NEXT

[Fuuma]

Reviewing the thread, I understood this as a central theme. Stagnation. I appreciate the discussion of material reality and think it can't be separated from the other discussions in this thread, but I want to look critically at our own perceptions.

The period of "innovation," of golden age, of Hedi, Raf, MMM, Lang, I attribute our perception of an efflorescence of innovation to rising income inequality. Locate your favorite collections and designers 'gold' periods on the graph. Does anything line up?



My argument is this: expansion of a wealthier class entails the expansion of services dedicated to this class, including, but not limited to: feeding them, dressing them, entertaining them, housing them, cleaning up after them, etc. What we witnessed as a period of innovation was actually a reflection of the growth of a rich caste. But, the twist is the entrance of menswear; womenswear was previously available for artistic interpretation.

Innovation continues, but if my speculation is at all on the mark, income inequality will have decelerated or flattened in recent years. The "golden age" was really the birth of a new market, now it is just spinning its wheels after being established. The engine is now running, and yet still ask why we don't see any dynamic change. I read a few stories from Atelier's thread. I wonder how much of their profit comes from those surreal visits from Kravitz or John Mayer where they walk from their private appointments with bags of new clothes.

I grant here a degree of independence for aesthetics. Certainly, there are a lot here that are sick of black and drapey top-heavy silhouettes, and this is what they're referring to when they say "stagnation."

What this means for the topic of the thread is there will be no "next" in the same way we saw this previous "era," unless there comes a similarly dramatic rise or fall in income inequality. Just a note: I don't mean to imply something as simple as, "income inequality is a bad thing and must be eliminated."

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

[several_girls]

This is a genuinely interesting possibility, but I don't see enough here to say that it is so. The fact that the collections "line up" with rising inequality is, in itself, merely a curiosity. Here are a few other things that line up[/URL].

91-99 and 04-07 were periods of general economic expansion (from which the rich benefitted disproportionately, yes). If anything, it would be easier to say that luxury markets follow the general booms and busts of the economy rather than pinning it specifically on income inequality.

Points well taken. I am just trying to tie this perception of "golden age" and "stagnation" to something beyond mysticism ("The divine spark has left Paris! When will it return?").

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Would actually be "cum hoc ergo propter hoc," as I'm saying the "golden age" occurred simultaneously with the rise in income inequality. If I may adjust my argument: we saw was the opening of a new market. Now that it's up and running, we're misguided to think we'll see something like that happen again.

Yes, I'd have to go more into detail to link x with y, but surely the relationship between the expansion of a wealthy class and the expansion of services for them is a more concrete possibility than, eg: "we had a golden age and then tumblr ruined everything."

[Chinorlz]

A little revival of this thread with some observations and thoughts.

I'm wondering if there is going to be a market collapse/de-escalation in the near future when it comes to the number of retailers that are carrying the brands/lines discussed on here. It seems like more and more stores (virtual and physical) are either changing themselves to carry these lines and/or are completely new (with significant financial backers) and created to specifically target this market.

People have touched on just how outrageously expensive the rent must be for places such as Layers to exist where they are, but even for exclusive e-retailers, is there going to be a point where it is no longer sustainable?

It's interesting because presuming the public demand for these brands is increasing (even as retail prices climb and climb) and so more stores and individuals are seeing this and opening up more sources for people to purchase these garments, then what is the designer to do? Nearly all of these lines are supposed to be small-scale production with the exception of those such as Rick who still is not producing on a massive scale like the giant fashion houses.

There in theory should be a bottleneck occurring; a self limiting point to this market. It cannot keep growing without the designers increasing production and if they increase production are they going to still be viewed as artisanal/high quality/niche/precious? In my mind, something has to give.

The driving force in the end for all of this is money. Stores are backed by people with it (either their own or from wealthy investor(s)), there evidently must be a demand for these clothes by well heeled individuals at full retail because either the items never go on sale or someone is buying items when they arrive. A store couldn't possibly continue to sustain itself without high turnover unless they were operating at a loss on some level and someone doesn't care that they do. You can't keep ordering CCP, not put it on sale, let it sit on the racks and still continue to order it each collection. Massive losses would occur.

This is less of an issue for an e-retailer since their operating/overhead costs are significantly less than a brick and mortar place but at the same time you need to generate profit per-item while at the same time recouping enough back to allow you to buy the next collection.

