04:26:16 01/11/2017
https://youtu.be/WPa5-84svbg
| Your sponsorship of 5 Things You Should Know could make a significant difference in the quality of our work. Contact us for details. |
Wait, it’s only Wednesday?
Hi there, welcome to Wednesday, January 11. If you’re like me, this week seems to be taking forever. At least we’re past the severe wind and thunderstorms of yesterday. Today should be a lot calmer and afternoon temperatures are going to feel more like April instead of the middle of January. Don’t worry, it doesn’t last long. We’ll see more rain tonight, though not as much as the West coast is getting. Temperatures fall Thursday night and we could be looking at a very slick weekend. Maybe a slow-moving week isn’t a bad thing.
Locally, you’ll just want to largely stay away from the West side of Indianapolis as the Rockville Bridge at 465 is being demolished after being hit by a semi truck yesterday morning. That mess will likely last a month or more. Black Senators testified against Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions yesterday. And a new Pew survey says police officers are more reluctant to make stops and use force. A lot happened in the past 24 hours and not everything you’ve heard is verifiable. Here are the five things you should really know.
Taliban Terror In Afghanistan
The Taliban is taking responsibility for twin bombs in the Afghanistan capital city of Kabul that killed 28 and wounded at least 72, then later a third attack occurred at the guesthouse of the governor of Kandahar, injuring the Ambassador and other diplomats from the United Arab Emirates1. A suicide bomber struck first followed by a car bomb in Kabul. Those two attacks did the majority of the damage with the attack against the Ambassador coming later.
The attacks in Kabul were carried out near a government center where several lawmakers have offices. At least four police officers were among those killed. The Taliban, which is a hyper-right-wing extremist group, once ruled Afghanistan with an iron fist until it was toppled by American forces in 2001. In the fifteen years since, they have been a constant and often deadly source of terror throughout the region as they attempt to wrestle back some form of control.
If all this sounds familiar, it is. This kind of battle in Afghanistan has been going on for decades. The mountainous geography of the country provides plenty of hiding places for small terrorist cells and makes it difficult to directly attack those responsible for giving the orders. While US forces have been in Afghanistan since 2001, Russia had an unsuccessful war against the Taliban prior to that. This is not a group that is easily eliminated through conventional warfare. Expect this to continue until someone finds a solution.
Dylann Roof Gets To Die
After telling a South Carolina jury that, given the chance, he’d do it again, Dylann Roof was sentenced to death yesterday for the murder of nine black people attending a Bible study at a Charleston church. In doing so, Roof becomes the first person to be ordered executed for a federal hate crime. The jury, deliberated a mere three hours, most of which was procedural, bringing to end a trial in which the accused often acted as his own attorney and refused to offer testimony in his own behalf.
Roof had specifically selected the Emanuel AME Church, the South’s oldest black church, with the intention of bringing back segregation or starting a race war. He sat through 45 minutes of the Bible study and waited until the group was praying before opening fire, at times standing over his victims and shooting them a second time to make sure they were dead. His crime didn’t have the effect he wanted, though. If anything, it can be attributed for bringing the Confederate battle flag down from the South Carolina statehouse.
There is some speculation that Roof might have avoided the death penalty had he used mental health records that allegedly show a history of mental illness. However, Roof refused, saying that he didn’t believe in psychology and didn’t want to do anything that might embarrass his family any further. Roof was stoic as the verdict was read with only a few family members showing any sympathy for him.
American Made In Canada
American Apparel finally sold in a bankruptcy auction with Canadian clothing giant Gildan taking on the manufacturing equipment and intellectual property rights of the once-edgy fashion retailer3. However, Gildan did not take on the leases for the manufacturing facilities, nor did it pick up any of the brands’ 110 retail stores. This leaves open a lot of questions as to where the clothes might be made and whether Gildan might close any or all of the current retail outlets.
The hot button issue here, though, is the manufacturing locations more than the retail stores. American Apparel has long touted its “Made In America” label, but Gildan would not promise that all the American manufacturing facilities would remain open. While Gilden currently manufactures thread in South Carolina and Georgia, the only garment they currently make in the US is socks. The greater majority of their 42,000 employees are in low-cost Caribbean and Central American countries.
