Screenshot of BoF in 2007 | Source: BoF

LONDON, United Kingdom — This week marks a very special milestone in the history of The Business of Fashion: our 5th birthday!

Back in January 2007, I spent one hundred dollars for an annual Typepad subscription and, with the help of a friend, set up a blog at uberkid.typepad.com. I called it The Business of Fashion, cobbled together a clumsy looking header in Powerpoint and started jotting down ideas and observations about the fashion business.

There was no plan! Looking back, it’s a little cringeworthy to see how the blog shifted haphazardly from one subject to the next: reviewing the Milan menswear shows in one post, covering a Giles Deacon party in the next, analysing the luxury childrenswear market and reporting on senior executive shuffles at the Gap, all within the very first month and without any real editorial direction or strategy!

But we’ve come a long way since then and I’ve also learned a great deal about digital publishing. A few of the media properties that I most respect, including The Atlantic and The Guardian, have been buzzing about their “digital first” strategies. But BoF was born digital from day one, which has enabled us to take a particularly lean and responsive approach to publishing.

Indeed, one of the great strengths of digital – an inherently conversational medium – lies in the on-going dialogue it enables between content creators and the communities they attract. Rather than simply broadcasting to a passive audience, BoF has slowly but surely shaped an editorial voice that reflects the feedback and interests of our growing community of readers.

Through feedback from this community and generous advice from online fashion pioneers like Diane Pernet and Jason Campbell, I quickly learned that one of the most useful things I could offer the nascent fashion blogosphere was opinionated analysis and advice for professionals working in the global fashion business. Rather than simply reporting news, which was widely published elsewhere and rapidly becoming a commodity, I focused on trying to make sense of the news. As it turned out, the timing couldn’t have been better as the fashion industry would soon find itself navigating unprecedented change driven by the forces of economic crisis, rapid globalisation, and, of course, the digital revolution.

In April 2007, a few months after launching BoF, I was invited to the Harvard Business School Retail & Luxury Goods conference to speak on a panel alongside a group of highly respected luxury experts. At one point, the moderator, Milton Pedraza of the Luxury Institute, began asking the panel about social media, in particular a website called Facebook, which by then had attracted a user base of around 20 million people. “How will these new social platforms impact the fashion and luxury world?” Mr Pedraza asked.

Having spent several months immersed in the world of blogging, I ventured that I saw some real, long-term potential for the fashion and luxury sector in social media. After all, if consumers were spending more time on these platforms, it was only logical that brands looking to reach them would need to do the same.

But suffice it to say that my fellow panelists did not see it that way. In fact, my ideas were at best politely dismissed, at worst publicly ridiculed. But when the panel had ended, Mr. Pedraza leaned over and whispered some encouraging words in my ear: “I think you’re onto something,” he said. “Stick with it.”

And so I did. It was one of many helpful pushes I have had along this journey. But, in particular, Mr. Pedraza’s gentle push helped me to realise that by exploring the exciting potential of fashion’s digital future, BoF had an opportunity to add something genuinely distinctive to the fashion dialogue. I had no budget for marketing or PR, so all I could do was create good content and hope our audience would keep coming back and spread the word about BoF to their friends and colleagues.

A year or so later, I realised that for BoF to reach its potential, I had to build a team. In the summer of 2008, Tokyo-based W. David Marx became our first correspondent and New York-based writer Robert Cordero began curating the BoF Daily Digest, a hand-picked selection of the most interesting and important fashion news stories of the day, something we started doing so that the members of our community wouldn’t have to sift through the mountains of daily fashion news themselves.

As for our original articles, we made a special effort to create content that wasn’t available anywhere else. First, BoF became known for a series on the basics of setting up a fashion business. Soon after, I launched Fashion 2.0, our popular on-going inquiry into of the powerful digital currents that are reshaping the business of fashion, and we were often the first in the fashion press to examine new platforms like Tumblr and new trends like social curation.

Next came CEO Talk, our signature series of in-depth interviews with the industry’s top business leaders. We spotted young designers early, as well, and were amongst the first to introduce Camilla Skovgaard, Thomas Tait, and Huishan Zhang to the world. And finally, our live interview series Fashion Pioneers has attracted industry insiders and consumer audiences alike, both virtually and in-person, to hear from inspiring fashion luminaries like Natalie Massenet, Jefferson Hack and Nick Knight.

So, what have we learned from all of this? In today’s environment of media abundance, the power of opinion channeled through analytical editorial, curated news and live events has made BoF a daily destination for a growing number of fashion professionals. We cut through the clutter. Compared to other websites with similar stature and audience, we produced less content, but ensured the highest quality possible, working with a small but highly agile and global network of editors and contributors, who generously contributed their time to the BoF cause.

I first met Vikram Kansara virtually, reading his intelligent feedback on BoF articles in our lively comments section. After we met for tea in London, Vikram started writing for BoF as a contributing editor focused on Fashion 2.0 and is now our managing editor. Several other individuals from the BoF community have also come on board since then, including fashion legend Colin McDowell, leading international expert in the finance of fashion Pierre Mallevays, and Divia Harilela and Timothy Coghlan, our on the ground experts in the enormously important Chinese market, building depth and breadth into our editorial voice. Many, many others have contributed articles from time to time and I am immensely grateful for the time and energy that all of these talented individuals have dedicated to BoF over the years.

