random fashion thoughts

[lowrey]

This would mean making only enough (or even a bit less) clothing to meet the demands. But yet you do offer sales. Where does this go together with the above statement? Not trying to be mean, I’m just interested in what you wrote.

zam can answer for himself, but my view is that ideally, a sale gives the producer the opportunity to offload excess stock and the buyer the chance to get something they want at a lower price. its impossible to predict how much of something will sell so unless you produce only to order, chances are you will have more goods that sell for retail.

Whereas Grailed makes it possible to mindlessly consume by buying a ton of shit for low prices, reselling it for even lower to afford your next purchase, so someone else can resell it for even lower...

I realize the latter is sort of the worst case scenario and not everyone on Grailed does this, but judging from my own personal experience, it definitely feeds lowballing, pointless bargain hunting (buying something just because its cheap or without consideration) and consumerism.

[jimmycs]

My conjecture but seems to me like many of the consumers are so used to routine sales nowadays that it is expected.

In the meantime, the trend of the manufacturers are such that most start out with quality items made appropriately in more expensive countries begin to relegate that to less expensive labor cost countries to keep their productions going, which seems to end up with less interest from the consumers, leading to left overs that need to be sold at discounts.

[Nickefuge]

Okay, so the way I see this (please correct me if I'm wrong, I’m eager to learn):

Scenario #1:
The brand produces just enough to meet demands. Or a bit less.
This creates a hype, because some people missed the chance to buy these clothes. They go online and search for someone to sell it to them, probably at retail or rather above retail price.
Risk: People buy garments just to sell them online.

Scenario #2:
The brand produces more than it can sell.
Risk: This happens regularly, so fewer people buy retail. They rather wait for the sale. Plus some people buy items during the sale to sell them online later when the popular pieces are sold out. There’s no hype but there’s price-dumping.

Scenario #3:
A brand destroys all the garments it can’t sell at the end of the season.

[Arkady]

Scenario #3:
A brand destroys all the garments it can’t sell at the end of the season.

Now there's a style.

[zamb]

No it doesn't mean that

we sell in an industry where there are standards. we sell to stores who follow specific procedures every season and in running a webstore we follow certain specific procedures without compromising our principles.
we are not cutting our legs off at the knees

[DudleyGray]

The real travesty of Grailed is not that it democratizes garments, but written fashion in the vein of catalogs:

"THIS AUTHENTIC LANVIN PARIS ORIGINAL 100% SILK NECK TIE IS MADE IN FRANCE. THIS IS A VERY COOL PIECE TO ADD TO YOUR WARDROBE COLLECTION. THE DARK NAVY BLUE BACKGROUND IS OUTSTANDING WITH THE MULTI COLORED FINE DIAGONAL PINSTRIPES DESIGN. THIS TIE IS CHIC, CLASSIC ALWAYS IN FASHION AND WILL NEVER GO OUT OF STYLE."

Vomit.

[zamb]

The real travesty of Grailed is not that it devalues garments, but written fashion in the vein of catalogs:


Vomit.

fixed

[DudleyGray]

Oops, you're right. Although, aren't they the same thing? Couldn't it be argued that the devaluation of fashion garments is the inevitable end result of a more democratic fashion, more so than any particular means for reselling or annoying lowballer? Maybe that's been brought up already, but it sounds right somehow.

[Faust]

Yes, this has been brought up, that by lowering prices it allows young kids to wear the stuff they covet. There is something to it.

[TriggerDiscipline]

Okay, so the way I see this (please correct me if I'm wrong, I’m eager to learn):

Scenario #1:
The brand produces just enough to meet demands. Or a bit less.
This creates a hype, because some people missed the chance to buy these clothes. They go online and search for someone to sell it to them, probably at retail or rather above retail price.
Risk: People buy garments just to sell them online.

Scenario #2:
The brand produces more than it can sell.
Risk: This happens regularly, so fewer people buy retail. They rather wait for the sale. Plus some people buy items during the sale to sell them online later when the popular pieces are sold out. There’s no hype but there’s price-dumping.

