Following conventions, Mercedes-Benz (or their marketing team, or they being a namesake [for IMG Fashion if you're counting], the real fashion team’s marketing team) is campaigning this (New York Fashion) week to be election-themed. But will it be unconventional? Does the business of fashion want change and democracy? Are we to see indie designers given big shots, or fan submissions down the catwalks?

What the industry wants is not exactly inspired by Obama’s hope for change. Their idea of changing is putting on decade old trends anew, buying enough purses to swap daily, etc. Recycling and upgrading isn’t change, it’s all more of the same.

© 2008 IMG Fashion

The only thing I can say is this is a cute marketing play with colorful graphics.

There’s rarely even innovation among the favored fashion, when even most glorified designers put out nothing much that’s unique, freshly-flattering, or jaw-droppingly intricate. The IT bags today are mostly 2, 3, 4.0s of yesteryear.

Some of this is fine, and a lot of fashion is fun, but I do wonder, with slogans such as, “Hope. Change. Shoes.” which party, aside from coke-floating after-parties, no which political party is the fashion industry a part of? Hint: it’s a big business.

I suppose that’s why it’s all likely to be the same, because conservatism is that, and they do “proclaim” experience matters. New styles from fresh faces - why - those designers have no “foreign policy experience” (outsourcing to China for the cheaps), “no executive experience” (owning companies or just plain having wealth) - and in the economy we’ve been in — fair-trade, handmade, eco-grade, or any other trademarks of the (aspiring) leaders of our (fashion) future — can’t be done.

Does this mean Obama would help aspiring designers and even those wanting to dress with individuality? Well, it should help us afford our groceries, at least, which can’t hurt our business or shopping pursuits - except our chances at modeling - but supermodels are “huge” (tiny) members of the conservative big business of apparel, anyway - we don’t want to be that.

So as the fashion new media, what should bloggers cover in the coming weeks of elegance-on-parade? Would you review in the same old voice as the others of past, or reach for significant inspiration? Perhaps since the powers-that-be decided to - almost naively - dress the event in flags vs. cashmere, in message buttons vs. billboards or leaderboards - in this time of progressive change — should we show the same scrutiny as to presidential candidates? Even less strictly would be harsher than usual. I say so, because this is our business, our livelihoods, our class standing, our passion, and what we hope to be art - it’s important to us and it impacts us, but also the rest of the economy - and is therefore important to our nation, world, and this actual historic election.

It’s so painfully sugary, yet brilliantly marketably clever … the new term “recessionista”. It’s fine to call oneself a recessionista if a girl goes on a total “bag ban”, but promoting “less expensive” products to us is cruelly manipulative. True recessonistas will not continue buying clothing unless it become necessity (like my weight loss means I have no wedges or sandals that fit [ALL I don for outdoor footwear]) - yes shoes no longer fit - and what is still only minimally loose are suede sandals; obviously not appropriate for “hurricane”/rainy season in FL. But I will still make due for a time.

Flitting away money at the moment is mostly tasteless and self-indulgent IMHO, even if it’s “just” a new outfit from Forever 21 to ring in Autumn. It’s akin to buying “pleather” to “help” the environment and ignoring the food industry. Do the vegan lifestylers want us to toss the skin from the flesh the rest of us eat or do they truly think the entirety of mankind should go veggie? Sorry, but I’m not; specific diets will never be 100% healthy for all people, especially removing dairy and even meat, due to allergies, or any other reason that are frankly no one’s business.

The PETA-brainwashed like to stick to ignorance of pollution caused in the manufacturing of plastics, and they’re far worse and a part of a different problem from the blog’s topic, but it’s still related.

If a girl can pay her rent, tuck some away into savings, eat 3 square meals a day or more, and pay off debt—more than minimums, then she absolutely deserves to indulge within her means. No, my problem is with the corporations and marketers attempting to take advantage of those us girls with a weakness for treating ourselves to pretty things.

Also I want to send huge kudos to all of us who are resisting these campaigns, at least somewhat - or at the very least, shopping elsewhere or not inspired by pressure of media. This especially goes to the women in the fashion blogosphere to any extent, I know it’s difficult to keep up with IT bags when I’m equally trying to remove myself, and it must be something to continue reading purely for fun, as well! Thanks–xx.

So I’m not really asking for advice, but more wanting to start a conversation. I have a big 1st date coming up, as in he’s away so we can’t meet yet, but we’ve already gotten to know and like each other. (BTW, I would also not be wrong in calling this a hot date.)

The 1st choice is quite specific, as it’s the outfit I chose. Lately, I’ve been wearing a skirt for a first date, but I’ve picked a low cut top. Not too bad, but I usually would have worn a lacy tank underneath - not now. *evil smile* I even picked this out a while ago (before hinted familiarity). Don’t worry, I be keepin’ it classy. Anyway, with a sexy top, I want to wear pants (capris) as bottoms.