But none of this would have been possible without our single greatest asset: the global BoF community. Everywhere I have traveled over the past five years, from Tokyo to Jakarta, Vancouver to Mumbai, Buenos Aires to Tel Aviv, and more than 25 other countries in between, I have been warmly welcomed and hosted by this community. Generous individuals and organisations have opened my eyes to a global industry that is filled with inspiring stories of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship and shared the best and brightest of their local fashion industry with me, so that I could share it with all of you.

Over the recent holidays, this community revealed its wonderful diversity in a rather spontaneous way. When I sent out a short holiday greeting to our followers on Twitter, Sharon Caufield was one of the first to respond with a note that said she was writing from Craigavon, Northern Ireland. It made me wonder: who else was following our tweets on Boxing Day and where were they from? So I asked the community and within minutes, hundreds of tweets had poured in, representing every inhabited continent and more than 80 countries.

With this truly global community in mind, I am very pleased to announced that, alongside Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr and Instagram, BoF has just launched a Weibo presence. Chinese-language readers can now stay up to date on the latest news and analysis from BoF at weibo.com/businessoffashion.

As I look ahead to 2012, the future of BoF looks brighter than ever. We aim to bring you the best analysis, the most inspiring stories and the first insight into the players, platforms and business models that are reshaping the business of fashion as we know it.

Happy New Year! And I hope you’ll stick with us, as it seems this is only the beginning of our journey.

Imran Amed,
Founder and Editor-in-Chief

Chanel Couture A/W 2011 | Source: Ecouterre

LONDON, United Kingdom — Death and disgrace do not often darken the world of fashion. In the case of the first, a designer normally dies long after retirement and his demise is of only local interest. In the case of the second, it rarely happens and can usually be covered up by one means or another. But in the last eighteen months there have been two tragedies that can neither be covered up, nor ignored. They are, of course, the death by suicide of Alexander McQueen and the disgrace of John Galliano at Christian Dior.

Their effect, traumatic enough when the events occurred, have ramifications not merely for London and Paris, but for the whole structure of the international fashion world. And the questions they raise must be answered.

As even the most doltish are aware, fashion is a tough business where impossible timeframes and endless demands affect everyone. As companies grow bigger, they become greedier. Even the best beloved designer retains that status only as long as the sales figures stand up. The bottom line (that infamous bottom line!) is not ‘how good was it?’ but always ‘how good are the figures?’ And the first matters less and less.

Businessmen in the rag trade have rarely been known for their sensitivity to artistic attitudes. Even more rarely are they actually engaged with the beauty and originality of the product their firms sell. Normally this would hardly matter at all. You don’t have to love (or even understand) the goods you are pushing — ask any furniture salesman. Your job is to sell them and then balance the books at the end of the season. We all know that selling is a business. But it does matter very much if you are the man who is pressurising the other guy, for whom the product matters passionately. Mainly, of course, because the money man always makes the final decision and aesthetics or creative integrity are rarely considered. The men in charge of these things are rarely attuned to the world of high glamour sophistication. So, why does it matter?

Well it matters at this moment because it is apposite to the case of John Galliano, who was brought into Dior as a golden boy and created a standard of luxury and extravagance in both garments and presentation never seen before. He set the media of the world alight and was adored by all at Dior for the tact with which he re-invented the aesthetic of the man who’s work he revered.

‘Great!’ said the financial gurus. ’Let’s have more of this.’
‘Sure!’ says John, as any designer would.
After all, he had pulled the trump card and arrived in fairyland. Smiles all round.

But the years roll on. The designer’s workload increases substantially during this time — as do the profits. Everyone envies John and his ability to do virtually anything he wants to as long as the bottom line doesn’t waver. But other things are wavering. Things the money men do not understand. The creativity is beginning to sag. Some seasons are not as good as others — creatively or in sales. Senior press become increasingly lukewarm. John feels pressurised and leans more and more heavily on prescription drugs and booze to help him through the days. His loyal and loving staff see it and feel powerless. But instead of help from management, John gets criticism. Life becomes very much harder. Rumours that there are storms a-brewing in fairyland increase. The loyal team continue to see loyalty as keeping their heads down and their mouths shut when the bosses are around. It can’t go on.

Finally, Armageddon.

Very few of us will ever know why Alexander McQueen decided to end his life. And that is how it should be. It is only for those closest to him to be privy to such truths. But we do know the pressures he was under because they are the pressures most young designers are under even if, on paper, they own their names and sometimes their actual companies. Of course, they are given financial rewards and help and, if they are lucky, are able to keep the company small and more or less under their charge. But, almost always, it is the smaller companies that feel any economic pinch first and I could roll off a lot of names of young designers who, at this difficult moment, are protesting how viable their companies are whilst actually clinging on by their fingertips.

So, what price freedom? Rather high. What price long term success? Rather low. Especially so if you are a young designer wishing to show in London Fashion Week where the fee for a place on the tent schedule with back-up security, lighting etc is a cool £12,000. But, in a ‘damned if you do; damned if you don’t’ scenario it is hard for a young designer to know which will be the most damaging for his young company — to spend a lot of money in order to show in the official venue and hope to get all the right people there or to show elsewhere and probably not get them. In the fight to keep solvent, neither seems terribly promising. Rock and hard place isn’t it?

Of course, London is a special case in that the BFC has dedicated itself to having more shows than anywhere else in order, somewhat naively perhaps, to demonstrate, to what I fear is a rather indifferent world, how buoyant their fashion scene is. And they could be right, if you believe that the old costermonger’s policy of piling them high and selling them cheap is a valid way to run a fashion week, make money and support young talent. And, of course, unless they are very naive, they know that the wastage will be high and appear to accept the fact. Sad for the young designers who drop off along the way, however.

