Random fashion thoughts - Part II (A New Hope)

[Krish the Fish]



FWIW the people who make bots for buying hyped sneakers now make bots for Kylie Jenner lipkits.

My girlfriend bought some Kylie Jenner lip kits for her sister (who's a senior in high school) and tried one of them. Apparently it made her skin break out. So there's that. I don't get the hype, but then again I'm also bourbon chasing this fall so who am I to talk.

 

[LA Guy]

Yea, but realistically nobody follows that and it's never prosecuted. And fashion media is somewhat international (although still mostly based in the US). For IG, some of the biggest influencers are abroad.

I think there are biases all over the place if you're creating content. Maybe you're friends with the owner of a brand, or you get your info some X source and don't want to break relationships. So even if you're not taking money or whatever, you might still have your biases. It's hard to create completely objective content, but you can be better or worse at your work.

I know some content creators who will literally say anything if you pay them. In fact, some won't even say anything until they're paid -- meaning, even if they like what you do, they won't promote you until you pay them. It's ridiculous.

If you're creating content, I think the best you can do is try to be as honest as possible. I work for a guy who takes media professionalism really seriously, so I think that's helped me learn the importance of this stuff, but for some guys who are just starting out, I think it's really easy to slip and let your opinions be swayed by all sorts of things.

One of the worst things to come out of this, I think, is a cynical part of the internet who think everything is shilling. It's like extreme political groups who think every politician is corrupt because a few have been caught. It creates a lot of disillusionment and cynicism that I think then makes it hard to create any kind of content, even good stuff.

I like Jesse, but I have issues with what I perceive to be his overly strident way of doing things. I think that the real issue that I have with Jesse's POV is that I don't fundamentally believe that there is fashion "journalism". I mean, once in a while, yes, you have a real investigative piece on some company abusing workers, or whatever, but c'mon, to call fashion writing journalism is really over-elevating its importance.

Yes, there should be a degree of professionalism. I personally feel that our guidelines (which are essentially - no reviews paid for in cash or in kind) and the FTC guidelines, are pretty adequate, and should be followed. IMO, going beyond that is trying to elevate wrtiing about what is fundamentally a pretty frivolous topic to the fourth estate, which is important to political discourse, much less so in discussions of whether Kiton is better than Attolini, or whether Rick Owens is awesome, or sucks, or whether Kanye is a genius, an idiot, or an idiot savant.

 

[LA Guy]

Incidentally, and I just got this today, but we get this stuff all the time, and I am sure that other publications do as well:


Quote: How are you?

I came across your excellent gaming site: http://styleforum.net

How much would it be for an article placement with a do-follow link to a leading gaming/casino brand in the main content area of the article, taking into account the 3 points below:

• We will get the content written. The content will be of excellent quality and will fit the topic/nature of your site.
• The article is not marked as sponsored and will stay on the site permanently even if it rolls over into the archives.
• We will pay you via Paypal once the article is live.

Please update me with a price and will speak to the client ASAP.

Thanks so much.

Regards,


We would clearly never go for this, for any number of reasons. But stuff like this is pretty prevalent online.

 

[dieworkwear]



I like Jesse, but I have issues with what I perceive to be his overly strident way of doing things.  I think that the real issue that I have with Jesse's POV is that I don't fundamentally believe that there is fashion "journalism."

I know what you mean, and I struggle with the idea of fashion journalism as well, but in actual policy, I think Jesse has a really good sense for media ethics. There's stuff I've disagreed with him in the past, only to come back and realize that he's right. I don't think he's strident in actual policy, but he takes media professionalism really seriously. Whether he and I would disagree on the idea of "fashion journalism," I don't think he's been wrong about how to create honest media -- at least as honest as you can get it in this new space. It's not perfect, but better than what happens elsewhere (free products and money explicitly exchanged for positive reviews/ endorsements).

 

[Parker]

Once again, I'm a total whore for that and love totalizing ideas about looks, I've probably read this book 8-10 times:

https://www.amazon.com/Please-Kill-Me-Uncensored-History/dp/0802142648

I wore Repetto zizi because of Gainsbourg, etc etc. I fail to see how an influence made me buy something out of a marketing strategy or how it would work nowadays (in the current environment) though. I think the conclusions that it works are really fuzzy.

Iggy has and still makes me get unfortunate haircuts, that has to count for something, right?

^ Can't belive I haven't read that. Just bought. -- Also what are you drinking!?

 

[dieworkwear]



^ Can't belive I haven't read that. Just bought.  -- Also what are you drinking!?

#influencer!

