Discussions about the fashion industry thread

[badeggcat]

@xeoniq Dude, are you talking about these logo t-shirts, which are probably their best sellers? If you can’t smell the aughts aesthetic on those, you really should spend more time on the forum!

 

[xeoniq]

Yes, brother. Timeless. I don't even know why they even bothered making other versions of that sweet "M's Fitz Roy Horizons Responsili-Tee(r)" model. Never goes out of style.

 

[London]

Let’s not fall into false equivalences again. There are strict labor and safety laws in the US. There are mandatory workers comp laws, mandatory PFL, etc etc… Minimum wage is also $15 in NYC. If you’re saying that some illegal workshops are literally operating outside of the law, it’s a different conversation altogether. One of law enforcement, not labor practices.

Of course there are illegal sweatshops that use undocumented workers, just like a lot of industries do

 

[Zamb]

Well in sustainability reporting and in certain quality control systems that focus on sustainability (triple bottom line so environmental, people, profit as Zissou mentioned) such as ISO14001, this all is articulated in measurable targets with action plans and people accountable for ensuring progress on various fronts. There have been significant transparency improvements made as these companies seek to gain further advantage from reporting on these non-financial outputs and are involving independent auditor firms that specialise in this or at least also offer sustainability reporting to their portfolio of services.

I've always felt that this is something more for investors and regulators to worry about, not consumers. There is just too much misinformation online, a lack of understanding of what is possible (some companies are just a lot more sustainable by virtue of their business model, with or without quality control and improvement systems in place) and it's why I personally feel that it's ridiculous to put the responsibility on the consumer. As you mentioned earlier, this is something that governments should be regulating as they do have the responsibility to protect consumers and workers, to protect the environment that society depends on to thrive, and so on.

For these reasons and more, brands like Patagonia have always left a sour taste in my mouth. They claim to be doing good and working as an example for others in the industry, but in practice the majority of the products they sell are the fast-fashion equivalent of outdoors gears: retailed in malls in large quantities and designed for fleeting fashion trends and certainly not made to last. There is more Patagonia clothing rotting in landfills than there would be of higher end, purpose-made outdoor gear; let alone some expensive "artisinal" fashion piece.

Someone mentioned earlier that its impossible to know the actual processes of the brands they buy from and I think for the most part that is true, however I'd guess that brands like @Zamb do have rather transparent productions just because its a smaller system, made locally and sold mostly in the market he makes it and he's always been pretty active taking photos of his workshop and staff. So while it is pretty much impossible to know what Nike et al. is actually doing to be more "sustainable" we can see just in the way that companies sell and distribute their products, even the design and materials of the products, who is having a worse impact on our world than others. I don't have any Zam Barrett items but from what I've seen of his posting here, brands like his would certainly be my pick if you wanted to buy something brand new, that aren't making low cost disposable "products" but rather "clothes" that you wear (and would want to actually use at their relative price), and that have a working environment that is local that you can actually see first hand if you cared enough.

To summarise, big fashion companies present too many "sustainability" problems just by participating in high volume sales, it's not the consumer's responsibility to know or understand which of these large corporations is doing the least damage, and if you want to do something about it, support small brands (I am sure we could all list a handful) and be proactive in advocating government regulation of not just the production but the retail of clothes in your part of the world.

thanks for the shoutout.

we dont go around promoting ourselves as a sustainable brand, but sustainability for us is survival

we are not rich, but there is great joy that i find in doing this work and yes our workers are paid fairly, treated with respect and enjoy working for the company.

The cost of doing business in New York is VERY expensive, with rent being the biggest challenge, but we

1. buy most of our materials in New York (and use predominantly NATURAL materials) there is no shortage of good fabrics in the continental US, so no point in spending thousands in money and lots of time importing anything

2. For leathers work with mostly tanneries in NY (Johnstown) the only exception being horse leather we either source from horween or one of their partners who sell to us

3. I have stopped importing anything, whether it be supplies or fabrics (because shipping costs and custom duties are bad for pricing)

4. We have our own factories where everything is designed, cut, sewn and finished here

5. We ALWAYS welcome clients/ customers and friends who come and visit the space, have a drink, see work being done etc. Many of them get to know personally the people who are making their clothes, and even say hello/ bring gifts.