This brings us to the related question of how Fashion Weeks themselves are going to remain in business. They are, as many would agree, a clumsy, inconvenient and costly way to show clothes each season. In the case of couture week (which, like London, takes rather less time than that) there are only one or two shows a day that it is necessary for the international elite to attend. But with typical French pragmatism, the Chambre Syndicale has quietly allowed the parameters of the week to stretch in order to include fine jewellery and probably, in the future, perfume launches as well. This not only works as far as everybody’s time is concerned, it reinforces the city’s traditional role as the world centre of luxury, exclusivity and glamour.

A shrewd move. But what about the other cities? And what about the burgeoning number of fashion weeks around the world? Can they, in any meaningful sense, now or in the future, have any value or viability in terms of international fashion, faced, as they currently are, by the highly organised competition of the huge conglomerates of the west? And will their designers be doomed to be small and always cash-strapped before quietly fading back into the woodwork or be taken up by one of those big conglomerates and possibly suffer the different fates personified by John Galliano and Alexander McQueen? Neither is a happy prospect, but I don’t see any solution until international fashion embarks on a co-ordinated root-and-branch investigation of its world and starts planning for a future that will be much more rosy for young designers than it is now, at this difficult time.

During the Couture week in Paris, there was a feeling of ostriches with their heads in the sand as luxury and excess swamped any new fashion ideas that might be there. For Chanel, Lagerfeld even replicated Place Vendôme in the Grand Palais, complete with column, but with Coco at the top instead of Napoleon. Megalomaniac? Moi?

There is a fear that, after the hype has been stripped away, international fashion will be left, not as a high-mettled glossy race horse bred for perfection over the generations, but merely the whitened bones of its skeleton.

Colin McDowell is a contributing editor at The Business of Fashion

London skyline | Source: Vemma on Flickr

LONDON, United Kingdom — Design is generally about function leading form in a problem-solving exercise that almost always starts with a sense of discontent with what is generally available and a strong determination to make it better and even change radically a template that might have been used for many years. The result, in the hands of the right practitioner, is a completely new solution to the problem, a solution that works for the times, and makes previous thinking irrelevant.

In most design situations there is certainly some looking back and learning from the past — what modern architect would be modern if he didn’t know of the great masters from Palladio to Le Corbusier? But the knowledge is there only to inform new thinking, with no attempt to re-present old ideas as something new in design disciplines.

With the exception of cheap mass housing that works on the principle that deep in our psyches lies a desire to live in something as near to an eighteenth century country cottage as modern technology can create, fashion stands alone in its desire to put form before function and revisit earlier and often quite recent dress eras, in an almost endless series of revivals.

In an increasingly desperate attempt to hide the banality of current fashion thinking, some clueless designers, drafted in to revive old-established labels, actually sell exact copies of the original maestro’s most successful creations from the past, which is about as futile as car kits that clothe a modern machine in a pastiche of a roadster of 70 years ago. Pathetic in car kit sellers; disgraceful in highly paid and ludicrously over-valued fashion stars

Why does all this happen?In order to answer this, I would like to look at what is happening in tertiary education in the United Kingdom as a result of the current government’s financial policies, which have allowed universities and colleges to fix their fees up to the level of £9000 per student per year. Predictably, even colleges charging much less now feel that they must obtain permission to charge the full amount. In fact it has already become part of the never-ending fight between academics in their desire to exalt their status and I have heard it said by just those people that if they do not charge the full amount it will be assumed that their establishment is inferior to others with whom they are in competition.

So it requires no crystal ball to see that within a very brief time all colleges will be charging the full amount for tuition fees — and, I suspect, along with the government quietly phasing out the safeguards such as scholarships and bursaries currently being put in place to sweeten the bitter pill. So education as a right becomes education as a privilege which, like most privilege has to be bought.

How might this affect arts training generally and fashion training specifically?

Any family facing fees of £9000 per year for three or four years must look closely at the benefits such an investment might bring. Initially, at least, these benefits often come from following a path of conformity. But conformity is not where creativity begins. An original eye (and the creative results that might come from it) develops contrapuntally to what is currently accepted as the mood of the moment — and let’s not forget that all great creativity is the result of a divine discontent with the status quo — a discontent that forces a new vision to the fore.

Creators must, by definition, be revolutionaries — and that has been the basis of our liberal art school philosophies for over a hundred years. It has produced David Hockney and Damien Hirst; Ossie Clarke and Alexander McQueen; none of whom came from families who could afford large fees for a college education about which they understood little. But the most important value of state-aided education is that in the past it has produced the politically alien force that drives forward creative change.

True creativity is always political and almost by definition stems from a feeling of alienation that comes from the belief that the creator is excluded from the political mainstream of his time. When Alexander McQueen, Hussein Chalayan and Stephen Jones were students, their lives were those of outsiders. With no money, few prospects, no homes (like other impecunious students, they mostly lived in squats) and an abiding hatred of a society that had produced Thatcherism, they had everything to fight against. Their social alienation was the grit that made the pearl.

That was twenty-five and more years ago and during that time the world has changed. We have increasingly accepted privilege as a right — and one that should be pursued as much as equality was fought for in the past. And such thinking is echoed in the attitudes of our art schools which are, only to often, equally as compliant and complacent. Not surprising.

