Designer & Fashion Insiders Behavior (PLEASE READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING) | Page 68 | the Fashion Spot

Designer & Fashion Insiders Behavior (PLEASE READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING)

^ and don’t get me started on the Falkland Islands or should I say, MALVINAS.

Also :lol: at the random appearance of Orange County...

Why did they all happen to have identical tshirts again..? luxury brand conspiracy?

I don’t know, they just don’t seem like such innocent mistakes.. I completely understand these mistakes happen and sometimes you just say stupid s*it as an individual (like when I told my Armenian driver about Turkey “aren’t you guys like buddies?” -cause I vaguely remember people always mentioning them together.. also it was 8 am on a Sunday, ugh).. but it just doesn’t happen that easily as a business because of whole departments with a budget solely dedicated to study, understand and target regions. Anyway, they’ll get over it, nothing gets in the way of people and their.. passion for fashion.
 
This is just another episode of power dynamics. I think it would have been better if it was handle on a more discreet way. I feel like today we have this bandwagon, the outrage and then it all goes back to normal.
I mean, Liu Wen is distancing herself from a brand but she already got her check, her free goodies and signed a contract. In a few weeks, it’s fashion week and it will be interesting to see if she can pass on Givenchy, Versace or Coach... particularly Givenchy as it is attached to LVMH.

It could have been more simple to ask to the brands to remove the products from the stores. Simple as that!

I’m sure next year or a bit later, all those brands will do special events or held their Shows in HK to court the clientele that might have felt disrespected.

Brands should stick to logo t-shirts!
 
You always need to take it one notch up, don't you, Mulletproof? I mean I mentioned NI but you just had to add the Falklands to the mix. Lol.

Maybe it is a conspiracy! Or maybe, in a shocking turn of events, these brands are deliberately doing this to get out of China's silk sheets?

I agree with you and Salvatore, Lola. Brands are better off sticking to logo tees. Who cares for that country tshirts anyway!?! It's not even fashion. One thing to get your purse strings pulled over fur or human costs, another entirely when it's due to your own foolishness.
 
To be honest....my take away from this “debacle” is this:

Welcome to global fashion.

In the desperate attempt to conquer new markets, these brands have now injected themselves into cultures they have no real understanding for. As such, the game is now “how do we grow a brand and create a product range that doesn’t offend the sensibilities of people living in 5 different continents.” GOOD LUCK.

Furthermore, the more one has to take into consideration all the nuances of these completely different cultures and customs, the more innocuous and bland the design will become. When you rule out this culture’s offenses and the other one’s and the other one’s....you’re left with a pretty innocuous and soulless product designed to offend NO ONE ON THE PLANET.

Oh well. There’s nothing I can do. All that’s left is to look for small, niche talent doing something with conviction and no interest in appealing to every human alive.

Big brands committed suicide the day they sold their souls to the global market. There was a brief, bombastic and creative moment in the early 00’s (think Galliano x Dior, Marc x LV, Tom x Gucci, etc etc) when the huge influx in capital for these houses skyrocketed due to the opening to international markets, but once the initial novelty wore off and things got real....this kind of toe-stepping controversy is now what we’re up against. Indefinitely.
 
It seems like all of that wasn’t an issue before the current events but now, i’m confused.
Issues are "found" to motivate actions. You can't reason with political issues if the rules are ever changing.
Still like I say, the fashion apology train happens now is only a distract. Don't get too bothered by it.
 
no exactly, i wish these businesses actually had the guts to take a stand when it comes to china, but ofcourse after the stefano gabbana scandal everyone's scared they'll be next.

Me too. After the UBS Chinese Pig scandal we had to have China sensitivity training at my investment bank 2 weeks ago and learn about every tiny thing we could say that would have far reaching consequences (e.g. talking about loving democracy etc). I was shocked to learn about all the subtle ways the government will hurt your country when someone does anything wrong at all. i.e. at the moment because Australia denied Huawei the chance to build our 5G network China are blocking the majority of iron ore shipments at the border. There is no other government in the world that is so petty when someone challenges them in any way, and the worst thing is that the government controls the media. Read a great article on this today I thought I would share:

Bravery of Hong Kong protesters shames the west
RICHARD LLOYD PARRY

Noone with real power has the guts to admit it, but a few years ago the rest of the world gave up caring about the evils perpetrated by the government of China. Perhaps it was the moment when the People’s Republic overtook Japan to become the world’s second biggest economy. Perhaps it was the accession of Xi Jinping, the most uncompromisingly authoritarian Chinese leader since Mao. At some point in the past 15 years, the right-thinking governments of western Europe and North America, confronted by the oppression, cruelty and petty vindictiveness of the Chinese regime towards its opponents, shrugged their shoulders and turned away.

