Cath Kidston — vomit inducing mobile designs that women love
Well it’s at this point that I and women part company. I have a healthy respect for style and matching stuff. I’d sooner let my tailor suggest colours and whatnot, then either agree or disagree — generally speaking I agree.
I usually, I reckon, know what looks right and what looks rubbish.
When it comes to mobile phone colours, I fancy myself rather capable of doing a Simon Cowell style evaluation with a degree of credibility.
So when I saw the vomit designs from Cath Kidston at Carphone Warehouse, well, my first reaction was ‘useless’, my second reaction was, ‘what the hell have the Dunstonians been smoking?’
Have a look at the Cath Kidston page on the Carphone Warehouse site.
You know, perhaps part of the problem is that I couldn’t pick Cath Kidston out of a line up if it was just her standing there.
Who the hell is Cath Kidston? Well I had a look on the site and I now know. She makes curtains and is apparently into vintage style prints. One of Britain’s best loved designers too, apparently. She’s not in WIkipedia so she can’t be that best-loved yet.
What most irritated me was that the Cath Kidston handsets were clearly knock-offs by Carphone Warehouse. They are nothing more than bog standard Nokias with a Cath Kidston fascia. Why the hell they were selling them as complete handsets, I just didn’t know.
Now the text on the Carphone Cath site reads:
Exclusive to The Carphone Warehouse, Nokia has given two of their best selling handsets a gorgeous makeover using three of Cath’s most popular prints: Bird, Pop flowers and Star. Get your hands on one of these exclusive limited edition handsets!
You’d have to make sure that Uranus was in the cusp of Saturn or that it was a Blue Moon on a 2nd Tuesday before I could agree that the end product was ‘a gorgeous makeover’ without telling copious lies.
It’d be a different situation if the whole handset was completely designed by Cath. But just knocking up some fascias and flogging them as handsets…. not good.
However.
However, he says.
However I take it all back.
What the hell do I know? Nothing, it seems.
I’m walking along Dean Street up to Oxford Street this evening — not less than about 6 hours ago — when I catch sight of an young attractive lady, early twenties I’d say, sheltering in a doorway on the phone.
I almost tripped up walking past her when I noticed the rather distinctive Cath Kidston print fascia on her handset. She was using the phone you see top right of this blog.
Oh dear.
What the HELL was she thinking when she bought that?
Well, I simply don’t get it. Kudos to Carphone Warehouse and Cath though. Clearly at least one fit young thing has deigned to buy a Cath-designed handset, and I’ve no reason to think that, based on this experience, there aren’t tens of thousands of others doing the same.
If you don’t know who Cath Kidston is, visit http://www.cathkidston.co.uk/ for enlightenment.
wow that is ugly design
there is something so wrong about having your 21st century mobile phone look like a potholder from walmart/tesco
Posted by Andrew M on December 6th, 2006 at 3:32 am.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and they are clearly not designed to appeal to guys - hence you don’t appreciate the designs, do not know who Cath Kidston is, and you perform a massive u-turn on your opinions when a fit bird intervenes in the proceedings.
Posted by Cwb on December 6th, 2006 at 12:24 pm.There was actually an interesting piece in The Times [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1055-2487800.html] this morning discussing this very design, stating this devalued the ‘brand’ - think Burberry baseball caps…
Posted by kmara on December 6th, 2006 at 5:55 pm.Cath Kidston designs are fab - retro, floral, 50s stylee. And they work well for interior design, tea-towels, curtains, duvet covers et al.
She’s also played a blinder in licensing some of her designs for stuff she wouldn’t normally do… There’s a whole Cath Kidston camping range, and I confess, I have the very girly Cath Kidston sleeping bag which I love to bits - much better than all the other boring sleeping bags on the market which all look the same and do the same thing. So I’m not entirely surprised that she’s done a phone as well.
I don’t personally like the phone much but I can see why it would appeal to some women. It’s very ‘of the moment’ and as such will have limited appeal in terms of longevity I expect. But as a woman, when you’re faced with a choice of handsets that pretty much all do the same thing and all look a bit geeky and a bit the same and you’re not gadgety yourself, it’s refreshing to have some choice of a phone that might actually go (visually) with your lifestyle and is more fashion orientated and that’s *not* a motorola razr. I think it’s called customer segmentation…
Posted by Helen Keegan on December 9th, 2006 at 4:33 pm.Tuh, Girlies…………………….
Can we have an Ann Summer one instead.
Posted by loopy on December 10th, 2006 at 7:42 am.I think the thing to note about Cath Kidston is that it is a LIFESTYLE brand - that is everything designed by Cath is something she’d wear or use herself. Everything else she designs is incredibly popular with her customers, and I imagine the phones are no exception - people are buying into her lifestyle. I guess she won’t be as well known among men or non Cath K obsessives, but speaking as a Cath K obsessive I am very happy with my pop flowers red 6111! It’s a fab phone and the bright print means I don’t lose it in the bottom of my (Cath K) handbag!
Posted by Jane K on December 13th, 2006 at 4:26 pm.I’m sorry, are you being forced into owning one? Does someone have a gun to your head, making you purchase a flower covered phone? No, probably not.
At least you can be proud that your sexuality’s not in question, what with not liking flowers on phones, phew, good for you.
Mobile phones are just bits of plastic that help people keep in touch. To think of them in any other way is pathetic. Who cares what they look like.
Next…
Posted by Bob on December 13th, 2006 at 5:22 pm.I can’t believe in this day and age that someone could write an article like this.
1. How can a design be ‘useless’, that’s nonsense
2. How could Cath Kidston design a whole handset, she’s a fashion and homeware designer?
3. Do you really think that being in Wikipedia makes someone so great?
4. I’m sure I couldn’t pick you out of a line up, expect if you were standing trial for crimes against sensible reporting
5. Your opinion by the end of the article seems to rest on the fact that a fit bird has bought a phone, this is immature and completely discredits the entire article
Not what I’d call very well balanced and informed journalism….
Posted by TJH on December 14th, 2006 at 11:44 am.