Whereas students used to want to smash a system they felt was weighted against them, now the students I meet in colleges have usually taken on the middle class aspirations of their tutors and wish to preserve — and join — the ‘make money and be a success’ system. It may sound simplistic, but this is surely the reason why so many of the graduates and post-graduates of our fashion colleges are so incredibly complaisant and conformist.

They are encouraged to be so by The British Fashion Council which is heavily weighted in the direction of the high street, a perfectly acceptable position to be in, but the thinking of the high street has increasingly affected our educational bodies — and of course their products. That is why, despite the hysterical hype of our young designers, there is barely a handful that is not producing stereotypical clothing that not only reflects what is already available in the high street but is never as well made or competitively priced.

Who is it that advises a young designer whose name is barely known four miles a way from Hoxton to charge well over a thousand pounds for a very ordinary dress? And whose interests are they serving — certainly not the long term prospects of the young designer. And, only too often, they are the same people who accept without a qualm when a few seasons later that talent has disappeared, sacrificed on the get-rich-quick approach that knows that when one log has burnt out rather quickly there is always another waiting to be thrown on the pyre.

To conclude, it is generally accepted that the future of fashion depends upon the future of fashion education, although I have some doubts about that. If that education is allowed to become the privilege of the rich and comfortably middle class then London will never regain its position as the crucible of creativity it only so recently had.

Students who see the pinnacle of their hopes and aspirations as buying the latest Prada handbag or getting a table at the Wolesely are of no use at all to London fashion. And, in case it might be said that I have been unfair to our colleges, I would suggest a reality check. British design education (including fashion education) is good, but it is time we stopped using the old mantra that claims they are the best. Their complaisancy has in many cases been there undoing., and what they had that made them leaders has long gone.

For example, is there any proof at all that they are currently producing any graduates with a ghost of a chance of reaching the level of creativity that, say, Marc Jacobs gives us each season? I think not — because the will to change things has been subsumed in the desire for fame and money, not at the peak of a career but as little as five years in. And with it has gone the desire for outrage. Until that is regenerated, many might think £9000 a year rather too high a price for a fashion education that ends up with the high street.

Colin McDowell is a contributing editor at The Business of Fashion

Last Friday, only hours before the 10th anniversary of SHOWstudio’s launch, BoF editor-in-chief Imran Amed sat down with Mr. Knight for the third installment of FASHION PIONEERS, a series of intimate live-streamed conversations between Mr. Amed and the industry’s most interesting operators.

As the conversation unfolded in front of a live studio audience of 200 people at London’s Hospital Club, thousands of others were participating in the conversation online, which at one point made “Nick Knight” a trending topic on Twitter. The Twitter conversation was in turn broadcast back to the studio audience on twin screens on either side of the stage, creating a integrated link between the physical and virtual audiences participating in the live event.

The interview explored Mr. Knight’s start in fashion, the genesis of SHOWstudio.com, the watershed moment of Alexander McQueen’s Plato Atlantis and the rise of fashion entertainment. (RSS and Email subscribers click here to view the interview).

The evening began with a look back at Mr. Knight’s early days and the source of the tireless, forward-looking energy that has defined his career. “Ever since I started in photography I wanted to change it,” he said, recalling his days at Bournemouth and Poole College of Art. “Every waking hour I would take photographs. It quickly became an addiction.”

As the talk continued, it became abundantly clear that, unlike many people in the fashion industry, Mr. Knight is not fearful of change. Quite the opposite. He seems to thrive on it. “I think photography is dead,” he said, reflecting on the medium’s inability to evolve. “Film died some years ago. I don’t miss it,” he added without any trace of nostalgia. “None of my children read magazines. Fashion will be shaped by the internet.”

When Mr. Amed focused the conversation around the birth of SHOWstudio, Mr. Knight identified two important objectives that guided the launch of the site. The first was the desire to show clothes in motion. “Clothes are designed to be seen in movement. One could argue that a still photograph of a piece of clothing is to some degree a compromise of the designer’s original vision,” he said, outlining a thought process that informed his first experiments in online fashion film. The second objective was to communicate the process of making fashion imagery. “The life that I was seeing unfolding in front of me, as a fashion photographer, working with a whole range of people from Robert de Niro to Naomi Campbell was absolutely fascinating,” he said. But at the time, consumers only saw the finished product. “It’s allowing people in,” Mr. Knight said of SHOWstudio. “One of the biggest luxuries we have left is access.”

Nine years after SHOWstudio’s launch, Mr. Knight’s partnership with Alexander McQueen on Plato’s Atlantis — a technology-infused fashion extravaganza that brought together fashion, film and music — completely redefined fashion film and internet-enabled access. It was a watershed moment when the entire fashion industry suddenly saw that digital media could turn a runway show for a few hundred people into global fashion entertainment in which millions of people could participate in realtime. Underscoring the point, SHOWstudio’s live stream of the event came crashing down under the weight of interested generated by just one tweet from Lady Gaga, who debuted her new single “Bad Romance” at the end of the show. International Herald Tribune fashion editor Suzy Menkes called it a techno-revolution, while Gucci Group CEO Robert Polet said: “It is the biggest game change we are going to experience and embrace. It’s going to touch every aspect of our business.”

For Mr. Knight, it was Mr. McQueen’s decision to team up with Lady Gaga that was the masterstroke: “Yes it brought the whole bloody thing down, but yes it made it into an event where everyone saw the power of it… He turned that fashion show into entertainment and that’s where the difference is. That’s why there’s three and a half million hits on YouTube. Making fashion into entertainment across the internet is the key to it.”

