Dr. Martens Heritage Dissertation by Molly Winter

Molly Winter 201015232 From Postmen to Punks: Investigating the impacts of subcultural heritage on fashion marketing strategies through a brand case study of Dr Martens

This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Fashion Marketing

The School of Design, University of Leeds

19th March 2020

Abstract During times of socio-political shifts throughout the past century, an array of subcultures emerged in the UK. Each underground movement possessed a unique set of ideologies and adhered to different sartorial rules. However, one item of clothing that connected these individuals were Dr Martens shoes. The actions of each subculture resulted in them gaining distinguishable reputations and as a consequence, these strong associations became imprinted onto the products that they aligned themselves with. The cultural capital that these subcultures attached to products is highly marketable for brands. By using Dr Martens as a case study, this dissertation aims to determine the usefulness of communicating subcultural lineage by investigating its effect on brand image. The study pays particular attention to investigating the relative impacts of subcultural heritage on consumer perceptions of brand authenticity and the benefits or drawbacks of evoking certain moments from the past.

Contents Introduction

Methodology

Literature Review

Chapter 1: How did the subcultural adoption affect the meaning of Dr Martens shoes?

1.1 Mods

1.2 Skinheads

1.3 Punks

1.4 1980s

Chapter 2: How did Dr Martens use the subcultural uptake to build authenticity into

their shoe designs? 2.1 Church Leather Monkey Boot: a case study for the use of heritage in

developing authenticity 2.2 1925 Sex Pistols Collaboration Shoe: a case study for the negative impact of

commercialization on brand authenticity 2.3 The importance of enduring quality in maintaining authenticity Chapter 3: To what extent do subcultural references in Dr Martensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; advertising

31 33

campaigns improve brand image? 3.1 A History of Standing for Something Campaign: a case study for subcultural

references in Dr Martens' advertising 3.2 Worn Different Campaign: a case study for subcultural ideologies in Dr

Martens advertising Conclusion

List of References

List of Illustrations

Introduction In light of the increasingly homogeneous nature of the fashion industry, it is more important than ever that brands communicate their points of differentiation. Finding a unique selling point enables them to remain desirable and gives them a competitive advantage in the saturated market. Boccardi et al. (2016) argue “providing identity and reputation” (p136) is a vital part of ensuring brand superiority. This can be achieved through the exploitation of brand heritage (Davies, 2016). Boccardi et al. (2016) identify heritage as a competitive asset and if marketed correctly it can “offer a sense of identity, continuity, and certainty” (p137) as well as build brand authenticity. This dissertation aims to demonstrate the value of history to fashion marketers by investigating the extent to which Dr Martens have built an authentic brand image through communicating heritage in their products and advertising campaigns.

A brand is “an intangible symbolic concept” comprising “identity, symbolism, differentiation, and experiential value” (Boccardi et al, 2016, p136). Spiggle et al. (2012) argue that good brand management allows financial growth, consequently several existing studies have investigated the importance of intangible aspects of branding. For example, Gilbert addresses the importance of symbolism to the fashion industry by discussing how connotations of various major fashion cities create hierarchical distinctions (Gilbert, 2006). Blaszczyk (2017) also attributes the success of a fashion brand to symbolism as she explains that Abraham Moon and Sons Ltd, a Yorkshire-based woollen mill, was able to survive in challenging economic conditions by fore fronting symbols of their past to generate brand essence.

Spiggle et al. (2012, p970) define brand essence as “the soul of the brand and its fundamental values” that form a unique identity. Therefore, managing brand essence can provide the brand with symbolic equity, which in turn aids the differentiation process. This dissertation aims to articulate the usefulness of historical symbolism to fashion brands and bridges a gap in current research by investigating the significance of post-war subcultural sartorial references.

2 Dr Martens use elements of their subcultural history to generate brand essence, which relies on the theory of cultural capital. This term was coined by French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, when explaining how a “set of cultural resources (…) allows one to gain social power and distinction” (Rocamora and Smelik, 2015, p240). Davies (2016) argues that subcultural history, in particular, supplies “cultural markers that evoke a set of marketable characteristics” (p203). In light of this, value can be attached to a brand by signposting its cultural significance; communicating subcultural heritage is one way in which a brand can capitalise on society’s desire to convey tastes and interests.

Boccardi et al. (2016) reinforce the idea that historical symbolism can add brand value by boosting “affective sentiment”, which in turn creates “values of preferability” (p135). By amplifying their heritage through visual cues across their marketing methods, Dr Martens has reinforced tropes of certain subcultures to connect emotionally with their audience. The examination of specific subcultural symbols referenced in Dr Martens’ marketing channels in chapters two and three pinpoints the relative impact of exaggerating or downplaying certain histories on a brand’s overall image.

De La Haye and Dingwall (1996) argue that subcultures are born from a counterreaction to a variety of socio-political factors in the wider environment; by belonging to an underground group members can achieve “freedoms in lifestyle, sexuality and politics” that are prevalent in the dominant culture. This leads to the formation of clearly defined “geographical, social and sartorial boundaries” unique to each subculture (De La Haye and Dingwall, 1996). Hebdige (2002) argues that conspicuous consumption is a major determining factor of subcultures, for instance, it is through style that “the subculture at once reveals its ‘secret’ identity” (p103) to the world. This somewhat performative display of group identity attaches “status on its owner in the eyes of the relevant beholder” (Thornton, 1995, p22), thus these visual codes bound in the choice of dress can be analysed to divulge meaning. Chapter one of this study homes in on the distinguishing ethos’ and defining sartorial characteristics of Dr Martens’ main subcultural adopters. By examining the historical context from which certain subcultures emerged, conclusions on the semiotic

3 meaning that each subculture possesses are drawn. This initial analysis acts as a foundation for the assertions held in the subsequent chapters.

Methodology This study marries both primary and secondary research. Object-based visual analysis is practised in this dissertation to determine the different subcultural references in Dr Martens’ designs and adverts. From this information, conclusions can be drawn about why the brand has chosen to refer to these particular subcultures. The object-based methodology used is centred on the framework provided by Valerie Steele (1998). Steele provides an insightful summary of Jules Prown’s three-step object interpretation process. The first stage is “description” in which the aim is to “describe the physical dimensions, material, and fabrication of the object” (Steele, 1998, p329); the next stage is “deduction” whereby the investigator must “consider what the object does and how it does it” (Steele, 1998, p330); the final stage is “speculation”, which involves a critical interpretation of the nature of the artefact in relation to a wider context. Rose (2016) also sets out methods for visual analysis. She notes that it is important to take into account the social world that an image is set in when interpreting meaning and that qualitative analysis is the most appropriate approach. The critical visual methodology put forward by Rose comprises three points. She argues that it is necessary to take the images seriously as “visual images have their own effects” (Rose, 2016, p22); to be critical of the wider social context in which the image is situated in and the choice of distribution method; and to “reflect on how you as a critic of visual images are looking” (Rose, 2016, pp22-23). By following the methods for primary visual research from Steele and Rose an in-depth semiotic analysis of Dr Martens’ marketing techniques has been possible.

Semiotic analysis is the method for studying signs and was developed by theorist Roland Barthes (Rocamora and Smelik, 2016). It involves an observation of the signifier, “the material carrier of meaning”, and an analysis of the signified, “the content to which the reference is made” (Rocamora and Smelik, 2016, p8). In other words, it is about the denotations and connotations that stem from a sign. In this study, the clothes worn by each

4 subculture have been encoded with meaning due to the representation of the wearer. Newman and Dhar (2014) call this process of meaning creation “magical contagion”; this is the “belief that objects can acquire (…) essence of a particular source through physical contact” (p372). This means the items of clothing and design features themselves can be decoded independently as signs.

Several visual sources have been examined throughout this dissertation via documentary-type images of subcultural figures. These have been sourced from image databases to provide historical context and to allow for comparisons to be made between the subcultures and the references made in Dr Martens’ marketing. By looking at how real people from authentic subcultures chose to wear certain clothes, it was possible to carry out a more insightful and critical analysis of Dr Martens’ marketing decisions. Secondary research into subcultural theories and Dr Martens’ brand history has supplemented the primary research in this dissertation.

Literature Review The existing studies on Dr Martens’ brand history that this dissertation centres on come from Davies (2016) and Roach (2015). Roach documents the history of the brand and features original photographs and interviews with members of subcultures and noteworthy musicians. This factual source is useful for pinpointing the past moments that Dr Martens have chosen to refer to. However, Dr Martens commissioned Roach to write the book so it is not critical of their successes or failures, which makes the literature relatively one-sided. In comparison, Davies does analyse how Dr Martens strategically amplify their heritage across various marketing touchpoints to create a brand essence. However, the campaigns Davies analysed were from 2011-2012 making the conclusions somewhat out of date when attempting to understand how the brand is operating in a contemporary context. Also, Davies mainly focuses on deconstructing the symbolism of advert imagery alone and fails to interpret how Dr Martens references their subcultural heritage in their products. This dissertation fills the gaps that exist in Davies’ research by looking at more recent campaigns from 2014 and 2017, and carrying out close object analyses of two products.

5 While Davies considers the impact of heritage in building brand essence, this study analyses the effects of heritage on brand authenticity. The theoretical framework underpinning the textual and object analysis in this study combines the work of Fritz et al. (2017) and Napoli et al. (2014). These authors focus on the determinants and benefits of brand authenticity. Fritz et al. (2017) note that brand authenticity can create an emotional consumer-brand relationship to encourage purchases and cement brand loyalty. Napoli et al. (2014) also highlighted the fact that authenticity has a positive effect on purchasing decisions and stressed its role in enhancing brand credibility. Fritz et al. (2017) pinpoints a connection between a brand’s virtuousness and its past in influencing consumer’s perception of authenticity. Napoli et al. (2014) also noted that authenticity is constructed around the brand’s past through heritage and nostalgia, but furthermore, they discuss the importance of “craftsmanship, quality commitment and design consistency” (p1091) in building brand authenticity.