For their part, Gildan executives say they will consider the feasibility of maintaining current manufacturing facilities as they develop an integration plan over the next several weeks. Be sure, though, everyone in fashion is watching. The president-elect has been bullying manufacturers to make more in the US, but with Gildan being Canadian-owned the orange one’s tweets may not have as much effect.
Saying Goodbye To An Old Friend
As President Obama gave his farewell address in Chicago last night, the last planned speech of his presidency, he did so with his popularity rating 20 points higher than that of the incoming president-elect and the gratitude of a large portion of the nation4. The rhetoric was soaring and emotional, the same sort of speech that got him elected in the first place, full of hope and encouragement with a definite eye toward the future.
While the president touted this success and admitted some failures, the portion of his speech that brought out the tissue was when he spoke of his wife, Michelle, and the journey they have made together the past eight years. Referring to her roots from the often-troublesome South side of Chicago, the president thanked her for taking on a task she didn’t ask for and making it her own, as well as making the White House, “a place that belongs to everybody.5” By the time he finished, I’m pretty sure even the security team was needing tissues.
Speculation has been high as to what the president might do next. He has frequently said that he’s not going away, but as to exactly what role he might take on next is uncertain. Perhaps that is why streaming music provider Spotify posted a job opening yesterday for “President of Playlist.6” The job description includes a requirement of “at least eight years experience running a highly-regarded nation” and a Nobel Peace Prize. There is no word yet as to whether Mr. Obama is considering the position.
And finally …
File this one under “What The Living Fuck Are You Thinking?” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the son of the former Senator and nephew of the late president John F. Kennedy, said yesterday that he has been chosen to review vaccine safety and science. Kennedy said that the president-elect, “has some doubts about the current vaccine policy. He asked me to chair a commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity. I said I would.7”
Immediately, this announcement set off all kinds of bells and whistles within the medical community. The common fear is that such a commission would give credence to a widely and frequently discredited study linking vaccinations to autism. Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University who advises the federal panel that sets U.S. vaccine policy, said the Kennedy news, “raised issues that have been settled securely and completely by good science.”
In typical fashion, the president-elect’s transition team attempted to walk back Kennedy’s statement late Wednesday, saying that “no decisions have been made at this time.” However, one has to wonder why the new administration would even allow this issue to come up. The only purpose it serves is to undermine the good faith and credibility of the medical community at a time when health care is already a national concern. This move is not just stupid, it’s careless, which appears to be a hallmark of the new administration.
For better or worse, that’s all we have time for today. Be watching for slick spots as you’re out this morning and gear up for the possibility of more thunderstorms tonight. We’ll keep an eye on the news, sort through the unsubstantiated rubbish, and whittle it down to digestible chunks tomorrow. Have a good day.
Can Populist Politics Kill Fashion?
Current trends and historical comparisons don’t paint a pretty picture for the fashion industry
The Short Version
The retail sector at large, and the fashion industry specifically, has been having a rough time staying afloat the past two years. While a wave of populism sweeps the US and parts of Europe, fashion labels are beginning to worry that populist politics could gut fashion worse than Germany did during WWII. The comparison is frightening and gives designers more reason to insert politics into fashion.
The Long Cut
Fashion appears to be on the verge of crisis. I mentioned more than once during this past season’s coverage on Pattern that there were several names missing from the schedule, but didn’t take the time to explain why. Let’s do a bit of that now.
BCBG Max Azria has been hurting for a while and confirmed it would be seeking bankruptcy protection March 1. There were announcements that all the stores would be closing as the company shifts its attention to online sales. None of that was terribly surprising, given sales trends for the past few years. However, what did catch people off guard was when Lubov Azria, the long-time creative director, CEO, and wife of founder Max Azria, announced she is stepping down from the company completely. She is being replaced in both the corporate and creative positions by Bernd Kroeber, who has been with the brand since 2007. This announcement is generally viewed as a desperate attempt to revitalize a brand whose look and reputation seems stuck in the 90s.
