Does Rodarte actually exist? The vaporous business plan of a fashion industry darling

^But what the article is claiming is completely absurd. It's questioning one brand because it doesn't sell as much as the others. I find that really silly. You don't get as big as Rodarte if you don't want to prosper and make it big.

My main problem with the "precious" fashion that dominated during the early aughts, is that often the designer would try to push a very specific "story" with their show. I personally prefer to make sense out of collections by myself and not have all the answers handed to me so easily. Then again, that's just my opinion.

But we are not talking about shows being story tellers or not, but about wearability. You can tell a story with very simple clothes while you will have to read a review to know what Rei wants to say with what we would consider unwearable garments. And when it comes to Rodarte, you don't really get the inspirations as easily as with Galliano or McQueen in the past... So don't get what you want to say with that comment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^But what the article is claiming is completely absurd. It's questioning one brand because it doesn't sell as much as the others. I find that really silly. You don't get as big as Rodarte if you don't want to prosper and make it big.

But we are not talking about shows being story tellers or not, but about wearability. You can tell a story with very simple clothes while you will have to read a review to know what Rei wants to say with what we would consider unwearable garments. And when it comes to Rodarte, you don't really get the inspirations as easily as with Galliano or McQueen in the past... So don't get what you want to say with that comment.

Some people were arguing that fashion shouldn't be judged on basis of how much handbags a brand manages to sell-which isn't really the point of the article-the author simply questioned the reason why a prestigious fashion brand exists only on the pages of magazines. A phenomenon that's exclusive to this industry and that would probably arose interest on a non-fashion person who reads the title, but to those in this forum is not actually that shocking. However many people took offense on this.

IMO storytelling and wearability represent more often than not, two opposing views on fashion, none more valid than the other. But the point I was trying to make is that the reason some people are critical of precious fashion is not because they especially care if X or Y from part of the McFashion establishment, but because of a personal preference. The poster above me was the one who made me interesed in writing my POV.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thanks for posting this article...
it's wonderfully written, has great quotes and facts and it asks some really pointed questions and makes some interesting observations...

if vogue were giving the award- i don't think they would win cause in their documentary it was expressed that they would award the brand who had the most viable chance of succeeding...

clearly- having a mentor is no match for having some financial backing...
though i have to say that i understand the desire to keep the company independent...

i guess if they keep their overhead low-
ie- sewing garments on the kitchen table and living with their parents...
they could just keep on like this in their modest way...

but they aren't going to be like chanel any time soon...
:ninja:

one of them needs to find a rich boyfriend...
:lol:...
*isn't that horrible?~?!??!!?...but i'm pretty sure that is how coco chanel managed to make it...

one great thing i got from the article was the term ---fast-luxury...
that is so obvious and yet i never heard it phrased like that...
fast-luxury is total crap!
i'm all for fighting that...

while i respect their values...
i'm not at all thrilled by their actual output...
it might be that it is too personal to them and therefore it doesn't speak to most of the rest of us...
so, while i like to pay a visit to their world now and then, i wouldn't like to live in (ie-wear) it...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing is, I really don't think Rodarte's clothes are that unwearable?.

My thoughts exactly! Don't think their brand is avant garde at all. The way the they're being mystified here is actually baffling to me. Their creative output imo doesn't warrant such superlatives. I get the fact that they prefer to exact control over their brand, steering clear of crass commercialism and conglomerates, but beyond the rose tinted glasses it looks more like there simply isn't a solid business plan in place. That it's a little pet project. And no venture can function like that. What they are in blatant terms is basically a teaze - look, but don't touch. Question is, what if the looks are nothing special to begin with.
 
I don't understand why people are attacking/questioning the journalist's skill level or validity in writing this. You know Robin Givhan is one of the more respected fashion journalists, right? She won a damn Pulitzer prize for goodness' sake.

If your contention with the article is that she "attacks" Rodarte for supposedly valuing art over business, I think that's already shaky ground.
 
