How Long's the Line?

image from Racked.com

In the last couple of weeks there have been over 50 sample sales in New York City- many of them big name designers. I personally went to the Alexander Wang and Helmut Lang ones and decided to skip the Calypso- usually on my list for colorful, bohemian looks for summer to offset my layers of black for winter. There were others I'd have liked to have braved but the idea of the crowds was just too intimidating.

The amount of merchandise at these sales can be astounding. Yes, there are the clunkers of the collection- a sore reminder of listening to Anna Wintour and putting into production a  coat she bought off the runaway that looks good on no one else or the crazy prints that are interesting but not very commercial- but there are also plenty of pieces that are just "extra". This extra merchandise is money, a LOT of money and it needs to be liquidated. In my job as a managing director of a small retail chain, I had this problem once, and let me tell you- the longer you keep it, the harder it is to move. Fashion has an expiry date and your loyal clients know when things came out and they are interested in it when either new or vintage and a lot of time passes in between those.

The secrets of outlets stores and sample sales are another one of those fashion insider things. We insiders know that brands manufacture garments that are solely for the outlet stores although the general public does not. There is also another rumour that brands are overproducing to stock their sample sales (they still make money even with the discounted prices) and I just heard that a well known Paris designer was told to "stop" with her seasonal sample sales or she'd be dropped from one of the major department stores as they felt it cannibalized their full price sales- a pretty serious request for a supposedly secret sample sale.

A friend of mine who is relatively new to NY asked me how everyone knows about them (especially considering I knew about one that the company her husband works at was having and she didn't). Racked.com was my answer. Websites like Racked and SampleSally report on all things shopping and give views (sometimes real time) on what is happening on the front. Photos of pricelists, available merchandise, progress reports on lines to gain entry- readers constantly email them to keep them up to date. Sample sales used to be a thing of knowing people and paper flyers but the internet of course has changed that- although it does help to know someone to have access to the Friends & Family preview which usually takes place a day before opening to the general public.

I love sample sales and as a long-term fashion professional rarely pay full price for anything bar special editions (Jil Sander at Uniqlo etc)- I just don't need to. And my designer-heavy closet is proof of it.

So I ask:
- is it worth brands cannibalizing potential full priced sales to purge excess merch at a sample sale? is this good business?
- do you think it matters if it's only the "insiders" who know about it and can get to them? Or do you think the word is out- everyone know about them?
- do YOU shop full price or wait for sample sales to get your designer goodies?

update to last post: And So It Begins

Well, just as we were discussing speeding up the fashion cycle and access for all... It was recently announced that NY Socialite Lauren Santo Domingo has partnered with an ex-Gilt founder to launch a site- Moda Operandi- that will allow shoppers to buy from the runway 48 hours after the show has taken place. It will work like a trunk show- they'll take your orders (with a deposit of course) and you'll receive the pieces when they're ready.

Is that quick enough for you?

Let 'em in!?

I recently was on Style.com looking at the much talked about Prada runway show and I started to think how great it would be to hear the music that went with the show, to see one outfit transition into another on the runway....and then it occurred to me that it was probably available on their site- I mean, it was done last year already by others- no matter how resistant the Italians have been to technology maybe it's there- didn't Prada just update their site?  So off to Prada.com go I, et voila!

Well, isn't this fabulous?! I enjoyed the show: loved that it showed un-matchy-matchy outfits that shouldn't work but do, loved that Miucca can pull off the granny look more elegantly than nobody's business and watched Suzy Menkes' little hair bubble run out of the front row (probably to the next show). I felt like I was there watching from the nose-bleed section.

But (and there's always a but) is it all getting too public? Will the riff raff wreck the Ball? Should everyone be able to see this THIS quickly?

Just last week, NY Mag had an article entitled "Shop the Runway: 20 Fashion Week Looks for $200 or less". It took looks from NY Fashion Week and matched them up with pieces available in stores now. This isn't necessarily new- the fashion crowd have been influenced by the runway as soon as we saw the photos in WWD the next day, but this is now reaching out to those not in the industry- those who's money makes up the business of fashion in the big dollar way- in the derivative market (we all remember the blue sweater scene from Devil Wears Prada).

Back in February, Donna Karan said that we need to return to in-season deliveries as well as stating that we are killing our own industry with making it all too public. Recently, Imran Amed from BoF interviewed Natalie Massenet, founder of Net-a-Porter and he posed the question regarding the speed of seasons. Her response? We should take a season off and let everyone catch up. (Click to see interview here)

The new buzz surrounds an article in the IHT where Suzy Menkes questions whether shows are needed at all as designers increasingly rely on short movies for showing their collections (and advertising campaigns). Leader of the fashion show-movie genre, Nick Knight says in the article- “Firstly, it is a true artistic expression that the designers can control,” he said. “Secondly they can get so many more people, from 300 to three million. And because — although it hasn’t happened yet — designers will want to sell their clothes.” By this he is referring to instant ordering online that would take place while still watching or shortly after the show has finished.

