Kate Moss arrives at Christian Dior show, Paris | Photo: Imran Amed

LONDON, United Kingdom — One never knows exactly what to expect from fashion month. Which designers will soar higher, which will stumble, and which will seemingly rise from the ashes? Four weeks of shows, parties and extravaganzas finally came to an end last Wednesday, and the answers to many of these questions have now been revealed.

But of course fashion week isn’t just about shows and parties, it is also the time of year when fashion editors, buyers, models, designers, stylists, bloggers, and photographers all travel together in a caravan-like four week trade conference. Not surprisingly then, fashion week is also the time of year when the most deals are done, relationships are born, and ideas are developed. At a time when the fashion industry is being radically reshaped by the forces of digital revolution, rapid globalisation and a post-recessionary economy, this biannual meeting of the fashion flock has become an even more important barometer of things to come.

Perhaps this is why our seasonal review has become a mainstay of BoF fashion week coverage. We take a step back and look at everything with a degree of distance, trying to understand what it all means. Over the last few weeks, I’ve been chatting with the good and great to get the inside scoop on the market drivers and trends that will shape the business of fashion in the months to come, and am happy to share them with you in this roundup of Spring/Summer 2011, the season that was.

1. THE RETURN OF OPTIMISM? FOR NOW.

The Jobless Recovery | Source: New York Times; Bureau of Labor Statistics. Chart by Amanda Cox.

It’s hard to believe it’s already been two years since fashion month was upstaged by teetering Wall Street banks and the eventual demise of Lehman Brothers on 15 September 2008. The Spring/Summer 2011 season was by far the most optimistic since the heady days of 2007. As one seasoned industry observer said to me, “the money has returned” to luxury and fashion. Indeed, senior business leaders and fashion CEOs boasted of high double digit percentage gains in revenue, albeit over the dismal numbers of 2009.

But is all this optimism well-founded, and will it last? Even with significant growth in 2010, the luxury market is still not back where it was before the financial crisis. The economies in the traditional luxury markets of Europe, Japan and the US remain weak and fragile. It’s only consumption in emerging markets like China, Brazil and India (or by citizens of these countries purchasing abroad) that is driving luxury market growth today. Indeed, we are at an inflection point in global economic history as power shifts away from the incumbents.

But over the longer term, the imbalanced nature of current global economic growth doesn’t bode well. As fiscal austerity measures begin to take hold in Western economies — further strangling the already feeble economic growth of the so-called “jobless recovery” — the luxury market risks becoming more and more dependent on new markets. And, as The Economist reported this week, without “micro” structural reform in both developed and developing markets, current growth rates are unlikely to last.

Bottom line? There is no crystal ball, but there is still a good chance that 2011 will see the return of economic contraction in traditional luxury markets, growth will slow in emerging markets, and the decade to come will be long and hard. I hate to burst the bubble of optimism that was palpable this fashion week, but we are far from being out of the woods.

2. SEVENTIES GLAMOUR, GRAPHICS AND NEON COLOURS STORM THE RUNWAY

Rodarte and Christopher Kane, Spring/Summer 2011 | Source: Style.com

While the camel colours of Phoebe Philo’s new minimalism may have dominated the wardrobes in the front row, many designers were taking an altogether different point of view on the runway – including, to some extent, Ms. Philo herself, who for the first time injected colourful prints into her runway collection for Céline.

In New York, the standout show was Rodarte, where the Mulleavy sisters finally found that elusive commercial counterbalance to their undeniable creativity. Ohne Titel — another female design duo — delivered one of their strongest collections to date, while Preen’s collection of tailored daywear was super chic.

Marc Jacobs’ seventies revival was a fun, commercial romp and set the wheels in motion for a seventies revival all around. “This is our moment,” Bonnie Takhar, chief executive of Halston said to me when I visited her showroom in New York. “For some brands seventies glamour is a trend. But for Halston, it is central to our brand DNA.”

During another strong London Fashion Week, Mary Katrantzou’s surrealist interior prints elevated her signature aesthetic to a whole new level, while Peter Pilotto delivered a knockout collection of eminently wearable clothes which were still distinctive for their fabrics and construction. Richard Nicoll’s powerful evening show at the old Eurostar terminal is still firmly registered in my head, as are Christopher Kane’s amazing Yakuza prints and neon lace-cum-leather looks.

I missed Milan, but Prada and Jil Sander — again in tune with colour blocking and graphics — seemed to be the standouts. For me at least, and despite reports in WWD to the contrary, Paris felt flat. Except for the stunning Lanvin show and a new haute vision from Rick Owens, the most exciting new development in the city of lights was the fact that taxis now come with red lights that finally signal that they’re available for hire.

