Why Is The Fashion Industry In The State That It's In Today?

[blueorchid]

I dunno, I've seen D&G licensed pasta...

 

[Lola701]

Let's talk about the fashion industry, please.

I always wonder if a collection is going to be produced (big quantity or very exclusive numbers) or the fashion show I'm looking at is just branding to sell shoes and bags. Which brands are the real main players of luxury pret a porter clothes? I heard d&g main business is pret a porter. Versace too. What about the parisian brands?

Why some brands relie on this model? Why don't they just show their bags in a show room? Is it less glamourous? Not to mention the conglomerates pulling the strings on all of this (except the independent brands).

And the million dollar question that plagues my brain: why does fashion relie so much on marketing? It was big before the internet, but now it's hemorrhagic. It doesn't make sense exclusive luxury brands having this much of exhibitionism towards the masses.

You don’t necessarily look at things with the right angle…
You have to go from the preconceived idea that clothes you see on the runway exists. Indeed they exists because you see them.
There’s a creative intention behind it, a statement or whatever but they exists.

Then, there’s a business of fashion that revolve around those clothes. That’s where you have to put things into perspective and look at the brands and strategies.

The business of fashion has evolved but the reality is that it’s hard to maintain a business, expect big growth and rely only on clothes while maintaining a certain prestige.

And it’s a question of scales.
YSL is historically a fashion house. They makes 3 billions in sales. Their beauty entity is not integrated in the group. The fashion operation (RTW and shoes) represents 20% of their sales, with 12% for their clothes. 12% of 3 billions is huge already.
The last show may have been done for image, as a statement, to create a strong vision, it still had blouses and some suits people may wear that will probably influence what is going on in the stores.

The idea of showing bags in the showrooms is only relevant today if you are Hermes, Delvaux or brands like Louboutin and Pierre Hardy. Nobody wants to miss on the opportunity of having that huge platform that is social media. Clients go to boutiques asking for things they saw on social media.

You can afford to not show bags if you are also a big brand that can afford to advertise them in a different way. If you can send gift to celebrities and then have them in aggressive campaigns around the world, it can work.

Fashion relies so much on marketing because it’s like a mouse running on a wheel. Brands have to grow, financial goals have to be reached so collections have to be made, stores have to be filled and you have to create constant desire and sollicitate the consumer at all time.
The reality is that in a more pragmatic way, luxury brands, when well managed can never be hurt. No matter how seeing Birkin and Chanel bags seems banal through social media, it’s still rare for the mass IRL.

Vuitton is much more controlled than Gucci. Michele did a great job but they pushed it so much that it became banal. It backfired and now they have to restart over. No matter how aggressive Vuitton is with their marketing, the only place you can buy Vuitton products is Vuitton shops or shops in shops.

 

[Alquimista]

You don’t necessarily look at things with the right angle…
You have to go from the preconceived idea that clothes you see on the runway exists. Indeed they exists because you see them.
There’s a creative intention behind it, a statement or whatever but they exists.

Then, there’s a business of fashion that revolve around those clothes. That’s where you have to put things into perspective and look at the brands and strategies.

The business of fashion has evolved but the reality is that it’s hard to maintain a business, expect big growth and rely only on clothes while maintaining a certain prestige.

And it’s a question of scales.
YSL is historically a fashion house. They makes 3 billions in sales. Their beauty entity is not integrated in the group. The fashion operation (RTW and shoes) represents 20% of their sales, with 12% for their clothes. 12% of 3 billions is huge already.
The last show may have been done for image, as a statement, to create a strong vision, it still had blouses and some suits people may wear that will probably influence what is going on in the stores.

The idea of showing bags in the showrooms is only relevant today if you are Hermes, Delvaux or brands like Louboutin and Pierre Hardy. Nobody wants to miss on the opportunity of having that huge platform that is social media. Clients go to boutiques asking for things they saw on social media.

You can afford to not show bags if you are also a big brand that can afford to advertise them in a different way. If you can send gift to celebrities and then have them in aggressive campaigns around the world, it can work.

Fashion relies so much on marketing because it’s like a mouse running on a wheel. Brands have to grow, financial goals have to be reached so collections have to be made, stores have to be filled and you have to create constant desire and sollicitate the consumer at all time.
The reality is that in a more pragmatic way, luxury brands, when well managed can never be hurt. No matter how seeing Birkin and Chanel bags seems banal through social media, it’s still rare for the mass IRL.