It’s not that the West ignores the rounding up of Muslim Uighurs in “re-education” camps in Xinjiang province, the persecution of peaceful democracy activists or the suppression of Tibet’s independence movement; but the objections raised are so timid and bureaucratic, so hobbled by the fear of causing offence, as to be almost meaningless. The only person standing up to Mr Xi is Donald Trump, who is engaged in a trade war not on grounds of principle, but for national self-interest. He makes little secret of his indifference to the rights of the Chinese; his concern is only for the economic advantage of Americans.

This is the most remarkable, and the most shaming, thing about the protest movement that has emerged in Hong Kong in the past month. The youth of its organisers, several of whom are little more than teenagers, is inspiring. The scale of the demonstrations, some reaching 2 million people, has taken everyone by surprise. But the most important thing about them is their uniqueness. The Hong Kong protesters represent the only significant challenge anywhere in the world to the oppression and arrogance of the Chinese communist party.

What began as a movement against a proposed new extradition law, that would allow people arrested in Hong Kong to be sent for trial in China, has metamorphosed into a determined campaign to force the resignation of the territory’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, who is effectively appointed by Beijing. Its leaders, such as 22-year-old Joshua Wong, talk openly about their goal: the introduction of genuine democracy in Hong Kong, a demand which long ago became taboo among the leaders of the G20 nations.

There are reasons, of course, for the reluctance of governments to confront Beijing, beginning with the most obvious of all. Chinese money and technology exert an increasingly powerful influence on the global economy. The Chinese market is one that no multinational manufacturer or financial institution can ignore.

Beijing has made it clear that it will punish any government that challenges it on issues such as democracy and human rights. For a British prime minister to speak out in support of independence for Taiwan, for example, would bring a heavy cost in terms of Chinese investment and opportunities for British companies in Beijing. If the leader of one of its competitor economies, such as France or Germany, were to do so, Britain would stand to benefit from its own silence. It is not surprising that governments prefer to avoid the problem altogether and resort to diplomatic bromides, such as those uttered by Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, when he warned Beijing yesterday (Tuesday) of unspecified “serious consequences” if the rights of Hong Kongers were trampled on.

There is another argument for not tackling human rights in China head on — the wish to avoid a new Cold War, in which political differences turn into a broad economic, cultural and military confrontation. Barring some internal catastrophe, China’s rise to global economic pre-eminence is inevitable; military power will not lag very far behind. Surely it is better, the argument goes, to find points of common interest and understanding with this new superpower, rather than turning points of principle into the trenches of a new battle of ideologies.

This is where the young men and women of Hong Kong put the rest of the world to shame. Their city is part of China. The tanks of the People’s Liberation Army are within short trundling distance of their schools, workplaces and homes. British politicians worry about scaring Chinese securities firms away from the City of London. Hong Kong people face a one-party dictatorship, encroaching on the liberties supposedly guaranteed under the Sino-British “one country, two systems” agreement.

How much more they have to lose than us. They have no army, no embassies, no seat at the United Nations. But for all their vulnerability, they have demonstrated the power of principled dissent. The vandalism perpetrated by a few activists during Monday’s invasion of parliament will be used by Ms Lam and the authorities in Beijing in an effort to portray the whole movement as one of thugs and hooligans. It will not succeed.

Given the frustrations the people of the territory face, and the frustration of the democratic impulse, it is remarkable that there has not been more bad behaviour. The people of Hong Kong have behaved with courage, confidence, dignity and restraint. These qualities in themselves have been enough to throw on to the back foot the mighty Chinese state. It is an example from which the anxious governments of the West could learn a valuable lesson.
Source: TheAustralian.com.au
 
To be honest....my take away from this “debacle” is this:

Welcome to global fashion.

In the desperate attempt to conquer new markets, these brands have now injected themselves into cultures they have no real understanding for. As such, the game is now “how do we grow a brand and create a product range that doesn’t offend the sensibilities of people living in 5 different continents.” GOOD LUCK.

