Fashion

Fashion  /  PotD
Casual Friday All Week
May 20, 2016
charles i. letbetter - casual friday

America gives every appearance of being a nation besotted with trashiness – divorce, illegitimacy, casual Fridays. —P. J. O’Rourke

 

charles i. letbetter - casual friday all week

Just where do we draw the line for what is appropriate for professional business attire

Walk into most any office today and notice how people are dressed. When one compares what is acceptable professional attire in today’s environment, it is difficult to image that less than 50 years ago there was no such thing as casual Fridays. White-collar workers actually work starched shirts with white collars. Women wore dresses or, at the very least, a well-accessorised pantsuit, and that was only acceptable when the outdoor temperatures were frigid.

My father didn’t even own a pair of jeans until the 1980s, and then it was a practical purchase, not one of comfort. He hated those jeans.

The first week I was working at a funeral home in college, I was given the task of mowing the tiny bit of grass in front of the building. I asked if I could go back to the dorm and change into more appropriate clothing. I was told, “No, we’re professional. You need to learn to do everything in a suit and tie.” So, I did.

Looking around, I see only a handful of places where strict professional dress codes are still in place: courtrooms, newscasts (only applies to the talent behind the desk), award shows, and, to this day, funeral homes. Everywhere else has gone casual, not just on Friday, but every day of the week. Even worse, a number of casual offices still observe Casual Fridays. How does one get more casual than casual?

What happened to our sense of decorum and professionalism? When did we stop taking pride in how we dress on a daily basis? Why is even Casual Friday too much of a strain for some people?

Blame the leisure suit. Blame former President Jimmy Carter. Blame that whole self-awareness movement. Blame Lululemon.

Men’s leisure suits were an attempt in the 1970s to add some style and flair to men’s wear. Lapels went wide. Ties went fat. Fabrics went synthetic. Good taste went out the fucking window. Half-way through that decade, the ties were dropped in favor of pattern-printed silk shirts that were left unbuttoned far, far, too often. Those who are old enough to remember comedians Stave Martin and Dan Akroyd’s skits as “two wild and crazy guys” know what I mean. There was still a nod toward appropriate dress as they were, technically still suits, and depending on the year, matching vests as well. Still, they classify as one of the worst mistakes fashion has ever conceived.

Jimmy Carter was one of the few presidents elected who was not a politician or lawyer by trade. Born and raised in Plains, Georgia, part of Mr. Carter’s appeal to this day is that he’s still basically a peanut farmer. He’s a down-to-earth, hard-working, no-nonsense kind of person with enough natural charm to make anyone comfortable. Being a farmer, though, he was unaccustomed to wearing a suit. He hadn’t often worn one as governor of Georgia, and during those moments when he was not meeting with other heads of state, he didn’t particularly enjoy wearing a suit at the White House. As a result, the White House dress code was relaxed. The seed for Casual Friday had been planted.

When the White House relaxed, the entire nation followed suit, so to speak. I still remember starting school in the fall of 1977 and being told that bluejeans were now acceptable attire. That move alone was shocking. It was during this period that the concept of Casual Friday was first introduced. No one actually intended to “dress down” the entire week, but since Fridays tend to have fewer client meetings and a less critical atmosphere, the move seemed reasonably safe.

Then came the whole self-awareness movement in the late 80s and early 90s. Having survived the suffocating strictness of the Reagan years and pretending to be something we weren’t, Americans began to “get in touch” with their individuality. Being off-trend became trendy. Khaki was everywhere because it was more professional than bluejeans but more comfortable than a suit. Men stopped wearing ties because the open shirt collar was “more relatable.” Women stopped wearing heels and sandals became a really big thing.

Then, some idiot invented the flip-flop. Born from the Southern California surf culture, with which we were all enamored, shoe companies took a serious hit as the nation decided it wanted to be as close to barefoot as possible. To this day, I know far too many people whose entire shoe wardrobe consists only of flip-flops. Many of you may even remember the controversy in 2005 when members of Northwestern University’s national championship women’s lacrosse team wore flip-flops to the White House. Granted, they were nicer than your every-day flip-flops, but they were still flip-flops. Casual Friday had taken over.

Now, Casual Friday is going a little further. Not content with casual button-up shirts and loose-fitting slacks from H&M, “athleisure” is beginning to leave the yoga studio and creep into the workplace. An article published yesterday by Bloomberg confirms the trend. Sales of activewear are up 15 percent while much of the higher-end fashion industry languishes in the doldrums. With celebrities like Beyoncè pushing athleisure with her Ivy Park line, more people are trying to figure out ways to go from the office to the gym or the yoga studio without having to carry a gym bag.

This new form of Casual Friday might not be quite so bothersome if people only worked out after leaving the  office, but that’s not the case. More people workout in the morning or during their lunch break. They sweat. Then, for reasons I can only chalk up to oxygen deprivation during their workout, these otherwise-sane people think they can just toss a long sweater or t-shirt over their workout clothes and be fine. No, I’m sorry, you stink and your hands are sweaty. Take a fucking shower and change clothes, please.

An inconvenient turn of events left me eating lunch at The Cracker Barrel yesterday, something I had not planned on doing when I left the house wearing slacks that, in my opinion, were a little too loose. As I looked around the dining room, I noticed an interesting dichotomy. Women approximately my age or older were all dressed in a manner we might have considered casual back in the 70s, but was nonetheless quite well styled with appropriate accessories, their hair coifed, and gentle applications of makeup. Younger women, however, were all wearing jeans, or yoga pants, or shorts, all with flip-flops, no makeup, and their hair tossed in something that might have been a bun or a ponytail but somehow not quite either. The difference between the generations was startling.

Casual Friday has its place, and one should be free to wear clothes that are comfortable. Yet, I cannot help but mourn the loss of professionalism in how we dress. I feel sad when people no longer take any pride in how they dress on a daily basis, or the manner in which they present themselves in public. I’ll even admit to being biased against people I meet whose choice of clothing is grossly inappropriate. When I shake someone’s hand for the first time, a cold and sweaty palm are not what I want to encounter.

It’s Friday, and there’s no reason to not be casual about it, but good taste has a limit. Please try to not cross that line.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  PotD
Empowerment Or Exploitation
May 18, 2016
charles i. letbetter - empowerment or exploitation

Climate change, demographics, water, food, energy, global health, women’s empowerment – these issues are all intertwined. We cannot look at one strand in isolation. Instead, we must examine how these strands are woven together. —Ban Ki-moon

 

charles i. letbetter - empowerment or enslavement

Empowerment is more than words; the actions have to match as well

There are days, like today, where I feel as though all the stories are the same, we’ve merely switched up the names a bit. Twenty years ago, June of 1996, Kathie Lee Gifford was co-host of a popular morning talk show and was active in causes designed to empower women. Somewhere along the way, someone convinced her that putting her name on a clothing label would be a good idea. The label would be affordable and provide stylish fashion to women who couldn’t afford the big designer names. Empowerment; that’s a good thing, right? There was just one problem.

June 26 came along and the chief executive of National Labor Committee Education Fund in Support of Worker and Human Rights in Central America told Congress that the clothes were being made by 13- and 14-year-olds in Honduras. Even worse, those children were being forced to work 20-hour days. Empowerment? No, enslavement.

The backlash against Mrs. Gifford was quick and hard. She was demonized from every direction. Never mind that it was Wal-Mart, not Mrs. Gifford, who had made the choice of suppliers. No one ever bothered to picket the people directly responsible. Instead, because her name was attached to the brand, it was Mrs. Gifford who had to take the responsibility.

Celebrity labels often have this problem. Putting their name on clothes can produce a perpetual revenue stream for the celebrity, often without them making any actual investment in the products at all. Their name, their face in the advertising, virtually ensures that the products will sell well. The celebrity can then use a portion the profits to support a cause of empowerment to a specific group, typically one related to their own background. Sounds like a can’t miss scenario, doesn’t it?

But it does miss. Often. In addition to Mrs. Giffords nightmare, which eventually sunk the label, both Jaclyn Smith and Michael Jordan have lent their names to clothing lines only to have the claim on sweatshop use leveled against them. This is not a new story, and it’s happening again.

This time, it’s Beyonce’s Ivy Park label that’s coming under fire. British newspaper ran a story this past Sunday claiming that the sportswear brand is being manufactured in Sri Lanka by women making mere pittance a day in confining circumstances with strict curfews. That article wasn’t too bad, as it sloppily attempted to connect the brand, and its UK seller, Topshop, to disgraced BHS executive,Sir Philip Green. But then, writer Sirin Kale picked up the story for Vice brand Broadly and took the matter much, much deeper, exposing the severity of the situation.

Beyonce talks a lot about how she wants her Ivy Park brand to be a source of empowerment for women. In an interview with Elle (which also manages to cement Philip Green’s involvement), the music diva says of the brand:

It’s really the essence: to celebrate every woman and the body she’s in while always striving to be better. I called it Ivy Park because a park is our commonality. We can all go there; we’re all welcomed. It’s anywhere we create for ourselves. For me, it’s the place that my drive comes from. I think we all have that place we go to when we need to fight through something, set our goals and accomplish them.

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Inspiring, even. I’ve no reason to doubt the singer’s sincerity. But I’m pretty sure the women making those clothes aren’t visiting any parks, either. They do one thing and one thing only: make Ivy Park clothes.

The women who work for the Sri Lankan garment manufacturer make roughly the equivalent of sixty-two cents an hour. They don’t see their families; they live in dormitories on-site. They have strict curfews and their movement is limited. They barely survive. One woman said the $126 a month she makes sewing mesh panels into leggings was not enough to cover her basic expenses. Where’s the empowerment in that?

Now, to be fair, conditions in Sri Lanka are not as bad as those in Bangladesh or Pakistan. The company that owns the sweatshop pays particular attention to the building’s structure and meeting appropriate building codes. Women here are not as likely to be caught in a burning building. I should also mention that their pay is above Sri Lanka’s pitiful excuse for a minimum wage. However, workers would need to be paid nearly three times that minimum, or more than double their current wage, before they can actually live off what they are making.

Working conditions don’t have to be the worst in the world before they become exploitation. When the clothing retails at (approximately) $14 for a headband on up to $250 or so for a dress, someone is being empowered, but it is being done through the exploitation of women whose conditions are desperate enough that they will work for such horrible wages. Millions of dollars will flow into Beyonce’s bank account, and equally so for Topshop, but not for anyone else. Exactly how is that empowering to anyone but Beyonce?

We keep seeing this pattern over and over and over with almost every celebrity label on the market. Beyonce isn’t the only one, she’s just the latest big name who’s making money off women so poor they likely have never even heard of the singer and certainly can’t afford her albums.

As we saw with Mrs. Gifford’s label, though, canceling orders, shutting down the sweatshops, isn’t the answer, either. When Wal-Mart finally pulled the clothing order from the Honduran sweatshop, over 10,000 people lost desperately needed jobs. In Beyonce’s case, the numbers would likely be even higher. It’s not just the workers but entire poverty-ridden countries being exploited by the whole fashion industry.

If Beyonce was really serious about empowering women, she’d make sure those is Sri Lanka were receiving a living wage, even if that means shaving a percentage point off her own profit. If she were serious about empowerment, a portion of the profits could go into the Sri Lankan communities in desperate need of help. If empowerment were really the focus, The singer could support nutrition and education programs for the women making her clothes.

Fashion isn’t about empowerment, though, despite what their marketing packet might say. Fashion is about profit and if that means exploiting large groups of disadvantaged and disenfranchised people, then sadly the fashion establishment finds those terms acceptable.

Celebrity labels are nothing more than an attempt to profit from a name while it’s popular. No one is empowered. No one is given an advantage. It’s all about the money and exploitation. Every. Damn. Time.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  Mythology  /  pop culture
Modesty Doesn’t Become You
May 16, 2016
charles i. letbetter - modesty doesn't become you

It is strange that modesty is the rule for women when what they most value in men is boldness. —Ninon de L’Enclos

 

charles i. letebetter - modesty doesn't become you

Modesty should never be a mandate, but only a personal choice for those who understand their own power

Modesty is a topic that tends to get my dander up, so to speak, because I see it misapplied and inappropriately mandated and used as a bullying weapon far too often. Modesty has been used to shame, to subjugate, to imprison, and to deny rights to women for centuries and that we continue to put up with such nonsense leaves me angry. There are three specific instances that are raising my blood pressure this morning, even though not all recent.

In fact, the first happened a couple of months ago. Kat, as you may or may not have noticed, has relatively small breasts. We’re both cool with that. They have their advantages, one being that she doesn’t typically need to wear a bra. In some cases, wearing a bra can even be painful. So, she doesn’t. However, during a performance review at work a couple of months ago, she discovered that one of her co-workers, not a client or anyone of authority, but a co-worker had complained that sometimes the shape of Kat’s nipples are visible beneath her clothing. Normally, we call such an attitude petty and let it go.

Then, this past Saturday, KTLA meteorologist Liberté Chan was going through the morning weather report when morning news anchor Chris Burrous, a man whose own hair style was stolen from a 1950s evangelist, handed her a sweater during the live broadcast because, “we’re getting emails.” This is just so incredibly foul one has to see it for it to be believed.

https://youtu.be/NuhXbGwcUwo

Chan, who know that those who complain lose their jobs, laughed off the whole episode and Burrous later apologized, but neither is sufficient to excuse both the behavior and the reasoning behind it.

