If a leopard can't change its spots, can a Croc ...?

In "Crocs Gives Its Footwear A Loving Makeover", Sara Zucker writes on brandchannel of a neat side-step by a the love-them-or-hate-them Crocs brand. Instead of the colourful clogs that made the company famous, Crocs' latest promotion highlights a variety of modern slip-ons. The article links to a 30-second video which introduces consumers to Croslite, "a technology in all branded shoes designed to increase comfort and hug a wearer's foot". The new Crocs styles, says Global VP of Marketing Ken Chaplin, "reflect our expertise in the design, development and marketing of custom contouring footwear.” Adds Zucker:

"Crocs still deserves credit for reaching out to customers who just want to relax at home; this could help the brand to lose its widespread reputation for unfashionable footwear. The Crocs brand isn't the Snuggie, after all".

Fashionista knows how difficult it can be for any brand, in any market, to change its image -- not least since that can involve a change of loyal clientele too. It's also true that, except in the case of some elegant folk who could go out for the night dressed in disposable plastic bags and still look glamorous, many people found it difficult to wear the original Crocs with any real style and panache. Will this change of focus work, she wonders? On a deeper level, she ponders whether there is a middle ground between the fashionable and the unfashionable -- a sort of fashion-neutral position that Crocs can seek to occupy -- and whether that middle ground is a beachhead from which to leverage a brand or whether, perceived as neither fashionable nor the opposite, the brand will end up stranded like a beached whale. Can Crocs change their spots? Only time will tell.

The Polarization of Lady Gaga

Back in her earlier days, Fashionista always craved a Polaroid camera. No matter that the images were pretty murky, smelt a bit and had a tendency to fade -- you could wait a minute and pull out an "instant" piccie, to the instant admiration and envy of your friends. Having been overtaken by the vicissitudes of technological evolution and two spells of bankruptcy, the brand is back, it seems. In "Polaroid's Comeback: Style Over Substance?", BrandChannel reports on good news from the brand's holding company -- a policy of vigorous (promiscuous?) licensing to the highest bidder in the electronics sector has hiked royalty by 50% over the past 12 months.
And now there's more to come. Fashion icon Lady GaGa has been engaged as the brand's creative director. While her role is said to be "not yet entirely clear", the company says that a branded line of Lady GaGa Polaroid devices "will hit retail shelves starting in late 2010". Says the article, Lady Gaga will give Polaroid great exposure, but it asks:

"isn't the brand more defined by the quality of the wide range of products it continues to license? Can a Lady GaGa costume cloak a brand with no real foundation, or is this just a good start?"

Says Fashionista, what's remarkable is the fact that the company is persisting in developing technology product areas such as instant photography, rather than pushing Polaroid as a fashion brand in the overcrowded garment and accessories markets -- where Lady GaGa's appeal might more obviously be deployed. It's even more surprising if you recall that Polaroid has enjoyed a successful life as an accessory brand, as evidenced by its Polarized shades. Perhaps there's more to this story than meets the eye, and uses of the Polaroid brand in different markets have been determined by men in grey suits in the corporate aftermath of the company's earlier financial problems. Modeliste is quite baffled by all this stuff about instant photography: almost every item in her handbag seems to take photos.

Oh to look old. What a difference a product-base makes.

Skincare brands fight for who can sell the most youth-inducing product. Their most expensive, often best selling, products are designed to make you look young. To convey this, the brands themselves want to look young; fresh; light. Anti-ageing serums. Light diffusing makeup. The aim is to reverse the effects of time.

Not so for some clothing brands it seems. They, on the other hand, want to look "old". Especially the newer brands. Fashionista has often wondered what random dates on t-shirts mean. For example, "Hollister 1922"? Well, in Hollister's case (Abercrombie & Fitch's sister-brand), it apparently means nothing. According to the BBC website, the Hollister brand was establish in 2000, and the brand's "history" of John Hollister senior - an adventurous traveller who set up the Hollister brand on his return to the US after a brief stint in the Dutch East Indies - is also fictional.

So why go to such extreme lengths? and what are the effects and implications of portraying a fake brand history as the truth? How much do consumers really care?

Fashionista suspects that this depends on who the consumers are. Does this come back to the issue of age? or does it come down to a price tag? do you have to pay for the truth?

A BBC article suggests that Hollister fans are unlikely to care, or they're not likely to feel misled or disgruntled by the falsification of facts. Fashionista wonders whether this is because Hollister products (at fairly standard high street prices) are aimed at a younger audience who may give more attention to the look of a brand rather than to what is behind it.

Compare this to how puchasers of high end luxury goods would feel if they were sold their (real not counterfeit) "It-bag" together with a fake story of brand conception and history? Fashionista suspects that this consumer would feel misled or disgruntled, and may abandon the brand. When a fashionista buys a luxury product, she is buying "into" that brand and what it represents. So, for her to then find out that what she has been sold is a lie, well doesn't that somehow tarnish what she has just bought into?

In terms of effects on the brand: new brands which suggest long-ago establishement are trying to create better images of themselves for consumers. Longevity, especially in the current economic climate, suggests an ability to withstand all sorts of problems, trials and tribulations. It suggest success. Beating the competition. Quality. Value. All attributes which older brands have spent many years (and resources) cultivating. Fashionistas often have their favourite brand and will continue to add to their collection out of loyalty for the brand. And so, the question for brands to consider is this: if the story customers are being sold is fake - even if the product is not - are those customers likely to come back for more?