Discussions about the fashion industry thread

[Epaulet]

Isn't Southwick set to shutter in July? And the tie factory following in August?

My understanding is that a large percentage of the employees at Southwick have already been laid off. The plans for the standalone Southwick brand has been terminated. At the moment, a small number of people have been allowed to come back to make facial masks.

The US government and Southwich have also butted heads on how the government would support the facial mask efforts. In April, Claudio was on a phone call with the White House, along with 10 or 20 other fashion-related CEOs. The WH said they could "elevate" the efforts with praise on Ivanka's Twitter account (influencer marketing!), but that they wanted these efforts to be market-driven and thus won't be providing any federal aid. Notably, in the same month, the US Navy tried to get hundreds of thousands of masks from Brooks, but without clear terms on how they would pay. At the moment, the Brooks manufacturing effort is mostly limited to selling stuff to everyday people, which seems again unstainable.

I don't want to add to any of the speculation, but Southwick has been a crucial partner for the past 10 years, and I'm in regular communication with the senior management of Brooks about things. There is a NYT story just out today on things, but you can read between the lines that things are very much in flux. Nothing is really confirmed or stated. Couple of thoughts...

1) Southwick is a huge facility with highly trained employees, a cooperative local government, and a flexible union.
2) It has a significant existing client list and the ability to run both stock and custom garments

These established clothing factories have a way of finding new owners and new management. It's insanely expensive to start one, so there's often entities who will look to purchase something existing. It was bought by Bayer Clothing in 1999. Then acquired by Brooks in 2008. I can't predict anything, but the idea that a turnkey suiting factory will be shuttered and written off entirely would be unlikely.

I honestly don't know anything about the Garland factory, and I only visited the tie facility one time to set up my own tie production. I can't comment on how viable they are or not. I can say that the capital investment of that suit factory is WAY higher, so Southwick would be the most attractive of the three to sell or reinvest in. It's just such a mammoth loss otherwise.

 

[clee1982]

In general I think asking clothing factory to mask is just not "efficient", it is a temporary solution, but in the long run if the US is going to subsidize, then subsidize a proper mask factory in the US would be way better.

Taiwan makes more than 20 million mask a day (government goal was a mask a person a day), China makes more than 200 million mask a day, even if all the US clothing factories add together can they make say 50 million mask a day?

Regarding to Southwick, you have better eye than I do, certainly do hope they survive, but I have not seen anything I want to buy unfortunately...

On Hertling, just look at their MTO thread..., I only give them a pass because it's Made in USA (and infinite discount...), I'm sure their retail partner business is more focused, but as far as DTC wise, had it been anywhere else at least I personally would have go, screw this level of customer service and late delivery (and they go down the spiral of let me do some discount to get people on board, then people feel like, well at worst I can credit card charge back, then cycle continue)...

edit: I mean if the US can do farm subsidy, then it's a matter of public will (definitely next level though) to do clothing subsidy, it's not as "efficient", but we have already established there are value that people appreciate to have it made in USA, why not just be more blunt about it if we truly want to do it...

 

[cb200]

I mean if the US can do farm subsidy, then it's a matter of public will (definitely next level though) to do clothing subsidy, it's not as "efficient", but we have already established there are value that people appreciate to have it made in USA, why not just be more blunt about it if we truly want to do it...

I think you need to look at the perception of who's done the work in apparel and where the labor has been done vs the story for farming. There's no wholesome family farm mythic equivalent in apparel despite the factory farming realities of our modern ag businesses being far from homey.

 

[clee1982]

No doubt (trying to justify the strategic importance of making suit/shirt/tie domestically in front of anyone...), but then same cycle repeat

complain about no US made goods
wouldn't buy US made goods at retail
wonder why manufacturer for US made goods goes under

if there is truly a well for "hi we're willing to pay above market rate to keep them alive", then do it up front, be it direct subsidy/tax cut/import duty. It will be un American, it will cost more, it won't be efficient, on macro level people would be worse off (but you will help some domestically manufacturer), but if that's what we want, at least we're honest transparent about it

 

[Sartorium]

if there is truly a well for "hi we're willing to pay above market rate to keep them alive", then do it up front, be it direct subsidy/tax cut/import duty. It will be un American, it will cost more, it won't be efficient, on macro level people would be worse off (but you will help some domestically manufacturer), but if that's what we want, at least we're honest transparent about it

I think the answer is that it's just not what people want. We might get a skewed idea of how popular these ideas are in our clothing nerd bubble, but the demand to keep MiUSA heritage clothing makers alive just isn't there at scale. Think of it this way: how many people are going to change their vote for the MiUSA clothing subsidy bill? I'd be shocked if you got to 100,000.