the overall problem is not a simple one, money trumps principles on the mind of most modern, capitalist businesspeople. whatever brings the most return on ones investment even if it "enslaves" other human beings in far areas, is going to be what a lot of companies practice, even in their public preaching is something very different

 

[Zamb]

Of course there are illegal sweatshops that use undocumented workers, just like a lot of industries do

a distinction should be made between a sweatshop, and the use of undocumented workers.
and this again is not a simple problem, especially in a place here like NEW YORK.
the state government here has been taking steps to allow people who dont have green cards to work, the get State ID's, they are allowed to have drivers licenses, they can apply for TAX ID's
Many of them are valuable employees who are paid well. that is a very different thing from a company with poor labor conditions, having people working inanely long hours and paying them BELOW the wages that the laws mandate as minimum wage.


We just have a ton of "migrants' that were bussed from FLORIDA and TEXAS, Im supposed to be in a meeting today with the Mayor as the shelters are overflowing and they need help, and we are trying to to figure out how to proceed. these people will need to work.................what then is the solution if no one hires them?

 

[Reginald Bartholomew]

Of course there are illegal sweatshops that use undocumented workers, just like a lot of industries do

And this is fundamentally a question of business (not labour, let's be clear who has agency here) practices, not law enforcement. The latter is downstream of the legal and illegal activities that many firms, apparel and otherwise, choose to engage in as a way to squeeze their wage bill/the lives of workers, with enforcement being an input into a cost/benefit analysis. This goes well beyond the immigration status of labourers and includes things like the withholding of wages of wages (unpaid overtime, minimum wage violations, illegal deductions, unpaid breaks), scheduling fuckery, closing facilities that make elevated demands on the employer, etc.

 

[Epaulet]

I am curious if Epaulet or American Trench will chime in on the made in USA conversation.

I feel like Eva has discussed that the workers at Rochester clothing are paid fairly, but I could be wrong. Curious about the other factories they use.

It seems like there is a layer secrecy with USA made clothing. Brands like Gustin don't seem to want to let people know what factory their clothing is made in, just that it is in the USA. I don't know if it is fear of backlash or fear of competition

On the other side of that coin, is a company like Bgreen apparel. They seem to focus on their "living wages" and providing benefits to their employees.

I don't really think there is a simple answer to the "sustainability" issue. Personally, more transparency would be great. I love the idea of knowing exactly where my money is going and support companies that have the same ethics as I do. I also believe the other focus needs to be on consuming less. I've seen some bad ass clothing and fabrics recently but it is hard to justify buying another sweater/shirt etc. when I already have a closet full of clothing I hardly ever wear.

I can only speak for my portion of the MiUSA clothing industry, but I've always insisted on using factories that treat their workers fairly. This is the right thing to do and it's also the necessary thing to do if you want to produce clothing on our level. There are certainly low-cost sweatshops in the bigger production centers (LA & NYC), but unless you guys want really cheap clubbing dresses or stretchy polyester knit tops, then they're most likely not making a product that's even on your radar.

Our East Coast factories like Hickey Freeman and Individualized Shirt are staffed with unionized workers. They have clearly defined schedules, salary, and benefits. Our West Coast facility is not unionized (which is the norm here), but it's a small collective business with only a few individuals working there. Ming and I visit them a few times a week, so I see everything first-had.

It's pretty typical for all brands to keep their business connections under their hat. It's valuable knowledge, and some freelance production managers earn their living by leveraging this knowledge. This isn't just a MiUSA thing... it's common for pretty much any consumer product. Gustin isn't revealing its factories because they don't want to make it easy for a Gustin 2.0 to come in on their turf.

The problem is that there's basically nothing you can do to buy "ethical" clothing, right?

