Savile Row: Viable Candidate for Reality TV?

[Holdfast]

Originally Posted by RJman

Thanks for the explanation. That's *****ng ridiculous. Savile Row used to be defined as an area between various streets in Mayfair, not just the street itself. I don't think the association's literalism does anyone any favors.

Judging by some of the comments on the programme comparing Savile Row Bespoke Association to Champagne and similar AOCs, I can only presume they believe the sewers under the street somehow provides their cloth with a unique terroir that disappears outside a 100 yard perimeter.

It WAS ridiculous.

The core concept of such an association is surely to enhance the branding and image of the Row in the eyes of the public, through supporting top quality tailoring standards, to garner new customers. That people meeting those high standards should be excluded simply because they were a few yards, or even a mile or so, outside a line is ridiculous and defeats the purpose. Do they think that by excluding, say, Edward Sexton from the association that they increasing the odds of the association succeeding or that they are going to damage his business, to their benefit? Highly unlikely, I would say. So include him, be proud of him (and Ravi and others falling into their gap) and use them to enhance your branding.

The truth is that some of them appear to be treating the Savile Row Bespoke association as a gentleman's club rather than a business opportunity. They're entitled to do so, but it misses the point of setting up the association in the first place.

Most comically, they didn't even seem to know their own rules, quoting a 50 and then a 100 yard perimeter at different times...

 

[Manton]

By tradition, SR used to include -- in addition to the Row itself -- Old Burlington, New Burlington, Conduit, Sackville, Bond, Clifford, Cork, Vigo and Burlington Gardens. Why would they change that?

 

[TheFoo]

Well, I'm not sure I see a problem with forming an association for the purpose of promoting tailors on or near the Row. However, I'm also not sure how much the tailors will benefit from it.

It makes sense that they had to keep out Sexton. Otherwise, they'd have no good reason to boot Ravi. I prefer they stick to their rules; it speaks better of them than if they were to make arbitrary judgments favoring one tailor over another. This way, everything remains quantitative and transparent. As consumers, we don't have to accord any value to the association, but it's nice to know what it is exactly, regardless.

 

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by Manton

By tradition, SR used to include -- in addition to the Row itself -- Old Burlington, New Burlington, Conduit, Sackville, Bond, Clifford, Cork, Vigo and Burlington Gardens. Why would they change that?

I imagine it's because the firms now feel that the Row itself is 'under attack' and they need to get tailors to move onto the row, or at least stay there.

 

[Manton]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

I imagine it's because the firms now feel that the Row itself is 'under attack' and they need to get tailors to move onto the row, or at least stay there.

Well, the problem with this is that tailors would love to be on the Row if they could. The reason they are not is cost, pure and simple. The Association negotiated lower rents with the Pollen Estate (which owns all the land). Even so, a lot of firms are still not on the Row itself, notably A&S. I wonder if this restrictive definition wasn't meant to read some people out of the designation. If so, that's sort of crummy.

 

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by Manton

I wonder if this restrictive definition wasn't meant to read some people out of the designation. If so, that's sort of crummy.

Completely plausible, but so long as the rules are clear and the association strictly adheres to them, I don't see it being much of a problem. If we all know that the association just determines how physically far from the Row you are, the reputations of tailors like Edward Sexton aren't going to be negatively affected to any significant degree.

 

[unpainted huffheinz]

The one thing that struck me was that the decision to boot Sexton was clearly the opposite of what they needed to do.

 

[Manton]

Sexton and others like Douglas Hayward are sort of in a category of their own. They are trained SR tailors who chose to work elsewhere. SR typcially confered the honorific on them.

 

[Holdfast]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Well, I'm not sure I see a problem with forming an association for the purpose of promoting tailors on or near the Row. However, I'm also not sure how much the tailors will benefit from it.

If it is meant to purely be a club for tailors making on site on the Row, fine. Let them define it how they like.

But in the same breath, they imply that the Row is synonymous with the highest tailoring standards and so if you are not actually physically on the Row itself, you cannot be meeting those standards. This does not make sense to me.

It makes sense that they had to keep out Sexton. Otherwise, they'd have no good reason to boot Ravi. I prefer they stick to their rules; it speaks better of them than if they were to make arbitrary judgments favoring one tailor over another. This way, everything remains quantitative and transparent.

Easy to understand, but not easy to appreciate. I wouldn't mind professionals making a value judgement on their colleagues product.... but thinking about it more, I suspect it was precisely to AVOID making such a judgement that they've stuck closely to a geographical definition. This lessens its value to consumers and its value as a branding tool though, IMO.

As consumers, we don't have to accord any value to the association, but it's nice to know what it is exactly, regardless.

Well, I agree on this point. I certainly choose to not accord any value to the association beyond its eligibility requirement vis a vis geographical location. But what's the point of the association to the tailors in this case? Beyond being a nice talking shop?


Manton and RJman both also point out that "Savile Row" when used in conjunction with tailoring has always had a more generic geographical meaning, and not just one street. I agree with this too.

 

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by Holdfast

But in the same breath, they imply that the Row is synonymous with the highest tailoring standards and so if you are not actually physically on the Row itself, you cannot be meeting those standards. This does not make sense to me.

They can imply whatever they like; you and I don't have to believe it. I'm sure makers of champagne would claim they make a product superior to other sparkling wines, but because of the superficial (yet transparent) definition of 'champagne', other great sparkling wines have still found success in the market.

I suspect it was precisely to AVOID making such a judgement that they've stuck closely to a geographical definition. This lessens its value to consumers and its value as a branding tool though, IMO.

Agreed--but that's why if it's a stupid distinction, it shouldn't bother us so much. Consumers will not value it.

But what's the point of the association to the tailors in this case? Beyond being a nice talking shop?

I have no idea. Perhaps they believe that 'Savile Row' has brand power. In that case, keeping it scarcer would increase its value to qualifying tailors. However, if you ask me, the whole problem stems from the fact that Savile Row's brand power is not particularly strong today--perhaps they intend to increase its strength through exclusivity.

Manton and RJman both also point out that "Savile Row" when used in conjunction with tailoring has always had a more generic geographical meaning, and not just one street. I agree with this too.

Yeah, but can you see why they might benefit from consolidating and excluding? If 'Savile Row' means anything, you want to maintain its value. If everyone in London making clothes gets to say they're 'Savile Row', it won't mean anything anymore.

All in all, I agree that the association is of dubious value. But it's precisely for that reason that I don't mind it--because, as you point out, consumers are not likely to value it much.