Finally, we published an article yesterday, Life Isn’t That Bad, and shared it with a few friends who expressed feeling a little hopeless about all the bad news in the world. In one instance, a woman, who is not a mutual acquaintance, commented: “Smart message. Terrible blouse.” I had to drop back and take a look at the article. I chose yesterday’s imagery because of Ella’s smile, not what she was wearing. Turns out, she’s wearing a sweater, not a blouse, and had chosen to leave it unbuttoned, daring to show some cleavage.

Modesty is a big thing among many religious zealots and in certain parts of conservative culture as a whole. Some entire countries demand that women dress modestly and provide for severe punishment if they don’t. Even the Puritans who inhabited the English settlement at Jamestown held some pretty tyrannical views. Mandatory modesty is global and a part of everyday life for many.

There’s just one HUGE problem with all this forced modesty: Everywhere you see it, without exception, it is being done in an attempt to shame, dominate, subjugate, and objectify women. Women are not told to cover up because doing so empowers them. Women are not told to be modest because it gives them more authority. Women are not told to be modest because it helps their voice to be heard.

No, women are told to be modest because they are “distracting,” which demeans them to being nothing more than shiny, pretty objects. Women are told to be modest because their dress style is “inappropriate,” which means someone is shaming them. Women are told to be modest because “only your husband should see you like that,” which is both dominating and subjugating. Every time women are told to be modest, in inference is that they are doing something wrong, even if all they are doing is existing.

What especially sickens me is that this disempowering nonsense is being taught to young girls from the moment they first learn to dress. There is an absolutely disgusting movement among conservative evangelicals called Secret Keepers. I was concerned the moment I heard the name, because keeping secrets is a tool used by rapists, specifically child molesters who are trying to keep their victims silent. “Secret Keepers” immediately sounds to me a group of children who have been molested. What it is, though, is a movement designed to impress girls as young as eight years old with the concept that their bodies are not their own and that modesty helps keep them “pure” for their eventual husbands. Get a load of some of their nonsense:

Bellies are very intoxicating and we need to save that for our husbands!

Lean forward a little bit. Can you see too much chest or future cleavage? Your shirt is too low.

It all depends on whether God has chosen to bless you with breasts or not.

There you go. Already, girls are being told that not only are their bodies not their own, but that they are little more than objects to be possessed by husbands and that their budding sexuality is distracting. Where this leads, ultimately, is the concept that victims are responsible for their own rape. They were “asking for it” because of how they dressed, or how they walked, or how they otherwise were sufficiently immodest.

We already have more than enough trouble combating the pervasive rape culture that has dominated our society for centuries. Women everywhere need to know that they can wear whatever they hell they want, where and whenever they wish, without being placed in physical danger. Women, and young girls, need to know that they can stand up for themselves and their ideals without the threat of violence against them.

Furthermore, women need to know that they, at the very least, have the same right to be dominant, to be forceful, to be bold, to be adventurous as any man who ever lived. If that boldness means one needs to take off their shirt to make a point, go for it. There is absolutely NO reason women should be shamed for doing exactly the same thing that we encourage men and boys to do.

I know there are already countless articles on this topic all over the Internet, so I won’t go on at length. Those were just the things stuck in my craw this morning.

Ultimately, though, I’m looking forward to the day we can view something like the video below as just another weather forecast. Fair warning, if you’re viewing this at work you probably do not want to scroll down.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion  /  PotD
Modeling Sucks. Sometimes.
May 11, 2016
charles i. letbetter - modeling sucks sometimes

I never cared about modeling. As a model, you’re powerless. —Karen Gillan

 

charles i. letbetter - modeling sucks sometimes

If you’re looking to make a career out of modeling and don’t already have a fat bank account, you might want to think again.

Back in 2005, when I first considered moving to Indianapolis from Atlanta, I naturally wanted to make sure that I would be able to have sufficient income. I did a little digging and was able to make contact with four different modeling agencies here. Three were delightfully quick to say yes, they would be happy to utilize my services. The fourth, Helen Wells, wouldn’t commit but at least was open to discussion. I had similar phone calls with ad agencies with similar results. So, I put the majority of my belongings in a storage unit (which would later flood), packed the rest in the back of a rental car, and headed North feeling somewhat optimistic about the future.

Within two weeks I knew I was wrong in my assessment. One modeling agency packed up and moved the very next day after I met with them, taking all the models’ earnings with them. Another told me how much they paid for a model’s comp card session, but they only had one model due to a disagreement over pay. They were gone within 30 days of that conversation. The third was more difficult to pin down, never quite having time to schedule a meeting and when we did was suspiciously non-committal. By the end of the summer, a lawsuit had been brought against the agency for withholding models’ pay. The models won the suit, but the agency owner fled the state without paying anyone.

I don’t know how many times  I’ve talked with aspiring models who just wanted to make a little extra money while in college. Modeling sounds like it would be an easy source of cash for anyone who is reasonably attractive. The common perspective is that all one has to do is show up. Someone does your hair and makeup, someone else provides your wardrobe, then you just stand in front of a camera and pose for a few minutes. Boom, instant easy cash. But that’s not the way modeling works at all. Not even close.

Modeling has always had its shell games and money rackets going all the way back to the 1940s when professional modeling began. The industry runs loose with absolutely no one overseeing it in any way. Some states have laws concerning how long models can work if they’re under 18, and a few European countries have some form of law designed to protect against eating disorders, but for the most part, modeling agencies do whatever they damn well please and models almost always end up feeling more like victims.

CNN Money recently started airing a five-part investigative series called Runway Injustice, taking a detailed look at the dark and dirty side of modeling. Only two parts have been released so far, but it is obvious from the title that the cable news outlet isn’t taking a positive view of the modeling industry. They’re looking at the con games, the slow-to-pay problem, and how many agencies make money charging models for expenses. One former model even goes on record as saying her agency charged her for the flowers they sent her on her birthday.

When one watches a fashion show and sees all the long-legged girls parading past in next season’s fashion, one might get the impression that these models are doing quite well for themselves, but the truth is quite different. While designers might pay the Hadid or Jenner offspring outrageous (and unjustified) amounts for showing up, most labels still pay less than $5,000 per model. I know, that still sounds like a lot, but from that travel, hotel, and food expenses are deducted, on top of the agency’s standard 20% commission and administrative fees. Many models walk away, after months of waiting, with less than $500. Some end up actually owing the agency money. Even Cara Delevigne, who has been at the very top of the game, doesn’t have anything nice to say about the industry and how it treats models.

Increasingly, the value of an agency, or “management company” as many like IMG prefer to be called now, is being called into question. More casting agents are looking at sources such as Instagram and other social media outlets, choosing models with exceptionally high numbers of followers, which virtually guarantees success for whatever ad campaign or runway show in which the model appears. Unrepresented, or independent, these models have difficulty keeping the work flowing. Most end up signing with an agency and find themselves right back in the same traps that more traditional models experience.

All this begs the question that, if modeling is such a horrible career, why would young people want to even consider doing such a thing? The answer is that not everything about modeling is horrible. For many, just the fun of being in front of the camera, getting to play dress-up with the wardrobe, the opportunity to travel (even if it’s on their own dime), and sometimes meeting really cool and famous people is sufficient. Some use modeling as a way to explore their alter ego, being in front of the camera what they cannot be in their private lives. Others use modeling as a means of escape from other horrible conditions.  For many, just the chance that they might become part of the .05% who actually make a fantastic living is enough to risk everything.

I’m sure that, at the end of the CNN investigation, there will be someone advocating greater oversight of the industry and legislation to protect models from various forms of abuse and deceit. Don’t expect anything to actually happen, though. We’ve heard all these complaints before. Nothing I’ve seen in the CNN report so far is new or different from what I’ve seen and heard for 30 years. The sad fact is models are not an organized group, therefore they are not able to present a single or unified voice. They don’t have, and can’t afford, lobbyist speaking to legislators on their behalf. No one sticks up for them and, once the spotlight of the CNN story fades, everything will almost certainly continue on the way it has.

Modeling is fun, sometimes, but there are a lot of other times when it just plain sucks. If someone wants to do it for the fun and adventure, great. Go for it. Have fun every step of the way. Don’t expect to get rich, though, and watch your back at every turn. While being a model can present some incredible experiences, it’s not likely to leave you swimming in cash. In fact, you’ll be needing your own gas money. Always.

Good luck.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion  /  Photography
Product Placement In Photography
May 10, 2016
charles i. letbetter - product placement in photography

If you really think about it, when watching television, you have product placement all the time. —Jay Chiat

 

charles i. letbetter - product placement in photography

Could photographers benefit by charging for product placement in their photographs the way television charges for placement in their shows?

Sitting here trying to catch up on some news articles I missed over the weekend, I came across an article in the Media section of the New YorkTimes looking at how advertising has changed in a digital age. What caught my attention was all the talk about how an old ad trick, product placement, is making more sense than ever in content that is shown on multiple platforms. Creating separate content for every available platform is expensive, but if the brand is embedded in someone else’s content, the onus and cost for multi-platform delivery falls to someone else. This works for the brand not only in terms of saving money (which it may or may not do), but extending their reach to content viewers who may not have been familiar with the brand.

You’ve been watching this happen on television and the movies from the moment either began. Big brands, especially tobacco companies, were significant sponsors of early television because it put their name in front of people who weren’t consumers of their product. Brands became “household names” not so much because of the quality of the product but because of their association with someone’s favorite TV program. As media has evolved, we now see that same product placement being equally important to digital media, especially those that run on social media platforms.

Photographers have utilized product placement before as well, though they may not have thought of it in those terms specifically, and they probably didn’t get paid for the placement. When we’re doing portfolio work, or taking pictures that are not for a specific client, we often approach designers and boutique owners about borrowing wardrobe. This allows our photographs to look more professionally styled (rather than depending on what the model is carrying in her bag) and, in some cases, gives the designer or boutique a touch of free publicity. In an environment where cash isn’t in abundance, the system sort of works. Kind of. Maybe.

Let’s take the pictures in this article, for example. The wardrobe is courtesy of  local designer Shiela Ferguson, whose Jealousy Jane brand is reasonably well-known in the local market. Christopher Thompson did the hair and makeup. By mentioning them here, they both, ostensibly, receive some advertising benefit from being included in the photograph. That’s assuming the people viewing the picture are in the market for a new couture gown or want to drive to Atlanta, Indiana to have their makeup done.

Consider how we might have made this photo different, though. What if the models had been holding a branded drink, with the label prominently showing? Would the image have been more interesting if they had been eating menu items from a popular fast food chain? Perhaps the image would have taken on a different tone had they been giving the dog branded treats.

Traditionally, I wouldn’t have considered such a move because using branded items, especially if the brand name and/or logo is prominently visible, can lead to some significant legal problems. Brands spend a lot of money on their image and don’t want anyone representing them in a way contrary to the brand’s message. Trademark infringement can be costly if photographers aren’t careful about what they’re doing.

In today’s environment, however, there might be an opportunity for enterprising photographers to do something unheard of: make money by selling product placement in their portfolio images! Why not? Products in photographs make them more interesting, more relatable, and make the story come alive to a larger audience. Funds from product placement can then be used for other things such as set construction and hiring models that match the brand message.

Of course, you know there are challenges to such an approach. First and foremost, the photographer has to be able to demonstrate a quality portfolio that appeals to the brand they’re approaching. No one wants to pay for shitty images, nor do they want their products associated with those images. One can hardly blame them.

Second in line is going to be whether the photographer can demonstrate value in his product. In today’s marketing game, this is where numbers matter. How many followers does one have not only on Facebook and Twitter, but Snapchat, Instagram, Tumblr, Vine, and Periscope? The higher each of those numbers are, the more likely a brand might be interested in placing their products in an image. Know that they’re also going to look at how many likes and shares previous images have received.

A photographer would need to have the ability to deliver an audience the brand wants. If one is primarily doing pet photography, approaching your local Coca-Cola bottler probably isn’t going to work. Tag Hauer may be a tough sell if one plans on shooting farm animals. Being able to match your audience with that of a brand is critical, which means you need to know who is your audience. Look beyond your friends and find out who really pays attention to your work.

Being able to measure results is going to be important as well. Marketing departments have a strange fetish for numbers and if they do agree to pay for product placement they’re going to want to know that you delivered the number of eyeballs you promised. If you don’t, they won’t likely pay for placement again and, especially if you don’t even come close, they might demand a refund. That means you need some method for compiling and reporting viewer statistics. There are a variety of ways to do so, especially if you are paying for sponsored content on Facebook or Snapchat, both of whom have great backend analytics as for not only how many eyeballs but where in the world they were, how old they were, their gender, and even whether they later visited the brand’s  Facebook or Snapchat.

Yes, that is a lot of work and no, it’s not going to be an option for someone who asks a model to shoot and doesn’t plan a concept until she walks through the door. If a photographer wants to actually make money off their portfolio, they have to think more like Caty Burgess, Senior VP for media strategies at the CW network, who asked in that network’s upfronts, “Is the question, ‘What is an ad?’ or ‘What isn’t an ad?'”

Almost anything we create with a camera has the ability to be an ad, even art nudes. We have the potential to change the paradigm in our favor. Think about it and consider changing your strategy.