Farm subsidies are necessary because food is necessary. If the actual cost of food were borne directly at the consumer end, I suspect a huge portion of the population would have to choose between rioting and going hungry. No one is going to flood the streets over the cost of Hertling pants.

 

[Epaulet]

I think the answer is that it's just not what people want. We might get a skewed idea of how popular these ideas are in our clothing nerd bubble, but the demand to keep MiUSA heritage clothing makers alive just isn't there at scale. Think of it this way: how many people are going to change their vote for the MiUSA clothing subsidy bill? I'd be shocked if you got to 100,000.

Farm subsidies are necessary because food is necessary. If the actual cost of food were borne directly at the consumer end, I suspect a huge portion of the population would have to choose between rioting and going hungry. No one is going to flood the streets over the cost of Hertling pants.

Agreed with @Sartorium . Our government talks a big game about supporting domestic manufacturing, but they absolutely neglect to do it in most cases. And that's a bipartisan neglect.

Farming is a different story. It's not so much the wholesome story of American farmers as it is...

1) Food is necessary (as Sartorium said), and the populace will be deeply upset if prices go up. You saw how quickly the meatpacking employees were forced back to work after the COVID scare.

2) Agriculture is a huge and dominant industry in many rural states. And rural states wield a disproportionate amount of federal power due to the Senate. They get what they want when it comes to this.

3) Food security is necessary for the country, and we can't totally depend on imports. Although I'm sure that there's people would would be fine with that if it earned them more money.

 

[clee1982]

Just so to be clear, I have no doubt food is more important, and to be clear I'm also sure there are no public support on a national level for Made in USA clothe subsidy (and that includes even majority of SF). I mean I personally wouldn't, for starter I can't vote, and two I don't see it's necessary (if they go away, oh well...), was purely throwing out idea for discussion purpose.

Also we can't make same argument to protect say hi tech. for national security reason vs. clothe, about the "only" thing I can think of is import duty, somehow people are not ok with direct subsidy but can the same time be ok with import duty...

basically in short all can I say is, no solution other than watch more go away...

 

[dieworkwear]

It's true that countries need to secure their food supply, but the US subsidies for agriculture seem to be mostly driven by politics. They result in overproduction of some things (e.g. corn) and are terribly inefficient in terms of welfare. Personally would not want to see that system applied to garment manufacturing.

The US should invest more in innovation and R&D, however. Whether that means in areas related to fashion, I don't know. But I think investing more in innovation and incubation would be a much smarter use of policy than subsidies and tariffs.

 

[double00]

@double00, If by "establish a basis of value" you mean ensure a specific degree of quality in either the final product or in the manufacturing process, then I think 'made in usa' is not a reliable indicator of either of those nor is it sufficient as a strategy to accomplish those ends.

Products at every point along the continuum of "quality" are manufactured within the usa, and labor practices ranging from despicable to admirable are to be found as well. The same can be said of many of the countries which "made in the usa" is used to market against.

If I've misunderstood your terminology though, maybe this isnt what you were trying to get at.

sorry for delay if moved on no worries...

i mean that the imperative for consumption begins with the consumer, functional or ethical or otherwise. i really like domestic industry for the sake of experiential response, fit, standard, etc etc. not just here (us) but in general.

can you elaborate a bit on what do you mean by basis of value?

what is being produced/consumed? and on what basis? a starting point for negotiating scale, trade, etc. meaningful product originates domestically, even produced elsewhere.

***

imo we are likely at the very nadir of domestic manufacturing in the us.

 

[clee1982]

It's true that countries need to secure their food supply, but the US subsidies for agriculture seem to be mostly driven by politics. They result in overproduction of some things (e.g. corn) and are terribly inefficient in terms of welfare. Personally would not want to see that system applied to garment manufacturing.

The US should invest more in innovation and R&D, however. Whether that means in areas related to fashion, I don't know. But I think investing more in innovation and incubation would be a much smarter use of policy than subsidies and tariffs.

Yup and that’s all our traditional thinking until COVID 19 makes you realize even something as low tech as mask is suddenly in short supply,

now if everyone work together then everyone get more out of it, but reality was production State starts export control or if not explicit then implicit, got to feed domestic audience first.

one can easily argue medical should be re shore but if mask need to be re shored then literately everything medical needs to be (including all the cheap generic drug).