Several subcultural theorists’ work also roots this study. Hall and Jefferson (2006) address the ethnographic reasoning for the birth of post-war subcultures, paying particular attention to the Mod and Skinhead movements. Hebdige (2002) also comments on the reasons for the development of post-war subcultures by carrying out semiotic analyses of numerous subcultures including Punks and Mods. Both authors suggest that each subculture is a symbolic response of resistance to the external environment at the time. Polhemus (1994) also charts how subcultures respond to their external socio-political conditions and sets out how the ideologies and sartorial characteristics of each group differed. Polhemus’ (1994) bubble-up theory is also applicable to subcultures and Dr Martens. This is the idea that a “genuine streetstyle innovation” (Polhemus, 1994, p10) bubbles to the top of the market, first through reinterpretations by global brands like Dr Martens and resulting in emulations in high-end catwalk collections. He also addresses the fact that there has been a shift in consumption as contemporary consumers now choose to mix elements of previous subcultures to create unique style combinations in what he calls the “Supermarket of Style” (Polhemus, 1994, p131).

Chapter 1: How did the subcultural adoption affect the meaning of Dr Martens shoes? Despite being an iconic British brand, the birthplace of the Dr. Martens shoe was, in fact, post-war Germany. In 1945 Dr. Klaus Maertens broke his foot in a skiing accident and while convalescing discovered that the footwear available at the time was very uncomfortable (Dr Martens, no date a). Consequently, Maertens developed a boot with an air-cushioned sole made from unused rubber from Luftwaffe airfields (Thorsch, 2018). After sharing the prototype with “friend and mechanical engineer, Dr. Herbert Funck” (Dr Martens, no date b) they refined the design and began production in 1947. The shoe, therefore, was initially designed to serve a very functional purpose, to increase the level of comfort for the wearer.

It was not until 1959 that the shoe made its way across to England where Bill Griggs, an enterprising shoe factory owner, was looking to expand his company’s product offering (Dr Martens, no date c). After seeing an advert for Dr. Maertens and Dr. Funck’s aircushioned sole in a trade magazine, he contacted the pair and “acquired the exclusive licence for their revolutionary footwear technology” (Dr Martens, no date c). By April 1st, 1960, the iconic eight-holed 1460 Dr. Martens boot had been launched to the UK market. However, during this time the shoe’s main appeal was still its level of comfort (Dr Martens, no date b). The latter factory owner, Max Griggs, even noted that the 1460 was launched “to make a working men’s footwear comfortable” (Roach, 2015, p16). The style of design and brand image were not considered by Dr. Martens at this time and so the first customers were mainly “postmen, factory workers, builders, policemen, medics, London Underground staff and other blue-collar workers” (Roach, 2015, p16). For the police, the boots were appealing as the petrol-resistant soles made them perfect for dealing with traffic accidents and the “soft soles proved invaluable for sneaking up on criminals” (Roach, 2015, p17). The unique functional aspects of the shoes were the main selling point for the brand at this point and positioned them firmly in the arguably unfashionable workwear market.

7 The 1460 boot was coincidently introduced to the UK in a decade that “saw an unprecedented wave of change, new ideas, cultural upheaval” (Dr Martens, no date b). These were very favourable conditions for the birth of a social revolution that saw subcultures emerging across the country, each with their own distinct identity and ideologies. These subcultures would go on to change the course of the Dr Martens brand forever.

1.1 Mods

Figure 1: Mods window shopping 1964 (Popperfoto, 1964)

The first subculture to adopt Dr. Martens were the Mods of the 1960s. This subculture had a distinct clean-cut style, opting for “polo shirts, Italian mohair suits and fishtail parkas” (Shahnavaz, 2016). As seen in figure 1 the three men are all wearing mohair blazers each in slightly varying patterns of tweed, paired with identical jeans and shoes. Even their haircuts are similar to one another. The fact that all the men in the photograph are wearing variations of the same distinct Mod look helped signal to others that they were

8 part of the “secret” Mod society (Dystant, 2014). Hebdige (2002) enforces this idea about subcultures using clothing as signs, for example, he claims that the different ways that commodities are used “mark the subculture off from more orthodox cultural formations” (p103).

Mods used sophisticated clothes to create a look that would “distance themselves from the working-class image” (Sarabia and Shriver, 2004, p269). For example, the sleek silhouettes seen in figure one stood out from the mainstream styles at the time. Yet, Polhemus (1994, p51) argued that Mod’s cared more about conveying “good taste” than affluence. Specific rituals of consumption, therefore, helped to define this subculture: in figure one the men are gathering around a shoe shop window, which highlights how this movement valued the importance of making the correct fashion choices. The fact that the Mods had a stylish reputation meant that the commodities they associated themselves with were given a new meaning. Hall and Jefferson (2006) noted that for Mods to “project style it became necessary first to appropriate the commodity, then to redefine its use and value and finally to relocate its meaning within a totally different context” (p76). This was the case for the Dr. Martens shoe; by pairing the simple work boot with a carefully composed stylish ensemble the perception of the shoe was changed and was now regarded as a fashionable item of footwear.

Mods didn’t just use fashion to establish a sense of collective identity, they also chose to congregate in the same places, most commonly cafes; used the same methods of transport: Vespas adorned in hordes of mirrors; and listened to the same bands, like the Small Faces, Kinks and The Who (Shahnavaz, 2016). It is argued that Mods’ innate fascination with music was a major factor in making Dr. Martens the shoe of choice for Mods and many subcultures thereafter.

Figure 2: Pete Townshend in Dr Martens (Evening Standard, 1975)

As mentioned, Mods were fans of the band, The Who. The lead singer, Pete Townshend, had a trademark energetic stage presence, as he leapt around the stage and simultaneously smashed up his guitar (Dr Martens, no date d). Dr Martens claim that as a result of these highly physical stage antics his feet started to suffer so “in 1967, he turned to a pair of air-cushioned 1460 boots to relieve his soles” (Dr Martens, no date d). They gave the singer support and the cushioned sole allowed him to literally bounce around the stage (see figure 2). Much like in the case of workmen, the shoes stood out to Townshend for their functional durability. Yet Prendergast (2017) stated that “the direct impact Townshend’s endorsement had on the business was instantly visible”. The fact that the shoes were now being worn by the lead singer of such an influential band meant that the boots had inadvertently been given a “cool” image. Dr Martens moved from just being a basic utilitarian work shoe to being a trendy piece of footwear. De La Haye and Dingwall (1996) stressed that “music (…) was the primary fuel for post-war subcultures”. Also, the musicians often “personified subcultural styles” (De La Haye and Dingwall, 1996), thus helping to project the stylistic features of each subculture more firmly in the public arena. Therefore, this early established link to music meant that other bands opted to wear Dr Martens and it helped the brand solidify a bond with a variety of subsequent subcultures.

10 Interestingly, this moment in Dr Martens’ history has been widely documented on the brand’s official website. Carroll (2008, p151) argues that celebrities configure “clear and coherent powerful selves” and are therefore “conduits of cultural meaning transfer”. This means that by highlighting the fact that several well-regarded musicians, including Pete Townshend, chose to wear Dr Martens shoes, the brand is reiterating to their consumer base that the shoes are a stylish fashion statement. This strategic overstating and downplaying of certain histories is something that is seen throughout Dr Martens’ brand communications from the website to shoe designs and advertising campaigns.

1.2 Skinheads

As the decade of the 1960s came to a close, several global political issues, including the Vietnam War, created a social divide. The more middle-class and university-educated factions of Mods were moving into the hippie era (Beneath the Skin Skinhead Documentary, 2013) and the working-class Mods began to evolve into a new subculture. This latter group of individuals were initially known as Hard Mods who were “vocally proud of their workingclass roots” (Roach, 2015, p20) and favoured a more minimalist look than the previous flamboyant Mods. Hard Mods eventually became known as Skinheads in the late 1960s and their distinctions from traditional Mods were largely due to the burgeoning multi-cultural society in working-class Britain. The Windrush Generation settled in working-class neighbourhoods after the Second World War and “brought style and some brand-new sounds” with them (The Story of Skinheads with Don Letts, 2016). The white working-class youths began to become interested in this exotic, rich West Indian culture and so “by copying their mannerisms, adopting their curses, dancing to their music” (Hebdige, 2002 p56) they created a distinct new multi-cultural underground scene.

Figure 3: Teenage Skinheads dancing (Foster, 1980)

As shown in figure three the Skinhead look can be categorised by several key fashion items, these included “MA-1 bombers, shirts, braces, turned-up drainpipes” and of course, “cherry red Dr Martens” (Shahnavaz, 2016). Hebdige (2002) stated that a critical aim of the style was a “suppression of any imagined bourgeois influences” (p55). In light of this, the choice to wear Dr Martens was a very considered one; as Ewen (1990) argues that they were “a contributory factor in rejecting the power structure” (p252). Dr Martens were still seen widely as a workwear shoe and therefore, they helped to reinforce the Skinhead’s working-class image as they referenced the “Blue Collar” uniform of their fathers.

As demonstrated in figure three the use of braces, polo shirts and shaved heads helped to construct a utilitarian image, which communicated the wearer's working-class background. The group of boys in this image are all wearing the same turned-up jeans, the same Dr Martens boots, and over half of them are wearing the same bomber-style jacket. This homogeneity also helps to exaggerate the fact that Skinhead style was a kind of working-class uniform. Sarabia and Shriver (2004) reinforce this point saying that Skinheads “adopted a uniform resembling a caricature of the model worker’’ (p270) to project their working-class roots.

12 Several authors have presented reasons for this proletarian emphasis: Dystant (2014), Hall and Jefferson (2006) suggest that Skinheads were creating a working-class uniform to serve as a nostalgic nod to a traditional working-class community, which was in reality declining. This clearly identifiable image also reinforced the meaning of the Dr Martens boot; due to their utilitarian origin they were favoured by Skinheads and then, in turn, became an even bigger symbol of working-class society.