We know that the internet is going to change the fashion industry- it already has. We can see things faster, more closely, and have more accessibility for purchasing across countries and currencies. But will it be affected by letting the "behind the scenes" parts not be so "behind"?

So this leads me to ask the following:

- are designers letting too many cats out of the bag and will there be no surprises when that season comes around?

- are we already sick of the clothes before they go into the stores? or, on the opposite side of the coin- have the consumers been salivating so long that they rush the stores the moment the collection hits?

- will we still need people to "translate" the runway trends when we can see them, sit on them and work it out ourselves?

What are your thoughts?

PS- all images are from the Prada S'11 show- check it out!

Crazytown in Fashionland?

image from Refinery29- see link below

There hasn't been any big issues I've felt the need to address lately so I've been quiet. Recently I've been perusing the September issues and they have triggered a few thoughts. Firstly, the thought that I have not felt compelled enough to not be able to put them down. I pick one up, flick a few pages and then am completely ok with putting it back down and moving on. So here we are at NY Fashion Week already and I haven't even done my homework. Although I have had enough of a flick that I know that if I don't have a camel coat and a pair of clogs (i do actually- at this point they're vintage- and Miu Miu's on top of it!) I'm not allowed out of the house.

Secondly, I'm happy that we seem to be returning to the using of models for ads and editorial. This has been talked about but i really feel it now and- thank god- isn't that what they're there for? I'm also loving that some of the oldies but still-stunningly-gorgeous-goodies are back. Big time! The Aussie press is ALL over Emma Balfour and we have several others joining Christy and Linda back on glossy pages. Age is but a number ladies- especially when you look THAT good for THAT number.

Disturbingly though, i seem to be noticing a few too many WTF? moments. I mean, things that really make me question- what WERE they thinking? Considering i do not think of myself a certifiable fashion expert but more a lover of it with a good eye (or so i like to think) I'm wondering if I'm the only one. In times of suffering retail isn't this the time to nail it, no excuses, make it happen, be spot on?

a few examples:

Blumarine ad in Harper's Bazaar- the model's face/head looks like it is photoshopped onto a random, leaping, predictible and editorial looking series of poses.

Saks 5th Ave. high fashion with a sport theme. Not worth anymore words it's so insane- except I'm guessing you're looking for a new marketing team?

Jennifer Aniston as Barbra Streisand? Really? REALLY??? and this has to do with.....??? Cause she's starring in yet another total blockbuster that everyone just RUSHED to see?

Let's not talk about 21 (21???!!!) pages of Julia Roberts- who is historically a questionable fashion icon. Especially as this issue has so little real content this REALLY stands out.

Halle Berry as cover girl? Cause her new movie is...???

You get the point.

Luckily there are still lots of beautiful pages to make up for the crazy ones but I have to ask- did anyone else think a few people had taken one too many crazy pills? maybe it was the accountants?

What were your thoughts on this year's September Issues?

PS: Refinery29 did a recap and shared their thoughts here

Old Guard vs. New Talent

It's no secret that the market, after this latest recession, has changed. It has made some seemingly untouchable people or roles more vulnerable than they thought they may ever be and more importantly made us stop and think about what is really important and (for me at least) WHO is really important- or as I usually like to say- "what makes YOU so special?"

Now more than ever it's time to be able to back it up. Being famous for being famous isn't enough. There was even an article recently about blogs which discussed that some well known blogs weren't even the most read. Well, I guess that's ok, we blog to share, not usually to make money but fashion is very, very different. Making clothes takes money- a LOT of money. TV reality shows don't really capture this and the explosion of newly “famous” designers must make more than me question- where did they go? Every month the fashion magazines run columns of the newest, hottest designers which always makes me wonder where last year’s designers who were on this page now are.

Having read this article in the NY Times recently I was happy to see it raised some of the very points I’ve been thinking about for a while and it seems Paper Magazine founder Kim Hastreiter in particular may have ruffled some sensitive feathers by speaking some truths (quel horreur!) although it seems she voiced what more than a few had been thinking.

For example: “I am in complete agreement with her,” Mr. (Prabal) Gurung said. “Talent should not be instantaneously celebrated, but rather nurtured and grown steadily.”

There have been some famous people who have been designers (both successful and not) as well as talented designers who just haven’t been able to stay in business. With the youth of today (and especially all of those recently graduated fashion students!) wanting to be famous maybe even more than wanting to be respected for their talent or work ethic we run the possibility of having yet more unprepared designers wanting to break out on their own instead of taking time to learn from the pros.