Great article, a very interesting read.
I have been wondering for years who the "Rodarte woman" is. Eccentric gallerista, gothic romantic, jump-on-the bandwagon fashionista? all women that are represented in full by brands with a more cohesive viewpoint.

They had like 1-2 hit collections and tried desperately to milk the hype with all those collabs, which is baffling since they don't have a more diffused retail presence. What is the point then? starbucks and Target aren't going to bring them more $10k dress customers.
I commend them for staying true to their philosophy but this label feels like a one hit wonder.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed, very interesting article. Holding Wang up as an example of 'creativity,' however :ninja:

Also think she has a quite valid point about whether they're worthy of consideration for a prize they've already won once. But I doubt this is something that wasn't discussed during the nomination process. No doubt for some, they are living the dream (in my case, a highly important part of the dream was moving out :lol:), and I'm sure some industry professionals feel like supporting that, no matter the tangible results in terms of garments hanging in actual closets and being worn.
 
Great article, a very interesting read.
I have been wondering for years who the "Rodarte woman" is. Eccentric gallerista, gothic romantic, jump-on-the bandwagon fashionista? all women that are represented in full by brands with a more cohesive viewpoint.

They had like 1-2 hit collections and tried desperately to milk the hype with all those collabs, which is baffling since they don't have a more diffused retail presence. What is the point then? starbucks and Target aren't going to bring them more $10k dress customers.
I commend them to staying true to their philosophy but, this label feels like a one hit wonder.

Probably they accept every collab they're offered (remember the MAC one that blew up?) ... and I suspect the money goes directly to buying fabric.

But dior_couture, if memory serves, aren't you in a better position than anyone else here to speak to how the business actually operates?
 
why pick on an independent designer like this?
there are only a few brands out there that can rely on their RTW for sales, for most brands the RTW is just a PR strategy to sell bags and cosmetics, why isn't she talking about Proenza, Loewe or Celine? No-one is buying their RTW.
And when brands can rely on RTW for money it really isn't the stuff you see in show that women are buying, it's boring watered down office-ready clothing that is driving the business.
Like does J.W. Anderson or Prada really exist, when the image they're sending out and the stuff they're selling seem to be from different companies.

What's so bad about using collabs to get some cashflow?
 
I don't understand why people are attacking/questioning the journalist's skill level or validity in writing this. You know Robin Givhan is one of the more respected fashion journalists, right? She won a damn Pulitzer prize for goodness' sake.

If your contention with the article is that she "attacks" Rodarte for supposedly valuing art over business, I think that's already shaky ground.

This thread perfectly exemplifies the "What do critics know? I sure as hell know better" entitled attitude that runs rampant through this forum. With this statement I don't mean that people should revere the opinion of critics like that of gods-we all know critics whose opinions aren't worth a dime much of the time-however some members take their skepticism to the point that they end up sounding dumb.
 
I don't understand why people are attacking/questioning the journalist's skill level or validity in writing this. You know Robin Givhan is one of the more respected fashion journalists, right? She won a damn Pulitzer prize for goodness' sake.

Why not? Everything that people writes is right? And prizes don't impress me at all...

This question for me is completely absurd:
Is it a real business — one that turns a profit from what it promotes, that can grow beyond a notion and have an actual impact?

As well as this one:
But what exactly is the industry honoring?

As well as this one:
Their garments are aspirational and admirable, but for all the plaudits — museum exhibits, a cache of awards, an honorary doctorate for the designers — they have not yet proved particularly influential.

Marc Jacobs was influential last year? :rolleyes:


And I could go on and on... The whole article is such a nonensense.


I agree they don't diserve any prize, and much less in 2016, but I think no designer from New York deserves it for his contribution to fashion. No American designer has been relevant this couple of years to be honest.

Anyway, Rodarte is maybe the American brand which has contributed the most to the fashion world in the last ten years, the one with the most identifiable aesthetic and credibility. With a personal stamp and a particular way of doing things. And I'm not fan of them at all and never was. In fact, I think Rodarte is very irrelevant and quite of a trainwreck as of late. But that's not what the article is claiming...

If you are going to reward BUSINESS then don't say it's a FASHION award... A fashion award should reward good collections, good designs, coherent outings...