Despite the Skinhead culture forming from a merging of Jamaican Rude Boy and working-class culture, by the start of the 1970s fractions of the subculture had begun to turn sour as “racism and aggression” (Hodgson, 2017) seeped into the subculture. The far-right National Front Political Party gained traction at this time due to “a period of economic unrest and job scarcity in Great Britain” (Sarabia and Shriver, 2004, p270). According to Hall and Jefferson (2006, p81), some Skinheads directed their frustration over this tough sociopolitical landscape at scapegoat outsiders such as the Pakistani and gay communities under the name of the National Front. The media picked up on the actions of this abusive section of the subculture and soon the whole subculture was tarnished with the same extreme image (Hall and Jefferson, 2006).

Figure 4: Skinheads in Brighton (PYMCA, No date)

Figure 5: Adolf Hitler and German Luftwaffe troops in 1939 (Jaeger, 1939)

As Clarke (2006, p149) states “together, object and meaning constitute a sign, and within any one culture, such signs are assembled, repeatedly, into characteristic forms of discourse”. Yet when an object is adopted by a new user “a new discourse is constituted, a different message is conveyed” (Clarke, 2006, p149). Unfortunately for Dr. Martens, this was the case for their footwear. The boots were closely linked to the violence of this new element of Skinhead culture. Gavin Watson, a loyal member of the Skinhead movement, recalled removing leather from the boots to expose the steel toe caps and said, “you had to christen them by kicking someone with them” (Prendergast, 2017). These stories soon made it to the media and the Dr Martens brand was being quoted in articles on youth violence. One article from the Telegraph (1986) about a lady who had been brutally murdered read “when she stirred, he stamped on her with his size 11 Dr Marten boots”.

This aggression can be seen clearly in figure four as one Skinhead adopter is performing a fascist salute that was predominantly used by the Nazi party during World War II (see figure 5). The other Skinheads in this photo are also making rude gestures by swearing at the photographer. The choice of clothing is equally as menacing and the original shoelaces have been replaced with symbolic red versions. This contrasts with black leather on the shoes and resembles the colours seen in Nazi propaganda (see figure 5). One male is

14 also wearing a t-shirt that has a union jack printed on the front, which evokes nationalist sentiments. This open projection of fascism and threatening behaviour in the middle of a classic British street was intimidating to the general public, as can be seen from the uneasy facial expression of the passer-by in this photo.

Skinheads were the working-class army and Dr Martens began to represent their weapons; as Roach (2015) mentioned, Dr Martens became “standard issue for the Skinhead, with some pairs worn several sizes too big to exaggerate their presence” (p23). The uniformity of the shoe also enabled anonymity when worn in a group. This was especially attractive to the gangs who prowled the football terrace with violent intent. Football was important to Skinheads as it was an outlet for “collective masculine self-conception, involving an identification of masculinity with physical toughness” (Hall and Jefferson, 2006, p82). The fact that hundreds of fans were dressed in the same Skinhead attire made it near impossible for the police to identify the individuals involved in the fights that regularly broke out at matches (Roach, 2015). Once again, Dr Martens were being worn during acts of violence and so the previous meaning of the shoes had been subverted and the shoe became synonymous with aggression and racism. The impact that this small section of Skinheads had on the representation of Dr Martens was mammoth and McDowell (1989) encompassed this sentiment classifying the shoes “as a boxing glove for the foot” (p23).

It is worth noting that Dr Martens have only centred their Skinhead affiliations on the early faction of the subculture. The brand's website notes that the shoes were “suddenly picked up by early multi-cultural, ska-loving Skinheads” (Dr Martens, no date b). However, they fail to mention the fact that violent, racist Skinheads also adopted the shoes in the late 1980s. By focussing on a limited aspect of Skinhead culture, Dr Martens are repainting their history in a better light. By communicating a manipulated version of events, current consumers are more likely to associate the brand with positive elements of the Skinhead movement such as unity and working-class resilience.

1.3 Punks

Figure 6: Punks on the Kings Road 1984 (Player, 1984)

In the late 1970s, another subculture formed as a reaction to economic stagnation (Polhemus, 1994). The youths at the time began to feel a sense of nihilism and so a “battlecry of no future” (Polhemus, 1994, p91) brought individuals together to form Punk. Punks also felt suppressed by the older generation and so this maelstrom of frustration was translated into a “radical, and exciting” new movement (Hodgson, 2017). Unlike the uniformity of the Skinheads, Punks' “styles of dress were anything but homogenous” (Polhemus, 1994, p92) as a DIY culture and focus on individuality was crucial to this group. Punks customised their looks to create ensembles that were unique. Notable items of clothing included t-shirts that were “hand-painted or sprayed with provocative slogans” or “string vests which were dyed in bright colours” (Roach, 2015, p56).

As shown in figure six each Punk has a unique design on their leather jacket: (from left to right) one has been painted with a union jack; one features a photograph of a Punk band member; and one is covered in studs. They have all spiked their hair up too but again each one has chosen to style it in their own way. The same goes for the addition of chains in

16 their outfits. For example, the Punk on the far left has matched the chains on his jeans to chains on his boots, whereas the Punk on the far right has hung chains from his belt. As a whole, this image highlights the fact that Punks were keen to customise outfits to achieve an image that differed from their peers. However, the subculture was also bound together by some distinguishing similarities, such as choosing to wear specific items of clothing (for example, leather jackets) and using certain trimmings or accessories (for example, studs and chains).

Punks also customised their Dr Martens boots. Davies (2016) said that Punks’ style was “defined in the act of customising an existing brand and reconfiguring it as a symbolic act of identity performance” (p197). Punks took the simple Dr Martens boots and gave them character by painting them or used brightly coloured laces (Hodgson, 2017). This can be seen in figure six, as the Punk on the far left has painted and added chains to his Dr Martens. This customisation helped to reinforce the notion of individuality and this new subculture subverted the meaning of the shoe again. Dr Martens were no longer associated with the uniformity of Skinheads, they now signified self-expression.

Another characteristic of the Punk movement was rebellion: “against mainstream culture, against prejudice, against the establishment” (Dr Martens, no date e). This underpinned both the style and actions of the Punks. For example, they wore provocative ensembles (see figure 6) including bondage trousers, safety pin piercings, swastikas, and generally dishevelled items of clothing (Shahnavaz, 2016). Music was equally as important to Punks and the performance arena allowed this group to display their most shocking behaviours. One instance of this public display of rebellion was at “the Rainbow Theatre in May 1977 as the Clash played ‘White Riot’, chairs were ripped out and thrown at the stage” (Hebdige, 2002, p110). Polhemus (1994) said that Punks acted in this provocative manner as they were interested in “the demolition of that numbing status quo” (p93). While Hebdige (2002, p86-88) noted that Punks themselves were “signs of the highly publicised decay which perfectly represented the atrophic condition of Great Britain”. Due to Punks’ refusal to adhere to accepted societal rules, they gained a reputation for being outrageous. This in turn, meant that the commodities they chose to associate themselves with were branded

17 with the same image and thus Dr Martens became synonymous with rebellion and antiestablishment sentiments.

Figure 7: Viv Albertine in Dr Martens (Dr Martens, No date)

Punk also had a notable impact on the representation of femininity in society as Punk singers like Viv Albertine championed a daring new look. Viv Albertine was the guitarist for the Slits and was idolised by many female Punk fans, she was also “considered the first person to wear a skirt with Dr. Martens boots” (Dr Martens, no date e). This look was championed by female Punk fans as the juxtaposition of the classically feminine silhouettes mixed with the brutality of a Dr Martens boot helped to create the shock factor that Punks strived for (see figure 7). Sancaktar (2006) said that Dr Martens “temper the message of feminine frailty and vulnerability with a degree of toughness and self-reliance”. This demonstrates how the rebellious meaning that the various subcultures had attached to Dr Martens shoes worked in female wearers’ favour as they helped to project a message that challenged the stereotypes of femininity.

Dr Martens have cleverly chosen to single out Viv Albertine as a Punk icon despite the fact that there have been several critiques of Punk as not being a very inclusive

18 movement to women. For example, Cogan (2012) discussed the fact that the maledominated Punk bands were predominantly promoted by record labels and called the movement “a boys' club of sorts” (p122). Another female Punk singer, Jennifer Miro of the Nuns, commented on the lack of female visibility in the Punk scene and said that “it was so violent and so macho and that was repulsive. [We] just got squeezed out” (Tasker and Negra, 2007, p134). Dr Martens’ decision to highlight a female Punk singer’s interaction with the brand shows a more diverse side to the historically male-dominated subculture. By making a conscious choice to counteract the patriarchal aspects of Punk, Dr Martens can avoid excluding their female customers and avoid being regarded as an outdated brand.

1.4 1980s

Figure 8: 1980s Goths (Trutwein, no date)

By the 1980s there were many clearly defined subcultures in the UK and Dr Martens were adopted by many of these groups over the decade (Roach, 2015, p119). The most noteworthy 1980s subcultures in Dr Martens’ history were Goths and Indies. The Goths emerged in the early 1980s at nightclub, The Batcave. The Batcave housed past subcultures

19 from the “fancy-dress nostalgia” of the New Romantics, Punk’s “kinky nihilism” and Glam’s flamboyance (Polhemus, 1994, p97) and so Goth was an amalgamation of all these looks. Goth style consisted of “a profusion of black velvets, lace, fishnets and leather tinged with scarlet or purple” (Polhemus, 1994, p97). Backcombed hair and white face makeup with accents of black and blood-red completed the look (see figure 8) (Polhemus, 1994). Dr Martens fitted seamlessly into this look with their dark leather uppers and hard silhouette. Polhemus (1994) and Roach (2015) highlighted that this severe image and romanticism of death meant that the subculture remained firmly on the outskirts of the mainstream. This impacted the wider meaning the shoe because with the underground nature of Goth, Dr Martens were once again tied to self-expression. Additionally, both authors discussed how the subculture had a timelessness which has meant that the subculture is still prevalent in current society, thereby providing Dr Martens' image of individualism with longevity.

