Random fashion thoughts - Part II (A New Hope)

[ghostface]

re: grailed100-- they bought two of the n(n) pieces from me, and listed them for significantly less than they paid me for them.

so their move seems to be aimed more at generating hype and/or reputation than immediate profit.

 

[accordion]

yea I didn't think those were the original prices, I think the ethnic rider was listed at around 2k. Not sure if the attention is worth the money lost since new users will quickly find out that those deals don't really exist.

 

[Noctone]



Gotcha.

For the really engaged fashion consumer that may be a useful trade-off, but for the rabble I think the opportunity to handle at/potentially return to a retail outlet (plus the expectation of sales later in the season) is something people would really miss. I mean we're a long way from getting rid of retail altogether but it's sorta happening to mainstream department stores.

Yeah I was gonna throw in some more detailed explanations, including how it depends on what kind of consumer you are, but I was tired and just mailed in a post.

 

[dieworkwear]



The one I haven't seen mentioned though is that most people simply don't have the confidence to buy something without first seeing what is trending, and what cool stores, tastemakers, and trendsetters have bought and are wearing.

Wouldn't this just mean companies like Burberry and Tom Ford will release safer and safer designs? Basically things that are super trendy at the moment on the high-end, since they're the things they can sell right now?

yea I didn't think those were the original prices, I think the ethnic rider was listed at around 2k. Not sure if the attention is worth the money lost since new users will quickly find out that those deals don't really exist. 

Lawrence told me they're planning to do this once every six months or so. I don't know -- seems like a great idea to me. Way to generate excitement, get people to sign up, talk about the site, and also let people get things for less than they would have otherwise paid. I think the point is to show what kind of things can be had on Grailed if you look.

 

[t3hg0suazn]

re: grailed100-- they bought two of the n(n) pieces from me, and listed them for significantly less than they paid me for them.

so their move seems to be aimed more at generating hype and/or reputation than immediate profit.

This makes me wonder how many of the things sold today are going to reappear on the market tomorrow at hiked up prices.

 

[dieworkwear]



This makes me wonder how many of the things sold today are going to reappear on the market tomorrow at hiked up prices. 

You're supposedly restricted from reselling for a month, presumably with the threat of a ban. But even in a month's time, you could probably flip those for a profit.

 

[thatoneguy]

Grailed also bought from me, the Ann ornate overcoat, they priced it a little higher than they bought it for (I'm not 100% sure it's mine but I did sell that coat on grailed)

 

[Eddiee]

They bought 4 things from me and most of them are same price or lower.

 

[LA Guy]

Wouldn't this just mean companies like Burberry and Tom Ford will release safer and safer designs? Basically things that are super trendy at the moment on the high-end, since they're the things they can sell right now?

I don't see how this would be a necessary consequence, particularly since increasing the "see it, buy it" purchases would, if anything, encourage purchase of more difficult pieces, since customer sees them styled, rather than as a single piece out of context.

 

[RegisDB9]



Does Margiela produce everything in Romania now? @RegisDB9

I know Made in Romania vs. Made in Italy probably doesn't mean anything quality wise, but it does raise some ethical qualms. I noticed that AMI is also made in Romania, and I don't know how much I trust their "with love" promise. And generally fashion houses moving production to cheaper labor has been an ominous sign in terms of the future of the brand. I guess Margiela is under yoox < net-a-porter so it's inevitable. 
Too bad because SS16 and FW16 both looked really strong. 

Feels more like 40/50 in favor of Italy at the moment. I actively stay away from the MiR clothing though. You are right it doesn't really mean anything but I like seeing "Made in Italy". It makes me wonder sometimes though since Margiela e-boutique and YOOX flat out refuse to tell me where a piece is made...I get the same reply overtime "All of our garments are made to certain standards...blah blah.

My first question before buying an piece online is "where is this made". Since YOOX corp refuses to just answer a simple question I often go around searching for an item on Farfetch or Stylebop and then asking them where its made. Right now I am seeing a lot of T's being made in Turkey and a lot of pants in Romania. I even saw a Made in Romania 5Zip....usually it is just the odd knit in the collection

 

[troika]

re: gr@iled, I think we underestimate the value they put on hype and their willingness to lose $ initially to generate it...

yea bay got hot all of the sudden, wtf is going on its Feb

It's trite but nice weather is boring (for clothes). I've basically gotten rid of my old outerwear I didn't like and haven't bought any replacements cause the bay's been so hot

Its ridiculous. Ever since I moved from SF I can't even use the foggy and chilly nights as an excuse to wear coats anymore. Even when it rains here, a rain jacket is still plenty warm enough.

 

[dieworkwear]



I don't see how this would be a necessary consequence, particularly since increasing the "see it, buy it" purchases would, if anything, encourage purchase of more difficult pieces, since customer sees them styled, rather than as a single piece out of context.

