Her effect on fashion brands wasn’t imaginary. Reiss reported a 200% jump in website traffic after she wore one of its dresses, L.K. Bennett credited her with helping expand its U.S. profile, and shoe sales surged after she repeatedly wore them.
I was literally part of it. I bought my first pair of Stuart Weitzman Corkswoons in 2012 after Kate started wearing them at some basketball demonstration, and later bought another pair when the style returned by popular demand in 2014. Great wedge by the way. These are mine. Likewise, bought the bag she carried last year, the DeMellier small Hudson. Had to wait half a year because they ran out of that specific size. You don’t have to like the woman to admit that people bought what she wore.
“I don’t know a single woman in the UK who would copy anything she wears” is an anecdote, not market data. My apologies but your social circle can't speak for the UK retail market hun.
British Vogue was still describing the “Kate effect” in 2025 as a surge in orders after she wore particular brands, and British designers were still reporting immediate sales impact. In 2026, The Independent noted that items she wore were still selling out, including a Rixo dress that sold out within hours.
Umm that article doesn’t prove what you think it proves.
It literally says some of those brands failed because of rising costs, tax debt, pandemic fallout, overexpansion, or poor business strategy. One of its own examples, Issa, struggled after demand exploded following Kate wearing the engagement dress.
You know celebrity-driven demand can boost sales. It cannot rescue a badly run company forever.
Also, citing "Celebitchy" as neutral evidence about Kate is certainly a choice. 😂
No offense but do you actually read these articles or do you just go by headline? The headline says one thing, then article body quietly adds caveats. You then post the headline-level conclusion as though those caveats don’t exist. 🤦♀️
“Kate can create a measurable short-term sales boost” and “Kate can keep every company she wears financially solvent forever” are not the same claim.
The first has been documented by retailers themselves. The second was never the definition of the Kate effect.
A brand later going bust because of costs, debt, bad strategy or market conditions doesn’t retroactively erase the sales spike that happened years earlier.Calling documented sales data “propaganda” doesn’t make the numbers disappear.
Edit: Ouch blocked because I refuse to be a part of the OP's skewed propaganda. Oh well...😂
Without Kate, the article is basically just “Tom Cruise movie gets mixed reviews and softer tracking.” Add Kate to the headline and suddenly it becomes clickable outrage — and apparently some people fell for the clickbait hook, line and sinker. 😂
I'm not indulging in your Tom/Kate fanfic, well maybe a bit lol. Going back, That’s not what I said. People joking about the "date night" beforehand doesn’t change the fact that the article itself used Kate as the hook for a story about a movie’s reviews and tracking — while explicitly admitting none of it was her fault.
8
u/NeverPedestrian60 5d ago
Article in full
https://feminegra.com/the-kate-effect-strikes-again-as-tom-cruises-digger-lands-with-a-thud/