Furthermore, the more one has to take into consideration all the nuances of these completely different cultures and customs, the more innocuous and bland the design will become. When you rule out this culture’s offenses and the other one’s and the other one’s....you’re left with a pretty innocuous and soulless product designed to offend NO ONE ON THE PLANET.

Oh well. There’s nothing I can do. All that’s left is to look for small, niche talent doing something with conviction and no interest in appealing to every human alive.

Big brands committed suicide the day they sold their souls to the global market. There was a brief, bombastic and creative moment in the early 00’s (think Galliano x Dior, Marc x LV, Tom x Gucci, etc etc) when the huge influx in capital for these houses skyrocketed due to the opening to international markets, but once the initial novelty wore off and things got real....this kind of toe-stepping controversy is now what we’re up against. Indefinitely.

I think in the case of what Versace and Givenchy have done, it isn't isn't really poor design, rather a lack of/confusion regarding what a region is referred to as. They didn't put Chinese dragons on a dress and call it the 'Japan dress' The issue at hand, as evidenced by what is going on, isn't something that is immediately clear, but of course, to save face, they have issued apologies. Not much else to do, otherwise you do risk alienating a very lucrative group of people. Aside from this particular gaffe, I don't know another one either of these brands have committed in the region.

I personally believe the issue here is more political than it is about proper design of a garment. If anything, social media (Instagram, Twitter, Weibo) is helping to propel these issues forward 100x bigger than they would have been 20 years ago. Everything is magnified, and yes, people are a lot more sensitive/have the reach and outlet to express any grievances they may have.

For me, the issue isn't so black/white as to say these brands sold their souls by opening up to international markets. Would you prefer they don't cater to clients around the world? At the end of the day, these are businesses, out to make money, and in doing so, they must play by rules that they may not be accustomed to. It's a matter of operating accordingly and adapting to the tone of the region. It's no different than when a brand has to shoot a Middle East version of an image in order to advertise in the region.
 
Excerpt from WWD:

Brands Spark Chinese Ire Over Sovereignty
● Companies need to learn to be politically sensitive toward the world's biggest luxury market.
  • WWD Digital Daily
  • 13 Aug 2019
  • BY TIANWEI ZHANG

.......This wave of incidents is different than the Dolce & Gabbana debacle last year, when its Shanghai show was abruptly canceled after insults about China were attributed to the Instagram account of designer Stefano Gabbana.

The Chinese government did not escalate Dolce & Gabbana's fallout to a diplomatic level, as it did not touch the nation's political bottom line. "Instead of asking a Foreign Ministry spokesperson, you might as well ask any ordinary Chinese people and ask them what they think of it," the authority responded at the time. This incident has been different. People's Daily, the Communist Party of China's newspaper, on Monday published a harsh commentary, saying Versace and Coach “have made foolish mistakes, which not only ignited the Chinese people's righteous indignation, but also made their brands' prospects in the Chinese market bleak. Especially in the ‘sensitive period' when Hong Kong proindependence forces are creating chaos. This kind of mistake is even more serious.

“To do business in China, you have to abide the Chinese laws," the paper added. "This is a matter of principle. To these unruly multinational corporations, in addition to condemning, we should also take some self-defense tools from the ‘toolbox.' All enterprises that damage China's sovereignty should be alerted."........

WWD
 
Thanks for posting that. Indeed, very different to what Dolce & Gabbana did last year. Although, how odd that three brands all made the same mistake. I suppose one could argue, that it wasn't so clear if they all did it.

It's a very sensitive issue, but I wonder if this will really hurt the brands in the long term. Yes, the ambassadors have left the brands, but I wouldn't be surprised if in a few months time a statement is released saying that ambassador and the brand have made amends and the brand understands what was wrong and so on. I think everyone who severed ties did so, as to not feel the wrath of the Chinese people, for which they know they would feel the fallout from that much longer than just temporarily distancing themself from the brands.

One thought that does come to mind, however, is what about the regions in question? I suppose it is less risky to disregard their thoughts/position on the matter in the interim than that of China. If the Hong Kong protesters have their way, and the "One Country, Two Systems" is abandoned and Hong Kong is recognized as its own state, will the brands then alienate those Chinese citizens that do not agree?
 
Last edited:
So all these brands suddenly had geography t-shirts ? Since when ?
Also, Liu Wen saying that she should be more careful with brands endorsement is a bit of a hypocrite. Coach design was from 2018 and she didn't see the problem until protests happened ? Come on ...

This lmfao, like is this a thing now?