I think it's because the companies that are likely to do this are small designers and big fashion houses. Not sure the first really matters, as they're likely to be experimental anyway. The second are companies big enough to have their own retail outlets, since (as far as I understand it) that's really the only way this runway-to-sales-floor model really works. Middle-sized companies can't pull this off very easily since they have to coordinate with a ton of stores who are running on their own schedules.

If you're a big fashion house with your own retail shops, you still have to move a ton of units. And with the kind of customer and sales volume you're likely dealing with, you have more pressure to react to trends. This isn't a pre-order thing (I don't think). This is: we have a runway show, and immediately after, you can go to the store to shop the collection. So the stuff is already made. You're still dealing with inventories; you're just streamlining the process (and incorporating runway shows and social media more into your marketing). When you have to invest that much into production, and you don't have time to help build a trend, the smartest move would seem to just follow trends.

I think Kyle is right, most people don't have the guts to buy things that aren't already trendy in some way or another. Early adopters tend to buy from small or middle sized companies, since they can afford to only move a small number of units. But those companies aren't the ones that are likely to adopt this business model.

Basically, this move just seems like it's going to push designer fashion into fast fashion, which isn't a very innovative/ risk-loving arena.

 

[LA Guy]

I think it's because the companies that are likely to do this are small designers and big fashion houses. Not sure the first really matters, as they're likely to be experimental anyway. The second are companies big enough to have their own retail outlets, since (as far as I understand it) that's really the only way this runway-to-sales-floor model really works. Middle-sized companies can't pull this off very easily since they have to coordinate with a ton of stores who are running on their own schedules.

If you're a big fashion house with your own retail shops, you still have to move a ton of units. And with the kind of customer and sales volume you're likely dealing with, you have more pressure to react to trends. This isn't a pre-order thing (I don't think). This is: we have a runway show, and immediately after, you can go to the store to shop the collection. So the stuff is already made. You're still dealing with inventories; you're just streamlining the process (and incorporating runway shows and social media more into your marketing). When you have to invest that much into production, and you don't have time to help build a trend, the smartest move would seem to just follow trends.

I think Kyle is right, most people don't have the guts to buy things that aren't already trendy in some way or another. Early adopters tend to buy from small or middle sized companies, since they can afford to only move a small number of units. But those companies aren't the ones that are likely to adopt this business model.

Basically, this move just seems like it's going to push designer fashion into fast fashion, which isn't a very innovative/ risk-loving arena.

Those houses have to invest a ton into production anyway.

And it's not as though under the current model, the most challenging pieces are the ones that sell through the most. The same things will sell as do now: luxurious basics (I'm looking at you, "investment" leather jackets), denim, sneakers, accessories. And right now, behind the scenes, after the show, when buying is actually done, there is a lot of horsetrading and taming of runways pieces so that buyers can feel somewhat secure, making really dramatic stuff both more widely appealing and at a more reasonably pricepoint than the runway piece, as shown, would go for.

At least with the fast fashion model, production can react to an interesting piece that catches fire, and we would skip that intermediate watering down step.

 

[dieworkwear]



Those houses have to invest a ton into production anyway.  

And it's not as though under the current model, the most challenging pieces are the ones that sell through the most.  The same things will sell as do now: luxurious basics (I'm looking at you, "investment" leather jackets), denim, sneakers, accessories.  And right now, behind the scenes, after the show, when buying is actually done, there is a lot of horsetrading and taming of runways pieces so that buyers can feel somewhat secure, making really dramatic stuff both more widely appealing and at a more reasonably pricepoint than the runway piece, as shown, would go for.

At least with the fast fashion model, production can react to an interesting piece that catches fire, and we would skip that intermediate watering down step.

I don't think the companies that can adopt this are the ones who can react to interesting pieces though. Again, they're big fashion houses with lots of store fronts; they have to move a lot more units. They'll be reacting to whatever designer pieces are just a tier "above" them (if we can think of trends as trickling down).

In 2016, that means more safe, tame versions of MA-1s, not some weird, wacky take on the bomber.

At least with the old model, designers have to predict what's going to be hot in a year or so, not just react to sales numbers and trend reports of what's immediately hot now. So they might have to guess whether MA-1s are going to be boring by fall 2017, which in turn means they have to gamble on what they think is reliable in trend forecast reports. That means a slowing down of trends, and probably some kind of diffusion (since I assume people bet on different things -- will printed jackets be popular? Military wear? More minimal design? etc). With this model, it just encourages everyone to move in a big wave, with the biggest companies following whatever pretty tame company is just above them on the "trend ladder."

 

[BostonHedonist]

Interesting how this "fast fashion" model has shifted some designers' inclinations from predicting/creating trends to attempting to analyzing what's in right now and deliver it quickly. I think all that really got going in the 90s when grunge threw everything for a loop and brands like Forever 21 and H&M grew like wildfires.

But in the 90s, there was still so much bling. Now it's not cool to show wealth. I suspect a combination of designing for what the masses actually wear and bling being out due to tough economic times paved the way for a great deal of basic cuts made luxurious by the fabric itself.