Trend Journal Spring 2017
Kelly Murphy FASM 245 Professor Michael Cohen
Contents I: The Case Against ‘See Now, Buy Now’ II: H&M and Sustainability III: Virtual Reality: Growth Engine for Fashion? IV: The Fashion Industry VS. Plus-Sized V: Fashion Over 40 VI: The Influence of Microinfluencers VII: Broken Department Stores VIII: American Factory Workers
I
The Case Against ‘See Now, Buy Now’
Tommy Hilfiger If the fashion industry would do its research, they would find the consumer psyche actually enjoys the lag between viewing a show on the runway and being able to purchase a few months later during the season the show was intended for. The consumer needs time to imagine themselves wearing specific looks in that future season and thinking of what their life will be by that time.
If we were to rewind a few years back, the term ‘see now, buy now’ would sound absurd, like a whiny child demanding all the candy upon entering a candy store. Brought up to present-day, that term sounds like it fits the society that we live in, with a vast majority of us striving for that instant gratification in all we do, including fashion. 2016 saw the dawn of this new concept into high fashion week with labels such as Burberry, Tom Ford, Rebecca Minkoff, Thakoon, and Tommy Hilfiger all placing pieces on sale immediately after their runway presentations. So the question stands, is ‘see now, buy now’ a positive revelation to the world of fashion, or will it bring more harm than good? After reading up on this buzz phrase and what it entails in its entirety, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is a harm to the world of fashion. As a Millennial, I’m slightly insulted that my generation has been pegged as that whiny child who wants what it wants, when it wants it, and will throw a fit if it doesn’t get its way. Apparently, this whole ‘see now, buy now’ craze was created primarily for Millennials in order to satiate our boredom and search for newness.
The ‘see now, buy now’ phenomenon leads consumers to rush into a purchase and could possibly lead to buyers’ remorse. The lag time between a show and its release date allows the consumer to see specific looks again and again and gain some familiarity with the style so that by the time it is released, they are comfortable with the look and feel confident in their purchase. With no lag time and a rush to purchase runway pieces immediately after their presentations, consumers may question their purchase and regret making so hasty a decision without thinking it over.
Burberry
Overall, I don’t think we’ve seen an end to this ‘see now, buy now’ craze but I would enjoy seeing it come to a close. Frankly, it’s unnecessary and there has yet to be tangible evidence that it is worth a significant profit increase to the fashion labels indulging in this trend. I believe the fashion industry is already fast-paced as it is and ‘see now, buy now’ will turn efficiently fast into inefficiently rushed.
Ralph Lauren
https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/opinion/see-now-buy-now-fashion-consumer-psychology
II
H&M and Sustainability
Up until about a year a go, I wasn’t aware that throwing away clothing was something people did. When I have an article of clothing I no longer want, I typically donate it or give a new home in a friend’s wardrobe. That’s why it’s mind boggling for me to learn that in a place like Australia, 6,000 kilograms of fashion waste is generated every ten minutes. That number is both inconceivable and depressing to really think about. A huge perpetrator of fashion waste is the H&M brand, which according to the H&M Group’s Sustainability Director Anna Gedda, about 85% of their clothing items are ending up in landfills after simply a few wears. I personally don’t shop at H&M, simply based on the fact that their clothing has never aligned with my style and I also prefer quality clothing over a cheap find, but I can appreciate their efforts to bring about a change to this unsustainable rut they find themselves in. By 2030, the company is hoping to using “100 percent recycled or sustainably sourced materials” and have a “climate positive” supply chain by 2040. What does this mean exactly? Well, according to H&M, they seek to start at the source of the problem, the raw materials themselves. They aim to use more sustainable and organic sources like organic cotton, recycled polyester and Tencel Lyocell. They also have initiated a recycling program in which customers can bring in their old clothing to the H&M storefront for recycling and receive a discount upon purchase. This acts as incentive for consumers to help H&M in their sustainable and climate positive goal.
As a fast fashion company, I think H&M needs to further expand their quest to becoming more eco-friendly. They produce so much waste from production, and even past the point of sale, that the damage it’s having on our environment is disturbing. Now I say I appreciate their efforts, however, I am very suspicious if they are making these commitments out of the goodness of their hearts and a true desire to become sustainable, or because they were caught and flagged as basically killing out planet one shirt at a time. I understand the argument could be made that as long as the fast fashion company is attempting to better themselves, what does the motive matter but it’s frustrating that they aren’t truly disgusted with the waste they are producing and they don’t see how bad it is for the earth.