Then again, I did miss the last day when Miu Miu looked particularly good, and Stefano Pilati pulled out a strong collection for YSL, which may have saved him his job at the venerable French house. Sarah Burton’s debut for Alexander McQueen also looked impressive and in-tune with the McQueen DNA.

3. THE RISKS OF FASHION IMMEDIACY

I have often referred to Burberry as the world’s first truly digital luxury brand, what with the phenomenal success of Art of the Trench, the innovative Burberry Acoustic initiative, trans-seasonal collections like “April Showers” and “Winter Storms” promoted via YouTube, and of course the pioneering live streamed shows which in recent seasons have featured shopable items, available for immediate order, with delivery in 6-8 weeks. Burberry has consistently been the fashion industry’s undisputed digital powerhouse.

But there are inherent risks in being the constant innovator and first mover. During Burberry’s latest fashion show, beamed live from London Fashion Week , several models tumbled to the ground from the towering heels they were asked to walk in. All of this was broadcast live to Burberry fans around the world. Of course, models fall at fashion shows fairly regularly, but in the past this would have been neatly edited out of the video that was later shown to consumers. This time, however, the unscripted moment was broadcast live around the world and will live in eternity online. A video of the finale fall posted by London’s Telegraph newspaper has been viewed more than 600,000 times.

That said, the risk of consumers seeing models falling is relatively minor compared to the benefit of capturing the immediate excitement of a live event. But to make matters worse, the Burberry collection reviews from some of the most influential fashion critics were not positive, and not just because of the shoes. Said Sarah Mower, “The problem with direct selling of this kind is that it can cut out a designer’s ability to explore variety in a show, to experiment with a creative way forward rather than satisfy the need to make something that has to be ready to arrive at someone’s door in six weeks.” Cathy Horyn, in her characteristically honest direct style went even further, saying “When I think of all the great collections that Mr. Bailey has done for Burberry, they’ve all been characterized by a sense of emotion that he was willing to put out there. It wasn’t all crass e-commerce.”

It seems the greater problem is that Burberry is conflating a consumer event with a trade event. Critics and editors are looking for an overall message, creativity and perhaps inspiration for fashion editorials, while consumers are ultimately looking for things to buy. Trying to achieve both of these with one collection in one live event is challenging.

Unfortunately, Burberry declined to comment on their plans for fashion immediacy, and some of the other potential benefits accrued from such an approach.

Tom Ford took an entirely different tack altogether. Ford told WWD, “I don’t get the need for fashion immediacy. I think it’s bad.” Ford debuted his first eponymous women’s collection to an intimate (and super exclusive) crowd of 100 or so editors and buyers, all of whom were asked not to take photographs. Most editors complied and thus, in a typically genius stroke of Tom Ford PR, he managed to get everyone who wasn’t present to pay attention to what he is doing for womenswear without showing them anything. Then again, thinking that he can totally prevent communication in the digital era is a stretch, even for Mr. Ford. No doubt, he will be fighting a losing battle against a digital tidal wave that is much more powerful than any brand or designer, even one who is as masterful a marketeer as Mr Ford.

Perhaps Gareth Pugh is onto something. He had a different take on the digital fashion show of the future. Rather than put on a traditional show, he chose to use a fashion film, which, as he explained to me over tea with his benefactor Michele Lamy, enabled him to more carefully control the image of his collection as it was beamed out live to the world. He was also able to provide Style.com and WWD runway images which were also carefully chosen and shot by his team in advance. This was the second time that Gareth employed this strategy, but for some reason the industry took much more notice this time around. Maybe it’s a sign that we are finally ready for a new fashion show format altogether.

More and more, the challenge for fashion brands and designers will be to embrace our new digital reality, while also carefully managing its inherent risks.

4. MAINSTREAM FASHION EDITORS TAKE TO NEW MEDIA

Clockwise from left, Cathy Horyn, Vanessa Friedman, Suzy Menkes, Hilary Alexander and screenshot from FT Material World

Following the lead of Cathy Horyn who launched her must-read On the Runway blog back in January 2007 (the same month, incidentally, that BoF was founded), many other important editors have taken up tweeting and blogging with a new-found vigour.

The latest to enter the fray is the Financial Times fashion editor Vanessa Friedman , who launched Material World, a blog that “deals with the fashion/luxury industry from both a corporate and consumer point of view.” Vanessa told me via email that the idea to start a fashion blog actually came from Robert Shrimsley, editor of ft.com. “I was thrilled,” she said, “because there is a lot of fashion news that the FT was structurally unable to cover in its paper incarnation, but that absolutely merits a comment or observation.” We’ll be reading Vanessa’s blog carefully, as it will no doubt address fashion business topics near and dear to us.

