please read IF you enjoy discounts

Honestly, discounted is the only way I'd purchase EG. At the retail price, I can get nicer things at a discount from brands that do allow it.

I'm sure EG will have some strong design and materials, but I am now a lot less likely to impulse buy EG just because I think I can wear a piece once a month. I'd have to really want it.

my name wasn't the only named mention. It was mutiple affiliates that is why I made a broad comment saying "affiliates were being blamed" EG didn't call out who ratted us out but EG did the right thing.
That's why when my label launches I will only sell to people I liek and trust.

Originally Posted by wmmk

Click to expand...

Anyway, Mauro, I didn't mean to offend; I was just responding to blank's reference to me. Off topic, but when you do the Farinelli's x SF x Crate, will you also start carrying other Crate stuff? I'm thining I'll go with Routes for my next pair...
Secret Service carries Routes and will continue to carry Routes.

Originally Posted by whodini

Click to expand...

Secret Service carries Routes and will continue to carry Routes.

I know, but there's a chance I'll be living in DC this summer, and I like to try things on before I buy them.

After working for a retailer, this, to me, is one of the worst things about this forum. Everyone wants everything at a huge discount and they don't realize that this ***** everyone over. When you say 'well I won't buy this $200 shirt unless its $120' you have to realize if there aren't x number of people out there willing to pay retail, the brand won't have enough vendors willing to take their product, because vendors don't want to be selling an item at a 5% profit.

Mauro and the other SF affiliates are nice enough to offer items at a discount that you won't usually find discounted at all (or until sale time, which really only will be the unpopular items) and people want MORE. I understand this is a bad economy, but if you aren't willing to say 'sometimes I'll pay an extra 10% if it means keeping a store in business' than you shouldn't be surprised when the stores shut down and you have no place to buy the product period.

That said I <3 all the SF people that I meet through working at Farinelli's, help on the phone or talk to on e-mail. For each person who thinks that they can haggle down the price, there's 10 people who are polite, love the brands as much as I do and are happy to come in, hang out, and end up leaving with an item that they'll rock with pride.

I came here thinking I'd find some discounts..

Originally Posted by Epaulet

Click to expand...

A huge part of EG's appeal is its relative scarcity. It's not a common brand, it's not a common look, and it's not found everywhere. By restricting its online sales to strong brick and mortar accounts (Farinelli's, Odin, etc) it maintains its brand image and supports its loyal partners. Part of that image is keeping prices where they should be. EG isn't cheap, but I feel that it gives good value for the money. They have the luxury of having more demand than they can fill. But unlike a lot of "streetwear" companies, it's not because of celebrities, fake scarcity, and bullshit. It's because they're really good at what they do - and the clothing reflects that.

I carry Alden. They've got the exact same regulations. No discounts, and no sales unless they approve it. You can advertise the shoes online, but can't sell them via a checkout. Given the attention and respect they have on this forum, it hasn't hurt their status. Buying an Indy Boot is a special thing because of this. Imagine if you could get one on Zappos for 10% less. Or use a coupon on ShoeBuy to save 20% on President's Day. Kind of cheapens the appeal, right? What has more value in your eyes - the sought-after and rare Indy Boot, or the Gentleman Traveler - as seen on urbanoutfitters.com and half-off at Revolve?

That all just seems like crazed nonsense to me. A bunch of elitist status-seeking bullshit.

You can talk to me about wanting to support designers, and being a niche business, and needing high prices to put out a good product that doesn't have a large audience. Fine, watch my head nod along. But "this is something the proles can't have" is an offensive and stupid reason for doing anything.

Originally Posted by reprehensible

Click to expand...

That all just seems like crazed nonsense to me. A bunch of elitist status-seeking bullshit. You can talk to me about wanting to support designers, and being a niche business, and needing high prices to put out a good product that doesn't have a large audience. Fine, watch my head nod along. But "this is something the proles can't have" is an offensive and stupid reason for doing anything.
The point is that these brands can only stay in business if enough retailers stock their product. If these retailers are undercut by other stores (and thus cannot sell the clothes), or are forced to sell the product very cheaply (because, say, Saks is killing everyone with a huge discount), then they won't pick up the brand in the first place... EG and these other brands are just protecting their retailers, and in turn, making sure that these retailers will continue to stock their brand and keep them in business... It's also important to realize that at the end of the day people like the idea of a 'luxury' product that's exclusive. There's a reason that as brands become more popular in the public they become less popular hair, and price is a pretty important factor in keeping the brand out of the hand of 'proles'.

what if i don't enjoy discounts, should i read this thread?