Vuitton is much more controlled than Gucci. Michele did a great job but they pushed it so much that it became banal. It backfired and now they have to restart over. No matter how aggressive Vuitton is with their marketing, the only place you can buy Vuitton products is Vuitton shops or shops in shops.

That's what I want to understand. How do these clothes exist? I can develop the idea of them being images, statements or even technical marvels like concept cars, and they serve that function well. Fashion clearly is dependent on marketing. It can't be totally elitist like furniture design or architecture. The system around it makes it exist. That's a fact. We liking it or not.

But I wasn't even suggesting getting rid of all this and just quietly sell clothes, I know that's not possible. And it's nice of you to show the numbers and the context of those numbers because it shows that fashion shows play their part in it, the celebrity embassador too, they're not burning money at random. it's also interesting to think that small brands need to play this game even more than the big players cause they need the visibility, the hype, etc.

It's a business, i know. I'm far from a purist or a socialist here. The questions I made were more about trying to make sense of this system. CEOS can get too confortable with a strategy and never question what they're doing. And usually it's design that takes the bullet.

What I want to know is how can this very lucrative, very fast paced industry build a space where good design can flourish? A space to yes, make amazing things on the runaway, but also give a stellar pret a porter for the clients. My true fear is fashion design becoming too lofty, idealist and losing connection with people, or becoming too banal and losing creativity. Clearly we're in a banal phase (Chanel, Dior, Gucci, etc, etc).

 

[FashionFanatico]

One sentence says it all: «Once a year, Andrea Barrientos, a 75-year-old subsistence farmer in the Peruvian Andes, works free of charge for the world’s richest person.» ​

​

The Loro Piana $9,000 sweater scandal is the tip of the iceberg​

The industry will only pay workers fair wages when we force it to.​

ALEX LEACH

Last week, Bloomberg published an investigation of the Vicuña wool used by Loro Piana, the ultra-ultra-expensive luxury house that’s owned by Bernard Arnault, who is on and off the world’s richest man. Vicuña is a kind of llama that’s found high up in the Andes, and its wool is the world’s most expensive fiber — much more luxe than cashmere, alpaca and mohair. The publication interviewed a villager in Peru who was working without pay to shear Vicuña wool that would be then used by Loro Piana to make some of the world’s most expensive clothes.
Andrea Barrientos, the 75-year-old who was interviewed in Bloomberg’s piece, lives in Lucanas, an indigenous community of subsistence farmers high up in the Peruvian Andes. Once a year, Lucanas’s farmers gather herds of Vicuña to shear them for their ultra-valuable wool, which is then sold exclusively to Loro Piana. The Lucanas farmers don’t get enough money to pay everyone, so Barrientos volunteers her work for free. She’s never even seen a piece made of Vicuña before. And on the other side of the world, the wool she’s harvested is used to make sweaters that cost $9,000. That price tag sounds like outrageous clickbait, but it’s true. As well as $9,735 cardigans, you’ll also find Vicuña wool in Loro Piana’s baseball caps ($2,100 — with a cashmere lining), or blended with silk and cashmere in a bomber jacket ($20,150).

There’s a lot more to the story — it involves the Peruvian government, which regulates the cultivation and sale of Vicuña wool, the Lucanas community leaders who decide who’s paid for their work, and of course, Loro Piana, which has built an entire operation in Peru to secure its access to Vicuña. But regardless of the details, the asymmetry is shocking. Subsistence farmers in Peru, who live without plumbing in houses made of mud, working in poverty to cultivate the world’s most expensive fibers, which are sold by the world’s most expensive brand, owned by one of the world’s richest men.
Even for a luxury house, Loro Piana’s prices are insane — it’s a brand for the 1%, and the 1% only. The obscene prices these guys are charging are just a depressing sign of the times. Income inequality has skyrocketed in the last 20 years — in 2007, Forbes calculated that there were 946 billionaires in the world, but now there’s 2,640. Luxury houses are jumping at the chance to make more money out of the ultra-rich, and are making themselves even richer in the process. Bernard Arnault is on-and-off the world’s richest man, with a current net worth of $235.9 billion, up there with Bezos and Musk and the rest of them.

ALECLEACH.COM

 

[ecnerretneerg]

Instagram and Tik Tok are the problem. Why the f**k else would Prada put a triangle logo on every RTW piece? With more visibility and accessibility than ever, these brands are scamming people that can’t even pronounce brand names, let alone ever heard of them. They know modern consumers only care about social (media) class and currency. That’s why brands can get away with producing unnecessary collaborations and mediocre, logo emblazoned clothes.