6,000 kg of fashion waste
The problem doesn’t lie solely with H&M, it’s all fast-fashion companies and this trend of needing more “stuff ” and purchasing the newest and most popular fashion trends. So I think we can throw blame at the consumer too for fueling these companies and continuously buying more clothing than they have room for. All in all, I say bravo to H&M for trying, hopefully other fast-fashion companies will follow suite and consumers will demand sustainability from these companies in the future.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/04/04/clothing-giant-handm-vows-to-use-only-sustainable-materials-by-203_a_22026064/
III
Virtual Reality: Growth Engine for Fashion?
Tommy Hilfiger
Apple’s iPhone has only been around for 10 years. That fact is mindblowing for many, myself included, especially considering how prevalent iPhone’s and other smart technology are in our day to day lives. Technology has changed the way we interact with others, how we travel, how we view the world, and more recently has taken roots in the world of fashion. A development in the tech world, that has grown to be more mainstream, is the use of VR (virtual reality) and AR (augmented reality), views of the world that have become “new mediums of human experience.”
Fashion and technology are joining forces and basically planning world domination in my opinion. You have the top industries in the world, that are worth trillions, coming together for the purpose of giving consumers a new experience and ultimately selling products. Fashion started out slow, dipping its toe in the waters of e-commerce for about 20 years, until it became fully immersed, with all the up to date brands taking digital seriously. Now the fashion industry is venturing into the world of VR/AR and studying the reactions from consumers with this technology in their everyday purchases. This distorted experience of reality could interact with fashion from the development stage up to the point of sale. Virtual simulations of store environments could help retailers test out different store environments and get a feel for what they want. In October of 2015, Tommy Hilfiger even gave out virtual reality headsets in its stores so shoppers could experience the label’s A/W fashion show. Other fashion brands are following suite with this VR fashion show trend. Stores are also adopting augmented reality dressing rooms so consumers can see how they would looks in an outfit without the hassle of having to actually try anything on. I think a big debate is if these incorporations of VR and AR into fashion is simply a marketing gimmick or is it offering
legitimate value and honestly I think it’s a little bit of both. In the world we live in today, we are always trying to be sold something and there’s no changing that unless you go live under a rock. I’m bored of the antiquated ways of advertising and being sold on something, so if a brand incorporates a new virtual platform to get me to purchase their product, I’m all for it. I don’t mind if it is a marketing hack, it’s something new and exciting. The future of fashion and technology is moving along at a quick pace and I think everyone simply needs to accept it, hop on the tech bandwagon, and enjoy the ride.
https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/fashion-tech/virtual-reality-growth-engine-for-fashion
AR Dressing Room
IV
The Fashion Industry VS. Plus-Sized
It’s no secret that the fashion industry has always been prejudice when it comes to plus-sized women, if you’re not a size two, then the clothing won’t work on you as the designer envisioned it. This concept is honestly absurd to me. The argument I want to make is, ‘it’s 2017 people, get with it’ but that’s not a solid foundation for an argument so I think a focus on the facts might be better. According to recent research, “the average American woman is now a size 16 to 18,” average meaning most of the United States population of women. That’s a vast majority of women the fashion industry is neglecting to pay special attention to and therefore are missing out on a prime opportunity. Reading up on how clothing companies devise their ‘range’ of sizes, I found they take one, fit model and simply scale up and down based solely upon that model’s measurements. The resulting products are clothing articles that are fitting in some areas and drowning others. Clearly this is an issue. Every woman is built different and the fit models companies are using aren’t depicting a wide enough range of women. Now understandably, there is no way a clothing company could create something that would work for every body type under the sun, but simply using a model that’s a size 16 and then scaling from those measurements would improve things.