Figure 9: The Smiths fans 1988 (Cummins, 1988)

Howe (1987) argued that clothing was “a uniform of social statement, identity and division” in the polarised landscape of the 1980s. This applied to the 1980s Indie movement as romantic futility stemming from the divided backdrop set the foundations for this subculture. Polhemus (1994, p122) said “pessimism and melancholic introspection” was a

20 key theme that ran through the Indie subculture from the “anti-elegant” clothing to the music of Indie bands like The Smiths and Joy Division . The components of Indie style included ill-fitting second-hand items, band t-shirts and Dr Marten Boots (Polhemus, 1994). The dressing-down approach by the younger generation was used to connote deprivation in an attempt to shine a light on the challenging socio-political climate for students (see figure 9). Dr Martens were used to the subculture’s advantage as the shoe’s working-class beginnings gave the Indie look integrity. In this respect, Indie subculture adopted the shoe for the same reason as Skinheads and so the utilitarian meaning of Dr Martens was projected across mainstream culture again.

Individuality was also a major theme of Indie culture as the movement was born out of “allegiance to bands on obscure, independent record labels” (Polhemus, 1994, p122). Lucie Dingwall, a member of the Indie scene in 1988, recalled how she “wanted a distinct look that cost very little, the alternative was to buy cheap chainstore clothes and look like a Sharon” (De La Haye and Dingwall, 1996). This somewhat elitist subculture purchased second-hand items to ensure that their outfits stood apart from the ensembles on the high street worn by the masses. Once again, Dr Martens were being worn by people who wanted to be unique and reiterates the point that the shoes were linked to individuality.

Dr Martens’ website has been a substantial source of knowledge when discussing the brand’s history in this chapter. The brand has stressed to its customer bases its affiliations to positive aspects of subcultures over the brand’s lifetime. This is a strategic move by the brand as they have consciously chosen to distance themselves from the unsavoury connotations of some subcultures; Davies (2016, p198) calls this approach “conspicuous absence”. By sterilising elements of their history, Dr Martens can control their brand image and bring more desirable subcultural notions of self-expression, unity and rebellion to the foreground. These themes have been carried through to underpin new shoe designs and advertising campaigns as discussed in the following chapters.

Chapter 2: How did Dr Martens use the subcultural uptake to build authenticity into their shoe designs? Dr Martens have paid homage to previous subcultures in their contemporary shoe designs to create brand authenticity. These designs, therefore, fall under Polhemusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (1994) bubble-up theory as the brand has taken inspiration from the original street styles and then turned these into products for the contemporary mass market. However, there is a fine line between the historical references adding integrity to the brand and the exploitation of their subcultural heritage being perceived simply as a superficial selling technique. This chapter aims to signpost the cases in which Dr Martens have successfully enhanced the brand image through authenticity and cases where the success of this strategy has seen questionable by looking at two contemporary shoe designs: the Church Leather Monkey Boots and the 1925 Sex Pistols collaboration shoe.

2.1 Church Leather Monkey Boot: a case study for the use of heritage in developing authenticity

Figure 10: Original Dr Martens Church Boots (Dr Martens, No date)

Figure 11: Re-released Dr Martens Church Boots (Dr Martens, No date)

Fritz et al. (2017, p336) found “significant impacts on brand authenticity for brand heritage authenticity”. Dr Martens played on their heritage in the re-release of their Church Leather Monkey Boot, part of the Spirit of ’69 collection which “embraces the original, more peaceful (…) iteration of Skinhead culture” (Raiss, 2014). This shoe design is a reincarnation of an original Dr Martens shoe and was recreated from their archive (Dr Martens, no date f). The brand decided to add a “subtle grained effect” to their smooth leather, this worn-in texture helps to give a more retro feel. It also honours the original design (see figure 10) as the first boots were made from left-over leather from an abandoned factory and this particular fabric had a “durable, slimline” feel (Atom Retro, no date). The colour of this shoe has also been carefully matched to the archive piece as “a more traditional biscuit-backed leather has been used” and the “sole colour has also been altered to match the older shade” (Dr Martens, no date f). Finally, subtle stylistic features were copied from the original boot such as the laces, which were flat and made from cotton, and the yellow oval stitching (Dr Martens, no date f).

23 The making of a replica is a clever marketing technique as it appeals to consumers’ preference for nostalgia. Holbrook (2007, p96) defines nostalgic products as “offerings that draw their appeal from a yearning for yesterday”. This fits with this design as it has true sartorial ties to the Skinhead subculture. Loveland et al. (1995) believe that people consume nostalgic products to achieve a sense of belonging. Cameron and Gatewood (1994) build on this idea as they argue that the feeling of alienation in modern society has created a desire for “connectedness and community” (p30). As previously discussed, the early incarnation of the Skinhead subculture was built on sentiments of working-class unity and a rebellion against power structures. As a result, these values became synonymous with Dr Martens and so this historical design reinvigorates those Skinhead values and in turn, the brand satiates consumers’ preference for a sense of community.

Loveland et al (1995) also argue that consumers purchase nostalgic products to feel closer to the past “social communities that consumed those products” (p395). Davies (2016) reinforces this point as she believes that “there remains a desire to gravitate towards ‘scenes’” (p201) as customers want to associate themselves with style and individuality. Dr Martens successfully exploits this consumer need with the re-released product as they sell the story that by buying this shoe, consumers automatically align themselves with the desirable ideologies of the Skinheads thereby giving them a sense of identity, belonging and comfort.

Dr Martens also use consumers’ rose-tinted image of the past to their advantage by releasing a product that toys with their emotions. By recreating a shoe that was adopted by the early Skinhead subculture, Dr Martens capitalises consumers’ sentimentality surrounding a past “simpler, gentler life” (Cameron and Gatewood, 1994, p30). Balmer (2013, p293) claims that “individuals can turn to the past for comfort during times of great social change” as references to the past can evoke feelings of familiarity. The fact that Dr Martens were the historical brand of choice by this subculture gives the reincarnation a valid connection to a bygone era, which in turn evokes a more emotional response from consumers seeking security and a revival of traditional values.

24 As discussed in the literature review, Napoli et al. (2014) found a positive correlation between the perception of brand authenticity and purchasing intention. Spiggle et al. (2012) hone in on two types of brand authenticity; internal consistency, which is the extent to which a brand stays true to its core identity; and external consistency, which “reflects whether a brand is what it appears to be, (…) not the result of spun or exaggerated claims” (p968). Dr Martens has managed to communicate internal consistency with the launch of The Church Leather Monkey Boot.

The shoe first displays Dr Martens’ internal consistency as it does not deviate from Dr Martens’ original aesthetic. According to Napoli et al. (2014, p1091) “radical changes to designs can upset or confuse customers and lead to questions about a brand's authenticity”. Spiggle et al. (2012) build on this notion as the first of their four identified dimensions of brand authenticity was “maintaining brand styles and standards” (p969). They argue that consistency of design components “signals a degree of legitimacy and reinforces (…) brand identity” (Spiggle et al., 2012, p969). In light of these theories of authenticity perceptions, the fact that the design features in this shoe remake remain factually identical to the archive piece means that customers will perceive the product as authentic and Dr Martens’ brand identity will be simultaneously strengthened by exuding a trustworthy image.

The design further enhances Dr Martens’ internal consistency as “it honours its heritage and thus creates connections with its origins” (Spiggle et al., 2012, p969). Grayson and Martinec (Fritzs et al. 2017) argue that brands must consider incorporating indexical authenticity into their designs by demonstrating a “spatio-temporal connection between the brand and some reference point” (p327). Indexical cues can, therefore, involve “connection to the cultural associations that ground its heritage” (Spiggle et al., 2012, p970). By remaining true to the original 1960s design Dr Martens are highlighting the fact that their products were previously worn by an organically formed subculture. Due to the process of contagion, people believe that products that have previously come into contact with streetstyle movements are more authentic (Newman and Dhar, 2014). Dr Martens have managed to demonstrate a sense of integrity in their brand heritage by showcasing that

25 their products stemmed from a legitimate subculture and concurrently emphasising the timelessness of their products.

2.2 1925 Sex Pistols Collaboration Shoe: a case study for the negative impact of commercialisation on brand authenticity

Figure 12: 70s Punk with exposed toe caps (Beckman, 1978)

Figure 13: 1925 Sex Pistols Collaboration Shoe fashion toe cap

Figure 14: Never Mind the Bollocks LP (Amazon, No date a)

Figure 15: 1925 Sex Pistols Collaboration Shoe Lace Caps

Figure 16: 70s Punk with painted Dr Martens (Beckman, 1979)

Figure 17: Pretty Vacant Promo (Amazon, No date b)

Figure 18: 1925 Sex Pistols Collaboration Shoe Side Profile

Figure 19: 1925 Sex Pistols Collaboration Shoe

It can be argued that Dr Martens have also negatively impacted their brand image by exploiting their subcultural history. The 1925 Sex Pistols Collaboration Shoe was created to commemorate 44 years since the iconic Punk band first wore a pair of 1460s (Dr Martens, 2019). The shoe therefore references Punk’s sartorial features. The “toe has a cutout revealing a fashion steel toe cap” (see figure 13) and each shoe features the words "Boredom" and "Nowhere" (see figure 18) quoted from “the cover art for the single, Pretty Vacant" (see figure 17) (Dr Martens, 2019 b). These design features play on the fact that Punks used to customise their Dr Martens by scuffing the toe caps (see figure 12), changing the shoelace colour and hand painting them (see figure 16) (Hodgson, 2017). Other Sex Pistols references in the shoe include the use of pink and yellow lace caps (see figure 15) as seen in the band’s album artwork from Never Mind The Bollocks (see figure 14) and a dual logo inside the shoe (see figure 19).

This shoe devalues the authenticity of the Punk ideologies in various ways. By selling a shoe with a ready-made exposed steel toe cap and with words already printed onto the sides Dr Martens have removed the opportunity for customisation by the wearer. As

30 discussed in chapter one, DIY was a major part of Punk culture as it enabled individuality. As Hebdige (2002, p81) noted “each subcultural ‘instance’ represents a ‘solution’ to a specific set of circumstances”. Punk was a reaction to the poor socio-economic environment and so an anti-establishment and anti-consumerism subculture emerged (Polhemus, 1994). By limiting consumers’ ability to alter a brand new pair of shoes Dr Martens are inhibiting this ritualistic act of rebellion against consumerism and supressing individuality. Sercombe (1999) suggests that as brands attempt to market subcultural symbolism, “the icon becomes a mainstream commodity. As it does, the symbolic content is washed out” (p4). Therefore, this shoe is a clear contradiction to Punk values; by assimilating the stylistic features of Punk fashion they have undermined the foundations that the subculture was built on, which in turn devalues the symbolism of the shoe itself.

