Nicky Hilton, Paris’ relatively intelligent sister and all round glamour-addict, is building on her Chick “tweeny” fashion label which she launched back in 2004. Her new label, Nicky Hilton Beverly Hills (no points for originality), is looking to attract an older and more discerning customer. Nicky Hilton is quote as saying her new brand is “clothes my friends and I could wear,” – by implication Chick is something she and they would not, which isn’t althogether surprising.

“I don’t want to be one of those celebrities that slaps their name on a label and collects royalty checks,” said the celebrity-wannabe, as she emphasised her credentials; she studied at the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York.

The Nicky Hilton Bverely Hills collections includes pieces adorned with pearls, polka dots and a pink palm tree motif. Nicky is quoted as saying she finds inspiration in “things from my everyday life,” such as the palm trees outside the window of the Beverly Hills hotel room she used to call home. “Waking up every morning, I would see those trees. That just clicked,” said Nick. Hearing that mindless nonsense is enough, you would have thought, to put off any semi-conscious fashion buyer. Despite that, we all know Nicky Hilton Beverly Hills is destined to be a runaway success.

So Mad Madge of the Madonna kind has set up a new Limited company in the UK called, of all things: Semtex Girls. Let’s face it, only a non-Brit without an understanding of recent British history would introduce the word “Semtex” into a company name, and if anyone was likely to put their dainty “plate of meat” into it — mad Madge was a prime candidate. Although you would have thought Guy could have had a word in her “shell” like!

Semtex, as any Brit over the age of 11 probably knows was the preferred “butchering device” of the infamous IRA. Semtex plastic explosive is manufactured in the Czech Republic and is safe to handle but difficult to trace, since it has no smell — unlike the controversial marketing stench wafting from Semtex Girls!

In fact, a quantity of 0.5 kg/1.1 lb of Semtex is thought to have been the cause of an explosion that destroyed a Pan-American Boeing 747 in flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, December 1988, killing 270 people.

Of course, everyone now wants to know the nature of Mad Madge’s new business. Apparently, she won’t reveal the exact purpose of her new venture but apparently issued the following incomprehensible marketing dribble to Contactmusic:

“The Semtex Girl is a girl who is dynamic, a girl who explodes, who doesn’t know the meaning of nine to five, a girl who is unstoppable and who doesn’t take no for an answer. And has excellent taste”.

Apparently Mad Madge also reassured her male fans (does she have any?) that they’re not exempt and can be Semtex Girls too! Presumably after surgery!

It’s been suggested that Madonna’s new Semtex Girls company could be a fashion brand. A number of commentators have suggested we could soon be seeing Semtex Girls Clothing, T-Shirts, Jackets and Jeans. Sounds a bit cheap and tacky.

So has Mad Madge finally lost her marbles and overstepped the accepted bounds of marketing BS. Most people could probably overlook her exploitation of Qabala to glean attention but to glamorise a substance which has been used to murder innocent civilians and could feasibly be used in the future by pseudo-Muslim terrorists to inflict mass murder is nothing less than spiritually retarded!

So everyone’s favourite transcendental gay and pseudo-krishna queen, Boy George enters the fashion world with his B-Rude label. Everyone’s asking the same question: why’s the ex Culture Club front-person, DJ maestro and all-round fabulous entertainer hitting the cloth?

The B-Rude label was actually born back in 2004 and consists of bold clothes and T-shirts for men and women. If Boy George’s eccentric and often breath-taking personal fashion sense if anything to go by the B-Rude label will, if nothing else, stun and amaze the fashion world — at a guess it’ll be like imploding Vivienne Westwood over Jean-Paul Gaultier and then adding a bucket load of John Galliano and finally a pinch of Buddhist Punk; a crazy divine mixture which has the potential to be a success.

So hats off and good luck to Boy George and his B-Rude label — definitely one to watch!

For many years now G-Star has been an edgy and widely respected denim brand. G-Star’s innovation and celebration of youth culture attracted a young and intelligent customer base which have remained loyal to the brand and its unorthodox fashion style. Recently, however, there have been murmurings of discontent amongst a growing number of G-Star aficionados and the reason is intriguing.

Ever since its inception back in 1989 the G-Star brand has been limited to a select number of respected retail outlets which helped evolve G-Star into an exclusive designer brand. The arrangement was truly symbiotic, G-Star was introduced to an intelligent and discerning fashion consumer and the exclusive retail outlets had another innovative brand to add to their inventory, everyone was happy, the G-Star brand, the exclusive retailer and the discerning customer. A winning and successful combination.

