High Fashion Relents to Web's Pull

[cjbreed]

nytimes.com article on luxury fashion brands opening web sites that sell directly to the consumer.

nytimes.com

firstly, i'd like to say that robert duffy (president-marc jacobs) sounds like a diva ass hole.

secondly, if i were a dept. store (neimans, saks) i'd be super pissed off.

thirdly, from a larger perspective, the world is going too far online. look at all the retailers that are shutting down (blockbuster, barnes&noble, etc.). local economies need these stores. people need live social interaction. this sucks.

discuss

[Faust]

The whole article is condescending and distasteful and smacks of elitism and an outsized sense of entitlement. Who gives a shit about their bickering.

The wider issue is interesting though and it reminds me a bit of the RIAA vs. downloading, where one party, still powerful, does not understand that the boat is leaving. The internet is here to stay and the market has become more global. And for every customer lost for a store, there are ten customers found. Look at the number of boutiques around the world that have started carrying designers who reflect the SZ aesthetic. Hell, entire stores have been built around these designers in the past few years.

Every brand the article mentions already has physical stores. So Bloomingdales can sell Jacobs online, but he cannot? That's bunk. I would understand it better if Jacobs would only sell to department stores and did not have his own stores and all of a sudden decided that there is a cheap way to get in on the action.

Lastly, the point I want to make is that retail and online customers often don't mix. Clothes are still a tactile experience, they still must be tried on and felt. Many people buy on the Internet because either there is no such item in a store near them, or they are looking for a bargain. In neither scenario the physical store is losing the customer.

The only thing I don't like is when people go to a physical store, try something on, like it and then try to find it for slightly cheaper. I find that distasteful, since many stores work hard in order to bring interesting stuff from overseas.

[sam_tem]

thirdly, from a larger perspective, the world is going too far online. look at all the retailers that are shutting down (blockbuster, barnes&noble, etc.). local economies need these stores. people need live social interaction. this sucks.

discuss

i've ranted many times about the positives of the internet, so to keep it short:

if shopping in stores with a watered down selection to appease only the most mainstream of choices while making others narrow theirs is considered valuable "social time" in a modern society, then we got bigger problems.

getting rid of brick and mortar stores decreases the cost of living, tremendous societal benefits, why we could even raise taxes and build nice parks on every other street corner

the internet isn't shutting down all stores. around here, it's the eccentric/niche stores that have been able to find a lifeline and these stores are run by knowledgeable people that love what they sell/do (disclaimer: i live in the expensive part of town though so this is far from norm, but will hopefully be the norm). they're not ignorant teenagers providing horrible customer service.

as for dissapearing jobs, that's a hard one. folks need better education and we need a hell of a lot more engineers/doctors so there's that.

[cjbreed]

i don't think there's any argument about the positives of the internet. i do think there is a clear argument against unchecked free market capitalism as it evolves into a new arena without examining all possible consequences (credit default swaps anyone?)

lets take this example to the extreme. what if EVERYTHING were available direct from the manufacturer. say i need a hammer. i google "hammer manufacturer". email them. pay online. hammer shows up in the mail. sweet deal, eh? but what if everyone did that? for everything. or even most people for most things. its not a sweet deal anymore. not for the brick and mortar retailers, vendor reps, the distributors, the freight haulers, the builders and contractors, the zillions of service providers for the buildings and employees (insurance, etc.) and on and on and on.

that "disappearing jobs" thing? yeah its a pretty big deal. i'm not a fan of saving the big box store over the independent retailer. but if you've ever been on a cross country drive thru the united states you know that there are a hell of a lot of economically depressed regions that utterly depend on these retail giants. not everyone is an entrepreneur (let alone a doctor or an engineer).

will new and different jobs materialize? maybe. i just think the issue is worth examining...

one result of this will surely be further concentrating wealth in the hands of the few while further disenfranchising the many

[Zhou]

Interesting read, it seems like its just saying what everyone has long expected to happen. The bigger labels, the ones that run the ad campaigns in Vogue, WMD and like, are going to move towards the complete online experience with their more recognized pieces from the diffusion lines and department store buys while keeping the more luxe pieces in the stores; the Hugo Boss Oranges and Armani Exchanges. Yeah you could go to a place like H & M and buy 30 things online for about 200 bucks, get them figure out what fits and sell/disregard the rest. That works online. Even the slightly pricier, the average person, Marc by Marc level lines would be a top sellers online as we've seen they are.

However with the labels discussed here you see such changes in each season that there will kill of the boutique or upper end department store. I personally would have a hard time buying anything of LVR or TheCorner just because I've never felt the collections , wore the pieces, or ever looked at them in person even though I've gone and researched as much as I could about them. I feel like those stores are for the people who've experienced buying from these designers in person and have experimented and can judge based of pictures how the fit will be and how it will feel. Just recently I was in LA and took my first trip over to Maxfield since I had never had been and was astounded at what I learned from actually being in the presence of the clothing. As much as I love the internet I really don't see the boutiques disappearing, or until they suffer a large drop of sales before people start the experimentation process.

