along their higher costs in the form of increased prices. Factor in the increased costs of things like fair trade and ethical production (which are important to many smaller brands, but which many large brands don’t care about), and you’re looking at an even greater price differential.

But, on the other side, it’s true that many women simply can’t afford luxury lingerie. It’s not about what they’d “rather” buy; it’s just not an option. In this era of depressed wages, uncertain job markets, and ever-increasing costs for basic necessities, I don’t blame women for thinking twice before dropping 3 figures on a bra and panty set. And while it would be great if we could all fill our closets with handmade, ethically-produced items, those goods do cost more…and that money may just not be available if you’re on a tight budget.

Finally (and I won’t name any names here) not every luxury brand is worth the luxury price. Whether it’s skimping on quality materials or quietly moving manufacturing to cheaper sites overseas (while retaining the same high prices), sometimes a luxury brand is just a lot of hype…smoke and mirrors produced by an excellent PR team, a beautifully lit photoshoot, and some fancy decorations in a boutique.

Size Knockoffs:

Left: Kriss Soonik ‘Susan Chic’ Body. Originally €159.00 ($212.00). Available up to size US10.
Right: Empress Lingerie Ruffle Lace Romper. Price Unknown. Featured in Plus Model Mag.

No big secret here: the average size range of any one lingerie brand is pretty limited. Whether a brand chooses to focus on standard sizes, full bust sizes, or plus sizes, there is no single lingerie brand out there making everything for every woman of every size. However, it’s also true that women who fit into the traditionally standard size range (approximately US bra sizes 32-36 B-D and US dress sizes 0-10) have many more options available to them than women outside that range. As a size 10, I’m at the outer limits of the standard sizing chart, but I can still assume the average brand fits me. When it doesn’t, it’s an exception…not the rule. For many women though, especially plus size women, the search for pretty underthings is a long, unpleasant, and completely demoralizing experience.

The size thing becomes even more interesting when you realize there’s a link between how expensive a brand is and how many women their size range encompasses. It’s been my experience that more expensive brands have smaller size ranges. Right now, I’m thinking of several high-end European names that I’ve personally tried (no names) which max out at a US size 6/8. That is a super narrow size range, and it excludes a lot of women. Unsurprisingly, women who wear double digit dress sizes want beautiful lingerie too, and so lately several plus size companies have stepped in with larger size knock-offs of popular styles.

There are a lot of good reasons for why a brand can’t abruptly expand their size range. As I mentioned earlier, all brands, even plus size brands, specialize. That’s because the costs of trying to be all things to all people would rapidly drive a company out of business (especially an independent company). It’s also true that making plus size lingerie isn’t just a matter of taking a standard size pattern and enlarging it, but requires a complete redrafting…particularly in the case of complex, supportive undergarments like bras. All of that costs money, and if a company isn’t absolutely sure they’ll recoup the costs, they may decide to focus on what they’re good at…and what they know will make them money.

That said, plus size women shouldn’t have to wear ugly underwear because no one’s making their size. I feel really fortunate that I can buy most of what I like, but if I were to go up a size (which is very likely to happen at some point), I suddenly wouldn’t be able to buy most of what’s out there. And I don’t really want to go back to buying my panties in a 6-pack. Why shouldn’t larger women have pretty undergarments too? Especially if their needs aren’t being met by standard size brands?

The Discussion:

Left: Marlies Dekkers ‘Dame de Paris’ Bra via ASOS. Originally $126.29. Available up to size 40DD.
Right: Cacique by Lane Bryant Strappy Plunge Bra. Originally $40.00. Available up to size 44DDD.

In both of these cases, companies are either unable or unwilling to accommodate all the budgets and sizes of everyone that may be interested in their products. That’s not a fault-finding statement…it just makes sense from both a production/materials/labor perspective and a branding/marketing/advertising one. It’s easier to make and sell a product targeted to a particular group of people than a product targeted to everyone.

So the question becomes…if you have a group of women who’s needs aren’t being met by what’s out there (either because of price or because of size), is it okay for them to buy similar pieces at a lower price point or in extended sizes from other brands?

Most designers and boutiques say “No,” and understandably so. They argue that it devalues the brand, and penalizes small designers for being creative and risk-taking while big brands reap all the rewards of that free market research. But many customers, also understandably, disagree. “If I’m never going to buy from you because you’re not making products for me,” they say, “you haven’t lost any money when I buy from someone else. The sale was never going to be yours.” Some people also argue that knock-offs are advantageous to the industry as they constantly generate new ideas, but the counterargument to that is that small brands will get frustrated and quit (or be outright driven out of business) if their work is always being knocked-off.