Clothes made in the US are also made by overworked and underpaid workers, hell it may be even worse here than overseas because the cost of living is so much higher here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/17/la-garment-workers-minimum-wage-factory

Almost no brands, even among the highly priced ones favored here (and by myself) are even remotely transparent about their process. I recently saw an interview with Evan Kinori where it says he uses factories that pay a living wage, but there's absolutely nothing anywhere online to back that up, making me think he probably uses those same factories mentioned in the article above: https://www.blackbirdspyplane.com/p/evan-kinori-interview-2022

Regarding legislation, it can help, as California recently made it illegal to pay garment workers less than minimum wage, but... can you imagine being a skilled artisan making minimum wage in California? This article references a factory in Huntington Beach that makes a bunch of denim---I wonder if it's the factory used by Freenote Cloth who make 300 dollar jeans and shirts in Huntington Beach. Seems like if you're charging 300 dollars for a piece that someone making minimum wage made, either ethically made but reasonably priced clothing is impossible, or there's someone making a lot of money in between: https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/greater-la/labor-rights-salaries-pets/garment-workers-hourly-pay

Edit: another brief thought: 3Sixteen recently moved a lot of their production to India, where presumably workers are paid way less due to much lower cost of living. But their prices didn't change. So, either they were ludicrously underpaying their workers in their US factories, or they're "artisan-washing", for lack of a better term, their desire for higher margins, which they achieve the same way every brand does: by moving to cheaper labor.

I used to produce at the same factory as Evan Kinori, and I can assure you that the workers are treated really well there. Most of them have been working in the same spot for over 10 years as this point, and they're given timed breaks, paid vacation, and a good salary. It's a garment factory... so not the prettiest work environment. And they're not collecting the paycheck of a surgeon. But for first-gen immigrants without a formal education, it's a solid livelihood, and a better job than a lot of the service industry positions that would pay the same rate.

Also, when you see a retail price like Freenote, you can generally divide it by 5.5 to get the cost price. Let's assume that this Freenote pant is being sold by a shop like Blue in Greene. Here's a breakdown:

Cost to produce Freenote Jean: $60
Wholesale price to Blue In Greene: $125
Retail price to you: $300

Admittedly, I imagine that Freenote sells a lot of their stuff directly and captures quite a bit of that extra margin. But when things are wholesaled, the majority of the profit is on the retailer's side. But so are the costs. Maintaining a retail location and investing in inventory is a huge expense. You can't just walk into a store with one pair of jeans on the wall and say, "oh great, I'll take those." Customers need a wide range of options. The margins in apparel are so much higher than things like electronics because you need to stock such a huge range of SKU's (sizes, colors, variants), and the retail value of your merchandise can have dramatic swings (try selling a full price winter coat after Dec 24th, even though it's still cold AF).

Must be the same people complaining about Brooks Brothers not being MiUSA anymore then moaning about the price tags for the actual MiUSA garments that BB produces.

It do be like that. I'll get served Facebook ads by all these startup companies who are making jeans in Detroit or so. And the very first comments of "$80 for a jean... RIDICULOUS!!!" are always made by people with American flag user images. Cost is always the primary motivator for most customers, and they have no problem with mental gymnastics to justify it.

Made in the USA is ambiguous. A garment can be finished here and considered made in the USA. There’s a perception that the working conditions are better in the US and I suppose they are, but they have sweatshops right in the heart of the garment district.

Actually, the MiUSA designation is really restrictive here. What you're saying can totally work for Made in Italy - which is often a scam. But Made in USA requires that the item is actually made here. New Balance got sued for it recently.

 

[schraiber]

I can only speak for my portion of the MiUSA clothing industry, but I've always insisted on using factories that treat their workers fairly. This is the right thing to do and it's also the necessary thing to do if you want to produce clothing on our level. There are certainly low-cost sweatshops in the bigger production centers (LA & NYC), but unless you guys want really cheap clubbing dresses or stretchy polyester knit tops, then they're most likely not making a product that's even on your radar.

Our East Coast factories like Hickey Freeman and Individualized Shirt are staffed with unionized workers. They have clearly defined schedules, salary, and benefits. Our West Coast facility is not unionized (which is the norm here), but it's a small collective business with only a few individuals working there. Ming and I visit them a few times a week, so I see everything first-had.

It's pretty typical for all brands to keep their business connections under their hat. It's valuable knowledge, and some freelance production managers earn their living by leveraging this knowledge. This isn't just a MiUSA thing... it's common for pretty much any consumer product. Gustin isn't revealing its factories because they don't want to make it easy for a Gustin 2.0 to come in on their turf.



I used to produce at the same factory as Evan Kinori, and I can assure you that the workers are treated really well there. Most of them have been working in the same spot for over 10 years as this point, and they're given timed breaks, paid vacation, and a good salary. It's a garment factory... so not the prettiest work environment. And they're not collecting the paycheck of a surgeon. But for first-gen immigrants without a formal education, it's a solid livelihood, and a better job than a lot of the service industry positions that would pay the same rate.

