15.Oct.2009 Investment dressing: why it’s no investment at all
In times of economic trouble (alternative phrases, from the cliché notebook: these tough economic times, times of financial difficulty…) there are a some old faithfuls that women’s magazines like to turn out in order to keep their advertising revenue up and encourage us, the consumer, to spend our dosh. Advertorials like, “The look for less”, “Runway to Realway” and “Splurge or Save” are the mainstay money-peddlers of these publications. Then they remind us that you can actually buy beauty products and cosmetics at your supermarket, just in case you didn’t already know. And finally, they bring out the big guns: Investment Dressing.
The concept is this: there are certain items that every woman ought to have in their wardrobe – “the classics”. And rather than spend your money on chain-store or high street purchases of dubious quality, it’s best that you spend more on a small number of pricey items rather than buying lots for less. You’ll have them for years, they say, because well-made classics last longer and never go out of style.
The new catch-phrase, trotted out in US Marie Claire’s September 2008 issue and subsequently many more, is “recession-proof your wardrobe”. This would have been a fine concept if they had seen the signs of the economic disaster to come: two years prior. But the sub-prime crisis had already made itself well-and-truly known by the time that issue hit the stands.
For women under financial strain, attempting to recession-proof their wardrobes is now just another way to spend money that they don’t have. Economists agree: investment dressing is a deceptive marketing concept, and quite antithetical to the concept of investment: you generally can’t cash in on your clothing in a few years’ time.
And then there are the products that we’re rather predictably being told to invest in, the so-called classics. Most often you’ll find a white button-down shirt, black trousers, a smoking jacket, a trench coat, and some pumps. Yes, as general categories of clothing styles, these have stood the test of time. But nevertheless the cut, fit and embellishments change from season to season. You might soon find that your ‘timeless’, $1000 suit gives itself away as ‘so 7 years ago’ simply by the way in which the skirt is pleated or where the buttons sit.
And where does personal style sit in this equation? I, for one, have none of these so-called classics in my wardrobe. I don’t like wearing pants; white washes me out; I suck at walking in heels. But I get along just fine, with many items that I’ve had for years that have become my own personal classics: a khaki silk jacket, a Karen Walker bolero, a striped blue and white skirt that I made myself. I’ve had these for 7 years, and probably wear them once a fortnight.
Even Maggie Alderson – one of my favourite fashion writers – admits in an article ostensibly extolling the virtues of ‘classic’ trench coats that, “Unless you closely resemble [Ali MacGraw] in height and frame, the thick gabardine can make you look frumpy and dumpy, rather than chicly winsome.” She goes on to suggest that Muccia Prada solved this problem with the invention of a lightweight nylon version. But that’s a solution many of us can ill-afford.
Of course, there is some wisdom to the message: that if you want to spend your money wisely when buying clothing, you should consider its future potential, not just its current trendiness. But in the mutually beneficial world of fashion and magazines, you’re not going to hear the alternative: don’t buy anything.
It’s the ‘buy buy buy’ tone of these articles that explains in part why women’s magazine readership is down. Women are spending less: not just on clothing, but on the magazines that try and relentlessly sell it to them.