So in the end, who is the target consumer that ACTUALLY supports the stores with their money? I would be surprised if it was individuals that have saved up and have been searching for that one piece that they're willing/able to buy at full retail. There aren't enough of those/us in the world to sustain this many retailers. At the same time, if a store hopes to rely on such individuals to keep them running season after season, I for one would be very interested in seeing how things evolve.

There definitely is a lot of love and attention that goes into these stores, but I can't forget what the end goal is. I appreciate the asthetics, the clothes, the designs as we all do, but the business/entrepreneur side of me is more than curious as to how things will be over the next few years.

[525252]

I can't remember the extent this was discussed on the H&MxMMM thread but I think the collaboration is a perfect end of the beginning moment. Pretty much every SZ brand has been seen in gross displays of celebrity and hype and even Margiela could be so simply turned against its own original values by putting it beside the H&M logo.

For now lets say the problem is not the dumb consumer or the capitalist pigs- The problem is the system of manufacture and distribution that further allows dumb consumer habits and capitalist pigs to be the paradigm. And by that I mean the manufacture processes etc. of (almost) everything from H&M and Topshop to Ann Demeulemeester, Prada, (Almost) everything!!

I'm not saying the system was fundamentally flawed, heaps of great stuff came out of it and still does, but given the circumstances have changed:
1. it is a zillion times harder to manufacture locally and ethically (and still increasingly so)
2. there is such a thing as the internet

And such changes should be addressed right? So some people have connected their businesses to an online presence, started online shops, online marketing etc. But that causes its own problem that it speeds up consumption and the manufacture processes have to deal with it. And then you get factories in Dubious Locations In Poor Unstable Countries etc.etc.etc. and that is a problem.

The answer isn't to denounce the internet for its evils but to adapt its use. But a high end physical retailer somewhat does denounce the internet. Sure they all have their websites but they're not integrated systems, they're accessories. What's the point of having both online and offline avenues for shopping in the one shop?

Is the physical experience and customer service really enough to justify paying the shop's rent? It implies that good customer service can't be achieved online (who's to say its always good in person anyway.. we've all had bad experiences). Tactility and physical experience are important but we should not have to pay for the experience of shopping, we should be paying for the clothes and the labour that went into their production. Tactility should be embedded into a system which makes sense (and I do mean to say the current one does not make sense anymore), it should not be something to save up for.

I'll be interested to see any boutiques that have adapted successfully, if they can pay their rent without depending ridiculously on their clientele's riches. Personally, I don't think its possible. I mentioned earlier in this thread the idea of "studio showrooming", it didn't really take off, met with a bit of doubt, but I'm insisting on it! Like a tailor, the workspace should be integrated with the place of exchange. High end retailers will either change significantly to something unrecognisable or diminish into an elusive rarity and eventually disappear (some already have ha)

If we hypothesise that there are no longer any retailers to carry the brands, designers must also adapt. They cannot survive with an online-only base to reach their customers, there is just too much competition on the internet. At the end of the day, they would be depending on 5 minutes of Tumblr fame for a short burst of income. (Its really not sustainable.) Businesses need to geographically localise and specialise in order to function successfully.

A designer's studio is a condition of their design practice, regardless of how online their business is. I won't go into the logistics of the business model (unless someone asks of course :P ) but you know, just saying, the studio is the only concrete and professional space which is unconditional to a business… whereas a physical store these days is very very conditional

[zamb]

I was hoping for someone who was interested in rational discourse to address some of the points Albert made in his post,
but it seems you have a lot of time on your hands to fantasize and a lot of time to type so you come with a lot of nonsense that is both contradictory and unrealistic to post a long winded response/ commentary.......

what area of fashion have you worked in?
what do you know about the manufacturing process in both the technical expertise required and the availability of resources locally to produce the products designers need to make?

what evidence do you have that your idea that the "studio" is the only feasible way to proceed?

I could go on and on, but I wont bother, you can answer those above then we can continue..

[zamb]

Anyways, now to Albert post

My friend you raised a lot of intelligent and deep points, but I think many people may be reluctant to reply to your post in part because you mentioned specific names, and I am not exactly sure that many will be comfortable discussing the points you raise which may lead to speculations about businesses which many of us have interacted with and are supporters of our work in the manner that such a discussion would require.


The truth of the matter is that the fashion industry, and this niche specifically is not immune to the ill's of the global economy, and I have no idea who is making money these days.................some might be more than others, but everyone is feeling the pinch and will have to be very frugal and smart until the market gets better.