As everyone gets more careful with their money and needs to believe in what they buy more than ever before, we can ask:

- just because someone is recognizable, does it mean they can have a fashion collection? And if so, is it guaranteed success?

- does fame build the business or raise expectations to an unrealistic (and unattainable) level

- what does it take to be successful in fashion?

- should fashion design come with a residency or apprenticeship program to help make the designers appreciate and learn the industry as a whole? I mean after school, like Med school requires full time in a hospital- not a semester of an internship while studying.

- should fashion school teach more business classes? Including lessons on getting financing?

What do you think will help the Emperor stay clothed?

Follow up to last post

Covered today on NY Magazine's blog: Full Figured Fashion Week Expands

I usually find the comments on these kinds of articles interesting.

On another note, changing it up- sick of this look so as soon as I get a chance: New post, New look.

Let me know if you have problems with comments as I've heard there have been. I'll post them if you can't seem to make it happen- I'd love all the input i can get, that's what keeps it interesting. Sometimes it's your browser, so maybe try another one if you have one.

Fat is the New Black

photo: Models.com + V magazine


I started a post about this topic a while ago and have been going back and forth about whether or not to even go there. But recently there have been articles that keep bringing it all up. It? You know, the SIZE issue. (Links are live so if you want to read them, knock yourself out!)

This has been gaining strength over the past few months, actually even longer. New York mag showed Christina Hendricks in all her curvaceous glory, V magazine did a "Size" issue in January and even French Elle has reported they "are giving up on skinny" as quoted by the Times UK. In addition, there is the ongoing issue about models with the British Fashion Council along with the US's CFDA attempting to install some health guidelines so the girls don't fall down mid-catwalk because of their malnutrition. Most interesting piece about the 2010 discussion on the 2007 initiative here. Thanks Jezebel for not summarizing an important discussion into a fluff piece!

Everyone has an opinion. Renowned blogger Garance Doré criticized the movement towards well, let's just call it large- i mean, anything over an American size 6 (GB 10, EU 38) is just plain huge isn't it? Even Alber Elbaz (who is not very tiny) says in an interview with Style.com that realistically, if we ask women what they want, they say they want to be skinny and the designers can't be blamed for it.

The latest hoopla has been about Photoshop-ing. I think we all saw the Ralph Lauren ad last year and you'd think we might take a lesson. But just this past week Photoshop has been on our minds. British "Healthy" magazine was made an example of in an article in the Daily Mail and just today the Ann Taylor website got a swipe for over-retouching. Where will it stoppppp?????

So, let's think big:

- are we really ready to be faced with reality? Do we want to see "real" women in magazines that are meant to be aspirational? Or do we like the clothes on the skinny Minney's cause we can't afford the clothes anyhow and everyone knows the skinny chicks make the clothes look better (tongue-in-cheek alert here)

- will there be a backlash and a new market develops? We all know that there have been brands that are aimed at the "Plus Size" market for a long time but they haven't exactly been seen as glamorous. If the media gets on board, will that change?

- what about the health issue- can we look at large without thinking unhealthy? How large is ok? what's the line that "curvaceous" and "fat" ride?
With the whole world getting fatter should we be glamorizing large? i mean, we've been glamorizing anorexic for years...

Discuss.

Storm in a Teacup

Apologies for it being so long since I posted. I was busy (blah, blah) and then I was in Australia doing the family & friends thing. While I was there, I attended the L'Oreal Melbourne Fashion Festival's business seminar. During such seminar Australian Vogue's EIC, Kirstie Clements, made a statement that has had the internet slightly abuzz (especially as Australia hardly gets any fashion attention outside some fantastic designer exports). When I heard it I was surprised, bordering on shocked and fashion journalist Patty Huntington responded with an immediate tweet. What was this scandalous statement?
In a discussion with Calvin Klein's EVP of communications, Malcolm Carfrae, she asked him if they deleted negative comments off of the Calvin Klein social media forums. He responded with no and she (quite emphatically and almost happily) gave up that they remove negative comments about designers posted on the Australian Vogue website.

News got to Cutblog who felt free to share. It was also reported in Melbourne's The Age newspaper when Vogue issued a defending statement.

The fashion industry isn't particularly known for being nice. Critics have been banned from studios and shows for harsh reviews and as with any creative field, it can be diva central. But, while understanding that in tough times its necessary to be nice to advertisers, I guess we can ask where it starts and where it stops. The internet is meant to be a democratic forum where we all can have a say and there have been plenty of stupid comments posted on many a blog and website. What can be so bad that it needs removal anyway?

so we can ask:

- does a publication have the right to monitor their comments to make everyone sound good? Should they? If bloggers have to state that they received complimentary goods, should editors have to do the same (and state that they have edited their forums)? After all, isn't this the same? all in the name of truth and full disclosure?

- how will knowing that Vogue censors change comments that are left on it? The teacup that is Australia isn't big- better believe this got round fast.

