The Purchasing Powers of Hipsters
Posted by casey on 10-10-2008
Mary Kate Olsen wears tattered boyfriend jeans ($300, Alexander Wang), "vintage" flannels ($250, Elizabeth & James i.e. the line designed by sister Ashley) and clunky black boots ($1500, Balenciaga). Her shopping habits alone keeps Barneys in business. And yet, she still looks like she rolled out of bed and into her on-the-floor thrift store finds. And that's precisely what makes her a hipster, at least in a pure fashion sense of the word.
During the early '90s, it was called grunge, and now it's masquerading under a Gawker buzzword. Just because hipster sounds more glamorous does not mean it is. Scenesters are wearing the same holey denim, washed-out plaid, and unwashed hair that used to permeate the streets of Seattle back when Nirvana was blasting out of boomboxes, instead of wearing threadbare threads from the local Goodwill, this time around their clothing actually costs a pretty penny.
While khaki-and-collar outfitters like Gap and Abercrombie are struggling to bring in business, hipster stores like Urban Outfitters and American Apparel are enjoying a boom. UO saw a 30% increase in sales; top sellers include band Ts, plaid and Frye boots – coincidence?
According to a recent article on hipster fashion in Forbes:
Beatniks, punks and even followers of grunge music in the early '90s can be considered hipsters. But unlike similar groups of the past, the current generation of hipsters is a bit more generic in its self-labeling. Why? Because this scene is less focused on one idea, one purpose or one type of music.
Instead, today's hipster is defined by consumption.
If there isn't one single defining characteristic besides the way hipsters dress and how they shop, it makes me wonder – is there a counterculture that hasn't become commodified or that isn't defined by what it buys?
Sort of related:
New book argues the true youth culture (in the UK) could be found in the 1930s, not the 60s.
Categorized under: Fashion
October 10th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Plenty of youth cultures have evaded commodification – skinheads, gabba, necro/hardcore hip-hop, etc.
The difference is that most people have never heard of them, and probably for good reason.
Their primary characteristics are impossible to package up and sell (racism*, drug use) and the music is impossible to tone down for a mainstream audience (180bpm+ speed-fuelled techno, rapping about rape/murder, etc).
Any youth culture which is based around a vague, individualist, mostly harmless teenage rebellion and which can be toned down to be acceptable to sell in Walmart is a marketer's wet dream and will be quickly packaged up for sale to the masses.
In an age in which hordes of marketers count it as their full-time job to watch trends for the Next Big Thing, the subcultures which don't get commodified are not commodified for a good reason.
* I know skinheads weren't originally associated with racism, but by the time the culture got big enough to commodify it was – the racists got to 'em before the marketers.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Oh, this is a topic after my own heart! Ten years ago (!!!) I wrote an article called Subcultural Commodification for a rave culture magazine: http://www.arielmeadow.com/resume/files/subcom.html
The general premise was that marketers are always looking to make money from and via youth subcultures, and that it's up to the members of that subculture to spend their funds within their community, rather than paying it up or out.
In my niche market (nontraditional weddings) I see people doing this by doing most of their wedding shopping via sites like etsy.com. There seems to be a general trend toward "Well, if I have to consume … I can at least buy indie…"