Different consumers with different income brackets may have varying reasons for buying the products they do that we make, but the reality is, from top to bottom its really tough.
You know what is interesting. I think the people who are really benefiting right now are the Margielas and H&M's of the world............because to be honest I dont see the great education of the masses to buy less but better having any real effects on the consumer.
People want things and they want it cheap. There is also a psychological barrier in many people minds leading them to feel guilty in buying things above a certain price, in large part because there are cheaper alternatives to which they have never thought about the real cost and the greater effects on he wider society.
The few of us in the world who are passionate about making things better and buying better quality, I have very little hope of us winning this battle.

As for the stores and designers in this market. I think this time will require skillfulness and a lot of humility and cooperation from both the designers and the stores.
designers and stores will have to work together to bring a really good product at a really good price to the market for everyone to benefit.
To be honest about it, I dont care what designers are selling items for because I know noone's method of production and what it cost, but some of these prices to me are just ridiculous...........but that's my personal position.

I for one as a designer am not interested in simply selling products to stores and not care whether they sell it or not, i have a vested interest in stores that carry my brand to see them succeed, and top specifically see them sell a lot more of my products. For one, I will be doing more with the stores and will really consider whether or not I want to work with stores who are not interested or is doing very little in terms of promotion for my brand. Of course I cannot tell stores how to run their ship, but I am always interested in interesting collaborations, in store promotions and whatever else we can do to give good customer service to the clients and to generate sales that are beneficial to myself as a designer and to the stores who carry my work.

[Fenix]

There in theory should be a bottleneck occurring; a self limiting point to this market. It cannot keep growing without the designers increasing production and if they increase production are they going to still be viewed as artisanal/high quality/niche/precious? In my mind, something has to give.

I too find myself wondering about this quite often. At one end of spectrum, I put my business hat on and contemplate it all from a profitability perspective. We all want these brands to thrive, be successful, make money, so we can continue to see innovative, inspired collections. This means that they must sell at huge margins or submit to the masses. Is there an alternative if they wish to make money as a brand? I don't believe so but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

On the flip side, once we start to see the masses gravitate towards something that we view as exclusive or niche it begins to lose its shimmer. I was in a department store over the weekend which carries BBS, Rick, Yohji and a couple of others. Sales have begun and I watched as a couple of hipster types pulled some BBS pieces into the fitting room. I appreciate Boris' work but as my GF rolled her eyes I thought to myself, is that the beginning of the end of BBS for me?

This obviously contradicts my above business view. Does that make me shallow, elitist, threatened? Who knows...I do realize I am not alone. Look at this forum, first sight of a newbie posting Poell purchases, etc...old school members are calling them out as trust fund kids or mega ballers.

So, A, all in all, I agree with you. Something must give. However, as these brands make their ways into different types of stores how will that impact their success and our backing? Clearly, some designers are not being as selective as others.

[zamb]

I too find myself wondering about this quite often. At one end of spectrum, I put my business hat on and contemplate it all from a profitability perspective. We all want these brands to thrive, be successful, make money, so we can continue to see innovative, inspired collections. This means that they must sell at huge margins or submit to the masses. Is there an alternative if they wish to make money as a brand? I don't believe so but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

I Believe that every designer must answer this question for themselves.
I for one dont believe that you have to sell a lot of things at huge margins nor do you have to submit to the masses.......however what this means is that you will need a severely loyal client base, and be very frugal as to how the work is produced. money is important to innovation, but it doesn't stop innovation, as being creative can mean you do a lot with the little resources you have.

I think the biggest problem for a lot of designers is the pressure of image................there are certain expectations that customers/ stores/ fans have of designers and these can be placed along a timeline. if the designer does not meet certain expected standards of growth, innovation, distribution within the perceived time frame, then there become legitimate questions about his/ her career. as such, the image of success is often cultivated even when the reality of success is not there..............."fake it till you make it".
while this route does bring success for some, it can be a disaster for many, as many designers go bust by racking up thousands and hundreds of thousands in losses in order to continue in hope of success.
I believe making better products that people really want, even if that means doing smaller collections is the way to go. It can be more managable this way and even have a better sell through
At this point in my career, I honestly am of the view that its better to doing a smaller collection, in better fabrics, better cuts that fits better is the way to go rather than trying to do too much too quickly.
A bigger business does not always translate into bigger profits, it can mean bigger losses too and that's where the headache begins..................

