Morning Update: 09/24/24

Fashion / Long Read / Social Commentary

We Are Slobs

April 9, 2017

Fashion retail is failing because we prefer to dress like bums

The Short Version

With thousands of major brand name stores closing this year, fashion labels and department stores alike are struggling to find a way adapt to a fundamental shift in how people dress. Comfort dominates over style. Dress codes once forged in steel have been shattered. Rare are the occasions when we feel the need to “dress up.” Our preference is for wearing what once would have been referred to as gym clothes. All around the world, we have become a society of slobs.

Defining The Situation

My youngest son’s prom was last night. He came out of his room dressed in a black tux with white shirt and a tie that I had to tie for him. He was even wearing hard soled shoes for the first time in well over a year. He was handsome. He looked good. I took pictures to send to his mother.

Within ten minutes of arriving back home, however, he was back in his typical uniform of shorts and a t-shirt so old the white cotton has yellowed. This is how he prefers to dress. This is how his friends prefer to dress. They see little reason to dress up, especially if they’re spending most their day in a classroom.

On one hand, it would be easy to say that my son’s choice of clothing style is typical of a generation, and to some extent it is. However, his generation is merely taking to the extreme a trend that has been growing since before I was a teenager. We can talk about millennials and Gen-X and Boomers all we want, but the truth is we’ve been building to this level of casualness since the Great Depression of the 1930s, nearly a century ago. Society’s standards for clothing are not based on the trends of a single fashion season but upon multiple generations desiring to be more comfortable, less rigid, and freer.

Unfortunately, in our desire to run away from the corporate dress code and gender-based stereotypes, we have gone to such an extreme where the greater majority no longer care about trends or passing fads, or standards, or social expectations. We care more about our own comfort, creating our own “style,” being “unique,” and not selling out to a label. In the process, we have become a society that is full of slobs. We’re not just casual. Our global fashion style has evolved to a point to where wrinkled and slouchy is acceptable and we have decided to be okay with that.

A Slow Progression

One of the challenging aspects of my life now is that I struggle to get in 30 minutes of physical exercise or reasonably aerobic activity during the day. My doctor insists that I must, but our house is small, space is limited, and the effects of unpredictable weather provide too many convenient obstacles. Still, I have to take responsibility for my health (Kat insists) and that led to me going to the mall this week to do that stereotypical old person thing: walk. I have become that person. We’re not there to shop, just walk.

I took the 18-year-old with me for safety. I still don’t have these new meds balanced out just yet and sudden blood sugar drops are a problem. Sure enough, by the time we made a couple of rounds, I needed to sit and chug some juice. This gave us a chance to people watch, which is typically an interesting enough activity all on its own. What we observed was interesting.

The number of women wearing some form of Spandex®-infused leggings was roughly 70 percent. Most were black, but there were a couple of middle-aged women whose thighs were far from toned wearing leggings of bright colors and designs that made it impossible to not notice that their thighs were large and not toned. Easily 90 percent of men were in jeans or some other casual pant, loose fitting, a little too long. The day’s cool and wet weather had most everyone in a jacket, the range running from Nanook of the North-styled parkas to plain hoodies. Under those jackets were primarily t-shirts, which isn’t too surprising. None of the shirt tails were tucked, though, and men especially tended to not tie their shoe laces, leaving them dangling or tucked in the top of their sneakers. The general appearance, overall, was best termed as slouchy.

Sure, there were exceptions. We saw a couple of young women wearing very nice dresses, fully coiffed and made up, pushing babies in strollers as they headed toward Von Maur with fierce determination. People of certain ethnicities and religious practice were dressed according to their cultures’ traditions. One young woman, who might have been coming from or going to a job interview, was dressed what we traditionally refer to as “professional” but was having some difficulty walking in block heels that were about a size too large for her.

Those were the very obvious exceptions, however. More typical was the teenage girl who wandered into Pac-Sun wearing well-worn flannel pajama pants and a frayed hoodie. The pajamas were long enough to nearly hide her worn sneakers and the hoodie was large enough to obliterate most her features. She shuffled as she walked and her phone never left her ear.

How did we get here? Blaming generations is easy, but incorrect. We’ve been building up to this for a very long time.

Prior to the stock market crash of 1929, what one wore defined their place in society and the vast majority of people were anxious to look better off than they were. Think of what we refer to as the “roaring” twenties and one conjures images of girls in flapper dresses and men in sharp pinstripe suits. While the every-day reality was something a little less formal, there remained a sense that how one dressed reflected their character and morality.

The Great Depression changed all that, however, and by the time we came out of World War II we had begun softening our attitudes toward how we dressed, especially in non-work settings. Denim moved away from being strictly the uniform of labor and became an after-school favorite of teens and college students. Slacks became a regular part of women’s fashion and men came home and traded their suits for khaki slacks and open-collared short-sleeve shirts. As quaint as that may sound to us now, it was a fundamental shift in philosophy as casual wear became a fundamental part of the fashion industry.

Once society got a taste for casual style, we decided we really liked it and slowly moved toward integrating more casual looks into our daily wardrobes. By the time we got to the 1970s, we had the horrible experience of the leisure suit, leather fringe, and the shift toward athletic footwear for things other than athletics. The “track suit” became a thing and President Jimmy Carter even wore jeans and a denim jacket in the oval office. Ronald Reagan tried pulling the nation back with forced formality at the White House, but it was too late. Casual Friday became a workplace

Casual Friday became a workplace norm in the mid-80s and by the time Bill Clinton took office in 1992 the world was well on its way toward khaki hell, fueled by the casual attitudes of the burgeoning high-tech industry. Office dress codes that once required ties and jackets of men and dresses for women were the exception rather than the rule by the time the world nervously celebrated Y2K. Denim was always pre-washed and often “distressed” and ripped in strategic places. Flip-flops replaced sneakers to the point that some people didn’t think twice about wearing them for official visits to the White House.

Underwear became a part of our fashion sense, partly thanks to Madonna and partly the influence of Calvin Klein. “Street style” and “urban” became regular parts of our fashion lexicon. Questions of what, exactly, defined “office appropriate” became a regular struggle for HR managers who no longer had a clear road map to follow. We rebelled against any kind of forced style structure and increasingly insisted upon autonomy in deciding what we wear.

At the same time, we also became more self-aware regarding our health and our bodies. Videos on the Internet allowed us to see “behind the scenes” of how the “beautiful people” kept in shape. Fitness went mainstream and yoga, especially, not only became the dominant form of wellness but also infused itself into our fashion sense. Yoga pants and sports bras went from being something one wore to the gym to a regular part of our wardrobes no matter where we were.

In 2014, Vanessa Friedman, of The New York Times asked what to call this “gym-to-street sector that has suddenly become the hottest thing to cover two legs?” Nike CEO Mike Parker declared, “Leggings are the new denim.” Beyoncé’s line for Topshop targeted “women who go to yoga or the health club, as well as those who just want to look as if they do,” according to WWD. The term “athleisure” came to define those clothes that have an athletic appearance but are not really meant for one to actually sweat in. Alexander Wang, chief among the athleisure designers, made a killing.

In the short years since our style decisions have completely disintegrated. If athleisure is okay, then a couple of steps below that must be okay as well. Ragged, ill-fitting, wrinkled, old, and frayed have become such a standard part of our wardrobe that we even see those elements incorporated on fashion’s runways.

The problem is that fashion relies on trends, which change and lead us to keep buying new clothes. Athleisure is not a trend and as we dissolve into a new level of slovenliness we care less and less about purchasing anything new.

Fashion On The Ropes

A part of me cried this week when Ralph Lauren announced that they are closing their flagship store on New York’s 5th Avenue. Not only has that store been the base for all things Ralph Lauren, in recent years it’s been the home for the designer’s fashion shows, spectacles that transformed the entire store into a giant runway. Lauren is not alone, though. Fashion retailers are fleeing their 5th Avenue shops like rats flee a sinking ship and that sinking metaphor is more appropriate than any of us care to admit. Consider the number of store closing already announced this year:

Payless
Stores closing in 2017: 1,000
RadioShack
Stores closing in 2017: 552
The Limited
Stores closing in 2017: 250
Family Christian
Stores closing in 2017: 240
Wet Seal
Stores closing in 2017: 171
Bebe
Stores closing in 2017: 170
Crocs
Stores closing in 2017: 160
J.C.Penney
Stores closing in 2017: 138
BCBG
Stores closing in 2017: 120
American Apparel
Stores closing in 2017: 110
Kmart
Stores closing in 2017: 108
hh Gregg
Stores closing in 2017: 88
Staples
Stores closing in 2017: 70
CVS
Stores closing in 2017: 70
Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores closing in 2017: 60
Macys
Stores closing in 2017: 68
Sears
Stores closing in 2017: 42
Guess
Stores closing in 2017: 60
Green Mountain
Stores closing in 2017: 30

I know, not all of those have anything to do with fashion or style, but what affects one retail sector ultimately affects them all. How we dress or don’t dress, the degree to which we shop or don’t shop, has a ripple effect across all of retail, even reaching all the way out to seemingly extreme disconnects such as Family Christian stores. Guess what: we’re not buying religious t-shirts, either. The retail economy is reeling from such a severe attitude of casualness that we no longer give a fuck whether we buy anything or not.

Not that we care. As our society has descended into this realm of wearing whatever we pick up off the floor and calling it our “personal style,” we don’t seem to realize that at the core lies a self-centered philosophy that no one has a right to challenge or question what anyone else does. For me to sit at the mall and question whether or not someone should be wearing those leggings is considered “shaming,” and I’m told to not do that. For me to challenge the young woman who wore her pajamas to the mall is infringing upon her personal rights. Even my choice of titles, asserting that we are all slobs, is considered judgemental and inappropriate by most. We want to wear what we like and have rejected any sense that anyone has the right to even question our decisions.

The longer-term danger, beyond the severe economic impact and the jobs being lost, is that in our self-centered casual attitude we’ve not only stopped caring about what other people think, we’ve stopped caring at all. We care about my pets, my cars, and my life experiences. Sure, we still consume, and those who cater to our selfish desires are doing well. However, the Internet has made it all too convenient for to pretend that we care about refugees by simply donating $5 online rather than actually getting out and helping people. We post our political opinions on Facebook but can’t be bothered to actually have conversations that matter with our elected representatives. We’ll join a rally if enough other people are going because our egos are stroked when we appear to be part of something popular.

Unpopular conclusions

The examination that leads me here is harsh. We are slobs. We are self-centered. We are selfish. While none of these conditions are new, we’ve been this way for thousands of years, where society once considered these traits as something to avoid, we now embrace them fully and cherish them as if they were actually desirable. We love doing and wearing whatever the hell we want. We don’t care if our actions destroy the economy as long as we’re getting what we want. We just don’t want anyone else telling us what to do, where to go, or how to behave. We’re independent, dammit, and if we have to dress slovenly and act slovenly to prove that, then that’s exactly what we are going to do.

Perhaps, however, we need to reconsider some of the lessons our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents tried to teach us. There is some benefit to following rules. Standards not only help maintain order, they keep us safe. We mind our manners because it matters how we behave and how we treat other people. We don’t put our wants and desires first because it is important to actually care about other people first. We are taught delayed gratification because it keeps us fiscally stronger and avoids the irresponsibility of debt. We dress as well as we can for any given situation not to show off but because it is a sign of respect for those around us.

That last piece there, respect, is something we’ve all but lost. We want others to respect us, we’re all about people respecting who we are and what we do, but we give no one anything to respect in the first place. Respect does not exist when we don’t care what other people think. When we choose to dress like trash, we are effectually telling the rest of the world that we think they are trash. When all of our actions and motivations are self-centered on personal pleasure and gain, we are telling the rest of the world that we think they are inferior. We can copy and share the suicide hotline number on our Facebook profile over and over and over, but the proof of whether we actually care about the lives of other people lies in our all our actions, not our words.

How we dress, how we talk, the activities in which we directly participate, tell those around us whether we respect them as humans, part of our shared society. Dressing, speaking, and behaving appropriately says that we care, that we are willing to put respect for others above our own comfort and/or convenience. Without that visible demonstration of respect, all the words we might post on social media or anywhere else are meaningless.

We when dress, speak, and behave like slobs, we tell those around us that we really don’t give a shit about them. We say that our own comfort and perceived independence is more important than anything or anyone else. Ultimately, slobs don’t even respect themselves.

We can do better. We must do better. I don’t know about you, but I don’t care to be a part of a society of slobs.

Current Issues / Fashion / News & Comment

Defying Authority

February 9, 2017

Retailers don’t care who Ivanka’s daddy is, they’re not carrying her junk.

The Short Version

Retailers including Nordstrom and T.J. Maxx have dumped Ivanka Trump’s fashion line, saying that the products were cheaply made and not selling well. Ivanka’s daddy, who just happens to be president of the United States, tweeted his anger toward Nordstrom yesterday. Not only did the tweets not have the desired effect, it once again draws attention to the ethics issues raised by the president’s business holdings.

A Little Background

Fashion retail is a challenging market, as we’ve discussed several times before. Several once-popular chains have gone completely under. So, it makes sense that a store would stop selling anything that doesn’t sell well. Back in January, department store Nordstrom, as well as T.J. Maxx and Marshall’s, announced that they were dropping the entire Ivanka Trump line because they didn’t sell well last year. Any sane business person would have done the same thing.

Unfortunately, it is an insane businessman we have elected as president.

What The President Said

Yesterday, almost a month after Nordstrom and other retailers dumped his daughter’s label, the president issued this tweet:

My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person — always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2017

Typically, that would be bad news for Nordstrom. Other times the president has tweeted about a company, their stock took a dive. Not this time.

That’s right, the company’s stock value went UP after the president’s tweet. Could it be that the great orange one holds no sway over fashion? That would certainly seem to be the case.

The Washington Post quotes Indiana University retail merchandising professor Mary Embry on the matter:

“Politics certainly do matter in fashion,” she said, “but the strength of the Nordstrom stock validates the strength of the decision making of that retailer that is based on absolutely knowing its customer.”

Also, she said: “The president is not seen as having any particular expertise on fashion.”

The Fallout

The loss of influence may not be the only consequence of the president’s actions. While the tweet was initially issued from the president’s personal account, it was later re-tweeted from the official @POTUS account. That would appear to be a serious ethics violation, using his position as president to influence a business on his daughter’s behalf. That is a very big no-no in both business and political circles.

Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told the Associated Press: “The implicit threat was that he will use whatever authority he has to retaliate against Nordstrom, or anyone who crosses his interest.”

Ethicists all over the country have been weighing in on social media and while some defend the president’s use of his private account to defend his daughter, there is very little question that retweeting the message on the president’s official account is definitely crossing a line.

This adds to a growing list of ethics concern that could eventually end up as part of a Congressional investigation, though the president and Congressional leadership are doing everything they can to prevent that from happening. However, Congress cannot stop the growing number of lawsuits against the president for breaching ethics issues. Already, the president is facing multiple lawsuits over his failure to fully divest his business holdings as other presidents have done. Most damaging may be a lawsuit that claims the president has violated the Emoluments clause of the Constitution. Should the courts ultimately decide against the president, then Congress would be compelled to take action against him.

For all the reasons for opposing the President, ethics is the one over which he has total control. He doesn’t have to tweet at all. He doesn’t have to comment. He chooses what, when, and where he is going to speak. The entire ethics argument could go away overnight were the president to simply keep his hands in his pockets and be more presidential in what he says. Unfortunately, this president seems to be incapable of either of those things.

Over at T.J. Maxx, employees have been instructed to remove all Ivanka Trump merchandise from their shelves and place the branded signs in the trash.

If only it were so easy to remove the president.

Current Issues / News & Comment

H&M Closing Stores

February 4, 2017

Online shopping is where profits are found

The Short Version

Forbes magazine is reporting that fast-fashion retailer H&M is going to start closing under-performing stores and is abandoning its goal of opening 10-15% new stores each year. The chain is moving to put more emphasis on online shopping as it continues to chase a younger demographic that doesn’t shop in stores.