But, actually, these days fashion is less about fashion than ever. It's just a competition to see who sells more. So maybe I'll have to agree with her... :rolleyes:
 
I am so very pleased to see Robin has written this article because I thought the same thing when I saw that the Mulleavy sisters were nominated for the CFDA's Fashion award for Womenswear designer of the year. These girls were once impressively promising with the industry swooning for their ethereal designs but as swift as their accession was their plunge was even more severe. They have not created an impressive collection in YEARS, definitely not in the last year so they had absolutely no place in the nominations.

It is always commendable when an designer can create what they desire and show that to the world, but being an independent does not qualify your work to be insubstantial or even downright unattractive. For me in the context of this award, Rodarte's legitimacy should be called into question. What have these ladies done in the past year to earn this? Their designs nor brand (business) is pushing the industry.
 
^But that's not what the article is about. At all. In fact, I totally agree with you.
 
I am so very pleased to see Robin has written this article because I thought the same thing when I saw that the Mulleavy sisters were nominated for the CFDA's Fashion award for Womenswear designer of the year. These girls were once impressively promising with the industry swooning for their ethereal designs but as swift as their accession was their plunge was even more severe. They have not created an impressive collection in YEARS, definitely not in the last year so they had absolutely no place in the nominations.

It is always commendable when an designer can create what they desire and show that to the world, but being an independent does not qualify your work to be insubstantial or even downright unattractive. For me in the context of this award, Rodarte's legitimacy should be called into question. What have these ladies done in the past year to earn this? Their designs nor brand (business) is pushing the industry.

Exactly. I took this to be the point of the article, though it didn't place emphasis on the last year specifically.

I will say though that they have always reminded me of Emily Dickinson x 2--or the Bronte sisters--and certainly no one ever expected Emily to be practical. So far, though, they don't seem poised to leave that kind of legacy.
 
The only rarity in the article is someone in a major newspaper doing that obscure practice in fashion that consists of questioning what's being celebrated, and then questioning indirectly (and quite timidly) the CFDA and not even indirectly, Anna Wintour. Back to its actual input, she's giving us standard half-baked fashion journalism (not unlike her fashion show reviews...) and it often borders on personal territory, mostly because if you know anything about fashion, you'll know a lot of its "masters" aren't exactly PhD-holders, they're professionally untrained and "came out of nowhere" too. Rei too studied literature, Miuccia studied political science, so that small attempt to color her article with background credentials.. *flushes*

Then you have context, which she's completely adhering herself to being the whole point of the article: whether or not they have a legit presence to be awarded by the CFDA. The CFDA is a brothel, look at the list of people that present seasonally, it only takes one glance, and I'm assuming for Ghivan physical attendance, to see the horror of it all, their regular acts, new acts, celebrity trash shown as design, special appearances, their actual input as an event that presents both products and ideas in terms of garment design (close to zero if not minus zero..), what's prioritized and what isn't... inhale a lot of Nanette Leopre, Reem Acra, Richard Chai, then look at the CDFA's board of directors, let that simmer for about 10 minutes.. what are you supposed to nominate every few years? RODARTE! :lol:..

Now I wish people would grab a nerve, or just hold tightly that Pulitzer, and write about the CDFA itself and Anna Wintour and the vicious circle that has turned American design into sad spectacle that brings an industrial amount of rags to the table but nothing that "actually exists" next to what Milan, Paris, Tokyo and even London produce. Maybe even question what Parsons and the FIT have offered to the evolution of clothing design in the last 20 years, considering she cares about formal training.

I have always seen Rodarte as a bunch of appliqué s*it on the same dress... and Jason Wu isn't even part of that same group, Rodarte and their corny creations were an extension of that trend around 2004-2005 that expanded into many outlets and seemingly legit careers (Erin Fetherston, Leith Clark & Lula). The combination of celebrity customers, Los Angeles (where design output is so low so the little there is gets devoured..) and the exploitation of a popular trend has always made sense to me, especially as part of the New York offer, where a minimal display of identity seems strongly discouraged... whether all of it sells, or goes into production or influences a student somewhere.. that's debatable as none of that makes for a unique case in fashion, nor it prevents success or influence.. I think it benefits the platform it stands on, which is full of junk.. and that platform has an award event or something..
 
