Jake Chicago Not Paying Its Bills?

[icanfly012]

Originally Posted by 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.

And on top of getting markdown money, department stores tend to get better wholesale prices. This was especially true when women's designer denim was all the rage.

 

[Mauro]

they would get a discount because of volume but i think sometimes it was tied into their markdown money.

 

[sonicvoodoo]

there are many ways for vendors to disguise "markdown $$$"..sometimes it's just called markdown $$$ but sometimes vendors need to be creative and create euphemisms..like "advertising allowances"..or "pressing allowances" or "late delivery allowances"...it all boils down to $$$ to dept stores that subsidizes their sales and help them maintain respectable margins.

also, manufacturers have excess production that they need to fill in order to keep their factories working so they don't mind discounting goods to dept stores. It keeps their factories busy and helps the stores.

 

[skunkworks]

Mauro, is Barneys in a slightly different category than the other department stores, e.g. Saks, Neimans? You seem to have a different opinion of them than others. I want to know whether I should feel a slight twinge of guilt for buying stuff there over other smaller retailers b/c of deep discounts.

 

[Rye GB]

Originally Posted by skunkworks

Mauro, is Barneys in a slightly different category than the other department stores, e.g. Saks, Neimans? You seem to have a different opinion of them than others. I want to know whether I should feel a slight twinge of guilt for buying stuff there over other smaller retailers b/c of deep discounts.
I hear less gossip about barneys business practices than bullish behavior from other department stores.

 

[thekunk07]

my friend sells to macy's and they are essentially extortionists from everything she says.

 

[icanfly012]

Originally Posted by Mauro

they would get a discount because of volume but i think sometimes it was tied into their markdown money.

That is true but I know 7 for All Mankind gave really good wholesale rates to department stores especially after they were acquired by VF Corporation.

 

[sonicvoodoo]

When I was in the bus, I used to deal with Gene Pressmen a lot. Gene is the grandson of Barney Pressmen and was as bad as or worse then any dept store. I realize that Barney's has since been sold but my guess is that they would be no different. and BTW, they have been trying to sell Barney's for quite some time but it's now worth just a fraction of what the current buyers paid for it......and, as a side note Neimans is also in big trouble

With all due respect to Mauro and other affiliate retailers,no consumer should ever feel guilty about buying from anyone who isn't braking any laws and or abusing their employees.

This is business and apparel manufacturers and retailers chose to engage in a particularly tough bus. They both have choices. I made my choice and left the industry but there is no way that I wouldn't take advantage of any sale from anyone.

 

[sonicvoodoo]

Originally Posted by thekunk07

my friend sells to macy's and they are essentially extortionists from everything she says.

they use their leverage not unlike anyone else in any other business. If vendors could survive without them they simply wouldn't sell them.

They can't


period

 

[dfagdfsh]

Originally Posted by constant struggle

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

well, as you clearly do the accounting for self edge and many other retailers...

the only people who know about jake's situation are the owners of jake and their creditors

 

[CityHunter]

Kinda off topic, but slightly on:
Wasn't there a similar scenario a while back about a boutique that wouldn't pay their bills (to KMW, iirc) and members from this board were plotting to go to the store and either intimidate the boutique or take the merchandise themselves (and of course, give it back to KMW)?

Or have I completely lost it?

 

[dfagdfsh]

Originally Posted by CityHunter

Kinda off topic, but slightly on:
Wasn't there a similar scenario a while back about a boutique that wouldn't pay their bills (to KMW, iirc) and members from this board were plotting to go to the store and either intimidate the boutique or take the merchandise themselves (and of course, give it back to KMW)?

Or have I completely lost it?

there was a thread about this but I don't think anything came of it...

 

[botfc]

Originally Posted by Mauro

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.

I agree about the buzz but not fully sure departments stores are solely responsible for this, as brands have the choice of blowing up (but losing control of the business aspect to investors or major distributors) or keeping it relatively independent by growing more organically.

 

[DesignerValet]

I refuse to believe that the consumer is to blame for huge sales. How can someone on a budget (and 95% of shoppers have relatively little to spend) be blamed for trying to get the best bang for their buck?

For me, the designer clothing I buy at 40-70% off aren't clothes I would buy (or could afford to buy) at retail. A $300 shirt I buy on sale for $100 doesn't mean that I would've bought the shirt without the discount (and thereby make more for the retailer and label) but rather that I bought an excellent quality shirt instead of a couple passable quality Gap/J. Crew ones.

It's not that I like being a "sale" customer at the stores I frequent, but rather that grossly overpriced clothing forces me into that position. When Prada is charging $920 for a made-in-Romania nylon jacket, you know that pricing scales are completely out of whack with what the vast majority of consumers can honestly afford to spend.

 

[Lostinthesupermarket]

The whole concept of "value" is pretty nebulous when it comes to fashion items. As Fuuma said elsewhere
what fashion is "worth" in the marketplace is a function of the emotional payoff it delivers to the individual consumer. As a result the profit margins for "hot" brands (particularly mainstream ones) are enormous. They are selling dreams and can charge what they like. Pricing is certainly not set by their cost of production.

Of course for every hot brand there are a hundred cold ones that lose their investors a load of money.