Amongst the twittering classes, no other editor has earned more followers than Hilary Alexander, fashion editor of the Daily Telegraph whose approach is simple: call it like she sees it. This results in a Twitter account with a real voice, something to which all professional tweeters should aspire. “If something happens you can tell people ‘this has just happened,’” she told me as we waited for the Peter Pilotto show to start. “It’s a good way of connecting with readers and getting them to explore the Telegraph website.”

The one digital holdout thus far is Suzy Menkes, although she does have a Facebook fan page. Now that the standalone International Herald Tribune site is no longer, her reviews have been buried on the New York Times website. Perhaps they should give Suzy a blog to give her the visibility she deserves. God knows she already moves at Internet speed. Her show reviews are almost always the first to appear. It’s really too bad they have made them so hard to find.

5. STYLE.COM VERSUS VOGUE.COM

Style.com and Vogue.com Screenshots | Source: Style.com and Vogue.com

Over the past decade, Style.com has established itself as the go-to destination for the fashion-obsessed. It is the website of record, especially because its show summaries are the first place many people look for images and snappy, intelligent reviews of the most important collections. Having built an archive over the past ten years, Style.com is now like an encyclopedia of fashion and an indispensable industry resource.

This season the website also stepped things up further, live-streaming select shows, pushing out more content, more quickly on its StyleFile blog, and getting its show photos and reviews up as they are ready, instead of waiting to put all the shows up at the same time the next day.

But Style.com also lost one of its very best critics when Sarah Mower — who has long been American Vogue’s eyes and ears in Europe — moved to Vogue.com, which was quietly launched in early September. Using a “less-is-more” approach, Vogue.com doesn’t review nearly as many shows as Style.com, but it regularly features contributions from senior Vogue editors like Hamish Bowles, Mark Holgate and Meredith Melling-Burke, meaning that the magazine speaks with the same voice, online and off, and has one editor-in-chief. This is a unified approach that more fashion magazines around the world should pay attention to. Personally, I have enjoyed the down-to-earth writing and large format candid party pictures, which aren’t as posed and perfect as the ones you find elsewhere, and therefore feel more authentic and fun.

It’s too bad, then, that the new Vogue.com site is clunky and hard to navigate. What’s more, for those of us in countries which have local Vogue websites, we must type AmericanVogue.com in order to reach the site, which is fine, I guess. But even once we’ve done that, if we click on the Vogue.com logo in the top left hand corner to go to the home page, we actually end up at Vogue.co.uk or Vogue.fr or Vogue.in, depending on which country we’re in. This needs to be fixed, pronto.

So what does the future hold for the two Condé Nast fashion websites? It’s not entirely clear as yet. But Condé Nast would be wise to fund and support the growth of both of these sites, as they find their voice and niche in online fashion media. There is plenty of room for both of them, and they both have a role to play. Style.com may become more industry-facing, expanding its role as the an essential indutry tool while Vogue.com could carve out a consumer-facing point of view.

Imran Amed is Founder and Editor of The Business of Fashion

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

Monte Carlo, Monaco

MONTE CARLO, Monaco — The global luxury industry has descended on the luxurious and beautiful principality of Monaco to discuss the future of luxury at the Financial Times Business of Luxury Summit at a time when there seem to be far more questions than answers. I am delighted to be representing Luxury Society, which is an official media partner of the conference.

To start off the conference, we heard from Bernard Arnault, Chairman and Chief Executive of LVMH, who sounded an optimistic tone, but acknowledged that the luxury industry will never be the same as it has been in recent boom times. He also touched on the crucial importance of the internet, sustainable development and selective distribution (i.e. the ongoing battle with the EU over distribution of luxury goods online) in the coming years. You can get a taste of Mr. Arnault’s speech from this video on the FT site and this article by the FT’s Vanessa Friedman.

Yesterday, with some encouragement from other participants, we set up a hashtag for our BoF Twitter reporting. For more reporting from the conference and to join the ongoing dialogue going on in the stunning Salle des Etoiles at Le Sporting Monte Carlo, check out the Twitter hashtag, #montecarlux, where you can also find tweets on the Summit from fellow conference attendees Alexandra Wilkis Wilson of Gilt Groupe, James Gardner of CreateThe Group, Oliver Walsh of Wednesday,  and Susan Tabak of Chic in Paris, amongst others.

Finally, please be sure to check out our latest contribution to the Financial Times which was published in today’s Business of Luxury supplement, discussing the Power of Pricing for luxury brands in today’s environment of wild currency fluctuations.

Japan slips into recession (FT)
According to FT, “the Japanese economy entered its first recession in seven years.”

Brioni Seeks Minority Investor (WWD)
Brioni is said to be selling a 20-25 percent stake of its company.

