hobo chic

riddle me this - why do strange "fashion" trends occur in a recession? does the recession simply allow women to get more creative when it comes to making imprudent and unnecessary purchases? is it just more of a challenge to our innate instinct to make ourselves look like someone other than ourselves? or does someone out there look more like themselves with fake eyelashed glued to her lids? is there a male equivalent of this tendency? are they simply buying more cost-effective aftershave? did they restrain themselves from purchasing that chicago bulls logo-emblazoned laz-e-boy with built-in cup holders? oh man - i want that chair. but not with the bulls logo. the bulls suck.

enough questions. to the numbers! you can't argue with numbers (social science!), though they are courtesy of the guardian, so we're really looking at the british version of this bizarre phenomenon.

Fashion products flourishing in the downturn:

Selfridges
Sales of false eyelashes are up 30%. Demand is such that it is setting up a lash bar in the London store this month. Watch sales are also up 30%: Toywatch is one of the highest performers.

John Lewis
Accessories are doing great business - branded handbags are selling extremely well, with Osprey and Lulu Guinness bags up 58% and 42% respectively. Gucci sunglasses sales were up 19% on last year.

ASOS
Top sellers for the first three months of 2009 include bow design (£29.50) and jazz-print dresses (£37.50), with 12,000 sold in all. Shoes are also doing well.

Superdrug
Sales of hair dye are up 17%, as are manicure and pedicure tools. Nail polish remover sales have risen 13% compared with 2008.

Harvey Nichols
Fragrance sales are very strong, particularly older heritage brands such as Baghari and Creed, as customers prioritise quality over quantity.

now, there are a few trends that i think i understand. for instance, shoes. everyone needs shoes, excepting members of that crazy cultlike (hippie?) group who refuse to wear shoes - apparently their only protest against modernization and all the accompanying totally awesome stuff you can plug into outlets and play with for hours without speaking to another soul. a woman at grinnell attempted to explain the shoeless rationale to me while i was standing in the dining hall line once, but i stopped listening after about 30 seconds, right around when she was launching into some getting-back-to-nature diatribe. taking off your shoes is hardly getting back to nature. i refuse to take you seriously until you stop annoying people while waiting to get into a cavernous heated dining hall, so you can eat things prepared with electricity-sucking equipment and then stuck under heat lamps. you are not worthy to kiss the feet of the amish. those people are badasses. i once watched them erect a barn the size of new hampshire in three days.

either way, these are not amish consumers. these are regular jills. so what about manicure and pedicure tools? hair dye? sunglasses? are these faceless consumers attempting to disguise themselves in order to escape debt collectors and the irs? are all the new handbags for storing the dozens of passports, driver's i.d.s and social security cards necessary to evade capture by the government? is bernie madoff entirely responsible for the bump in fake lashes sales?


"In the economic downturn, it's important for consumers to look for chic and cheap deals in unusual places. The message to consumers is clear: recession chic is possible. Just take the time to compare prices and make good choices and you can still treat yourself well. . . . The brilliant colours and patterned fabrics in [this] collection will cheer up anyone suffering from the recession's gloom."

sold.