- how important is the truth in something like this? Is everyone doing it? Does anyone really care? Is anyone really paying attention to these comments? Or are they?

tell me what you think.

New Topic: NOW is the time

With another fashion season here I thought this may be a good time to bring up something that seems to be taken for granted but yet gets re-assessed from time to time- the question of "what is the fashion of NOW?"

While purging some old articles I came across a NYT piece by Guy Trebay posing the question of why designers don't seem to be able to design for TODAY and why there is a constant revisiting of past decades or a jump ahead to the future for reference. In fact, he begins the article by asking "When did today become such an impossible idea?" (read the article here)

Just recently, after the Christian Dior couture show, fashion expert Suzy Menkes made a statement that Galliano "could have done with a little less past and a little more present."

So while Nicholas Ghesquiere can do a fashion show in 2006 that many said referenced fashion in 2025 and Dior is referencing the 40's, 50's and the days when women rode side saddle (and getting critiqued for it), we can ask "what would fashion of 2010 look like?"

Previously to the Couture shows, the Men's Fall 2010 collections showed an abundance of heritage looks, reflecting the respective brands' expertise and origins. This in itself has been an ongoing theme for several seasons now. But are we learning anything new?

Looking back to go forward is not new and many would argue that the mood of fashion reflects the mood of the people at the time- optimism leads to fashion influenced by happy times (ie the 50's) and bad times reference dark and rebellious (ie gothic or punk). And sometimes we want to put the past and future together (Steampunk). Karl Lagerfeld was recently asked about futurism to which he responded "I hate that. I don't believe in avant-garde clothes for a future that will never happen. Fashion is always now."

But is it?

So the questions are asked:
- what would fashion of 2010 look like if designers had to reference only that year?
- what does the word "modern" mean?
- can we design a collection without referencing the past or future? Is it even possible?
- do consumers drive this by living in the tomorrow and buying for next week?
- what does it mean to live in the NOW and do we really want to?

Discuss.

New Topic- Shopping Much?

With 2008 being such a disastrous year for retail, all hopes were on a recovery for 2009- especially the holiday period. That period between Thanksgiving and the new year can help a company's sales significantly and considering January is usually a retail disaster every year, a much needed boost to the bottom line for the entire year.

The anticipation was high and the figures, well...not so much. All reports started hopeful but aside from some busier than usual internet shopping in the days after Thanksgiving the end result was but a smidge higher than last year.On top of that, stores are desperately trying to wean consumers off the 2008 sales habit they had created with high inventories and low sales- a "fire sale" mentality.

In addition to the high rate of unemployment and the corresponding smaller household budgets for most, articles stated that consumers were happier with spending money on "experiences" rather than goods.

Read the NYT article about the retail macro-climate


2010 seems designated to be a year of change for consumer habits:

Are you looking to spend on experiences rather than goods?
What makes you want to spend right now?
Will the caution of personal shopping budgets continue or will the purse strings loosen later in the year?
Are we shaping the younger generation's attitude in any particular direction as has been the case in the past after periods of abundance or hardship? If so, how will we see it?

Discuss.

add-on to last post

This is sure to be an ongoing topic. An additional complication to the timing conversation is the apparent "leakage" of ads to the internet that will appear in print in months to come.

Does it matter? What do you think?

here's the article from The Cut

First Topic- BLOGGERS!

The internet fashion community quietly snickered when the New York Times wrote about fashion bloggers in the front row. This seemed to be news to them. This article bounced around for days and not in a cool way. It was like they had awoken from a Snow White sleep and the fashion media game had changed! In real life, there are interesting points- not that Tavi will be editor-in-chief of Vogue next week- but the ideas of immediacy and youth (freshness of eyes) vs. age (and experience and knowledge of fashion) have been questioned.
So I ask:
- will we stop reading magazines or will the big pretty pictures always compel us?
- will magazines have to continue to do their "memo" pages when we already know about this stuff (read it on the internet) and focus more on the fantasy of fashion?
- what is aimed at who? Obviously there are those who trawl the internet more frequently than others- does it matter?
- will we listen to a quirky 13 year old talk to us about fashion? I mean, what does she know? Or does she?
- what do we learn from blogs? Do we care or they for entertainment purposes only?

Discuss

Here's the NYT article

Why?

I really love to recycle but enough is enough. I can only read the same information that is being re-posted again and again for so long. Cutblog pulls from NYT, Racked pulls from Cutblog, articles get thrown around Twitter. And the glaring omission? Commentary. Fashion used to be about discussion and analysis- that gave it a whole other dimension. Where is that? Let's bring it back.

My goal is to post a topic of the week and have you all comment on it. I know a lot of really intelligent and knowledgeable people and think they might have things to say. I think this could be interesting.

Lets give it a whirl.