The Green revolution: Sir Philip Green (The Scotsman)
Sir Phillip Green will have his eye on the many high-street fashion companies up for sale next year.

Will London’s First Luxury Mall Spur Spending? (Ad Age)
A faltering economy and the fact that malls are not a huge part of the European shopping culture could make Westfield London a tough sell.

Street scene in Shibuya, Tokyo courtesy of  Guwashi99, under Creative Commons.

MUMBAI, India and SHANGHAI, China – If it’s the Monday of Milan Fashion Week, it also means that the Financial Times has published its regular supplement on The Business of Fashion. We’re a couple of days late, so in case you missed it, here is a link to a PDF of the entire supplement available on the FT’s Partnership Publishing site.

Amongst the best reads are a fascinating article by Josh Sims featuring a brand that I have come to know well in recent times, Clemens en August. Founder Alexander Brenninkmeijer ably describes the counter-intuitive, but successful business model that underpins this innovative company. Another article, on A Bathing Ape, asserts that the Japanese streetwear company has a 98% sell-through on its goods and suggests they might be looking for an investor.

I also made my own contribution to the supplement in an article exploring the short- and longer-term potential of the Indian luxury market. I was fortunate to speak to Yves Carcelle of Louis Vuitton, Patrick Thomas of Hermes, Amin Jaffer of Christies, Mohan Murjani of the Murjani Group, Priya Tanna of Vogue India and the French jewelry designer Marie Helene de Taillac, to get their expert points of view from inside and outside the sub-continent.

So what’s the quick verdict? Is India going to be the next China? The answer appears to be ‘not just yet’.

Today, the Financial Times published its regular Business of Fashion supplement, chock full of industry updates and in-depth articles on the issues that are shaping the industry. It really is a must-read for everyone in the fashion business, whether you are a creative or a corporate, or somewhere in between.

This time, we contributed an article, How to reach second base online, encouraging established luxury and fashion companies to start thinking about Internet as a communication tool, not just a tool for selling and advertising.  In fact, if done cleverly, this can be used to re-establish the communication and relationships that Luxury Goods companies were once known for.

We would love to hear what you are thinking on Fashion 2.0 these days, and about any brands that you think are leading the way. The full PDF of the article is available here.

We are excited to share the news that our first published article appears in today’s Financial Times.

The article links the shift in luxury goods production out of Italy to a recent spree of investments and licensing agreements that have taken place between emerging brands and established Italian houses with high quality production facilities. These deals have provided young brands like Proenza Schouler, Derek Lam and Sophia Kokosalaki with access to top class production, solving one of the major headaches of launching a high-end fashion business.

It appears in one of my favourite supplements for getting the low-down on happenings in the fashion business: Financial Times – The Business of Fashion. There are some very interesting reads, including Vanessa Friedman’s Q&A with Dana Thomas, author of the much-discussed book "Deluxe", my friend Robb Young‘s take on the new movers and shakers in the fashion business, and Godfrey Deeny’s revelations about fashion’s power brokers in the Middle East.

If you can get your hand on the supplement, it’s definitely worth a read. Unfortunately, none of the content appears on the FT.com site as yet, but in the meantime, please click here to have a look at the article on Italian investments.

Many column inches and much screenspace has been dedicated to Valentino over the past few weeks. The Business of Fashion has been no exception to this trend. What with the acquisition of Valentino by Permira, the celebration of Valentino’s 45th anniversary at the helm of his eponymous label in Rome last weekend, and the announcement of a 45% investment in Proenza Schouler by Valentino Fashion Group this past week, there has been much to write about — or, more specifically, to speculate on.

Will Valentino continue to design for his label or was this party the beginning of the end? How well will Permira be able to manage Valentino, their first investment in luxury fashion? What will Permira do with the tiny Proenza Schouler business which they snapped up for what seems to be a low valuation? Who will replace Valentino when he goes — will it be the Proenza Schouler boys or will it be Zac Posen, who was sitting in the front row in Rome along with other designers with careers longer and reputations much larger than his? Is there any meaning behind 45 years of Valentino and the 45% investment stake in Proenza Schouler? So many questions.

Vanessa Friedman of the FT has beautifully summed up the rampant speculation in this article, contextualising last weekend’s celebration in Rome with two other major tributes, the Concert for Diana and the Gianni Versace ballet this weekend — memorials for people who really are already gone. She goes on to describe the emotion and the grandeur of the festivities in Rome, trying to decode its significance, not only for Valentino but for an era in fashion more generally.

And, she ends with the most interesting question of all. By announcing his impending retirement, has Valentino become the equivalent of a lame duck U.S. President? Will he suffer the same fate as Tony Blair and George Bush, now that he has essentially announced his departure but is apparently staying on?

I can’t wait to see how all of this pans out.