- Apr 10, 2011
- Reaction score
Feels like some of the people commenting in this thread don't pay attention to fashion or womenswear
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
I can see this for coats, but most people don't wear their denim jackets buttoned up. great insight, I wasn't too aware about the button sides & gender. it's definitely a boyfriend fit style for women and true to size for men's !One more thing:
The biggest and most obvious gender marker for clothing is the way a coat fastened. Men's clothing fastens to the left; women to the right. If you make unisex clothing, it will be easier to sell this stuff if you design the coats for men, but then market it as unisex. Men are generally much more gender sensitive than women, and less willing to wear women's clothing. Some will know this buttoning thing, so they'll avoid it.
Some coats are also easier to cut for unisex styles. The chore coat, for example. If you're making denim chore coat, it will be a much easier sell if you make it as a men's garment and sell it as unisex. Lots of womenswear lines nowadays are basically unisex -- Chimala, parts of Isabel Marant, Studio Nicholson, etc.
I think most people wear their denim jackets unbuttoned. it's a chore style so it would be regular length on men and slightly longer on women like the boyfriend fit. there are adjustable button tabs at the bottom to cinch it if preferred, and buttons at the sleeves to undo, make it easier to roll upThe buttoning is one point, but for a denim jacket, length is going to be an issue. Women's jackets are shorter than men's. So, a jacket that fits both a man & woman in the chest is likely going to be longer on the woman than what she's used to or shorter on a man than he's used to. For a standard jacket this is important since it's as much a fashion statement as practical. As the other poster mentioned, a chore coat concept is much more likely to be a non-issue - but then, it's also a smaller market. And, denim isn't usually a material I would associate with that purpose of coat - more luck a duck fabric (carhartt). Even then, I would be interested if sleeve length were different even if body length could be the same.
Beyond practical aspects, I believe commercially the concept of unisex carries a connotation of "cheap" - a $20 product that's unisex might be fine, but more expensive and you'll lose customers for that reason.
Guilty as charged.Feels like some of the people commenting in this thread don't pay attention to fashion or womenswear
Most clothing isn't marketed at most people, it's aimed at a specific target market. Dries Van Noten, Rick Owens, Huntsman, and even The Gap aren't targeting 90% of the population. They're aimed at a very specific demographic.Guilty as charged.
But I think that would be true of most men--maybe even 90% of men. So I guess the question is whether the OP is trying to market to men who are on trend in this regard (which will necessarily limit their target audience) or to all men.
I guess the other question is why even call your clothes "unisex" when marketing to men? Do the advantages of calling your jackets unisex outweigh the potential disadvantages?
I think I did? I mentioned that some people are interested in unisex clothing. That includes both men and women. Men and women are interested in unisex clothing, but it's admittedly people who are interested in fashion.OK but you're not really addressing the second question in my post: "I guess the other question is why even call your clothes "unisex" when marketing to men?". I would submit that OP is more likely to sell a 'unisex' jacket to men if they don't call it unisex. Just show me the jacket. If I like how it looks, I'll buy it regardless of whether you intended it to be 'unisex' or not.
Not really -- stated another way, will OP sell more jackets to men if they avoid the term "unisex" entirely? I am only speculating of course, but my argument is the answer would be "yes". I am not really hearing from you why you think it would be "no". Or maybe we are actually not arguing about anything at all.I think I did? I mentioned that some people are interested in unisex clothing. That includes both men and women. Men and women are interested in unisex clothing, but it's admittedly people who are interested in fashion.
I would focus less on the term and more on the marketing/ styling. If the entire line looks unisex -- that is, the menswear looks like it takes styling cues from womenswear -- it will attract certain men. The Isabel Marant sweater above is a good example. The fit is very much a women's style -- wide body, heavily dropped shoulder seam, and cropped fit. A traditional men's sweater would have a more elongated body.Not really -- stated another way, will OP sell more jackets to men if they avoid the term "unisex" entirely? I am only speculating of course, but my argument is the answer would be "yes". I am not really hearing from you why you think it would be "no". Or maybe we are actually not arguing about anything at all.
We both agree that it is better to focus on the styling. The OP's original question though was "Would you buy a men's jacket over a unisex jacket?" and "I was actually wondering if it affected men's perception of the fit by using "unisex" over "men's". Maybe we disagree on whether the marketing should focus on the specific term "unisex" as a selling point? Again my opinion is that the specific term should be avoided completely. I like Chimala and JE regardless of whether the designers conceived of them as unisex looks or not.I would focus less on the term and more on the marketing/ styling.
I see what you mean. The jacket itself and the buttons are designed with a classic fit, but we're targeting the same jacket to both men and womenEven if the coat is unbuttoned, the buttons will be on a certain side. Again, some guys are just very sensitive about gender issues, so they won't wear a jacket that's designed for women.