Then, inexplicably, G-Star decides to introduce its range into the High Street multiples that patently lack the kudos of the exclusive retailers and the once loyal G-Star customer base starts to question the brands credibility. How can an intelligent and discerning fashion consumer be seen wearing a brand that’s widely available in the High Street multiples? The answer is it can’t! So the murmurings of discontent intensify and the G-Star brand transfers to an entirely new customer base which is undoubtedly larger but certainly less loyal. So although G-Star maybe transferring it’s focus to a larger customer base which in the short-term may spike profits, in the long-term the brand will suffer because it will not only lose it’s traditional discerning customer base but the typical customer who shops in multiples is notoriously fickle and will move onto a new fad in no time leaving G-Star high-and-dry.

Ultimately the decision to embrace a wider customer base could prove catastrophic for G-Star and it could act as a warning for other designer brands looking for a short-term “spike” in profits at the expense of their traditional customer base.

Reebok, the sportswear brand recently acquired by Adidas-Solomon AG, is causing something of a stir with its “shockers”. And by “shockers” we’re not referring to a new innovative bio-mechanical and ergonomic footwear revelation – God forbid! No, we’re referring to controversial advertising which includes depictions of Satan – indeed, God forbid!

Only last year Reebok ran a controversial television advertisement which depicted 50 Cent, the renowned uber-rapper and former drug dealer who lives in Connecticut, counting the number of bullets that have been shot at him. The famous rapper laughs and then looks into the camera as a voiceover asks, “Who do you plan to massacre next?” The advertisement was pulled in the United Kingdom. This type of tired and frankly puerile advertising is a long way from Reebok’s roots which where planted in the soil of step-aerobics and Richard Simmons’ anti-inertia classes. Indeed, the brand appears to be at the antithesis of its roots with its direct association with the negative side of hip-hop culture.

Given the negative connotations associated with Reebok’s patently obvious attempt to woo the dark side, many knowledgeable commentators are asking could this negatively impact their new parent company, Adidas. Adidas still has a strong customer base in Middle America and mainstream Europe and surely the last thing they would want to do is alienate their main customer base by supporting advertisements glamorising Satan and murder.

The Congress of Racial Equality is outraged by Reebok’s negative message about black men. “50 Cent was a drug dealer and proud of it,” says Niger Innis their spokesperson. “The fact that corporations are going to reward that kind of behavior is an outrage.” Let’s hope Reebok and now, more importantly, Adidas take note of this valuable advice and they start to glamorise wholesome and decent role-models and ideologies.

Juicy Couture is possibly the biggest fashion phenomenon to hit the high street and cyberspace in the past decade. Before the advent of Juicy Couture nobody would have guessed that you could slap the word JUICY across the rear of a pair of terry toweling pants and make a mint. But hey, the Juicy girls had a vision and the determination to bring Juicy Couture to life and nobody can deny their amazing success.

So what’s the history? Juicy Couture is the story of two girls named Pamela Skaist-Levy and Gela Taylor from Pacoima, California who wanted to create the best you can find collection in girlie clothes. Juicy Couture was founded in 1994 as an upscale T-shirt line. It later expanded into denim and sportswear, and in 1999 the designers introduced their signature low-riding drawstring JUICY pants and form-fitting zip-up hoodies in an ever-widening array of velour and terry cloth. Although the JUICY pants are a run away success with their target audience it must be noted the associated innuendo has caused a significant amount of indignation amongst certain sectors of our community.

Juicy Couture, like any business, is now trying to diversify. The brand now includes both a men’s and a child’s clothing line. This is where we start to see the problem in defining a brand so clearly in its formative years. Juicy Couture was marketed as your archetypal ladies’ brand so any attempt now to cross over into menswear is utterly futile. No guy, not even your die-hard metrosexual, would be seen in Juicy Couture clothing not to mention a pair of Juicy Pants with the word JUICY blazoned across the butt. The lesson here for Juicy Couture and up-and-coming brands is it’s prudent to inject a degree of ambiguity into your initial marketing so not to box yourself into a predefined and inescapable corner — Ambiguity is a useful marketing mantra. That said and to be fair to the girls at Juicy Couture, if their initial concept had not had such an unambiguous definition then it’s likely Juicy Couture would not be the success it is today — a successful ladies’ brand!

Returning to the issue of the innuendo associated with having JUICY plastered across a woman’s derriere and the indignation that incites in certain sectors of our community, it’s perhaps fair to say this is greatly compounded when introduced into a child’s clothing line. Juicy Couture plays heavily on innuendo and therefore a large percentage of parents will be loathe to purchase Juicy Couture clothing for their kids and some might suggest that Juicy Couture even create a completely new name for their child’s clothing line which is utterly devoid of any innuendo.

So the girls at Juicy Couture should feel proud of their successful ladies wear brand but in all fairness they should forget menswear and rethink their whole approach to their child’s clothing line and marketing strategy. Maybe we can help them out and think of a name for their child’s clothing line? What about Lippy Couture!

Adidas is not immune to the growing trend for icon and brand collaboration. Current Adidas collaborations include Adidas and McCartney, Adidas and Yamamoto, Adidas Respect Me (by Missy Elliot – urban sportif apparel), Ali by Adidas (The legendary boxer), Adidas and WE (the urban skate brand), to name but a few.

So what’s in it for the “parent” collaborator, in this case Adidas but we could also point to Reebok, Nike, Puma and others…? The overriding intention is undoubtedly an attempt by the “parent” collaborator to achieve an otherwise unachievable level of “cred” to use the vernacular term. The parent collaborators are invariably ponderous conglomerates managed by men in grey suits who exude as much “cred” as a George Bush/Tony Blair hybrid; simply put the “parent” collaborators are mundane and dull and have a desperate need for a splash of color to give them some credibility with their personality-addicted consumer base — enter the “child” collaborator, usually a hip designer, musician, film star or sports star. Everyone’s happy, the “parent” collaborator gets their desperately needed “cred” and the “child” collaborator receives a truck load of cash and access to an even wider audience — Everybody’s ‘appy! Or are they?

Many knowledgeable fashion commentators are questioning the wisdom of parent and child collaborations. First of all, if a “parent” collaborator hasn’t got enough in-house momentum and self-belief then no amount of celebrity gloss gleaned from the “child” collaborator will hide the cracks. Many commentators are suggesting that the “parent” collaborators stop concentrating purely on the surface of their brand and start peeling back the edges and taking a look at what’s deep inside — it’s called soul-searching: who am “I”, what do “I” stand for and where am “I” going? If a “parent” collaborator hasn’t got the guts to face itself and hopes that temporal collaborations are the answer to their brand’s long-term success, then that brand is ultimately doomed because there can only be so many parent/child relationships before the customer gets wise to the marketing strategy. In addition, the “parent” collaborator will be colored by the “child” collaborate long after the collaboration ends and as we all know the cult-of-celebrity is very fickle and a star today could well be a liability tomorrow — so rather than help paper over the cracks of the “parent” collaborators image the “child” collaborator actually starts to rock its very foundation!

If a brand has true substance, a quality product and an innovative in-house team then it simply doesn’t need to adopt a “child” collaborator. In fact, it just needs to adopt some respect for its true customer base!!!

Supermodel Kate Moss has been voted best-dressed woman by the style gurus over at Glamour Magazine. The 32-year-old anarchic socialite topped Glamour magazine’s annual style list for the third year running. Not bad for a woman recently embroiled in a very public drug abuse scandal.

Kate Moss edged Sienna Miller into second spot followed closely by Ms Beckham in third. Victoria Beckham has moved up the rankings, perhaps in part due to her new found career as a fashion designer with Rock & Republic. Nicole Richie is the year’s highest climber, up 33 places to number four, which probably says more about Paris Hilton than it does about Ms Richie. Halle Berry is fifth, followed by Charlize Theron, Jennifer Aniston, Mischa Barton, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Nicole Kidman. On the flip-side, the worst-dress woman is Celebrity Big Brother housemate Jodie Marsh, followed by Jordan, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.

So what differentiates the best-dressed from the worst-dress? What’s the criteria for judging who dresses well as opposed to who dresses poorly? Indeed, what qualifies anyone to publish such a judgmental and ultimately utterly subjective list? Perhaps this categorising says more about our society than it does about the personalities being judged; it’s like a glamorous form of cronyism! The judges spew forth their subjective views based on personal friendships and ambitions. Indeed, how can anyone, even renowned designers, issue a truly objective list of who dresses well as opposed to who dresses poorly. The very essence of true style is indefinable and personal; there is no objective criteria it’s all utterly subjective and varies from one person to another and that’s what makes fashion and style so attractive and inspiring. Maybe the girls at Glamour Magazine might consider an in-house best and worst dressed woman — this would provide them with a deeper understanding of what it means to label other woman best and worst.

As everyone even remotely interested in fashion knows Posh Spice AKA Mrs Golden Balls AKA Victoria Beckham, is the butt that launched the Rock & Republic Ship. Rumour has it Victoria Beckham is not only a part owner in the R&R brand but also makes a significant contribution to the design of the Rock & Republic jeans. The question no doubt on a great many peoples’ minds has to be is Victoria Beckham using her high profile, or perhaps more accurately her husband’s, to promote yet another premium denim brand in an already oversaturated market? — or conversely, is Victoria Beckham’s international profile being exploited by a mediocre denim brand to help get its stiletto in the premium denim door?