A Bit More Detail

No, your favorite H&M store isn’t going to close tomorrow. Probably. Maybe. Unless it’s one that has been defined as “under-performing.” For now, those are the only stores on the chopping block. The majority of stores in the US and Europe will keep right on putting out the fashion as fast as those factories in Bangladesh and Turkey can churn them out.

For now.

However, H&M’s CEO Karl-Johan Persson has changed his mind about the company’s growth strategy, away from physical stores in Europe and the US and more toward online sales. The reasons are numerous. In posting a six percent increase in sales last year, net income actually dropped almost eleven percent, largely because of increased markdowns necessary to stay competitive. Persson also said that events such as terror attacks and Brexit are creating problems in certain areas of the world.

The move toward a more online strategy isn’t universal, however. Persson says that emerging markets such as India, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey are growing and will see more stores open. In fact, 430 stores will open this year, including new entry into Kazakhstan, Colombia, The Republic of Georgia, and Taiwan.

As H&M grows its online presence, it looks directly at competing with Amazon, Zalandro, and Alibaba, hoping to capitalize off its online/brick-and-mortar combination. The company still expects a 10-15% annual sales increase despite the shift in focus. They are also expanding their online presence, adding Malaysia, Mexico, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and Turkey to the list of cyber markets.

The move by H&M is important in light of the continued struggles that have plagued mall-based retailers over the past several years. Rumors that Hudson’s Bay, who already owns Saks, is making a takeover move on troubled department store Macy’s was greeted with considerable optimism. Traditional fashion retailers are struggling and brick-and-mortar stores are a large cost factor that yields little, if any, profit.

Fast-fashion retailers, such as H&M and Forever21, have been seen as the exception to the decline of retail fashion stores. Where others have failed, fast-fashion outlets have been booming, for the most part. H&M’s change in strategy seems to signal the popping of that bubble.

Again, H&M emphasizes that only under-performing stores are going to close. However, there was no detail defining “under-performing” and whether that might expand should on-line sales beat sales goals. We only know that once a store is targeted for closure, that the door-shuttering will happen quickly. Don’t expect a lot of huge clearance sales.

We also don’t know how this might effect H&M’s partnerships with fashion brands such as Kenzo and its relationships with designers, things that have made the store popular in the past.

What we do know is that this could be a serious blow to real estate and mall developers in the long-term. Any hope for a resurgence based on fast-fashion growth would appear to be crushed. As Amazon and other companies look at faster and cheaper delivery methods, the days of physical in-store shopping look to be shorter than previously anticipated.

At the same time, this move makes the opportunities for smaller boutiques that much stronger. Located in more urban areas in places where storefront rents are not quite so expensive, boutiques counter the online trend with a more intimate shopping experience. As bigger brands drop physical stores to move online, boutique owners are likely to see an increase in traffic, especially from shoppers over 40 who still like to touch and try on clothes before buying.

Either way one looks at the situation, however, the consumer almost certainly comes out the winner.

Current Issues / Fashion / News & Comment / PotD

Retail Resistance

February 2, 2017

Stores desperately try to prevent huge price increases

The Short Version

Your favorite retail store has your back as every major retail trade group opposes the so-called Border Adjusted Tax proposed by House Speaker Paul Ryan. Retailers say the tax would result in price increases of 20% or more and could make many products completely unavailable to American consumers.

Avoiding Sticker Shock

Almost everything you buy, even if it comes with a “Made in America” label, has some parts of pieces imported from outside the United States. This division of manufacturing and labor has become standard operating procedure for almost every American-owned company. That practice is under attack, however, as the Republican members of Congress and the 45th president vow to use taxes as a means of encouraging domestic production.

Retailers, however, say the plan is severely flawed and would not only result in higher prices for consumers but would likely cost several thousand jobs across the country—the exact opposite effect from what Republicans claim the tax will do.

Complicating the whole matter is the fact that Republican leadership in Congress and the 45th president are not on the same page. While the Republican proposal would increase import taxes 10-15%. the president has been pushing an import tax as high as 35%. The president has also criticized the Republican plan as being too complicated.

The National Retail Federation, along with the American International Automobile Dealers Association, and the National Grocers Association have joined forces with smaller trade groups and independent retailers such as the LVMH luxury group to form Americans for Affordable Products. The purpose of the new group is to present a unified front in educating the public of the potentially negative results of the import tax as well as lobbying Congress on behalf of the retailers. They’re not waiting until a final bill is proposed. They want to stop any increased taxes before they ever get started.

Who all is involved? Everyone. Nike. Target. Wal-Mart. Best Buy. LVMH-owned brands Donna Karan, Fendi, Givenchy, and Kenzo. Dollar General. Pretty much every store you ever shop, regardless of whether you shop bargain basements or the luxury mall, is against the import tax being raised.

Why? Because even things as simple as pencils and toilet paper have production pieces that are imported. Any rise in the import tax not only results in higher prices for consumers but in many cases would result in layoffs of American employees. The end result would almost certainly be an economic tailspin resulting in a recession larger than that of 2008.

While almost everyone is in favor of increased domestic production of products, the consensus among those who actually produce and sell those products is that increased import taxes is not the way to achieve that goal.

Current Issues / News & Comment / video

5 Things You Should Know: 01.07.17

January 7, 2017

06:02:29 01/07/2017

https://youtu.be/4MvFw37SdSk

Did you know that you can help sponsor 5 Things You Should Know for as little as $50 a week? Ask Us How.

No rest because of the wicked

Ah, Saturday, we’re supposed to have a little lighter fare today, aren’t we? I’m afraid that’s not going to be possible. For those of us here in the Midwest, we’re waking up to temperatures at or below zero, which makes being out at all for any length of time rather dangerous. It’s not going to get much warmer, either, as highs today will still be well below 20 degrees. Be thankful that you’re not in the Carolinas or Eastern Tennessee, however, as they got socked pretty hard with a winter storm yesterday. Fortunately, it was not as widespread as initially feared.

For a Saturday there are a surprising amount of things to talk about. Indianapolis had two more murders overnight. The president-elect is attempting to pick on Arnold Schwarzenegger over television ratings, and prison gangs in Brazil decapitated some 30 inmates as the violence there continues to escalate. These are not the type of things we like to deal with on a Saturday, but they are things you need to know. So, adult up and let’s look at our top 5 things you should know.

This isn’t supposed to be possible

Americans were taken aback yesterday when 26-year-old Esteban Santiago of Anchorage, Alaska, a National Guard veteran who served in Iraq, stepped off a plane in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, retrieved his legally-checked baggage, pulled out a gun and started shooting¹. Witnesses say there was no apparent motive or reason to his shooting. Santiago simply shot at anyone and everyone until he was out of ammunition. By the time he was done, five were dead and eight others injured.

Immediately, people begin asking how and why this happened here, in Ft. Lauderdale of all places. Naturally, it’s too early to have all the answers, but a couple of things are evident at this point. First, Santiago’s family states that he had been receiving mental health care and that he “wasn’t right” after returning from Iraq². This isn’t the first time we’ve heard of soldiers having emotional and mental difficulties after returning from service. We also have to realize and come to grips with the fact that the mental health care we give our veterans sucks. If mental health proves to be part of the cause, then we all have to accept part of the blame.

At the same time, many are wondering how he was able to get a gun through the airport in his luggage. Guess what: it’s perfectly legal. Guns can be shipped in checked luggage as long as they are locked, ammunition is stored separately, and shipped in a hard-sided container. All Santiago had to do was retrieve his hard-case from the baggage area. He then went to the bathroom, assembled and loaded the weapon, and came out shooting. It’s up to the ATF now to determine whether this calls for a change in the rules. I think a lot of people flying would support that.

Russian hacking isn’t done

The National Intelligence director released a declassified copy of the same report given to President Obama and the president-elect yesterday, and what they are saying is a bit more frightening that what we first thought. There is a lot of information in the report, of course, but one of the most troubling items to stick out is the prediction that, even though the election is over, the Russians aren’t done hacking³.

The report is the most detail we’ve seen yet from national intelligence sources concerning the source and severity of Russian-backed hacking efforts regarding the election. According to the assessment, intelligence agencies have a “high amount of confidence that the GRU (a top Russian intelligence agency) relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.” While the public version lacks the supporting evidence, since that is necessarily a closely-guarded secret, the information made available makes a very strong case against the Russian government and Vladimir Putin.

Contents of the report stand in strong opposition to statements made by both the president-elect and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange this week⁴, both of whom denied any involvement by Russia in the election. However, what you should know is that the report is the combined work of 17 different intelligence agencies with thousands of people involved at various levels. This is much more in-depth and authoritative than a tweet pulled out of someone’s ass.

Retail continues to suck

If there is an industry that is currently in decline more than fashion retail, please let me know what it is. Just two days after Macy’s and Sears both announced large layoffs and store closings, The Limited, headquartered here in the Midwest in New Albany, Ohio, announced that it is closing all of its brick-and-mortar stores at the end of business this Sunday⁵. That’s right, they’re only open today and tomorrow and then they’re gone.

While the store will continue to operate online, the website is showing a 50% discount across the board, indicating a severe inventory sell-off as stores begin shipping back whatever is left on their shelves when they close Sunday evening. This is a huge blow not only to the retail sector, but also to the suburban malls in which most Limited stores are located. As both retail fashion and mall shopping decline, they leave in their wake a significant blight of empty stores and large, vacant buildings.

This doesn’t come as a big surprise to The Limited’s employees. The company had announced back in the fall that it would be closing some stores and laying off employees. Both the CEO and CFO left at the end of the year with no replacement. Some stores have already been offering steep discounts up to 90%. If you have some expendable cash, this might be a good day to go shopping, but don’t expect there to be much left. No new inventory has come to the stores since the first of the year.

Other people looking for work

The Limited employees aren’t the only ones looking for work. United States Ambassadors appointed under the Obama administration are expected to resign and return home by January 20⁶. The mandate applies only to politically-appointed positions and not career diplomats. On one level, this is pretty much business as usual during a presidential transition period.

However, what is different this time around is the requirement that everyone actually be back by the inauguration. Typically, exceptions are made for those who have children in school as well as politically sensitive locations such as Germany, Canada, and Great Britain. Failing to leave some ambassadors in place means that the United States has no Senate-confirmed envoys in those countries until Congress gets through the painfully long process of approving the president-elect’s appointments.

The move not only shows complete disregard for the importance of a cohesive foreign policy, but also leaves our closest allies without a diplomatic relationship with the White House. Ambassadors are now struggling to find new accommodations and secure visas for families who need to stay until the end of school.

And finally …

We can end today on a bit of a high note as employment figures released yesterday showed the economy creating 156,000 new jobs last month even as unemployment ticked up a tenth of a percent to 4.7⁷. This is seen are solid growth despite the minor increase in unemployment. Hiring has continued a slow but steady increase over the past seven-and-a-half years, climbing steadily from the recession President Obama inherited from the Bush administration.

Even the unemployment was good news. The reason for that small increase was that more people were looking for jobs during the period, something that had been a point of concern for economists who were afraid too many people had simply given up. Healthcare was the sector with the largest employment gains, with restaurants and bars coming in a close second. Manufacturing finally managed to add a few new jobs last month as well, after having lost the previous four months.

Those who are gainfully employed are also making more with hourly wages up 2.9 percent, the biggest jump in the past seven years. What remains to be seen, of course, is whether this upward trend continues under the new administration. While the president-elect has bullied some companies into keeping jobs in the US, the actual number of those jobs has not been significant and could still result in yet another retreat in the manufacturing industry. We’ll just have to wait and see.

That’s all we have time for today. With weather as cold as we’re experiencing across the Midwest this morning, you’ll want to exercise extreme caution if you get out. Better yet, just stay home, stay safe, and catch up some reading. We are, again, taking tomorrow off, hoping nothing major happens over the next 24 hours or so. We’ll be back bright and early Monday morning. Enjoy your weekend.

Current Issues / News & Comment / video

5 Things You Should Know: 12.29.16

December 29, 2016

04:40:59 12/29/2016 Indianapolis, IN

https://youtu.be/BhBApk_RjiU

Nope, 2016 is still not done

Hey there. If you’re waking up this morning wondering if this year is done beating up your emotions, the answer is no. In addition to all the news this morning, the National Weather Service has issued a warning for much of central Indiana on the threat of snow squalls between 3-10pm. Snow squalls are like mini-blizzards, popping up all of a sudden with heavy snow and wind, then disappearing. If you need to get out today, doing so this morning is highly recommended. And if you live in the Northeast, look out. You have as much as two feet of snow headed your direction by Friday morning.

Globally, at least there weren’t any mass shootings overnight. However, stocks fell on the Asian markets, Turkey wants Hezbollah out of Syria, and Philippine president Duterte says he’ll throw people out of a helicopter and that he’s done it before. [Yes, Alex, I’ll take ‘Insane Despots’ for 1,000.] The world is busy today so let’s get right to the 5 Things You Should Know.

A Mother and Daughter Together

We are saddened but not too terribly surprised this morning to learn of the passing of actress Debbie Reynolds overnight¹. Ms. Reynolds suffered a stroke and was taken to the hospital yesterday afternoon. Having been in poor health for some time, and coming just one day after the loss of her daughter, Carrie Fisher, anyone familiar with the situation was expecting this outcome. We can blame the stroke if we want, but certainly, the stress of broken heart was a factor as well.

Ms. Reynolds was an incredible actress and singer who held her own alongside male leads such as Gene Kelly and Danny Kaye in Singing in the Rain. She received an Oscar nomination for her role in The Unsinkable Molly Brown and was nominated for a Tony award for her role in Irene as well. She even had a number one pop hit with Tammy, the title song from the 1957 movie Tammy and the Bachelor.

Her personal life was often tabloid fodder, though. Her first husband, Eddie Fisher, left her for Elizabeth Taylor. Her next two husbands left her nearly bankrupt by the mid-1970s. Through all that, however, she had her children, Todd and Carrie. Now, after years of struggling with her health, it’s understandable how her daughter’s death might lead to her own. She was an incredible talent who raised an incredible talent. Rest in peace, Ms. Reynolds, and thank you for singing.

Important Notice For Heart Patients

Speaking of health, if you or anyone you know has had heart surgery since 2012, you might want to schedule a visit with your doctor, just to be safe. Both the CDC and the FDA have released warnings that a device used to heat and cool blood during heart surgeries may have caused a life-threatening infection². Nationwide, this could potentially affect some 600,000 heart patients at hospitals in every major city in the US.

Locally, Community hospitals have said they’ve sent letters to some 600 of their patients and IU Health is sending letters to approximately 6,500 of their patients this week. Neither Eskinazi nor Saint Vincent used the device. VA hospitals around the nation started sending letters to their patients earlier in the month.

Again, if you receive a letter, or if you have had open heart surgery and since moved, you may want to contact your doctor. The pulmonary infection develops slowly, growing over the course of several months or even years. It can take over a year of antibiotic treatment to cure the infection. While it is not expected that many patients have the infection, the only way to be certain is to check with your doctor.

A Two-State Solution

The United States has had a long history of standing by the side of Israel no matter what they did nor how little sense it might make. That tradition has been broken in the past week as the US first refused to veto a UN Security Council resolution condemning West Bank settlements. Then, as if Isreali Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn’t pissed off enough, Secretary of State John Kerry spent a full hour in a speech at the State Department yesterday, lambasting the country for preventing peace in the region, saying that a two-state solution was the only reasonable avenue to long-term peace³.

Not surprisingly, a number of people disagree with Secretary Kerry’s position purely on an ideological basis. Israel has been the strongest of US allies in the Middle East since its establishment in 1948. However, much of that allegiance is based on religious sentiments and as Israel has ventured more into the West Bank, occupying land claimed by what we now know as Palestine, that relationship has been strained. Israel’s bombardment of schools and Palestinian neighborhoods has been a frequent point of criticism from the rest of the industrialized world, with the US habitually abstaining from saying anything negative about the country no matter what atrocities it might commit.

