Football's fashionable side

Fashionista doesn't often have cause to write about football but, with World Cup fever at its height as we reach the closing stages of the competition, Fashionista has considered with interest the opportunity for mass exposure which the world's biggest, most viewed sporting event lends to fashion brands.

Sportswear brand exposure is a given through official association: Adidas is the official event sponsor, producing the team kits for many including Germany, France and the hosts South Africa; Puma has Italy; Umbro has England; to name but a few. Understandable. Nothing extraodinary there.

Of much greater note is the publicity and widespread advertising reach which association with the FIFA World Cup bestows to less obviously "sporty" brands. Enter high street and luxury retail giants M&S and Louis Vuitton.

Fashionista thought the England squad looked oh-so-smart in their 3 piece suit by M&S. 4 years ago, our boys wore Armani. In a bid to be slightly more recessionista and to fly the flag of how great it is to be British, the England squad has partnered with one of our favourite national brands. What no doubt first appeared as a a great way to drive footfall and attract online sales is likely to have been derailed, first when key team members featured in the ad - Theo Walcott - failed to be selected to travel to South Africa, and then, as a result of England's dismal performance against Germany on Sunday.

Louis Vuitton may have escaped M&S's fate, since their World Cup product was only ever going to be associated with the winning team. LVMH were asked by FIFA to design a custom built trunk to encase the 18 carat gold FIFA World Cup trophy so that it could travel in style. The LV monogram is instantly recognisable, and viewers will not be able to avoid clocking the logo as the trophy - in its LV trunk - is carried onto the pitch for the final. The perfect example of a winning brand collaboration.

Whilst Fashionista is a fan of the beautiful game, she suspects that her eye may be on the customised trunk rather than what is inside it come the 11th of July...

Advertising: taking the good with the bad

Louis Vuitton: Iconic. Established. The Monogram.

There won't be a single fashionista out there who won't be familiar with the name, the brand or its products. 2010 marks Louis Vuitton's 125th anniversary - and the celebrations included last night's widely advertised and hotly anticipated launch party of the iconic brand's flagship "London Maison" in New Bond Street.

Fashionista has heard that the fabulous, the famous and the beautiful all rubbed shoulders at the event. Gone are the days when we have to rely on next day press write-ups, as LV fans around the world were able to share in the glamour of the red carpet event as it was happening by watching it play out on the brand's Facebook page. A savvy move, exploiting social media to maximise the accessibility of a brand - reaching millions with a simple upload. An instantaneous, interactive and very effective form of advertisement.

Certainly more effective, Fashionista muses, than two Louis Vuitton adverts which the Advertising Standards Agency has today declared misleadingly implied that Louis Vuitton's products are hand made. The full report on the ASA website highlights the importance of giving careful consideration to the implicit message in ads, as the two Louis Vuitton ads were pulled after the ASA received only 3 complaints.

Fashionista invites her readers to judge for themselves whether or not the ASA has got it right or is the ban the result of overzealous censorship when faced with the smallest hint of complaint. Does, for example, an image of a woman using a needle and thread to stitch the handle of a bag together with the text "... infinite patience protects each overstitch ... One could say that a Louis Vuitton bag is a collection of fine details. But with so much attention lavished on every one, should we only call them details?" mislead consumers into believing that LV bags are stitched by hand?

The decision also highlights the importance of retaining evidence relating to a brand - its products, designs, know-how and manufacturing processes (to name but a few) - to help defend claims made against it. Fashionista has seen the issue of evidence retention come up again and again when brandowners have sought to rely on copyright in fabric patterns or design right in shoes and handbags, and the difficulty faced when they have not kept hold of sufficient background materials to prove their rights or substantiate their case. The ASA claimed, in this case, that because they had not seen evidence from Louis Vuitton to show the extent to which products may, in fact, be hand made, the ASA had to conclude that the ads were misleading.

The ban suggests that someone, somewhere, got this one a little wrong. Whether it is the complainants and the ASA or Louis Vuitton is open to debate. Whatever your opinion, the old adage "all publicity is good publicity" springs to mind. Perhaps the ban will make Louis Vuitton seem contemporary; exciting; pushing boundaries; not forgotten. After all, a brand which can survive 125 years in the fast changing, often fickle world of fashion and brand loyalty - and retain a luxury reputation throughout - must be doing something right.