But I find it kinda funny how some of if not all of you are in here waving your fists at cancel culture when it comes to other people's complex culture and ethnicity which has been around much longer than these lil overpriced fashion brands.

Meanwhile, say one eensy weensy little thing about lgbtq and Jewish people... yeah I went there and you all know I'm right too.

I've got an idea, how about these designers just make some beautiful/dope clothes and leave all of the hot take political bs to ummm idk politics and politicians? These brands are being brought to the flame cause they're making half ***ed social statements on situations that they ultimately don't know a damn thing about.

And some of you have the nerve to be mad at that because you worship these brands of yesteryear, straight exposing yourselves. Nah, let's not properly respect people's hometown, country, culture and etc. No let's get mad at them and tell them to shut up cause they're interfering with brands that I love, meanwhile these lil random assistant designers that probably never even stepped foot outside of Paris or Italy can just keep making uninformed weak t-shirts.

If these fashion houses won't practice self accountability then their consumers will for them, simple as that.
 
I think in the case of what Versace and Givenchy have done, it isn't isn't really poor design, rather a lack of/confusion regarding what a region is referred to as.

Would you prefer they don't cater to clients around the world?
To your first statement, you proved my point. The globalization of fashion means now having to be sensitive to every culture’s complex and nuanced ideologies - geographically, politically, socially. I’m not advocating for insensitivity, but what I am saying is this: GOOD LUCK OFFENDING NO ONE EVER. That’s the game now.

And as to your question - frankly, at this point, my answer is yes. A designer should not be “catering” to anyone. They should have creative conviction behind what they’re making...and if people like it, they’ll buy it. Prior to globalism....a big name brand could exist on a smaller scale and get away with things like fragrances and accessories providing more support for RTW. At this point, RTW has to perform like these other categories do....and that’s why fashion has looked so dismal for the last decade and half.

But like I said...what can I do? The dead is done. There’s little - if anything - left in fashion today I have any taste for.
 
To your first statement, you proved my point. The globalization of fashion means now having to be sensitive to every culture’s complex and nuanced ideologies - geographically, politically, socially. I’m not advocating for insensitivity, but what I am saying is this: GOOD LUCK OFFENDING NO ONE EVER. That’s the game now.

And as to your question - frankly, at this point, my answer is yes. A designer should not be “catering” to anyone. They should have creative conviction behind what they’re making...and if people like it, they’ll buy it. Prior to globalism....a big name brand could exist on a smaller scale and get away with things like fragrances and accessories providing more support for RTW. At this point, RTW has to perform like these other categories do....and that’s why fashion has looked so dismal for the last decade and half.

But like I said...what can I do? The dead is done. There’s little - if anything - left in fashion today I have any taste for.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

It's also great to live in the past, but ultimately, you must face reality. And the reality is, brands need money to survive and they must also compete with a fast changing marketplace. Perhaps saying that brands should be catering to clients around the world wasn't the right choice of words for you. What I mean is, I do not believe brands should only exist in one realm. Everyone should have access to fashion globally. Versace is still Versace and Givenchy is still Givenchy even with the removal of these particular items. The DNA of the brand hasn't had to shift in order to operate in these regions. The approach in which the brand represents itself has and must. Its ultimately a matter of respect.

Again, I think the access people have to fashion and the outlets we have now to voice opinions have changed the landscape of the industry as a whole. Yes, we are in cancel/outrage culture, which I do not agree with. However, I do think it is good that in certain contexts/situations brands are being held responsible when they slip up. For me, I am in a grey area regarding the latest issues.
 
To your first statement, you proved my point. The globalization of fashion means now having to be sensitive to every culture’s complex and nuanced ideologies - geographically, politically, socially. I’m not advocating for insensitivity, but what I am saying is this: GOOD LUCK OFFENDING NO ONE EVER. That’s the game now.

And as to your question - frankly, at this point, my answer is yes. A designer should not be “catering” to anyone. They should have creative conviction behind what they’re making...and if people like it, they’ll buy it. Prior to globalism....a big name brand could exist on a smaller scale and get away with things like fragrances and accessories providing more support for RTW. At this point, RTW has to perform like these other categories do....and that’s why fashion has looked so dismal for the last decade and half.

But like I said...what can I do? The dead is done. There’s little - if anything - left in fashion today I have any taste for.
Unless you want to chase after a niche or small market forever, how are you gonna grow internationally as a business if you don't try to appeal to the masses? fashion is ultimately a business and is money-driven and it always moves forward with the times we're living. If fast fashion is where is at then why big luxury fashion brands can't try to keep up with it?