[Sombre]

thirdly, from a larger perspective, the world is going too far online...people need live social interaction. this sucks

I'm with sam tem. If live social interaction means a self-serving, opportunistic salesperson making small talk with me about the weather while he/she really just wants me to buy that expensive article of clothing just so he/she can get a commission, but forgets me the second I look apprehensive, I'll pass on the live social interaction and happily do business online where people don't look at me with dollar signs in their eyes. Funny how that live social interaction can make you feel like you're worth only a few dollars to someone else.

that "disappearing jobs" thing? yeah its a pretty big deal. i'm not a fan of saving the big box store over the independent retailer. but if you've ever been on a cross country drive thru the united states you know that there are a hell of a lot of economically depressed regions that utterly depend on these retail giants. not everyone is an entrepreneur (let alone a doctor or an engineer).

will new and different jobs materialize? maybe. i just think the issue is worth examining...

one result of this will surely be further concentrating wealth in the hands of the few while further disenfranchising the many

This is a valid point, but the attraction of the internet won't abate, and many industries will end up like the record industry: fewer CD sales, better online marketing and increased internet sales. Don't fight the inevitable; find a way to make it work for you (a general 'you').

Lastly, the point I want to make is that retail and online customers often don't mix. Clothes are still a tactile experience, they still must be tried on and felt. Many people buy on the Internet because either there is no such item in a store near them, or they are looking for a bargain. In neither scenario the physical store is losing the customer.

I agree with most of what you're saying, except this point. If I'm buying an item that's released every season and I know what I'm getting, there's good reason for me to buy it online. Like I said, I don't like blatantly fake salespeople, so I avoid them if I can. In that case the physical store is losing me as a customer, and I'd bet I'm not the only one who thinks like this.

[cjbreed]

I'm with sam tem. If live social interaction means a self-serving, opportunistic salesperson making small talk with me about the weather while he/she really just wants me to buy that expensive article of clothing just so he/she can get a commission, but forgets me the second I look apprehensive, I'll pass on the live social interaction and happily do business online where people don't look at me with dollar signs in their eyes. Funny how that live social interaction can make you feel like you're worth only a few dollars to someone else.

i don't have a firm and well thought argument on this matter, which is why i posted the article. i want to hear what others think. so thanks for posting. i guess my seat of the pants response to this is that we need to have interactions that don't suit us. that are abrasive to us. we need to be able to deal with conflict, rejection, disappointment etc with well developed social skills. class. conversation.

this particular component of the issues being brought up by this article is a larger thing, beyond shopping. its about what is lost as we retreat further and further into a tiny little instant access society.

reminded me of this: check this out - amusing ourselves to death

the possibility that huxley, not orwell, was right...

[Sombre]

I'm not sure I buy into the "what doesn't kill us, makes us stronger" argument. It's like saying we need pain to become rounded individuals. We have to be able to deal with conflict because it will undoubtedly happen, but we shouldn't have to deal with it in situations over which we have control and can opt out of. I don't believe in "practising" for uncomfortable social situations.

That link makes a valid point. We have become a society of over-indulgence. We have abused the quick dissemination of information and used it to dumb ourselves down through cheap entertainment. However, none of this nullifies the value of the internet. I view it in academic terms. I appreciate any medium that can bring me information as quickly as possible. The internet takes years off research time. This means potentially life saving drugs being approved and reaching patients more quickly. It means advances in technology and transportation at unprecedented rates. That possibility is ultimately good for society as a whole. I don't care if a few (million) idiots want to waste their lives on Facebook and Twitter. They cannot overshadow the great possibilities of quick information distribution.

Another way to look at that comparison is to view it as two radically different methods of control. Orwell: if you control what people know, they won't attack you because you've concealed your actions from them. Huxley: if you give people what they want and distract them enough they won't notice your actions and therefore won't attack you. That point of view isn't necessarily valid, and I don't have any evidence for it, but I thought I'd offer it as a possibility.

[christianef]

The whole article is condescending and distasteful and smacks of elitism and an outsized sense of entitlement. Who gives a shit about their bickering.

The wider issue is interesting though and it reminds me a bit of the RIAA vs. downloading, where one party, still powerful, does not understand that the boat is leaving. The internet is here to stay and the market has become more global. And for every customer lost for a store, there are ten customers found. Look at the number of boutiques around the world that have started carrying designers who reflect the SZ aesthetic. Hell, entire stores have been built around these designers in the past few years.

Every brand the article mentions already has physical stores. So Bloomingdales can sell Jacobs online, but he cannot? That's bunk. I would understand it better if Jacobs would only sell to department stores and did not have his own stores and all of a sudden decided that there is a cheap way to get in on the action.

Lastly, the point I want to make is that retail and online customers often don't mix. Clothes are still a tactile experience, they still must be tried on and felt. Many people buy on the Internet because either there is no such item in a store near them, or they are looking for a bargain. In neither scenario the physical store is losing the customer.

The only thing I don't like is when people go to a physical store, try something on, like it and then try to find it for slightly cheaper. I find that distasteful, since many stores work hard in order to bring interesting stuff from overseas.

on the other hand they can mix perfectly.
i cant count the number of times ive tried on a piece ( or really wanted to) in the physical store, was a size off, obviously sold out of my generic size, and had to hunt it down online. i love the whole tactile experience too, but im sick to death of more or less knowing exactly what i want but having to hunt it down. the online angle makes the practice of buying a lot more flexible because everything's widely accessible so hopefully that will cut down on safe buying (1 pair of X pants in size X to be safe.) i have personally basically little to no interest in exclusivity anymore i just want what i want and if its readily available online, despite all my retail experience and appreciation for that side of things, its the first place i'll look. no i'll still look in the store first but the whole online thing is like a dildo ( or for guys online porn...or maybe still a dildo?) - a more than substantial substitute when the physical store isnt around to get the job done ;)

[Tyro]

.....................

[eat me]

^ exactly. And the way some of them are treating designers - it's like designers OWE them to be there, not the other way around (after all shops wouldn't be there without stuff to sell). And they thought designers would have no choice apart from the expense of setting up their own stores, but alas, they found a way.