Implying that consumer-facing fashion entertainment was the future of the industry, Mr. Knight observed: “There is a big sea change ahead. It’s a fundamental revolution in fashion really,” he continued. “Fashion shows are giving over to fashion film, the shows are completely changing, the scheduling of the shows is completely changing. We are in a moment of total flux.”

So what new technologies is Nick Knight most excited about? “Our mobile phones are [becoming] our screens for understanding fashion, as much as our computers were,” he said, insisting that what matters most is not the size of the screen or the quality of the visual, but the emotional connection that a communication creates. “Mobile gives you access,” he said. “For that, you don’t need high definition.”

Mr. Knight also referenced his continuing experiments in 3D scanning. “What I end up with is data and from that data I can make an object,” he explained. “It’s really exciting where that will go… I can use the data to make a living, talking, walking avatar — all things are possible, the digital modeling agency is there,” he said. Challenging the fashion industry to experiment with these new technologies, he commented: “We’re not waiting for technology, technology is waiting for us.”

But when asked what new tools young fashion imagemakers need to have in their arsenal, Mr. Knight replied simply: “Their heart and their mind is all,” emphasising that it’s the emotion and the idea behind a communication that matters most, not the tool. “If you’ve got something to say, you’ll find a way of saying it, you’ll find the most appropriate tool, whether it’s a photo booth in King’s Cross Station or whether it’s the 3D globe that I walked into in California a couple of months ago,” he continued. Indeed, while technology is radically changing fashion, according to Mr. Knight “it’s the human part of what you do that is way more important that anything else.”

As the evening drew to a close, a Twitter question from British Vogue’s creative director Robin Derrick triggered a very honest, personal and emotionally charged statement from Mr. Knight on the fraught relationship between fashion and society at large. “There are moments when you do question the validity… when you do question your own ethics and morals,” admitted Mr. Knight. “Fashion tends to be one very, very narrow parameter on what is acceptable beauty,” he noted.

“I think the fashion industry is so narrow in terms of what it will accept. I’ve fought very, very hard to articulate an alternative,” said Mr. Knight, who, in the spirit of a true fashion revolutionary, driven by heart, mind and the pursuit of change, has relentlessly used his craft to break social boundaries, as well as aesthetic and technological ones. “I hate the idea that fashion photography is exclusive in the way that it excludes people from feeling part of society. I think there’s beauty in every human being and it’s up to the person looking at it to bring it out.”

Fashion Pioneers was filmed by Pundersons Gardens. Many thanks to our friends from the fashion blogosphere who live-streamed the event to a global audience.

A selection of images from the event, held at The Hospital Club in London.

LONDON, United Kingdom — Could FASHION PIONEERS get any better? We started our signature live interview series earlier this year with Jefferson Hack, co-founder and editorial director of Dazed Group in April and moved swiftly onto Natalie Massenet, founder an executive chairman of the groundbreaking e-commerce website Net-a-Porter, securing a global exclusive on the brand new Net-a-Porter iPad application.

Today, completing a veritable holy trinity of London’s digital fashion forces, we are honoured to announce that our next Fashion Pioneer will be Nick Knight, fashion photographer, founder and director of SHOWstudio.com, the pioneering website which first ushered fashion imagery and editorial into the digital era 10 years ago. Tickets available now!

On the very eve of SHOWstudio.com’s 10th anniversary, Nick Knight will sit down for a rare, in-depth, one-on-one conversation with BoF founder and editor Imran Amed on 26 November, 2010 at London’s Hospital Club to reflect on a remarkable career, the first ten years of SHOWstudio.com, and the future of fashion communication in this era of digital disruption and innovation.

As with previous Fashion Pioneers interviews, the event will be streamed live to thousands of viewers around the world, with live questions from Twitter (please use hashtag #BoFlive), bringing the BoF community together in a virtual conversation about the future of fashion communication.

We are making a limited number of tickets available to BoF readers who would like to attend in person.  Our last event with Natalie Massenet sold out in three days, so please click here to purchase your ticket now.

Fashion Pioneers is brought to you exclusively by The Business of Fashion, in association with The Hospital Club, and will be filmed and streamed live to viewers around the world by Pundersons Gardens

Fair Isle jumpers | Source: FairIsle.org.uk

FAIR ISLE, United Kingdom — On the most remote inhabited island in Britain, 24 miles south of the Shetland mainland, 27 miles north of the Orkney Islands and 250 miles west of Norway, it’s always sweater season. With 600-foot cliffs overlooking the North Sea, thousands of acres of peat bog and a climate that’s perennially cool and damp, Fair Isle is a rugged place where wool is a way of life.

For centuries, the island’s resourceful inhabitants have been turning local fleeces into one-of-a-kind, handmade knitwear with distinctive, multi-coloured patterns arranged in horizontal rows. Sturdy as well as attractive, the jumpers were bartered with sailors on passing ships and spread along the trade routes of the British Empire. In the 1920s, the Duke of Windsor, briefly known as Edward VIII and famous for his eccentric sense of style, popularised the design and the jumpers are now known the world over as Fair Isles.