Now, not only has Secretary Kerry moved away from that support, but it seems Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn’t have as much support in his own country as he thought. Israeli media are reporting that the attorney general will soon announce a criminal investigation into Netanyahu⁴. While the Justice Ministry neither confirms nor denies these reports, Israeli Channel 10 TV says Netanyahu is suspected in two cases, one of which is “grave and supported by evidence.” This entire situation is more complicated than it looks on the surface, so be careful about taking sides.

And The Hits Just Keep Coming

People aren’t the only things dying this year. Sears announced yesterday that it is closing yet another 30 Sears and Kmart stores early next year⁵. While this news really isn’t surprising, it comes as just another nail in the coffin not only for the once dominant retailer, but for mall-based department stores everywhere. This is in stark contrast to the chain’s heyday back in the 1960s and 70s when going to Sears was a big deal. Even as recently as 2011, Sears had over 3,500 stores. This move takes them below 1,500 stores.

I still remember going to the big Sears store downtown when I was little. The multi-story building was the biggest I’d ever seen. It was the only place my parents would shop for my school clothes because they knew I wouldn’t wear them out before I outgrew them. I remember pneumatic tubes at the checkout registers, whisking away checks for approval or credit cards for processing. Now, in this past quarter alone, Sears’ revenue fell 13%, to $5 billion. Same-store sales dropped 7.4%, including a 10% decrease at Sears stores.

There is a lot of question whether Sears and other department stores like it, such as JCPenney and Macy’s can survive. The last time I was in a local Sears store, the place was practically empty. I wasn’t even accosted by a commission-hungry associate. One has to wonder whether the days of the big department stores have come to an end.

And finally …

There is a little bit of good news in the world. I know many new and expecting mothers have worried about their children’s health even before they’re born. One of the biggest increases in childhood disease over the past decade has been the rate of asthma and other breathing difficulties. Now, there is evidence following an exhaustive study in Denmark that consumption of fish oil in the third trimester of pregnancy significantly reduces the chances of a child developing chronic wheezing problems or asthma by age 5⁶.

The speed at which asthma has been increasing in developed countries is one of those things that has confounded doctors up to this point. The level of omega-3 fatty acids, such as those found in fish oil, has been considered before, but the study groups were too small to be considered authoritative. The Danish study looked at 700 pregnant women and their children in determining that the consumption of fish oil may reduce rates of asthma by as much as one-third.

Of course, there is still some need for caution before you go running to your nearest health food store. The fish oil dose in the study was 15 to 20 times as high as the average amount Americans get from food. That might not be such a huge concern were there not problems with the amount of mercury found in the fish we consume in the US. That issue has caused doctors to recommend pregnant women not consume raw fish at all and cooked fish only once a week. More study is still needed and, as always, consult with your doctor before making any changes.

We have filled our allotted amount of time for this morning. There’s not a bit of telling what might happen over the next 24 hours, so please, whatever you do today, be careful. We like having you around, even if it’s only on the Internet. Stay warm and we’ll see you tomorrow.

This article is not sponsored by anyone, but it could be. We’re open to that possibility. Let us know if you’re interested.

Current Issues / News & Comment / video

5 Things You Should Know: 12.28.2016

December 28, 2016

https://youtu.be/yARx2XOyYbE

This year is not over yet

Good morning, we’re back after some holiday complications, ready to tackle what’s left of this tremendously upsetting year. There certainly will be plenty of reasons to celebrate its passing Saturday night. My concern at this point is that the year might try for a big finish. So please, wherever you go, whatever you do, exercise caution and common sense.

As we’re looking at developing news this morning, there were a couple of shallow earthquakes waking up everyone in the Lake Tahoe region this morning. Zsa Zsa Gabor’s adopted son died just a few days after his mother’s passing. And the president, the one who knows what he’s doing, signed a bill yesterday allowing the FBI and DOJ to re-open civil rights cases more than 20 years old. But that’s not what we’re talking about this morning, is it? Here are the five things you need to know.

Our favorite princess has died

Everyone from a devastated Mark Hamill to Daisy Ridley is remembering actress and author Carrie Fisher this morning. Ms. Fisher passed away yesterday after suffering a heart attack while on a flight from London to Los Angeles¹. The actress was on a tour promoting her new book, The Princess Diarist, and had been on multiple talk shows across the US and Europe. The last interview I saw was with Stephen Colbert just a few weeks ago. She seemed spirited and lively.

Fisher’s ability as an author was perhaps greater than that as an actor. Her 1987 book Postcards From The Edge became an international best seller. When no one else wanted to take on the project, she produced the movie version of the book as well. She was open about the challenges she faced and honest about the demons that still dogged her.

Yet, it will always be her role as Star Wars’ enigmatic Princess Leia that we will always remember first. For an entire generation of young people, she was their first Hollywood crush. She played a character that didn’t need to be sexy to be meaningful, but still managed to be sexy anyway. She was tough enough to fight off the boys and take on an empire. She became a part of our lives, our youth, that we will never forget. Rest in peace, Ms. Fisher. You will not be forgotten.

No more mall rats

By now, you’ve likely heard of the numerous incidents that occurred at malls in several cities Monday night. So far, police have not found any evidence linking the different events², but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one and that parents shouldn’t be taking notice for multiple reasons.

First, it has been years since hanging out at the mall was actually cool. I have three boys, the youngest of which is 18. The only way you would get any of them in a mall at any age was if the closest Game Stop was in that mall. Even then, it was go in, buy the game, and get out. The mall was not a place they wanted their friends to see them. This is a large part of why retail malls are in decline. So, if your child is hanging out at the mall, you might consider the possibility they have social issues.

Second, the possibility of a social media connection has yet to be fully explored. Police say they are still investigating that possibility. More than that, though, this is a wake-up call for parents who think they can drop their children off anywhere and not have to worry. Over the past five years, we’ve seen violence break out at everything from graduation parties to church outings. Locally, malls are at least temporarily requiring that any child under the age of 18 must have a parent with them. Parents, time to step up and take some responsibility because your children don’t know what that is.

Behave yourself on that flight

Malls aren’t the only place where one needs to watch their behavior. Incidents of people being removed from flights for various outbursts and bad behavior has increased this past year. In one such incident earlier this month, 80s pop singer Richard Marx and his wife, former MTV VJ Daisy Fuentes, had to step in and help subdue an “unruly” passenger aboard a Korean Airlines flight they were on⁵. Both Marx and Fuentes were highly critical of the airline after the incident, saying that flight attendants did not know how to properly use tasers and ropes that were aboard the plane.

That has now changed. Korean Air told Reuters yesterday, “We have decided to improve our conditions and procedure on using Taser guns to cope with violent acts and disturbances on board in a fast and efficient manner.⁶” What this means is that flight attendants no longer have to wait to assess the level of danger a passenger might pose to others on the plane. Previously, flight attendants were instructed to only use the tasers if the lives of the passengers and crew were in danger or the safety of the flight was threatened.

Exactly how this new policy plays out in the air remains to be seen. Korean Air did not set a time for implementation of the new policy. Still, if I were on a Korean Air flight, I’d think twice before demanding that full can of soda.

Does Versace have a race issue?

Around the world, the Versace fashion brand is known for the look that Donatella Versace herself exhibits: platinum blond hair and a sexy silhouette. We wouldn’t expect to see anything less from her runway shows or her retail stores. However, a charge of blatant racism has been leveled against the brand, complete with a special code used in retail stores to alert employees when a black person enters the store³.

The charge is part of a lawsuit filed by a former Versace outlet employee who says he was fired for being of mixed race. According to the lawsuit, the manager instructed the employee “to say ‘D410’ in a casual manner when a black person entered the store.” When the employee told the manager he was part black, he claims the manager treated him differently and subsequently fired him without cause.

Racial bias is not a new charge for anyone in the fashion industry. Runways are notoriously white, something that has drawn no small amount of attention in recent years. I went back and checked, of the 52 looks shown in Versace’s most recent Ready-to-Wear show, only five were presented on models of color⁴. Yet, that is above the norm and viewed as progressive for the fashion industry. Whether the lawsuit has merit remains to be seen, but fashion as a whole, not just Versace, needs to realize that racism doesn’t work for them anymore.

And finally …

We’ve been told for how long now that print media is dying? I have one word for you: LIES! This may not please the incoming president-elect all that much, but the nation’s largest newspapers are doing quite well, thank you. Several outlets, including NPR⁷, announced yesterday that the Washington Post is expanding their newsroom by adding 60 new journalists. The Post is one of the newspapers the president-elect criticized for their coverage of his campaign. That coverage seems to have paid off, though, as the newspaper reports Post‘s online traffic had increased by nearly 50 percent in the past year, and new subscriptions have grown by 75 percent, more than doubling digital subscription revenue.

At the same time, the New York Times, LA Times, and Wall Street Journal have also reported significant jumps in their subscription rates and profitability. Speculation is that more people are relying on large newspapers and their extensive reporting capabilities to help keep the new White House in check. Throughout the presidential campaign, the newspapers took the lead in fact-checking both candidates and took the lead in presenting any possible scandals or conflicts of interests. Americans who don’t trust the incoming president are hopeful that newspapers continue to force a level of transparency in government despite objections from the West Wing.

Whether this growth trend extends on down to local and regional newspapers remains to be seen, but I certainly wouldn’t count them out so long as newspapers step up to the role of keeping all levels of government responsible to those who elected them.

That’s all we have time to discuss this morning. We’re watching for potential news coming out of the UN this morning as well as a severe weather system forming over Alaska that could affect the Northern US later this week. This year doesn’t need any more causalties so please, whatever you do, be safe out there. We’ll see you again tomorrow.

Current Issues / News & Comment / video

5 Things You Should Know: 12/21/2016

December 21, 2016

charles i. letbetter - 5 Things You Should Know: 12/21/16

8:11:14 AM 12/21/2016

https://youtu.be/w1R_6E5YXRE

And A Happy Solstice To All

Hey there! Happy Winter Solstice! It’s the shortest day of the year, among other things, which means that from here on out the days start getting longer. That’s a good thing, isn’t it? We certainly hope it is. And we’re still looking at warming temperatures as we head toward the Christmas/Hanukkah weekend so hopefully travel problems will be few.

As we look at the news this morning, there is still a lot of clean up from Monday’s events. Police in Germany released the person they initially thought was the driver of the truck that slammed into a holiday market in Berlin and a manhunt is underway. Russia has doubled down on its relationship with Turkey. And officials in Geneva said that the person who shot up a mosque there was not a Muslim extremist. Those situations are likely to be ongoing for a while. So, our five things you should know this morning takes us in a slightly different direction.

And then things went boom

By now, if you’ve been on social media much at all, you’ve likely seen the video a passerby took yesterday as the San Pablito fireworks market in Mexico exploded yesterday¹. While the site was a spectacular event to watch, the death toll in that chain reaction explosion now stands at 29, with 72 still being treated for injuries. Some of those injured have burns over 90 percent of their body.

There is no word yet as to who or what might have caused the explosion. Inventory at the market was higher than usual because of the upcoming holidays. The fireworks market is an integral part of the local economy and something that is carefully guarded. However, this is not the first time that the San Pablito market has gone up in flames. A similar incident in May of 2005 did a similar amount of damage, though fewer lives were lost in that explosion.

Amidst the chaos of the explosions and huge plumes of smoke, survivors ran for the nearest exit, many becoming separated from their families and leaving behind personal items such as cell phones. Relatives are still scrambling to find those who are missing. Sadly, explosions like this are all-too-common an occurrence in Mexico, especially around holidays and religious festivals. Yesterday’s explosion, however, was the worst the country has seen in several years.

Someone has to take responsibility

With tragedy inevitably come lawsuits as victims’ families look to hold someone, somewhere, responsible for the event that took the life of a loved one. Such is the case in Orlando as the families of three men killed in the Pulse nightclub shooting filed papers in Detroit federal court on Monday naming major social media companies Facebook, Twitter, and Google saying that the companies “provided the terrorist group ISIS with accounts they use to spread extremist propaganda, raise funds and attract new recruits.”²

While the grief of the families involved is understandable, one has to wonder if this is not yet again a case of an over-zealous attorney either trying to make a name for themselves or bilking the grieving families out of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees. The families would have to prove intentional and deliberate collusion on the part of the social media giants to win their case, something that is not likely to happen. Pile First Amendment arguments on top of that and the lawsuit is practically dead in the water before it ever starts.

While only Facebook responded to the lawsuit yesterday, the issue of shutting down the accounts of known terrorist cells has been a primary project for every social media outlet over the past couple of years. Twitter was very public back in August when it announced that it had deleted 360,000 accounts since mid-2015 for violating policies related to promotion of terrorism. All three companies, along with Microsoft, are part of a joint effort to prevent known terrorist accounts from proliferating online. Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act protects software companies from speech users post on their sites, making the lawsuit against them even more improbable.

Our sympathies are with the families of the victims, but this lawsuit is nothing but desperate foolishness.

American Apparel is dying

Anyone who once shopped the big malls across the country knows the name American Apparel. They’ve been a mainstay of malls everywhere for over 30 years. However, the retail market has not been nice toward mall-based chains and American Apparel has spent the past several months in the middle of bankruptcy proceedings trying desperately to keep the brand alive. Yesterday, however, a judge agreed to allow the store to close nine locations and approved a liquidation plan should a buyer not be found within a reasonable timeframe.³

The nine stores, which are among some of the brand’s highest profile locations in Atlanta and Dallas, may just be the tip of the iceberg. The entire chain goes up for auction next month, and Gildan Activewear has already set a starting bid of $106 million. However, Gildan is not required to follow through on that bid and analyst are pessimistic about any other buyers attempting to save all 107 locations.

What this means for shoppers is multiple rounds of clearance sales as the company begins divesting itself of as much inventory as possible. However, it is also a warning sign as other mall retailers are beginning to hire bankruptcy attorneys. Fast fashion retailers such as H&M and Zara have taken much of the fire out of mall stores and that entire sector of the industry has been in steep decline for five years now. Expect more fashion-oriented stores to fall over the next two years.

Bobbie Brown exits stage left

The beauty world was caught off guard yesterday as Bobbie Brown, founder of the incredibly popular Bobbie Brown cosmetics line, announced she is stepping away from the brand at the end of the year⁴. Ms. Brown did not say exactly what she was going to do next. She told WWD that the celebration of brand’s 25th anniversary was a milestone “that made me realize it was time to start a new chapter and move on to new ventures.”

The 59-year-old makeup artist certainly has plenty of options available to her as she has dabbled in a variety of closely-related ventures over the years. The brand itself is owned by Estee Lauder and will continue operating under Peter Lichtenthal, global brand president. Ms. Brown is known for being energetic and creative so it will be interesting to see just where she might apply her incredible talent next.

And Finally …

President Obama may have found something that the incoming administration can’t undo upon its arrival next month. Yesterday, the president banned new oil and gas drilling in federal waters in the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, a move that, understandably makes environmentalists extremely happy⁵. The move protects nearly 120 million acres of coastal waters controlled jointly by both the United States and Canada.

Normally, we might throw some shade at the move on the expectation that the next president would simply revoke the ruling using the same Presidential power with which it was made. However, this is one instance where the ruling is almost permanent. The president utilized the little-known Outer Continental Shelf Act that allows presidents to limit areas from mineral leasing and drilling. If Mr. Trump attempts to reverse President Obama’s move, he could only do so through a series of lawsuits that would likely take longer to get through the courts than his administration would be in place.

At the same time, it’s not like anyone has been chomping at the bit to drill in the Arctic waters. Shell Oil was the last company to give it a try and they abandoned those efforts after a tanker lost several thousand gallons of crude thanks to a giant gash in its side caused by ice flows in the area. Drilling there is extremely expensive compared to land-based operations. Still, the American Petroleum Institute criticized the move. The president-elect’s transition team has not yet responded.

We’re running incredibly late this morning, so we’ll have to end the conversation there for now. As always, we hope you’ll stay warm and safe. Don’t forget to subscribe, and we’ll be back with more tomorrow.