 

charles i. letbetter - product placement in photography

Selling this shot to Coke after the fact didn’t work, but it might convince them to do something similar in the future

 

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  PotD
Female Entrepreneurs Do It Better
May 7, 2016
charles i. letbetter - female entrepreneurs do it better

I never felt oppressed because of my gender. When I’m writing a poem or drawing, I’m not a female; I’m an artist. —Patti Smith

 

charles i. letbetter - female entrepreneurs do it better

Female entrepreneurs are more successful than men, especially when under the age of 25.

Being in business for oneself is a dream that a lot of people have had, but for centuries, conventional wisdom held that men were the safer bet for investors. Being born female automatically put one at a severe disadvantage in the business world. Even now, for all the positive strides that women have made, venture capitalists still prefer to put their money on all-male teams. Call it the good-old-boys network or outright chauvinism, being female and trying to run your own business is more than a bit challenging.

Opinions may soon change, though, after a 10-year study by venture capital firm First Round has shown that many of those old, prevailing concepts of what makes a new business a good investment are just plain wrong. Being young isn’t bad, and being a female is actually a blessing. So much so that new business with at least one female on the management team out-performed traditional all-male teams by a whopping SIXTY-THREE PERCENT! In terms of business statistics, that number is huge! Combine that with the same research showing that having a founder under the age of 25 increases performance by thirty percent and we’re starting to wonder why every new business isn’t being fronted by young women!

The results of the study were first assimilated into a non-academic structure by the Harvard Business Review and should, hopefully, not only encourage investors to put more money into businesses started by women, but should also encourage more women, especially young women, to not hesitate to put that business plan together sooner rather than later. We’ve already seen that having a female at the front of the business is more likely to result in a successful Kickstarter campaign. Successful categories for women include technology, fashion, and games, but across the board, women beat all-male startups every time.

Perhaps the big question here is why we’re so surprised by these findings (and, universally speaking, we are)? Women have been running operations with complex financing and investment structures for thousands of years; they’re called homes. To claim that there’s no parallel between making a home successful and doing the same for a business is naïve and ignorant. Moreover, women have proven themselves more than capable of leading armies, running countries, and heading up Fortune 500 companies while still taking care of children and keeping their families in tact. Good luck finding a man who can pull off the same tasks with as much gracefulness.

Numbers compiled about this same time last year show that female entrepreneurship is on the rise. The number of funded startups with at least one woman on the management team doubled between 2009-2014. Still, that only accounted for eighteen percent of the whole, significantly low for the size of the whole picture. Women not only find it more difficult to secure VC financing for their companies, they have more difficulty gaining support from friends and family, especially in traditionally conservative areas of the country, such as the deep South and the Midwest. There are still too many people who challenge a woman with silly questions such as, “How are you going to balance both a business and a family?” or, “Does this mean you’re not going to have children?” That nonsense just needs to stop.

One possible area of concern, though, is that the same First Round study shows that where one goes to school does actually seem to matter. Specifically, startups did better when at least one member of the management team had attended an “elite” school, ie.,  anything in the Ivy League, Stanford, or MIT. That factor creates a significant challenge for any entrepreneur, but especially for women who cannot count on the legacy factor to get them into those schools. With rising education costs continuing to bring into question the value of a college degree, justifying the expense of going to an elite school over state schools with national standings in specific fields becomes a more difficult argument. Is it worth having a diploma from Harvard just to get funding for a business?

There are a lot of factors that go into making a startup work, though, and part of the reason for having a management team rather than trying to do it all on one’s own is that a diverse team spreads out those qualifications and experiences so that one doesn’t have to stretch to be perfect in everything. One of the dichotomies of the study is that, while startups with founders under the age of 25, having work experience at a top tech company is also an important factor. How is one supposed to go to college, get experience at a top tech company, and still start a company by the time one turns 25? I suppose if one graduates high school at 16 or something along those lines, it might theoretically be possible, but that is still a lot to ask of one person. Utilizing the skills and experiences of a team keeps the pressure from landing on the shoulders of one person.

What we do learn from this research, though, is that the time for young women to be starting their own business is now. The concept of waiting until one has several years of experience under their belt has proven to be ineffective. If you have an idea, do the research, write a solid business plan, and assemble a strong management team. Get yourself out there and do things. All the evidence points toward unprecedented success.

Go. Do it. Make yourself proud!

 

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  Mythology  /  PotD
Predicting The Future
May 2, 2016
CHARLES I. LETBETTER - predicting the future

Never make predictions, especially about the future. —Casey Stengel

 

charles i. letbetter - predicting the future

Sure, trying to guess a future that is, at best, blurry is risky, but some things are more certain than others.

I’ve met a lot of shysters and con men over the years. I hate to admit I’ve even been taken in by a couple of them. Those who know how to read people well can easily manipulate them. One of the most common, and obvious, cons is predicting a person’s future. We know when we sit at the small, sparsely-adorned table that what we’re about to hear is fake, but still there is a part of us that wants it to be true, especially when the fortune teller says things we want to hear.

There have been a few times, though, I have come across people who seemed to have an unusual amount of insight, and at least a couple of them were wearing suits. They had an uncanny sense of  the future; where markets were heading, which technologies would live, which would die, and the unexpected ways in which those technologies would affect society. The business world prefers to call them futurists. Then, there was that strange person who walked up to me at a Starbucks in Atlanta, unprovoked, and said, “You’re going to lose everything.” Yeah, that’ll leave an unsettling feeling in your stomach.

Even futurists don’t get everything right, but I think there are some things that are more certain than others and we can tell simply by watching trends and adjusting our actions accordingly.  While there is still no accurate indicator of when you’ll find love (scam, every time), we stroked the fur of our black cat this morning and came up with some predictions for the future we think we pretty accurate.

  • Men’s Fashion Week is doomed and androgyny will slowly take over fashion. In some ways, the handwriting would almost seem to be on the wall with this one. An article in this morning’s WWD discusses yet another major label, Gucci, combining both men’s and women’s fashion on their runways. To some degree, the move just makes financial sense. However, over the next few years what this is likely to set up is a greater amount of androgyny across fashion. We’ve already started seeing it in some of the younger, more “street” labels such as Public School and Alexander Wang, but don’t be surprised when the transition reaches the point that couples can shop not just at the same store, but off the same rack.
  • A major South American war seems inevitable and the US will largely ignore it. Yeah, that’s a little vague, because there are multiple countries where revolution seems ripe. At the moment, food shortages in Venezuela have that country high on my list. People who are hungry do desperate things and Venezuelans seem to be reaching that tipping point quickly. They’re not the only ones, though, as both Brazil, for whom this summer’s Olympics may be an economic bust, and Columbia, where unrest among cartels and the government is simmering, could erupt as soon as this fall. Unfortunately, and somewhat inexplicably, the United States has never taken the interest in South American humanitarian conditions that it does with Europe and elsewhere. One might almost think we’ve forgotten our neighbors to the South. I don’t see that attitude changing.
  • Straight, monogamous sexual relationships will become the minority preference. We’re already well on our way toward this one. As social acceptance of gay, lesbian, bi, and transgendered lifestyles reaches a sense of normalcy, other “alternative” sexual preferences inevitably begin to rise as well. New York Magazine published an article last week with findings from a Kinsey Institute study, the largest of its kind, showing that roughly 21 percent of adults in America have engaged in “consensual non-monogamy and kink” at some point in their lifetime. Kat and I talked this one through a bit and feel that this surprisingly high number is tilted toward younger generations where alternative lifestyles in general face less social stigma than they do with those my generation and older. Combine these people with the LGBT crowd and, even allowing for some overlap in the two groups, that number is likely nearly 40% already. Upcoming generations are likely to embrace that trend and grow the numbers even more. The social and political impact of this will be considerable.
  • Children currently under the age of ten are most likely to be affected by a full-scale cyber war during their lifetime. Yes, it’s easy to make such projections on the very young, but the future almost seems inevitable on this one. If you’re not familiar with the term “Internet of Things (IoT)” then you might want to start reading. The basic concept is that soon everything will be connected digitally, including manufacturing. While that may be a challenging concept to comprehend, one of the side effects is that wealth and power and likely to become even more concentrated, which means when they are primary targets in the future of warfare. Those who successfully hack the IoT will be able to disrupt food supplies, access to basic services, and completely shut down banking, leaving people stranded from their money. Traditional warfare with Marines landing on beaches goes out the window and a handful of people will have the ability to bring mighty countries to their knees.
  • Religions will fall out of social favor and will be seen more as cults. This is a pendulum swing that seems to happen every few hundred years and we can see it coming. Nearly 30% of Americans now list themselves as religiously unaffiliated. Again, the trend is being driven by younger generations who are less accepting of religious precepts and totally deny any religious authority. Historically, this ushers in a period of severe secularism where those espousing any form of visible religious observance are labeled as extremists and religions themselves as cults. This trend isn’t just among Americans, either, as similar trends have been noted in Europe and Australia and is driven not only by violent extremists in the Middle East but right-wing political involvement as well. The arc historically takes 200-300 years to complete and by my estimation, we’re still at least a generation or two from that arc reaching its apex.

Now, all that being said, we are obligated to add the caveat that the future is never written until it is past. Are there actions that could disrupt these predictions? Sure, but these are strong trends and I’m giving these predictions around a 90% chance of coming true. If I’m wrong, you are more than welcome to remind me. However, when I’m right ….

Yeah, I’m going to say I told you so.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion
Shopping Habits Die Ugly
April 26, 2016
charles i. letbetter - shopping habits die ugly

Whoever said money can’t buy happiness simply didn’t know where to go shopping. —Bo Derek

 

Shopping Habits Die Hard

You’ve changed your shopping habit and it’s killing a quintessential piece of America

I’m old enough to remember having to go downtown to shop. Back then, all the stores were downtown. They were open from 10:00 AM until 5:00 PM except on Thursdays, when they stayed open late, until 7:00 PM. At least, that’s how it was in the small Kansas and Oklahoma towns we called home. Back then, if both your parents worked, your shopping choices were either Thursday night or Saturday, neither of which was an especially pleasant experience. Just having to be downtown at night could be harrowing.

I remember the first large indoor mall I visited: Woodland Hills Mall, Tulsa. At the time, its location seemed rather far out, well removed not only from downtown but most of Tulsa’s suburbs. There was nothing around but fields and pasture. Shopping there was a surreal experience and we wondered why in the world anyone would want to drive all the way out there. If you were to visit that location now, however, not only is the area heavily populated, it’s had to go through three or four efforts at revitalization to avoid becoming run down.

Recently, someone gave Kat’s dad, aka “Grandpa Bob,” a real treasure: a 1969 Rand-McNally Atlas. Looking at the map for Indianapolis back then, I-465 was only completed on the west side and the primary destination was Lafayette Square Mall. Drive along North Lafayette now and there are times the mall looks completely abandoned and even the few stores that do remain are small, discount-driven stores with goods of highly questionable origin and quality.

Our shopping habits are changing again, and as they do we’re slowly but surely killing off what has become a bastion of American retail and excess: the shopping mall. Already, there’s an entire website dedicated to tracking mall closures. Now, Green Street Advisors, a real estate research firm, is saying that department stores need to close hundreds of locations if they are to have any hope of returning to profitability. In short, there are too many malls with too many department stores and it’s bringing the entire retail sector down.

The plight of department stores isn’t new and has been fairly well documented. Just last week Sears announced it would be closing 78 more stores (mostly KMart stores) this year. Macy’s warned last September that it would close 40 stores this year. We’ve seen this coming for a few years and that has, if anything, accelerated the rate of change in our shopping habits. We’re buying more online and from discounters now than we ever have.

Yet, more closures are needed if these once ubiquitous department stores are to stay in business. Green Street’s report suggests Sears close nearly half its existing locations. JCPenney needs to close approximately 320 stores, while Nordstrom probably needs to shutter 30 locations, and Macy’s needs to ax another 70 on top of the previously announced 40. All this is necessary if the store brands are to remain profitable.

Store brands are likely to take heed to this advice. They’re watching what’s happening to similar retailers in the UK and it’s not a pretty sight. UK retailer BHS went into administration yesterday, a prelude to possible bankruptcy as did menswear giant Austin Reed. And the once popular mall stalwart Aeropostale was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange on Friday after its stock price has failed to break the $1 mark since last September.

All this spells death for traditional suburban malls who depend on large department stores as their anchors. Malls have seen anchors cut the amount of floor space in some locations and even abandon leases in some others. When that happens, shopping at those malls screeches to a sharp stop. Smaller inner-mall stores, which rely on traffic driven by the anchors, quickly fold and leave. The next thing mall management knows, their vacancy rate exceeds 40% and once that happens the end days are near.

Let’s face it, though: no one really likes shopping at the mall anymore. This isn’t the 80s. We would much rather shop discounters such as TJ Maxx or  Marshalls and when we do shop a major department store we’re more likely to go in, find what we need, and leave. We don’t have enough expendable income to waste time just wandering around and exploring the mall.

No one has said yet whether they’ll follow Green Street’s advice. If they do, though, you can most likely kiss your mall shopping habit goodbye. With store closures in the numbers that the report recommends, only a fraction of mostly newer malls  would be able to survive. Within two years, the entire retail landscape could change dramatically.

I find it a bit ironic that suburban shopping centers and malls were responsible for killing many downtown shopping districts and now those malls are finding out what it’s likely to become obsolete themselves. Few downtowns ever recovered. Mall deaths may be even more permanent.

So, get your food court fix now and maybe make an extra trip to Spencer’s Gifts for those naughty little things. The mall is one shopping experience whose future is not pretty.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  Fashion Review
Do We Need Fashion Reviews?
April 17, 2016
charles i. letbetter - do we still need fashion reviews

A bad review is like baking a cake with all the best ingredients and having someone sit on it. —Danielle Steel

 

charles i. letbetter - do we still need fashion reviews

As the world of fashion changes, so must how we report and review fashion shows.

In case you’ve not been reading very long or don’t know me very well, for the past five seasons I’ve written reviews of women’s ready-to-wear fashion shows for Pattern. Prior to that, I would write similar reviews and either publish them here or on Facebook, depending on what seemed to make the most sense at the time. Beyond that, I spent many years at the end of those runways in the photographer’s pit and backstage capturing images for agency clients. My relationship with and understanding of the world of fashion is long and probably deeper than the average photographer.

Against that background, perhaps you can understand my interest when an article crossed my path this past week with the headline, The Extinction of the Fashion Critic. Fashion critics? Extinct? Last I checked, we hadn’t lost anyone. I know most the major magazine’s fashion reviewers and they’ve all been in reasonably good health, other than the perpetual jet lag and never seeming to get quite enough sleep. Everyone’s Twitter account is still active, so I don’t think we’re dying off just yet.

I do understand the premise of the article, though. With everything changing in the world of fashion, one might wonder exactly how fashion review and criticism is going to adapt. The article overstates some aspects, though, and I want to take a moment to clarify those.

  1. Fashion is not seasonless. I find the very notion that seasons have come to an end to be utter bullshit. If you believe such tripe, you’re not paying attention. If anything, seasons are more important than ever and statements this past February from both the Paris and Milan governing fashion bodies solidified that fact. Despite what a few designers are doing in terms of “see now, buy now,” fashion seasons don’t go away, they merely catch up to real time.
  2. Designers have always moved around. The fact that Ms. Michault seems to think that this is detrimental to fashion in any way demonstrates either her lack of understanding of the industry, her naivete about designers, or possibly both. As designers grow, change interest, or want to explore new opportunities, they change houses and the competition for the best designers is as high as it has ever been. Designers are going to move.
  3. Gender ambiguity does not dilute fashion review in any way. If anything, as more designers blur gender lines or completely remove any gender identity, the need to carefully review and critique those collections becomes all the more important. Genderless fashion has an extra burden to remain interesting and attractive while omitting the lines and silhouettes to which we are most accustomed.
  4. Only a small handful of critics receive any form of compensation or indulgences from fashion labels. Sure, there may be a gift bag on your seat when you arrive, but everyone present gets the same gift bag. Even more important, as bloggers have become a stronger presence at fashion shows, many indulgences have diminished. Bloggers are not given the same consideration as print critics and are frequently traveling on their own dime.

All that being said, however, as the fashion world slowly changes, so will the how, when, and why of fashion reviews and criticism. While I don’t expect a lot to change this season, and probably not the one after that, that we would need to adapt to those changes just makes sense. Here are some of the adjustments I expect us to be making in the next few seasons:

  1. Critics will be more picky about which labels they review. The number of designers showing at the four major fashion weeks continues to grow, making it impossible to even given a glancing nod to most. My most ambitious season saw us covering over 200 shows over the four weeks, and that left me thoroughly exhausted. As fashion changes, we are going to more carefully consider which shows are of greatest interest to our readers and limit our coverage accordingly.
  2. Labels that do “See now, buy now” options are likely to become a priority. When the fashion on a runway isn’t going to be available for six months, if at all, it becomes less important to readers than what is available to them right now. If a piece can be purchased immediately, it matters more whether that piece matches trends, works with other things you have in your closet, or has a severely limited life span. So, it makes sense to put more time and effort behind these collections.
  3. Pre-season and capsule collections will get more attention. Note: not every designer does pre-season collections and more than a few designers have listed that additional work as a substantive factor in their creative fatigue and burnout. That being the case, we may eventually see a reduction in the number of pre-season collections. Where they exist, though, and especially with designer-retailer capsule collections, reviews that relate those clothes to the main collection become more important. If there is significant difference between the two, we may be seeing signs of a shift in trends that could affect one’s purchasing decision.
  4. Critics may begin to consider cross-label pairings more frequently. As things in the fashion industry change, the relationship between critics and consumers is likely to become tighter. With so many different labels hitting stores, shoppers want help in knowing what matches. Rarely does anyone actually wear an ensemble as it is shown on the runway. Rather, they match Armani slacks with a Chanel jacket over a Dior blouse. Reviews that help aid those decisions will become increasingly important.
  5. Reviews may be adapted for different social media platforms. We’ve seen a bit of this already as critics frequently live tweet from fashion shows and some even provide brief video clips when they’re seated in a position that makes such possible. Instagram reviews have been a thing for four seasons now and don’t show any signs of letting up. Don’t be surprised when reviews start popping up as ads or publish directly to a magazine’s Facebook page.

Guessing at all the changes yet to come to the fashion industry is impossible, and it’s certain that none of that change is likely to happen quickly. Through all this change, consumers need a consistent and reliable voice to guide them through all the turmoil. Fashion critics are far from extinct. Our reviews are more important than ever. And, as always, we’ll be right there with a look at trends and quality and a sense of what works for you.

Thank you for reading.

Continue Reading

Fashion
Gucci’s Jesus Shirt Is Flammable
April 12, 2016

Pontius Pilate was the first great censor and Jesus Christ the first great victim of censorship. —Ben Lindsey

 

charles i. letbetter - flammable jesus

Recall of silk products is a concern, but there’s some irony when a deity is thrown into the mix

I know, this isn’t exactly the sort of headline one expects to see on a Tuesday morning. In fact, one doesn’t expect to see this manner of headline ever. I certainly hadn’t planned on writing one. Nonetheless, here we are, and yes, the story is all too real.

The problem begins with how fabric, particularly silk, is being manufactured. We both know good and well that there aren’t this handful of silkworms laboring furiously to provide the world’s luxury apparel makers with the thousands of bolts of silk they use each season. We also know that all fabric has to be processed in such a way that it meets industry and government standards for safety. One of those safety factors is flammability. In short, your clothes should resist catching on fire, not turn you into a human torch.

There’ve been two recent product recalls, however, because apparently there is more than one manufacturer who isn’t giving their product a good coating of the stuff that makes textiles less likely to erupt in flames. One involved some 20,000 rayon scarves sold under a name I’d rather not give any traffic. I found it rather disturbing that the scarves, which are worn around the head and neck, have been sold for two years and only now is someone figuring out that they’re flammable. Fortunately, fewer women are smoking these days and I’m guessing not too many women wear scarves while standing near an open flame. Still, it would only take one instance of a head becoming fully engulfed to make for some very bad publicity.

What really got my attention, though, because I never have trusted Chinese-produced rayon in the first place, was when Gucci’s silk t-shirts were recalled, also because they have this bad tendency to be flammable. There are three t-shirt designs affected, two of which are rather nondescript sheer silk with stripes. Neither are of a style I would drop $700 or more to wear. However, the third shirt isn’t one we normally associate with flammability. Take a look:

charles i. letbetter - flammable jesus

Gucci men’s silk t-shirt

Yes, you’re seeing that correctly. Gucci put a picture of a crucifix featuring Jesus Christ himself on one of their silk t-shirts. I’m guessing this one probably retails on the higher end somewhere around $1300 each. I won’t speak to the overwhelming insincerity of paying $1300 for a silk Jesus t-shirt, although that falls right in line with the idiocy of giving to televangelists. Neither do I care to go off on a tangent  regarding how incredibly disrespectful and sacrilegious it is to put Jesus on a t-shirt at all, though if one is going to do so, at least it’s silk.

Rather, it’s the fact that this Jesus is flammable that is dripping with irony that I simply can’t pass up. The image of the one who supposedly saves you from the flames of hell could actually erupt in flames itself if one is standing, oh, say around a campfire singing Kum-by-yah a little off key. One just doesn’t expect to find that wearing a depiction of Jesus might result in accidental immolation; we tend to leave that act to radicals, not people who drop $1300 on a damn t-shirt.

Obviously, Gucci didn’t actually intend for its Jesus t-shirt to be flammable and, given that fewer than 60 of the shirts were even in production, the owners are being contacted directly and their money being returned.

Still, maybe this should give Gucci and other fashion labels some pause about trying to use religious symbols to make fashion statements. Don’t. Because if you piss off a deity, there’s no fabric on this earth that can withstand the flames of such wrath.

Or maybe Jesus didn’t like the royalty split.

Either way, the shirts are off store shelves. A rather effective way to say Jesus wasn’t pleased.

[insert evil grin here]

Continue Reading

Fashion
Derailing Fashion’s Speed Train
April 11, 2016
charles i. letbetter - derailing fashion's speed train

What good is speed if the brain has oozed out on the way. —St. Jerome

 

charles i. letbetter - derailing fashion's speed train

The first step toward fixing a broken fashion industry is getting it to slow down

Fashion’s speculators have been reeling since last fall when both Raf Simons and Elbar Albaz left high-profile creative positions without announcing a move to another similar post. Since then, others, most notably last week’s departure of Hedi Slimane from Yves Saint Laurent, have continued to underscore one of the most significant problems with fashion today: the current pace of eight collections a year is too much. Designers have been complaining for years and now, rather than continuing to put up with the relentless pace demanded by high profile houses, they’re leaving, taking their creativity with them.

This past Saturday, April 9, London’s Telegraph published an interview with Raf Simons that lays out the severity of this problem more clearly than previous statements.

“These days it’s a different way of consuming [culture]. It’s now looking and then swiping to the next thing – looking, next; looking, next; looking, next; next, next, next, next – there’s less dialogue and engagement with it in general”

Here would be the first place we need to slow down: taking the time to consider what we’re consuming  so that designers have time to consider what they’re creating.  When we engage in fast fashion, especially as we tend to do more online shopping through our smartphones and/or mobile devices, we’re not paying attention to what it is we’re actually buying. Some people don’t care; they buy for the look and prestige of a label and hope that they will be able to squeeze into the garment once it arrives. We don’t take the time to pay attention to stitching, to how well the fabric is going to stand up, or the type of care it’s going to require. Paying more attention to what we’re buying slows the purchasing process which, in turn, gradually slows the development process, giving designers more time to be creative and pay more attention to what they’re sending down the catwalk.

Simons also spoke to the pace at which designers are expected to develop. If a small designer’s work catches on in the right places, the explosion can be deafening.

“Fashion has become such a big thing. When you are just a kid from the streets somewhere you start slowly, maybe with just two people watching and then 10 and 50 and 100. These days that can grow really fast. Suddenly millions of people are watching.”

Creative fashion talent is something that takes time to grow and the traditional model allows for that. Designers first go to school then work their way up through a label, giving them time to not only hone their craft, but to learn the business as well before starting out on their own. Inasmuch as fast-fashion retailers such as H&M and Zara pluck young designers directly out of school and start demanding store-ready work from them deteriorates that growth opportunity while simultaneously minimizing their personal brand. When fed-up and burned-out designers finally leave such a place, they’re often so discouraged and disenfranchised that they leave fashion altogether. Wonderfully creative minds are being killed before they have an opportunity to fully blossom.

As fast fashion kills the opportunity for creativity, it is making more and more fashion irrelevant, which cannot help but ultimately backfire on the retailers. While the stores may appear to be putting “new” fashion on their shelves on a daily basis, what they’re actually doing is replacing one vintage inspired piece with a different vintage inspired piece. Sooner or later, people begin to look at their closet and see that they already have the exact same things that are on store shelves. Simons hits the topic rather bluntly:

“Everyone is paying attention to the wrong thing in my opinion. There’s this huge debate about ‘Oh my God, should we sell the garments the day after the show or three days after the show or should we tweet it in this way or Instagram it in that way?’… You know, all that kind of bullshit. Will all that stuff still be relevant 30 years from now? I don’t think so.”

If fashion is not memorable, if a fashion style does not define its time and place, of what good is it, ultimately? Are we looking at a fashion future that is as bland and boring as what we’ve been seeing on runways the past five years? Is fast fashion going to kill every last ounce of creativity until designers are replaced by machines making random modifications to old patterns? Simons doesn’t mix words when explains how fed up he is with the current pace of fast fashion:

“Every season I see so many things evolving at such a speed that I think certain creative people, including myself, are just not willing to do it anymore. I don’t want to. If you work on that level, you miss out on a lot of things.”

After reading this interview, I’m not expecting to see Raf Simons heading another ready-to-wear label anytime soon. While I’m sure there are offers being made, he doesn’t seem the least bit inclined to return to the craziness and self-destructive atmosphere that is fast fashion. We should take this as a warning.

Consumers are the ones who must stop fast fashion. H&M and Zara and Forever 21 are simply responding to your buying habits. When consumers demand more, faster, they rip away the opportunity for designers to think, to explore, and consider all that comes with being creative. If we want to derail this destructive train of fast fashion, we have to change the way we shop. Look more at local designers and boutiques. Take more time and be intelligent about what we buy. Pay attention to quality and not be so driven by price alone.

