Discussions about the fashion industry thread

[London]

The issues around "Inclusion" merit their own discussion, but the second part was pure pettiness and had detracted from his credibility.

"Milked him for information", the way he described it, seems just like they were just getting his opinion on things. Unless you are going to act as an arranger, have privileged access, etc..., no one gets any pay for that. As for his not getting a cover - that happens regardless of race. Unless you have it in writing, if someone bigger comes along, you are going to get bumped. None of that is racial. That's just a personal grievance he has with BoF.

sounds like milking for info to me in exchange for a cover. then they bailed. You have to read the full medium post

 

[LA Guy]

sounds like milking for info to me in exchange for a cover. then they bailed. You have to read the full medium post

I did read the full post - twice..I am not disputing whether or not he has a legitimate complaint against the BoF, I don't have enough information to decide one way or the other. However, that complaint does not have a racial slant.

 

[dieworkwear]

tattoo this on my face

 

[London]

I did read the full post - twice..I am not disputing whether or not he has a legitimate complaint against the BoF, I don't have enough information to decide one way or the other. However, that complaint does not have a racial slant.

To each their own

 

[RJman]

tattoo this on my face

#dieplainwear

 

[cb200]

tattoo this on my face

They raised $30 Million. What's the exit path for the investors?
*Looks like that's just recent funding. Reportedly $45 million raised so far. Apparently they're profitable too. Unlike say, Bonobos who just went through a round of layoffs under Walmarts ownership.

 

[bamgrinus]

I'm pretty sure Walmart knew they were going to gut Bonobos when they bought them. I think they wanted the brand more than they wanted the company itself.

 

[dieworkwear]

How Trump’s Tariffs Are Creating Jobs — for Canadians

A tariff loophole lets companies ship small boxes across the border duty free. So the huge shipments are now heading to warehouses in Canadian and Mexican border towns, instead of the U.S.

Excerpt:

A few months ago, Elliot Markillie started getting calls about small boxes.

He works for a logistics company near Vancouver, British Columbia, called a52 that handles distribution for big apparel and footwear brands. The brands source their goods from China and had just been hit with steep tariffs, on top of the duties already applied to clothes and shoes.

But, the brands had learned, there might be an out: According to U.S. customs rules, packages worth less than $800 — known as the de minimis threshold — don’t have to pay duties at all. They just have to ship items directly to consumers one at a time, rather than in bulk to stores or U.S.-based warehouses.

The result: Companies now have an incentive to use fulfillment centers in Canada and Mexico rather than the United States.

Here’s how it works. Instead of coming into the Port of Seattle, say, a shipping container or cargo plane full of Chinese goods comes into Vancouver, and pallets full of goods are transferred to a52’s warehouse. As goods are ordered from a52’s clients’ websites, they are individually packaged with a mailing label and sent via a courier service like UPS or FedEx across the border to their destination. There is no tariff code, because there is no tariff, and precious little other information about the contents of each package.

How Trump’s Tariffs Are Creating Jobs — for Canadians

A tariff loophole lets companies ship small boxes across the border duty free. So the huge shipments are now heading to warehouses in Canadian and Mexican border towns, instead of the U.S.

www.propublica.org

 

[dieworkwear]

yeesh

Savile Row tailor Gieves & Hawkes returns to profitability

Savile Row tailor Gieves & Hawkes, whose suits are popular with Prince Harry, on Wednesday said sales have slipped but it has returned to profitability. The Royal Warrant holder, part of Chinese textile group Ruyi, recorded a pre-tax profit of £149,764 in 2018, compared with a £1.6 million loss a year earlier.

Savile Row tailor Gieves & Hawkes returns to profitability

Savile Row tailor Gieves & Hawkes, whose suits are popular with Prince Harry, on Wednesday said sales have slipped but it has returned to profitability.

www.standard.co.uk

 

[LA Guy]

yeesh

Savile Row tailor Gieves & Hawkes returns to profitability

Savile Row tailor Gieves & Hawkes, whose suits are popular with Prince Harry, on Wednesday said sales have slipped but it has returned to profitability. The Royal Warrant holder, part of Chinese textile group Ruyi, recorded a pre-tax profit of £149,764 in 2018, compared with a £1.6 million loss a year earlier.

Savile Row tailor Gieves & Hawkes returns to profitability

Savile Row tailor Gieves & Hawkes, whose suits are popular with Prince Harry, on Wednesday said sales have slipped but it has returned to profitability.

www.standard.co.uk

Are you surprised? The businesses have very high overhead, low margins, rely on a product that is decreasing in popularity, and rely on not simply just B&M sales, but also a funnel for sales that is ever decreasing. I think that a lot of these houses are simply prestige holdings for Chinese firms these days, who can write them off as a minor expense.

 

[SimonC]

Are you surprised? The businesses have very high overhead, low margins, rely on a product that is decreasing in popularity, and rely on not simply just B&M sales, but also a funnel for sales that is ever decreasing. I think that a lot of these houses are simply prestige holdings for Chinese firms these days, who can write them off as a minor expense.

I'd agree for most bespoke houses, but recall that G&H has a fairly large RTW brand with a range of distribution channels (e.g. their own stores, department stores, their own online webshop, other retailers' webshops).

 

[clee1982]

wonder why G&H's RTW never came to the US though (or maybe it did in the past just not anymore)

 

[cchen]

I'd agree for most bespoke houses, but recall that G&H has a fairly large RTW brand with a range of distribution channels (e.g. their own stores, department stores, their own online webshop, other retailers' webshops).

Wholesale is a tiny, tiny part of the business.
Also to keep in mind, these are only the UK accounts, not the global business which is HQ'd in HK

 

[crazn]

Are you surprised? The businesses have very high overhead, low margins, rely on a product that is decreasing in popularity, and rely on not simply just B&M sales, but also a funnel for sales that is ever decreasing. I think that a lot of these houses are simply prestige holdings for Chinese firms these days, who can write them off as a minor expense.

I have seen the G&H RTW. its okay. i guess mainly made for china market.

 

[LA Guy]

I'd agree for most bespoke houses, but recall that G&H has a fairly large RTW brand with a range of distribution channels (e.g. their own stores, department stores, their own online webshop, other retailers' webshops).

huh. So, I had completely forgotten that they had done this. Looking on their site, it's very unclear to me what is their customer, either from the clothes or the pricepoint. Also, do they have any strong marketing or distribution outside of the UK? I honestly can't tell.