Fashion

2017 State of Fashion

December 10, 2016

Sorting out the Business of Fashion report

Earlier this week, Business of Fashion and consulting firm McKinsey & Co. jointly released their State of Fashion 2017 report. The purpose of the report is to try and make some sense, connect the dots so-to-speak, of a fashion industry that is too large to report on cohesively on a daily basis. If fashion were its own country it would have the world’s seventh largest GDP, encompassing everything from luxury wear to crew socks.

While the full report, which you can download here, is a whopping 92 pages, what I want to focus on today is a list on page 13 titled: 10 TRENDS THAT WILL DEFINE THE FASHION AGENDA IN 2017. They’ve made the list short enough to fit on one page, but I want to take those trends, expand a bit, and maybe even give some of them a bit of a Hoosier twist. There’s a lot to dig into here, so let’s get busy.

1. INTENSIFYING VOLATILITY

What the report says: Volatility is the new normal. Geopolitical instability, terrorism, Brexit, and stalled trade deals will all increase a pervasive sense of uncertainty in the global economy.

Our take: Volatility may be an understatement. We’ve not even begun to see what the ramifications may be of a new US president and administration that is overly protective of American jobs, anxious to add taxes to companies that move overseas, and quick to add tariffs to imports. On one hand, this could aid US garment manufacturing which has struggled to compete with cheap shops in Bangladesh and other Asian countries. However, American workers are demanding better wages which the new US Labor Secretary isn’t keen on providing. There’s also a chance that we see OSHA’s powers diminished under the new administration, which could make working conditions more dangerous.

Put it all together and I don’t think one is overstating anything to call the atmosphere volcanic.

2. CHINA’S COMEBACK?

What the report says: China’s fundamentals, including growth of the middle and upper classes, remain strong and the government’s new fiscal policies are expected to improve conditions in 2017, but uncertainty remains.

Let’s define some of that uncertainty, shall we? Fashion loves the Chinese market and the rise of a luxury class across that country is what kept many of fashion’s biggest names from going under during the 2009 recession. However, even before recent political events muddied the waters, we were starting to see a pulling back from China’s wealthiest buyers. China’s government is looking to develop their own fashion industry so that they can keep more of that revenue at home. At the same time, as Europe and the United States become more protectionist and wary of international tourists who might also be corporate/industrial/political spies, frequent travelers from China are finding themselves facing increased scrutiny and suspicion.

Combine that with tensions rising in the South China Sea and the president-elect breaking protocol by contacting the president of Taiwan, and the stage is set to see China pull back from the West in a dramatic way should they be offended.

3. URBAN ENGINES

What the report says: City-based strategies trump country-based strategies: a new class of rapidly growing wealthy cities in newly influential markets are becoming central to the evolution of fashion.

The change has come subtly. We no longer talk so much in terms of French, Italian, or British fashion. Instead, we talk about the cities themselves. London, Paris, Milan, New York, Istanbul, Buenos Aires, Los Angeles, Sidney, Toronto, and even Moscow are all major fashion centers with more being added to the list. While the “big four” still dominate, designers and major labels are already beginning to pay attention to some of the other cities. Chanel has shown in both Istanbul and Buenos Aires. Tommy Hilfiger’s next show will be in Los Angeles.

What this ultimately means is that there are more players in a field growing broader than it ever has before. This could be a great thing for consumers as they have more choices. However, it is difficult to tell whether this kind of growth is sustainable.

4. SHREWDER SHOPPERS

What the report says: Working harder to keep up with smarter shoppers: “always-on” consumers are becoming ever more sophisticated, more technology-driven, and harder to predict.

Everyone loves a bargain and increasingly people are unwilling to spend any money unless they feel like they’re getting a deal. This is affecting the industry in a couple of different ways. One, it is setting up a discount tier in retail that is unsustainable and unrealistic. The entire outlet mall concept is costing labels millions of dollars and threatens to sink some major names if not curbed. At the same time, it is pushing a few retailers to break the law. The Los Angeles district attorney has charged four major stores—JC Penney, Sears, Kohls, and Macy’s—of misleading shoppers. According to the DA, the stores are claiming that clothes are discounted from a price at which they never sold in the first place. So, the bargain one thinks they’re getting isn’t such a bargain after all.

Now, with Amazon getting into the fray with their own brands, expect the discounting to take even more of a toll. American shoppers especially largely refuse to pay full price for anything. This makes belts at fashion houses and retailers quite tight.

5. GENERATION CORRELATION

What the report says: Opportunities to serve the young and the old better: fashion companies should consider how to fine-tune and diversify the way they approach both retired and millennials consumers.

What we’re looking at generationally isn’t really anything new. Younger generations buy because they want to look conteporary in their choice of styles. Older people buy because they have more disposable income and can afford nice things. What’s happening now, though, is a magnification of those trends. Younger people have extended lines of credit at an earlier age. Clothing is a major expenditure for those under the age of 25 but they’re careful about what they spend so they can buy more. Older generations secure in their retirement are looking for luxury purchases at a rate that far outspends their parents. Both have the ability to be dramatic wins for fashion labels.

However, fashion labels are failing to generate the loyalty that keeps them profitable long term. Especially as millennials get older, they are less likely to stay faithful to the brands they shopped when they were in college. Labels have a considerable challenge in more firmly addressing these sections of the market.

6. THE WELLNESS DIVIDEND

What the report says: Feeling good is the new looking good: more fashion players can start profiting from the wellness movement rather than competing with it.

Like it or not, fitness wear is the dominant sector in fashion, across the board, in almost every country. As a result, we see Chanel blending fitness fabrics in with their tweeds and other labels making strategic partnerships with athletic footwear companies. The ability to look good while working out as well as immediately after working out has drive sales of athliesure wear to the top of the charts.

This trend shows absolutely no sign of slowing down anytime soon. Interestingly enough, though, traditional athletic brands are not always reaping the rewards as traditional fashion labels move into the sector. While big names like Nike and Under Armor are seeing strong profits, smaller brands are having difficulty competing as names such as Ballenciaga and Prada hit the shelves in sporting goods stores. Amidst all the growth their looms an inevitable shake out between winners and losers.

7. CHANGING THE RHYTHM

What the report says: Disruptions to the fashion cycle: expectations set by the faster pace of fashion and consumer desire for instant gratification must be addressed to deliver fashion immediacy.

See-no, buy-now is here to stay, despite heavy opposition from both Parisian and Milan labels. The fahion cycle we once knew is gone. Also gone at an increasing rate are separate men’s and women’s shows. Designers are frequently opting to put both in the same show to save both time and money. This past September was the first big experiment with such a disruption and those who participated enjoyed significant rewards. As a result, we can expect more labels to fallow suit.

At the same time, consumers are demanding new fashions coming at them faster and faster. This is where things get dangerous. In order to produce more at less costs, garment manufacturers are turning to sweatshops and child labor in dangerous settings that frequently border on slavery. While both government and retailers having taken steps to prohibit child labor specifically, increasing demand makes it easy to skirt around the laws and the inspector. As long as demand remains high, labor issues will continue to be a problem.

8. ORGANIC GROWTH

What the report says: Investing more to nurture local clientele: 2017 has the potential to be the year of organic growth based on deeper relationships with existing clients rather than geographic, channel, and store network expansion.

Check your wallet. How many consumer loyalty cards do you have? Almost every major retailer has some form of customer retention program that involves sales, discounts, and other incentives to keep you coming back. What you can expect in the next year is for those programs to get more aggressive and more competitive. They know they’re not the only card you’re carrying. What they’re vying for is to be the one in the front of your wallet, the one you rely on the most.

There’s an opportunity here, though, for smaller designers and boutique shops. Local shops already know more about their customers, or, at least, have that opportunity. Mining those relationships so that customers stay local could give small shops and designers an advantage. Consider having special events to introduce frequent customers to new merchandise, or working with other shops near you to create bundled deals. Pampering customers has never held more opportunity than it does now.

9. UPSTREAM TECHNOLOGY

What the report says: Digital innovation goes behind the scenes: digitisation is a key to supply-chain efficiency, lower procurement costs, and enhanced sourcing opportunities.

You probably won’t see any of the digital logistics changes taking place within the industry, but you reap the benefits in lower prices. Everything from fabric development to inventory control benefits from increased efficiency in backend systems. Your purchases are immediately factored into how much of the same material is manufactured, when new orders are placed, and even where garments are placed in the store.

Nope, not the most romantic aspect of fashion at all, but this is where money is saved to pay for those dicounts we keep demanding. What is looking on the horizon is the ability to walk into a store, try on a pair of slacks, and walk them right on out the store. Amazon appears to be the current leader in that technology, but as it all comes together we could see even more innovations.

10. OWNERSHIP SHAKE-UP

What the report says: Emotionless reappraisal of brand portfolios: fashion conglomerates can be expected to further intensify their focus on big brands, creating space for other brands and industry outsiders such as private equity and family owners to acquire targets.

This is another part of the fashion industry that doesn’t get a lot of attention except in industry mags such as Business of Fashion and WWD. This is important, though, because it gives emerging designers a chance to be seen. When investors sell a brand, they can then use that capital to help younger brands become established. With fashion institutions churching out more young designers every year, this turnover of capitol is necessary for anyone to succeed.

2017 holds a lot of promise, but it also holds a lot of challenges. The winners will be those who step up to the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities.

So, the question would be: are you up to the challenge?

pop culture / PotD

Say Goodbye To Black Friday

November 25, 2016

charles i. letbetter - goodbye black friday

The days of waiting in line all night for a chance at a bargain are over.

I am doing well to move this morning. No longer being accustomed to standing on my feet for hours on end, yesterday’s marathon of ten hours in the kitchen did me in. My ankles were throbbing as I fell into bed early last night. This morning, walking the dog was painful. None of my joints wanted to cooperate. This is all beside the fact that I still feel totally overstuffed from dinner. After yesterday, I don’t see how anyone can even think about getting up too damn early and standing in line for an alleged deal.

Black Friday used to be a tradition for a lot of families, but that tradition seems to be waning rather heavily. I took note as we walked through the neighborhood this morning. Several cars were missing yesterday as many had gone to visit relatives for the holiday. However, everyone was back home this morning. No one was out shopping at 4:00 AM. The only vehicle out was the local newspaper carrier.

While it’s still much too early to get many reliable reports, lower numbers seem to be the case elsewhere. Britain tried adopting the U.S. tradition a few years ago, but reports this morning are that UK shoppers and retailers have largely turned their backs on Black Friday. We’re accustomed to hearing tales of chaos and fighting, but Business Insider sent someone out early to Wal-Mart and they reported everything was quiet, calm, and not the least bit overcrowded. Black Friday as we once knew it is dead. Sure, there’s still shopping, and greed, and one-day sales, but the whole event has changed and isn’t likely to return to the madhouse it once was.

This is a good thing.

The Myth Of Black Friday

Black Friday has never been the big savings bonanza people tend to think. Prices are marked down on a few highly visible loss leaders in an attempt to get people into stores. For decades, that plan has worked. Here’s a rather hilarious video that explains the whole concept:

For years we’ve fallen for this piece of retail fraud. We like the idea of sales. In fact, we’ve conditioned ourselves to not pay what we think is full price for anything. Retailers know this. So, that “full price” is falsified so that the actual “full price” looks like a bargain. We fall for the trick every time.

We also like the holidays and for many Black Friday shopping is a part of their holiday routine. Whole families have been known to go out together, setting up tents in frigid temperatures, and pretending to love every minute of it because, hey, it’s the holidays and it’s families. Retailers know that as well and they’ve pushed store openings earlier to the point that many now open on Thanksgiving day itself. Why? Because they know you just can’t wait to start the holidays.

So, while retailers may be guilty of starting the whole Black Friday ruse, we’re the ones guilty of perpetuating it and making it worse. The ridiculousness only works because we buy into the whole myth. If we actually applied intelligent thought to the matter, the whole event would quickly go away.

But Wait, Something Is Changing

This year Black Friday is noticeably different. Multiple news sources are finding that Black Friday is losing its focus and online sales surged yesterday as more people decided to stay home and shop online. Major big-box retailers, such as Wal-Mart and Best Buy as well as online powerhouse Amazon all started their Black Friday sales two weeks in advance for those savvy enough to be paying attention.

In some ways, Black Friday isn’t just a one-day event, but an entire shopping season unto itself. With online sales having grown by over 16%, brick-and-mortar retailers are having to scramble harder and getting much less in return. Last year’s Black Friday numbers were some of the most disappointing ever, leaving a large number of stores still looking at red on their accounting books rather than black. The hope this year has been that by expanding the sales as well as embracing online shopping that disaster might be averted.

Take note, though: US retailers weren’t hurting nearly as bad as they let on. Sales numbers at discount merchants, which is where most of you are shopping in the first place, have been booming. Deep discounters, such as Dollar Store and Dollar Tree are actually expanding, building more stores, and hiring more staff. Who’s left hurting are high-dollar luxury goods stores and high-end department stores such as Macy’s and Nordstrom. Mall stores such as Abercrombie & Fitch and American Apparel are at risk of having to close more stores if this holiday season does not improve dramatically, and there’s no indication it will.

Sure, we still love a good sale, but fewer of us are willing to get out of bed at some ungodly hour on a cold morning in November to actually take advantage of those sales. We’d rather sit home, surf on our phones, and buy that cute sweater online. Black Friday as a day of chaos and high sales appears to be all but dead.

Controlling Our Greed

I’ve complained about Black Friday before. In fact, these photos were first part of a Black Friday rant four years ago. Unfortunately, we lost that particular article when the server crashed a couple of years ago. Still, my point is that this exercise in sheer greed is not new. Just because the shape of Black Friday is expanding beyond a single 24-hour period doesn’t mean that we’re buying any less. We’re not. If anything, our constant consumption has taken our shopping to new heights. While the bash-em-in-the-head version of Black Friday might be over, what we’ve done is expand the scope and methodology of our greed. We’re buying more.

Sure, where we’re shopping has changed. We’re buying more from local stores, which improves our local economy. We’re buying more online, which helps the environment a little bit, allegedly. We’re still buying, though, and not necessarily so we can give to others. While the numbers vary wildly from one report to another, a fair portion of us useBlack Friday sales to buy things for ourselves. That new big screen TV? Yeah, that’s going in our own living room. We can call if a family gift if you want, but we still know the actual reasoning was pure selfishness. We deserve it, right? That sweater? Hey, it’s getting colder out and that one you bought last year is looking a bit ratty. And you can never have too many pants.

We don’t need to have a Black Friday to be greedy. We just are. We always have been. Each year, we say we’re going to give more to charity. Each year, there are more opportunities to real good. Each year, we just let those opportunities slip right on by. Why? Because those boots are40% off the price previously marked up 50$. We’re not buying them for the kids, or for Aunt Ella. Those are going in our own closets. We’re greedy.

Herein lies the perpetual hypocrisy of Thanksgiving, a reflection of much of the hypocrisy other countries see in all of America. We claim to be so concerned about others. We claim to want what is best for the world. But in the end, it’s our own fat asses we take care of. We give thanks for what we have and then demand more.

I made sausage balls yesterday and set them out for everyone to snack on throughout the day. My hope was that they would be enough to keep the little ones out of my hair. It didn’t work. They looked at the overflowing container and asked, “It this all we’re getting?”

We learn greed young. We need to get over our fat selves. Let’s kill Black Friday for good. Stay home. Don’t shop for what you don’t legitimately need. Stop the greed.

Advertising / Fashion / Social Commentary

Personalized Shopping Could Get A Bit Creepy

October 24, 2016

charles i. letbetter - personalized shopping

I’m a champion for personal differences. All society should be much more personalized. —George M. Church

charles i. letbetter - personalized shopping could get a bit creepy

Having your total shopping experienced personalized to you sounds like a good thing until you read the small print

Please allow me to paint a scenario for you.

