The Piracy Paradox

I cringe and quickly flip the page on those "Save vs Spree" or "Credit vs Cash" pages that many glossys feature. It's not that I'm a designer snob, it's just that I appreciate the design talent and quality that goes into an original garment or accessory and feel incensed at the audacity of some retailers to "seek inspiration" from these items.

My new favorite read, the New Yorker, featured a very interesting article about the Piracy Paradox and the underlying benefit that designers receive from cheap High Street rip offs.

The basic argument is that say Kelly could afford a Stella McCartney polar bear sweater dress but her friend Sally bought the H&M ripoff. They meet up for a girls brunch and both are wearing the sweater dress. Kelly is repulsed by the ripoff and vows never to wear hers again. This means that Kelly will then buy the next designer item to replace the one that she can no longer wear and therefore increase the sale of designer clothes. It continues by saying that Sally could not and would not be able to afford the real dress anyway so the designer is not really losing a customer but still creating customer awareness.

I'm not so sure I agree and that it does actually work like this. What do you think? I find myself avoiding designers who are frequently "copied" and too recognisable anyway. It's best to wear something that doesn't scream "I'm wearing a Stella McCartney dress" and stick this things that make people ask "Wow, that's really unique and the quality is fabulous, where's it from?". Let's keep it individual.