So here’s the poll, feel free to add your own unique choice, and/or to leave comments.

n

Oh and wish me luck! Of course, I’m still not sure when the guy’s available for said date. Sighh.

“All those old skanks in these tabloids all wear bikinis. Don’t you want to be different? Don’t you want to look more fabulous and glamorous? Aren’t you sick of the bikini?” - Simon Doonan

I couldn’t agree more, and yet I couldn’t pinpoint it before this bold, genius gay said it in this perfect way.

I still wonder what will be in next year, which will likely mark my return to bikini-ready-dom. (My decision on what to wear vs. trends or personal style combined with how often I go to the beach merely to show off, when I hate the beach, should say a lot about me, no? Who cares - fun fun it will be.)

So what about you, if you’ve got it to flaunt, is the one-piece good enough still?

My Twitter has become something very dear, and very personal for me; an outlet for deep thoughts. This has also led to me using the service so much I thought I’d plant seeds now to hope grow a Twitter section of our financial business. (Search Google if you don’t think Twitter can be monetized, that’s off-topic here.)

Up and pretty-much running is our fashion Tweet for Kiss Me Stace; located at: http://twitter.com/FashionBytes

I’ll update with a full list of our coming Twitter accounts when they’re all running. I will also set up a FriendFeed to “hub” them all.

Note, if your own Twitter messages are unrelated to fashion, I may still follow you, however from my personal username: laurelbyanyname.

Hope to see you @round! (Get it?!)

According to WWD, most magazines are selling fewer ad pages for their upcoming issues. This comes after years(?) of ads taking over magazines to the extreme points of there being more ad pages than content; huge, heavy books even bigger some months with no extra articles; and even Vogue, in my humble opinion, holds half its appeal in the beauty of ad photography and eye candy of the fashion accessories (handbags do it for me).

While an overabundance of visual stimulation when there are quality photographs in the ads, like with the case of Vogue, is perfect for fashion magazines and possibly other visually-centric entertainment, this “trend” is usually ridiculous. For months I didn’t even notice Vogue contained good content because those candy-licious designer ads were so shiny and distracting. I could probably continue subscribing only to those, but that’s me - I’m visual.

Even with targeted and artistically visually appealing adverts, ads competing with content space is a bad thing to most readers, and when it’s not, it speaks of a sad time in our society’s development.

Sure, the magazines may be in a rough spot initially as companies withhold their sponsorships, but there’s an equalizing factor when it comes to paying customers versus advertisers. Isn’t it true that customers are happier with a service displaying fewer ads, and shouldn’t that increase actual circulation? I do happen to have inside experience that printing magazines is costly, and therefore the profit in this product doesn’t come directly from selling the product, itself … but shouldn’t a higher subscription base attract advertisers again? This business, like others, has a built-in check and balance factor.

Also, this could inspire more magazines to offer subscriptions to their issues via the web, which is a much more cost effective means of distribution. So in the end, it won’t mean disaster, or even moot as things settle through their cycle, it could open more opportunities for both businesses and those of us who prefer the web or wish to save trees. Wow, so … this “crisis” could help the planet?

Perhaps everything does happen for a reason.

The trend for males from Miami Swim this past weekend, showcasing designer swimwear for Summer ‘09, is definitely a fright of sorts. Every designer that included men’s swim trunks (or lack of trunks) included short shorts.

Short shorts.

On guys. Male short shorts.

Every guy I know only wears shorts down to his knees, and swimwear is no exception. I don’t think any straight men, at least American ones, will adopt this look. First of all, straight men don’t follow trends in fashion, and boy do I love them for that! Consdering that, this isn’t such an actual fright with any danger to impact our view at the beach, right?

Yes, but it’s still a fright in and of looking at the photos, itself. If you look closely at the pictures, you should notice not only do these men wear short shorts, but they actually “nair” for short shorts.

Another thing one could never get any straight man I’ve ever known to do is to consider shaving at all, at least when it comes to their own legs. (I happen to wish men would shave their armpits, and have vocalized this to men in my life. 100% of them firmly rejected the idea, period [even trimming, silly boys].)

So either the designer fashion world’s male aspect is pure fantasy, product-less eye candy for girls’ dreams (I think most secretly do hate overly hairy bodies - no fair!), or actually all for gay men. I’m sure designer/expensive men’s apparel is actually all aimed to gay men, because straight men wouldn’t pay for it. I wouldn’t even ever subject a boyfriend to it with gifts, I see no need. Except there’s one sad flaw in this - in that the women looking at fashion shows and ads hope to be looking at straight men when it is men they see, right?, and they’re clearly not, at least not the character these models portray in these getups. So do women actually enjoy looking at the male models? (I don’t, but I personally am not attracted to the muscular type and even the rugged or pretty-boy types anyway.) I hope this doesn’t mess with women’s avoiding-gay-dar. Ouch.

If you’ve had enough cerebral discussion on silly fashion, or are just still interested or want a different view, especially one from a male himself, stay tuned for a snarky straight male’s POV on this “trend” a bit later!