Scenario #3:
A brand destroys all the garments it can’t sell at the end of the season.

ehh I dont really understand which industry you're referring to, but the way things normally work in a general perspective are two ways,

one is where the brand has no budget think baller haute couture where the producer only has to think about what they want to make and the price afterwards.

the thought process/formula is as follows:

Cost of Materials/Production + profit = wholesale price

or where some very particular budget or fast fashion places will have a set price where they want to sell the object at wholesale so for example they will want to create a pair of jeans, so they will set the price at 50USD per pant, and subtract the profit and the cost of creation from that. for example, 40USD profit, 5USD per meter of denim, 5USD per pant as a cost of production.

wholesale price - Cost of materials/production = profit

in general most of the fashion world runs on the latter than the former because it's more conceivable to find a set price and work around those restraints.

now as for brands actually producing, some places that sell direct to consumer have to create product so sometimes things that are not too popular get created as a result.

the more common thing is for brands to showcase their collections in Paris as showrooms or in fashion shows and then have the stores order what they want and the producers only have to make what is order essentially taking no risk, although there have been cases where a designer or producer creates product and the stores don't pay because they worked out a crappy deal with that said store.

it's happened before you can snoop around to learn more.

so if something is going into deep discount you don't really have to blame the brand as much as you do the buyer for picking something unpopular but sometimes you never know, you could think you know your market and end up with product that you thought would surely sell. it happens.

the fact of the matter is that even at 70% there is still profit to be made on the side of the producer, not so sure about the store depends on what kind of deal they have going on wholesale wise but its possible.

as for scenario #3 sometimes this stuff actually happens where stuff actually gets thrown out, but usually there are people who will buy before hand via family sales, or within company sales, or various other scenarios can play out and it totally depends on how good the MD division or MD person handles the situation. there is rarely a time where product on the producer side of things is held on to and then released at a later date unless it was done on purpose like some avant-garde bury the clothes in manure for 10 years kind of thing.

I could be wrong too

[Faust]

My conjecture but seems to me like many of the consumers are so used to routine sales nowadays that it is expected.

In the meantime, the trend of the manufacturers are such that most start out with quality items made appropriately in more expensive countries begin to relegate that to less expensive labor cost countries to keep their productions going, which seems to end up with less interest from the consumers, leading to left overs that need to be sold at discounts.

Not to mention that most big companies produces directly for their monobrand discount stores they run in outlet malls. To them it's just a different consumer they are trying to capture. No one cares about product integrity, as long as the same logo is stamped on it.

[Faust]

Scenario #3:
A brand destroys all the garments it can’t sell at the end of the season.

Now there's a style.

Supposedly Hermes and CDG have done this. I have not heard this rumor substantiated though.

[Faust]

Okay, so the way I see this (please correct me if I'm wrong, I’m eager to learn):

Scenario #1:
The brand produces just enough to meet demands. Or a bit less.
This creates a hype, because some people missed the chance to buy these clothes. They go online and search for someone to sell it to them, probably at retail or rather above retail price.
Risk: People buy garments just to sell them online.

Vetements

Scenario #2:
The brand produces more than it can sell.
Risk: This happens regularly, so fewer people buy retail. They rather wait for the sale. Plus some people buy items during the sale to sell them online later when the popular pieces are sold out. There’s no hype but there’s price-dumping.

Any number of big brands especially mid-market, such as Coach

Scenario #3:
A brand destroys all the garments it can’t sell at the end of the season.

See my comment above

Scenario #4 - Poell, m.a.+, Deepti, Paul Harnden, Hermes, key products from luxury brands like Celine and LV - tough policies demanding that the items never go on sale.

[DudleyGray]

Yes, this has been brought up, that by lowering prices it allows young kids to wear the stuff they covet. There is something to it.

I was thinking more along the lines of fashion shifting towards prioritizing profits over whatever elitist thing they had going on before (eg, exclusivity, quality, rarity). Fashion "democratically" catered to a wider audience for higher profits, but then the next step of course is to increase variety in product and frequency of production. I agree with casem, it's the oversaturation, but I think that's also the effect of fashion's shift in values. And so now people want to fund or make room for their next purchase to keep up with that cycle and variety. Grailed or no grailed, this might have all just been inevitable. Fashion is the one ironically what is devaluing the garments.

[Nickefuge]

Vetements

Exactly who I was thinking about when I wrote my comment. Though I giggled when I saw one pair of sweatpants on sale at Antonioli, haha.