 

[RegisDB9]

I decided to go down the Margiela rabbit hole becuase of one picture:

Margiela used to have an archive on their site.....and now look at me

 

[Rais]

Really enjoyed reading the last few pages of discussion. This is why I will always prefer forums/message boards as my social media of choice. I found Instagram so boring.

 

[Parker]



#influencer!

Haha! Totally.

 

[il_colonnello]



Really? I read that same interview and thought it was nice to see someone be so refreshingly honest.

It's probably the ugliest part of fashion, but the democratization of anything inevitably makes that thing feel less special.

Raf's comment was partly about that, but also about the speed in which designer fashion is now produced. It's more and more like fast fashion nowadays -- more collections (pre holiday, pre fall, pre whatever), more clothes, more people wearing it, more mass-market gimmicks (see what gets shown at Vetements' shows vs what actually gets picked up by stores).

He obviously struggled with this in that last documentary about him. Hated the pace, hated the pressure, etc. I thought it was nice seeing a designer be so forthright about something that has this slightly ugly, anti-populist dynamic.

Sure, but my point was how does all that square with his appointment at Calvin Klein? You can't have your cake and eat it. There is a little inconsistency between yearning for a past when fashion, including his own work, was restricted to a small circle of super-committed freaks, and accepting what's probably one of the world's highest paid jobs in mass-market fashion. Arguably Calvin Klein is a mass-market brand if ever there was one. If he wanted to cater to a niche audience, Dior Couture was as niche as it gets, even though of course I realise that the niche audience of his own label ca. 1998 was not quite the same as Dior's in 2015.

When he left Dior, he gave all the reasons you have enumerated and the whole industry went "oh yes he's so right, it's terrible what fashion has come to, the speed, the craze..." Then, he waits just long enough for his contractual cooling-off period to be over before accepting the next corporate top job. Perhaps he'll prove everybody wrong when he has actually been at Calvin Klein for a few years, but for now a lot of the people who nodded their heads so understandingly are wondering how any of this is going to be different at CK.

 

[LA Guy]

I know what you mean, and I struggle with the idea of fashion journalism as well, but in actual policy, I think Jesse has a really good sense for media ethics. There's stuff I've disagreed with him in the past, only to come back and realize that he's right. I don't think he's strident in actual policy, but he takes media professionalism really seriously. Whether he and I would disagree on the idea of "fashion journalism," I don't think he's been wrong about how to create honest media -- at least as honest as you can get it in this new space. It's not perfect, but better than what happens elsewhere (free products and money explicitly exchanged for positive reviews/ endorsements).

I really don't feel that there is any real danger in explicit commercial agreements, unless that's how little we are going to trust people's judgement.

I think that the waters get much murkier when the sponsorship is NOT made explicit, (which is what the FTC is apparently going to be going after) and where there is not just an endorsement (I mean, if a moron thinks that a sports star wears Nike because it performs better than Underarmor, or vice versa, that moron is beyond the reach of critical thinking anyway), but something that masquerades as an objective review.

 

[LA Guy]

Sure, but my point was how does all that square with his appointment at Calvin Klein? You can't have your cake and eat it. There is a little inconsistency between yearning for a past when fashion, including his own work, was restricted to a small circle of super-committed freaks, and accepting what's probably one of the world's highest paid jobs in mass-market fashion. Arguably Calvin Klein is a mass-market brand if ever there was one. If he wanted to cater to a niche audience, Dior Couture was as niche as it gets, even though of course I realise that the niche audience of his own label ca. 1998 was not quite the same as Dior's in 2015.

When he left Dior, he gave all the reasons you have enumerated and the whole industry went "oh yes he's so right, it's terrible what fashion has come to, the speed, the craze..." Then, he waits just long enough for his contractual cooling-off period to be over before accepting the next corporate top job. Perhaps he'll prove everybody wrong when he has actually been at Calvin Klein for a few years, but for now a lot of the people who nodded their heads so understandingly are wondering how any of this is going to be different at CK.

It's not eating your cake and having it too. It's people not being entirely self-consistent, which translates into just being human. As a fashion consumer, he very possibly is disappointed with fashion as it is now. As a fashion designer, he might see the Calvin Klein job as an interesting challenge, or as a person who wants to eat well, he might just see that it's a pretty sweet job.

 

[dieworkwear]



Sure, but my point was how does all that square with his appointment at Calvin Klein?