As a blogger, I see both sides. Professionally, I spend a lot of time talking to and working with independent designers (many of whom are 1 or 2 woman operations), and it stings when you see all their hard work being stolen with just the slightest reworking. It’s heartbreaking because you know these designers will never be able to sell as cheaply or offer as many sizes as a department store, and they’re being punished for it. And it can very well drive a brand out of business.

However, as a lingerie consumer (and someone who’s always been a little bigger through the hips and a little smaller through the wallet), I understand what it’s like to have to balance fashion with finance. If you know a certain brand is never going to make anything in a size 14 or in a G cup or for under $200, why not take your money elsewhere? Isn’t that how business works?

What do you think, dear readers? Are knock-offs ever okay? Should brands that can’t meet everyone’s needs ‘suck it up’ as the cost of doing business? Or should customers who are left out in the cold just ‘deal with it?’ And how similar or different can something be before it’s not considered a knock-off anymore? I’m really interested in hearing what you have to say in the comments.

DIY Costuming: 8 Last Minute Lingerie Halloween Costume Ideas

What Katie Did

It’s a common scenario each October: Halloween is suddenly around the corner and you’re looking forward to partaking in some spirited festivities. However you haven’t given much thought to what costume you’ll be wearing and time is running out! Sound familiar?

You can always scavenge the local Halloween shops for an overpriced, sexed up costume that you’ll only wear once, or you can resort to fishing out last year’s ensemble & hope that no one will remember it. But wouldn’t you rather whip up something easy & unique? Sometimes the most economical solution is lying in your wardrobe right now just begging to be discovered.

A little imagination & a bit of creativity is all you need to create your own do-it-yourself Halloween costume when timing is tight. Since many of you are lingerie addicts such as myself, I imagine you have a plethora of unmentionables just begging to see the light of day. And while incorporating lingerie into a costume sounds risqué or salacious, there are many ways to tone down the sex appeal so the focus is on your originality rather then the intimate apparel.

Below are a few ideas that may help inspire you to look beyond the conventional costumes of the past. Dig out your bras, undies, pajamas & slips and start getting creative!

Lalalingerie.com

1) Like a Virgin circa 1984
Channel your inner 80’s diva with a sexy bridal look a la Madonna.

Start with: White corset, bustier or cami.
Try adding: White skirt, white gloves, white tights, and multiple strands of silver chains or pearl necklaces.
Finishing touches: White hair bow or veil, belt with silver buckle, faux beauty mark.
Get in character: Wear with bold, unabashed confidence! Be ready to party, dance and cause a scene with overt flirting & 80’s dance moves.
Sexy rating: HOT

Costumestore.com

2) Billionaire Playgirl
Live in the lap of luxury with a comfy androgynous look inspired my Mr. Playboy himself.

Start with: Silk or satin men’s pajama set.
Try adding: Satin robe, a smoking pipe & sailors cap.
Finishing touches: A cocktail & sexy bunny arm candy.
Get in character: Adopt an air of sophistication & a devilish grin. Relax & casually rotate the use of all your props in a slow & deliberate manor.
Sexy rating: MEDIUM

Halloweenexpress.com

3) Femme-bot
Mix equal parts Stepford wife & 60’s secret agent for a getup that Mr. Powers can’t resist.

Start with: Marabou trimmed babydoll.
Try adding: Satin hair bow, satin gloves & big, teased hair.
Finishing touches: Marabou slippers & inconspicuous gun barrels.
Get in character: Maintain a stoic appearance, head held high with straight posture. Avoid big movements or showing emotion.
Sexy rating: HOT

Costumezone.com

4) Grouchy Grandma
Keep warm & comfy with this granny inspired look that is low maintenance & is the antithesis of super sexy!

Start with: Shapeless nightgown, preferably in a floral or flannel fabric.
Try adding: Hair curlers, glasses & cozy slippers.
Finishing touches: A long-wear cream facial mask & baby powder to give hair a greyish tint.
Get in character: Nitpick & nag those around you. Walk with a slight hunch and complain about non-existent aches & pains. Have some young whippersnappers get you drinks & massage your feet.
Sexy rating: NOT

Barnesandnoble.com

5) Captain Underpants
Provide some comic relief in this kooky costume while enjoying the perks of super hero-dom.

