My daughter is in the New York Times! (sort of)

Since my favorite (and only) child is the sales director for a high-end designer eyewear company, my eyes snapped to attention when I noticed a New York Times story today: "Love Your Sunglasses (Should I Know You?)"

I hoped to read that the demand for expensive sunglasses wasn't going the way of expensive homes: down. Reassuringly, the story said that "statement sunglasses are one luxury that consumers are still willing to splurge on."

Whew! Good news. Even better was what I came across a few paragraphs further on.

"Sunglasses aren't armor anymore — they're not about saying don't touch me," said Ed Burstell, the vice president for cosmetics and accessories for Bergdorf Goodman in New York. Among the more rarefied labels at Bergdorf are Bulgari, Bottega Veneta, Alexander McQueen, Marc Jacobs, Chanel and Barton Perreira, a six-month-old brand coveted by aficionados.

Barton Perreira! That's the start-up company my daughter works for!

Coveted by aficionados. That's a killer blurb. The New York Times reporter should be sent a pair of sunglasses, though likely that'd run afoul of some silly ethics rule.

Lacking ethics myself, and playing the Pitiful Dad card, I immediately emailed my daughter a congratulations on the story, not so subtly mentioning that I too am an aficionado of designer sunglasses – yet somehow lack a pair of Barton Perreira's.

Which, since they cost around $350, isn't surprising.

Anticipating that a pair could be coming into my life soon (I'd wear them in trendy Salem, Oregon hot spots, assuming I can find any, so this would be a valid marketing expense for Barton Perreira), I spent some time today ogling the current collection.

I sort of lean toward "Voyeur." But my daughter can surprise me. Just three months to my birthday, Celeste! However, every day is Father's Day, isn't it?

Comments

[Robert Paul Howard]

Strut, Brian. Strut.

Robert Paul Howard

Wear those sunglasses even in the dark clubs! if you can find one. Isn't it fun when our kids make a splash of whatever kind? My oldest works for Fossil as a designer and I still have photos of his first design, a splashy handbag.

Sylvia

[Brian]

Absolutely, Robert. Strutting is the whole point of designer eyewear: feeling that you're looking good, and letting the world know that you do.

[Celeste]

Thanks for the shout out although I'm actually the SALES Director, not marketing. Glad to know that my dad still has no idea what I do for a living! I'm sure I can convince marketing to comp a frame for the hippest guy in the Lakewood Estates in Salem, OR. I'll look into it.......

[Amecameca]

"Lacking ethics myself ..."

You need to get some. Think about this: almost half the world's population, 2.8 billion people, live on less than $2 a day. Of these people, 1.2 billion live on less than $1 a day.

Spending $350 on sunglasses is unethical.

Peter Singer is one of the great ethicists of our time and had written and spoken eloquently about this. Check him out:

http://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/Events/Uehiro%20Lectures/Video/Uehiro-1w.mov

[Rain]

In regards the last comment. If we want to consider what much of the world would be able to afford, we'd not buy anything but basic food, rice (although right now that might be questionable), probably no meat, not eat out in restaurants, not go on vacations, fly in airplanes, and on and on. You can't live that way.

In my opinion, if someone chooses to buy expensive clothing or sunglasses or whatever, it's their choice at least if they made their money ethically. You simply cannot lower yourself to the level of much of the world even if you get into feeling you should. Walk everywhere? Feel guilty for a happy marriage when others don't have one? Even this thing about driving vehicles that get better gas mileage, which Brian has written about, it is how much fuel you consume period not how many miles you drove to do it.

Frankly, most people will never know if someone has a pair of designer sunglasses anyway; so not sure it'd buy much prestige in the areas where I live. More important is safety for the eyes from damaging rays but some parts of the world can't afford even that.

[Celeste]

Interesting comment about it being unethical to spend $350 on sunglasses. Being in the luxury market, I actually think we are more ethical than all those cheap stores that sell $10 sunglasses that you have to throw away or don't feel bad about losing. The whole point to more expensive clothes, accessories etc. is that they are made to last and the buyer will keep the sunglasses for many years instead of our toss-away mentality in the US. I personally buy one nice handbag, one nice pair of sunglasses, one nice pair of shoes maybe every year or two and keep them until I wear them out. So who is more ethical, the person who buys tons of cheap crap and throws it away or the person who buys one "expensive" item and cherishes it for years?