Evidently, Dr Martens have prioritised commercialisation over authenticity in this instance as they are more interested in profiting from the positive connotations evoked by Punk references. According to Fritz et al. (2017, p336) brand commercialisation “has a significant negative effect on brand authenticity”. Furthermore, Spiggle et al. (2012) state that “consumers define brand extensions that appear to reflect only externally driven, profit-focused opportunities as inauthentic” (p970). In an attempt to boost their financial short-term success by trying to tap into the Punk fan base Dr Martens, may have dented their long-term brand image.

On the one hand, by making subtle links to Sex Pistols’ band logos and album artwork Dr Martens are trying to appeal to a niche audience of Sex Pistols fans. On the other hand, they are attempting to appeal to a wider customer base that may be attracted to the rebellious cultural capital surrounding the band. The brand has ultimately forfeited their integrity in favour of commercial success as they are trying to maximise profits by trying to appeal to polarised customer groups.

Authentic fans are likely to regard this shoe as gimmicky and inauthentic as Dr Martens are overemphasising the Punk references in the design. As Thornton (1995) points out “nothing depletes capital more than the sight of someone trying too hard” (p22). If true

31 fans shun the shoe, it will make it seem less authentic to the wider audience who are trying to buy into the Punk image. In turn, the superficiality of the design will erode the shoe's cultural capital.

If Newman and Dhar (2014) attribute authenticity to contagion, the theory that objects gain meaning from physical contact with a particular group or person in the past, then this product undermines this. This is because if someone buys something that is new but looks as if it has been worn in (through the addition of exposed toe caps in this case) even though it has not had any of the experience that would lead to it being worn in, such as being in the mosh pit at a Sex Pistols gig, the product loses its authentic gritty charm.

By prioritising profit maximisation the brand has undermined their brand values. Ironically in the product description for this shoe, Dr Martens encourage customers to purchase the product to “rail against conformity” (Dr Martens, 2019 b). However, this product has been designed with identical features as every shoe that is sold from this collection will conform to pre-agreed design measures, thus making it homogeneous in nature. Dr Martens is also contravening their core values with this shoe as the brand states that they stand for “rebellious self-expression” and their products are made for “people who have their own individual style” (Dr Martens, no date b). Yet this shoe inhibits selfexpressional and individuality by ripping off Punk’s act of personalisation. Fritz et al. (2017, p328) argue that “a perceived absence of ambiguity in brand communications is identified as a factor that influences perceived brand authenticity“. Napoli et al (2014, p1096) also highlight the importance of consistency saying that brands must honour their “values and core beliefs” in their marketing decisions. This again proves that focussing on short-term financial success can damage the brand’s reputation if the product does not appear to be in line with the brand’s overall message.

2.3 The importance of enduring quality in maintaining authenticity

An important antecedent of authenticity for Dr Martins is the consistency of quality. Howe (1987) noted that that across all Dr Martens shoes “the only common denominator is

32 the sole” and this is a major selling point for the brand due to its slip-resistant and chemicalresistant properties and hardwearing nature (Dr Martens, no date f). They also take pride in the unique Goodyear-welted construction technique used to make their shoes as the soles are “heat-sealed and sewn together, not merely glued like many footwear constructions” (Dr Martens, no date f). Unlike other elements of the shoes, these two features have been unchanged since the release of the first pair of 1460s. Napoli et al. (2014) suggest that to ensure authenticity, brand managers should be “committed to providing enduring high quality products and services… without deviating substantially from the core attributes on which the brand was initially built” (p1096). Dr Martens displays this approach by having maintained two key quality attributes since the start of its business.

It was the authentic quality of the product that encouraged Dr Martens’ shoes to be picked up by subcultures in the first place, from Mod legend Pete Townshend adopting the shoe for its ability to withstand his stage performances to Skinheads appreciating its utilitarian hardiness. By maintaining the same level of quality, the products have longevity and with longevity comes brand history. As seen in the case of Dr Martens’ Church Shoe, history is the bedrock of nostalgia and heritage, which helps give brands authenticity. As Napoli et al. (2014, p1091) argue “brands with a strong heritage may, over time, (…) acquire symbolic meaning beyond its original identity, which helps establish a sense of legitimacy and authenticity among target groups”. This subcultural capital can be communicated to consumers via brand campaigns to reinforce a brand’s long heritage and sense of nostalgia, which in turn further cements the level of perceived brand authenticity.

Chapter 3: To what extent do subcultural references in Dr Martens’ advertising campaigns improve brand image? As well as referring to subcultures in their shoes designs, Dr Martens also take inspiration from their past in their advertisements. According to McDonald (1992, p114) “if we did not advertise, our product would still acquire a 'branding', but it might not be one that we would like”. Advertising allows Dr Martens to communicate their values in a considered manner, which promotes a desired brand image to consumers. This chapter examines the extent to which references to subcultures have made for successful advertising campaigns by analysing two case studies: the 2014 “A History of Standing for Something” campaign and the 2017 “Worn Different” campaign.

3.1 A History of Standing for Something Campaign: a case study for subcultural references in Dr Martens' advertising

Figure 20: Factory Construction (Dr Martens, 2014)

Figure 21: Postman in Dr Martens (Dr Martens, 2014)

This campaign begins with close-up shots of a workman constructing the shoe (see figure 20), which demonstrates the craftsmanship that goes into creating Dr Martens. The grayscale filter gives a retro feel to represent the fact that this was the original manufacturing process. The intimate shots highlight to customers that the brand takes pride in their manufacturing process, thus giving the impression of enduring quality. Dr Martens is manipulating the truth as only 2% of its products are manufactured in the original Northampton factory; in 2003 the majority of production was offshored to Asia (Collinson and Smithers, 2019). The imagery in this campaign is clearly an advantageous marketing tactic for Dr Martens as by showing a “commitment to traditions, a passion for craft and production excellence” (Beverland, 2005, p.1008) brands can give a greater impression of authenticity.

The next shot shows a person in a pair of Dr Martens shoes, with string tied around their trousers. They have old-fashioned glass milk bottles and a bag full of letters by their feet (see figure 21) to give the idea that they are a postman. The combination of retro products creates a kitschy scene and the filter softens the image. This builds up an idolised impression of simpler times associated with halcyon days. Merchant and Rose (2013, p2619) define the “emotional feelings for a time period before the consumer's birth” as vicarious

35 nostalgia. This yearning for bygone-times that consumers have not experienced first-hand is an exploitable need. They are looking for escapism in the restless Information Age, which causes them to fantasise about the innocence surrounding the past (Naughton et al. 1998). Dr Martens have played to consumers’ emotions with this advert by offering up quaint imagery, which conjures warm emotions to appeal to customers and induce positive brand associations.

A quote that reads “I stand for the working man” (Dr Martens, 2014) is displayed on the screen. This shows that Dr Martens are proud of their humble working-class roots. By demonstrating their working-class heritage Dr Martens have also helped consumers identify with the brand. Spiggle et al. (2012, p970) state that “self–brand connection” is an important component of brand management as consumers that can relate to a brand have a more “vested interest in its self-expressive integrity and symbolism”, which helps cement brand loyalty.

Figure 22: Skinhead Reference (Dr Martens, 2014)

Figure 23: Punk Reference (Dr Martens, 2014)

Figure 24: Two-Tone Reference (Dr Martens, 2014)

Figure 25: Grunge Reference (Dr Martens, 2014)

The subsequent shots continue to focus on the feet of the subcultures that adopted the shoes. A group wearing turned-up jeans and boots enter a barbershop with a reggae soundtrack (see figure 22). These references build up a picture of Skinheads, with the setting linking back to the buzz cut ritual that gave the subculture its name. The quote here states “we stand for a united spirit” (Dr Martens, 2014), showing that Dr Martens have chosen to link their brand to positive Skinhead connotations of solidarity. As discussed in chapter one there were more negative connotations to Skinheads stemming from associations with violence. Significantly, Dr Martens have chosen to bring the multi-cultural aspects of Skinhead culture into this scene by having a reggae soundtrack and referencing unity. In the same way that the brand chose to use a female figure when communicating their connection to Punk, Dr Martens have cherry-picked the most optimistic facets of Skinhead culture to reflect more positively on their brand image and overshadow any negative past brand associations.

This strategy relies on the theory of collective memory, which states that our memory of the past is “moulded by both knowledge and experience gained, over time, and from a variety of sources” (Balmer, 2013, p303). In other words, our memory is relatively fickle so when a particular version of the past is repeatedly told to us, for example that Dr

38 Martens were only connected to the multi-cultural Skinheads, we absorb that narrative into our memory as absolute. This cultural storytelling by Dr Martens powerfully shapes our collective memory of these subcultures and the more they tell this story of the past, via their website, designs and adverts, the more consumers accept this as the true version of history. In turn, this makes the brand's presence in the history of each subculture seem even more significant, which then makes their heritage branding appear more authentic.

Another clip shows a person in boots jumping on a burning union jack flag with Punkstyle music playing. The shoes have been painted and the laces are brightly coloured (see figure 23). The quote overlaid here reads “we stand for non-conformity” (Dr Martens, 2014). In this instance, the customised shoes and flag burning conjures up connotations of individuality and anti-establishment associations, which are linked with Punk. Dr Martens translated this sentiment into a positive symbol of non-conformity which works more in their favour when constructing the brand’s image.

A shot of people dancing to Ska music in cropped trousers and tassel loafers is followed by the quote “we stand for restless youth” (Dr Martens, 2014) (see figure 24). This set up is a homage to Two-Tone, a multi-cultural youth subculture from the 1980s (Roach, 2015). By aligning themselves with another energetic youth subculture, Dr Martens once again shows that wearing the shoe as a teenager is a rite of passage as it was adopted by such a wide variety of youths throughout the past 60 years.