Nike Seeing that it IS 2017, I propose fashion companies pull their heads out of the dirt and start appealing to the plus sized market. Women don’t want clothes that are boxy and they don’t want to feel bad for not being able to fit into what the industry calls the “standard” size 6. They want their unique shape to be celebrated with all their curves, no matter what size they are. It’s because these brands are creating such unflattering clothing for plus-sized women that there are low sales in that department and they view these low sales as meaning there’s no audience of larger-size customers, when in reality, those customers just don’t want to buy ugly clothes. I think in the long run, it would be in the best interests of fashion brands to start paying closer attention to their larger-size customers. These customers make up a majority of the market and they’d likely be willing to spend their money for clothing catering to their body shape, meaning more money for fashion brands.
https://qz.com/932354/the-stupid-reason-that-larger-clothes-fit-so-badly/
V
Fashion Over 40
Fashion editor Alyson Walsh created a blog called That’s Not My Age, as a reaction to the fact that people over 40 were no longer being shown in the media. As if after age 40, everything about you is deemed lame and unfashionable. The media hasn’t been much help in clearing this negative stigma. The only advertisements people over the age of 40 are featured in are for insurance policies or products strictly associated with older people.
Alyson Walsh Maye Musk
So the question remains, why are older people being shut out of media portrayal? In 2018, it is predicted that “there will be 20 million over-55’s in the UK, making up one in three of the population” (The Guardian). That’s a huge number to be neglecting. That’s just a prediction for the UK, imagine how vast a sum that must be in the United States. That’s millions of people with disposable income to spend that businesses are refusing to target because it’s not seen as socially ‘cool’ to represent old age in advertising. Ultimately, the issue remains with the negative connotation this society holds over old age. Old age is viewed as a weakness, when really it should be a feat to be celebrated.
Lyn Slater - face of Mango
Luckily, there are some companies who are beginning to take the hint that this older generation has money to spend and are including them in their target markets. A prime advocate of the mature adult is Grey Model Agency, which has over 300 men and women with wrinkles that are celebrated rather than scorned. The agency looks for models that appear fit and healthy with radiant complexions and find wrinkles to be more than acceptable. Regarding the start of her blog, Walsh noted that often older women are viewed as role models to younger women, and if younger women aren’t seeing enough of the older demographic in the media, where are they to look for leadership? Some brands have taken note, but at a cringe-worthy slow pace. It really doesn’t matter what the age, majority of women want to look good and refuse to remain invisible. The bottom line is that companies need to wake up. Start catering to the mature customer, represent the grey-hair and wrinkles, because at the end of the day, those are going to be the ones with the most money to spend.
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2017/apr/22/older-women-fashion-silver-pound
VI
The Influence of Microinfluencers
Microinfluencer Jess Tran
What is the key to product promotion? A few years ago, creating the perfect advertising campaign or having the “it” celebrity promote your product would have been enough ensure sales. However, 2017 promotion strategies have proved those old methods of product promotion to be insufficient. Specifically, these methods have become somewhat antiquated in the beauty brand market. Consumers are no longer entirely convinced when they see their favorite celebrity in an advertisement for a specific beauty brand, they want more. Thus came the influencers, beauty blogger or vloggers who show the consumers exactly how to use what they are considering purchasing and if it is worth the price. Many of these influencers were soon discovered by beauty brands, and paid promote their products on their blogs or vlogs, which, sadly, led to a decline in consumer trust in these influencers.
With influencers no longer having said influence on the market beauty brands wish to cater to, what’s left to snag consumer attention? Simple, the new influencers: microinfluencers. Microinfluencers are on a different playing field than their influencer counterparts. They are less reowned, have a smaller follower base, and therefore are able to interact on a more intimate level with their small follower base. The issue influencers represented was the fact that they were simply posting about beauty brands for the money they were receiving from said brands. Followers caught on to this, and no longer put complete trust in influencers. Instead, they became numb to what influencers were saying and ignored the paid content. Many beauty companies are beginning to launch new sets of products with the promotional aid of these microinfluencers, in order to hit a new target market, that being millennial women. Beauty brands using microinfluencers include Origins, Estee Lauder, and Elf. Elf has also created a microinfluencer initiative called Beautyscape, which brings together microinfluencers in order to try out the brand’s products and exchange ideas and techniques with each other. All in all, beauty brands are finally coming to the realization that their consumers want someone to engage with them in an authentic and intimate level and microinfluencers are the ultimate answer to consumer desires.