You wanna be a global brand and cater to these huge emerging markets then you make clothes that appeal to all of these markets, even if the creativity aspect of it suffers, I'm sorry but that's just how it is. If taking care of your customers and try to appeal to a whole new ones means you gotta be as inoffensive as possible then so be it, especially if you're a huge brand like that where you're in the radar constantly, this is not like 15 years ago where you could get away with so many things with minor repercussions.
 
This lmfao, like is this a thing now?

But I find it kinda funny how some of if not all of you are in here waving your fists at cancel culture when it comes to other people's complex culture and ethnicity which has been around much longer than these lil overpriced fashion brands.

Meanwhile, say one eensy weensy little thing about lgbtq and Jewish people... yeah I went there and you all know I'm right too.

I've got an idea, how about these designers just make some beautiful/dope clothes and leave all of the hot take political bs to ummm idk politics and politicians? These brands are being brought to the flame cause they're making half ***ed social statements on situations that they ultimately don't know a damn thing about.

And some of you have the nerve to be mad at that because you worship these brands of yesteryear, straight exposing yourselves. Nah, let's not properly respect people's hometown, country, culture and etc. No let's get mad at them and tell them to shut up cause they're interfering with brands that I love, meanwhile these lil random assistant designers that probably never even stepped foot outside of Paris or Italy can just keep making uninformed weak t-shirts.

If these fashion houses won't practice self accountability then their consumers will for them, simple as that.

It is an extraordinarily different issue to cancel culture. LGTBQ people or Jewish people are allowed to have their own thoughts on the matter. In these situations the Chinese people do not have access to any outside media so they are only fed a narrative by their government. The government rallies against anyone who dares disagree with them by retaliating against other industries that have nothing to do with the matter: agricultural etc. The minute you start being accountable to China, you will never be able to stop because these aren't cultural considerations.

Take the recent UBS Chinese Pig scandal for instance: an extremely good economist who only wrote that swine flu is bad for Chinese pigs. An innocent sentence that the Chinese government chose to portray an extremely different way to their people, say that Westerners think they are pigs and blow so far out of proportion. They unfairly lost a huge deal and the Chinese demanded he be fired (he is still on suspension as most of his colleagues have said they will also quit if people don't start standing up to the Chinese) and not hired by anyone else. Now, in the end, we all know he did nothing wrong and most people in the ry know this was a retaliation against foreign banks taking business from their local banks. But there are no complex cultural considerations with that government. Every situation is only reacted to based on what they are currently feeling about other situations related to the nationality of the company who made the mistake.
 
Unless you want to chase after a niche or small market forever, how are you gonna grow internationally as a business if you don't try to appeal to the masses? fashion is ultimately a business and is money-driven and it always moves forward with the times we're living. If fast fashion is where is at then why big luxury fashion brands can't try to keep up with it?

You wanna be a global brand and cater to these huge emerging markets then you make clothes that appeal to all of these markets, even if the creativity aspect of it suffers, I'm sorry but that's just how it is. If taking care of your customers and try to appeal to a whole new ones means you gotta be as inoffensive as possible then so be it, especially if you're a huge brand like that where you're in the radar constantly, this is not like 15 years ago where you could get away with so many things with minor repercussions.
Once again, this is my point.

I’m saying that by globalizing, this is exactly the result. Creativity comes last.

I’m not denying this fact - I’m simply arguing that the dearth of creativity in the industry - in particular at these legacy brands - is the net result of said globalization.

These brands, up until the late 90’s and very early 00’s, operated on skeleton teams...it is quite wild, actually, to think some of these major brands of today maybe had 10? 15? 20? people working at HQ back in the day. But once the international demand poured in, expansion demanded huge, corporate teams. Creativity dies in those environments. Classic too-many-chefs scenarios abound, as well as a multitude of rubber stamped approvals from bureaucrats high and low, all acting on their most conservative impulses - knowing full well that any product that fails in the market that initially passed their desk, will be their responsibility when the dismal sales figures come in.

I’ve certainly accepted that big brands - even mid-tier brands - all must follow this model now. I’m not looking to recreate the magic at, say, Dior. ‘Ain’t happening.

All my point is - for those here on TFS who constantly notice the lows to which this industry has sunk to (creatively), I simply am offering a plausible explanation to this observation.
 