It’s remarkable to think that this tiny island of 70 inhabitants has a world famous brand name. But because neither the pattern, nor the name are trademarked, “Fair Isle” sweaters, cardigans, hats and scarves with variations on the traditional motifs are mass-produced in factories as far afield as China and sold in varying levels of quality by global brands like Gap, J. Crew, Marc by Marc Jacobs and Ralph Lauren, while the people on Fair Isle have struggled to capitalise on the iconic pattern and its local provenance.

Today, true Fair Isle jumpers are still handspun and handknit by traditional knitters who live on the island. They take over 100 hours to make and can command upwards of £600. But you have to travel to Fair Isle to get one. Indeed, no shop anywhere in the world sells authentic Fair Isle jumpers — which are labeled “Made in Fair Isle” — because production levels are so low.

While many of the islanders can knit, only three currently handknit Fair Isle patterns commercially, while another four use hand-frame machines, for a combined output of less than 75 jumpers per year. “The demand for genuine Fair Isle knitwear today still completely outstrips availability,” said local knitter Kathy Coull.

In a place as idyllic and isolated as Fair Isle, it’s not surprising that change is viewed with skepticism. But some of the islanders see a missed opportunity.

“There is an increased awareness of the unique designs and heritage. The knitwear remains world renowned; and the resurgence of interest in hand spinning and hand knitting as creative pastimes has attracted more people to the island to engage in these indigenous crafts,” observed Ms. Coull.

But while a local cooperative called Fair Isle Crafts promotes the practice of hand-frame knitting using rudimentary “machines,” the primary obstacle to a healthy commercial enterprise remains volume. Indeed, the Fair Isle Crafts webpage currently notes: “Our order book for custom-made garments is currently closed until further notice. Please check here on our website for details of additional stock garments that may be made available from time to time, particularly at the end of the season.”

For the knitting community on Fair Isle, the question is how to increase production, while maintaining quality and provenance. “We should do a feasibility study into new production processes,” says Ms. Coull. “Increase the production level by using an industrial knitting machine — on the isle, with home grown wool — for machine-knit, hand-finished garments, while keeping handspun and handknit goods at the top end of an exclusive market.”

Fair Isle is a small place and exploiting opportunities for the sustainable development of authentic Fair Isle knitwear will require investment. But perhaps the timing is right. In today’s post-recessionary economy, many affluent consumers are rethinking the value equation and increasingly seek out products they perceive to be timeless. Classic design, quality and authenticity matter. At the same time, increasingly informed and selective shoppers are asking more and more questions about where and how their products are made. They want to know that the whole life of their product was thought about and guided by the same care and attention as the finished piece.

But identifying the opportunity is not the same as operationalising it. Developing a sustainable commercial venture, while preserving the fragile island ecosystem and negotiating the quirks of local politics is no easy task. Still, Kathy Coull is optimistic: “Things ‘not being easy’ has not daunted Fair Isle in the past!”

Vikram Alexei Kansara is Managing Editor of The Business of Fashion

The discussion touched on all the hot topics from the Net-a-Porter hive and beyond, including Mr Porter, the Richemont acquisition, bloggers vs. editors, the outdated fashion cycle, and more. But the undoubted highlight of the evening was the unveiling of the Net-a-Porter iPad application — a global BoF exclusive — via a 3 minute film screened to both livestream viewers and the live audience. As the announcement of the iPad application’s launch was made, a few enterprising audience members were already downloading the application, which had just been added to Apple’s iTunes store.

As for the BoF editorial team, we are still in reflective mode — there was a lot to take in from the rich discussion. So while we compile the edited highlights of the 60 minute conversation with Natalie (thank you for your patience!) and compose our thoughts on the key takeaways, we wanted to share an exclusive video which was screened at the beginning of the night’s festivities, providing a sneak peek behind-the-scenes to see exactly how Net-a-Porter works its magic, in the voice of its inspiring founder. (Email and RSS Subscribers, you can see the video here.)

We will be posting a video with the highlights of the interview next week, so stay tuned! And thanks again to our wonderful streaming partners who helped to make the event a global one, the amazing team at Net-a-Porter, and of course, Natalie Massenet.

Fashion Pioneers was brought to you exclusively by The Business of Fashion and was filmed by Pundersons Gardens

We have teamed up with fashion blogs and websites around the world to bring FASHION PIONEERS straight to your computer screens. A big thank you to our coalition of style blogs for streaming the interview with us:

United States: Tavi Gevinson | Fashionista.com | JC Report

United Kingdom: Style Bubble | Fashion156 | Style Salvage

France: A Shaded View on Fashion | Luxury Society

Germany: Les Mads

Spain: Kate Loves Me

We invite you all to tune in. And while you are watching, please send questions for Natalie Massenet to our Twitter account @_BoF_ using the hashtag #BoFLive

Fashion Pioneers is brought to you exclusively by The Business of Fashion and will be filmed by Pundersons Gardens

Katie Eary | Source: katieeary.co.uk

NEW YORK, United States — Next week, BoF will launch The FashionStake Diaries, a new series chronicling the development of FashionStake — a new online crowdfunding start-up focused, as the name suggests, on the fashion space. It’s traditionally been extremely challenging for emerging fashion brands to get the financial and marketing support they need. The crowdfunding approach — pooling together funds from fans via the internet to finance young designer businesses and one-off collections — could very well help to address this market failure.

But FashionStake isn’t the only company to launch this kind of model for fashion. In recent months, crowdfunding has become an industry buzzword as several new start-ups are aiming to see if the model used by the likes of Kickstarter can be successfully applied to fashion.