I don’t think any of these apply to clothe, just making general comment on keep moving up the value chain while out source the “cheaper” part has definitely caught people buy surprise even when there is no malice on the other side

 

[hendrix]

It's true that countries need to secure their food supply, but the US subsidies for agriculture seem to be mostly driven by politics. They result in overproduction of some things (e.g. corn) and are terribly inefficient in terms of welfare. Personally would not want to see that system applied to garment manufacturing.

The US should invest more in innovation and R&D, however. Whether that means in areas related to fashion, I don't know. But I think investing more in innovation and incubation would be a much smarter use of policy than subsidies and tariffs.

yeah there's very little logical reason to subsidise dairy it's a terribly destructive industry and it's not even healthy anyway

the US produces plenty of food tbh, and will probably always do so without any subsidisation. It's very geographically lucky and with modern farming technology it's actually more efficient than the likes of China and India.

it's a similar story with Canada which actually outcompetes the likes of India in terms of lentil production.

OTOH you have the likes of Egypt, once the breadbasket of the mediterranean, now a net importer of wheat.

 

[cb200]

But I think investing more in innovation and incubation would be a much smarter use of policy than subsidies and tariffs.

There's a whole world of skilled crafts people and suppliers who have been needed to support up and coming designers. When those skills and businesses are gone in an area they are hard to replace.

Inovation and incubation used to happen in garment districts where small suppliers and factories created an eco system where skills sets, resources, and labour were readily available. Start up designers could get a pattern maker, technical designer, source fabrics and trim, and get sample production done within a few blocks. Small runs from a factory were also possible and QC could happen by taking a cab or driving over.

Some of that could be replaced or updated but those grew out of industry health and opportunities that existed. I agree subsidies and tariffs won't bring back ecosystems for apparel design, development, and production back. I don't think free trade and open markets are going to protect a domestic apparel base either. The opportunity for new and small brands, I believe, is assisted by domestic production in any country.

For government assistance in the US anyway the Berry Amendment does ensure some production infrastructure exists in the US. As it is tied to the department of defence and govenrment procurement contracts there's lots of criticisms and accusations of cronyism. Fun politics. New Balance's lobbying to add athletic shoes to the amendment was a bit of a news story a few years ago as it was tied to the TPP trade negotiations and support of a particular president who it might have been seen as bad marketing for athletic brands to be seen supporting.

I heard yesterday of a local factory closing down. Was running since the 80s. Owner's just going to retire and sell off the building. Likely won't even get a a story in the news paper. I don't have an answer. I'd like to see more small smart domestic production. Maybe that's in the future on the other side of what ever this year is.

 

[clee1982]

I have zero experience in garment industry, but I would think there is still a ton of room in terms of automation (might not be economical for "any" single one, need like Zara level of scale?), wonder what kind company is in that kind of niche.

 

[jah786]

Shocked about Hill City. the best thing to come out of the Gap universe in years. Almost the anti-GAP, a brand with a point of view making interesting apparel that seemed relevant. I bought some of their pieces myself. I wonder why it was stopped other than the obvious, didn't make enough money, ROI, etc. Was the male focus too narrow, i.e. not enough customers, what happened? Seemed like a promising start to a brand that would be around for years and years.

Enjoying the MiU debate on this thread, which is something I've dedicated the last 6+ years of my full time working life to. The viewpoints I've read all have degrees of validity (IMO), there is no right answer on whether to support domestic production or how to. You either see the reasons as valid and support it, or you don't find the reasons compelling and it isn't a big part of your purchasing calculus. To me, there's no judgment either way. In the end, it is my job to make my products and their story compelling, and if I can do that, it helps MiU and if I can't, then it is the BB story again.

This is my favorite thread on SF. Cheers to you all for interesting and informative discussion and respectful debate.

 

[GoldenTribe]

Shocked about Hill City. the best thing to come out of the Gap universe in years. Almost the anti-GAP, a brand with a point of view making interesting apparel that seemed relevant. I bought some of their pieces myself. I wonder why it was stopped other than the obvious, didn't make enough money, ROI, etc. Was the male focus too narrow, i.e. not enough customers, what happened? Seemed like a promising start to a brand that would be around for years and years.

This may or may not illuminate anything, but I literally had never once in my life heard of the brand "Hill City" until someone posted that they were shutting down -- not on on this forum, not from anyone else in "real life," and not even as a consequence of walking by the enormous GAP store in downtown Toronto at least once or twice a week.

That said, they would have had their work cut out for them competing directly against the likes of Nike, UnderArmour, Lululemon and so on, if that's what it they were going for. But at the same time, if that experiment failed, I have to wonder how their core-brand business is still carrying on with H&M, Zara, Old Navy Frank & Oak etc. crowding into their space (and people I know turn up their noses at the GAP more than any of those brands) ...