Start with: Men’s cotton tighty whities.
Try adding: A nude colored shirt for modesty & a red cape.
Finishing touches: A toilet plunger & a toothy smile.
Get in character: Believe that you are strong, brave & can take on anything or anyone. All while simultaneously playing up astonishing averageness.
Sexy rating: MEDIUM

Barnesandnoble.com

6) Freudian Slip
Show the literal side of this psychoanalysis term with a tongue-in-cheek homage to the founding father himself.

Must have: Any slip dress will do.
Try adding: “My name is Freud” sticker & a book on psychology (i.e.: The Interpretation of Dreams by Freud or anything written by Nietzsche).
Finishing touches: A pair of spectacles & appreciation for irony.
Get in character: Appear contemplative & deep in thought. Analyze everything & act skeptical at all time.
Sexy rating: MEDIUM-HOT

7) Hollywood Starlet
Pay respect to old-time 1930’s glamour with an outfit inspired by Greta, Bette, Grace & Jean.

Must have: Slinky floor length slip dress.
Try adding: Smoking jacket, feather boa & cigarette holder.
Finishing touches: Sparkling jewelry, pin curls & red lips.
Get in character: Smile & call everyone darling! Move gracefully throughout the room & let your eyes do the flirting for you.
Sexy rating: MEDIUM-HOT

8) Bond Girl
Heat up the party in this simple yet uber sexy get up, long famous for symbolizing a sex icon since the 1960’s.

Must have: A white, tan or orange bikini.
Try adding: A wide white belt, knife holster with rubber knife prop.
Finishing touches: Conch or other large seashell(s) & slick wet-look hair.
Get in character: To be honest no one is going to be paying attention to anything but your gorgeous body so just be yourself!
Sexy rating: SUPER HOT

The possibilities are endless when it comes to DIY costumes & hopefully these suggestions have inspired you to create your own this year. And remember, when in doubt, adding pale skin & lots of fake blood can zombie-fy any outfit into a frightful yet innovative look – embodying the true spirit of Halloween!

Kristina

Kristina

Lingerie Designer specializing in fashion & trend.

More Posts

Is Cacqiue Lingerie Copying Marlies Dekkers’ Strappy Bras?

So…I was flipping through the latest issue of Essence Magazine this morning when I ran across this shocking ad:

via: The Lingerie Addict instagram

My first thought was “Wow! Marlies Dekkers is advertising in Essence. That’s new.” Then I looked at the opposite page and saw the following text “Cacique: Exclusively at Lane Bryant.”

Whoa. Wait. Seriously?

Now I’m not naive. I know copying happens all the time in the fashion industry. In fact, it’s how the larger (and, often less creative brands) come up with their “new” collections each season, but this was appalling…not only because it’s so blatant (those chest straps are a Marlies Dekkers’ signature), but because the company behind Cacique, Lane Bryant, had the chutzpah to use such a well-known design in a national ad campaign. This isn’t “inspired by.” It’s a near 100% facsimile.

Cacique is on the left. Marlies Dekkers (via Bare Necessities) is on the right. Would you have thought they were both Marlies Dekkers too?

Like I said, I know how rampant copying is in the fashion industry. And, though it’s not the most popular position within the industry, I actually don’t believe in copyright protection for fashion designers…mostly because there’s no way I can see my favorite independent designers (all of whom are younger and have fewer resources than the big brands) staying in business if that kind of legislation were enacted. It’d just be too expensive (and risky!) for anyone to start a fashion line anymore.

But that said, it really gets my goat when a large corporation, with so many resources at their disposal, deliberately undercuts an independent brand. And it shows just how empowered these larger brands feel when they can not only steal someone’s trademark idea but also advertise with it, and know that nothing’s going to happen because of it.

Now, I don’t want to sound like a hypocrite. This is not a position I’ve had the entire time I’ve written this blog. And if you’ve been reading me for awhile, you know that I used to do fairly frequent Look for Less features, which were in many cases (I’m sad to say) outright knock-off promotions.

But one of the things I’ve started doing in the last year, inspired by designers like Piper Ewan and Between the Sheets and Hopeless Lingerie, is take a closer look at where my undergarments are coming from. And, please don’t take this like I’m guilt-tripping anyone (because I hate it when people do that to me), but rip-off companies like Cacique harm the entire lingerie industry.

I want to talk about all this in a more detailed blog post later on, but the gist of it is that independent brands already start really far behind these big companies. We already know they don’t have the investment capital and the corporate infrastrucure and the PR team and the advertising dollars, and all that.

