Jake Chicago Not Paying Its Bills?

[Cavalier]

Originally Posted by Mauro

^^ouch.
If that was to me, it's no disrespect to the affiliates but in a small town, I think it's important to support our small businesses. They help out the scene a lot here and are really struggling. It's cool to have a local store to go, check out and BS at. Like I said though, besides APC, there taste tends seems to reflect their SuFU tendencies so I gladly come to the affiliates for most of my business. Going to be purchasing a new pair of raw denim (at retail if it's the pair I decide to break in) from an affiliate in the next few weeks

 

[Cavalier]

Originally Posted by thekunk07

yeah boat shoes are a ***** to find.


Is this because I posted that I used to wear a pair of top siders? in my defense, it was years before I joined SF

 

[Mauro]

Cavalier I was referring to your response to Jakes. i am happy you support your local business's.

sonci- very true. I didn't even want o go there.

 

[sonicvoodoo]

I've dealt with GMMS and VPs of every major dept store in the US. Most don't even exist anymore because they've been bought out and combined. Dept. stores have ALL the leverage and can dictate a vendors business, and, today, because of the diminishing number of chains, they even have more power.

Fashion manufacturing is a very tough bus.

Specialty stores simply can not carry the same lines as dept. stores. They just can't compete.

 

[Epaulet]

Originally Posted by Lostinthesupermarket

The CIT thing is a huge story. It's really bad for the economy and not just in the US. They provide credit for all sorts of small and medium sized companies .

From Reuters:

CIT's problems surfaced two years ago in the wake of Chief Executive Jeffrey Peek's decision earlier in the decade to expand into subprime mortgages and student loans, both potentially highly profitable but fraught with added risk.

Turns out that there was quite a bit of added risk there.

 

[paulesquire1]

Originally Posted by Mauro

^^ouch.

Department stores suck and they possess great buying power but the greed of a designer is a part of the problem as well.
it seems like everyone wants the quick buck. It's horrible.
I am not better than anyone that's for sure but we WolfVsGoat lauches in fall it will grow at a small pace period. I will NOT sell to a department except for Barney ( if they have me) inside the U.S.
It's time to focus on quality not money.

paul- it's sad and true I blame the designer. The retailer places a larger order because they are strong armed into minimums. That has a lot to do with factory minimums so the designer can keep it's cost down.

sonic- sorry to here that.

Best,
Mauro

that's true as well. there are some brands that don't require minimums but they aren't what high end retailers carry. i'm glad to hear your scaling back with the brands that are selling well. i wish more retailers were responsible as you and realize they can't be everything and stick with what they do best. good luck with the brand and it's safer to start with small specialty stores and grow than whore it out to the bullies. i've seen our brand grow from less than $100k to $3mil in less than 5 yrs. selling specialty stores in the dirty south.

 

[constant struggle]

Originally Posted by Lostinthesupermarket

The CIT thing is a huge story. It's really bad for the economy and not just in the US. They provide credit for all sorts of small and medium sized companies .

CIT is only 1-2% of total of these loans... countrywide... yeah it hurts, but they aren't too big to fail

 

[constant struggle]

Originally Posted by Teger

so like, you have no idea what you're talking about, right?

I am pretty sure I have a much better idea than you.

 

[paulesquire1]

Originally Posted by sonicvoodoo

I've dealt with GMMS and VPs of every major dept store in the US. Most don't even exist anymore because they've been bought out and combined. Dept. stores have ALL the leverage and can dictate a vendors business, and, today, because of the diminishing number of chains, they even have more power.

Fashion manufacturing is a very tough bus.

Specialty stores simply can not carry the same lines as dept. stores. They just can't compete.

when brands sell out, this is what happens. discount up front, sometimes puttig it out on the floor at a sale price to begin with, and then ask for mark down money. i don't blame the brands when they do because the higher execs want the volume and push to get in so their numbers are higher. some need to get in to survive and get one last order from somebody big and then fail. small brands are so much safer dealing with hundreds of specialty stores than majors. sell majors when it's peaked, license it out after, and buy some boat shoes for the yacht.