Also, when you see a retail price like Freenote, you can generally divide it by 5.5 to get the cost price. Let's assume that this Freenote pant is being sold by a shop like Blue in Greene. Here's a breakdown:

Cost to produce Freenote Jean: $60
Wholesale price to Blue In Greene: $125
Retail price to you: $300

Admittedly, I imagine that Freenote sells a lot of their stuff directly and captures quite a bit of that extra margin. But when things are wholesaled, the majority of the profit is on the retailer's side. But so are the costs. Maintaining a retail location and investing in inventory is a huge expense. You can't just walk into a store with one pair of jeans on the wall and say, "oh great, I'll take those." Customers need a huge range of options. The margins in apparel are so much higher than things like electronics because you need to stock such a huge range of SKU's (sizes, colors, variants), and the retail value of your merchandise can have huge swings (try selling a full price winter coat after Dec 24th).



It do be like that. I'll get served Facebook ads by all these startup companies who are making jeans in Detroit or so. And the very first comments of "$80 for a jean... RIDICULOUS!!!" are always made by people with American flag user images. Cost is always the primary motivator for most customers, and they have no problem with mental gymnastics to justify it.



Actually, the MiUSA designation is really restrictive here. What you're saying can totally work for Made in Italy - which is often a scam. But Made in USA requires that the item is actually made here. New Balance got sued for it recently.

Thanks! This is amazingly detailed and super informative. Big part of why I appreciate this forum

 

[michaellosauro]

Actually, the MiUSA designation is really restrictive here. What you're saying can totally work for Made in Italy - which is often a scam. But Made in USA requires that the item is actually made here. New Balance got sued for it recently.

The brand "Lions Not Sheep" just got in trouble for much of the same. They purchased Chinese-made t-shirt blanks, took out the tags, and printed their own "Made in USA" tags on them. (I won't even go into the irony of this particular genre of company doing this.)

 

[BlakeRVA]

Some well-known names have been getting wrung out on the public markets this year. Not too surprising considering Venture Capital firms were throwing money around at insane valuations while the stock market was at all time highs through 2020 and most of 2021. I'm most sympathetic to Warby Parker (good glasses at affordable prices), but they lost $92M last year and have such a narrow product portfolio it's hard to imagine them being the next 'Amazon' (i.e. paper loses from reinvesting and aggressively expanding into new categories and markets). SKIMS seems to be crushing it, but interested to see if they have the financials to be a self-sufficient company and ultimately can IPO.

IPO Returns Show Fashion Startups Were Not Runway Ready

A Crunchbase survey of six venture-backed companies in the fashion industry that went public last year shows an average post-IPO decline of 74%.

news.crunchbase.com

 

[sushijerk]

I still see Warby expanding the retail footprint pretty aggressively so I'm not sure what the strategy is. Wasn't the whole point being online cuts out the middlemen and all that?

 

[LA Guy]

I still see Warby expanding the retail footprint pretty aggressively so I'm not sure what the strategy is. Wasn't the whole point being online cuts out the middlemen and all that?

Strategies change. Shipping costs to a hub vs .to individual addresses are exponentially lower. Shipping, handling, and the rate at which samples are expended are exponentially less expensive in a physical showroom than to individual customers. Though there is not the problem of bracketing that occurs for say, clothing retailers (maybe someone like @gdl203 can speak to this for small retailers), the costs that are incurred because the internet is still not an easy place to sell fashion are still considerable. It would make sense to put some physical locations in areas where there are a lot of customers. And you could easily put into place incentives for customers to go to that location instead of using the online services only. Things like same day or 1 hour service. And that does not dissuade the same customer for usng the online site for something like buying a replacement pair, or a backup pair, which have much lower return rates and other high cost consumer practices.

 

[smittycl]

 

[Zamb]

while history is important, I am way more concern with the present

 

[BlakeRVA]

The Gap, Balenciaga, Vogue, now Adidas have all severed ties. What's next for Ye in fashion?

Adidas Ends Yeezy Partnership

The German sportswear brand responded to mounting public and internal pressure to cut its lucrative ties with the celebrity following a series of antisemitic remarks.

www.businessoffashion.com