When Fashion-tech Collabs Go Wrong

Fashion and technology should be the business world’s ultimate power couple, a duo uniquely suited to wow consumers with style and substance. But all too often, collaborations meant to sizzle just end up fizzling out.

The reasons vary, but misfires often come down to forgetting who the intended user is or never defining that customer in the first place.

Staring at a Gucci-Xbox collaboration from 2021, popular YouTuber, gadget reviewer and tech critic Marques Brownlee summed up brand collaborations as a corporate 101 strategy that can capitalize on overlapping audiences.

“Oftentimes they’re really cringy, but sometimes you get something that’s pretty cool or even iconic…so whether they’re cringy or super corporate or not, whatever the vibe is, there are a number of brand collabs all around the tech industry every year that make sense,” he said.

“And then there are monstrosities like this,” he went on. “Because on the surface in the tech world, this seems dumb. It’s a Gucci Xbox. Why would that be better than a regular Xbox?”

Good question.

Gucci’s 100th Anniversary Xbox Console

Famous for Roblox experiences, NFTs and more, Gucci has earned a reputation as one of fashion’s most tech-forward luxury fashion houses for its willingness to experiment with different tools and environments. That’s not just limited to digital or virtual spaces either.

On occasion, Gucci has dabbled in hardware too. In 2021, its partnership with Microsoft birthed the Gucci Xbox Series X, a special limited-edition gaming console laser-engraved with the brand’s signature double-G logo pattern to mark the house’s 100th anniversary — and the Xbox’s 20th.

The unit came with Gucci-themed controllers and fit into a case that could have doubled as Gucci carry-on luggage, if not for the bright green “Xbox” plastered on the outside. According to the brand, this was a “hard case inspired by Gucci’s archival luggage.” The words “Good game,” which were set into the bottom, pointed to gamers’ favorite sign off. It was a happy accident that the initials matched the brand’s decorative vocabulary.

The device, priced at $10,000, targeted a very specific slice of the consumer base, the wealthy gamer, which seemed apt for a collection with only 100 products available. But the offering confused reviewers like Marques Brownlee, who openly questioned the point of it.

In fashion, high-priced exclusivity may equate to cachet, but not necessarily in tech and gaming, where advanced components and cutting-edge features matter most.

But this wasn’t the first or last time Gucci pursued gadgets, like the branded version of the Gen3 Oura ring for $950 the following year.

The Fossilization of Fashion Smartwatches

When Fossil ended its smartwatch business last January, shock rippled across the fashion and tech sectors, before landing in the public square. In the weeks that followed, smartwatch users in conversations, blogs, Reddit posts, forums and other places began to realize what the move meant.

The market wasn’t just losing a single brand. The Fossil Group represents a bevy of labels including Fossil, Skagen, Michael Kors, DKNY, Tory Burch, Diesel and others. It supported Google’s wearables platform — even when interest waned — since the debut of its first Fossil Q in 2015. As the single biggest producer of fashion smartwatches, Fossil’s exit meant that much of the fashion world was unstrapping itself from the tech too.

It leaves behind a growing array of options, particularly since Google and Samsung hammered out some of the Wear OS software’s kinks. This increased competition, in fact, factored into Fossil’s departure. Speaking to the tech press, Jeff Boyer, executive vice president and chief operating officer at Fossil, cited a “smartwatch landscape [that] has evolved significantly over the past few years” for the decision.

Ultimately, Fossil found itself in an unenviable position, as a fashion company competing with tech giants in an intensifying gadget category. (There’s a reason why Hermès and Nike leave the wearable tech-making to Apple.)

The company will continue support for existing devices for a few years, but the lack of new models will relegate consumers to mainly techie styles — and lovers of stylish watch looks are not pleased. End users and blog authors have been lamenting this state of affairs, particularly in May, when the company sold its last bits of online inventory.

Levi’s x Google’s Project Jacquard Jacket Wears Thin

In 2015, a year after it unveiled the Android Wear smartwatch platform, Google revealed another vision for wearables, this time as mobile-connected smart clothing designed for everyday life — and a new partnership with Levi’s to make it a reality.

According to Paul Dillinger, Levi’s head of global product innovation, they were targeting a specific problem. “In our hyper-digital world, people constantly struggle to be physically present in their environment while maintaining a digital connection,” he explained at Google I/O that year. Their answer to that came in 2017, with the launch of the Levi’s Commuter x Jacquard by Google Trucker Jacket.

With an electronic tag and conductive fibers from Google’s Project Jacquard, the smart Trucker vibrated with phone alerts and offered controls for music, calls and a few other features via taps or swipes on the sleeve. It was a novel concept, but the first generation product cost a hefty $350 for a very limited, but often glitchy set of features. A laundry cap of just 10 washings didn’t help. An updated version in 2019 brought two styles, a lower price point and better performance. But it was too little, too late — and not just for the Levi’s collaboration.

By then, Jacquard also powered backpacks by Yves Saint Laurent and Samsonite, and an Adidas smart insole, among other things. But just as brands were warming up to the concept of connected fashion, Google abandoned Jacquard, letting it languish until it finally removed the app in April 2023.

A Luxury Smart Bracelet With Winning Appeal That Still Lost

Premium materials and exquisite detailing — which are what make heirloom jewelry and couture special — are wasted on electronics that have a limited shelf life, often by design. People with the 2015 Apple Watch Editions learned that last year when the $10,000 to $17,000 devices became paperweights. So did anyone who actually bought the Gucci Xbox above.

The fashion-tech graveyard is full of examples, from Will.i.am’s Puls wearable to Vertu, a luxury phone brand that offered white-glove service but so-so tech. But Mica, a 2014 smart bracelet by Open Ceremony and Intel, did have potential, but failed in the end.

A gorgeous cuff with jewelry vibes, Mica nabbed early buzz at a time when device-makers largely ignored women. Both function and form mattered, with standalone cell service, apps and a subtle, inward-facing sapphire screen framed by snake skin, semiprecious stones and 18-karat gold accents.

“Aesthetically, we really wanted this to be a rounded edge,” explained Humberto Leon, Opening Ceremony’s cofounder. “And they came back and said, ‘What about square?’ And we said, ‘No one is going to wear a square bracelet every day of their lives.’”

He was right about that. But $495 — $650 today — was still steep for a device that mainstream consumers didn’t know what to do with yet. Women in tech understood it better, and many eyed the device at the time but just couldn’t square the cost against the limited lifespan.

Defining the target customer, or who it should be, could have made all the difference for the Opening Ceremony x Intel collaboration. Had it created two versions — an affordable lite model in different materials, alongside a pricier, premium ultra version — it could have held on to the luxury proposition while broadening the appeal.

Instead, initial buzz over the gizmo whittled away, as Mica joined the ranks of fashion-tech collaborations that quietly headed into the sunset, never to be heard from again. They may be gone, but hopefully their lessons will continue on — and lead to a new wave of devices that deliver both performance and style.