Should we fail, we may soon see a day where we’re all wearing identical jumpsuits. We don’t want that.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  PotD
A Better Size System For Fashion
April 6, 2016

Life is too short, and I’m Italian. I’d much rather eat pasta and drink wine than be a size 0. —Sophia Bush

 

charles i. letbetter - a better size system for fashion

Size labels won’t fix the problem of weight shaming, but it may change how we think of ourselves

This isn’t a new conversation, but the fact that we are still talking, regularly, about body size and weight shaming is itself a symptom of a larger problem that doesn’t have a simple solution. The human race has, as far back as anyone can tell, judged people by their size. At certain points in our history, being larger was considered more attractive because it was a sign of wealth that one had enough food to eat. Our obsession with being thin did not happen until the twentieth century, but body size has always been an issue.

While doing a bit of research, I came across a very interesting quote:

I felt like a loser. I was unhappy as a child most of the time. We were terribly poor and I hated my size.

Do you know who said that? One of the most unlikely people ever: Don Knotts, the late comedic actor known for his thin, wiry frame. A guy who felt bad about his size.

While the topic is not a new one, and not going to go away because of anything I write here, it has taken on a different direction of late. First, comedienne Amy Schumer is upset because she is in Glamour magazine. I know, that doesn’t sound like a horrible thing, but the problem she has is that she was included in the magazine’s special plus-size edition. Schumer wrote on her Instagram account:

“I think there’s nothing wrong with being plus size. Beautiful healthy women. Plus size is considered size 16 in America. I go between a size 6 and an 8. @glamourmag put me in their plus size only issue without asking or letting me know and it doesn’t feel right to me. Young girls seeing my body type thinking that is plus size? “

Glamour responded:

“First off, we love Amy, and our readers do too — which is why we featured her on the cover of Glamour last year. The cover line on this special edition — which is aimed at women size 12 and up — simply says ‘Women Who Inspire Us,’ since we believe her passionate and vocal message of body positivity IS inspiring, as is the message of the many other women, of all sizes, featured. The edition did not describe her as plus-size. We are sorry if we offended her in any way.” 

Still, more than a few people have noted that the very act of producing a special “plus size” issue further marginalizes anyone who doesn’t fit the stereotypical thin shape society expects from women.

Then, almost simultaneously but on a different part of the planet, Model Iskra Lawrence dealt handily with a troll who attempted to fat shame her. Lawrence, who is a bit of a gym rat, didn’t hesitate to post a picture of herself covered in bags of chips (known as crisps across the pond) and letting the troll know she’ll eat what she damn well wants. Scroll on down Ms. Lawrence’s feed and you’ll find some impressive pictures of her in the gym doing squats with more weight on her shoulders than I know I could manage.

Fighting against weight shaming is an eternal battle that, because of how some people respond to their own negative feelings of self-worth, is likely to never go away. Yet, I cannot help but think that we aggravate the problem with how we label both clothes and people. As mentioned in the Schumer/Glamour dustup, anything size 12 and higher is considered “plus” sized, but even women who wear size 4-10 often find themselves being ridiculed for not being a model-worthy size 0 or 2.

While changing the labels won’t make the problem go away, perhaps if we re-think how clothes sizes are named we can, at least, provide both men and women with something that doesn’t immediately demean them when they take an item off the store rack. Why not replace numbered sizes or even the more general small, medium, large, etc. with labels that provide a more general definition without being insulting. Here’s what I’m thinking for new labels:

  • Casual would be similar to what we now consider a medium size. Hips might be more full, waistlines more forgiving, but within a range appropriate for the average person.
  • Fit might be a more appropriate label for those who take body tone seriously. Waistlines might be tapered, but not too small, shoulders would be more accommodating, and trouser legs would be full so that those calf and thigh muscles would have room.
  • Sensible seems to make sense for the next size range up, as this would encompass those whose skeletal structures would never allow them to fit into smaller clothes no matter what they tried. Millions, if not billions, of people fit into this range that is not trim, but still quite healthy with nothing to be ashamed of.
  • Abundant might be more appropriate for that size range higher than what is currently a size 16. Admittedly, for those who fit into the largest of sizes, nothing really takes away the stigma that comes from being compared to those who are smaller. Yet, by using a label that at least has a less-offensive connotation perhaps we can minimize the hurt to some degree.
  • Attenuated could work for smaller sizes, which can be just as difficult emotionally as larger sizes. Women, especially, whose metabolism runs high are never going to fit well into Casual-sized clothing. Kat is one of those people who typically has to shop in the Misses or Teen section to have any hope of finding something that fits. And that’s despite consuming healthy portions of my cooking.

These are obviously just suggestions and I don’t expect anyone influential to pay any attention. Getting the entire fashion industry to change anything is extremely slow and difficult. Yet, we need to start somewhere and realize that our labeling conventions are helping to shame millions of people who have no cause to be concerned about the size and shape of their  bodies. Size labels seem like a good starting point.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion
Sexy Isn’t What It Used To Be
April 4, 2016
charles i. letbetter - sexy is changing

A great figure or physique is nice, but it’s self-confidence that makes someone really sexy. —Vivica A. Fox

 

charles i. letbetter - sexy isn't what it used to be

What we consider sexy today is vastly different from what it was a year ago

I haven’t shot a full nude in over a year. Partial nude, yes. Topless, yes. Implied, yes. But our attitude toward nudity and what makes something sexy has changed dramatically, and that change has happened rather fast.

Now, from the outset, let me clarify that being sexy doesn’t require being naked and nude photography can be many things and sexy not come close to making the list. Nudity and sexiness are mutually exclusive for most conversations. Yet, where the two do intersect, or have in the past, the lines have moved. What would have been popular previously no longer is and some images that were recently tolerable no longer are.

One of the first articles to cross my path this morning comes from Mallory Schlossberg at Business Insider on the evolution of sexiness. The article relies heavily upon the opinion of Ruth Bernstein, chief strategy officer at Yard. All the usual suspects are referenced, specifically Playboy and Abercrombie & Fitch where changes have been most pronounced and public. Without question, there is a strong shift as to how we look at what’s sexy. I won’t argue that point at all.

Yet, while some retailers and magazines see toning down the blatant sexuality is a good move, still others are moving exactly the opposite direction. I look at images for Porter magazine’s summer edition, Flair Italy, the Marfa Journal SS2016, the April edition of Marie Claire Italy, among others and the level of nude and other sexy imagery is higher than ever. There’s even an editorial in the Spring/Summer edition of Gentlewoman titled “Crotch” and it is exactly what the name implies.

What’s changing isn’t so much the absence or presence of nudity, but rather how that nudity represents more than just being sexy. There is a greater emphasis on artistry, on the uniqueness of the photography and how it is processed. There is a tilt toward the bizarre, such as an editorial done with the model holding a very large, limp fish. There’s also an emphasis on empowerment. One magazine gave two models and camera and a boat to themselves for the weekend. No photographer, no crew. The result was perhaps surprising, with a lot more nudity as the models felt free to not bother getting dressed the entire weekend, but also empowering because they were in charge of what pictures were taken when.

Not everyone is making the shift successfully. Schlossberg’s article references how sales have dropped at American Apparel since they changed their ad campaign to something considerably less provocative. Similarly, Abercrombie & Fitch is second-guessing whether they might have let the pendulum swing a little too far.

Meanwhile, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition adds MMA fighter Ronda Rousey and plus size model Ashley Graham to their covers and get more attention than ever because they defined sexy as something other than the traditional size two.

Every generation redefines what sexy is for them, and the past few generations have largely copied off what came before. What’s happening now is that millennials, and the upcoming Gen Z folks what a more three-dimensional image of what’s sexy.  They’re not satisfied with a flat image of a naked body or two. Instead, they want that image to have something to say other than, “Hey, I’m naked.” Nudity is a strong communicator, as we’ve seen with celebrity nude selfies the past few weeks, but what they’re communicating with that nudity is a message of empowerment and independence.

Sexy is finding its voice, and that’s challenging for anyone who grew up thinking that one could either be smart of be sexy, but not both. Sexy is a protest. Sexy is casting an informed vote for president. Sexy is intelligent, has a hold on its future, and gets naked whenever and where ever and with whomever it wants, on its own terms, and doesn’t care whether anyone else approves or not.

Sexy is changing, for the better I think. Get on board the new sexy train now, because last ye ar’s definition just doesn’t work anymore.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion
A Great Place To Work
April 1, 2016
charles i. letbetter - friendly places to work

My experience has been that work is almost the best way to pull oneself out of the depths. —Eleanor Roosevelt

 

charles i. letbetter - a good place to work

Why are advertising and fashion companies not listed more frequently among the best companies to work for?

Apparently, my friends and colleagues in the advertising and fashion industries are not as happy with their jobs as they appear.

The latest iteration of Fortune Magazine’s “100 Best Companies To Work For“ is out and looking down the list what I see is rather disappointing. There is only one Indiana-based company, Roche Diagnostics, which is #73 on the list. There is only one fashion-related company on the list: Nordstrom at #92. And despite the fact that #1 Google lists itself as an advertising and marketing company, there really are NO pure advertising agencies on the list at all. We have a problem.

Business of Fashion published an article yesterday addressing the culture of emotion and how that impacts employee retention and happiness. While there are a few companies that are trying different approaches, most were based on single-event programs and failed to really address the day-to-day issues that can make even creative offices stressful and difficult to work at. Creative people don’t work as well under stressful situations. We’re more likely to shut down. Having one day a year where a team gets together to “give back” to the community is nice, but it does absolutely nothing to alleviate the daily grind under which everyone is working.

Earlier this morning, fashion holding company Kering announced that creative director Hedi Slimane is leaving Yves Saint Laurent. While the news is anything but surprising, it underscores how unhappy everyone working in the fashion industry seems to be. Slimane joins Raf Simmons and Alber Elbaz on a list of very high-profile designers, people who should be at the top of their design game, who are just floating out there, unattached to any label and missing the financial capital to create eponymous lines for themselves. If the world’s top designers are not happy, we have to assume that everyone below them is absolutely miserable.

Similarly, advertising has never been a friendly work environment. The revolving door at most agencies is so severe that anyone who makes it past their one-year anniversary is considered a veteran. While some may blame the constant turnover on the aggressive recruitment poaching of top talent, what factors just as strongly is a lack of willingness on the part of the agencies themselves to create work environments that encourage loyalty and reward longevity. I’ve talked to many agency partners who never expect new hires to stay long and, as a result, create an environment that encourages their exit. Who wants to work in a place like that?

Hundreds of thousands of creatives are employed between the fashion and advertising industries. While both have managed to thrive for decades on a high-stress, high-turnover environment, the day when creatives are willing to tolerate those destructive work atmospheres may be coming to an end. Millennials, especially, are less tolerant of work environments that are incapable of contributing to their overall well-being, including emotional and physical aspects that we’ve previously considered inappropriate for the office. If employers don’t find ways to adjust, the exodus of  creative talent could bring about an end to business-as-usual and spark a whole new revolution of agencies and design labels that disrupt both industries.

Brand and agency executives have every reason to be concerned. No business can survive off the work of the people at the top. Workplaces need to get a lot more friendly, and fast.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  Mythology
Can Fashion Separate From Religion?
March 31, 2016
charles i. letbetter - can fashion separate from religion

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. —Lucius Annaeus Seneca

 

charles i. letbetter - can fashion separate from religion

Religion has always influenced fashion, so what would happen if they were completely separate?

Here’s a question for the water cooler this morning: Would modesty still remain a moral virtue if it wasn’t mandated by religion? Think about that for a moment. All our laws and social expectations regarding the necessity of being clothed in public; the very concept that the activity in which one is engaged determines the appropriateness of what one is wearing is heavily influenced by religion.

We reported earlier this year about Dolce and Gabanna introducing a new line specifically for Arab women. Many celebrated that move as forward thinking and very supportive of a community the fashion industry had largely ignored. However, when Marks & Spencer began selling their burkinis (full body swimwear) in their European stores, including England, not everyone was happy. Most notably, France’s women’s rights minister Laurence Rossignol told The Daily Express:

“What’s at stake is social control over women’s bodies. When brands invest in this Islamic garment market, they are shirking their responsibilities and are promoting women’s bodies being locked up.

“You cannot pass off as trivial and harmless the fact that big brands are investing in a market that puts Muslim women in a situation of having to wear that.

“It is irresponsible on the part of these brands. All those who participate in how society is represented have a responsibility.”

Then, on the heels of that statement, both WWD and British Vogue published stories this morning with comments from Yves Saint Laurent’s co-founder and the designer’s long-time personal partner, Pierre Bergé. Bergé used some rather strong and potentially inflammatory language in denouncing what he sees as fashion designers going for a quick buck. Bergé’s comments were on radio station Europe1 and reported by The Guardian: 

“Creators should have nothing to do with Islamic fashion. Designers are there to make women more beautiful, to give them their freedom, not to collaborate with this dictatorship which imposes this abominable thing by which we hide women and make them live a hidden life.

“These creators who are taking part in the enslavement of women should ask themselves some questions.”

One one level, it would seem that both Ms. Rossignol and Bergé are standing up for women’s rights. After all, if the full-body covering commonly attributed to Muslim women were, in fact, a symbol of their unwilling slavery, then by all means, the criticism would be appropriate.

However, such statements are made in ignorance of the fact that many Muslim women choose to wear the burqa and hajib and other modest clothing not because they are enslaved, but as a sign of their faith and devotion to their religion. To Muslim women of faith, dressing modestly is not “abominable” but rather a statement of how committed they are to Islam. These are choices these women have made for themselves, not something that was forced upon them.