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

You can't have your cake and eat it. There is a little inconsistency between yearning for a past when fashion, including his own work, was restricted to a small circle of super-committed freaks, and accepting what's probably one of the world's highest paid jobs in mass-market fashion. Arguably Calvin Klein is a mass-market brand if ever there was one. If he wanted to cater to a niche audience, Dior Couture was as niche as it gets, even though of course I realise that the niche audience of his own label ca. 1998 was not quite the same as Dior's in 2015.

When he left Dior, he gave all the reasons you have enumerated and the whole industry went "oh yes he's so right, it's terrible what fashion has come to, the speed, the craze..." Then, he waits just long enough for his contractual cooling-off period to be over before accepting the next corporate top job. Perhaps he'll prove everybody wrong when he has actually been at Calvin Klein for a few years, but for now a lot of the people who nodded their heads so understandingly are wondering how any of this is going to be different at CK.

I don't know if he has to square it since he didn't create this environment. He's just working within it, complaining about what's happened to a thing he loved. If you say his work contributes to that environment, then arguably everyone in fashion is somewhat guilty because everyone contributes it to some way -- the journalists, editors, designers, financiers, shop owners, distributors, etc etc etc.

Maybe everyone is culpable in some way, but since guilt is so widespread, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to complain about the environment and industry they work in.

It's hard to do this any other way at this point. Meaning, even if Raf Simons wanted to completely opt out, do his own brand, and do this totally creative, slow-fashion way, it would be a hard business to sustain (esp at the kind of income that he probably needs to keep up his standard of living).

There's an interview with Jeff Ng, owner/ designer behind Staple, somewhere. I'm too lazy to find it, but he talks about the problem being as such: it's no longer enough to design a good jacket. Once a jacket sells, to keep yourself relevant and in the same stores, you have to do the same jacket in ten different colors the next season. That's just how the seasonal calendar works. Although now, we have pre fall, pre holiday, pre whatever seasons in addition to the two-season SS/ FW calendar.

I interviewed the designers behind Ten C, a somewhat "experimental" concept line, last year. They wanted to do this "forever collection," where they made eight jackets that were supposed to be the best in their class (the best field jacket or whatever) and would never change. That lasted for a few seasons, but then stores were like "in order to keep you on our racks, which is expensive real estate, we need you to introduce new stuff. Otherwise we're just going to pick up another brand and fill that with stuff loyal customers haven't seen." So, they made a few more designs, a few more colors/ materials, etc. And they've become another fashion brand, although not to the speed of Dior or whatever.

There are some brands that are exempt from this, but they tend to be on the CM side of the board. Generally speaking, the fashion system forces designers to keep pace in order to stay relevant/ commercially viable. I don't think any of this would change if Raf designed for his own, small line or a big brand like CK. The system is way bigger than what he does. He's just complaining about it.

I really don't feel that there is any real danger in explicit commercial agreements, unless that's how little we are going to trust people's judgement.  

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

I think that the waters get much murkier when the sponsorship is NOT made explicit, (which is what the FTC is apparently going to be going after) and where there is not just an endorsement (I mean, if a moron thinks that a sports star wears Nike because it performs better than Underarmor, or vice versa, that moron is beyond the reach of critical thinking anyway), but something that masquerades as an objective review.  

I think it depends on what we mean by sponsorship. If we're talking about content creators, I think some sponsorships are inherently more honest than others. Disclosure is always better than not, but some types of sponsorships I would rather not see at all. If at all possible, anyway.

Again, I think the practice of brands gifting an item for "review" is inherently problematic. Easy way around this: just return the item once you're done seeing it. If you use it in order to review it, then return the used item once you're done. The possibility of keeping things in exchange for creating content can inherently bias you to create a certain kind of content.

That said, I know this space is still really new, people have different opinions, and I don't think things are as cut and dry as some people might think. I just think there are gradations of honesty here, and it's better to push content creators to be more honest than not (without also being so cynical as throwing your hands up and saying "they're all dishonest"). If you don't help build a space for good content, then all fashion media will just come from brand blogs and IG accounts, which is probably the worst of all scenarios. Even worse than the old crappy GQ model, which was rife with advertorials.

 

[LA Guy]

In other news, I called this early:

http://nypost.com/2016/09/16/mode-media-screws-its-employees-on-the-way-out/

For you guys who don't know already, Mode Media was the company formerly known as Glam Media. It was essentially an advertising agency/publisher hybrid that subcontracted to a network of bloggers. It was once valuated at a ridiculous $1B. I don't know that much about that much, but I do know that you need have essentially the entire world to be reading your stuff for your network of blogs to be worth $1B.

 

[leeba]

https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/news-analysis/totokaelo-founder-jill-wenger-steps-down
well that was quick