So, before delving deeper into the forthcoming FashionStake Diaries, it’s worth getting to know some of the other crowdfunding start-ups that are looking to disrupt the existing investment and operating models. Here are some thoughts in the words of their founders.

STYLETREK, Cecilia Pagkalinawan, CEO and Founder

Style Trek Screenshot | Source: Style Trek

In their words: “StyleTrek.com will select emerging designers for their fresh and unique vision, quality of execution and offer this to the global consumer. If the designer is submitted by a StyleTrekker they will receive 74% of sales and the StyleTrekker 1%. If the designer submitted him or herself they will receive 75% of sales. Designers will receive a robust e-commerce platform, social media marketing support (on Facebook, Twitter and StyleTrek’s community) immediate international presence and a growing network of fashion fans who can help them develop new design ideas and even pre-order. StyleTrek will receive 25% of sales.”

Recent Buzz: Following blog posts in The Wall Street Journal and Cathy Horyn’s On The Runway, hundreds of designers submitted applications and over 50 people contacted StyleTrek for job opportunities. The angel funding round was oversubscribed and European and Asian investors were added to the original American investor base.

Our take: This is not, strictly speaking, a crowdfunding model, but it is what one might call crowdsourcing, enabling fashion fanatics to suggest designers to be stocked on StyleTrek. Though, it must be said that the current reward for doing so may not be enough of an incentive unless sales volumes are large. In order to make $100 in commission, a fan would have to refer a designer who sells $10,000 of clothes. Compare this to the $25 credit one receives on Gilt Groupe for making one referral that results in a sale. That said, founder Cecilia Pagkalinawan seems to have struck a chord with industry insiders. Her direct ecommerce experience at Burberry and La Perla, and relationships in the fashion industry will serve her well.

Launch Date: September, 2010

CATWALK GENIUS, Helen Brown, Co-Founder

Catwalk Genius Screenshot | Source: Catwalk Genius

In their words: “In Catwalk Genius’ crowd-funding scheme, the finance raised creates a new collection. Then, all the revenues from sales are split equally between the supporters, the designer and us. The return for everyone involved is therefore directly linked to sales. In the case of our collaboration with Katie Eary, once VAT and affiliate commission are deducted, supporters may earn anything from £0 to £12 for every £10 share they purchased.”

Recent Buzz: There has been much online conversation about Catwalk Genius’ support and link to young design star Katie Eary, whose collection on the site is the only one that has successfully been completely funded by the public, albeit at a lower amount of £5,000. Even though Eary is only a very young designer, it has helped to build awareness and lent credibility to the Catwalk Genius project.

Our take: Getting Katie Eary on board was a coup and if Catwalk Genius can make this designer relationship a success, then others may follow suit. But apart from Eary, most of the remaining selected designers have failed to raise sufficient funds through Catwalk Genius. If the wisdom of crowds truly works, then this means that Catwalk Genius supporters believe in the potential of Katie Eary, but the other designers have failed to inspire them. Catwalk Genius should aim find other high potential designers to generate more consumer interest. Stay tuned.

Launch Date: 2009

FASHIONSTAKE, Daniel Gulati and Vivian Weng, Co-Founders

FashionStake Screenshot | Source: FashionStake

In their words: “The business model works by allowing designers to offer exclusive collections directly to the public. Revenue from the collections is split between the designers and supporters of the collection. Supporters are people who bought ‘stakes’ in the designer’s collection. They receive their revenue in the form of clothing credits, redeemable for any purchase on our site. FashionStake takes a percentage of sales.”

Recent Buzz: Following an article by Reuters wire service, news of FashionStake’s launch went viral, with follow-on pieces in The New York Times, New York Magazine, Huffington Post, Washington Post, WWD, and Fast Company. The company’s pre-launch email registration list now stands at over 10,000 people.

Our take: In order for FashionStake to succeed, Weng and Gulati will have to focus on picking the right designer talent to make their model work. Crowdfunding in the way FashionStake has structured it means they must be focused on designers who have exemplary talent, some recognition and respect from the industry, and ideally some household recognition as well. The founders say they have “internationally recognised designers” in their stable, but are keeping mum about the details.

Launch Date: September, 2010

Next week, BoF debuts the first instalment of The FashionStake Diaries, a new series providing a behind-the-scenes look at the crucial first months of a crowdfunding fashion startup, seen through the eyes of its founders. First up: From Idea to Traction with $1000

NEW YORK, United States — Over the past ten years, the eco-fashion movement has been gathering steam. Following the lead of pioneering brands like Stella McCartney and NOIR, which were founded on the basis of ethical principles near the turn of the millennium, there are now entire fashion exhibitions, forums and blogs all focused on so-called sustainable fashion.

Ethical fashion is also high on the agenda of the major luxury goods groups. In April 2009, having already partnered with Stella McCartney to launch her eponymous label, PPR announced its support of HOME, an environmental call-to-action by filmmaker Yann Arthus-Bertrand. François-Henri Pinault, chairman and chief executive officer, said at the time that PPR’s support aimed to use “images and commentary to make us understand that each of us has a responsibility towards the planet, and that we can each act in our own way.”

A month earlier, Bernard Arnault, chairman and chief executive of LVMH, told investors at the luxury group’s annual shareholders meeting in Paris of his plan to take a 49 percent stake in Edun, the sustainable clothing label founded by Bono and Ali Hewson. “LVMH shares the vision and ethical values of Edun, a pioneer in ethical apparel, and its founders,” he said later. “LVMH is committed to advancing both the social and environmental aspects of sustainable development, which plays an intrinsic role in the development of our brands.”

