A Campaign Can’t Justify the Price

The skirt looked ready. Then I examined the waistband construction, the internal seams and the hem. At €249, they weren’t good enough.

We were reviewing a collection before final approval. The style worked, the line was clean and the fit was right. There were no obvious defects or mistakes serious enough to reject the sample. The skirt had a strong presence and belonged in the collection without needing much explanation.

The finishing, however, told a different story.

The waistband needed a more precise construction. The internal seams weren’t as clean as they should have been, and the hem looked as though it had received too little attention. Taken separately, these details might have seemed minor. Together, they lowered the perceived quality of the garment.

The planned wholesale price ranged from €99 to €105. Wholesale is the price paid by the retailer before applying its mark-up. On our e-commerce site, the skirt would be offered at the recommended retail price of €249.

I raised the issue because I couldn’t see the level of care a customer would expect at that price. The price wasn’t necessarily wrong. The product simply wasn’t ready to support it.

Keeping the wholesale price at €99 would have been easier. The buyer would have paid less, and we wouldn’t have needed to reopen details that had already been approved. Deadlines were approaching, and every change involved the pattern maker, supplier and production team.

I know the temptation to approve a sample that is almost right. There’s no problem serious enough to stop the process. Costs have been discussed, everyone wants to move forward and the calendar has no sympathy.

But a skirt that cost the retailer less wouldn’t become more convincing to the customer.

We decided to improve the waistband construction, clean up the internal seams and refine the hem. We increased the wholesale price from €99 to €105 while keeping the recommended retail price at €249. We were asking the retailer to pay six euros more and accept a tighter percentage margin. Improving the garment also increased our production cost.

This wasn’t a creative decision separate from a commercial one. It was the same decision viewed from two different sides.

A campaign could have presented the previous version beautifully. A carefully chosen pose would have enhanced the line. The styling would have given the design character, and the photograph would have captured the moment when the fabric fell at its best.

Then came the fitting room.

The customer would pick up the skirt, look inside and try it on. The lighting wouldn’t be the same as it was on set, and no one would adjust the hem before she looked in the mirror.

Photography doesn’t necessarily lie. It selects. It shows a precise version of the product, created to attract attention and generate desire. That’s an important part of a brand’s work, but it can’t replace what happens next.

People outside the fashion industry know the feeling too. You see a pair of trousers in a magazine and can already imagine how they’ll look on you. In the shop, you discover that the fabric falls differently, one leg twists or the line loses the balance shown in the photograph. You may not know which technical decision caused the problem. You simply know those trousers aren’t the ones you wanted.

Customers don’t need to understand waistband construction to notice that it looks poorly finished. They don’t need to know how mark-up is calculated to question whether a garment is worth €249. They judge it through touch, fit and comparison with other products they have bought.

The campaign could create desire. The price came from our costs, margins and chosen positioning. The value would be judged in the fitting room and, later, through use.

When the product keeps its promise, communication makes its value easier to recognise. It can explain a particular technique, the choice of material and the identity of the brand. When the product fails to deliver, the same campaign widens the gap between what the customer expected and what she received.

A strong image may persuade someone to buy once. It can’t correct a seam, improve the inside of a garment or give structure to a waistband. When the product disappoints, the problem isn’t limited to the return. It affects the trust with which the customer will view the next campaign.

In the industry, we often ask whether a change will really be noticed. It’s a legitimate question because not every expensive process adds value. Some details consume time and margin without changing the customer’s experience. Others appear insignificant until they are removed. At that point, the garment loses the precision that supported its price.

Expertise also means recognising that difference. Cutting costs evenly is easy to calculate, but it can leave you with a technically correct product that gives customers no reason to choose it. Protecting the elements that matter requires product knowledge, control of the numbers and a willingness to reopen a decision everyone else considered settled.

With that skirt, we chose to intervene before the problem reached the buyer, the campaign and the customer. We couldn’t know how much each improvement would influence the purchasing decision. We did know that, if we left the finishing unchanged, we would be asking the campaign to promise a level of quality the garment itself couldn’t deliver.

We increased the wholesale price to €105 and kept the recommended retail price at €249. The skirt sold, and returns remained at 3%. We’ll never know exactly how much the improved finishing influenced the customer’s decision. What we do know is that we didn’t need the campaign to explain what the product lacked.

Romina Tosi

www.linkedin.com/in/romina-tosi-tatastyle

Disclaimer

The views expressed above represent my personal interpretation of publicly available information and, like any interpretation, may be shared, debated, or challenged.

The information referenced comes from public sources available at the time of publication, including official documents, union communications, press articles, and materials accessible to anyone. I do not disclose confidential information or facts learned through privileged access. I do not reveal protected information, nor do I attribute unlawful conduct to individuals or companies.

Any reference to specific cases is intended solely to provide context and analyze dynamics affecting the broader industry. It is not intended to target individuals or particular businesses.

Observations regarding industrial strategies, financial decisions, and production models fall within the right to express opinions and commentary on matters of public interest. They remain personal assessments, not definitive judgments.

Not all companies operate in the same way. Alongside businesses that may deserve criticism, there are many others that work with seriousness, consistency, and long-term vision.

If you notice any errors or inaccuracies, please let me know. I will be happy to review and correct them where necessary.

The purpose of this reflection is to encourage discussion and debate, not to cause harm to individuals, companies, or organizations.