When one reads or hears that Karl Lagerfeld, one of the very great in the world of fashion with lots of experience in many markets, wants to create a collection for those less well-heeled, one can only shake one’s head.

One really has to wonder with what little feelings of value especially designers reduce their own credibility to absurdity.

It is especially Karl Lagerfeld who often criticizes others in the industry who he thinks are weak, especially because they are not true to themselves. He himself is trying right now and by the way, not for the first time, to throw “luxury and cheap” into one pot, respectively to sell it under his name.

The promotional activities of the chain H&M, where well-known but maybe no longer so much in demand designers autograph a few collection pieces, does not have anything to do with what Karl Lagerfeld in planning. A two-class fashion brand is going to degenerate to a “label”. And “label” is a word we do not accept in connection with the value term brand. In the described context however, it hit the nail on the head. And when it comes to Karl Lagerfeld – if I may say so – it is a popular saying that “there is no fool like an old fool”.

Why are we against a “two-class” brand? Our seven-elements-definition for the brand, namely origin, history, profile, positioning, image, awareness and protection through quality have to be provided indispensably, in order to turn a name into a brand. How could one claim the qualification “brand” for a name, if it is outfitted with valuable and less valuable materials and services, sells it expensive and cheap, furnishes it with different images, when profile and positioning is twisted according to business goals and a copy is used in lieu of something original.

For us, brands have to have an incorruptible and true character. And just the same as we criticize companies who produce brand products as a secondary brand for commercial enterprises, we also criticize “two-class” brands, because they do not meet the qualifications of a true brand.