British designer Paul Smith was recently interviewed by Monocle on Design about his recent collaboration with BMW and Mini. If you like Mini cars, you'll probably like the episode. But he also raises two interesting points about his business and about how he approaches design.
The first is that his business is a balancing act. In the front, he wants it to be pioneering, flashy, and self-indulgent. But in the back, he keeps the lights on by selling lots of navy blue suits and polo shirts. Both are important, because if you stop pioneering then you stop being relevant.
The second point he makes is about how he approaches design. Paul Smith's London studio is famously cluttered. He likes to collect a lot of stuff. Some might call it hoarding. But for him, the space helps him think laterally and also remain "childlike." (Where we work apparently matters.)
Children, as we know, are honest, curious, and free in a way that adults aren't. They don't have the same reference points and that can be very empowering. Forget the way that things are currently done and challenge yourself: "What if?" I like that a lot.
To listen to the Monocle on Design episode, click here.
Earlier this month Snapchat announced the acquisition of Vertebrae, which is a 50-person company that allows brands to create and manage 3D versions of their products. Why does this potentially matter? Because Snapchat is already doing stuff like this:
https://videopress.com/v/t2NHb1AP?preloadContent=metadata
(If you can't see the embedded video, click here.)
This was a recent partnership with Gucci that Snapchat is calling the first ever "virtual shoe try-on activation." The way it worked for the nearly 19 million people that it reached was pretty simple. Point the Snapchat camera at your feet. Try on a bunch of new Gucci shoes. Buy by tapping "shop now."
As we all consider what it will mean to go shopping in the future -- and what kind of real estate will be most valuable -- this kind of innovation strikes me as being a very big deal.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CPX05kKAXPb/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
Last month a digital-only version of a Gucci bag sold on gaming platform Roblox for about US$4,115. Again, digital-only. No physical bag that can be brought to brunch. At the time, this was about US$800 more than the real life version of the same Gucci bag. So why not go and buy that one instead?
I am sure that most of you are scratching your head at this and wondering: who the hell is valuing the digital more than the physical? Could it be that status and signaling -- perhaps the real purposes of a designer bag -- are even more important online in the world of Roblox than in real life? In this case, it wasn't even an NFT and so presumably there aren't any value claims around scarcity and authenticity. (Full disclosure: I don't know how Roblox works.)
It's important to keep in mind that meaningful innovation often starts out looking pretty silly to some/most. And to me, this feels like one of those times. What we are clearly seeing is a blurring between our digital and physical worlds. In fact, just today I was reading about a slew of digital-only clothing companies that sell, you know, contactless cyber fashion. One of those companies is Tribute (embedded post above).
The way it works is that you first buy a piece of digital clothing (which can sell out just like regular clothing). You then send them a picture of yourself and the company goes and renders that piece of digital clothing onto your photo. The result is what you see above, which to me looks fairly realistic (though at the same time fantastical, which I think is part of the point).
As out-there as this may seem, this strikes me as something that could become a very big deal. What is real on Instagram anyways? I can also see this being applied to other industries, including real estate. Maybe that is already happening.
What do you think?
British designer Paul Smith was recently interviewed by Monocle on Design about his recent collaboration with BMW and Mini. If you like Mini cars, you'll probably like the episode. But he also raises two interesting points about his business and about how he approaches design.
The first is that his business is a balancing act. In the front, he wants it to be pioneering, flashy, and self-indulgent. But in the back, he keeps the lights on by selling lots of navy blue suits and polo shirts. Both are important, because if you stop pioneering then you stop being relevant.
The second point he makes is about how he approaches design. Paul Smith's London studio is famously cluttered. He likes to collect a lot of stuff. Some might call it hoarding. But for him, the space helps him think laterally and also remain "childlike." (Where we work apparently matters.)
Children, as we know, are honest, curious, and free in a way that adults aren't. They don't have the same reference points and that can be very empowering. Forget the way that things are currently done and challenge yourself: "What if?" I like that a lot.
To listen to the Monocle on Design episode, click here.
Earlier this month Snapchat announced the acquisition of Vertebrae, which is a 50-person company that allows brands to create and manage 3D versions of their products. Why does this potentially matter? Because Snapchat is already doing stuff like this:
https://videopress.com/v/t2NHb1AP?preloadContent=metadata
(If you can't see the embedded video, click here.)
This was a recent partnership with Gucci that Snapchat is calling the first ever "virtual shoe try-on activation." The way it worked for the nearly 19 million people that it reached was pretty simple. Point the Snapchat camera at your feet. Try on a bunch of new Gucci shoes. Buy by tapping "shop now."
As we all consider what it will mean to go shopping in the future -- and what kind of real estate will be most valuable -- this kind of innovation strikes me as being a very big deal.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CPX05kKAXPb/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
Last month a digital-only version of a Gucci bag sold on gaming platform Roblox for about US$4,115. Again, digital-only. No physical bag that can be brought to brunch. At the time, this was about US$800 more than the real life version of the same Gucci bag. So why not go and buy that one instead?
I am sure that most of you are scratching your head at this and wondering: who the hell is valuing the digital more than the physical? Could it be that status and signaling -- perhaps the real purposes of a designer bag -- are even more important online in the world of Roblox than in real life? In this case, it wasn't even an NFT and so presumably there aren't any value claims around scarcity and authenticity. (Full disclosure: I don't know how Roblox works.)
It's important to keep in mind that meaningful innovation often starts out looking pretty silly to some/most. And to me, this feels like one of those times. What we are clearly seeing is a blurring between our digital and physical worlds. In fact, just today I was reading about a slew of digital-only clothing companies that sell, you know, contactless cyber fashion. One of those companies is Tribute (embedded post above).
The way it works is that you first buy a piece of digital clothing (which can sell out just like regular clothing). You then send them a picture of yourself and the company goes and renders that piece of digital clothing onto your photo. The result is what you see above, which to me looks fairly realistic (though at the same time fantastical, which I think is part of the point).
As out-there as this may seem, this strikes me as something that could become a very big deal. What is real on Instagram anyways? I can also see this being applied to other industries, including real estate. Maybe that is already happening.
What do you think?
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog