Recently there has been an influx of luxury brands entering the childrenswear market.
Ralph Lauren have been doing it for fashion ions, Stella McCartney did it with with GAP. Burberry made its mark when Katie Holmes put Suri Cruise in their signature tartan for a day in the park. Gucci hired Jennifer Lopez’s infant twins as duel brand ambassadors. Chloé, Marc Jacobs, Fendi and Dior all do it, Lanvin recently joined the fray.
The only person I have heard publicly confirm their disinterest is Balenciaga CEO, Isabelle Guichot. She seems to have the idea that designer fashion, which wishes to be taken seriously, should probably leave childrenswear to the aforementioned GAP. She revealed the brand had investigated it, but felt there was no credible link between Balenciaga’s heritage and designing clothes for kids, therefore they decided not to pursue it.
Smart woman? I think so. But maybe all the poorer for it.
Designer childrenswear, from a purely emotional standpoint, makes me furious.
Between Facebook, the iPad and Google, millennial generations are already going to be lacking basic social skills and fundamental survival skills like using a phonebook. Is it really necessary that we add image complexes to their list of potential ailments? Should 5 year olds really be brought up with a value system that dictates it is more important to keep an expensive dress clean than it is to have fun in a sandbox?
This is me making sweeping assumptions. I am assuming that these parents in question, buying Dior for their children, expect the kids to keep it intact – as I would expect of any adult to look after anything of signficant value. But maybe this is a peasants attitude towards clothing? Maybe Dior is for the mud and Chanel Haute Couture is for formal events?
Clearly I digress from the objective and factual.
From a business standpoint, this is an area of great opportunity. In 2009, childrenswear accounted for 5% of Burberry’s £1.28 billion revenue. As the luxury industry grows and recovers from the GFC, new types of consumers have emerged. Younger, more confident in their spending, from India, China and the Middle East. Consumers that are super wealthy, driven by family, driven by gifting cultures, people that want the best for themselves and those close to them. If this means a Burberry bib for $200, who am I to judge?
But where do you draw the line?
Obviously these kids collections need to be presented, by kids. Fendi orchestrated an entire runway show, just like an adult ready-to-wear extravaganza, sending 4-10 year olds shimmying down a catwalk. During the Smalto menswear show in Paris, a kid walked the entire length of the runway crying like a baby, probably because yesterday, he was still a baby.
And when there are laws in place about not being able to hire models under the age of 16, isn’t it slightly hypocritical that as long as they are pre-highschool, it is fine for them to strut? I’m not going to assume that the fashion industry is ever going to make sense, but I would prefer if it stuck to ruining adolescent self confidence and adult bank accounts. Kids have no place in a world where adults barely survive.
The major hole in my high-horse standpoint, regarding what kids should and shouldn’t wear and whether or not kids should be allowed near a runway, is that it is totally irrelevant. At the end of the day there are people that want to buy their kids expensive, branded, clothing. If Dior don’t do it, realistically, potential clients will just go to Gucci or Stella or whoever else is getting involved.
In a world where designers report to CEO’s and Shareholders, those that choose not to capitalise, will realistically, get fired. Unfortunately this is just another case of Chicken or the Egg.
