Why do fashion companies use iconic patterns as a trademark? Pola Hirschmann | January 2013 Part 2: The Use of Iconic Patterns There are a number of fashion companies that are as famous for the patterns they use as for the collections they make like Pucci or Missoni. Some companies as for example Orla Kiely are even better known for their textile pattern than for their actual products. For these companies, their pattern works as a transmitter of the brand, and in many of these cases the pattern itself, working as a kind of ‘identity signifier’, also becomes a registered trademark (Gale and Kaur 2004). To find out why companies do this it is useful to get to know more about iconic patterns and their qualities. This is done with help of four fashion companies – Burberry, Paul Smith, Missoni and Orla Kiely. There are a number of fashion companies that are as famous for the patterns they use as for the collections they make like Pucci or Missoni. Some companies as for example Orla Kiely are even better known for their textile pattern than for their actual products. For these companies, their pattern works as a transmitter of the brand, and in many of these cases the pattern itself, working as a kind of ‘identity signifier’, also becomes a registered trademark (Gale and Kaur 2004). To find out why companies do this it is useful to get to know more about iconic patterns and their qualities. This is done with help of four fashion companies – Burberry, Paul Smith, Missoni and Orla Kiely. Timelessness Obviously, it is not a simple task to create an iconic pattern. However, according to Tamsin Blanchard, there are a number of ‘guidelines’ to be taken into account. First of all, the pattern has to be timeless. Just like a logo, it needs ‘longevity’, while at the same time it must be versatile and accessible enough to become accepted by different markets (Blanchard 2012). The check pattern of Burberry, for instance, has been communicating the values of the brand since many years. Burberry, established in 1856, used the famous check pattern (figure 5 and 6) consisting of camel, red, black and white initially as lining for their trench coats in 1920 (Moore and Birtwistle 2004). Later, the check lining was also applied on suitcases, umbrellas, scarves and many more products. In 1999, the check even made it onto the catwalk. It was the check pattern that turned Burberry from a rather boring trench coat factory into a trendy fashion leader (Gale and Kaur 2004: 11-13). From 1920 up to today, the check has had to survive many fashion trends, but it has appeared to be trend-resistant enough to do so without much problems. Nowadays, the check still is in fashion and is still being used in new collections (Gale and Kaur 2004: 11-13). Figure 5: Burberry in the early 19th century Figure 6: Burberry 2012 Flexibility Furthermore, for a pattern to be deemed iconic, it needs to be flexible. It has to suit different product groups and it should be compatible with other items. For instance, Paul Smith is famous for his fourteen-colour pinstripe pattern, which he created together with graphic designer Alan Aboud. It has been the trademark of Paul Smith since 1990 (Teunissen 2012). The iconic status of the pattern makes it possible to give any kind of product the identity of the Paul Smith brand. Cufflinks, shoes, wallets, bathrobes, iPad covers, cars and even water bottles visible in figure 7 have his signature. Paul Smith’s product margin is immense. Every product that is signed with his trademark brings the brand Paul Smith and the values it represents (e.g. the brand as archetypical British, humorous and dotty) into the mind of the beholder. Figure 7: Paul Smith for Evian Interestingly, the pinstripes of Paul Smith are not always the same. The trademark is never designed on a computer, but made from the actual threads of the collections (Teunissen 2012). This makes it easy to combine the iconic pattern with other items of the collections, while the fact that it is reinvented over and over again precludes it from getting boring. Uniqueness While an iconic pattern has to be applicable to a wide variety of items, it also needs to be different enough to attract attention. It has to be unique and special. People must have the ability to develop a clear understanding of what a particular pattern actually tells. In other words: the most iconic trademarks have a clear, more or less ‘common’, unambiguous connotation. A good example for this is Missoni. Missoni is an Italian fashion house, specialized in knitwear. It is known for its geometrical shapes, kaleidoscopic colours and abstract flower patterns. Without a doubt, the brand is best-known for the typical zigzag (Gale and Kaur 2004: 11-13). Missoni makes use of a variety of materials for their knitting, ranging from wool to cotton to linen to silk. This is also what makes this company and its products highly innovative and unique. The multicoloured zigzag pattern (figure 8), produced by using high quality yarns, is is easily recognizable. One fabric can exist out of twenty different colours, without them undermining the harmony of the product, given the high degree to which the colours merge together (Gale and