Additionally, I think “archive culture” is partially to blame. Two things are happening:
- Vintage/archival fashion is going to grow faster than new luxury.
- Archive culture indirectly affects re-sale culture. A lot of people are buying sh*t because they think they’ll be able to flip in on 1stDibs in 20+ years. The fashion industry isn't forced to put out culturally relevant, interesting clothes anymore because most people can’t make the distiction between what’s trendy and what’s “future vintage.”

 

[Drusilla_]

^the problem is exactly that - people have no idea what will actually stand the test of time to become worthy of representing a designer's work. Miu Miu Spring/Summer 2022 miniskirt set? I get it. Random white dress with Prada triangle on the front? No.

 

[philophile]

Instagram and Tik Tok are the problem. Why the f**k else would Prada put a triangle logo on every RTW piece? With more visibility and accessibility than ever, these brands are scamming people that can’t even pronounce brand names, let alone ever heard of them. They know modern consumers only care about social (media) class and currency. That’s why brands can get away with producing unnecessary collaborations and mediocre, logo emblazoned clothes.

Additionally, I think “archive culture” is partially to blame. Two things are happening:
- Vintage/archival fashion is going to grow faster than new luxury.
- Archive culture indirectly affects re-sale culture. A lot of people are buying sh*t because they think they’ll be able to flip in on 1stDibs in 20+ years. The fashion industry isn't forced to put out culturally relevant, interesting clothes anymore because most people can’t make the distiction between what’s trendy and what’s “future vintage.”

Yes, I absolutely agree social media culture focusing on status symbol plays a big role.

I fail to entirely understand your thoughts on why archive culture is partially to blame, though. I think people started to purchase archive fashion to contribute to sustainability, as it leads to less demand for 'newness' and overproduction. Admittedly, it has kind of become a monster, where it's more about displaying trophies. Buying vintage in general is a good thing and the best way to be truly eco-conscious. I honestly think that the fashion industry doesn't put out culturally relevant, and interesting clothes, because it's simply cheaper for them to produce basics. It's mostly greed or maybe this is wishful thinking from my part: Perhaps they think they are contributing somehow to the climate crisis by designing basics, instead of distinct, interesting clothes that might lead to trends, which is one of the things that has been so harmful to our planet and led to wild consumerist habits? Maybe I'm just being naive..

 

[ecnerretneerg]

Yes, I absolutely agree social media culture focusing on status symbol plays a big role.

I fail to entirely understand your thoughts on why archive culture is partially to blame, though. I think people started to purchase archive fashion to contribute to sustainability, as it leads to less demand for 'newness' and overproduction. Admittedly, it has kind of become a monster, where it's more about displaying trophies. Buying vintage in general is a good thing and the best way to be truly eco-conscious. I honestly think that the fashion industry doesn't put out culturally relevant, and interesting clothes, because it's simply cheaper for them to produce basics. It's mostly greed or maybe this is wishful thinking from my part: Perhaps they think they are contributing somehow to the climate crisis by designing basics, instead of distinct, interesting clothes that might lead to trends, which is one of the things that has been so harmful to our planet and led to wild consumerist habits?

I guess what I mean is that the industry is approaching a time where shoppers are consuming luxury fashion like fast fashion. Brands are pushing the idea that status (a basic logo-emblazoned piece or high-streetwear collaboration) equates with value (re-sale value, top quality and design, etc.) To me, this is an indirect affect of archive culture.

Customers are buying multiples of pieces simply to re-sell them, or because they could be valuable in the future. For example, you can go on Vestiaire or Resee right now and buy NWT Phoebe Philo pieces for less than what’s on her site. When people just buy and buy with the intention on re-selling, the designer landfill becomes as large as a Zara or Shein landfill.

 

[Drusilla_]

@philophile I think the point being made is that new luxury clothing is being positioned as 'future vintage' and being treated like it's going to be future archive material just for being 'designer', regardless of actual design merits.

 

[jeanclaude]

 

[avonlea002]

That's the near future of all these mega LVMH/Kering brands. If they want fast fashion brand's income, they will have to operate like one.

 

[Drusilla_]

I hate to say it but D&G licensed pasta at least makes sense for Dolce & Gabbana as a brand, or any Italian brand that leans into kitsch e.g. Moschino (they did pasta prints and embellishments even before Jeremy Scott's arrival). I wonder what the French-label equivalent would be? Cheese? Chocolate?

 

[blueorchid]

I wonder what the French-label equivalent would be? Cheese? Chocolate?