Sorry, off-topic but could anybody post this article ? The Future of Diet Prada
Thank you so much

It doesn't say much honestly, but here it is.

NEW YORK, United States — Diet Prada is arguably fashion’s most exciting new media brand. Since starting in 2014, the Instagram account, run by Tony Liu and Lindsey Schuyler, has amassed 1.5 million followers, 300,000 of them since April 1 of this year. Diet Prada also regularly breaks news. Recently, the account published evidence that Kim Kardashian photographer Marcus Hyde tried to coerce model Sunnya Nash into sending him nude pics, prompting further allegations of sexual misconduct against him. The story went viral and led Facebook to close Hyde’s account.

Diet Prada has more than a point of view; it has a mission. The feed first attracted attention for calling out design copycats but has since expanded its scope, becoming the fashion industry’s watchdog. In the last year, Diet Prada has highlighted evidence of racism (Stefano Gabbana’s disparaging remarks about China) and sexual misconduct (Turkish photographer Timur Emek), as well as corporations copying young labels (Victoria’s Secret and Fleur du Mal). It is what so many fashion outlets are not: addictive, urgent, internet-fluent, attuned to the socio-political zeitgeist and unafraid to speak truth to power and take the establishment to task.

Diet Prada has also managed to build an active community of “Dieters” who are hungry (no pun intended) for its take on fashion news and send tips to Diet Prada the way people in and around the media industry tipped off Gawker in its early glory days.

Yet Diet Prada has struggled to find a robust business model. The founders declined to comment for this story but told the New York Times in March that they earn less money doing this than they did at their previous jobs, although they work on Diet Prada “around the clock.”

They have experimented with branded content, a popular way for many fashion media companies to make money. But this approach seems fundamentally at odds with Diet Prada’s content mission. The account has already attracted criticism for treating certain brands with kid gloves — notably Prada and Gucci, which were both slammed by the wider internet for products resembling blackface but escaped the kind of wrath that Diet Prada has directed at brands like Dolce & Gabbana. A host of brand partnerships would surely pose challenges to Diet Prada’s independence and further the perception that the account isn’t what it once was. The last “paid partnership” post in its feed, for Matches Fashion, went up on February 2 and felt incongruous amidst its stream of callouts and other fashion news. Indeed, some commenters bristled at the ad.

That said, the unusually cozy relationship Diet Prada has with its followers means that it’s much more likely to create winning brand extensions than many other media properties, which rely on algorithms that may or may not send clicks their way from one hour to the next. Diet Prada’s followers actually want to hear from Diet Prada, which is why the founders are able to sell merch through an online store. Though it’s unclear how much they earn from this, it’s easy to imagine followers wearing a Diet Prada sweatshirt or drinking from a Diet Prada mug (and post evidence of this to Instagram). How many fashion media brands engender this sort of audience loyalty?

Merch may not be enough, however. Like many fashion media brands, Diet Prada is likely to need multiple revenue streams to thrive. There are other options. A Diet Prada Con, for example, could easily attract thousands of ticket-buyers, but attracting speakers from the fashion establishment would clearly be tricky. A Diet Prada podcast, too, would likely rely on industry ad dollars and talent (though many, myself included, would certainly listen to the founders dissecting the week’s biggest fashion news stories without insider guests.)

To be sure, Diet Prada wins because it covers the stuff fashion magazines won’t tell us. And if fans feel like they can’t trust Diet Prada to deliver unfiltered news, it might lose some of its power to both break news and sell Diet Prada mugs. Then again, it’s ardent approach, which can sometimes feel immature if not dangerous — the words “digital judge, jury and executioner” come to mind — could pose big risks for the brand that go beyond forgoing advertising deals and access to talent. If Diet Prada issues a defamatory report or simply upsets the wrong person, just like Gawker did with Peter Thiel, it might find itself in a costly lawsuit and subsequent fire sale.

Alternatively, Diet Prada could mature its editorial approach, adopting journalistic norms like giving subjects the opportunity to comment, and more rigorously fact-checking tips and corroborating accusations. It’s certainly not easy or cheap to run a team of professional journalists and do this kind of work, but it could give Diet Prada greater longevity and open the budding media brand up to traditional revenue streams like advertising or subscription.

Fans might resist the change of course. Then again, they might welcome the approach and support Diet Prada in its next chapter. If Diet Prada is breaking important stories now, imagine what it could do with a team of Dieters on payroll.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top