Well researched and written, Givhan certainly does raise a lot of very valid points. I've never cared about Rodarte and after reading this I still don't but it was a very interesting article nonetheless. Thanks for sharing.
 
So now Rodarte does exist in a way. They've just opened online store with their stuff, but you won't find runway items there. They have only their basic t-shirts, sweatshirts, some velour pants, shoes, scarfs and jewellery. I hope they will transform that store into their own platform of selling those expensive pieces from the runway, because Rodarte is kind of needed imho. They can have really bad taste etc., but they are able to create a dream.
 
^ Hmm, seems kinda strange that they don't have the runway pieces. Seems like a perfect way to sell samples at the very least ...
 
There is an interview up on Vogue.com today with Laura Mulleavy where she talks about the new e-commerce site, the way they do business and this Washington post article.

Laura Mulleavy on Rodarte’s Brand-New E-Commerce Site
JULY 25, 2016 1:23 PM
by STEFF YOTKA


Rodarte contains multitudes. The decade-old brand, dreamt into existence by sisters Kate and Laura Mulleavy, has done it all from costume Natalie Portman in Black Swan to create travel mugs for Starbucks. In between, they’ve produced a book; a football jersey worn by Jay Z; a series of hoodies and tees beloved by Will Ferrell and Elle Fanning alike; and will release their first feature film, Woodshock, starring Kirsten Dunst in 2017. None of this is even the main event: The sisters’ sylphlike dresses and gowns are a red carpet and editorial staple that built the brand into ’s go-to source for whimsy and magic. Today, the Mulleavys are embarking on yet another new adventure for their label, e-commerce.

I know what you’re thinking: How did they ever make an e-commerce site out of Rodarte? I’ll let designer Laura Mulleavy do the explaining, but in short, they made it with their favorite items, some reissues of outstanding pieces from collections past, and an eye turned to serving their customers and fans in ways they never could before. Read on for excerpts from Vogue.com’s conversation with Laura Mulleavy about Rodarte’s new e-store, now live at Rodarte.net.

Why does now feel like the right time to launch e-commerce?
Laura Mulleavy: We really started talking about doing e-commerce about a year ago, thinking about how we would want to approach it, slowly figuring out how we could develop something in a way that would reflect all the different variations of things that we do. We want to have direct access to our consumers, and also the people that would want things we have that aren’t available in smaller cities or in certain areas of the country.

How did you choose the selection of products to put on the site?
We thought about things that had a variety. I thought about things that I would be willing to buy online, as we figure out the language of online retail ourselves. It will be our only direct retail at Rodarte. We don’t have a store yet, so at first we wanted to offer various price points, things that we feel like people have a strong reaction to, and also reflect the idea of what we feel is core to the brand and to this idea of a California brand. Online is such a wonderful world and there’s so much access, and yet I find that people want to be taken to more personalized marketplaces that create a world around where they’re spending their time or their money. For example, we get to have the book that we did with Catherine Opie and Alec Soth on our site, which is something that we were so proud of at the time. It’s been at least five years since it came out, but I think it would be something cool for people to know about today. I didn’t have social media at the time to promote what that book meant and what it was. It will be cool to have that kind of voice now through our e-commerce

We also wanted to start with things that we get a lot of requests for. Bringing back product offerings, I thought that was a really fun way of using our voice online. We always have so many requests for our Spring 2014 booties and bringing those back in different variations has been really exciting. We’re also going to have a crystal padlock necklace that we had done in that collection, the response to it at the time was really exciting, and it’s a piece we still get requests for. It’s a cool way of speaking directly to the fans of the brand and giving them things that are asked for. It’s not something we normally get to do.