[Chinorlz]

Thanks gentlemen for picking up and continuing the discussion!

I attempted to word my posting fairly and did not mean to negatively target any particular brand or insist on others revealing personal/store financial information. That in particular is not specifically relevant to the discussion as a whole since I am not interested in each individual retailer/designers business model so I hope readers do not take any sort of offense!

Just about all stores, buyers and individuals that I have interacted with from the designer/retail aspect over the years have been wonderful individuals that are very passionate about what they/we do and it really brings great joy to me. SZ is what I read daily.

Those of us that have been around this industry for a while (and those that have been in it for even longer) know that it's not one to get rich in. You create and have the honor of being in a position to create something that people love and are willing to put their hard earned dollars towards and in turn, you are able to sustain yourself in doing so. Aint no one in these fields for the most part buying Ferraris off of making clothes :)

Zam you make good points on it being an individual decision both on a store and designer basis. It's great to be courted and wanted by more and more stores each year but there will be a point where either the designer must expand their business (and thus potentially sacrifice many aspects of control over their design/business) or say "no." The latter I would imagine is a much harder thing to do. I know that I have had to do that many many times because of my limited time and it pains me to do each time. There is something deeply rewarding about knowing that your time and energy is appreciated and wanted, but frustrating at the same time that you cannot devote more to it.

Like you said, bigger is not always better. A small, refined collection may very well be the designer's balance between keeping ultra-high quality both in terms of construction and fabrics while at the same time allowing your work to be carried in more stores without personal sacrifice/negotiation.

The answer on a business scale/larger scale like Fenix has touched on above blends the oft-discussed cases of X Y or Z celebrity now wearing A B or C brand and now it's being picked up by the wider public and no longer feels special to some people (something that easily parallels with bands that make it big after years of being underground). Good for the brand from a popularity and financial standpoint perhaps but the pressures will certainly mount from the designers end in terms of production/design etc.

I don't have any answers to any of these posed questions, but would be interested in hearing/reading what people have to say.

[sshum88]

A, always enjoy reading your thoughts. I'll throw in mine as best as I can to the questions raised.

I don't feel there will be a market collapse so much as it is a re-balance. Stores will always pick up lines that they think they can sell based on their target markets. When it doesn't, they just drop the line and perhaps someone else may pick it up.

I've seen this happen in Toronto when one smaller retailer dropped Rick Owens mainline & Drkshdw and another bigger retailer started carrying Drkshdw. Actually another smaller retailer picked it up right around the same time as the much larger retailer and they dropped it only after 2 weeks. It might not net out to the exact number of retailers year over year. But at the price points that we are talking about, the mass consumers cannot afford it, and stores will have to drop the lines when they can't move the products even at sale prices. Most retailers cannot afford to tie up their cash in slow moving inventory.

Also in a market like Toronto, there are people with money but these lines do not attract those individuals. It is hard for many people to understand why someone should pay $500 for a pair of pants when perfectly good ones might go for half or less. It's hard to justify that a Drkshdw t-shirt is worth $200 even on sale. Sometimes I wonder this same thing when I'm constantly having to repair an article of clothing because the seams are not reinforced properly or that buttons keep falling off.

Yes I agree for most retailers it cannot be sustainable unless they have other streams of revenue coming in from elsewhere. If they are big enough, they may be able to absorb some losses for a few seasons but not forever. Investors and shareholders care about their $$$ and they want their returns at some point.

For small production designers, it's hard to scale and keep the price points exactly where they are currently unless you move to a lower cost manufacturing base. And then you run the risk it may not exactly align to the quality standards you envisioned when you first started.

I agree with the other poster where he stated that a label/line starts to lose its appeal & luster when other people who appear to buy/wear something because it is now the latest and greatest or some 'star' is seen posing in pieces for some event (example given was BBS). I

I can't recall the exact numbers but the article stated the % of the uber wealthy is actually growing so these folks can just buy out a full line at full retail without blinking. So they are the ultimate target customer.

I know I'm not. I buy very few items at full retail, but I do at times to support my local retailer. I appreciate that they bring in products that I like and can try on and I want their business to survive.

I'm wondering if there is going to be a market collapse/de-escalation in the near future when it comes to the number of retailers that are carrying the brands/lines discussed on here.

