Q&A: How Payless Brilliantly Bamboozled Fashionistas With Its Fake Luxury Pop-up, ‘Palessi’

[Dashinka 23,192]

Pricesless!

 

By T.L. Stanley 3 hours ago

 

There may be a few schools of thought on why the Payless faux boutique stunthas attracted so much attention this week, with its videos of Los Angeles fashionistas paying $600 for $20 shoes going viral within hours of launching on social media.

 

One: It’s a brilliant marketing move that calls attention to stylish footwear at bargain prices and shakes up popular (and stale) opinion about a retailer that’s been around since the late 1950s.

Two: It’s a sharp jab in the eye to influencers willing to shell out big bucks for pedestrian products. Or perhaps it’s an even broader dig at influencer culture itself? Tweeting about the stunt to his 2.5 million followers, Questlove called it “champion trolling.”

Either way, it’s a massive win for Payless, which took over a former Armani location in Santa Monica recently and invited groups of fashion-forward social media mavens to the grand opening of “Palessi,” a bespoke shop decorated with gold mannequins, soft lighting, model-perfect sales assistants and other posh accoutrements more befitting a Prada store than a shopping mall staple.

 

 

https://www.adweek.com/creativity/qa-how-payless-brilliantly-bamboozled-fashionistas-with-its-fake-luxury-pop-up-palessi/

 

[bcking 3,157]

Very clever.

 

Reminds me of The Shed, in London. A completely fake restaurant that made it to "Number 1" on TripAdvisor for London.

 

 

[Boiler 43,386]

I would not have given them their money back.

[Apple Bee 272]

28 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I would not have given them their money back.

Same exact thing I said. If you're crazy enough to spend hundreds on a pair of shoes, you deserve to be bamboozled, sorry not sorry.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

I would not have given them their money back.

Well I think it depends on what exactly went down before the sale.

 

If they kept the money and there was any suggestion that they were being intentionally misleading about their product, couldn't they be at risk of legal action in some way? 

[Boiler 43,386]

It was a shop, shoes with prices shown.

[Dashinka 23,192]

It was an advertisement production, so I think they might have been in trouble if they did not give the money back, but initially, I thought the same thing.  On the plus side, we got to see some very fashion conscience people (in their own mind at least) spend frivously on something that can be very affordable.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Pricesless!

 

By T.L. Stanley 3 hours ago

 

There may be a few schools of thought on why the Payless faux boutique stunthas attracted so much attention this week, with its videos of Los Angeles fashionistas paying $600 for $20 shoes going viral within hours of launching on social media.

 

One: It’s a brilliant marketing move that calls attention to stylish footwear at bargain prices and shakes up popular (and stale) opinion about a retailer that’s been around since the late 1950s.

Two: It’s a sharp jab in the eye to influencers willing to shell out big bucks for pedestrian products. Or perhaps it’s an even broader dig at influencer culture itself? Tweeting about the stunt to his 2.5 million followers, Questlove called it “champion trolling.”

Either way, it’s a massive win for Payless, which took over a former Armani location in Santa Monica recently and invited groups of fashion-forward social media mavens to the grand opening of “Palessi,” a bespoke shop decorated with gold mannequins, soft lighting, model-perfect sales assistants and other posh accoutrements more befitting a Prada store than a shopping mall staple.

 

 

https://www.adweek.com/creativity/qa-how-payless-brilliantly-bamboozled-fashionistas-with-its-fake-luxury-pop-up-palessi/

 

 

    Except for the Payless name, they are not doing anything different than most other companies that sell shoes for $600. Most of them cost $20 to make anyway. 

[bcking 3,157]

21 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Except for the Payless name, they are not doing anything different than most other companies that sell shoes for $600. Most of them cost $20 to make anyway. 

I think it just depends.

 

If they truly did nothing but put a 600 dollar price tag on them, then sure.

 

But how did they respond to questions? If asked about materials, where they are made etc... Would they answer? Would they be non-specific? Would they outright lie?

 

It was likely easier for them to just play it all off as a media stunt and give the money back rather than worry about if anyone felt they were misleading.

Edited November 30, 2018 by bcking

[Boiler 43,386]

Not sure I have heard what materials being asked, I would expect a multiple of types depending on the particular shoe.

 

Where they were made is on the box.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

I think it just depends.

 

If they truly did nothing but put a 600 dollar price tag on them, then sure.

 

But how did they respond to questions? If asked about materials, where they are made etc... Would they answer? Would they be non-specific? Would they outright lie?

 

It was likely easier for them to just play it all off as a media stunt and give the money back rather than worry about if anyone felt they were misleading.

 

  I guess my point was what makes a "real" $600 pair of shoes worth $600. Just the sticker on the box. There's not much inherent value really, sometimes just the name. 

[bcking 3,157]

25 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I guess my point was what makes a "real" $600 pair of shoes worth $600. Just the sticker on the box. There's not much inherent value really, sometimes just the name. 

They certainly don't cost 600 dollars to make, but they typically do cost more than cheaper shoes to produce. At least for menswear. 

 

Now women's shoes is a whole different story. 1,000 dollar heels likely cost hardly anything more than 40 dollar heels to produce.

[Dashinka 23,192]

13 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I guess my point was what makes a "real" $600 pair of shoes worth $600. Just the sticker on the box. There's not much inherent value really, sometimes just the name. 

I think it is mostly the name.

[TBoneTX 43,004]

I shake my head when I read stories like this.

I refuse to pay full retail for clothing or shoes.

If I buy retail at all, the discount must be deep and the consequent price reasonable (meaning cheap).

Currently, 17 of my 21 suits (all are top names) came from estate sales or resale shops.

Something like 7 of 8 pairs of brown shoes and 6 of 7 pairs of black shoes came from the same.

Everything is modern and a better name or higher quality than what I'd choose to pay "retail" for.

There's no sense in paying $500 for a suit or $100 for shoes if I can get even better for $1 to $10.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

I like shoes I could be had by this scam