If it is “irresponsible” for designers to provide choices for women of Islamic faith, then is it not equally irresponsible to facilitate the choices of women who practice any other religion? One can reasonably make the argument that if one religion’s dress code is practical enslavement, then the dress codes of all religions must fall under that same heading. If religious mandates are restrictive and to be abolished, then the fashion industry should immediately stop making the calf-length denim skirts favored by many conservative Christian women. So too, should they stop incorporating Hindu styles such as chador, kameez, and kurta into their styles, something which has been immensely popular among Indian women. Even traditional pagan clothing, most notably the long cloaks and capes that we’ve seen frequently on runways the past two seasons, would have to be forbidden. Oh, and by all means, let’s do away with those little gold crosses every teenage girl seems to wear.

Fashion has always been influenced by the religions of its wearers because religion influences most every aspect of society and the lives of those who believe. Because a designer may not hold to any one belief system is no reason for them to avoid providing clothing that is popular among women of faith. If anything, it would seem like a fairly astute business decision. Over one and a half billion people are Muslim. More than a billion people are Hindu. Why would a designer not want to provide fashion that speaks to those faiths?

Judging other people because of their religion is easy because judging religion itself is a fairly simple academic exercise. The claims of religions don’t tend to hold up well against arguments of logic and reason.  However, while I am not opposed to criticizing religion for a host of reasons, criticizing the people who hold to those religions is absolutely wrong and morally reprehensible. Our failure to tolerate belief systems other than our own is one of the greatest failures of contemporary society.

Fashion designers who provide clothing that meet the restrictions of certain religious guidelines help build social bridges at a time when they are most desperately needed. It is not, as Bergé claims, a denouncing of one’s principals to help someone who believes differently than you. If anything, it is a statement of the strength of one’s faith to work and socialize with those who beliefs are contrary.

Fashion has a chance to help society. There’s no reason to not make the most of that opportunity.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  Music  /  PotD
Stardom Quest
March 31, 2016
charles i. letbetter - stardom quest

Whenever I hear that I’m on the brink of stardom, I feel like I want to run into a cave. —Kate Bosworth

 

charles i. letbetter - Stardom Quest

Many people are looking for the fast track to stardom, but could that track be a dead end.

As easy as it is for people of my advanced age to look at the current generations of 20-somethings and think them slackers, I have to admit that, in reality, millennials and the Gen-Y folks coming after them seem to have an impressive amount of drive. Stardom seems to be coming to many, and for most of those, it is coming quickly, outside what we might consider “normal channels. Makers of mobile apps can become millionaires literally overnight if their apps become even remotely popular. Appearance on a talent show such as The Voice or American Idol can create a career where none previously existed. The allure of stardom is strong.

The Twittersphere went apoplectic yesterday when model/reality star Emily Ratajkowski posted the following picture:


Given Ms. Ratajkowski’s rather untraditional rise to stardom, hitching her wagon to that of another reality star of even bigger fame seems to make sense. Mind you, I’m not saying the message behind the tweets is in any way insincere, but this brand of do-it-yourself stardom requires constant maintenance; one has to create ways of constantly remaining in the public eye or one’s star begins to fade.

Retail fashion consultantAdheer Bahulkar wrote an article for WWD earlier this week which advocates a system wherein fast fashion gives rise to new, “fast” designers. The way he sees it, fast fashion outlets such as H&M and Forever 21 have a high demand for new clothes and by essentially turning young designers into brands themselves, the designers achieve a level of stardom much more quickly than they would through the normal path (which can take years).

The fast strategy of do-it-yourself stardom may be best embodied, though, by pop musician Lady Gaga. Looking at a music industry that was already overcrowded with less-than-spectacular talent, Gaga took the bizarre route with wild costuming and outlandish videos that forced people to stop and stare. After building an audience from sheer spectacle, she then dropped the facade and did an album with old-school crooner Tony Bennet, showing much to the surprise of many, that Gaga actually had the musical talent to justify her fame. Gaga turns 30 soon and already has the world by the tail.

As inviting as the fast track to stardom may seem, though, one might do well to question whether such an approach has any permanence. Too often, those who rise to the top quickly also fall into complete obscurity just as quickly. I can’t help but think of the line from the 1954 movie, On The Waterfront where a washed-up boxer confronts his reality:

You don’t understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let’s face it.

Consider self-made supermodel Kate Upton, who was a mainstay in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition from 2012-2014. She’s been completely absent from those pages the past two years, however, and unless she does something particularly outrageous, no one seems especially inclined to notice. Her stardom is not yet gone, but it has faded significantly.

Consider all those winners of American Idol, America’s Got Talent, The Voice, and even Project Runway. Where are they now? Only American Idol’s season 1 winner Kelly Clarkson has been able to keep hold of the fame given her in that fast track to stardom. The remainder still struggle to get noticed, with their reality show wins sometimes even working to their detriment.

Almost every field that yields celebrity is littered with names that were on everyone’s lips for a moment but are completely unknown to us now. Taking the fast-track to stardom is, more often than not, a roller coaster ride that often leaves one in a worse place than from where they started. At the very best, those who do manage to keep some level of shine find that they have to work even harder to keep from falling into complete obscurity.

Taking the fast track to stardom is tempting and there are so very many talented young people who seem poised to make that leap. Perhaps you are one of them. Just remember that, ultimately, no one makes a long-term career out of luck. Hard work has to happen if anyone is going to make the most of their skill and talent. Choose your path carefully. As arduous as it may seem, slow and steady still wins the race.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion  /  PotD
Progressive Reflection
March 29, 2016
charles i. letbetter - progressive reflection

In a free society, government reflects the soul of its people. If people want change at the top, they will have to live in different ways. Our major social problems are not the cause of our decadence. They are a reflection of it. —Cal Thomas

 

charles i. letbetter - progressive reflection

Reflection not only shows us how far we’ve progressed but sometimes points a way toward how we should change in the future

Progressive reflection is a shortened version of my original title for this morning: We Don’t Do Things That Way Anymore. The whole premise comes from my desire last night to take a few shortcuts with this week’s posts by reconsidering articles I published back in 2008. The idea sounded good. I could fulfill my obligations here without severely impacting the time I spend with my youngest son. Sounds like a perfect plan.

The problem came when I started looking through those posts and discovered that many were based on technical photography information that simply no longer applies. There was an article on black and white conversion whose instruction seems totally inferior now given the advances and additional options that are available. Reading through an article on color correction, the points made were accurate for when they were written, but in the ensuing eight years, the technology both on the camera and in processing software rendered the recommendations there quite moot.

So much for shortcuts.

Reflection and photography go hand-in-hand. Our desire to look back and see how things were is a large part of what fuels our desire to take pictures now. We know nothing stays the same, so we want to capture these moments as they pass. I can’t begin to count the number of times a client surprises me with the type of pictures they want to take and their reasoning is that they want to be able to look back and remember how wonderful they looked at that particular point in their lives.

We can learn from reflection as well, though, and there are times when it can help us to see the way forward a bit more clearly. Memories not only help us remember how things were, they also help us see mistakes we might not have caught and may encourage us to not go down the same path again. They can also be encouraging with the realization that, perhaps, we’ve been through difficult challenges before and we can handle those we’re facing now equally well.

Specifically, I find reflection offers five specific possibilities for pushing us forward. Here they are:

  1. Find what worked before and consider duplicating it. Fashion designers do this all the time, and it can work quite effectively. Consider, for example, what Karl Lagerfeld has done with the Chanel collection. From the moment he accepted the position as creative director for the storied label, Lagerfeld made his career there by looking back and either duplicating or modestly updating Coco’s most famous looks, specifically her suiting. For the most recent ready-to-wear presentation, he mimicked Coco’s 1960’s presentations at 31 rue Cambon, from decor to styling. You can read my review here if you’re interested.  Lagerfeld’s only one of many designers that find the way forward in fashion comes from heavily duplicating what was done before.
  2. Find what didn’t work before and avoid doing it again. We don’t always realize we’re about to repeat a mistake until we look back and see that we’ve been in a similar situation before. Advertising is a good example of that. Everyone remembers the blunder the Coca-Cola corporation made with New Coke; an error in marketing and advertising that instantly became iconic in so many ways. I can promise you that the New Coke debacle is brought up anytime anyone suggests making significant changes to a company’s core product and its cautionary tale almost certainly has helped avoid similar disasters.
  3. Find what was wrong previously and fix it. Here is where reflection can lead to innovation. The automobile industry serves as our example in this regard. Manufacturers routinely study how their vehicles performed in real crashes; not just the ones performed in a test situation but specifically fatality accidents that involved real-world situations not duplicated in a test environment. As a result, vehicles are significantly safer now than they were even five years ago. So much so that Volvo has pledged that by 2020 no one will be killed or seriously injured in one of their vehicles. Volvo gets there by letting reflection push their innovation.
  4. Remember what made you happy and let it inspire you.  There are some great things in our past that can’t, and shouldn’t be duplicated. Yet, when we reflect on things that made us happy we can be inspired to do other things that are as fulfilling and enjoyable. A perfect example is exactly what I’m doing with my youngest son this week. I reflect back on many of the conversations I had with my father when I was 17, and while duplicating those topics would be wholly inappropriate, looking at how my father responded to challenges I set before him and questions I asked help me understand how I need to respond to my own son. I can only hope my words are as wise.
  5. Appreciate the past and let it go. Too often the thing that keeps us from moving forward is our grip on how things were before. The words, “We’ve never done it that way before,” have killed many good ideas before they ever had a chance to germinate.  I can’t help but think here of my paternal grandfather, a sharecropper in Arkansas from the  early 1900s into the 1950s. He long had a habit of standing up on the buckboard as he drove his team and wagon into town. Finally, though, he realized he needed to put the team in the barn and get a car. He loved that team and buckboard but had to let go of his long-standing habits to move forward. Reflection allows us to appreciate the past, but it also encourages us to move on.

I enjoy looking back through the thousands of pictures we’ve taken over the years, but I often look at how they were processed and know that I would make very different decisions now from what I did originally. Reflection helps to move my skills forward by showing me the discrepancies and inconsistencies of my work in the past. At the same time, though, when I come across a creative piece that I really like, it encourages me to keep fueling that creativity in the future.

I may yet find one or two articles from those old archives that still works. I’ll be sure to label it as such if I do. Reflection is progressive, though, and it’s far more likely they’ll encourage me to write or shoot something new. I don’t have any problem with that at all, and I hope you don’t either.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Art  /  Fashion  /  Photography  /  PotD
Pole Dancing For Everyone
March 25, 2016
charles i. letbetter - pole dancing for everyone

Yeah, it turns out that guys don’t like deals on laser hair removal or pole dancing lessons. —Andrew Mason

 

charles i. letbetter - pole dancing for everyone

Pole dancing as a communication tool may not be what you were expecting, but it works.

Communicating across different areas of interest and different social structures can be difficult. What gets the attention of one group may be completely ignored by another. It seems, though, that there is, at least, one medium capable of cutting across art, fitness, fashion, and advertising in ways that are universally effective: pole dancing. I’m guessing that’s not a topic that was covered in your communications class in college, but pole dancing has the ability to conquer one of the biggest challenges in communication: getting people’s attention. If you have a pole dancer in front of you, for whatever reason, you can’t help but watch. What other communications medium can dominate a room in such a way?

Sure, there’s a stigma that exists with pole dancing and always will as long as there are seedy little strip joints where the only thing safe is the coffee. That doesn’t change the fact that pole dancing  itself is a skill that some have turned into an art form, requiring tremendous strength and muscle tone across the entire body. As provocative as it may appear, one doesn’t simply jump on a pole and start dancing. In fact, doing it wrong can result in serious injury.

One of my favorite figure models was a champion pole dancer. Having worked with the pole daily for several years, she had an incredible muscle tone and could control each major muscle group separately. Even relaxed, she presented a strong physical definition that is difficult to find outside the bodybuilding world.  When she flexed, it was almost like the anatomy chart in your biology textbook had come alive. Every muscle group was identifiable in a manner that was exquisitely beautiful.

Pole dancing as exercise has been around for quite awhile now. Despite all the giggles and side glances that come whenever someone mentions that they’re taking a class, many women, and yes, some men, across all strata of society have found the pole to be an effective and enjoyable way of working their core. Both gymnast and swimmers have found the pole to be a good way to maintain their strength during the off-season while business executives find the dancing to be a welcome relief from the stress of the office. This part of pole dancing is well documented.

What has been a little more surprising, though, is some of the other places pole dancing has shown up recently, such as Alexander Wang’s spring/summer fashion show. While Wang stopped short of putting the dancers center stage during the runway presentation, their presence at the after party, held in the same building just steps off the catwalk, was all anyone talked about for weeks afterward. The typical conversation went something like this:

“Did you see Alexander Wang’s show?”

“Oh my god, yes! Those pole dancers were amazing! I can’t believe he did that!”

“I know! I can’t wait to buy everything from the collection!”

Using pole dancers to sell fashion may not seem like a natural course of action, and one might argue that their presence was more for shock and entertainment, but the fact remains that it was the pole dancers, not the runway presentation, that brought consumer-level attention to the collection (which should be hitting stores right about now).

Then, there’s the rather humorous case of this ad for MoneySupermarket, a financial services website in the UK:

The ad worked, not only in the company’s target market, which focuses specifically on financial services in the United Kingdom, but around the world. Moreover, it made a bit of a celebrity of pole dancer Kyle McIntosh who used the opportunity to speak out against body and fat shaming. Pole dancing and financial services may not seem to be natural partners, but the ad was effective in communicating the uniqueness of the brand and bringing global attention to the website.

With pole dancing seeing such success as a communications medium, perhaps we should be asking ourselves what other ways it can be put to good use. Can we imagine using pole dancing in the classroom? Certainly, biology and anatomy would seem to have logical connections, but what about physics? If you think defying gravity hanging upside down from a pole is easy, give it a try; just make sure your insurance is up to date first. I think other match and science-related subjects could be applied to pole dancing as well.

I will even go so far as saying pole dancing might be effective in the church. Think about it a moment. Many Christians are observing Good Friday today. A pole could easily be symbolic of a cross and a skilled dancer could create a very beautiful depiction of the whole Passion story. Use some imagination. It could work.

I think what we are slowly discovering is that pole dancing, because of the stigma of its background, is a unique way of capturing an audience. Taken out of the atmosphere with which it is generally associated, viewers are not sure what to expect from a pole dance, therefore, they give it significantly more attention than they would more traditional forms of communication. Those who experience communication that involves pole dancing are also more likely to retain the brand/product name over a six-month period, significantly longer than with print advertising.

As long as there are strip clubs, and I can’t imagine those going away anytime soon, pole dancing is going to have a bit of a PR issue. I think that can be used to its advantage, though, and pole dancing can be a very effective, entertaining, and low-tech  means of communication.

Given its communications value, perhaps we should be giving pole dancing, and those who perform it, a little more respect. Even when they’re not wearing clothes.

 

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion
Self-Cleaning Clothes Are (Almost) Here!
March 24, 2016
charles i. letbetter self-cleaning clothes are almost here

The software program for motherhood is impossible to fully download into the male brain. You give them two tasks and they’re like, ‘I have to change the baby and get the dry cleaning?’ —Allison Pearson

 

charles i. letbetter - self cleaning clothes are almost here

When we shot this photo back in 2011, the idea of self-cleaning clothes was still a fantasy

Seriously, when we mocked up this ad campaign for a fictional brand of self-cleaning fabrics back in 2011, the whole concept seemed absurd. How could clothes possibly ever be both self-cleaning and comfortable? We assumed any such invention was still a generation or two away. We were wrong.

Slackers everywhere can rejoice because the International Business Times – UK is reporting that self-cleaning clothes are, in fact, possible within the next few years. The technology, which is part biology, is cheap, easy to produce, and works off one of the world’s most plentiful sources of energy: sunlight. I know, that last little detail makes our friends in Oregon and Washington state a little less happy, but I’m sure there’s some workaround. Maybe you can take your clothes to the tanning booth, which would be the first time putting a tanning booth in a laundry actually made sense..

The invention comes from a team at RMIT University in Australia and was just published in the journal Advanced Materials Interfaces. What they have done is create special nanostructures that degrade in sunlight or under a light bulb. By growing these nanostructures on fabric, they render the material self-cleaning. Anything that is dropped onto the fabric dissolves once exposed to sufficient sunlight.

Is this not the coolest thing you’ve read all day, or what?

Don’t start throwing out your washing machine just yet, though. There’s still some research yet to go. Primarily, it is still unknown how long it will take to get out severe/stubborn stains like tomato sauce and wine. There’s also a question of how the nanostructures will respond to totally synthetic materials, especially those created by 3D printers. Not many designers are experimenting with those fabrics, yet, so that particular development is one that can be done in conjunction with the progress of the material.

The other bad news for slackers is that while the nanostructures may clean the clothes, they don’t do anything about body odor. Sorry dudes, but you’re going to have to pause that video game long enough to get up and take a shower at least once a week or something. Really. It’s bad.

We also don’t know if one will be able to post-treat clothes that you already have. If not, that means you ‘re going to need that washing machine a lot longer. And speaking of washing machines, what will this do to the whole appliance and laundry industry? I’m sure they’re not exactly welcoming of a technology that could put them completely out of business. There are multiple considerations at play here beyond the immediate advantages for fashion.

Still, the advantages of a self-cleaning fabric are considerable. They’ll make clothes more durable not having to go through the washing machine on a regular basis. Not having to wash all those clothes means less detergent in the water system. Less energy is required to maintain the clothes. Not having to worry about the delicacies of dry cleaning gives designers more freedom to add texture to their designs with sequins, applique, embroidery, and other difficult to clean elements. One would actually be able to wear delicate fabrics more frequently! And imagine what you could do with all the time you’ll save not having to wash clothes!

There’s no promise as to when this new technology may be commercially available, but know that it is possible and it is going to happen. There is hope for an end to the washday blues!

Continue Reading

Fashion
No More Fur At Armani
March 23, 2016

You don’t have to wear fur. They make such great fakes. There’s no reason to kill an animal. —Grace Slick

 

charles i. letbetter - armani ends fur

Could this be the beginning of the end for the fur industry

Fur has been a never-ending part of the fashion industry since early man covered himself in animal pelts in an attempt to keep warm. There was a time when fur was not so much a luxury as it was a necessary means of surviving through cold winters. With time, though, we’ve learned to do more with other fabrics that do a much better job of insulating the body from the cold. Today, there is no legitimate need to use furs of any kind in clothing.

Yet, it happens, a lot, especially among French and Italian designers. While a few designers such as Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren have committed to using synthetic furs, and we tend to see more synthetics used by Asian designers, European labels still make heavy use of furs. In fact, for the fall/winter season that was just shown, the use of furs was exceptionally heavy, making at least a token appearance in almost every collection. Italian labels, some of which began as furriers over 100 years ago, have been especially reluctant to drop the material.

So when Giorgio Armani announced yesterday that new technologies “render the use of cruel practices unnecessary as regards animals,” and pledged to end his use of furs beyond the 2016 fall/winter collection, one has to wonder if this is the first domino to drop in a very long-standing chain of European designers. Armani has, for many years, been the most successful and most profitable brand among Italian designers. Armani himself is one of the richest people in the country and carries a lot of influence not only in the fashion community but across all of Italy. If Armani stops using fur, everyone is going to notice.

The whole issue of whether fur is still appropriate for fashion remains a heated debate. On one side, Elisa Allen, Vice-President of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) writes that, “… there is no kind way to obtain fur, unless you are willing to go out on the motorway and dodge lorries while scraping dead foxes off the asphalt.”

At the same time, Jan Erik Carlson of Saga furs counters PETA criticism by saying, “We have not yet reached the boundaries of quality, creativity and excellence in fur design.” He claims that high standards in fur production eliminate the cruelty aspect that is so often the primary point of fur’s critics.

While synthetic furs have been used much more frequently, fur production across Europe remains a $40 billion industry. It is questionable whether the faux-fur industry could ever replace that kind of revenue stream, especially when quality among faux furs tends to run the gamut from hideous to a level impossible to discern from real. Popular sentiment among high-profile celebrities tends to be very strongly anti-fur, but at the retail level fur remains a top seller that retailers can’t afford to give up, especially when other related sales are declining.

Amidst this continuing debate, Armani’s move is a strong one. I cannot imagine that there will not be other prominent labels who will join him in banning furs from their collections. Should this increase public pressure for all designers to eliminate furs, the result could be quite dramatic.

But then, Chanel creative director Karl Lagerfeld has said, “In a meat-eating world, wearing leather for shoes and clothes and even handbags, the discussion of fur is childish.” His point has to be taken seriously. Can we honestly complain about one manner of animal exploitation without changing our attitudes about all use of animal products? We seem rather hypocritical when we complain about the use of fur while wearing leather boots and eating a hamburger.

This debate is far from over, but those wanting Armani furs had better buy them now. They won’t be here after the fall season.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion
Hashtag Use Might Be Trademark Violation
March 18, 2016
charles i. letbetter - hashtag use and trademark law

Just because there are not yet specific trade laws dealing with hashtag use doesn’t mean you can’t get into a lot of trouble using them.

 

charles i. letbetter - hashtag use may be trademark violation

Maybe that intern needs a little training before being given access to your social media accounts

Starting a new business, especially a new fashion business, is far more challenging than most people realize when they begin. Even those who have done startups more than once routinely find that the process only gets more difficult as business and industry landscapes change. What worked last year may not work this year. What was true five years ago is likely to be the opposite of current conditions. How does one break out and become recognized in a crowded field that some would consider already over-saturated?

Most everyone recognizes that social media use is a critical aspect of any new business and with social media comes hashtag use. Hashtags help group the flood of information into some form of loose order so that people who are looking for a specific industry or topic can find related information without having to scroll through endless lists. For example, using the hashtag #womenswear or #springfashion might help promote your social media entry so that people looking for women’s wear or spring fashion are more likely to see it. There is an entire  genre of social marketing devoted to hashtag creation and strategy so that businesses can get the most from their social media use.

However, just as hashtag use can benefit a business, it can also cause a bit of trouble if one is not careful. Specifically, some hashtag use may fall under trademark law. Even if the use was inadvertent and not meant to cause a problem, defending your company against such a charge incurs tremendous legal expense at a point where your business really doesn’t have that kind of capital to expend.

An article posted on StartupFashion.com this week attempts to address this very gray legal area. This is another of those times when technology has moved faster than the law and there are not, at the moment, specific laws that directly spell out what hashtag use might not be acceptable. However, general trademark law still applies, even online, even if the person creating the hashtag didn’t know anything about the trademark.

Where small and startup businesses can be particularly vulnerable is when the person in charge of social media accounts doesn’t know what caution to exercise. Many use interns, recent college graduates, or even their own high school-age children to work social media because we assume they know how to navigate social media well. While that presumption may be accurate, we cannot assume they know the first thing about trademark law and how easily one can create a lot of problems.

For example: Let’s pretend a brand uses the slogan, “Bigger, Better, Bouncier” to promote their line of trampolines. Your social media person sees that slogan somewhere and decides it would make a good hashtag for promoting your new line of support bras. They start posting pictures of models wearing the bras with the hashtag #BiggerBetterBouncier and, the Internet being what it is, the hashtag suddenly takes off. Next thing you know, everyone  is associating the slogan with your new bras. Sales are going through the roof. This is a good thing, right?

Not if you own the trampoline company who had the slogan trademarked. Even though you are in an entirely different, unrelated industry, your successful use of the slogan in hashtag form could be in violation of trademark law for creating confusion within the originating market. You have effectively stolen the trampoline company’s trademarked slogan, even though your actions may have been inadvertent.

The waters here are murky and every time a new case comes up it tends to be long and complicated because there is no real precedent for judges to consider. So, how does one make sure their hashtags aren’t getting them into trouble, or inversely, leaving them vulnerable?

One good place to start is the website for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). If you’re not sure whether a phrase or slogan has been trademarked, use the search engine here to find out. Also, if you have a phrase or slogan you plan to use in marketing your products or services, getting that trademarked is probably not a bad idea. Be aware, however, that the trademark process is not especially inexpensive. Only trademark phrases and slogans you want permanently identified with your brand.

Also consider instructing the person in charge of your social media accounts to only use hashtags that are approved and apply directly to your brand. Using a regularly trending hashtag  such as #FridayFeeling or #MondayMotivation is probably safe, but a hashtag that involves a specific event, venue, or infers a different brand should probably be avoided.

Hashtag use can be an extremely powerful marketing tool not only for fashion startups but any small business, especially those with small  marketing budgets. A little care and consideration, though, can help prevent legal nightmares that might sink your new business before it even gets started.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion
Instagram Kills Its Fashion Advantage
March 17, 2016

It’s joyful to give. But for people who want to take advantage of you, you’re kind of an easy mark. —Larry King

 

charles i. letbetter 0 AInstagram Kills Its Fashion Advantage

Fashion has had a love affair with Instagram the past few years, but the app may have just killed the reason it was so popular with designers

Instagram, the photo-sharing app that has made models out of ordinary people and created a whole new fascination with photo filters, may have just killed its primary advantage for fashion labels.

For the past several seasons, fashion PR folk have seen posting photos to Instagram as being the next best thing to live streaming, and a hell  of a lot cheaper. From streetstyle to behind the scenes and, in many cases such as this season’s Saint Laurent show in Paris, the actual presentation itself, labels have taken advantage of the large audiences and real-time posting to communicate and share pictures with an adoring public. Instagram has been a critical part of creating excitement around brands and getting information about new styles pushed out to consumers in ways that traditional advertising can’t equal.

That may all come to an end soon, though, as Instagram, like Twitter and Facebook before it, moves from a chronologically based timeline to one that attempts to guess what each user likes the most. The concept is that most users miss the vast majority of what’s in their feed by not being on the app when the new material is posted. By using an algorithm that considers what one has liked, with whom they communicate, and what their previous activity has been, Instagram hopes to provide users with a feed that more accurately reflects their actual interest. For users, it sounds like a good idea.

As an article in Business of Fashion  explains this morning, fashion brands and retailers may not see the move as an advantage, though. At the very least, they are going to have to reconsider and perhaps revamp how they utilize the app. If users are looking for real-time content, they may have difficulty finding it. During those times of year when multiple designers are releasing tons of new photos onto Instagram at the same time, finding the feed for the brand one wants may be almost impossible. So much for there being an advantage to the app!