The last subcultural reference in this advert is to Grunge as the camera follows a crowd surfer wearing a pair of boots with the line “we stand for free spirit” (Dr Martens, 2014) overlaid (see figure 25). These words are a musical reference as “Smells like Teen Spirit” was the name of famous Grunge band Nirvana’s most popular single (Radio X, 2019). The Grunge ideology was about rebellion against the mainstream so Dr Martens have used this to enhance their brand image and demonstrate that their shoes give consumers an edgy, alternative image.

39 By making overt links to subcultures via intertextual musical references and sartorial nods in this retrospective campaign, Dr Martens endears customers to the nostalgia of the brand. The post-war subcultures stemming from Punk in the late 1970s to the 1990s Grunge scene are likely to resonate with Dr Martens’ customers on a personal level. This is because it is more likely that the customer base will have lived through one of these decades and will be able to relate to the images in these scenes. Cervellon et al. (2012) define the emotional response triggered by personal memories as personal nostalgia. By making links back to their customers’ early life Dr Martens can “arouse feelings the individual experienced in that era” (Chen et al., 2014, p355). Muehling and Pascal (2011, p107) state that “successful advertising creates a perception in the minds of consumers that the advertisement is speaking to them”. Therefore, using personal nostalgia as a marketing strategy here Dr Martens can establish common ground with their consumers by demonstrating a “shared communal past” (Muehling and Pascal, 2011, p109). Elbedweihy (2016) argue that if consumers can see correlations between themselves and a brand then, brand loyalty is likely to occur as they will buy into Dr Martens “as a means of self-expression” (p2904).

This succinct round-up of Dr Martens’ history and subcultural affiliations shows that the brand has been able to stand the test of time, which legitimises the brand’s longevity and authenticity. Also, Dr Martens have taken the most positive connotations that each subculture has bestowed on the shoes to configure their overall brand image, showing to consumers that they are a “culturally constructed entity” (Davies, 2016, p193), which differentiates them from trend-based fashion brands. Davies (2016) also argues that this reference to cultural traditions inspires people “to carve out their own place within a tradition of youth identity, expression and belonging” (p200). By referring to past subcultural ideologies, Dr Martens have created a nostalgic longing for group identity and an expressive outlet among current consumers. The brand’s solution to this is to purchase a pair of Dr Martens as the consumer will automatically become part of a club of likeminded rebellious spirits.

It is notable that this campaign relies heavily on consumers’ subcultural knowledge. The fact that the campaign just features shots of models' feet means that the links to each

40 subculture are very subtle. Consequently, the contemporary consumer may not be able to distinguish the subcultures that Dr Martens have chosen to refer to and as a result, the quotes used could be lost in translation. Fritz et al. (2017, p329) highlighted the link between “a brand’s communication style and the consumer’s actual self-perception” in creating an emotional attachment. Meenaghan (1995) also agrees with this theory saying that “congruity between brand and user self-image” is a “key motivational factor in consumer choice” (p4). This means that if a consumer cannot relate to the connotations of the images they are seeing in the advert then Dr Martens risk alienating a proportion of their customer base and missing out on sales opportunities.

3.2 Worn Different Campaign: a case study for subcultural ideologies in Dr Martens advertising

Figure 26: Opening Shot (Dr Martens, 2017)

Figure 27: Hobby Shots (Dr Martens, 2017)

Figure 28: Music References (Dr Martens, 2017)

Figure 29: Settings (Dr Martens, 2017)

The 2017 "Worn Different" campaign is distinct from the "History of Standing for Something" campaign because it focuses a lot more on modern Dr Martens consumers’ identities. The opening shot features 27 people from different age groups, each with a unique sense of style and wearing a different model of Dr Martens shoes (see figure 26). The next clips show these individuals participating in a variety of hobbies such as skateboarding, horse riding, painting, breakdancing and boxing (see figure 27). There are also several shots of people playing instruments such as the piano, double bass and drums. Other music references include shots of a concert crowd, DJ decks and marching band (see figure 28). Dr Martens clearly made an effort to shoot in a range of locations: urban street locations, parks, boxing rings, art studios, arctic landscapes, pubs and nightclubs are all used (see figure 29). The last noteworthy feature of this campaign is the use of quotes throughout. Dr Martens (2017) overlays the following text “style none the same…no right way…no wrong way…just your way”.

Each shot in this campaign lasts no longer than about two seconds and each consecutive scene varies largely from the last in terms of the model’s personal style,

43 location and the talent they are exhibiting. By editing these somewhat jarring scenes together in this way, Dr Martens have created a high-tempo advert that is slightly overwhelming. This helps to represent the sheer scale of Dr Martens’ consumer base and the stark contrasts that exist between these customers. In comparison, the “A History of Standing for Something” campaign includes longer scenes which focus on group shots to create an idealised image of the comradery of past subcultures. This entices consumers to fantasize about the past by invoking collective nostalgia. Customers are invited to be part of a community of remembrance which romanticises the sense of belonging surrounding subcultures. The "Worn Different" campaign however, is less about a collective identity and instead puts an emphasis on delivering a message of individuality. The overarching messaging is about self-expression by demonstrating that there is a pair of Dr Martens for everyone.

Broadbent and Cooper (1987, p3) state that “in order to be successful, images and symbols must relate to (…) the needs, values and lifestyles of consumers”. This advert is successful as it appeals to modern consumers’ desire to carve out their own sense of style, a process which Polhemus (1994, p131) calls shopping at “the Supermarket of Style”. He suggests that current consumers do not wish to attach themselves to subcultures with “a lifelong stylistic and ideological commitment”, instead they experiment by mashing up subcultural references in “an attempt to construct a new visual language” (Polhemus, 1994, p134). This is a postmodern concept as “the construction of self-identity through personal choice rather than through social ascription” now exists (O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy, 2002, p113) and consumers are free to break away from sartorial subcultural rules. Postmodernists “claim that fragmentation characterizes the postmodern age rather than uniformity” (O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy, 2002, p113). Davies (2016, p202) reiterates this point stating that for “contemporary youth consumers…self-fashioning is far less definable within a scene”. Therefore, this advert is better than the "History of Standing for Something" campaign in recognising and appealing to the contemporary Dr Martens consumers’ fashion purchasing behaviour through its cohesive message of individuality. This campaign demonstrates that customers can carve out their own sartorial history instead.

44 It is arguable that this campaign still refers to the past as the underlying messages of the advert stem from ideologies of the subcultures associated with Dr Martens’ history. Meenaghan (1995, p6) set out that “building a brand's association with specific values is a long-term process”. So it is only now that Dr Martens are able to communicate the subcultural symbolism attached to the shoes in their advertising campaigns without having to make a direct visual link to subculture. As Davies (2016, p202) set out, Dr Martens “seeks to enforce, rather than diminish, ideologies of previous subcultural expression beyond the limits of specific sartorial groupings”.

The benefit of advertising is that brands can build an aspirational brand image and construct the messages they desire to share with their audience. As Levy (1959, p118) said “people buy things not only for what they can do, but also for what they mean” and so subcultural heritage works as a good basis for this. Dr Martens’ production manager, Stephen Bent, said that “the concept of self-expression and rebellion are at the core of the brand’s identity” (Prendergast, 2017). This is a very selective view as Davies (201, p198) argues that in fact “Dr Martens were metonymic signifiers of thuggery and crime”. By taking a top-line approach in this campaign and solely focusing on the most desirable connotations that all the subcultures collectively have given the brand, Dr Martens can distance themselves with any unwanted connotations from individual subcultural groups.

The purpose of advertising is to bring connotations of a product to the foreground through strategically composed imagery (Meenaghan, 1995). Each subculture enriched the symbolism of Dr Martens shoes by adopting the product and instilling their own set of beliefs onto the commodity, which in turn transformed the product’s meaning (De La Haye and Dingwall, 1996). Therefore, these meanings of self-expression, individuality and rebellion are ingrained into the brand’s image, which allow Dr Martens to use these representations to underpin this contemporary campaign. However, the use of more modern imagery helps refresh the original message to appeal to a new audience and demonstrate that Dr Martens are a forward-looking brand. Finally, this has allowed them to carry a consistent message showing that they “have always been the badge of honour for individuals who are proud to show their sense of self-expression” (Hodgson, 2017).

Conclusion On reflection, the visual analysis of both Dr Martens’ shoe designs and advertising campaigns in this dissertation prove that subcultural heritage is a valuable reference point in fashion marketing. As Davies (2016, p194) notes “the brand’s ‘cultural biography’ provides ideological currency”. It is evident that incorporating subcultural references into brand communication methods can help a brand align with certain positive subcultural values. This is largely down to semiotics and the relationship between signifier and signified. Clothes act as sign language, they are expressions of the “largely unconscious aspects of individual and group psyche” (Wilson, 1985, p57). This is particularly apparent among subcultures for example, referencing Skinheads signifies unity; Punk signifies nonconformity; Two-Tone signifies youth energy; and Grunge signifies rebellion. Dr Martens is trading on these associations as their use of visual codes blurs the line between brand and subculture, thus the subcultural ideologies and brand values become intertwined. Consumers then begin to associate the brand with positive subcultural traits, which is a powerful tool when attempting to differentiate a brand from competitors. Boccardi et al. (2016) reiterate this point as they state that a brand’s values help “represent a certain lifestyle for common people” (p136), which in turn informs their purchasing choices. Therefore, establishing a clear brand image through subcultural heritage helps consumers justify purchases.

Prendergast (2017) discussed the fact that Dr Martens “illustrates the confidence it has in their enduring cool” by showing that their products have been “handed down from generation to generation”. As discovered in this study, the communication of subcultural heritage demonstrates to consumers that a brand produces quality products. By highlighting the fact that the brand’s products have been favoured by a wide variety of groups for several decades they can prove that their brand is unaltered by fleeting fashion trends. This shows that their products have a timeless appeal, which reinforces the notion that they are a brand with longevity. This consistency in quality and style also indicates that the brand has integrity, which in turn helps to build trust among consumers.