I don't understand the recriminations. It strikes me as dubious that stockists (and EG) are pissed that people are returning EG products (realistically, how often could this have happened? Does anyone find it at all believable that people are out there volunteering the info?). It's more probable that stockists are pissed that someone is out there who has figured out a way to undercut the price of their highly sought after EG items. This is a problem between EG, the stockists and Mauro. I'm glad Mauro is active on this forum and have happily bought from him the past, but if EG has decided to stay loyal to their B&M stockists, more power to them. It's probably a good decision for the strength of the brand.

Originally Posted by reprehensible

Click to expand...

That all just seems like crazed nonsense to me. A bunch of elitist status-seeking bullshit.

You can talk to me about wanting to support designers, and being a niche business, and needing high prices to put out a good product that doesn't have a large audience. Fine, watch my head nod along. But "this is something the proles can't have" is an offensive and stupid reason for doing anything.

Someone already explained, but the designer's end consumer is the retailer. Usually, what happens depends on the relative power of the designer (or the designer's parent company), and that of the various retailers. I am not going to speak to this case in particular, but if Brand X was being sold at a discount at Barneys, and small retailer Y (let's call him "Mauro") complains to Brand X about this, I would bet good money that Brand X is going to tell Mauro "Tough *******. You are just going to have to deal".

Originally Posted by JD_May

Click to expand...

Okay two problems. First, this isn't direct competition, it's someone taking a manufacturer's product to create that competition. There is an intellectual property issue here: it's not "I can cut hair better than the guy down the street", it's "I have something X designed and made, and despite the fact that I don't have X's approval or any relationship whatsoever, and that he disapproves thoroughly of what I'm doing, and that it may in fact prejudice his economic interests, I will use his creations to make money for myself". That's the problem with grey marketing.

Okay, slow down: there is no intellectual property issue here. No patents or copyrights have been violated, right?

Presumably the person doing the selling purchased the item, right? Because if they stole it, there's your problem. If they own it, they can sell it. It doesn't matter what the original maker thinks of it, and thank goodness for that little bit of sanity.

The whole industry's model appears to me to be beyond crazy, but whatever.

Originally Posted by reprehensible

Click to expand...

Okay, slow down: there is no intellectual property issue here. No patents or copyrights have been violated, right?

Presumably the person doing the selling purchased the item, right? Because if they stole it, there's your problem. If they own it, they can sell it. It doesn't matter what the original maker thinks of it, and thank goodness for that little bit of sanity.

The whole industry's model appears to me to be beyond crazy, but whatever.

Stores stock brands on the assumption that they can sell them... if they can't sell the brand, or they can't sell the brand with enough of a margin to cover their costs, they won't stock it. If they don't stock the brand the brand itself has nobody to buy their clothing and they go out of business

Originally Posted by LA Guy

Click to expand...

Someone already explained, but the designer's end consumer is the retailer. Usually, what happens depends on the relative power of the designer (or the designer's parent company), and that of the various retailers. I am not going to speak to this case in particular, but if Brand X was being sold at a discount at Barneys, and small retailer Y (let's call him "Mauro") complains to Brand X about this, I would bet good money that Brand X is going to tell Mauro "Tough *******. You are just going to have to deal".

I was talking specifically about the "Alden is so much more special because you can't get it on discount or purchase it in any remotely convenient way" that I quoted, more than the general thread topic.

Originally Posted by Teger

Click to expand...

The point is that these brands can only stay in business if enough retailers stock their product. If these retailers are undercut by other stores (and thus cannot sell the clothes), or are forced to sell the product very cheaply (because, say, Saks is killing everyone with a huge discount), then they won't pick up the brand in the first place...

EG and these other brands are just protecting their retailers, and in turn, making sure that these retailers will continue to stock their brand and keep them in business...

It's also important to realize that at the end of the day people like the idea of a 'luxury' product that's exclusive. There's a reason that as brands become more popular in the public they become less popular hair, and price is a pretty important factor in keeping the brand out of the hand of 'proles'.

I hate the fact that things are expensive and that they aren't available to everyone. The whole idea of exclusivity is snobbish and distasteful.

I grant, yes, that the structure of the fashion in industry is really weird. I certainly don't want anyone to go out of business, least of all forum affiliates that are pleasant, helpful and generous. Retail in general is weird enough, and the clothing world in particular seems to be strange enough, that I'm certainly not going to try to spout some manifesto about How Things Should Be.

I'm just saying, from an attitudinal perspective, some things are cool and understandable (supporting good clothing and businesses), and other things are cringe-inducingly lame (expensive == exclusive == good).