Comments on: London Fashion Week | Tough times ahead

By: Barbara Alexander

Barbara Alexander — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:14:26 +0000

Brilliant proposition “Business Links”. Manufacturing in the U.S. how novel! I’m serious. I should mention that in the 50′s couture houses had “bonded” versions of their designs. This enabled north american department stores to order an “alternative copy” of what went down the runway. These were often less embellished so as to keep costs down. There are so many things various houses can and must do in this day and age to remain competitive, looking back to the business models of yesteryear as well as design archives might be a clue.

By: Business Links

Business Links — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:13:04 +0000

If the exchange rate is against exporting to the States. Why not manufacture in the US under license?

By: Anjo

Anjo — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:55:40 +0000

It is funny to contrast fast fashion with the ‘resurgence’ of haute couture, because what does that mean in real business terms? H&M, Zara and Mango probably do billions combined every year, but haute couture gets a handful of new customers- perhaps a few million in added business, tops- and it’s seen as a comeback. This is more indicative to me of how close to dead the couture was for many years. Haute couture may find new favor among the mega-rich of the United States and the Far East, but it will certainly never be again what it once was. I don’t have the data to confirm this, but I suspect that fast fashion is eating into apparel sales of luxury rtw brands, forcing them to rely more than ever on accessories-cosmetics-perfume. It isn’t that cheap apparel didn’t exist before- it did- but it wasn’t fast like it is today, and it wasn’t hip. H&M’s big coup was discovering how to make cheap, knock-off fashion seem cool, and as much as I sometimes enjoy shopping there I realize it’s kind of sad. I wonder if in real terms the market for designer apparel is shrinking or growing. Even if it’s the latter I doubt it’s growing fast enough to accomodate the glut of young designers.

By: Dahlia

Dahlia — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:18:21 +0000

Interesting discussion going on. I don’t have much to add to what has already been said and pointed out. But I do believe there needs to be more investigation on getting down to the root of the problem in the declining value of the fashion industry and tackling it head on. Personally, fashion magazines although nice and glossy, do not provide enough of an objective point of view on designers, thus I have to turn to newspapers and books to find out what’s really going on. Even then, there isn’t enough of the nitty gritty to give us a full picture of what the industry is really like.

By: artefact212

artefact212 — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 04:18:24 +0000

@BOF:Zara, Mango and H+M supercede the profits that Haute Couture could only dream of.

By: The Business of Fashion

The Business of Fashion — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:24:45 +0000

Thanks to everyone for the great discussion. A few thoughts. @Marko: Yes, business classes alone will not suffice. But really, I’m not talking about teaching designers about net present value and discounted cash flow. I think there could be more awareness and training to explain to newly minted designers that fashion is actually a business and show them where to turn to get help with some of this. They are not expected to do everything on their own, but they will need to recognize the need to stay on top of the business aspects as well. @Diane: I am a huge proponent of the Creative Business partnership. I agree that this is one of the best ways to build a fashion business. Check this link out. http://www.businessoffashion.net/2007/09/vpl-the-promise.html @artefact212: I do agree that some fashion companies are just churning out product, with little in the way of design and quality. But, while this might be a way of boosting business in the short-term, over the long run if quality is not up to par, people won’t come back. Most designers seem to understand this…though I have been hearing complaints about some prominent Contemporary brands for slacking on their quality. If this is true, it will quickly come back to bite them. As for the split between Lars Nilsson and Ferre/Blass and Isabel Toledo and Anne Klein, (and Marc Audibet at Vionnet, and Manuela Morin at Tanner Krolle, etc etc), I think this is a sign that the designers and management did not align on a strategy before signing the contracts. I don’t think it means that the industry is undervaluing these designers. To the contrary, I think great design is the lifeblood of this industry, but designing is not enough. Today it’s also about the business and working in a partnership with business people. Therefore, it’s definitely worth the effort for management and the designer to agree on a strategy (business, creative and operational) in advance. Finally, as for the money being in the lower priced collections…there certainly is a lot of interest in the fast-moving Contemporary segment, for example (and high-street brands like Zara, Mango and H&M). But there is also more and more interest in Haute Couture, which has been experiencing a bit of a resurgence, and which will have a resilience to the global downturn that Zara, Mango and H&M could only dream about.