46 Incorporating subcultural heritage into marketing also helps to address contemporary consumer needs. By harking back to post-war subcultures, a brand can satisfy consumers’ longing for simpler times. In the world of fast fashion, customers are often sentimental about the gentle pace of life in bygone times. By making retrospective subcultural links a brand can appeal to customers’ emotional nostalgic needs, thus strengthening the consumer-brand relationship. Due to the heterogeneity of the current fashion climate contemporary consumers also desire a sense of belonging. This feeling of unity is bound up in subcultures as they share ideologies and adhere to certain sartorial rules. If a brand overtly communicates its subcultural ties current customers will be more drawn to the brand as they will feel as though they are purchasing a slice of group identity.

The Dr Martens brand is now highly ubiquitous, which demonstrates the level of success the brand has achieved through maintaining a strong brand identity. The brand itself has been on a bubble-up path (Polhemus, 1994), whereby the brand has moved on from its humble subcultural beginnings and is now held in high regard by a range of highprofile figures. For example, labour politician Tony Benn chose to wear the shoes as their subcultural lineage helped symbolise “empathy with the working classes” (Prendergast, 2017). Other influential celebrities such as Emma Watson and Sienna Miller have also worn the shoes to red-carpet events, and even Pope John-Paul II has a customised pair (Tregaskes, 2019). In 2016 Dr Martens filed several lawsuits in an attempt to better protect their trademark as many high street fashion brands attempted to capitalise on Dr Martens’ strong brand image by copying products (Thorsch, 2018). The uptake of Dr Martens by celebrities and the abundance of counterfeits emphasises the positive image that their subcultural capital has brought them, which in turn enables mass appeal. This again demonstrates that heritage is a highly valuable asset for a company when attempting to develop a clear brand message and achieve a favourable market position.

Despite the many benefits that come with marketing subcultural heritage, it can also create problems. This dissertation draws attention to the importance of maintaining a sense of brand integrity. It is paramount that a brand ensures that the values associated with certain subcultures are in line with the overarching brand values. By making careful choices,

47 in terms of subcultural affiliations, a brand can ensure that their brand communications maintain a cohesive message. If contradictions occur the subcultural references can have a damaging impact on brand image as consumers may deem the brand to be merely capitalising on the authenticity of subcultures, which can devalue the message.

Brands must also be careful not to alienate the modern consumer by constantly referring to elements of the past. They must consider that contemporary consumers want to carve out their own identities. This more nuanced marketing approach is something that Dr. Martens’ chief marketing officer, Darren Campbell, is now striving for: “what we’re looking to do is make sure we remain connected to what’s going on with consumers globally” (Hammett, 2019). As Davies (2016, p202) points out, current generations are “approaching sartorial style from a less clearly defined subcultural uniform and sensibility”. This means that they don’t necessarily want a direct revival of the past and would rather shop in the "Supermarket of Style" where they are free to create unique fashion combinations by clashing multiple stylistic subcultural references. Therefore, the best approach to incorporating subcultural heritage into branding is to use the ideologies carved out by subcultures to create a top-line brand message. The message can encapsulate sentiments of self-expression, unity, identity and rebellion that most subcultures stand for without seeming too backwards looking. Hodgson (2017) said that “with the right outreach, the right image, and the right marketing, companies can truly stand the test of time”, which means if Dr Martens can manage this careful balance they will maintain a strong position on the high street for many years to come.

If Dr Martens fails to manage their heritage marketing effectively, they may experience challenges in the future. Taking the research findings into consideration it is obvious that cultural capital is a very fragile concept. As Sercombe (1999, p4) argues “the symbols of the subculture depreciate the more money you make from them”, so the more ubiquitous a brand becomes, the more their subcultural meanings become diluted. This is therefore a major challenge for brands when trading on cultural nostalgia; once they appear to be commercialising the authenticity of subcultures, the semiotic connotations diminish, and the brand authenticity is jeopardised.

48 Another issue with maintaining authenticity is Dr Martens' heavy reliance on marketing their British heritage. One of the key factors that played into this was the fact that the shoes had always been manufactured in the UK. For example, Dr Martens is so keen to refer to their manufacturing roots that the iconic heel loop still features a slogan in the handwriting of the company’s first UK factory owner, Bill Griggs (Dr Martens, no date b). However, in 2003 the brand was struggling to maintain market share and announced that they “would be moving the bulk of its production to the Far East” (Roach, 2015, p160). In a recent article in The Guardian, readers were “accusing the bootmaker of sacrificing quality” in favour of “chasing profits”” (Collinson and Smithers, 2019) and were blaming this largely on the offshore production. This demonstrates that consumers are discerning of change by heritage brands that are steeped in history; small transitions by brands can trigger a greater interrogation by consumers who will question authenticity. Despite identifying these potential future problems for Dr Martens, this study does not address the strategies that should be implemented to ensure long-term desirability or commercial success, thus creating interesting grounds for future research.

Reference List Books: Blaszczyk, R. (2017). Fashionability: Abraham Moon and the creation of British cloth for the global market. Manchester: Manchester University Press Gilbert, D. (2006). From Paris to Shanghai: The Changing Geographies of Fashionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s World Cities. In: Breward, C. and Gilbert, D. eds. Fashion's World Cities. Oxford: Berg. Clarke, J. (2006). The Creation of Style. In: Hall, S., & Jefferson, T. (eds.) Resistance through rituals: youth subcultures in post-war Britain (Second edition.). London: Routledge. De La Haye, A and Dingwall, C eds. (1996). Surfers Soulies Skinheads & Skaters: Subcultural Style from the Forties to the Nineties. London: Victoria and Albert Publications. Ewen, S. (1990). All Consuming Images: The Politics of Style in Contemporary Culture. New York: Basic Books. p.252. Hall, S., & Jefferson, T. (2006). Resistance through rituals: youth subcultures in post-war Britain (Second edition.). London: Routledge. Hebdige, D. (2002). Subculture, The Meaning of Style. London: Routledge. McDonald, C. (1992). How advertising works: a review of current thinking. Henley-onThames: The Advertising Association in association with NTC Publications. McDowell, C. (1989). Shoes: Fashion and Fantasy, London: Thames and Hudson. Polhemus, T. (1994). Streetstyle: from sidewalk to catwalk. London: Thames and Hudson Rocamora, A., and Smelik, A. (2015). Thinking Through Fashion: A Guide to Key Theorists. London: I.B. Tauris. Roach, M. (2015). Dr. Martens - A History Of Rebellious Self â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Expression. AirWair Ltd: Wollaston Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies: an introduction to researching with visual materials (4th edition.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

50 Sercombe, H. (1999). Boots, gangs and addictions: Youth subcultures and the media. In: White, R. (Ed.), Australian youth subcultures: On the margins and in the mainstream. Hobart: Australian Clearinghouse for Youth Studies. Tasker, Y., and Negra, D. (2007). Interrogating postfeminism: gender and the politics of popular culture. Durham: Duke University Press. Thornton, S. (1995). Club cultures music, media and subcultural capital. Cambridge: Polity. Wilson, E. (1985). Adorned in dreams. London: Virago.

Journal Articles: Balmer, J. (2013). Corporate heritage, corporate heritage marketing, and total corporate heritage communications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18 (3), pp.290–326. Beverland, M. B. (2005). Crafting brand authenticity: The case of luxury wine. Journal of Management Studies. 42 (5), pp.1003–1029. Boccardi, A., Ciappei, C., Zollo, L. and Laudano, M.C., (2016). The role of heritage and authenticity in the value creation of fashion brand. International Business Research. 9 (7), pp.135-143. Broadbent, K. and Cooper, P. (1987). Research is good for you. Marketing Intelligence &Planning. 5 (1), pp.3-9. Cameron, C and Gatewood, J. (1994). The authentic interior: questing Gemeinschaft in postindustrial society. Human Organization. 53 (1), pp.21-32. Carroll, A. (2008). Brand communications in fashion categories using celebrity endorsement. Journal of Brand Management 17 (2), pp.146–158. Cervellon, M., Carey, L., and Harm, T. (2012). Something old, something used: Determinants of women’s purchase of vintage fashion vs second-hand fashion. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. 40 (12), pp.956–974.

51 Chen, H., Yeh, S., and Huan, T. (2014). Nostalgic emotion, experiential value, brand image, and consumption intentions of customers of nostalgic-themed restaurants. Journal of Business Research. 67 (3), pp.354–360. Cogan, B. (2012). Typical Girls?: Fuck Off, You Wanker! Re-Evaluating the Slits and Gender Relations in Early British Punk and Post-Punk. Women’s Studies. 41 (2), pp.121–135. Davies, C. (2016). Smells like teen spirit: Channelling subcultural traditions in contemporary Dr Martens branding. Journal of Consumer Culture. 16(1), pp.192–208. Elbedweihy, A., Jayawardhena, C., Elsharnouby, M., and Elsharnouby, T. (2016). Customer relationship building com: The role of brand attractiveness and consumer–brand identification. Journal of Business Research. 69 (8), pp.2901–2910. Fritz, K., Schoenmueller, V., and Bruhn, M. (2017). Authenticity in branding – exploring antecedents and consequences of brand authenticity. European Journal of Marketing. 51(2), pp.324–348 Holbrook, M. (2007). The Consumption Experience—Something New, Something Old, Something Borrowed, Something Sold: Part 2. Journal of Macromarketing. 27 (1), pp.86–96. Levy, S. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review. 37 (4). pp. 117-24. Loveland, K., Smeesters, D., and Mandel, N. (No Date). Still Preoccupied with 1995: The Need to Belong and Preference for Nostalgic Products. Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), pp.393–408. Meenaghan, T. (1995). The role of advertising in brand image development. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 4 (4), pp. 23-34. Merchant, A., and Rose, G. (2013). Effects of advertising-evoked vicarious nostalgia on brand heritage. Journal of Business Research. 66 (12), pp.2619–2625. Muehling, D., and Pascal, V. (2011). An Empirical Investigation of the Differential Effects of Personal, Historical, and Non-Nostalgic Advertising on Consumer Responses. Journal of Advertising. 40 (2), pp.107–122 Napoli, J., Dickinson, S., Beverland, M., and Farrelly, F. (2014). Measuring consumer-based brand authenticity. Journal of Business Research. 67 (6), pp.1090–1098.