But, behind the scenes, many independent designers (because they work with much smaller volumes than a large national chain) also don’t have the negotiating power a big brand does. And going even further, many indie brands want to manufacture and produce ethically, so that very often means not going with the cheapest factory. And, of course, since these brands can’t sell their products at a loss, some of those costs are passed along in the price tag to us, the consumers.

But if a big brand is not only able to avoid the actual work of doing a unique design but also able to get a much lower price to manufacture, well, that makes it hard for independents to stay in business. Because the playing field just isn’t fair. And goodness knows, I don’t want to live in a world of plain and boring t-shirt bras which is all many of the big brands seem able to come up with on their own (look for the full details of that in my Lingerie Market Report later on this week).

Anyway, I just wanted to put this out here. I see this as the beginning of an on-going and hopefully long-term conversation on the blog that explores the less sexy (but still important) side of the lingerie industry. I really see TLA as being about empowering customers to make the rights decisions for themselves (because knowledge is power), and I think exploring where our lingerie comes from, who makes it, and if it’s being made in a way that resonates with your own personal ethics is a valuable discussion to have.

What do you think of Cacique’s knock-off? How do you feel about lingerie knock-offs in general? I’d love to get your thoughts in the comments.

Treacle

Treacle

Lingerie Blogger. Sugar Junkie. Sci-Fi Geek.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookLinkedInPinterestGoogle PlusFlickrStumbleUponYouTube

The Look for Less: Eres vs. Hanky Panky

You may have noticed it’s been awhile since the last ‘Look for Less‘ article. That’s because one of my more recent Looks for Less articles (featuring Bordelle & Frederick’s of Hollywood), caused quite a stir–and a lot of great discussion–on my Twitter and Facebook pages.

Gaby, from Hopeless Lingerie, wrote a excellent piece on my blog about some of the issues with lingerie knockoffs ,and though I did one more article shortly afterward featuring Agent Provocateur and ASOS, I realized I needed some time to think about Look for Less features, and if I could go about them in a better way.

So welcome to the relaunch of Look for Less.

There were a lot of calls for me to get rid of this feature entirely, but I decided against it because, as a consumer on a budget, I understand that expensive lingerie is out of the reach of many people. And I truly believe that women shouldn’t be sentenced to a lifetime of bland, boring underwear just because they don’t have a luxury budget.

That said, I also understand the difficult position some of my Look for Less features put the industry in, especially independent lingerie designers. I can’t imagine how heartbreaking it must be to spend months designing the perfect undergarment only to see your efforts oliberated by a multi-million dollar company with designers, factories, and advertising dollars to spare.

So though today marks the return of Look for Less, it also marks the beginning of what I hope is a more ethical version of Look for Less. We’ll be talking less about seam-for-seam knockoffs and more about how you can get the look and feel of designer pieces even if you don’t have a designer budget.

Today’s feature compares Eres’ Pandora lace (pictured left here and in all other photos) range with Hanky Panky’s signature lace range (pictured right here and in all other photos). I first found out about the Pandora range through Frou Frou Fashionista, and I immediately fell in love with the design. Lace is such a classic lingerie material, and it makes even the most basic patterns look luxurious.

Sadly, I was less enamored of Eres’ price tag. With briefs starting at $190 and bras at $355, I’d need to eat an unhealthy amount of Ramen to afford their lingerie.

Fortunately, you can get a similar allover lace look from Hanky Panky for a lot less money. The pieces featured here start at $32, and I can personally attest to their comfort, durability, and yes, sexiness.

What do you think of Eres’ Pandora line and Hanky Panky’s Signature Lace? Purchase…or pass?

The Look for Less: Agent Provocateur "Whip Me" Stockings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the left corner we have Agent Provocateur’s gorgeous and exclusive Whip Me Stockings.  Selling for $70.00, these stockings have the words “Whip Me…Bite Me…Eat Me…Tease Me” in place of the traditional backseam.

In the right corner, we have the luxury-inspired but budget-friendly ASOS version. Retailing at $17.93, these Love backseam tights have all the class of the more expensive version but for considerably less cash.

What do you think, fellow addicts, are these sexy stockings a purchase…or pass?

The Look for Less: The View from the Designer

Today’s guest post is by the very lovely Gaby of the luxury, handmade label Hopeless Lingerie out of Australia.  My last Look for Less feature, featuring Frederick’s of Hollywood and Bordelle Lingerie caused a lot of controversy over on my Facebook and Twitter.
 
In an effort to present both sides of the story, I asked Gaby to share her perspective as a lingerie designer with my readers.  Her post is presented in its entirety with no edits.  If you enjoy Gaby’s writing, you can also check out her behind-the-scenes blog Spokes ‘n’ Daggers.

