The High Cost of Mid-Recession Shoes
posted by: freePOrnaoa in Shoe Trends on September 30th, 2009
In our last post on Saks’ Shoe Heaven, we waxed poetically and lovingly about the lovely summer sales going on. No more, dear shoeholics, no more.
Meet the man who would take away your sales.
What the heck does this midtown-lookin’ businessman have to do with my shoe addiction, you ask?
That ubernice-looking man is the President and Chief Merchandising Officer at Saks. He is the one who determines what is sold, and how long it stays on the shelf.
He wants Saks to become more competitive in a “challenged luxury segment,” so he’s “tweaking the product assortment to include more contemporary brands, ramping up exclusives, introducing private label and expanding elements of the 10022-SHOE salon concept across the chain.”
Love the idea of expanding the 10022-SHOE salon marketing concept across the world.
Love the idea of more exclusives.
Love the private label plan.
LOVE the idea of more contemporary brands…….
DON’T love the plan to stay away from the sort of intense discounts that the Saks salon had last fall!!!
According to Women’s Wear Daily’s just-published piece: “‘That was last fall,’ Frasch firmly stated, adding that the company has no intention of repeating the deep discounts this year.”
New York is the land of the rich. But even the rich folks I know have been bargain hunting like addled old ladies at the flea market. And whereas I used to be able to afford a $300 to $700 shoe once every few months, it’s out of the question now.
So if a middle-class consumer like yours truly can’t afford her $300 to $700 shoe a few times a year anymore, why can’t they keep offering a $175 shoe for me that I would actually buy instead of two pairs of low-to-medium quality shoes at Urban Outfitters?
WWD visited the 10022-SHOE salon recently and testified to zero discounted shoes.
My point of view on this is that people right now still want to feel like they’re getting a bargain because we’re still in a recession. So have a mix of very expensive for the rich to very rich, and keep drawing folks like me in with the quietly-discounted-in-the-corner and the seasonal sales.
Frasch wants to seek out more mid-range shoes.
“‘Prices definitely got out of control,’ Frasch said of the pre-recession world. ‘Now you have a pricing structure where there are shoes that are $795 or more, and shoes that are $195. Where are those designer shoes that are between $395 and $595?’”
Frasch also wants top designers to do more interesting, reasonable styles, and mentioned jelly sandals, but hoped for something more high end.
That sounds great. My thought on this is that we can use new sustainable materials, like a natural latex rubber or gum rubber for boots and quickly-growing bamboo for cushioning and covering interiors. That’s a big selling point. I don’t believe beauty has to be sacrificed. How about those great Chanel camellia rain boots? They could be low cost, high style, sustainable rubber and carry the designer name and make Saks proud.
Also, we’ve seen Zaha Hadid and Vivienne Westwood do some great things with low cost materials with Melissa Plastic Dreams. Isaac Mizraahi, as I will write about in my next post, is making shoes with what looks like leather but is sustainable salmon skin. In Barcelona, I saw a lot of plastic shoes that were very high design in boutiques. I’d prefer sustainable rubber or leather, but it’s nice to see affordable design. Though $365 online, both pairs were discounted below $100 at my local boutique.
Vivienne Westwood’s Anglomania shoes with Melissa Plastic Dreams. You can buy them here.
You can buy this other style of the VW’s here at Zappos for $154.
Zaha Hadid’s architectural shoes for $365, but look for deals in your local boutiques:
Well, Saks, we look forward to your private label. Like Barneys, that could be a wonderful thing. But please keep the discounts coming, especially at end of season! Don’t drive me away to all sample sales, DSW and online sales! I thought that with Fashion’s Night Out, the industry was leaning toward a more egalitarian, inclusive luxury market, an idea of high design for all.
I am devoted to Saks almost as much as I am to Barneys when it comes to department store giants (I rarely visit Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s and Lord & Taylor, and Bergdorf I only go to for inspiration since its windows are fantastic), but my suggestion is that Saks open up a co-op similar to Barneys’ Co-op. Younger, cheaper, hipper. It could be a small boite within each Saks, not even an entire building or store.
What do you think readers? Are you ready to go back to regularly or even occasionally buying $400 and higher shoes from your recessionista shopping habits?
6 Comments
- Click Here to Speak Up
October 01, 2009 at 10:42 am, mm said:
Thank Goodness i bought great shoes from brands i was dying to purchase for years at that Saks 70% sale last november. It happen once so there is no way i will purchase shoes for 500-700, so i guess i will be admiring the shoes from Saks Website until another fluke happens.
October 01, 2009 at 3:12 am, galligator said:
I completely understand the losses/issues Saks had to contend with last fall. Due to frozen business credit markets, they were forced to make an unpalatable decision to possibly dilute the image of luxury at their store vs. acquiring the necessary cash on hand to continue operations into product for the following season. They were forced to throw out long-term retail concerns to survive as a retail entity. But, it did cause consumers to become cynical about the prices they had been paying.