 

[Rye GB]

Originally Posted by paulesquire1

small brands are so much safer dealing with hundreds of specialty stores than majors. sell majors when it's peaked, license it out after, and buy some boat shoes for the yacht.

Requote for 100% truthiness.

 

[atuhsad]

Originally Posted by Mauro

.

I have cut my designers back to the ones I know that will sell. The catch is will the consumer purchase my "BUY' what I am selling. If a young designer or established designer wants to be in my store they will sell me on my terms and my terms only. I can't take a risk of trying new brands anymore and won't be subject to what Jakes is going through.


How about taking new designers on consignment only? I know a few stores in NYC are contemplating doing this. I dont think it mitigates the risk that the designer has with not getting paid as discussed in the Jake article, but it could be a nice way for the store / boutique to carry some new lines/products/items/etc while limiting the amount of excess inventory that the store may have from items not selling, and thus reducing their risk of loss as they only pay for what sells. Ofcourse, I would imagine that the designer would not prefer to have an arrangement like this, but if they are new/trying to establish a customer base/recognition, it would be something viable for them to consider, no?

 

[Mauro]

^^ very true.
It's what I want to do however consigment is a dirty word in this industry. I think anyone who cuts over stock or wants to be in high profile specialty stores would want to make this arangment.
There are to many factors but a good contract and the willingness to do good business might make designers think about it.
Pride and other emotions not to mention tracking inventory can be the only hangs ups. I have a plan I just hope it works.

 

[DeadDJ]

Originally Posted by constant struggle

Stores should manage inventory much better so they don't have to sell so many things on sale, and until they do, the consumer will take advantage of them.
Some are. linking to this story from Bloomberg
"Saks Inc., Neiman Marcus Group Inc. and other luxury retailers are reducing orders this year to limit supply and boost profitability.

The cuts may rein in what Saks Chief Executive Officer Stephen Sadove calls the "enormous excess" that existed last year in stores that cater to the wealthy.

"Across the board you are going to find less of the sizes, less of the availability in almost all of the categories," Sadove, 57, said yesterday in a telephone interview. "You are probably going to see less aggressive markdowns than you saw last year." Saks operates 53 Saks Fifth Avenue stores.

The company, based in New York, is aiming to order at least 20 percent less from its vendors in 2009 and forecasts a jump in gross margin."

Originally Posted by Mauro

I think there is a HUGE mis-understand in the margins in retail for the designer and retailer. Once again blamed on department stores with their HUGE ******* sales that go back to the designer and ask them for money so their margins can be whole. Small stores don't get that, they go out of business.

Originally Posted by sonicvoodoo

department stores buy off price/discounted goods up front to average out costs. Their margins on sale goods is not as bad as it seems.,,and if they get too low they return to the vendor and ask for "markdown $$$"
Again, revealing my ignorance on the issue - department stores regularly request money from the designer and vendor when their margins get too low? Seriously? Is this also regular business practice across the board, similar to delivery with deferred payment? I wish to God I could find the article I read a couple months back where designers were trying to limit discounts on their goods at department stores.

 

[Mauro]

^^ it's very true.
Designers are trying to cut back on giving markdown dollars but some designers are in such a rut they can't.
Investors want growth and are use to big returns .
I will give an example ( just an example)
Band of outsiders is in Saks and Saks ordered $1 million dollars for 2008 and their sell through wasn't that great. Saks will go to Band and say we will write X dollars next year if you give us 200k back or deduct it from out bill. Now if band says NO Saks will drop the line and 2009 band will lose 1 million bucks in business.
It's a nasty game.
Store like me on the other hand don't get a cent back pretty much not matter what. However if we pay our bills and have a good relationship with the company they might let swap out product if they have other product left.
The best part is it's the specialty stores that give the brands the buzz and the department stores that kill it but in the end it's the department stores with all the power.

 

[DeadDJ]

Aaaaaaaaahhhh much appreciated. This thread is giving me a better idea of why everyone hates department stores. Good thing I'm not located near any and their online stores have always been terrible.