Why do fashion companies use iconic patterns as a trademark?

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)