The one issue with #3/4 is that many designer brands have outsourced to cheaper labor to increase profits. Unfortunately, if the final stage is completed in Italy, the law allows the designer to slap a made-in-Italy label on it. How do you guarantee that your luxury item is still luxury made under that business model? That decrease in quality of some brands to chase greater profit is disingenuous at best.
And, I, for one, don't expect everybody to be able to afford frequent purchases of designer shoes.But, even with a nice income, I won't pay $700 for shoes..I have better things on which to spend my budget.
Also, base shoe prices at many luxury houses increased dramatically from (30-50% above even last spring's prices) over just the last 18 months, and that was not simply a function of increased demand. There is what seems to me an almost desperate attempt to re-brand luxury's appearance of 'exclusivity' (too many women have ready books like "How luxury lost it's luster" to not be cynical and suspicious of brands and cost-cutting efforts) as well as a bit of a "let's just see just how much fashion-conscious women can be convinced to spend on fashion goods" attitude. We as the bulk of consumers must vote no with our pocketbooks if we are to prove that we, as a group, cannot be influenced by this marketing attempt.
I obviously think the current price increases are excessive. When luxury becomes unaffordable for even an occasional budgeted splurge for a family that is right on upper border of middle-class income, you have priced-out a huge shopping market from your goods. If they have to choose between another year of dance for their kids or a pair of shoes, most mothers will forgo the shoes. This is the middle-market that has disappeared…women who will pay the occasional $400-$600 for quality handcrafted goods that will last forever, but simply can't find them anymore.
I don't know about you, but once a product approaches 4 digits on it's price tag, I'm accustomed to getting a motor & warranty with it. For me price is part of an overall value calculation. I love shoes, but do not get enough value out of shoes that are $700-2000/pair when the same shoe was $350-600 within the last 5 years. Labor and materials costs have not increased nearly that amount over the same period of time, so there are other profit factors in place as well.
There has been a push by fashion houses to make shoes the next 'It purchase' along with pushes for mid-high income purchasers to mimic celebs who are wearing these brands. I can have a bespoke shoe made on a custom shoe last for $250-600. Why would I be tempted to pay more for a shoe that won't be handmade & fit me perfectly.
So now, I vote with my wallet & hope that other women will do the same.
September 30, 2009 at 9:27 pm, donna said:
great article with intelligent comments. keep them coming.
September 30, 2009 at 5:16 pm, Cheri said:
I tend to agree and disagree with certain points of your blog. Everyone should have the luxury of being able to afford well-made quality shoes. The prices of the shoes of so many of the luxury brands were definitely getting way out of hand. The Saks 70% off sale last year prior to Thanksgiving was a one-time fluke in response to the world's economy. It was also a great way for middle-America consumers to get their hands on couture shoes. However, a few things to consider:
1) Most boutiques and department stores break even when they sell their merchandise at 50% off. Anything below 50% off and the store loses money. Saks took an absolute bath with that 70% off sale. They lost A LOT of money. As a matter of fact, Saks had to fund their own 70% off sale due to #2 below..
2) Luxury department stores such as Saks, Barneys, and Bergdorf's sign agreements with the design houses and luxury shoe brands as to when the luxe shoes can go on sale and at what percentage. Many of the design houses were NOT aware and then therefore NOT happy when Saks decided to put the majority of the couture shoes on sale at such a high percentage before Thanksgiving 2008.
3) The high-priced shoes are attributed to a couple of things: Yes we are paying for the name of Prada, Dior, Gucci, etc. However, consumers are also paying for the assurance that the shoes are made with the finest quality materials and professional cobblers that craft the shoes in a decent working environment (e.g a 50 year old man who has learned the craft of creating shoes vs a 14 year-old girl in China making .30 cents an hour to glue studs on a sandal).
4) Cheaper shoes that are not made in Europe that maybe manufactured in China or maybe Brazil may not be made with the best or even consumer-friendly materials and textiles. More importantly cheaper shoes often do mean cheaper labor with more suspect working conditions.
5) The department stores' buyers have had to be more intelligent when selecting what shoes their stores will carry in the face of this worldwide recession. Which means for us, that the sales won't be as great. Since the dept store buyers are buying less inventory there will be fewer shoes on the shoe sale rack…
6) Sustainable shoes are a great idea! I'm hoping someone like Stella McCartney can introduce a line that we all could afford and is ethically made…
In sum, I do hope that the grande dept stores such as Saks, Barneys, Bergdorf, and Nordie's can retain their cache while offering consumers a great affordable selection….
September 30, 2009 at 3:08 pm, Candace said:
I totally agree! Maybe you should take his job! Right now I can barely afford a $100 pair of shoes let alone $300 and while people are still suffering financially we still love our luxury. The sustainable materials is an excellent idea to keep high quality on a budget. PS. Love Melissa Shoes.
http://ladolce-vita.blogspot.com
twitter.com/ladolcevitainfo
September 30, 2009 at 12:42 pm, barbiegirl said:
The market will speak. If shoes sell at $1200, we will be stuck with higher prices. If enough of us refuse to buy shoes at the $600+ range, than the market will force lower prices. Simple economics. I simply won't purchase at those prices. I guess it's down to lucky last calls & online sales for me.