Three months ago when high-end designer Roland Mouret's capsule collection of dresses arrived in store at Gap, the fashion press went into a frenzy. In fact, there wasn't a single paid up member among the industry's ranks, myself included, who didn't buy at least one grey wool tunic dress. But, fast forward a few weeks and those same dresses are still hanging at the back of the store.
Looking sad and more than a little awkward. Granted, some of the dresses were what is known as "difficult," which translated from fashionese means they were on the edge of ugly unless you wore them with the right shoes. But, hype aside it seemed a crying shame. These were good clothes, reasonably priced, going to waste. So why didn't people buy them?
Gap's problem could be quite literally a gap. A gap between the perception of what might be in the store, and the reality of what is actually on sale. For many, Gap signifies generic Americanised bland casualwear - logo hooded tops and khaki combats. A sartorial version of Starbucks. True, Gap does sell its fair share of sweatshirts, but it also has the strongest, sleekest collection of well designed clothes on the high street. Cropped trousers which rival designer versions, effortlessly chic trenchcoats and good quality cashmere whose price doesn't reek too strongly of child sweatshops, are all on offer.
The aesthetic of the womenswear is European in feel: an unpolished left-bank Parisian look. The trends are subtle, but in evidence, which makes Gap's clothes a good alternative to the rest of the high street, which now spits out duplicate catwalk trends in an increasingly heavy-handed manner. All of this is backed up by a strong advertising campaign featuring celebrities such as Helen Mirren, a woman who surely appeals to a British audience. But still the message doesn't seem to be coming across clearly. The next few months will no doubt be rocky for the label from a business point of view, but from what I've seen of this spring's collection, it isn't the clothes that are at fault.
