Anyone that has been keeping up with the Kardashians knows that logo mania isn’t going out of fashion anytime soon. But burning your life savings on a $2,000 Gucci handbag could become a huge financial blunder, according to experts.
A few months ago, a photo of Kim Kardashian covered in Fendi logo from head-to-toe appeared on the cover of Odda Magazine as the 37-year-old reality television star posed next to a trash can emblazoned with Louis Vuitton logo – if you don’t believe us, see it for yourself.
But it’s not just big sister Kim who has been flaunting brands in almost every one of her Instagram photos. Other celebrities like Hailey Baldwin have also hopped onto the luxe bandwagon. The 21-year-old model and soon to be Mrs. Justin Bieber, was recently spotted rocking a denim-on-denim look from Versace with the brand’s name covering the entire outfit.
As the logo mania heats up in the fashion industry, male celebrities have also begun to embrace the new trend. In a recent video, singer Jay-Z was seen in an expensive suit, next to Beyoncé, covered completely in Gucci’s iconic logo.
A Financial Faux Pas
But while most of these deep-pocketed celebrities have the cash to burn on logo-ridden items from classic luxury brands like Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Fendi and Balenciaga, the average American can’t afford to replicate their expensive taste in fashion.
The iconic Gucci suit like the one rocked by Jay-Z retails for almost $6,500 whereas Baldwin’s denim ensemble could set you back exactly $2,600. These hefty price tags make Kim Kardashian’s attire for Odda’s cover seem relatively affordable. To own a pair of Fendi pantyhose like the one worn by the 37-year-old reality television star, you’ll ‘only’ need to put away $220.
Oliver Chen, the managing director of Cowen & Co. says that the logo mania has been making a comeback for the past couple of years, and people are willing to burn away their life savings just to be a part of the ‘Guccification’ trend on social media.
If you’re a brand lover who is all about the logo-worship trend that has dominated the fashion industry, here are a few things you need to consider before emptying out your bank account on the trendiest luxe apparel– or worse, getting yourself in debt.
Fashion vs. Priorities
If you love chasing fashion trends but aren’t sure that buying branded items is the best financial investment, think of your spending habit this way: every dollar you spend on a depreciating item, like a handbag or pair of shoes, is a dollar that won’t go towards your future savings – the magic of compound interest works only when you’re willing to save your money and invest it smartly.
Having the latest trending Gucci bag or a pair of Louboutin shoes is cool, but before you go off spending thousands of dollars to join the luxe logo club, ask yourself this:
Do you already have an emergency fund in place in case you lose your job in the future or face a serious financial setback?
What about your retirement fund? Are you regularly putting away money towards your savings account to enjoy a stress-free retirement?
Have you already cleared all of your high-interest debt obligations and have enough funds to meet the mortgage payments?
If the answer to any of the questions above is a ‘no’, then you’re not financially ready to spend a large amount of money on an impulse fashion purchase.
Wants Aren’t Necessarily Needs
With clever marketing strategies, most brands lure customers into making impulse purchases on fashion items they think they ‘need’ in order to get ahead in a culture that is driven by materialism and capitalism. With the constant bombardment of these psychological marketing tactics, most of us confuse wants with needs and are pushed towards making impulse purchases.
Even Grace, the author of Prince Not So Charming says that as much as she loves owned branded fashion items, she always stops for a few moments before making the purchase to ask herself if she really needs the item. Thinking with a clear, rational head before buying anything can save customers from regretting their decision later on.