Imagine that you woke up this morning with a bit of a sniffle. As the seasons change, your allergies are acting up a bit; nothing serious but you should probably pick up some over-the-counter medication on your way to work. You down a cup of coffee and toast a bagel before heading out the door. Stopping at the convenient drug store just down the street, you pick up the allergy medication and your favorite candy bar. Work is stressful, as Mondays so often are, and you welcome the chance to get out of the office at lunch time. You decide to do a little shopping to cheer yourself up.

Walking into a department store just two doors down from your office, the first thing you see are some cute sweaters that would be perfect for wearing to work. You look for the price and a small LED screen tells you the sweater is 50% off the regular price. You can’t beat a deal like that. As you pick up a sweater in your size, your favorite song comes on the store’s music system. Paying for the sweater with the store’s credit card generates another 10% off the price and you’re beginning to feel as though this was a great bargain. The clerk hands you the receipt and on the back is a coupon for a bag full of your favorite candy bar.

You have just enough time to grab something to eat and when you enter the sidewalk cafe the waiter immediately suggests the vegetable soup, emphasizing its healthy properties. Finished with the soup, you return to work and get a call from your trainer at the gym. He suggests you stop by on your way home because, you know, Mondays are so very stressful.

A Highly Personalized Life

According to Joseph Turow, a professor of communication at the University of Pennsylvania, that highly personalized life experience is possibly less than a year away. His upcoming book, The Aisles Have Eyes comes out in January and covers the details of how and why all this personalization is happening. In an interview with Kaveh Waddell for The Atlantic magazine, Turow explains not only the upside of personalization but also the creepy dangers of living in such a connected world. Walking into a store and immediately finding what you want at a price you can afford sounds wonderful, but the details behind how that happens can be a bit disconcerting.

Of course, most of us already know that everything we do online is being tracked dozens of different ways. Every website you visit, every click you make, every product over which you briefly drool is noticed by something, somewhere, and that information is stored in a database for later influence. As a result, when another website feels the time is right, an ad pops up for that exact same product, touting a new, lower price. We get it. We know we’re being watched and our data is being collected.

What we’ve not realized, perhaps, is that it is not just our online activity that is being tracked. Everything we do is being noted by some app connected to some database. Our cell phones are most often the culprit. One app recognizes a sneeze and knows you may need coupons for a cold medicine. Another notices that you are driving more aggressively to work, indicating that you’re likely stressed even before you get there. Four different apps notice the purchase you make at the drug store and send an alert to the waiter at the cafe you just entered, suggesting that you might like the soup. It’s all possible, right now.

Nothing You Do Is Secret

Author George Orwell warned us about the constant oversight of a government he referred to as “Big Brother.” What Orwell didn’t imagine is that we would have apps and “reward” cards that collect far more information about us and our habits than his “Big Brother” could ever dream. Even more astonishing to Orwell is that we would hand over such information willingly. No one requires us to download the apps or accept the “reward” cards. We do so in the hopes of perhaps getting a bit of a discount on the things we buy.

Is a 10% discount worth giving up a lot of privacy? Apparently, we tend to think so. Rarely does anyone opt out of information gathering, especially once they’ve started using a program. For example, I just received my AARP card last week because I’m even older than Luke Perry. The card comes with a long list of “benefits” that include discounts for a lot of the things old people like me are apparently supposed to do, such as eat out and take trips. I read the small print, though. Anytime I use the card for a discount, AARP collects that information. They note not only which restaurant I dine at, but how much I spend. If I eat at a chain facility in multiple cities, that gets noticed as well. Over time, they are able to build a profile of my activities, which in turn, allows them to better “personalize” my “benefits.”

Do I mind AARP having that information? Not especially, because the presumption is that they use the information to my benefit. However, they also sell that information to “partners.” I would like to presume that those “partners” are equally safe, but how would we know? What are my options if one of those “partners” uses that information to start sending me spam? What if my health insurance rates go up because they see that what I’m eating probably isn’t helping my blood pressure a damn bit? Yeah, we might have a problem here.

The Potential For Abuse

While we all like the convenience of having everything personalized for us, the reality is that the information we give up could be used against us as well. From the article comes this question and answer:

Waddell: Is it legal for an advertiser or a retailer to decide, based on someone’s profile, like their race, that they’re higher risk and perhaps not show them certain goods?

Turow: Sure! Of course. They’ll never say that it’s because of race—and they wouldn’t do it just because of race. They’d do it because of, say, income. If you have the money, it doesn’t matter what race you are, from their standpoint—but race gets built in by virtue of where people live, their income brackets, and other things that are much less obvious.

I think age is going to be a major factor. It already is, among retailers. Income is going to be a big factor. And things that we don’t even think about, various concatenations of lifestyles that lead to certain predictions about what you will or will not read, or when you will or will not take a vacation, or if you will or will not have certain frequent-flier miles.

The ability to run through thousands of datapoints about you and compare them with thousands of datapoints about people you don’t even know, and then come up with a sense of what you will buy or not buy at what price: That’s the goal. The goal is to come up with a price for you that you accept based on the product they think you would want.

Personalization is great when it works in your favor, but we have to remember that all businesses need to make a profit. Therefore, they’re inherently going to look for ways to turn everything in their favor more than ours. If that means denying some people access to certain goods and services, then that is exactly what they’re going to do.

The Internet Of Things

Kat and I were watching last night’s episode of Madame Secretary before she left for school this morning. As part of the storyline where the family is being stalked, all of their “smart” appliances are hacked. The family becomes frightened when they realize that not even the presence of a physical security detail can protect them from someone taking control of the lights, the heat, and the appliances in their home.

When you hear people talking about “The Internet of Things,” they’re talking about how everything in our lives is becoming interconnected. Our appliances, the lights in our house, the heat, our phones, our insurance, and our shopping. Everything we do becomes a datapoint somewhere that connects to something else that connects to somewhere else. So, if your income is low and you show a history of having difficulty paying your bills, maybe an app starts shutting off the lights rather than leaving them on for hours on end, or adjusts the thermostat so you use less energy. Maybe your local grocery won’t sell you that big box of fried pies because they know you’re borderline diabetic. Perhaps the price on that pair of boots you like suddenly shoots up and is now more than you have the ability to cover.

Even worse, as events last week demonstrated, what happens when all our data gets hacked? There is no such thing as a totally safe database. That means the more information we allow people to collect, the more at risk we are of that information being stolen and used against us.

No, that’s not creepy at all, is it? Get ready, though. I don’t see any way to stop this phenomenon from happening, short of everyone on the planet unplugging and going back to binary means of commerce. Something tells me none of us are willing to do that. So, bend over and lube up. We’re not only getting screwed, we’re asking for it. Don’t worry, though; it’s all personalized.

Fashion / Mythology / pop culture

Damn Kids Ruin Everything. Officially.

September 2, 2016

charles i. letbetter - damn kids are ruining everything. officially

I’ve got seven kids. The three words you hear most around my house are ‘hello’, ‘goodbye’, and ‘I’m pregnant’. —Dean Martin

charles i. letbetter - damn kids ruin everything. officially

Millennials are accused of killing a lot of things. Some of them needed to be killed.

If I hadn’t pulled the article for reference yesterday, when I was still almost in a good mood, relatively speaking, I’d blame this whole article on the kids. You know, the seven-year-old who decided to play with lighting birthday candles at 2:00 in the morning. And his sister who refused to go to sleep after all the commotion. Damn kids. If I’m more surly and cantankerous than normal it’s all their fault.

However, those particular kids aren’t the ones we’re discussing this morning. Once again, we’re talking about Millennials. You know, the ones born somewhere between 1980 and 2000. These are the same kids that will comprise half the workforce by the year 2020. They are formidable, at least as far as logistics are concerned. They are also very different from Gen-X (those born in the 70s) and the Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1963). These dear children have ideologies and concepts sometimes directly in opposition to their parents and grandparents.

As with every generation before us, those of us who are older blame the destruction of the world as we know it on the younger generation. Our grandparents leveled that claim against us, with our rock-and-roll music and that long-haired hippy stuff. I’m sure their grandparents did it to them as well. This is a time-honored tradition that is a necessity if we are to continue progressing. However, millennials stand accused of killing a multitude of things. We’ve seen at least a partial list and it’s quite long. Millennials are murderers.

Those Meddling Kids

I know, I know. I’m sounding more and more like the old man chasing kids off his lawn. In a way, that’s what we’re all doing. When some things change, the things with which we are most comfortable, we’re going to resist; it’s our nature. Some of what has changed because of Millennials pisses us off. Damn kids. We have a right to be upset. Consider this list of things they’ve killed:

Manners. Someone has said that Millennials have no class. This is a broad, sweeping generalization, the kind you’re not supposed to make. There are exceptions. As a group, however, they are totally void of any social considerations. They talk too loud. They are oblivious to anyone else. And have you seen these kids eat?
Retail. No, seriously, it’s all the kids’ fault that Aeropostale was sold at auction yesterday. They don’t shop in stores, they shop online. They don’t pay full price. Bargain basements and second-hand shops source their wardrobes. They just don’t spend money, and for a group their size, that’s a very bad thing.
Vacations. I can’t really say too much on this one. I’ve not had a real vacation since 2009. However, the problem is that not only are Millennials not taking vacations (they can’t afford it), they’re shaming those who do. That, dear children, is enough to make us collectively hate you. We’ve worked hard for our vacation time. Fuck you.
Crowdfunding. Crowdfunding was a really great idea when it applied to unique ideas that were outside the mainstream. Damn brats killed that, though, by asking people to help pay for their weddings, or their honeymoons, or their boob jobs, or their flat tire. This is why we can’t have nice things.

Some Things Need To Die

Not everything that has died at the hands of Millennials is a tragedy. There are some of the things on that list that should have died long ago. Scream and yell at the kids all you want, we’re rather happy that some of these things have died, or at least fallen out of favor.

McWraps and (maybe) McDonalds. McWraps definitely needed to go. That piece of pretentious self-indulgence was long over-due. Putting the whole fast-food chain into a nose-dive was a surprise no one saw coming, though. Millennials don’t like chemically-produced food products. Not a bad move.
9-5 Work Days. There remains some debate over whether the kids actually killed this one or just pulled the sheet over its head. Freelancing, job-sharing, and other creative forms of doing anything but working 9-5 is almost the norm now. Mind you, they still manage to work more hours. This is a good thing.
Email marketing. This isn’t quite complete, but it can’t come fast enough. While Millennials check their email more frequently than anyone, they don’t click marketing links. Hell, half the time they don’t even open the email. Email marketing was always a numbers game but those numbers are almost impossible to reach.
The religious right. Remember that whole Moral Majority thing of the 1980s? Dead. Gone. Fewer of these sinners attend church at all and those who do are far more likely to be part of a more progressive, dare I say liberal congregation. They have a different morality. They support a woman’s right to choose. LGBT lifestyles are their normal. Sorry, Newt, you can go decompose now.

Not Letting Them Off The Hook

Just because the damn kids got a few things right doesn’t mean we can let them off the hook for ruining the things we enjoyed. I’m still on the fence about them destroying network television as we once knew it. I just don’t get into the whole binge-watching craze. I rather agree with them on their concepts of dating and marriage, too. Their obsession over gluten-free and organic is a pain in my ass, though. I don’t like paying more for vegetables just because someone carefully measured the amount of shit that was dumped on them. And I like bread, dammit! And cookies! You just keep your tiny little hands off my gluten!

We also have to take them to task for this whole anti-vax thing. C’mon, kids, just because you didn’t like the ouchy shots doesn’t mean they weren’t good for you. And while we’re at it, the rest of the world would appreciate it if you’d actually discipline your own brats, now that you’re finally having them. We’re sick and tired of them talking back to teachers and other adults and swearing like little sailors. No, it’s not fucking cute. We’re not laughing.

Being the largest demographic group in the world carries a lot of responsibility. We Boomers should know, we had a similar effect when we came along and it cause problems for a lot of older people. There were too many times we didn’t think before we acted. Disco is a good example.

So kids, watch yourselves. We don’t care if there are more of you than there are of us. Have some consideration for the generation that made the choice to let you live. Trust us, there were plenty of times when we considered the alternative. Some days, we still do.

And stay the fuck off my lawn.

Advertising / Fashion / PotD

Why Do We Get Dressed Everyday

August 22, 2016

I always say: To be well dressed you must be well naked. —Oscar de la Renta

A growing fashion retailer asks why we get dressed. We think that’s a damn good question.

My alarm goes off at 4:00 AM and the first thing I do is reach for my clothes. I get dressed quietly, in the dark, one of the benefits of having a monochrome wardrobe. I don’t have to worry about whether colors or patterns match. By the time I get my shoes on, though, I’m sensing a nip in the air. Checking the weather app on my phone, I see it’s only 60°F outside. I pull on the sweater draped on the back of my office chair, attach the leash to the dog’s collar, and out we go for our morning walk. 4:00 in the morning and I’m already dressed. There’s something wrong with this picture.

Chances are, especially if you live in the Midwest, you don’t think of not getting dressed. Even when we tell people we’re not feeling well and aren’t getting dressed today, we’re still wearing something. Running around naked always sounds fun until one actually does it. Then, we discover our skin sticks to things in uncomfortable ways. Little pointy objects we’d never noticed before reach out and grab at us. The slightest breeze makes us shiver. And those damned mosquitoes are a constant nuisance. Okay, time to put on some clothes.

Fashion retailer Uniqlo, which is just starting to make serious attempts at the US market, thought this might be a good time to ask the question: Why do we get dressed? The question is at the center of their very first global ad campaign and it smartly addresses a question with which many of us wrestle every morning. Why are we doing this?

We Have Our Reasons

Whether one believes ancient mythologies of how we were created or prefers the scientific explanation of evolution, we find that we’ve been covering ourselves pretty much from the moment we learned to walk upright. Even now, high school students are taught the five main reasons we get dressed: protection, adornment, identification, modesty, and status. We break each of those down into subcategories based on things such as tradition, social class, occupational requirements, religious intervention, and comfort. We want to look acceptable even when we’re drenched in sweat.

Fashion is a $1.2 trillion industry built on one primary concept: we need to get dressed. Different labels offer different answers to the how, what, and how much of it all, Some take the quality route. Others go for practicality. Still others are nothing more than utilitarian in their scope. Our reasons are as many and varied as the styles of underwear found in our drawers. As much as we might complain, we actually like getting dressed and can be damned picky about it.

This careful choice of clothing is what Uniqlo is trying to tap with this campaign. Despite being one of the largest fashion retailers in the world, they’ve had trouble getting a foothold in the US market. The campaign focuses on both the diversity and quality of the clothes the store carries. Here, take a look at their new ad:

https://youtu.be/AKwd_0q7-mw

Not So Easily Defined

While quality and selection are wardrobe choices are important, they’re not the only reason we choose to wear what we wear. Color, for example, not only reflects certain styles and trends but also reflects our mood and our physical condition when we get dressed. If you’re feeling a bit depressed, you might choose to wear something pink because it cheers you up. On days you need to tackle tough situations you might choose black or a dark navy because they give you a sense of power. Maybe you just really like a particular shade of green. We all have our reasons.

Some have expressed fear in the past that fashion styles are erasing our sense of nationalistic or cultural identity. I can see where someone might feel that way. Look at the ad and one notices that, while the two main characters are both white, everyone else is Japanese. This is Uniqlo’s way of staying true to their roots in Japan. At the same time, though, we notice that everyone is wearing a distinctly Western style of clothing. Remove any racial identity and we might have trouble discerning whether this is a scene in Japan or Moscow or Paris or Minneapolis. Large retailers do tend to create a homogenous fashion palette that leaves all the customers with a certain sameness to their look.

Shoppers have proven, though, especially in recent years, that they want more say in how they put a look together. Advertisers might style a look one way, but everyone tends to put their own individual twist on things. How we look when we’re dressed says something about us individually. Uniformity is passè and, for many, insulting. We are not likely to wear head-to-toe Chanel but a certain coat or handbag might be the perfect touch for a look pieced together from discount stores and second-hand shops. How we put ourselves together is a complicated matter for some people.