The last SIBLING runway we covered was the autumn/winter 16 season last year. The amazingly popular show had erred in not requiring tickets for their presentation and, as a result, a number of editors and buyers were left out in the cold. When September came, we weren’t able to view the show due to scheduling conflicts, but in looking at the pictures we could tell something wasn’t quite right. The death of founding member Joe Bates due to cancer in 2015 was taking its toll. This season, SIBLING wasn’t on the official London schedule at all (they showed off-schedule). Then, this past Friday (March 10), the label announced they were entering liquidation. Shutting down. Game over. No immediate reason was given.
Then, catching everyone by surprise, THAKOON, the New York-based label backed by Hong Kong investor Vivian Chou, announced that the label is being put “on hold.” This comes less than a month after the label showed its current season collection in New York. While no date has been given for full closure, current inventory is being sold quickly. The reason being given is that the brand’s business model does not line up with the current retail market. Whether we will ever see another THAKOON collection coming down the runway seems doubtful at this point.
Those are just the latest in a line of recent closures that are punching larger and larger holes in the fashion industry. At the same time, department stores such as Macy’s and Saks are struggling to stay afloat as well. Should the department stores go down, the blow to the fashion industry overall would be tremendous.
Understandably, designers are very nervous. Toss international politics into the fray, though, and designers are downright scared. We saw the application of some of that fear this past season as many designers chose some form of protest, some more obvious than others, during their runway presentations. While outsiders wonder if the rhetoric has any substance, those in the fashion industry see the move toward populism as troubling. Already, the US and UK have populist leaders and designers in both countries are bracing themselves for what might be coming next.
One of the biggest reasons for such concern is that nationalism leads to closed markets and lack of access to the international talent pool on which fashion relies. Already, some 97 percent of all fashion is imported in the US, including the president’s own brand, and those of his daughter. What might be a more important number, however, is realizing that even when clothing is manufactured in the US, much of that work is being done by immigrants, roughly 20 percent of whom are undocumented. Any disruption in either trade or immigration is going to adversely affect the fashion industry and both, at this juncture, seem imminent.
Opening Ceremony’s creative directors Carol Lim and Humberto Leon, both of whom are second-generation immigrants, have never shied away from using their clothing line as means of making a political statement, but since the elections last November have found it all the more critical to be steadfastly aware of the current immigration status not only for themselves but many of the people with whom they work. Most recently, they cooperated with Justin Peck, New York City Ballet’s resident choreographer, in the production of a new piece, The Times Are Racing. The ballet looks at how the lives of first-generation immigrants affect the lives of their children as they assimilate into the world, a timely topic under most any circumstances. However, between its debut, on a Thursday, and its second performance, on the following Saturday, something changed. The president signed a travel ban leaving thousands stranded at John F. Kennedy and suddenly the protest of the ballet was being mirrored in real life. Dancers, leaping across the stage in t-shirts that read “Act,” “Defy,” “Protest,” “Shout,” and “Change,” were no longer part of what had happened but were now part of what is happening.
The Council of Fashion Designers in America (CFDA), the organization that represents US-based designers, has already been looking at the problems caused by the shift in policies and what might be done to offset the consequences. There don’t seem to be many positive options. CFDA president Diane von Furstenberg, herself a Belgian-born immigrant, said, “The fashion industry has always been a reflection of what America is all about… inclusion and diversity. I am personally horrified to see what is going on.”
New York–based designer Linda Abdalla, who was born in Ireland and raised in Ohio, told Vice magazine, “It even affects the tailors and the seamstresses, and some of the best ones come from countries that are on the banned list. … Having designers and artists coming from those countries, having this ban on people coming to visit, or study, or work for these brands is a big deal. I just started meeting more African designers who are coming to the states, but this is just another block.”
Even in France, National Front leader Marine Le Pen is leading in polls ahead of April-May elections and has said she will push for the country to leave the European Union and close France’s borders, which would be crippling to the Parisian fashion industry, one of the most influential in the world. France’s current minister of culture, Audrey Azoulay, told the Associated Press, “populist powers” are “absolutely incompatible with the idea of fashion and freedom.”
One of the reasons fashion designers and CEOs are so alarmed is because they or their predecessors have seen this before. Many fashion houses, especially those in Europe, are well over 100 years old, some of them, such as Pringle of Scotland, more than 200 years old. Embedded in those fashion catalogs are the evidence of how international politics and upheaval affect the fashion industry.