If fashion labels can’t get the bang off Instagram to which they’ve grown accustomed, they’re likely to drop the app quickly. There are many others who have been looking to snatch up that fashion week business, specifically Snapchat and Periscope, both of which can provide real-time streaming without the expense incurred with major production costs. Already, during the past two seasons we’ve seen several brands replace high-dollar streaming with an intern holding an iPhone. If they lose the primary advantage of using Instagram, why would they continue?

Obviously, fashion is but a part of an immense network on Instagram, but the ripple effect could be significant. One of the apps big draws is for perspective models to take a chance at being discovered by an ad agency, modeling firm, or fashion label. With the real-time factor removed, none of those industries are as likely to see new models as quickly, if at all, based upon how Instagram interprets the brand’s interest.

There’s a lot at stake here and I’m not sure the folks at Instagram thought through the decision all that well. Be sure, fashion PR people will be giving their whole Instagram campaigns a second look now. Without the real-time advantage, other live apps start to look a lot better.

 

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion
Fashion Without Gender
March 16, 2016
charles i. letbetter - fashion without gender

We pledge ourselves to liberate all our people from the continuing bondage of poverty, deprivation, suffering, gender and other discrimination. —Nelson Mandela

 

charles i. letbetter - fashion without gender

Fashion has always been dictated by one’s gender, but slowly that’s beginning to change

I wouldn’t necessarily call it a revolution, but there’s a change coming to fashion, a change that few are talking about. Not that it hasn’t gotten any press, but those articles go largely unnoticed in the wake of designers dropping from labels and shallow wannabe’s screaming about who is sitting front row at which show. Fashion is steadily making moves to support those for whom gender is either fluid or nonexistent and the result is not merely an added sales point but a shift in how society views gender.

There were two significant moments last week. One was the Dries Van Noten Fall/Winter collection.  While I didn’t have space to cover the issue in our review, the folks over at Fashionista.com didn’t let pass the genderless aspect of the entire collection, including evening wear. No, this isn’t the first genderless collection we’ve seen on a Paris runway, but this one was significant in that the Belgian designer has traditionally been quite feminine in his designs. Last season we saw tight pencil skirts and bustier tops. Those were nowhere to be seen this season. Instead, we had a plethora of four-in-hand ties, trousers with plackets, and masculine tailored coats. Sure, there were some traditionally feminine touches here and there, but those were blended in to create as close to a genderless collection as we’ve seen from a major designer.

The next day, online fashion retail giant Zara very quietly, without so much as a press release, added a gender neutral section to their website. Contents may appear rather bland to some:  hoodies, athletic wear, trousers, and jeans. Yet, each of those entries is important, especially the jeans, because they’re not assigned a gender target. The jeans are just jeans. That’s it. Either they fit or they don’t. There’s nothing about their design that promotes one gender over another.

Gender fluidity has been getting attention in fashion advertising for a while. You may remember when we told you about Jaden Smith appearing in an ad for Louis Vuitton wearing a dress. The gender-bending stunt drew a lot of attention to the brand at the time, but was quickly forgotten as it was replaced by something else in the line of our short attention spans. While the campaign was important, though, it was still primarily about women’s wear, clothes designed with a specific gender in mind but worn by the opposite gender, which is the exact same thing drag queens have been doing for decades.

What the Zara move promotes, though, is something different: clothes designed without a specific gender in mind. This shift could be more difficult for the fashion world simply because the system itself is set up to cater to each gender separately. We have menswear, we have womenswear, and we tend to keep the two completely separate. While some designers, such as Tom Ford and Burberry, routinely mix men and women in their runway shows, we are still set up to accommodate separate men’s fashion  weeks and women’s fashion weeks.

Change happens slowly in fashion primarily because we’re all comfortable with what we’re wearing now. Designers who venture too far into something different find themselves stuck with inventory no one wants. With margins already so slim, not selling clothes is an untenable situation. Moves like the one Zara has made, though, open a door, no matter how slight that opening may be. Gender neutral clothing finally has a place with a dominant retailer.

As always, the question remaining is whether the new move results in selling more clothes. We’ll see. We’ll cross our fingers. Maybe we’ll even shop. Consider it.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion
Are Networks Censoring Sex or Size?
March 12, 2016
charles i. letbetter - are networks censoring sex or size?

If you ask men about their body image, they will tell you they look better than they do. And if you ask a woman, she’ll tell you she looks worse. —Gloria Steinem

 

charles i. letbetter - network censoring sex or size

ABC and NBC say they turned down Lane Bryant ads due to sexuality violations, but is the real reason a matter of size?

There’s nothing quite like the feeling of trying to put on an item of clothing that you’ve worn dozens, if not hundreds of times before, and having it not fit. I’ve had that happen twice in the past month with two separate pair of pants. One popped a button when I sat down and the zipper broke on the other. Sigh. I’ll blame faulty manufacturing for the zipper because there’s no way to prove that it wasn’t, but the button popping is more difficult to excuse. I’ve sat here eating chocolate for a month (because it makes you smarter) and not getting any exercise. So, instead of losing 20 pounds, which is what I need to do, I packed more on. Needless to say, my current body image is not positive. I am not a fan of my current size.

For women, body size and body image is an even more critical issue. In extreme cases, negative body image leads to severe eating disorders and even death. That’s why a number of retailers, including Dove and Lane Bryant, have created ad campaigns around supporting a positive body image, regardless of one’s size. Even Sports Illustrated got in on the act casting curvaceous model Ashley Graham for one of the covers of their famous swimsuit edition. Supporting a positive body image among women is a good thing, and has even proven to be good for business.

So why, then, did two major television networks, ABC and NBC, refuse to air the new Lane Bryant ad featuring Ashley Graham? NBC claims the ad violates “broadcast indecency guidelines.” I’ve searched through the ad meticulously, though, and fail to see how that claim is justified. NBC says they’ll air the ad if edits are made, but Lane Bryant says the ad is just fine the way it is and I tend to agree. In fact, so does pretty much every other broadcast outlet out there. No one else has turned down the ad for any reason.

The two networks can claim the ad is too sexy, but the appearance is that body size seems to be the greater issue than sexuality. Take a look at other ads both networks run and there would seem to be a double standard. Neither network seems to have any difficulty playing dangerously with the censors when the bodies are lean and fit, so why do they have a problem with bodies that have curves, bodies that are real, and bodies slightly larger than the size 2 that dominates most of fashion advertising? Here’s the ad. Take a look for yourself:

I could sit here and harp on the issue all day, but what ultimately matters is how you and I respond. Support those who support a positive body image and size. Censorship, for any reason, is just not acceptable.

Continue Reading

Fashion
That CFDA Report on NYFW Isn’t Helping
March 10, 2016
charles i. letbetter - cfda report on nyfw

Why, a four-year-old child could understand this report. Run out and find me a four-year-old child. I can’t make head nor tail out of it. —Groucho Marx

 

charles i. letbetter - CFDA report

What good is a report that spends ten pages talking and still says nothing?

Everyone in and out of fashion has known for the past couple of years that the whole construct of fashion weeks need to change. The most recent season is a perfect example of why. Some shows are customer-centric and are heavy on spectacle. Some shows are buyer-focused and try to totally block out consumers from attending their events. Other designers try to merge traditional runway presentations with various social-media tie-ins using apps such as Instagram and Periscope. There was little feeling of cohesion at any of the four major cities but, at least, the governing bodies in Milan and Paris both made statements that they’re not planning on changing from the traditional format. While that decision may yet come back to haunt them, they deserve some credit for making a definitive statement on which labels, designers, buyers, and editors can all depend.

For New York Fashion Week, the Council of Fashion Designers in America (CFDA) is responsible for the NYFW schedule. However, they do not have any logistical control nor any authority in telling designers and labels what they can or cannot do. Without anyone to tell designers no, NYFW has become the largest fashion week in the world. This past season saw more than 275 designers making some form of presentation during an eight-day period. This does not include events such as the Saint Laurent ready-to-wear show in Los Angeles just before NYFW kicked off. This is great news for the city of New York. NYFW generates more revenue than the Olympics or the Super Bowl. However, the environment makes it difficult for designers who have little or no name recognition to draw the attention of buyers and editors who are already swamped.

Just how difficult is it to get noticed at NYFW? Consider that, at my peak in 2014, I struggled, and often failed, to make it through eight shows a day, and that was when the tents at Lincoln Center still provided a central location for the majority of major shows. I topped out at 67 shows that week. That means I missed roughly 75% of the shows! I only made it through 23 this season, which means more than 200 presentations escaped our view. There simply is not enough time in a day to cover everything.

Getting noticed isn’t the only problem designers have at NYFW, though. As technology has changed, the current schedule of showing a collection, taking orders, then delivering on those orders in 4-5 months has deteriorated. The causes are obvious. Smaller ateliers with only an online presence may seem a small threat when viewed one at a time, but together they take millions of dollars out of the retail flow. Fast fashion houses such as H&M and Zara completely turn over their inventory every eight weeks, with new items arriving almost daily. Consignment and resale shopping has also grown dramatically the past five years. All this together, along with others such as online-only discounters, represent billions of dollars coming out of traditional retail, severely impacting fashion’s traditional flow.

Oh, but there’s still more. Now that a large number of fashion shows are streamed live on the Internet and/or mobile apps, in addition to live or nearly live pictures on Instagram, NowFashion, and Vogue, among others, consumers see the new styles, and want the new styles when they see them, but those same styles are old news by the time they actually hit stores 4-5 months later. By the time clothes are on store shelves, fast fashion retailers and online discounters have already produced and sold enough knock-offs that the “new” stuff feels old when it arrives.

Then, there’s the added fact that many designers are flat out exhausted by the current schedule. With many brands supporting spring/summer, resort, pre-fall, fall/winter, homme spring/summer, and homme fall/winter, there is a new deadline for designers every other month, or it would be every other month if the calendar made any sense. Dates actually overlap so designers are often working on four different collections at any given time.

We’ve seen these problems building for the past five years; they are neither secret nor surprise. With the loss of major sponsorship for NYFW after Mercedes-Benz exited last year, there was little question that something needs to be done. The question is: what? To that end, the CFDA hired big-five firm Boston Consulting Group (BCG) to help study the problem. Sounds like a good idea, doesn’t it? Bring is someone objective and let them help.

Yeahhhhhh, about that …

Last week, the CFDA released BCG’s report. You can read the whole thing here if you wish; it doesn’t take all that long. There are a lot of pictures. What was the final conclusion after all this time and money was spent? Look for yourself:

While the CFDA will not promote only one specific idea at this time, it was imperative to bring out all the issues. It will encourage designers to try and experiment with new concepts and will foster continued conversations on the topic through stakeholder meetings, panel conversations, and workshops throughout the year. The CFDA owns the New York Fashion Calendar and will accommodate all types of shows and events and continue to support all designers regardless of how and when they show

For those of you not versed in consultant-speak, please allow me to translate for you: “Do whatever the fuck you want and we’ll stand here with our thumbs up our butts holding the calendar. You have our best wishes.”

This sorry excuse for a statement ultimately amounts to no statement at all and renders the whole report pointless. Void of any guidelines, and with a decree that they’ll support whatever a designer/label chooses to do, CFDA essentially gives up NYFW to complete anarchy with the door wide open for mayhem. While the report recognizes all the pertinent issues and accurately assesses the options, what was needed was for the CFDA to make a choice. Choose a method, perhaps a partnership between two methods, and say, “Hey, this is what NYFW can support, anything else and you’re own your own.” Instead, get nothing.

I can understand how the CFDA and BCG came to this conclusion. Read between the lines and the consultant speak and it seems rather obvious there is a preference for an in-season hybrid that uses capsule collections for sale at show times with the remainder of the stock arriving later. However, given they interviewed such a very small number of people (50 total), all it takes is one or two people voicing opposition to raise concern. Acting as a rule-setting authority is new ground for the CFDA, which still suffers from a lot of who-died-and-left-you-in-charge attitudes among its rank and file. Rather than risk upsetting any one group of designers, they punted, tossed everything on the table, and are waiting to see what happens next.

NYFW needs strong, authoritative leadership. Diane von Furstenberg has done well as the board’s chair, but the rest of the CFDA board of directors is a mish-mesh designers with such a disparate set of needs and interests that I doubt they can be unanimous on anything. Theirs is a society in which even one person not on board with the plan gets noticed by the press, and ultimately consumers. Designers are, inherently, under obligation to put the interests of their own labels ahead of those of the group. Such an organization has no business being in authority over a set of events that require definitive guidelines and objectivity.

What am I saying? The CFDA needs to let someone else handle New York Fashion Week, its calendar, its structure, and its management. NYFW needs an owner who can be objective, who understands the changing dynamics, and more than anything, understands that if you’re trying to please everyone you end up pleasing no one. For designers to manage NYFW is a severe conflict of interest and this CFDA report is evidence of how powerless the agency is to create any real and valuable change to NYFW.

Please, Ms. von Furstenberg, start looking for a managing third party now. While it’s not likely one can be found in time to save the trainwreck in September, perhaps next February won’t hold the chaos that this one did. Without strong leadership, and soon, NYFW as we know it may totally disappear. And this report? It does no one any good at all.

Continue Reading

Page 4 of 6

  • Don't Miss A Thing!

    Enter your email address to subscribe now and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 931 other subscribers