How You Should Get Dressed

Style experts, who seem to be getting younger every time I blink, tell us to utilize the three F’s when getting dressed: Feel, fit, and flatter. Granted, that approach seems a bit simplistic if your occupation requires something specific, whether it be a suit for the boardroom or dungarees for working with heavy equipment. Such restrictions can make the flattery element challenging but if the feel and fit are on point then the look is probably going to be flattering anyway.

Fit is probably where we fail most often. As our weight fluctuates between seasons and levels of activity, we find ourselves trying to squeeze into clothes that are too tight or trying to find creative ways to hold up something that’s a touch too large. People at either end of the spectrum, either very thin or very large, have the most difficulty finding something that both fits and flatters. Retailers like Uniqlo best serve the mainstream. Anyone with special challenges can find getting dressed more like a nightmare.

Perhaps the question of why we get dressed is one we should ask more often. Too often we pull on whatever is close and convenient with no regard to even how it feels, much less fit or flatter. We all might be happier if we considered the reasons we wear what we wear. Certainly, it would make our society more interesting and less like a homogenous blur. Express yourself in what you choose to wear.

Even if you’re only wearing underwear.

Fashion / PotD

Fashion Is Changing Its Look. Again.

August 16, 2016

Fashion doesn’t look good only on models; it can look good on different people of different ages and different body shapes. —Alber Elbaz

charles i. letbetter - fashion is changing its look - again

The next round of fashion weeks is just around the corner and the whole system is changing its look

We are now less than a month away from New York Fashion Week. One of the most frequent statements made back in February was, “we’ll have to wait until September.” Many of the changes that were announced early in the year com into fruition with next month’s set of shows. Not only have designers swapped seats, attitudes about the shows themselves have changed. Even more, the economy surrounding fashion has changed. What we experience through the fashion shows this season is likely to be a very different look than what we saw this time last year.

Change is a given in fashion. We wouldn’t need to do these dog-and-pony shows twice a year if fashion wasn’t always changing. We complain if we see two collections in a row that look too terribly similar. What’s important this season is the degree of change. Major wheels were set in motion back in the spring that change not only what we see now, but how we see it. The very structure of the presentations is changing and that may influence our perspective of the shows as well as our buying habits.

As I type this, schedules for New York are being finalized. There are some names we’ve come to expect that we won’t see on the roster this year. London, Milan, and Paris are getting ready as well and it’s just not the same as it was back in the Spring (if you can call February Spring). The whole attitude is different. Let’s consider some of the changes.

Designers Swapping Seats

The number one topic at the beginning of each season is always which designers have switched to different labels. We didn’t see a tremendous amount of significant movement back in February, but we’ve certainly had some major changes since then and now all that jostling around has to prove its worth. These are going to drive changes in look for a number of labels.

Raf Simons has moved to Calvin Klein. You had to be hiding under a rock to miss this announcement. Everyone knew Raf was moving almost from the moment the first phone call was placed. The timing could have perhaps been a bit better. Simons works fast but it would be out of the ordinary even for him to create a full set on his own by September 15, which is when CK is likely to show. Still, he’ll be anxious to demonstrate the direction in which he wants to take the line. Anxiety and anticipation are very high here.
Peter Copping left Oscar de la Renta. What the fuck? This one almost knocked me out of my chair when the announcement was made last month. It’s been less than two years since Oscar de la Renta named Copping as his successor and then promptly died. The match looked perfect. The past two season’s shows have been well received. What the fuck happened? No one on either side is talking. Copping promptly moved back to the UK. De la Renta will run with a design team for the time being. We are very confused and very sad.
Bouchra Jarrar makes her debut at Lanvin. This looks to be one of the most highly anticipated shows of the season. Jarrar brings a different look, a more feminine look, back to Lanvin. That being said, shareholders are watching for a collection that resonates with buyers and increases sales. Will it work? We’ll see.
Anthony Vaccarello takes over at Yves Saint Laurent. The whole attitude has changed at YSL. Vaccarello comes from Versus Versace and almost certainly is going to bring some of Donatella’s influence with him. Expect a sexier, more defined, and perhaps even a little edgier look than YSL saw under Hedi Slimane.
Maria Grazia Chiuri changes things up at Dior. Following Raf Simons isn’t going to be easy. Dior took its sweet time replacing the famed designer and makes a bold statement in appointing the label’s first female creative director. Chiuri makes the leap from Valentino where she was co-creative director. Pierpaolo Piccioli now has sole authority over there.

Spending this season on the sidelines, still, are Alber Elbaz and Hedi Slimane. One really has to wonder why they’ve not been snatched up.

A Little Less Fur

Fur has long been a mainstay of luxury fashion and Angora has been the go-to fur for quite a while given the endangered status of wild sources. Then, Peta, the animal rights group, took aim at the Angora industry in 2013, claiming harvesting methods were cruel. Now, it seems Peta has won. Orders for the fur dropped dramatically for this season after more than 100 major labels suspended use of fabric. Other types of fur have seen dramatic declines as well. I have to admit that I’m curious as to whether Dennis Basso is reducing his use of fur at all. Historically, he’s been unapologetic about using fur and animal skin in general.

What’s next? Wool. A recent op-ed takes aim at the ubiquitous fabric, claiming that large-scale harvesting methods are just as cruel as those used on angora rabbits. Will this movement catch hold? The atmosphere certainly seems to be ripe for it, but the global use of wool peaks for the fall/winter season. We’re not likely to see any change until February.

What Season Is This?

We talked back in February about designers skipping the fall shows to go real-time this September. Well, September is here and we get to find out whether that strategy is going to work. Be sure, all eyes are watching Burberry, Tom Ford, and Rebecca Minkoff, among others, to see how they handle the straight-to-stores approach. Critical to this new look is whether consumers are confused by seeing both fall/winter looks and spring/summer looks in the same season. The seasonal look has been muted the past few years, with coats in spring and shorts in the fall almost being normal.

This change may work well, though, as designers look for alternative presentation methods. Criticism of the traditional runway approach grew rather heated back in February, but we’re not hearing much talk about the alternatives leading up to this season’s shows. Will Gloria Vanderbilt return to a runway approach or will she go with another fashion event that confuses the hell out of everyone? Talk back in the spring held that we would see more such presentations this fall, but as budgets have been trimmed to match declining profits much of that talk has disappeared.

A Little More Security

For people in Paris and London, the world feels less safe than it did back in February. Organizers in Milan and New York aren’t taking any risks, either. Whereas some designers had been flirting with the idea of open-to-the-public presentations, more care is being taken this fall to ensure the safety of everyone involved. Invitation requests are vetted with increased scrutiny and press credentials are more difficult to obtain. Guests lucky enough to attend an event will find security lines longer than ever. Restrictions on what guests can bring with them, including nail files and hair spray, are taken seriously.

Paris saw dramatically increased security last season but it didn’t seem to interfere with the overall spirit and celebration of the events. This season, though, there is a palpable difference in the tone. Multiple attacks across Europe have everyone looking over their shoulder. Supplier lists are under greater scrutiny. Location accessibility is a concern. In some cases, labels who might have traditionally sought a larger audience are scaling back a bit to reduce the risk.

Everyone wants fashion week to be fun and exciting, but the shadow of terrorism is impossible to escape.

Side Glance To Retail.

Macy’s is closing 100 stores. The announcement wasn’t a surprise. In fact, the retail conglomerate said earlier this year that store closings were coming. Yet, the impact was still like dropping a ton of bricks across the fashion industry. At the same time, China’s luxury market, which had been the one strong point in the industry, has begun a decline. No one is sure yet how much a hit global fashion brands might take but the Chinese government is making it clear they want those Yen to stay at home.

Meanwhile, both H&M and Lululemon are anticipating continued growth. Low-priced fast fashion is eating away at the luxury sector and forcing major labels to make changes to their corporate look. As much movement as there has been among designers, there’s been even more seat swapping among fashion’s corporate CEOs. Even Burberry’s Christopher Bailey had to take a back seat in the boardroom over the summer. No one wants to make a knee-jerk move that spooks the fragile market, but if sales don’t improve we may see even bigger shifts in the look of fashion by next February.

We Can’t Stop Watching

All that being said, interest in fashion is as high as ever. Fashion schools are experiencing prime enrollment numbers. Fashion magazines have retooled their look and enjoying higher numbers than this time last year. Instagram and Snapchat are full of fashionista-wannabes taking selfies of their latest look. Interest in fashion hasn’t waned one bit.

Everyone is being cautious, though. With so many changes hitting at the same time, this could be a very exciting season. We are hoping for a very exciting season. Strong interest in shows next month could do wonders for a slumping retail market. Don’t expect anything that looks like last year, though. This fashion look has changed dramatically. You may need to clean out your closet and start all over.

Prep your credit cards now. NYFW begins September 9.

Photo credits:

Model: Presley Stewart (LModelz)
Makeup: Danelle French
Hair: Jenise Norgaard
Styling: Nativa (Allyson Brooks and Lila Palomares)

Photography: charles i. letbetter

Advertising / Fashion / PotD

You Better Shop Around

July 12, 2016

Buy, buy, says the sign in the shop window; Why, why, says the junk in the yard. —Paul McCartney

Shopping has changed and using a single source is rarely a good idea

Today, July 12, is the big Amazon Prime sale. Think of it as second Christmas. Sales are huge. People who never shop online make purchases during this sale. Traffic numbers are immense. The best deals sell out in a flash. Every other retailer on the Internet cringes when the online juggernaut has this sale. Amazon is so huge, so overwhelming, that no one can afford to compete. Even Wal-Mart doesn’t try to match prices. They do offer free shipping with no minimum purchase, but that’s nowhere near the savings some Amazon deals offer.

This is the way shopping works now. Deep sales, free shipping, and everyone has to find a way to compete with the big guys. There’s always a sale somewhere. No one ever pays list price. Even Amazon stopped showing list prices. Instead, they just show the sale price because that’s what they know people want to see when they shop online. The sale price.

Luxury goods have been in a free-fall all year. Discounters, outlet shops, mid-market retailers, and re-sellers are where all the business is going. Online fashion magazine Business of Fashion says stores need to look and think more like Facebook. The op-ed by John Bricker says that stores need to be more of a social gathering place, not just a place to shop. Coffee bars, art galleries, and social events are all part of the shopping experience as Bricker imagines it.

I’m not sure he goes far enough, though. People still shop around. Let’s look at alternatives.

Tighter Integration

Bricker’s article mentions that women in the 25-35 age group pre-shop, arriving at a store already prepared for what they want. Why didn’t they go ahead and make the purchase online? They want to feel what they’re getting. That’s not surprising, but retailers are still not playing that strategy to their full advantage. The online experience needs to merge with the brick-and-mortar experience so tightly that shoppers consider it a single event.

For example, if a woman finds a set of sheets online that appear to be what she wants, she should be able to mark and save that product without putting it in a shopping cart. She already knows she’s not making the purchase online, so why would she put the item in a cart? Yet, if she doesn’t, she loses the location of the item and may have difficulty finding it when she wants to go back. Then, when she gets to the store, she has difficulty finding the sheets she wants midst all the stacks of other sheets. If she doesn’t find them quickly, she leaves frustrated.

Stores would do better to lock down that sale by doing three things:

Provide a way to save items of interest online
Encourage the shopper to visit the nearest store to see that item
Use the store’s app to guide the shopper to interested items when they arrive at the store.

Just those three things would increase actual sales by at least 10%.

Help Customers Compare Prices

This is taking a tactic once used in large New York department stores and giving it a digital comeback. Retailers know people shop around online looking for the best deals. Let them do the same in store as well. Wi-Fi connected apps at displays could easily list the price of an item and then show what the same item sells for both online and at other brick-and-mortar stores in the immediate area.

What this strategy does is keep a customer in the store. You don’t want to run the risk of them walking out the door to compare prices and never coming back. That already happens far too often for most stores. By allowing customers to comparison shop right there in the store, the retailer could choose to match a competitors price, provide coupons to apply to the sale, and inherently increase the stickiness of keeping people in the store longer.

Of course, this means marketing people have to do a better job watching competitors’ pricing, and that can be a very difficult job. However, with the ability to search instantly across a wide number of sites, building an app that would track such competition on the fly shouldn’t be too terribly difficult. For all I know, that software may already exist. If it does, though, it needs to be used more efficiently.

Make The Store A Destination

We read a lot about Millennials looking for experiences. Retailers can tap into that by making shopping more of a destination; a place one wants to go even if they’re not actively in the market for anything the store offers. Sorry, but coffee and art are yesterday’s marketing tactics. Retailers today need to find more event-driven and exciting reasons for people to come through their doors and shop.

I still remember when a specific sporting goods store opened in Atlanta with a 40-foot climbing wall in the store. My boys loved going to that store just to climb the wall. Sure enough, we purchased something every time we went. When that store was bought-out by a competitor, though, they took out the climbing wall. Care to guess how many times I’ve been in any of that retailer’s stores since? Zero. I’ve no immediate need for their products, so I walk on by.

Whether online or brick-and-mortar, retailers have to do more than just offer sales to get people to look. If I were CMO of a major chain right now I would be looking for some way to make stores attractive to Pokèmon Go players. What the store sells is irrelevant. Getting more people through door inevitably means more people are going to shop. Playing to social trends rather than marketing trends may be the stronger strategy for the future.

Increase Visibility Of High Need Items

Briker also mentions that people separate their shopping into two groups: wants and needs. They buy the needs first, often without much comparison shopping, then shop around for the things in their want list. The traditional tactic has been to put high-need items toward the back of the store so that people have to walk past everything else, increasing the possibility of an impulse by. For many years, that strategy has worked.

What grocery store chains such as Kroger have found, though, is that placing high need items such as milk, eggs, and bread near the front of the store, close to the checkout, increases brand loyalty among consumers. When a busy mom needs to pick up a gallon of milk on the way home from work or between shuttling kids from soccer practice to piano lessons, she remembers the store that saves her from walking all the way to the back. She’s more likely to return to the same store when she needs to buy a full basket of groceries.

Fashion retailers, especially department stores, could learn a lot from this tactic. Consider what shoppers most likely need and make it accessible without having to traipse all over the store. A hair straightener is not likely to be a must-have-right-now purchase, but a lipstick is. Sports socks are not sexy, but when the drier eats half your last pair you need a replacement before you go running in the morning. Build brand loyalty among a generation not inclined to be loyal.

Shop Around

More retailers need to consider throwing out the playbook and completely re-examine what it means for people to shop. Even those in the over-65 age group don’t shop with the same habits as they did ten years ago. Everything about shopping is new. The winners are going to be those who don’t look like retailers. Embrace innovation and realize that one has to meld into society to benefit from it.

PotD

Retail Falls From Grace

May 12, 2016

I’m paranoid about shopping. I get irritable. I find it tedious and taxing. People say shopping is retail therapy, but I need therapy after shopping. —Anushka Sharma

You know that mall store where you once bought at least half if not all your wardrobe? Hope you’re not emotionally attached because they’re failing

I was in a mall last week for the first time in a few months. The day before, venerable mall chain Abercrombie & Fitch had announced they would be closing 150 stores and they started Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. I watched from a small distance as they opened that morning, a noticeable weariness in the person’s posture. There was no better-than-thou attitude and only a weary smile as I passed.

Fashion retail as we have known it in the past may well be in need of hospice care. While it’s not dead yet, the condition of fashion retail shows every sign of having a terminal disease and its recovery, at least in the form with which we have become accustomed. We are already familiar with the problems big department stores such as Macy’s and Sears have had. Now, fashion specific retailers who have been struggling the past five years are beginning to look as though they may be on their last legs. Retail has fallen from grace and we don’t seem to be inclined to restore it, or even let it survive in its current incarnation.