Cigarettes 🤣

 

[Drusilla_]

^pfffft, as expected 🤣

 

[chriswiles]

I've not really read through this entire thread, but the topic is interesting. My views based on working closely with brands in this industry:

1) People are ruining their own brands by walking into a boutique to try on the latest season, refusing to pay full price, then turning to Mr Porter, MyTheresa, Matches (when it existed) and FarFetch to obtain a 10% new season discount. I won't name brands, but they tell me it drives them crazy how many times people want in and tell them that X online retailer will offer them 10-15% discount from new season...so don't buy in-store. You could argue they should offer a discount themselves, but their view is it devalues a luxury brand.

2) Gen Z and even some 30-somethings just do not align with the luxury brands we know and love. They just do not generally buy into Tom Ford, Chanel or Loro Piana like some of us. They cannot get close to the prices either, meaning that all these brands are relying on a 40+ age group which is declining as it ages. With retail generally declining too, it's on a downward spiral.

 

[LadyJunon]

I've not really read through this entire thread, but the topic is interesting. My views based on working closely with brands in this industry:

1) People are ruining their own brands by walking into a boutique to try on the latest season, refusing to pay full price, then turning to Mr Porter, MyTheresa, Matches (when it existed) and FarFetch to obtain a 10% new season discount. I won't name brands, but they tell me it drives them crazy how many times people want in and tell them that X online retailer will offer them 10-15% discount from new season...so don't buy in-store. You could argue they should offer a discount themselves, but their view is it devalues a luxury brand.

I'm not surprised at all. SSense and H.Lorenzo are even worse, because it's often the main stockist for lots of indie brands. I've noticed that more and more online stockists no longer sell bags from larger luxury brands. I think that these brands are reducing B2B and I believe that Celine has completed eliminated B2B for womenswear altogether.

2) Gen Z and even some 30-somethings just do not align with the luxury brands we know and love. They just do not generally buy into Tom Ford, Chanel or Loro Piana like some of us. They cannot get close to the prices either, meaning that all these brands are relying on a 40+ age group which is declining as it ages. With retail generally declining too, it's on a downward spiral.

It makes me wonder how the younger, "edgier" brands are doing in terms of sales.

 

[NYLA22]

I've not really read through this entire thread, but the topic is interesting. My views based on working closely with brands in this industry:

1) People are ruining their own brands by walking into a boutique to try on the latest season, refusing to pay full price, then turning to Mr Porter, MyTheresa, Matches (when it existed) and FarFetch to obtain a 10% new season discount. I won't name brands, but they tell me it drives them crazy how many times people want in and tell them that X online retailer will offer them 10-15% discount from new season...so don't buy in-store. You could argue they should offer a discount themselves, but their view is it devalues a luxury brand.

2) Gen Z and even some 30-somethings just do not align with the luxury brands we know and love. They just do not generally buy into Tom Ford, Chanel or Loro Piana like some of us. They cannot get close to the prices either, meaning that all these brands are relying on a 40+ age group which is declining as it ages. With retail generally declining too, it's on a downward spiral.

I'm curious what brands Gen-Z do align with... Or is their generation just really all about vintage?

 

[blueorchid]

the fact that we seem to be stuck in age of permanent nostalgia

 

[chriswiles]

I'm curious what brands Gen-Z do align with... Or is their generation just really all about vintage?

Well, the sports brands are doing well. Obviously Gymshark, but Lululemon and ASRV are expanding rapidly. A lot of 20-somethings I know seem to permanently live in sportswear and will also buy their every day clothes from those same brands.

 

[chriswiles]

Today’s fashion industry is on the one hand, in front of many challenges because of the short times of fast fashion cycles, problems with the environment use of labor forces and the changing moral values of the buyers.

Morals are one thing, but you could argue the 'morality' of, say, spending £1000 on a merino wool jumper from a luxury brand is simply out of most young people's remit - nothing more, nothing less. Also, like I said above, style has changed. Younger people tend to wear sportswear or casualwear from those brands and wouldn't dream of wearing 'formal' clothes from brands like Loro Piana and so on.

One funny. I was in London on Monday, completely dead. I went into Tom Ford on Sloane Street and was the only person in the store for the entire hour. They even admitted it was completely dead.

I drove up to the outlet centre, Bicester Village, expecting it to be quiet at 5pm on a Monday. Completely rammed. Queues outside Dior and similar stores and huge numbers of tourists with massive bags buys all kinds of discounted 'bargains'.

Most people just do not pay full price anymore - constant discounts from the likes of Amazon, Ryanair and other brands pushing discounts has changed the mindset of nearly everyone younger than 50.