52 Newman, G., and Dhar, R. (2014). Authenticity is contagious: brand essence and the original source of production. Journal of Marketing Research. 51 (3), p.372 O’Shaughnessy, J., & O’Shaughnessy, N. (2002). Postmodernism and Marketing: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff. Journal of Macromarketing. 22 (1), pp.109–135. Sarabia, D and Shriver, T. (2004). Maintaining collective identity in a hostile environment: confronting negative public perception and factional divisions within the skinhead subculture. Sociological spectrum. 24 (3), pp.267–294. Spiggle, S., Nguyen, H., and Caravella, M. (2012). More Than Fit: Brand Extension Authenticity. Journal of Marketing Research. 49 (6), pp.967–983. Steele, V. (1998). A Museum of Fashion Is More Than a Clothes-Bag. Fashion Theory. 2 (4), pp.327–335

Newspaper Articles: Collinson. P, and Smithers, R. (2019). Dr Martens Are Guardian readers right to put the boot in? The Guardian. 30 November Howe, D. (1987). Prescription for the Sole; Doc Martens Shoes: A Widespread Dose of Trendiness. The Washington Post. January 11 Naughton, K., Vlasic, B and Grover, R,. (1998). The Nostalgia Boom. Bloomberg Business Week. 23 March. p.58. Telegraph. (1986). Mugged mum kicked to death. Telegraph. February 27.

Theses: Sancaktar, A., (2006). An analysis of shoe within the context of social history of fashion. Masters thesis, Izmir Institute of Technology.

Videos:

53 Howell, N. 2013. 'Beneath the Skin' - Skinhead Documentary. [Online]. [Accessed 19 November 2019]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naQqtDIsbq8 The Story of Skinheads with Don Letts. 2016. Don Letts. dir. UK: BBC

Websites: Atom Retro. (No date). Atom Retro. [Online]. [Accessed 29 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.atomretro.com/product_info.cfm?product_id=16225&d=DR-MARTENSRETRO-MOD-MONKEY-BOOTS-VINTAGE-BLACK Dr Martens. (No Date a). Dr Martens Website. [Online]. [Accessed 11 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.drmartens.com/uk/en_gb/tough-as-you/our-stories/maertensfunck Dr Martens. (No Date b). Dr Martens Website. [Online]. [Accessed 11 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.drmartens.com/uk/en_gb/history Dr Martens. (No Date c). Dr Martens Website. [Online]. [Accessed 11 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.drmartens.com/uk/en_gb/tough-as-you/our-stories/bill-griggs Dr Martens. (No Date d). Dr Martens Website. [Online]. [Accessed 11 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.drmartens.com/uk/en_gb/tough-as-you/our-stories/petetownshend Dr Martens. (No Date e). Dr Martens Website. [Online]. [Accessed 11 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.drmartens.com/uk/en_gb/tough-as-you/our-stories/vivalbertine Dr Martens. (No date f). Dr Martens.[Online]. [Accessed 11 January 2019]. Available from: https://www.drmartens.com/uk/en_gb/Men%252527s-Boots/Dr-Martens-ChurchBoot/p/16054001 Dr Martens. (2014). Dr Martens Official Youtube. [Online]. [Accessed 20 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cicdLIwa3uo

54 Dr Martens. (2017). Dr Martens Official Youtube. [Online]. [Accessed 21 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1WMiMYY4S4 Dr Martens. (2019 a). Dr Martens. [Online]. [Accessed 15 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.drmartens.com/uk/en_gb/collaborations/dr-martens-and-sex-pistolscollection?text=sex%20pistols Dr Martens. (2019 b). Dr Martens. [Online]. [Accessed 11 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.drmartens. /uk/en_gb/p/24790001 Dystant, L. (2014). High Snobiety. [Online]. [Accessed 29 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.highsnobiety.com/2014/10/08/mike-skinner-on-dr-martens/ Hammett, E. (2019). Marketing Week. [Online]. [Accessed 11 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.marketingweek.com/dr-martens-engaging-consumers-beyond-the-boot/ Hodgson, S. (2017). Fabrik Brands. [Online]. [Accessed 11 October 2019]. Available from: https://fabrikbrands.com/british-brands-dr-martens-history/ Prendergast, A. (2017). The Rake. [Online]. [Accessed 11 October 2019]. Available from: https://therake.com/stories/style/how-dr-martens-became-iconic/ Radio X. (2019). Radio X. [Online]. [Accessed 20 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.radiox.co.uk/artists/nirvana/smells-like-teen-spirit-not-filmed-high-school/ Raiss, L. (2014). The Fader. [Online]. [Accessed 29 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.thefader.com/2014/08/27/check-out-dr-martens-brilliant-new-spirit-of-69collection Shahnavaz, N. (2016). Hero. [Online]. [Accessed 29 October 2019]. Available from: http://hero-magazine.com/article/73043/from-the-mods-to-james-massiah-tracing-britishsubculture-via-dr-martens-devotees/ Thorsch, B. (2018). The College Review. [Online]. [Accessed 29 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.thecollegeview.com/2018/11/28/military-fashion/ Tregaskes, C. (2019). Tatler. [Online]. [Accessed 29 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.tatler.com/article/how-doc-martens-became-mainstream-fashion

List of Illustrations Figure 1 Popperfoto. 1964. Mods window shopping. [Online]. [Accessed 24 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/social-history-fashion-people-piccirca-1964-great-britain-news-photo/78962374?adppopup=true Figure 2 Evening Standard. 1975. Pete Townshend in Dr Martens. [Online]. [Accessed 24 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/nov/30/are-thingsgoing-wrong-with-the-uk-beloved-dr-martens-brand Figure 3 Foster, A. 1980. Teenage Skinheads dancing. [Online]. [Accessed 24 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/teenage-skinheads-dancing-themoonstomp-outside-a-shop-in-news-photo/639597762 Figure 4 PYMCA. No date. Skinheads in Brighton. [Online]. [Accessed 24 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/skinheads-gesturing-while-apedestrian-strolls-past-news-photo/558232921?adppopup=true Figure 5 Jaeger, H. 1939. Adolf Hitler and German Luftwaffe troops in 1939. [Online]. [Accessed 25 February 2020]. Available from: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/nazileader-adolf-hitler-saluting-leaders-men-of-the-legion-news-photo/50538097 Figure 6 Player, J. 1984. Punks on the Kings Road 1984. [Online]. [Accessed 24 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/punks-andfashionistas-kings-road-london-britain-sep-1984-558242e Figure 7

56 Dr Martens. No date. Viv Albertine in Dr Martens. [Online]. [Accessed 24 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.drmartens.com/uk/en_gb/tough-as-you/our-stories/vivalbertine Figure 8 Trutwein, E. No date. 1980s Goths. [Online]. [Accessed 24 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.dazeddigital.com/music/gallery/21838/9/life-as-a-goth-in-1980s-yorkshire Figure 9 Cummins, K. 1988. The Smiths fans 1988. [Online]. [Accessed 24 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/fans-of-english-pop-group-thesmiths-pose-outside-salford-news-photo/85821017 Figure 10 Dr Martens. No date. Original Dr Martens Church Boots. [Online]. [Accessed 15 January 2020]. Available from: https://drmartensofficial.tumblr.com/post/142228511701/theoriginal-icon-the-church-monkey-boot-this Figure 11 Dr Martens. No date. Re-released Dr Martens Church Boots. [Online]. [Accessed 15 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.drmartens.com/uk/en_gb/p/16054601 Figure 12 Beckman, J. 1978. 70s Punk with exposed toe caps. [Online]. [Accessed 15 January 2020]. Available from: https://janettebeckman.com/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2016/05/Punks-Words-End-London-1978-%C2%A9Janette-Beckman-1-31519x1000.jpg Figure 13 Own Image. 1925 Sex Pistols Collaboration Shoe fashion toe cap Figure 14

57 Amazon. No Date a. Never Mind the Bollocks LP. [Online]. [Accessed 15 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Never-Mind-Bollocks-HeresPistols/dp/B00000G6PJ Figure 15 Own Image. 1925 Sex Pistols Collaboration Shoe Lace Caps Figure 16 Beckman, J. 1979. 70s Punk with painted Dr Martens. [Online]. [Accessed 15 January 2020]. Available from: https://janettebeckman.com/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2016/05/Punks-London-1979-1-3-645x1000.jpg Figure 17 Amazon. No date b. Pretty Vacant Promo. [Online]. [Accessed 15 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Pistols-Pretty-Vacant-Mounted/dp/B00IBVEUEW Figure 18: Own Image. 1925 Sex Pistols Collaboration Shoe Side Profile Figure 19 Own Image. 1925 Sex Pistols Collaboration Shoe Figure 20 Dr Martens. 2014. Factory Construction. [Online]. [Accessed 20 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cicdLIwa3uo Figure 21 Dr Martens. 2014. Postman in Dr Martens. [Online]. [Accessed 20 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cicdLIwa3uo Figure 22 Dr Martens. 2014. Skinhead Reference. [Online]. [Accessed 20 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cicdLIwa3uo

58 Figure 23 Dr Martens. 2014. Punk Reference. [Online]. [Accessed 20 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cicdLIwa3uo Figure 24 Dr Martens. 2014. Two-Tone Reference. [Online]. [Accessed 20 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cicdLIwa3uo Figure 25 Dr Martens. 2014. Grunge Reference. [Online]. [Accessed 20 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cicdLIwa3uo Figure 26 Dr Martens. 2017. Opening Shot. [Online]. [Accessed 21 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1WMiMYY4S4 Figure 27 Dr Martens. 2017. Hobby Shots. [Online]. [Accessed 21 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1WMiMYY4S4 Figure 28 Dr Martens. 2017. Music References. [Online]. [Accessed 21 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1WMiMYY4S4 Figure 29 Dr Martens. 2017. Settings. [Online]. [Accessed 21 January 2020]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1WMiMYY4S4