Most recently, GAP is starting to feel irrelevant after they announced earlier this week that April same-store sales fell another seven percent from same time last year. GAP is rapidly running out of options. No one is walking through their doors. I know, I watched, seated in one of the malls comfy chairs. For 30 minutes I sat there. Dozens of people walked past, but none of those even slowed enough to look through the windows. Finch Ratings lowered GAP’s default rating to junk status yesterday, further deflating any energy left in the stock. If they are not in full-scale liquidation by the holidays I will be quite surprised.

So much has changed from when a young Jewish immigrant named Adam Gimble opened his first dry goods store in Vincennes, Indiana back in the 1850s. As he moved from Vincennes to Danville, Illinois and then Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the joke at the time was that profits from one store alone wasn’t enough to feed Gimble’s seven sons. Gimble was a pioneer in the concept of chain retailing, among other things, and the concept around which he built his stores is still dominant in retailing even now.

But retail has never been easy. Movies and popular fiction made the competition between the Herald Square Gimbles and the Macy’s store across the street quite famous, but by the time Miracle on 34tj Street made a big deal about the two stores and their holiday promotions, all three of Macy’s founding partners had been dead over 40 years and the costs of expansion were burdening the company. Both stores went through various iterations in an attempt to survive, but Gimbles closed for good in 1985, and Macy’s sold to Federated Department Stores in 1994. While Federated has kept the Macy’s brand and merged others into that framework, it has still struggled continuously.

Fashion retail is not an easy business, and now that malls themselves have fallen out of favor as a family social destination, the malls are either closing or having to invest millions of dollars in an attempt to get more people through the doors. Tom McGee, president and chief executive officer of the International Council of Shopping Centers, told Associated Press:

“Shopping centers and the physical retail experience is becoming much more experiential. People want to have experiences when they go out. They want to experience restaurants. They want movie theaters. They want that kind of all-in aspect. They want the aesthetics and the look to be something that is engaging and appealing to them.”

Even if malls can make the aesthetics and periphery of a shopping experience more appealing, though, that doesn’t mean that people will actually buy clothing from the same retailers they did 5-10 years ago. In addition to a continuing growth in online shopping, which may grow dramatically if more fashion labels adopt a see now, buy now approach to their runway shows, re-sale stores are taking off, both brick-and-mortar, as well as online, and they’re coming with deep pockets and strong marketing strategies. Contemporary wardrobe styles care little whether the Armani jacket is from this year’s collection or five years ago. To the extent that luxury goods are presumably made better and last longer, they can be sold and re-sold numerous times. Each time a garment is re-sold, that’s cash out of the hands of traditional fashion retailers.

In one sense, it’s rather exciting to know that we’re witnessing a dramatic transformation in the fashion retail business, one that almost certainly is going to benefit consumers more in the long run. At the same time, though, it’s somewhat disheartening to know that some of our favorite brands and retailers may not survive the transition. Progress always works this way, you know. Not everyone survives, and in this case being big might actually be a handicap.

If you’re one of those people who really like A&F or GAP clothing, you might want to stock up now, though. Limited store closings are definitely coming and both brands are on life-support. Last rites will come in the form of deep discounting this fall. Oh, how the mighty and impenetrable have fallen. Keep watching.

Advertising / pop culture

Playing With Our Emotions (Video)

April 28, 2016

charles i. letbetter - playing with emotions

The degree of one’s emotions varies inversely with one’s knowledge of the facts. —Bertrand Russell

charles i. letbetter - playing with our emotions

We are ambivalent toward a lot of things so advertisers play with our emotions so we’ll be in a mood to buy

We are in that time of year when our moods are more random and our emotions tend to run flat. Our favorite television series are hitting their season finales. Fashion’s busy with fall production and worrying about numbers for the first quarter. Most people who were getting a tax refund already have it spent. Spring break is over and there won’t be any more vacation time until after Memorial Day. To make matters a little worse, with spring comes pollen so everyone with allergies, which is probably half the people you know, feels stuffy and irritable and sleepy from their allergy medication and that still doesn’t prevent them from sneezing and blowing all over the place.

Shopping tends to dip around this point in the year. We are less likely to buy the things we don’t need because we’re generally not excited about much of anything. We have our heads down, working diligently, waiting for summer. We don’t have time for nonsense.

That just doesn’t work for the people who need you to buy things, though. People who are selling products feel exactly the same way you do, but their day gets a whole lot worse when no one is buying anything. So, they pull out the one trick that is sure to get you to open your wallet: emotions. If advertisers can create ads that make you feel something, anything, then you are more likely to buy their product when you finally get around to going to the store.

We’ve been watching the spring crop of ads very carefully and have found some that do a very good job of pulling in the ol’ heart strings. One of the strongest is actually a tradition of sorts. Proctor & Gamble have done a “thank you, Mom” spot for the last four or five years and, of course, we expect those to make you feel nostalgic for an imagined childhood. They really ratchet up the emotional scale this year, though, with an ad using Olympic athletes and showing times when Mom was their rock. The tone is a bit dark, but it hits right in the feels.

https://youtu.be/MQ3k6BFX2uw

So, what if your product isn’t one that naturally appeals to emotions and really needs a boost in sales right now? As in, your product line experienced a drop in sales last quarter for the first time ever. There might be a little bit of pressure to bring those numbers back up. But, how does one attach emotions so something as utilitarian as a phone? Easy: just add onion and hope it goes viral.

https://youtu.be/2gHeBVyqJRo

One thing that the coveted millennial audience gets emotional over is food. The question for Unilever’s Knorr group was whether they could turn people’s love for food into love for each other. The theory was an interesting one. The background for the ad is detailed on AdWeek. In short, the company used food preferences to match singles, then got them together and made them feed each other. Did the concept work? Knorr’s senior global director, Ukonwa Ojo, told AdWeek: “We know that one of these couples [Antonio and Irma in the video], even though that shoot was done months ago, they’re still dating today.” So yeah, love can really happen over shared tastes in food. Remember that when you see the Knorr brand in the store. Here’s the ad:

Not every emotion we have is positive, though, and some ads look to explore emotions such as fear and distrust. Such is the case for the non-profit Liberty Human Rights. They created a PSA that calls into question the far-reaching effects of a proposed British law that would allow government to essentially snoop on all of one’s digital communications, on any device, at any time. They compare that to a stranger coming up and asking to look at your phone. The ad is a touch humorous in its approach, but the emotions being plucked are fear and suspicion.

There are probably about a dozen more ads I could include here, but I think this is enough to make my point. You and I, my dear friend, are having our emotions manipulated rather strongly. Not that this is anything new, but keep that in mind next time you find your hand reaching for a product you’ve never used before and, possibly, don’t really need. Yes, we need you to buy things, but shouldn’t you know why you’re buying them?

Current Issues / Fashion

Shopping Habits Die Ugly

April 26, 2016

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

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.

Advertising / Current Issues

Social Change Through Selling Stuff

April 9, 2016

charles i. letbetter - social change through advertising

The ultimate end of all revolutionary social change is to establish the sanctity of human life, the dignity of man, the right of every human being to liberty and well-being. —Emma Goldman

charles i. letbetter - social change by selling stuff

Advertising seems a mechanism of greed, but it can also chance the world

Advertising has one primary goal: sell a product. In the crowded world of today’s marketplace, getting a message out there to the right people at the right time requires precision execution of a well-researched strategy. Make a mistake and an entire company can fail. With that kind of pressure, who has time to think about social change? Is social change even something that should worry advertisers in the first place?

Traditionally, advertisers look at an environment to see how their client’s product(s) can/might fit the existing structure. Sometimes, when the product is game-changing, advertisers may look to creating a new environment wherein their client’s product is desirable. What’s most difficult, though, is actually trying to create social change, to alter an environment, in ways that are not necessarily related to a product at all, or where the links are not obvious.

Examples of the latter are difficult to find, but we’re seeing that approach used with increasing frequency and when it’s done well the success for the brand is as astonishing as the social change it creates. The Dove beauty ads that promote being one’s self and alternative views of beauty are probably the best known and most obvious example, but there are others that have popped up this past week that are looking to do more, to make social change that is more concrete; change that actually alters society.

The first highlights a problem that, being a white male, I had never considered: how certain beauty products are shelved. I never have been one to go in for high-end beauty products. Shampoo, deodorant, and soap are all I need and my purchase is more often than not based on price. For people of color, though, such a simple thing as buying a bottle of shampoo can be challenging because the kind of shampoo they need is not shelved with the shampoo, it’s shelved in a special “ethnic” section. WTF? I knew such things had happened in the first half of the 20th century, but I had just assumed that the practice had ended long ago. Not so.

Droga5, the agency for Shea Moisture, decided that the best way to disrupt the severely crowded beauty market was through social change. We don’t need a separate “ethnic” beauty section. Put all the beauty products together and let people decide for themselves which ones they need. The message is timely, appropriate, and very well executed. Take a look.

The second example also comes from a beauty product, but the social change they’re advocating is much more entrenched, taking on a piece of Chinese culture that is literally thousands of years old. For centuries, matchmaking has been a part of Chinese culture. Even the Disney animated rendition of the story of Mulan weaves that tradition into the storyline. The status quo holds that girls need to be married by the time they are 25 or else they bring shame upon their families. Those who are not married by that time are referred to as “leftover girls.”

As odd as this custom seems to those of us in Western society, variations of this approach to marriage is present in nearly every Asian culture. So, for Chinese skin care brand SK-II to take on the subject and suggest that this centuries-old habit no longer fits in modern society means rocking the boat in a very big way. As China has opened itself to global economics and goods made outside its borders, Western ideologies have infiltrated Chinese culture and frequently meets with some resistance. For SK-II to take such a strong stand against such ingrained habits is extremely risky. Yet, the ad they’ve been using takes such a gentle and beautiful approach to social change that it is actually working in their favor. You’ll want to make sure subtitles are on to understand the ad. Take a look:

Then, there’s the matter of Ogilvy & Mather’s Berlin office’s brave attempt to fight a level of social change by creating its own products, a series of books, to fight a rising anti-immigrant wave that is far too reminiscent of a period in history most Germans wish they could erase entirely. Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf was published this year for the first time since 1945. While much of the symbolism surrounding the Nazi regime is still illegal in Germany, the expiration of the original copyright allowed for the book to be published again just as anti-immigration attitudes are growing in strength both socially and politically.

Ogilvy’s leadership decided to confront this problem head-on by publishing a set of books with the exact same title but very different content. The eleven book series, Mein Kampf Gegen Rechts (My Struggle Against Racism) looks at the effects of xenophobia and injustice through the eyes of 11 very diverse people, including a concentration camp survivor, an Afghan refugee, and a white-haired grandmother who takes on pro-Nazi graffiti with soap and a brush. The books struck a nerve and the initial publication run of 11,000 sold out quickly. Here’s the ad:

Whereas the ads from the two beauty products are careful and gentle in their approach to social change, Ogilvy’s is more like taking a ball bat to the problem. There are few phrases more socially and politically volatile than Mein Kampf. Just using the phrase causes many Germans to cringe. Yet, this is how advertising takes on the problems they see in the world and all three have seen a measure of success in their social goals.

Such an approach raises some questions that still need discussion. What are the ethics in blending social change with selling a product? Do we risk cheapening the change that we’re advocating by attaching it to a specific product or brand? Could brands create problems that don’t actually exist in order to profit from the association? These are not questions with simple answers and moving forward they need to be carefully considered.

At the same time, though, advertisers are in a unique position to use their sizeable budget to bring attention to situations and causes that might otherwise go ignored. The Shae Moisturizer ad is a perfect example; I had no idea that “ethnic” sections still existed and fully support their elimination.

With all that is wrong in our world, change has to come from somewhere and it should be obvious that it’s not going to come from a politician or a government. If brands and advertisers can lead us to think differently about the soda we drink, why can they not use that same power to change how we perceive and treat each other?

Social change can happen through a simple ad. Let ’em roll.

Advertising / Art / Studio News

Uncensored Selling

April 5, 2016

That’s what I love about the Internet. Even if it’s small-scale and you’re just posting on a forum, that’s an uncensored expression. That’s what I love. —Felicia Day

When you want to sell something, but don’t want to deal with the hassles of playing by someone else’s rules, you have a new option

Anyone who has tried earning any online income knows the challenge of finding an uncensored platform. Many online selling venues don’t allow any form of nudity at all. Most of those that are willing to provide for material considered Not Safe For Work (NSFW) still limit exactly that kind of content can be displayed. Finding a genuinely uncensored site from which to sell has been practically impossible.

Even if one finds a way to sell NSFW material, there is still a problem with actually getting paid. Visa, MasterCard, American Express, and PayPal all have rules against using their systems to pay for certain objects they deem dangerous, illegal, or inappropriate. PayPal is the most restrictive of that group and anyone with experience in any form of figure art knows the danger of using PayPal as a purchasing method. They will happily take the money from the buyer and keep it. Banks, too, such as JP Morgan Chase, refuse to provide banking services to any entity they consider adult or immoral, and their definitions for both are wide and arbitrary. Money is far from being uncensored.

All that began to change, however, with the introduction of Bitcoin. In case you’ve not been paying attention the past couple of years, Bitcoin is a digital currency that is not controlled by a central government. Bitcoin purchases are anonymous and can be used to make purchases internationally without having to worry about the local exchange rate. The concept is brilliant in that it takes both governments and banks out of the equation, allowing for a more pure market system. The biggest problem to date has been finding online stores that actually accept Bitcoin currency.

Yesterday, a solution to that problem became available with a new peer-to-peer retail system called OpenBazaar. OpenBazaar allows users to sell absolutely anything to anyone, anywhere, at any time. There are no content restrictions, making the system truly uncensored. Rather like an online bartering system, OpenBazaar connects people who have something to sell with people who are looking to buy. While the seller can set a given price, the buyer is free to negotiate with the seller so that a discount might be applied if multiples are ordered or if the buyer lives close enough to pick up the item themselves. For added security, a third-party moderator agrees that the deal is fair before Bitcoin is exchanged.

The opportunities of an uncensored marketplace are endless. As a photographer, I can sell figure work (theoretically) without having to worry about the product or the money being censored by a third party. I could also sell my services as a photographer, or a writer, or as an annoying neighbor if there happened to be an actual market for that service. The only limits are my imagination.

Of course, any system so wide open is also susceptible to dangers. Looking over the system that has only been operational a little over 24 hours, I see one person selling honey from Greece, which sounds enticing, but wouldn’t necessarily contain the contamination preventions required of domestic honey sellers. There’s also a person selling wizardry spells. I suppose it’s up to one’s own belief system as to whether or not one wishes to take that kind of risk.

OpenBazaar’s founders know that an uncensored system means that sooner or later people are going to use it for no good. Since everything is sold peer-to-peer, there is no way for anyone to tell whether what is sold is legal, moral, or even in existence. So yes, illegal drugs could be bought and sold through this market. One could sell a kidney as easily as they could sell puppies, or whale blubber, or the head of a presidential candidate. The folks at OpenMarket would have no way to stop those types of transactions.

There is a modest safeguard against illegal activity in that the open source code does not support Tor, which is an encryption language that hides IP addresses among other things. So, should one choose to engage in illegal activity, law enforcement still has the ability to track down both the buyer and the seller. However, law enforcement would not be able to confiscate funds because only the wallet holder can access and/or move Bitcoins.

Being the curious bug that I am, I downloaded the P2P software and set up an account, listing only one photograph for sale. We’ll see if that is enough to even get anyone’s attention. Setting up the site took me about 30 minutes, and that included creating a Bitcoin account so that I can actually accept payment should someone show interest in the photograph. If you want to try OpenBazaar for yourself and see what I’m selling, you’ll need to enter either my handle: 991803b5e7d0989bd6c7f829ccf39da329df6381, or search for my handle, which might be some version of @charlesiletbetter, but I’m not sure since I apparently can’t search for myself.

I’m not yet ready to put a significant amount of time into OpenBazaar. Law enforcement hasn’t taken kindly to uncensored online marketplaces because of the difficulty in stopping and tracking illegal activity. If I see a black SUV pull up in front of the house, I’ll know something’s up. Still, the world needs places where we can sell legitimate, legal products without the interference of governments, banks, or numerous middlemen. If this works, it could have a global economic impact that could change the way goods and services are bought and sold everywhere.