Microinfluencers, on the other hand, are still contacted by beauty brands, yet they refuse to stand behind products they themselves would not use. They have a small, loyal follower base that they are in intimate communication with and seek to promote products they feel their followers would genuinely appreciate. Their connections are more authentic and typically the products are a lower price point. There is an ease at marketing to their fanbase due to their authentic connection to them.
http://fashionista.com/2017/04/microinfluencers-beauty-brands-social-media
VII
Broken Department Stores
As of 2017, it has become common knowledge that department stores are receiving less and less foot traffic with each passing day. Some believe the digital revolution is to blame, with consumers turning to easy purchasing that is simply a click away. Others think maybe department stores are simply past their prime and no longer hold relevance in the society we live in today. Could it be that department stores are simply broken in terms of their fashion systems? The Council of Fashion Designers of America worked with the Boston Consulting Group to get down to the root of the broken system American department stores seem to be facing. The study determined that not only was there a misalignment of the industry’s runway and retail cycles, but in addition, so called early retail deliveries were equally as damaging to full-price sales potential. So what exactly does this mean? These early retail deliveries are sending shipments that are out of sync with the physical seasons, resulting in a necessary markdown during what should be a high selling period. European and Asian department stores are more like shops inside shops, they simply act as landlord for brands, so the brands are able to sell what they want when they want. Countering that is the American department store, which buys product from the brand and often carries certain demands of that brand like discounts on large orders or an exclusive multi-season line created solely for that department store. Another farce of the American department store is they ask brands to produce a product similar to what is already out there and doing well, so the mass of what trying to be sold becomes oversaturated and irrelevant. It all boils down to the root of the matter, fear. American department stores are fearful of their e-commerce competition and seem to be responding to that fear in an irrational way via lack of synchronicity with these early retail deliveries and the physical seasons. These American department stores are also acting out of greed by often forcing sellers to buy back product if the store is unable to sell it. The complexity of just how broken this department store system is insane.
Despite the complexity of the situation, there is a simple a solution. Selling clothes in season. Consumers typically want to buy clothing at the season they actually need it for, so would it not make more sense to give the people what they want? This would also aid in the issue of markdowns because department stores would be able to sell their merchandise at a time when people want it and therefore could have higher sell-throughs. Though this solution makes sense, department stores would have to endure one sour cycle in order to correct the situation and many are not willing to swallow their pride and take the risk, despite the long-term benefits. https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/bof-comment/why-american-department-stores-are-broken
VIII
American Factory Workers
When you think about unfair labor conditions in the garment industry, the typical picture that comes to mind are regarding factories outside the United States. What many people aren’t aware of is that there are unfair labor conditions within the bounds of our country, specifically in California. Another common misconception is that brands have no control over the poor conditions workers must face in order for their clothes to be produced, typically the factories are held at fault. While factory supervisors do hold a large portion of the blame, brands are much more responsible than one would think. In many garment factories in California, workers are paid at a piece rate. So for every article of clothing they complete, they’re paid for it. This method is meant to “motivate” workers to work quicker and turn out more clothing, but for many, it’s a necessity just to get enough money to feed their families. With the rise of fast fashion, workers are expected to turn out more clothing than ever before. This piece rate turns out to be much lower than the $10.50 minimum wage required by the state of California and few are willing to go up against factory owners to debate it for fear of being fired or threatened with deportation. Even if a worker turns out enough clothing to make the minimum wage, supervisors will then lower the piece rate just so they don’t have to pay them as much. So where do the brands fit in with all of this? A brand buyer will come in to the factory and say what they want the piece rate to be, factory owners debate that they need more for their workers in order to provide better equipment and safer working conditions, and the brand buyer threatens to take their business elsewhere should the factory owner not comply with the desired piece rate. So out of fear of losing business, the factory owner takes the lower piece rate and the workers suffer for it. At the end of the day, factories are churning out cheap, hastily made product just to make a higher turnaround time for fast fashion brands, all the while workers are struggling to make ends meat to keep their families afloat. The solution to this problem is difficult because it all comes down to human greed. The greed of the brands and the greed of the factory owners. If the state could manage to get a representative into these factories and regulate the minimum wage, all would be well, but things are never that simple. Until fast fashion dies out and people start focusing on quality over quantity, these factory workers may never see a fair wage and safe conditions to work in. https://www.racked.com/2017/5/2/15425728/factory-conditions-brands-los-angeles-worker
Trend Journal Spring 2017