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE GREEN

In the food industry, we have witnessed the rise of certifications like “organic” and “fair trade” and their widespread adoption by affluent consumers. But what exactly do words like “sustainable,” “eco,” “ethical,” and “green” mean in a fashion context?

Earlier this year, in an insightful piece for the Financial Times, Vanessa Friedman identified a complete lack of consensus within the industry: “Having spent two days in Copenhagen immersed in the concept, having thought about it over the weeks since then, and having canvassed a wide variety of fashion figures, I can honestly answer … no one knows,” she wrote.

Ms. Friedman was in Copenhagen to attend a sustainable fashion conference which coincided with the UN climate change conference and spoke to a number of leading industry figures like Gucci’s Frida Giannini, Oscar de la Renta and Dries van Noten, a perfect focus group, you would think. Yet each of them had a different response to her question: “How would you define sustainable fashion?” Some emphasized a commitment to traditional techniques, others pointed to locally sourced materials, while still others mentioned the importance of reducing carbon footprint.

Industry-observing bloggers don’t fare much better in providing a cohesive answer. On the blog which accompanies sustainable fashion initiative The Uniform Project, co-founder Eliza Starbuck (who has since parted ways with the project to start her own line) wrote an especially thorough post which tried to clear up the confusion.

In the post, Ms. Starbuck distinguished between “heirloom sustainability” — the school that basically says nothing is more sustainable than a high-end designer item, say an Hermès belt, that is passed on for generations — and what could be dubbed “artisanal sustainability,” which is defined by handmade production and a low carbon footprint, the sartorial equivalent of the locavore movement among foodies.

In the end, however, Starbuck concludes that “there is still no ‘sustain-a-standard’ yardstick” that will cover all bases. After all, what are we sustaining? The environment? Traditions? Labourers? Change the parameters and the definition of sustainable fashion changes dramatically.

Commenting on the issue for this article, Christian Kemp-Griffin, chief mission officer at Edun, agreed that there is no single, definitive answer to what is ultimately a very complex question and that the best companies can do is strive for ethical progress and accountability, not ethical perfection.

Summing up Edun’s credo, he explained: “Ethical companies make thoughtful decisions and sell product thinking about the people who make the clothes — wages, human rights, health and safety — and the planet — energy use, biodiversity, organic — which boils the definition of sustainable, ethical clothes down to: product that benefits people and the planet.”

But rather than looking for a single formula, perhaps what is most important is that ethical and sustainable fashion brands are clear on what they are promising. As long as brands stay true to this commitment, they uphold the ethical values that are most important to them and their consumers. The more transparency brands can offer in their sourcing, manufacturing, and design processes, the more consumers can judge for themselves whether the promises being made are really being fulfilled.

In high-fashion, Stella McCartney is, without a doubt, the brand most closely associated with a commitment to the environment. The label’s famously vegetarian, farm-raised founder and designer very openly made planet-friendly practices a foundation of her company right from the start. Part of what makes her proposition so compelling is that her firm stance against cruelty to animals lies at the heart of everything her company stands for.

But is it 100% ethical, in the broadest sense of the definition? Probably not. Does this matter to her fans and customers? Probably not. What’s most important to them is that they know what she is promising and what they are getting when they buy a Stella McCartney product.

DOES SUSTAINABILITY SELL?

Definitions and good intentions aside, fashion is a business built on desirability — people buy fashion because they covet what it looks like and represents. So an equally interesting question is whether “Made Ethically” has the same effect as “Made in Italy.” In other words, is sustainability a positive differentiator in the eyes of fickle and demanding fashion consumers?

Stella McCartney became known as a chic designer label that’s convincingly green, not as a green designer label that is convincingly chic. Speaking to The Business of Fashion, McCartney was clear about her priorities: “Obviously, I don’t use any animals which has a huge impact on the planet. But my first job is to make desirable, luxurious, beautiful clothing for women to want to buy. Then I ask myself: can I do this in a more environmental way without sacrificing design? If I can, then there is no reason not to. I think that women buy my product because they like how it looks, feels, fits and being sustainable is an added extra bonus.”

This emphasis on desirability and design may come as no surprise from a graduate of London fashion college Central St. Martins. But interestingly Ali Hewson, who founded Edun primarily as a means to do good, sees it no differently. She told BoF: “In the fashion business desirability is sustainability! This point has taught us over the years that we must produce quality clothes. Fit must be right, design details correct.”

Julie Gilhart, influential fashion director at Barneys New York, and an early proponent of sustainable fashion, sums it up bluntly: “Consumers respond to good design. Design and desirability must come first.” When deciding whether to spend on fashion, the consumer looks, above all, for good design. Ecological or ethical considerations are still very much secondary.

To illustrate the point, Gilhart recounts an empirical lesson: “At Barneys, when we explicitly labeled Stella McCartney’s organic line with the word ‘organic’ its perceived value actually went down in the eyes of the consumer, even though it was actually more expensive to produce.”

There’s little doubt that environmental awareness amongst fashion consumers is rising and that greater transparency will become important for more and more brands. But in fashion, sustainability cannot drive sales without desirability.

Indeed, the brands that will resonate most with increasingly aware, but ever-demanding consumers will be the ones who integrate sustainable principles into their operations without making “being green” their defining principle.

Suleman Anaya is a contributing editor at The Business of Fashion