Kaur 2004: 11-13). In its collections the fashion house adapts to today’s trends. Figure 8: Zigzag pattern of Missoni However, at the same time, it uses a visible signature and remains true to itself (Brinkley 2012). In a way, Missoni makes it possible that the colours as well as the substance of the materials seem to ‘come alive’. This, in combination with an innovative knitting technique, makes their products special while remaining deeply connected to its roots, that is, to Italian culture (Gale and Kaur 2004: 11-13). Power An iconic pattern can be so strong, can develop such a strong ‘common connotation’ one might even say, that it becomes much more important than the product that it decorates. Orla Kiely, to give an example, is a textile designer from Ireland who initially was designing and selling bags and hats. However, she actually has become more famous for the patterns she designs than for the products she sells (O’Dolan 2012). Quite remarkably, Kiely herself declared that she has no idea why her patterns became so highly coveted. Her best-known pattern resembles a stem with leafs in different colours which repeat themselves lengthwise shown in figure 9. This very simple pattern does not just adorn bags but is applied to a wide variety of products, ranging from books to radios and even busses. Figure 9: Orla Kiely Bags The pattern made her brand so successful, that she is now also selling a clothing line, with people enthusiastically combining their colourful accessories with matching clothes from the same brand (O’Dolan 2012). For Orla Kiely, the pattern first and foremost represents Ireland. It reminds her of her homeland because it contains the green of moss, the blue from the sky, the brown of the landscape and the mustard yellow that can be found in Irish bushes and woods. With this, one could say, the trademark pattern communicates a whole culture (O’Dolan 2012). But her iconic pattern communicates even more than that. It represents not only a spatial cultural entity it can also be seen as the manifestation of a specific time period. Her simple pattern symbolises the 1960’s and evokes a certain nostalgia, a longing for the past (Pascal & Muehling, 2012). According to Orla Kiely, her customers are creatively inspired women who do not just follow any trend and who know what they want from life. Women buy her products not just because of the good quality and aesthetic qualities, but also because of what the pattern conveys, the abstract concept behind it, to use Barthes’s terminology. It is not about buying an umbrella or a cup; it is about diving into a different world. The functional features of the product are not that important, or at least not its most relevant properties (Teunissen and Van der Voet 2012). Risk Unfortunately for fashion designers, there is also a profound risk attached to developing and applying an iconic pattern as a trademark. On the one hand, the check pattern of Burberry is timeless and made the brand successful. However, on the other hand, it was also responsible for its biggest crisis (Kilby 2007). During the 1990’s, there was an overload of products decorated with the iconic check. Burberry provided too many parties with a production licence and, subsequently, lost control over the manufacturing and distribution of their products. The products started to be produced in low-wage countries and, perhaps not surprisingly, soon a lot of counterfeits flooded the market (Moore and Birtwistle 2004). Moreover, Burberry products were sold in the ‘wrong’ shops and as a consequence, reached a segment of the market the fashion house was intentionally not targeting. In central London, there were 60 selling points of Burberry products, but the best quality department stores such as Selfridges, Harrods and Harvey Nichols were not selling them (Moore and Birtwistle 2004). Quickly, the brand acquired a negative common connotation. When people saw the iconic Burberry check, they were not thinking about values such as sophistication and tradition anymore, but about football hooligans and chavs. The typical check had gained a new connotation: that as the representation of an uneducated, vulgar and rude class of society (Kilby 2007). It proved to be a challenging endeavour for Burberry to change this development. It took, amongst others, a replaced management, a new corporate structure and an improved, reassessed assortment. For instance, checked baseball caps (figure 10) are no longer included in the product range (Kilby 2007). It was a rather complex and time-consuming process, but it seems as if Burberry has, to a large degree, reappropriated its old image: the check pattern managed to survive the crisis. Additionally, there even proved to be room for a new, complementing iconic pattern in the form of the Burberry stripe. As Gale and Kaur (2004) argue: “It seems that the now iconic checked fabric has served its initial purpose in reviving the company and making the name robust enough to carry other Burberry fabrics and fashions.” Figure 10: Burberry baseball cap worn by the wrong target group Read the whole article: Part 1: Pattern and Trademark Part 3: Iconic Patterns and Today’s Zeitgeist (and Bibliography)