By: Anjo

Anjo — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:18:16 +0000

Artefact you make some interesting assertions. Do you possibly think you might be exaggerating a tad? I’d like to hear BoF’s take on this.

By: artefact212

artefact212 — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:55:37 +0000

Face it. There is only so much fashion that can be bought. Department stores are choking. The economy is spiraling downward like the melting of the wicked witch of the west. Design houses who are established in the majors are going to fight to stay there. It’s all about positioning. For a buyer to place dollars into an unknown is very risky. Those days are over. Plus, the interest is no longer there. Fashion has taken a back seat to survival. Julie Gilhart is interested in British design(if you have had a chance to speak with her then you will know she is mad for fashion and an incredible supporter of new talent), it’s just now, she has been advised of the economic situation and there are strict limitations. Unfortunately, this is the future. For the first time in many years New York designers had to scale back in their presentations. We constantly heard of designers having to ask for freebies in order to produce their shows. This news came from “established” designers. “We have no money” was repeated on a daily basis, one just needs to look at the fabrics. The collections looked cheap, and presented with very little or no accessories. It was almost like they were presenting a resume collection for Target or H&M. That’s where the true market is today. That’s where the new generation of fashion followers are going. If you look at the New York Collections there is very little that you wouldn’t already see in such stores as Zara, H&M or Target. The major department stores are hurting because of this. The fashion industry is bursting with the “Look here, buy me, no, look over here, buy me instead”. When are investors going to learn that dead is dead? revivals don’t work. They would be better off to place the designers labels in a zip lock baggie and sell those. Sew me on anything. It will not be long before Raf Simons is let go from Jil Sanders, besides, his talent has been seen before from American icons such as Zoran and the early work of Calvin Klein. Look what happened to Isabel Toledo, the talent is no longer there or viable. Look at Lars Nillsson, who was fired from Bill Blass right after the collection was presented and most recently, fired at Gianfranco Ferre before the collection was about to be presented. This is serious. These executives are sending messages. Big messages. The money is in lower tier collections and the majors know this. It will not be long before more and more established designers are forced to retreat to these manufacturing firms in droves. It’s called survival, and bigger dollars for these executives. Change is coming alright, it’s called pocket change for alot of Americans.

By: Anjo

Anjo — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:53:33 +0000

Regardless of the seasonal too and fro, the weakness or strength of the dollar and the fickleness of the various markets, the basic problem, as BoF write, is how you convince promising young designers to put their resources into building businesses instead of chasing fame and glamour. It’s the pitfall of working in London, but you simply cannot charge that much for a frock and deliver less than tip-top service. I think we may also overestimate the effect a mention in Vogue may have on a young designer’s business- can we tell the difference between causation and corroboration? I’m not sure we can. Sales get made in stores, not magazines, however nice it is to see one’s name in print, and retailers will certainly reward young designers for catering to them, rather than the newspaper critics. Today’s strong pound doesn’t promise to go away anytime soon, and the young Londoners will just have to work with it until they’re big enough to move production someplace cheaper. In the meantime, I expect young American designers are ringing up sales with foreign buyers. Maybe more Londoners should follow Jonathan Saunders lead and show in New York. Perhaps there’s an upside to the weak dollar.

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:26:13 +0000

Couldn’t agree more! Here At KENTH ANDERSSON sometimes feel like we are at the other end of the world as with out investors or any acess to media we have manage to stay afloat with injecting new techniques from patterns to private clients.Especially competing in a global market, since most luxury groups have such a heavy hand in every economy in the world. Jason