Making Modern Mannequins?

Soho is an excellent place on an early Fall day to see concentrated, higher market retail in its natural environment. Save for an artisanal sandwich store or two, it's street after street, store-to-store, swank retail. Over the last few days as I have taken my lunchtime constitutional, my eye has been caught by the array of mannequins that pose in the windows of these stores.

And so I have been wondering what the rationale is around mannequin selection and styling, around overall aesthetic, feature selection, color choice, and around (de) capitation strategy. As little context, mannequins seem run the gamut from the fully realistic (not quite Lars and the Real Girl, but certainly sufficient verisimilitude to be momentarily confusing), all the way to simple solid color plastic torsos.

Here's a little (unscientific) analysis. Let's start with the closest market category to my office -- bizarrely, intimate apparel. I kid you not. There is actually a whole competitive market set literally within two blocks. La Perla, and Agent Provocateur both have high fidelity, fully featured mannequins -- faces with all the detailing, coloring, lashes, etc. Wolford has both torso-only, and white abstract fully featured faces. Kiki de Montparnasse has fully featured faces. VIctoria's Secret and sister firm Pink are torso only.

In the high fashion category, the full-featured mannequins in the Ralph Lauren store look sporty and confident and like they wouldn't be out of place at Barnard reunion or at a Junior League meeting. Round the corner, Chanel has high fidelity fully-featured faces with all detailing, but with dated looking models with ill-fitting wigs. Prada parallels with high fidelity, fully-featured faces with all the detailing, but with "eyes wide-shut" bizarrely. Moncler, with its ability to use goggles and mufflers and hats and hoods can project without the need to deal with thorny facial feature issue. Hugo Boss goes for a grey, stylized abstract art deco feature set. At Paul Smith, jaunty clothing sits on headless men. In more of a miscellaneous category, Burton has life-size pictures next to mannequins. And at Dash, the Kardashian store - the most highly evolved - mannequins are made entirely of small pieces of mirror.

One might naturally conclude that within a sector, the high-price players can afford the more "sophisticated" models, and be done with the whole thing. But let's turn the handle once more.

In terms of the high fidelity, technology enabled execution, Alexander McQueen with his 3D holographic Kate Moss takes verisimilitude to a new emotional level. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cou04-vOZx8 But, with very few exceptions, why has (in)appropriate technology not invaded this area of our lives? If Barbie can talk and glow and ride a bike for $16 retail, and the power PC chip is less than fifty bucks, then what could be done with the staid 20th century mannequin to reinvent it? A visit to the online marketplace www.mannequinhub.com shows the state of the art today where "realistic" are $140, and "brazilian" are $75. There's not a sign of technology innovation to be seen.

Beyond technology usage, what are the key questions in mannequin design? Should they be more realistic? Should they display the clothes optimally -- change size dynamically to reflect the passing audiences perhaps? Should the mannequin be more of a reflection of the brand? Should the human form be de-voiced completely so that all that remains are the clothes?

Or, has no one save me given it a thought?

Ariely's Artisanal Milk

Our company (www.codeandtheory.com) invited Dan Ariely http://danariely.com/ to speak to our staff and a number of current and prospective clients this morning.

He was terrific. In today's world where often presenters hide behind sophisticated visual aids, Keynote transitions, and Flash(y) eye candy, it was refreshing to see someone stand up and present a series of cogent, well argued positions and insights with conviction, in an engaging and entertaining manner.

I tried to pay particular attention to Dan's presentation style, timbre, syntax, and structure, and use of humor as I am working on improving my own presentations skills at the moment. His use of the dramatic pause was particularly effective. Further, each astute observation or counterintuitive framing was very engaging and relatable for the audience.

One particular illustration around the wine industry versus the milk industry stuck with me. Why, argued Ariely, don't we discuss and look at milk in the same way we look at wine?

We could talk about single-sourced, single herd milk, from the Vermont region versus the Hudson valley region, for example. We could discuss the growers and the lineage of the cows, we could frame milk -- its texture, color, taste, bouquet, mouth feel -- in equally nuanced and lofty terms to that of wine.

Whist wine is more of an experience good, Milk thus far has more of the utilitarian commodity value. But there is no reason why we couldn't create an artisanal milk company that reframed the market, and hailed the exquisite qualities of Betsy the cow's first Fall top cream.

Anyway, a really engaging ninety minutes curtesy of Professor Airely.