Are the opportunities worth the risk? We’ll find out, won’t we?

Current Issues / Fashion

Fashion Without Gender

March 16, 2016

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

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.

Fashion / Photography / PotD

Pictures Or It Didn’t Happen

February 15, 2016

The technology keeps moving forward, which makes it easier for the artists to tell their stories and paint the pictures they want.—George Lucas

The fascination with Instagram and Pinterest is more than an annoying habit; it’s changing the world

We’re calling them Generation Z, those who are currently teenagers, and already they’re having an impact on the world. Wth smartphones glued to their hands and cell phone cameras ever at the ready, one of the traits this generation has learned from the Millennials right before them is that experiences matter over materialism. The big difference between the two group of youngsters, though, is that Gen Z is finding ways to make everything they do an experience, whether it’s the ride to school, ice cream afterward, or brushing their teeth before bed. Everything ends up on Instagram. And if it’s going to be on Instagram, one has to look good doing it.

Helping teens decide what makes them look good is Pinterest. Unlike their parents, who use the social media app for things like recipes and decorating ideas, Gen Z pins pictures of street styles and ads from their favorite online magazines so they can put together their own wardrobe combinations; a little of this, a touch of that, and they have a look that is all their own.

Now, imagine what it would have been like had my generation had cameras at the ready and an easy distribution method when we were teens. While we almost certainly would have taken just as many pictures as teens today do, what we captured would have likely been different. For starters, I’m not sure how often we would have been able to see anything due to the overwhelming amount of smoke that was everywhere. Even the few of us who didn’t have a pack of cigarettes tucked away somewhere had plenty of friends who did, so even a picture from the back of the driver’s ed car would have had smoke. No wonder we’re all dying.

Would looking at pictures of ourselves all the time given us a better idea of what to wear? While I’m still seeing 70s influences for the third season in a row, most of us actually had the fashion sense of a squirrel, and if one looks at the majority of us today, that hasn’t changed much. Of course, we country kids weren’t as big on the super-wide bell bottom pants as the city kids were because they were a hazard; those flared legs were dangerous around farm implements, so we tended to keep our 501s with a boot leg for practical reasons.

One thing for certain, though, had we had phones back then with the capabilities of those today, we would have captured some kick-ass music events. Imagine recording AC-DC, The Rolling Stones, Jimmy Buffet, Foghat, Chicago, The Doobie Brothers, Three Dog Night, or Led Zepplin back in their prime! Bands that are being inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame next month were still young, the concerts were legendary, and what happened after those concerts is responsible for Generation X. Imagine how great it would be if we had captured that all on Periscope and then saved it!

Being able to take plenty of pictures as we go through life sounds like a great thing, but there are consequences to such an over indulgence. The first one, right off the bat, is storage; it was a problem when I was a kid and it remains a problem now. We weren’t terribly shy about taking pictures when we considered it worthwhile, but where are those pictures now? Chances are, a few are stuffed in envelopes at the back of a drawer or file cabinet. My mother was into scrapbooking as she got older; what remains of ours are in a couple of large plastic containers under a bed at my brother’s house. Teens today, though, tend to not keep their pictures all that long. When the card on their phone begins to get full, they start deleting. They’re too young to realize the value of the pictures they’re taking today. After all, they’ll be taking more pictures tomorrow. Unfortunately, of all those experiences they are having, it’s not until years later that they’ll realize which ones were really important.

The other consequence is that taking so many pictures and sharing them changes how we shop. An article in Busines Insider this morning details how the Gen Z fascination with pictures and Instagram and other social media is killing more traditional retailers like the Gap, J. Crew, and Abercrombie & Fitch. Not only that, but it is that same attitude that is leading an increasing number of designers to shift their runway calendar so that instead of showing a season ahead for department store buyers, more and more are showing current season and allowing for instant online purchases immediately after the show, skipping both the buyer and the department stores all together.

How and when we take pictures, and our fascination with sharing them, changes our decision-making process, from where we go on vacation to what we’re having for dinner. Since almost everything we do ultimately has some economic tie to it, that impulse to share everything online is dramatically altering the world’s economy, for both better and worse.

When I first picked up a camera some 30+ years ago, my dream, along with those of my colleagues, was that maybe one of my pictures might have an impact on the world. Just one. Today, kids with smartphones are changing the world with every picture they take.

And more than ever, if there are no pictures, it didn’t happen.

Fashion

Putting The Fix On The Fashion System

February 9, 2016

A leader is someone who helps improve the lives of other people or improve the system they live under.—Sam Houston

We all know the fashion system is broken. The big question now is how to fix it. There are a lot of ideas.

We are two days away from the start of New York Fashion Week. Stop and think about that for a minute. In two days, catwalks are going to be full of clothes largely designed not to be worn now, but next fall. At best, you’ll start seeing them in August. Then, by the time fashion weeks end in early October, those clothes start going on sale. How is anyone actually making any money in this silly game we call fashion?

That’s just it; a lot of companies are not making money and those few that are seem to be anomalies rather than leaders that others can follow. Consider the news from earlier this morning that the retailer Banana Republic had sales drop a whopping 17% in January compared to the same time last year. Gap and Old Navy also announced declines, but neither were as severe as Banana Republic. The fashion system is broken from beginning to end and that’s making some desperate to try anything in an attempt to fix what’s wrong.

Consider Russian-born designer Demna Gvasalia. If you’re not already familiar with that name, write it down and underscore it in red. Not only are he and his brother Guram the power behind the Vetements collective, but he was also recently named as creative director for Ballenciaga. We’re going to be seeing a lot of him, to be sure, but probably not where we expect. He announced last week that Vetements is going off-schedule and plans to start showing their collections in January and June instead. The concept behind the move is that this gives their clothes more time on the shelves before they start getting the mark-down treatment.

Gvasalia isn’t the only one trying things new. Burberry announced last week that they will consolidate their mens’ and womens’ lines in their September show and that customers can purchase pieces they like immediately after the show. Tom Ford joined Thakoon, Rebecca Minkoff, and Mathew Williamson in skipping the upcoming season entirely so that they can come back in September with their fall/winter collections and immediate purchase options. Hunter is abandoning the schedule completely and opting to show at music festivals.

Fashion industry magazine Business of Fashion published an opinion piece online yesterday that is a conversation between an editor, a designer, a blogger, a retailer, and a consultant. The article is interesting and you can read the full conversation here if you have the time. While the effort was earnest, however, I’m not sure the people involved are the ones who can truly transform the system. Perhaps had the editor been Condé Nast’s Anna Wintour, the designer been Raf Simmons, and the retailer was H&M CEO Karl-Johan Persson, there might have been a conversation that actually had a chance of changing the system. [Not to slight anyone, but including a blogger seems, to me, more of a courtesy as they are not truly in a position to directly impact processes within the system.]

What the group did, however, was identify problematic issues within the fashion system that most everyone agrees need to be changed. Solutions are debatable, of course, and there is no one-size fits all method that everyone can follow. Still, they make for good talking points so let’s consider what those areas of concern are:

Fashion is moving too fast. JJ Martin of Wallpaper* said, “A lot of fashion houses today are being run like consumer packaged goods companies. There’s no difference between selling handbags and toothpaste.” Here is the reason that so many companies are having to fall back on accessories and perfumes in order to make money. The fashion system is moving too fast and, as a result, over producing. There are more clothes on store shelves at any given time than we can even begin to comprehend, let alone actually buy. Consumers are so inundated with wave after wave after wave of new clothing that they feel they can’t catch up. No matter what one buys, when it is replaced on the shelves the next day that new garment now feels out of style. The obvious solution: slow down and restock shelves a mere four times a year, not every week. Sounds simple, but it would mean retailers and department stores completely changing their business models.
Show schedules are disconnected from buying schedules. This is the problem to which Tom Ford and others are reacting by moving their fall/winter lines to show in September rather than now. This is not an easy switch, though, and, as I’ve mentioned before, there are going to be some serious logistical issues to conquer in making this profound change to the system work. Where do buyers fit in? How is the supply chain converted? Does this change how shows are presented? This is definitely a pro-consumer move, but changes for those caught in the middle could make delivery almost impossible.
Brands don’t understand how to do digital. Instagram. Twitter. Snapchat. Periscope. Online purchasing. There are a handful of brands that handing the digital aspect of fashion very well, but the majority are dumbfounded, trusting large portions of their fashion empires to 20-somethings doing inexplicable things with digital cameras and computers. There are still some brands that are not represented online at all, believe it or not. The digital takeover of all things consumer-based has been overwhelming for fashion brands and both creative directors and CEOs have huge gaps in their understanding of how digital can/should work for them. Consider how many brands still won’t stream their runway shows this season, despite the fact that it has a proven positive impact on sales. The challenge here is that convincing anyone to adopt something to which they are already resistant is nearly impossible. This deficit alone could spell doom for some long-standing brands.
Creatives are overwhelmed and in crisis. The 2010 suicide of Alexander McQueen should have been a wake-up call for the entire fashion system. There is a limit to how much a creative mind can produce and, for the most part, we are exceeding that limit. Witness the recent exits of Raf Simmons and Alber Elgar from Dior and Lanvin respectively. Both were being asked to do too much in too short a time frame. They are not the only ones suffering under this impossible expectation. Look at how boring fashion has become. How many designers have little time to do more than re-work the label’s catalog rather than create anything genuinely new? Slowing down to only four collections a year would help, but fashion is going to lose more great minds if this doesn’t change quickly.

I remain convinced that one answer overlooked by the gigantic fashion system at large is to buy more from local designers and boutiques. Consumers can push a lot of positive change simply by altering their buying habits just a little bit. Start taking some of the cash out of Karl-Johan Persson’s hands and put it into the local economy through local makers. If only 10% of fashion consumers dropped department store shopping completely, the fashion system would immediately turn and take notice, supporting more local fashion rather than investing in seeing how impossibly large two or three players can get.

I also remain quite certain that putting designers in charge of their own houses and letting some brands die off is a good thing for fashion. This would help reduce some of the over-supply that is choking retail and would also support younger designers who, perhaps, might find even better ways to engage digitally. This could be an especially critical move as Millennials, who are not especially materialistic, take over as the lead shopping demographic.

Great change isn’t going to arrive by Thursday. I’ll still give you the blow-by-blow account on Pattern, and we will do our best to make it enjoyable. But if anything, now that we are talking about the problems in the fashion system, we’re likely to see them even more glaring than before. The road could get rocky. Hold on.

Fashion

Runway Or No Runway

February 5, 2016

I don’t even think when I’m walking down the runway. I don’t really breathe either.—Rosie Huntington-Whiteley

charles i. letbetter - runway or no runway

Has the usefulness of the fashion runway gone away or is it simply changing?

Pass out the brown paper bags. There are dozens of people in the fashion world who are currently hyperventilating. First came the news early this morning from Christopher Bailey that Burberry is cancelling its men’s presentation after this season. Instead, they will combine both men’s and women’s ready-to-wear into two seasonless shows per year, which will be called September and February, rather than Spring/Summer and Fall/Winter. Then, around 10:00 EST this morning, Tom Ford cancelled his NYFW show for this season. Instead, he will come back in September and show his fall/winter line then, in the fall, when people actually need it.

What both designers are doing is something that has been discussed heavily in fashion circles for the past six years or more: aligning the runway with retail. Both brands say they will offer runway items for sale immediately after the runway presentation. Rather than waiting six months for their favorite garments to hit the stores, customers will be able to purchase their favorite ensembles while they’re still fresh on their minds through the brand’s website.

Of course, this means some serious changes behind the scenes, starting with the supply chain. Traditionally, a designer creates the design, shows the design, waits for buyers to order the design (and request changes), and then send the design pattern to manufacturers. Obviously, that system cannot possibly work with an order-on-demand concept. Instead, designers and suppliers have to work together from the moment a design is sketched out. Decisions about fabrics and detailing have to be made further in advance and, once committed, are not easily changed. By the time the runway show comes around, what models are wearing is not a one-of-a-kind designer sample, but a finished product ready to be sold. Expect some challenges and delays as both the Burberry and Ford teams struggle to make this work. At the very least, I would expect some delays the first few seasons.

A second big difference is that this change dramatically changes the role of the department store buyer. Whereas the buyers have traditionally been able to request (or demand) changes in a garment before it hits the store shelves, this new off-the-runway concept does away with that option if stores want what is selling right now, and we know they all do. Stores that insist on holding out for changes will be behind the curve in offering designs that have already been available elsewhere. Does this mean buyers will be included in design conversations earlier in the process? That’s certainly possible, but then a designer has to made the decision which buyers to include and which to leave out. Too many cooks spoil the broth and too many opinions ruin a good design.

All of this comes as fast fashion has blurred seasonal lines and forced many designers into year-round designing with as many as eight different collections coming from major brands each year. Designers have been showing increasing signs of fatigue and the hectic schedule undoubtedly plays a role in why fashion has become increasingly boring. Who has time to think and be creative when there’s always another line that needs to go out NOW! By doing away with the antiquated season schedule, this puts designers back in control of what clothing is available when.

At the same time, the move acknowledges that modern runway shows are not the insider-only events they once were. Most major designers now stream their shows live, which allows potential customers to see what’s coming down the runway, fueling desires. Live-streamed shows are fantastic advertisements for the brands, but then shoppers forget what they liked by the time clothes actually hit stores, and often what they liked off the runway no longer exists in the same form. Buying off the runway is great for consumers and is likely to help bolster what have been some depressing sales numbers, especially for Burberry.

This is not so great, however, for department stores who may be beginning to feel a bit left out of the loop as the whole retail concept is beginning to feel more and more antiquated. Exactly how they will respond and how labels plan to address the issue remains to be seen.

Again, there are going to be plenty of bugs needing to be worked out, but should this experiment prove profitable for Ford and Burberry, be sure that many more designers are likely to follow suit. Department stores might do well to be concerned, but customers should be ready to celebrate.

retail

Share this:

Like this:

Fashion retail is failing because we prefer to dress like bums

The Short Version

Defining The Situation

A Slow Progression

Fashion On The Ropes

Unpopular conclusions

Share this:

Like this:

Retailers don’t care who Ivanka’s daddy is, they’re not carrying her junk.

The Short Version

A Little Background

What The President Said

The Fallout

Share this:

Like this:

Online shopping is where profits are found

The Short Version

A Bit More Detail

Share this:

Like this:

Stores desperately try to prevent huge price increases

The Short Version

Avoiding Sticker Shock

Share this:

Like this:

No rest because of the wicked

This isn’t supposed to be possible

Russian hacking isn’t done

Retail continues to suck

Other people looking for work

And finally …

Share this:

Like this:

Nope, 2016 is still not done

A Mother and Daughter Together

Important Notice For Heart Patients

A Two-State Solution

And The Hits Just Keep Coming

And finally …

Share this:

Like this:

This year is not over yet

Our favorite princess has died

No more mall rats

Behave yourself on that flight

Does Versace have a race issue?

And finally …

Share this:

Like this:

And A Happy Solstice To All

And then things went boom

Someone has to take responsibility

American Apparel is dying

Bobbie Brown exits stage left

And Finally …

Share this:

Like this:

Sorting out the Business of Fashion report

1. INTENSIFYING VOLATILITY

2. CHINA’S COMEBACK?

3. URBAN ENGINES

4. SHREWDER SHOPPERS

5. GENERATION CORRELATION

6. THE WELLNESS DIVIDEND

7. CHANGING THE RHYTHM

8. ORGANIC GROWTH

9. UPSTREAM TECHNOLOGY

10. OWNERSHIP SHAKE-UP

Share this:

Like this:

The days of waiting in line all night for a chance at a bargain are over.

The Myth Of Black Friday

But Wait, Something Is Changing

Controlling Our Greed

Share this:

Like this:

I’m a champion for personal differences. All society should be much more personalized. —George M. Church