Consider the fact that we no longer look to Germany as a fashion power. Yet, prior to the rise of Adolf Hitler in that country, Berlin was just as much a fashion capital as Paris or Milan. What happened? At its peak, Germany was home to approximately 2,400 Jewish-owned clothing labels and garment manufacturers. Between 1933 and 1938, all of those companies disappeared because of one person’s severe anti-immigration stance. Imports were forbidden. Exports completely dried up. The fashion industry in Germany died.
Some of the effects of the populist politics from that era still persist. The “Made it Italy” label sewn into garments from Armani to Gucci to Fendi started under Mussolini in an effort to convince Italian women to stop buying their dresses from Paris. While the label is seen today as more of a marketing tool, the nationalistic purpose has never gone away and Italy is still more closed to immigrant designers and foreign textiles than are other countries.
Fashion is a globally dependent industry, reliant on the international travel of both people and material in order to survive. Designers such as Calvin Klein’s Raf Simons regularly travel back and forth between New York and Europe and around the world not only for inspiration for their collections but to discover new fabrics and textile technologies. When politicians begin cutting off access to the global market, either through import/export taxes or through travel bans of any kind, they drive a knife deep into the heart of the fashion industry.
Most reliant on the free flow of textiles are the “fast fashion” retailers such as H&M and Forever 21 whose low prices are dependent upon garments manufactured at the lowest possible prices, usually in places such as Turkey and Bangladesh. Were imports from those countries to see a new tax of 25 percent or more, as has been suggested by the US administration, fashion retailers across the board, from Macy’s to Wal-Mart would feel the negative effect. Stores would have little choice but to pass the increased costs on to the consumers, resulting in an unprecedented amount of inflation. Eliminate those imports entirely and H&M and its competitors would have little choice but to close. Completely.
The rhetoric of populist politics always sounds good on the surface. “Make America Great.” “America first.” “Buy American.” Yet, history has proven that such nationalism and the fashion industry don’t mix. Fashion has to be open. Fashion, as an industry, must move as freely as a summer dress. There can be no borders. There can be no domestic restrictions. Try to put fashion in a box, even if it is flag-draped, and not only will an industry die, but the economies dependent upon that industry will be crippled.
Fortunately, designers are not the kind of people likely to just slip quietly away. As we saw this past season, they intend to speak up, to use their voices not just on the runway but on store shelves and even on the bodies of their customers to express opposition.
Larger groups are getting in on the action as well because bad laws that affect one sector affect them all. To that end, the National Retail Federation (NRF) released this ad last month in opposition to what’s being called a “border adjustment tax.”
The NRF has a strong lobbying presence in the US Congress and is working against any new legislation that would be of any detriment to the already struggling retail sector.
Now, let’s bring the matter home.
Consider what you are wearing right now. Assuming the clothes were not a gift, how much did you pay for them? $10? $100? Maybe $350 for the whole outfit, including the shoes. Americans are notorious bargain shoppers and hate paying full price for anything (which is a problem unto itself). So, what happens if a 25% tax is pushed on to the customer. The actual price increase is going to be closer to 30% to cover additional administration in filing the tax. So, that $10 item is now $13. Doesn’t seem like much. The $100 dress is now $130, which still doesn’t sound like a horrible increase unless you’re on a budget, in which case crossing that $100 line may not be possible. That $350 outfit though is closer to $450, and if you’re someone who likes designer labels in your clothes that 30 percent adds up even faster.
Oh wait, we’re not done. You can’t wear just one outfit every day (though I know some who would try). Consider how much you spend on clothes for your family each year. The kids’ school uniforms. The shoes (almost none of which are made in the US). The underwear (almost all of which is imported). Can you really afford a 30=50 percent increase in your clothing budget on top of all the other prices that are increasing along with it?
If you’re part of the one percent of the US population that makes over $521,411 a year, you might not be too concerned. The rest of us, however, have every reason to worry.
Populist politics, from nationalistic protectionism to anti-immigration restrictions and overly protective import tariffs are not only bad for the fashion industry, they are equally bad for your life, your children’s lives, and your future.
You might want to consider contacting your members of Congress now.
Share this:
Like this: