State of the High End Clothing Industry

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by von Rothbart, Sep 12, 2009.

  1. von Rothbart

    von Rothbart Senior member

    Messages:
    2,461
    Likes Received:
    7
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/st...=1&ref=fashion

     


  2. voxsartoria

    voxsartoria Goon member

    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    117
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Things will be quiet until the next "investment" bubble hits.

    By the time your cabbie is talking about his solar energy stocks, fashion-y clothes will be back to bling status.


    - B
     


  3. robin

    robin Senior member

    Messages:
    12,416
    Likes Received:
    153
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006


  4. lasbar

    lasbar Senior member

    Messages:
    26,133
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Location:
    FOLKESTONE
    High end clothing industrersace , Burberryy is suffering from the emergence of the pret-a-porter chic...

    Before people wanted to be unique ,to have their suits, dresses or shoes made to satisfy their sartorial visions, now the focus is on cost and brand reconition..

    It is easier for Dolce , Versace , burberry's to reduce costs by outsourcing but it is impossible for the higher end of the market and their high on skills garnments...

    It is sad ,very sad....
     


  5. rach2jlc

    rach2jlc Prof. Fabulous Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    14,813
    Likes Received:
    820
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    Monaco
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/st...=1&ref=fashion
    And the collection was just as BAD as you'd think it would be. It was really awful and got some of the worst reviews I've read in a LONG time. http://www.slate.com/id/2231924/ Geez, what was this guy (the head of Ungaro) thinking? You go from Estaban Cortazar to... Li Lo? In other news, Versace has pulled out of Japan entirely for now (the brand, there, has long since been dusty and the brand known as what low-ranking Yakuza like to wear).
     


  6. idfnl

    idfnl Senior member

    Messages:
    15,887
    Likes Received:
    1,014
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Location:
    VA
    "He lets it fall away. It troubles Mr. Panichgul that as much as people love beautiful clothes, they do not understand why they cost so much. "It's becoming a losing battle," he said."

    I find that statement comic.

    It costs so much because of exclusivity. Its not that it really costs that much to make.

    One problem is that its overpriced up the supply chain but it really gets bad once a certain label gets placed on the clothes.

    Look at the lavish lifestyles, overpriced models, parties, and over the top runway shows. The answer is right in front of him, its a question of looking: never underestimate the power of denial.
     


  7. rach2jlc

    rach2jlc Prof. Fabulous Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    14,813
    Likes Received:
    820
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    Monaco
    "He lets it fall away. It troubles Mr. Panichgul that as much as people love beautiful clothes, they do not understand why they cost so much. “It’s becoming a losing battle,” he said." I find that statement comic. It costs so much because of exclusivity. Its not that it really costs that much to make.
    Actually, it does cost a lot to make, in many circumstances. I don't think he's talking a lot of the tee shirt, jeans brands. The higher-end and smaller fashion houses buy fabrics that sometimes costs hundreds or thousands of dollars a square yard. In menswear, Lanvin (for example) often costs $900 for a pair of pants... but the innovative fabrics they use often cost several times more than the fabrics used by competitors at other brands like YSL, Gucci, etc. So, when Prada pants made in Romania and cost $495 and Lanvin made in Italy cost $900, it's not JUST all about exclusivity. Obviously, they make a healthy profit, but with smaller brands (especially) there's a lot more to it. Not every fashion house is Ed Hardy, here.
     


  8. idfnl

    idfnl Senior member

    Messages:
    15,887
    Likes Received:
    1,014
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Location:
    VA
    Actually, it does cost a lot to make, in many circumstances. I don't think he's talking a lot of the tee shirt, jeans brands. The higher-end and smaller fashion houses buy fabrics that sometimes costs hundreds or thousands of dollars a square yard.

    In menswear, Lanvin (for example) often costs $900 for a pair of pants... but the innovative fabrics they use often cost several times more than the fabrics used by competitors at other brands like YSL, Gucci, etc. So, when Prada pants made in Romania and cost $495 and Lanvin made in Italy cost $900, it's not JUST all about exclusivity.

    Obviously, they make a healthy profit, but with smaller brands (especially) there's a lot more to it. Not every fashion house is Ed Hardy, here.


    There are exceptions, but in general, the fabric is overpriced as well.
     


  9. rach2jlc

    rach2jlc Prof. Fabulous Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    14,813
    Likes Received:
    820
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    Monaco
    There are exceptions, but in general, the fabric is overpriced as well.

    Yeah, but the brands have no control over this. They buy their stuff from fabric mills just like everybody else.

    Obviously, a guy like Armani will have more clout to negotiate prices, but a smaller brand like Azzedine Alaia or Christian Lacroix is pretty much stuck paying what the fabric costs. THAT, or he buys cheaper fabric, sacrifices quality, and outsources the labor.

    Most smaller brands are close to... or going out of... business. Yohji, Lacroix, etc. The shitty, gigantic conglomerates who send all their labor to China and Vietnam are okay, but the smaller couturiers aren't exactly laughing all the way to the bank.
     


  10. rach2jlc

    rach2jlc Prof. Fabulous Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    14,813
    Likes Received:
    820
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    Monaco
    And Ungaro himself chimes in: http://www.stylelist.com/2009/11/11/...on-a-disaster/ This is one reason you don't sell your namesake label you started and worked your whole life to build... to a rich Investor guy who knows nothing about fashion. When you do, they do things like (1) start a bunch of crappy cheap diffusion licenses (U by Ungaro, 'Emmanuel' Emmanuel Ungaro, Ungaro Homme) that further dilutes the brand and (2) appoint Lindsay Lohan to drum up publicity and destroy the mainline with a really awful collection.
     


  11. LaoHu

    LaoHu Senior member

    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    29
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Location:
    New England
    ...appoint Lindsay Lohan to drum up publicity and destroy the mainline with a really awful collection.

    I can understand the publicity part, but did they actually let her design the collection?
     


  12. JensenH

    JensenH Senior member

    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    64
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Location:
    Between Berserkeley and Freaksco
    And Ungaro himself chimes in:

    http://www.stylelist.com/2009/11/11/...on-a-disaster/

    This is one reason you don't sell your namesake label you started and worked your whole life to build... to a rich Investor guy who knows nothing about fashion. When you do, they do things like (1) start a bunch of crappy cheap diffusion licenses (U by Ungaro, 'Emmanuel' Emmanuel Ungaro, Ungaro Homme) that further dilutes the brand and (2) appoint Lindsay Lohan to drum up publicity and destroy the mainline with a really awful collection.


    Ungaro is now owned by an Indian fellow who made his fortune as a venture capitalist in the Silicon Valley. His zero experience in the fashion industry coupled with the decision to hire LiLo as the label's style consultant predestined the utter disaster that was the latest collection.

    Given the state of the economy, the lack of a visionary designer, and the long lasting effect of a seriously bad collection, the label may never recover.
     


  13. rach2jlc

    rach2jlc Prof. Fabulous Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    14,813
    Likes Received:
    820
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    Monaco
    I can understand the publicity part, but did they actually let her design the collection?
    They hired a fashion designer, but apparently LiLo had a hand and even "veto" power (from what I read) on what to put in. She was much more than just the "face" of the collection.
    Ungaro is now owned by an Indian fellow who made his fortune as a venture capitalist in the Silicon Valley. His zero experience in the fashion industry coupled with the decision to hire LiLo as the label's style consultant predestined the utter disaster that was the latest collection. Given the state of the economy, the lack of a visionary designer, and the long lasting effect of a seriously bad collection, the label may never recover.
    +1. Sad to see it disappear on such a sour note. Ungaro has struggled for a long time and though it still has a recognizable name, the only girls would would buy this collection are ones who probably aren't able to afford that price point. I don't see any serious fashion buyer really even considering this collection. It was really just that bad and, as you said, in this climate it's tough to make it past a really awful season where nothing sells. beyond that, Ungaro doesn't have the usual "cushion" of an "it" accessories/handbag line or even a really stellar selling perfume.
     


Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by