Why launch e-commerce with , shoes, accessories, and Radarte, but not runway pieces?
I think that runway, for us, is going to take a long time to translate our very fine products online. It’s something we’ve always been careful with all online vendors, in figuring out what the right voice is. Certain styles, we maybe made one to 10 of, and it’s a very special thing to want to communicate in a certain way, so I think that as we learn the voice of our online store then we can learn how to develop the specialized products in a space like that and treat it as specially as we want to. I understand that and we believe that it would just take a little bit more time to figure out the language for that. I definitely think it’s an end goal to have that kind of offering as well.

There is a difference between high design and high-design concepts within things that are available more quickly and more readily. I think that’s why our T-shirts have always done so well, and why people really respond to it: It came from a cool concept, it was conceptual, it was based in the idea that we grew up in Northern California, in Santa Cruz which is the home of skateboarding, and I think that we just always grew up in hoodies ourselves. As we say in California, you don’t really wear jackets that much. You either wear sweaters or you wear a sweatshirt. I think [the Radarte hoodies] came from a vernacular that would always be a part of what we do, but it also gives an offering of something that’s more direct and quick to thought because that’s how people use that type of clothing in their life.

Earlier in the year there was an article in the Washington Post that questioned if Rodarte “actually existed” because of your nontraditional business model. How did you respond to that?
I don’t really have a direct response to it, however I feel like in a situation like that you have to wonder where information is being pulled from, what someone really cares about. For me, I think our intentions as designers have been very obvious in the industry in what we care about personally, in what we care about our legacy to be. I think that we care about design. We’re independent designers that really believe in the idea of independence and the idea of creative freedom. With that comes, in this industry currently today, a big responsibility because it’s so rare. I think voices that are independent should be more celebrated than they are.

Is there a business aspect to your creative process or is it that you trust that if you follow your vision the people who are on the same page as you are will follow it too?
I think it’s kind of a combination. Kate and I, we run our company. We’re essentially the people that make all the business decisions. However, I think we let our creative voice take responsibility for everything because we count on that to be the thing that attracts people that care about our work. The times when we haven’t done it is when I feel like we haven’t been as excited about our collections and the response to them. I think what I’ve learned is that what makes brands survive and have a voice within the sea of everyone that can create is to really follow your vision and your individual voice. When we do a collection, I don’t really think we think so much about what’s going to sell because I don’t think we can ever predict that. However, when you do see something coming together and you think, “That’s so pretty and I want that!” it’s a fun and exciting moment. But I’ve never really been able to predict what people respond to so much—I just do allow a moment of spontaneity with that part of the process.

Why is it important to you and Kate to maintain your creative and financial independence? And how have you managed it over the past decade?
I think our minds are just that way. I think strangely enough, that is one of the industries in the world that will always accept the outsider’s voice. It’s very exclusive, but at the same time it’s very inclusive to having visionary ideas, and I think that’s one of the things that people always look to for and maybe what brings people to being a fan of . Kate and I were just raised in an artistic-minded household, with a severe love for independence and having your own voice and I think that’s just allowed us to follow our own vision. I just can’t imagine it any other way. It’s part of who we are. It’s a very difficult thing to achieve but I do think it lets the design process be fun and inspiring for us.

What do you see as some of the other goals of the e-store other than just increasing revenue and growing your reach?
I think it will be exciting because I feel like it will be more interactive and more immediate. You can understand what people like directly through you, you can respond fast. You can do things on a whim, it doesn’t need to be based on a season. You can say, “Someone brought up this old piece they want us to bring back and we can.” I think it’s going to allow a lot of spontaneity to our process.

Do you see the e-commerce site as a gateway to a brick and mortar store?
Well, we definitely will want one. I think that’s the ultimate goal for a brand, to have a place that really represents the vision. I think it’s exciting for consumers to be able to go to a space like that where it feels like you’re really a part of understanding something. In the long term that would definitely be a goal.
 
Do you see the e-commerce site as a gateway to a brick and mortar store?
Well, we definitely will want one.

tumblr_n8rxlku6a31rbl71oo1_250.gif

rebloggy.com
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,697
Messages
15,196,413
Members
86,678
Latest member
soapfan
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->