 

 

Hi fans and lovers of The Lingerie Addict!

My name is Gaby and I am the lady behind Hopeless Lingerie. I have been running my small business for almost 3 years and love every part of what I do. I was incredibly honored when Treacle asked me to address the issues concerning her ‘Look for Less‘ posts, after an interesting discussion about it all on Twitter. Treacle has been a supporter of me and what I do for a long time, and I have also been a fan and reader of her blog for years!
From the outset I will say that the idea does not sit comfortably with me as both a designer and consumer of lingerie. I expect this to be a controversial topic and would like to share my reasons for disagreeing. I do not expect everyone to agree with me but would love to engage in discussion about it.
The first reason I find ‘Look for Less’ problematic concerns the theft of intellectual property. I know first-hand the blood, sweat and tears that goes into creating a range of garments.  From the initial idea making its way from your mind to a piece of paper, to the research into a theme, selecting the appropriate fabric and trimmings, meticulously drafting a paper pattern, draping the garment on a model, machine stitching and then hand sewing the final details – what we small business owners in the fashion industry do is an absolute labour of love. Some garments can be months or even years in the making. When you have an idea but are not sure how to execute it, it might be 5 or 6 attempts until you get it just right. Resources of course are not endless, as well as the cost of materials during the sampling stage, you are also at the same time promoting your business, posting your orders, doing made to measure and many more tasks to keep things running.
Can you imagine then, what the feeling must be for some national company with hundreds of employees and a comparatively astronomical budget to come along, send a picture of one of your pieces to a factory in China, and get them to copy it, for mass reproduction and sales nation wide? You can guarantee they will get it made as cheaply as possible, cutting corners so they can pass the savings onto the consumer. There is nothing wrong with taking inspiration from other designers, but when a garment is identical apart from 1 or 2 points, it is just theft.
But remember most of these sort of companies, who do not think twice about stealing from the little guy, also may not care who makes their product. You can never be sure that the company with questionable morals concerning theft of intellectual property, might also have questionable morals concerning the treatment of workers in foreign countries. This is a separate issue but worth mentioning when discussing lower priced and mass produced garments.
What I cannot understand is why these large companies with so many more resources, choose to steal original ideas when they could easily afford to employ a talented designer and create something truly amazing. Well maybe I can understand – its just about making money. Of course it is easier to steal designs than pay someone to create them. And that is the difference between these huge companies and small business – department store brands are profit driven, it is all about the bottom line. Niche brands are usually in it for the art and for the love. Money will often come lower on the list of priorities.
The other important point to me is difference between high quality and mass production. This is a personal preference that I know not everyone agrees with, but this is a large reason I have a problem with the ‘Look for Less’ posts. I have always believed I would rather have fewer, well made, well fitting, beautiful things to treasure, than more less special things that will get thrown away in a few months. I do believe that chain stores and mass produced items have a place in the industry, but I prefer to support the ones that support designers. And I also know that not everyone’s budget is suited to higher priced items even after a lot of saving. But all consumers have the power to choose what sort of companies they will support. Of the ‘Big Guys’ in the fashion world there are some who conduct business more respectably than others and I think it is important to encourage that.  Good quality does not always equate to a high price, just as the reverse is true.
Find out more about who you shop from, think about where your clothes and underwear come from, and just be educated. Of course I am incredibly biased on this topic, but even if I did not own a small lingerie business I would not want to support the theft of anything. Just because an idea is not a tangible thing, that does not mean it has no value. It is for this reason that consumers need to be much more discerning about what they buy.
And if you think this doesn’t happen that often I urge you to check out this site: http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/ Pages of little guy after little guy getting ripped off….
I am sure this will ruffle some feathers but it is because I am really passionate about this topic, I urge you all to debate and discuss! Thank you Treacle and readers for having me! Gaby xoxo
Photo Credit: All images from Hopeless Lingerie.

The Look for Less: Bordelle vs. Frederick’s of Hollywood

On the left side, we’ve got Bordelle’s webbed suspender belt from their one of their very first collections back in 2009. Originally retailing at £89 (approximately $142), this is one of the pieces that put the UK brand on the luxury lingerie map.

On the right side, we have Frederick’s of Hollywood’s Runway Burlesque Chemise, an unabashed remake which retails at a somewhat more budget-friendly $38 (and offers a matching bra & g-string if you want to complete the look).

What do you think, fellow addicts?  Is this strappy, bondage-inspired garter belt a purchase…or pass?