It wouldn't be incorrect to state that fashion operates in a fascist way: it does indeed impose on consumers a colour, a silhouette, a pattern or print, and more or less forces these trends upon them. You may not like them at first, but, then, gradually, that colour, silhouette, pattern or print that looked unusual or repulsive to you, will suddenly turn to your eyes into something acceptable, even desirable. Then it will turn into the norm and, eventually, it will be replaced by a new trend and the cycle will start again. So, the system usually doesn't really listen to consumers, but imposes something onto them. But are consumers really so gullible? Well, not really.
Take the latest news in the tech and fashion category: in June it was announced that designs by Balenciaga, Prada and Thom Browne would soon become available for avatars on Metaverse Fashion Stores. Yes, you got it, a clothing store for your Meta avatar representing a "virtual you" on your social media accounts.
Founder and CEO of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, spoke about the avatar store in a live video stream with Instagram's Director of Fashion Partnerships Eva Chen. During the live video, Chen showed print-outs of the possible new looks modelled on Zuckerberg's cartoonish Meta avatar (that looks even more insufferable than him IRL...).
Among them there were Balenciaga's motocross leather look, Prada's white Linea Rossa nylon ensemble and Thom Browne's signature gray suit with sporty stripes. Eva Chen also showed on Instagram some of the looks as modelled by her avatar. The prices for the looks go from $2.99 to $8.99, but the Avatar Store will offer a selection of free clothing options as well (but that doesn't include designer pieces).
In the video, Zuckerberg explained, "A huge part of how people express themselves is through what they wear and fashion," and while that's true, you wonder why the designs they presented are so banal.
The passion for digital fashion and digital wardrobes started a few years ago, but exploded after Covid hit us in 2020 and people started looking for something fancier for their selfies, something not even real as there was nowhere to go because of lockdowns, or something cool for their characters in videogames.
But the fun of the best digital fashion designs stands in the fact that, well, they are digital and, therefore, you can do extraordinary creations that change colours, shine like the brightest stars in the universe or flow like quicksilver mercury.
In this case, instead, the digital clothes presented looked banal (surprisingly they opted for Thom Browne's more tamed designs, rather than for his most surreal creations or dog-shaped bags) and consumers posted rather negative comments on the original Instagram post launching the outfits.
One user commented that they wouldn't buy that particular Balenciaga outfit IRL if it came at $8.99. Another pointed out that Balenciaga’s sweatshirt wasn't even a new design, but was taken from a 2017 collection (well, the user was actually right), while another user claimed that, if they had spare cash, they would donate it to a food or diaper bank (after all, why investing in a digital outfit, when there are more important things to support in the real world?).
So, it looks like you can't fool consumers, after all. But why did this project go wrong? Probably for different reasons: while they initially must have thought that, if people buy Bored Ape NFTs, they may be buying cringing digital representations of fashion designs, no matter how banal they look, the first and foremost reason why this initial launch wasn't well received is probably the fact that it doesn't look special at all.
You'd indeed expect something astonishing for your digital avatar and not something mildly boring and already seen (commenting on Instagram, consumers complained this avatar wardrobe doesn't look good nor it is innovative). Second, buying designer clothes for your avatar is not necessarily needed, if you do so you're probably obsessed with a brand or maybe you do it because the digital items will represent a modest moment of shopping spree madness compared to what you'd spend for a real designer outfit. Zuckerberg's idea is to make in this way things more accessible to people, showing how digital wardrobes may be the ultimate democratisation of fashion. Yet, that may be debatable, as, with all the crises the world is going through, spending money on high-end clothes for a digital avatar when you may not have money to buy food, seems a questionable choice.
We'll see what will happen in future for the Meta wardrobe design-wise, but, for now, we know that it will expand and become a proper marketplace: Web3 and Meta are bringing new opportunities for different brands and Meta hopes the digital fashion marketplace will include one day more famous brands and also fashion houses that create only digital garments.
But, if you're a brand and you want to join in, well, keep in mind that consumers are demanding and will not be easily satisfied nor tricked, so, please, make an effort to do something genuinely intriguing and original. And - next time - no Zuckerberg avatar as model, please.
Comments