People have touched on just how outrageously expensive the rent must be for places such as Layers to exist where they are, but even for exclusive e-retailers, is there going to be a point where it is no longer sustainable?

It's interesting because presuming the public demand for these brands is increasing (even as retail prices climb and climb) and so more stores and individuals are seeing this and opening up more sources for people to purchase these garments, then what is the designer to do?

It cannot keep growing without the designers increasing production and if they increase production are they going to still be viewed as artisanal/high quality/niche/precious? In my mind, something has to give.

So in the end, who is the target consumer that ACTUALLY supports the stores with their money?

[cjbreed]

its an interesting topic. i've no time right now to contribute much but i do think there are some labels here that will stay true to their original vision and say no to big expansion. (luc, m.a+, ccp, etc.) not everyone wants to be big.

i feel like the reality is that the market for much of this stuff is really really small (relative to the overall fashion market). the internet can make it seem larger than it is, because it is such special work and generates dialogue on sites like this. but the demand is relatively small. as the supply (availability) goes up, the demand will go down accordingly for each individual retailer. the ones that will survive and thrive will be the ones that provide the best service, with the best reputation. the others will either die, downsize, or pick up different lines to fill the gap.

thats my take. service and reputation are so important. and the designers, or at least the most constant and resolute of the bunch, will not change. as soon as luc is made in china we should all just pack it in

[Faust]

Thanks, Albert for keeping the ball rolling. Some thoughts below

1) Very true that consumer habits must change, as Zam rightly points out. This is first and foremost, and the most important thing. I just wrote an article arguing for just that and have been shopping it around for op-ed secitons for various publications (without much success for now).

2) I actually think that AKA was right when he said that we are not seeing stagnation but proliferation. I have had the same who-the-fuck-buys-this-at-these-prices thoughts, but I also think that we simply don't have the knowledge to gauge something like that on a global scale. I just read a report in the NYT that by 2030 the middle class will VASTLY increase GLOBALLY (as will the number of the rich, I presume). This means more wealth and more luxury purchases. Especially in the emerging economies where people don't want cheap shit cause they grew up surrounded by it all their lives. China will remain strong and it's still a relatively new market. So if you are alluding to stores popping up in China, I think it's only the sign of zeitgeist and not of over-saturation. Brazil and India are coming in at China's heels. Russia will still be strong until the US start pumping their own oil (soon) and then it will be thoroughly fucked since they don't make anything.

3) I am not too worried about proliferation. There will always be new hungry talented young designers to replace those that get too complacent and too bloated.

4) Goth ninja was the subject of Bill Cunningham's last weekend's photo spread (I can't figure out if the guy on the right of the text is our own Poster Beuys). Game over. Case closed. PM sent.

[Faust]

Thanks, Albert for keeping the ball rolling. Some thoughts below

1) Very true that consumer habits must change, as Zam rightly points out. This is first and foremost, and the most important thing. I just wrote an article arguing for just that and have been shopping it around for op-ed secitons for various publications (without much success for now).

2) I actually think that AKA was right when he said that we are not seeing stagnation but proliferation. I have had the same who-the-fuck-buys-this-at-these-prices thoughts, but I also think that we simply don't have the knowledge to gauge something like that on a global scale. I just read a report in the NYT that by 2030 the middle class will VASTLY increase GLOBALLY (as will the number of the rich, I presume). This means more wealth and more luxury purchases. Especially in the emerging economies where people don't want cheap shit cause they grew up surrounded by it all their lives. China will remain strong and it's still a relatively new market. So if you are alluding to stores popping up in China, I think it's only the sign of zeitgeist and not of over-saturation. Brazil and India are coming in at China's heels. Russia will still be strong until the US start pumping their own oil (soon) and then it will be thoroughly fucked since they don't make anything.

3) I am not too worried about proliferation. There will always be new hungry talented young designers to replace those that get too complacent and too bloated.

4) Goth ninja was the subject of Bill Cunningham's last weekend's photo spread (I can't figure out if the guy on the right of the text is our own Poster Beuys). Game over. Case closed. PM sent.

[525252]

Zam, I respect your work and opinions though your hostility is disappointing, it seems I've offended you somehow. Rational discourse... sure, lead the way by any means.
Anyway, I will answer your questions:

what area of fashion have you worked in?

I understand you'd like to know what experience I could possibly have that would make me drivel such nonsense. What I do is beside the point (though let me say I do work in fashion).

what do you know about the manufacturing process in both the technical expertise required and the availability of resources locally to produce the products designers need to make?