Perhaps that’s all too cynical — maybe we should put aside talk of exploitation and just accept that Rock & Republic jeans are high quality premium denim which just happens to be partly owned and designed by one of the most high profile women in the world who also happens to have an enviable penchant for media manipulation?? On the other hand, perhaps that’s being too naive, particularly when the issue concerning infringement of Queen Elizabeth II’s Royal Crown Emblem is added to the equation. Apparently the Crown logo used on the Rock & Republic jeans has a striking similarity to the crown the Queen wore at her coronation and which now adorns the uniforms of the Beefeaters. Whatever side of the fence you sit, one thing’s undeniable: Rock & Republic Jeans are destined to be the “must-have” piece of premium denim in 2006.

Rock & Republic Jeans range in price from $125 to $275 and the most desirable attribute of the Rock & Republic jeans is their amazing fit in the derriere department; they apparently cradle the cheeks with exquisite delicacy – ummm!!! Anyway, the R&R Collection includes: Madrid crown jeans, Jagger radion jeans, Jagger nitrogen jeans, Winger quaalude jeans, Sapphire crystal jeans, Roth argon jeans, Roth halogen jeans, Roth xenon jeans, Ray alloy jeans, Scorpion xenon jeans,  Leonard strike jeans, Jagger electrolyte jeans, Scorpion cords, Scorpion strike jeans. Wear them and enjoy them — proclaims the new Queen of England!

Saw an article interviewing the CEO of Paper Denim & Cloth, Chris Gilbert.For Fall 2006, they are transitioning from the premium denim market because they believe it’s oversaturated and no longer commercially viable.  They will be reducing denim & sportswear prices by 45 – 55 percent.  This will make the retail for men’s jeans around $100.

Paper Denim & Cloth say the design philosophy remains the same.  They will still also use Italian & Japanese fabrics.  The only difference is that they will use laundries outside of the U.S. in Mexico and the Dominican Republic instead of Kentucky and L.A.

Concerning distribution, it it ensures a wider customer base for Paper Denim & Cloth.  Safe to say, most of the high-end accounts will drop them. On the up-side they will find exposure in stores where they were once too expensive.

Paper Denim & Cloth are the first out of the blocks here but many other premium denim brands are bound to follow.  The premium market is saturated.  Additionally, the Paper Denim & Cloth brand has its historically premium denim reputation and high status so the new customer will see Paper Denim & Cloth jeans as a real bargain — Very smart Chris!

Can someone finally put this to bed!! What is it Seven Jeans, Seven 7 Jeans or Seven for All Mankind Jeans? Are they three different companies and three different brands. What’s the official story?

This is the unofficial story plucked from the urban grapevine. Seven for All Mankind Jeans started producing extraordinarily innovative jeans in the USA under the banner Seven for All Mankind and made appropriate trademark arrangements in the USA. However, they neglected to make the same arrangements in Europe. This is where it starts to get messy but the saying goes an entrepreneur with an eye for an opportunity, when he saw the success of Seven for All Mankind Jeans in the USA, started to produce Seven Jeans in Europe since Seven for All Mankind failed to file a Trademark application in Europe.

Upon hearing about this development Seven for All Mankind started long and labourious legal proceedings against Seven Jeans for TM infringement. After much legal debate, it was decided that Seven Jeans in Europe should change their name to Seven 7 so to reduce the confusion with Seven for All Mankind jeans which was and is a far superior jean. So, that’s the story from the urban grapevine. Can anyone confirm or deny this. Does anyone have the definitive story?

Paul Smith Jeans versus Paul Smith Red Ear Jeans? Is it a tough decision? The answer has to be yes, because it’s not a cut and dry decision since defining a significant and tangible difference isn’t altogether easy. Both Paul Smith Jeans and Paul Smith Red Ear Jeans have their merits and their respective loyal customer base who will argue all night to defend their choice. However, sitting back and being objective is it possible to select a superior jean?

Initially, the question arises: what are Paul Smith Red Ear Jeans? Paul Smith tells us: the Red Ear collection is translated with a Japanese approach to detail, with embroidery, contrast stitching and using the best, high premium Japanese denims. Conversely, we need to know how classic Paul Smith Jeans differ from Red Ear Jeans. We can perhaps surmise they are not what Red Ear Jeans are?? They exclude more of a European look and feel with a propensity for classic elegance injected with the unmistakable Paul Smith traditional English twist. So does it all boil down to a battle between east and west craftsmanship and design or is that over-simplifiying the question? Ultimately, we have to conclude that there is no superior jean because there can be no real competition between equals. Whether you’re a Red Ear fan or a traditionalist your preference is subjective and has merit.