 "Photo: Photo illustration by Erin Poppe")
 "Photo: Photo illustration by Erin Poppe")
During this economic recession, the terms “recessionista” or “budget fashionista” are all over newspapers and Web sites such as The New York Times and TheBudgetFashionista.com. Big name magazines have started producing stories on the new fashion girl, such as Seventeen’s “Recessionista Hair Tips From the Pros” and Vogue’s “Recessionista: Your Closet vs. Barneys.”
Even talk shows have gained interest in the budget fashionista. Tyra Banks did a whole segment on how to be a recessionista, and Fashion Television named 2009 “the year of the Recessionista.”
A recessionista or budget fashionista is a person who is able to stick to a tight budget while still managing to dress fashionably. Many women and designers are becoming more attracted to clothing that is not only stylish, but also affordable. However, not everyone thinks this way. Some say spending more money on a purchase for a better-quality piece is worth the price.
“I’d rather spend more on something that will last longer and I can wear more often than something that will not last as long because it’s cheaper,” said Alarie Kennedy, junior in apparel and textiles.
Amber Vossen, sophomore in apparel and textiles, agreed with Kennedy and said quality pieces often look and feel better than similar cheaper items. She said as long as buyers are wise about what they purchase, going for quality is often a good decision.
It seems that when they do have the money, many K-State students are more likely to buy something of higher quality rather than for quantity.
“We work hard for the money that we use on purchases, so we do not want to waste money on something that is of poor quality and will be worthless,” said Kellsi Bradberry, sophomore in business.
Quality seems to win over quantity in the bigger purchases, but not on smaller pieces such as jewelry, tanks or jeans.
“It depends on what I’m buying,” said Jessica Allen, junior in apparel and textiles. “If I am buying coats or shoes, I will pay more money because they need to be of good quality so they last longer. But on things like jeans, or tanks, I wear them out quickly, so I don’t spend much money on them.”
According to TheBudgetFashionista.com, people should look at every purchase with the “cost per wear” theory in mind. For every item that they consider buying, shoppers should divide the estimated amount of times they will wear the item by the price they are going to pay for it. The Web site gives the example of a $500 Burberry trench coat: The buyer planned to wear it 72 times in a year (three times per week for six months). She decided she would probably keep the coat for about five years, making the cost per wear $1.38. This cost, according to the Web site, makes the coat a wise purchase and worth the initial investment.
The Web site also explains a bad “cost per wear,” using the example of a $250 diamond necklace: If the buyer plans on wearing the necklace only once a month for a special occasion over the next two years, it costs $10.42 every time the person wears the necklace. Consumers could treat themselves to lunch at Huhot Mongolian Grill once a month for two years or buy 25 $10 necklaces at Forever 21 for the same amount of money, which may be a more worthwhile way to spend money.
Either way, it seems the real issue is not so much the quality or quantity of purchases, but whether the money spent was spent wisely.