I am sure we both agree that manufacturing locally is difficult and sourcing employees with technical expertise is also increasingly difficult. If your position is any different, please let me know. I came to this opinion from experience with local labels with a variety of manufacturing processes (for example, one label collapsed because the local manufacturer had collapsed due to the impact of the factories in China. Another label just took their manufacturing to China). This knowledge is also supported by a large supply of media and journalism, if you'd like me to refer you, no problems.

what evidence do you have that your idea that the "studio" is the only feasible way to proceed?

I could write you a full report but neither you or I have the time to read or write it. I don't exactly think it is the only way, nor that other processes are failures. I respect that your business exists, I don't know very much about your business particularly, but I ask that you respect that what I think is not a half formed daydream.

We agree that consumer habits must change, but we have different ideas about how it should be done. Maybe I am thinking ahead of what is possible to implement NOW, but I am thinking of a sustainable model. The idea needs to be developed further, but one thing is for sure is that physical retailers are struggling because of online shopping among plenty other problems. Exclusive collaborations and events are not sustainable.

[zamb]

Zam, I respect your work and opinions though your hostility is disappointing, it seems I've offended you somehow. Rational discourse... sure, lead the way by any means.
Anyway, I will answer your questions:



I understand you'd like to know what experience I could possibly have that would make me drivel such nonsense. What I do is beside the point (though let me say I do work in fashion).



I am sure we both agree that manufacturing locally is difficult and sourcing employees with technical expertise is also increasingly difficult. If your position is any different, please let me know. I came to this opinion from experience with local labels with a variety of manufacturing processes (for example, one label collapsed because the local manufacturer had collapsed due to the impact of the factories in China. Another label just took their manufacturing to China). This knowledge is also supported by a large supply of media and journalism, if you'd like me to refer you, no problems.




I could write you a full report but neither you or I have the time to read or write it. I don't exactly think it is the only way, nor that other processes are failures. I respect that your business exists, I don't know very much about your business particularly, but I ask that you respect that what I think is not a half formed daydream.

We agree that consumer habits must change, but we have different ideas about how it should be done. Maybe I am thinking ahead of what is possible to implement NOW, but I am thinking of a sustainable model. The idea needs to be developed further, but one thing is for sure is that physical retailers are struggling because of online shopping among plenty other problems. Exclusive collaborations and events are not sustainable.

I do not want you to read my position as being hostile

i simply don't want this to become the psuedo philosophical discourse the margiela thread has become.

anyways,
why do people need factories and all that anyways........indeed I understand that there are certain areas of expertise that are better left to people who has years of knowledge and tradition doing certain things. However, I would honestly prefer to see designers owning their own factories, doing their own production and having greater control over more aspects of their work.

I produce locally,
I simply don't buy from fabric suppliers who don't land the fabrics in NY, and try to avoid importing anything.......i smuggle fabrics from jamaica but everything we use else is either made or sold in the US.

my motto is: "if it has to travel the sea, it wont come to me"
luckily we have a nice fabric mill rep now in my building, ridiculously expensive but they look out for me.

I have painstakingly built my own factory, because i want to do small runs that the traditional factories aren't willing to do unless you are paying a ridiculous price and i don't want some lazy production manager telling me that the style is unnecessarily complicated.

i invest a lot of money into first rate equipment and make sure that my staff has all the tools necessary to function comfortably and make the best product we can.
If I can do this others can too.........the question os: do they want to?

After one bad experience where my production was halted in the middle of it a week before the deadline to accommodate a 500pc order from Marc Jacobs. I Promised myself i'd never allow that to happen again. I had to take the items home half sewn and stay up at night finishing them myself in order to deliver to the stores on time. That was the last damn day a factory got a dollar out of me
Friends said I was committing fashion suicide for attempting to build a factory, but now we have one of the best work studios of ant smaller designer with seven people working.

Its been a headache, but I spend a lot of time investing in training my staff to do things the way I believe. It cost me more at times to make the items ourselves, but i prefer it this way because our soul is infused into it, and i can be more flexible with orders and private clients than if i had - make the stuff in a factory.
Sometimes i am flat broke but I pay them very good wages to work so that they can feel respected and that what they are doing is worth their time, so this idea that local manufacturing is difficult is ridiculous.
Ye its a challenge, but life is about solving problems