Published by

Different profitability mindsets

No sales-discounts

Good products deserve reasonable pricing. This works two ways; neither should a product be overpriced to create a false perception of value and quality, nor should a product be underpriced to encourage impulse buying and the idea of a good deal. A good product has a price that is linked to its production process and quality manufacturing. These days brands either work with economies of scale (Primark) or economies of exclusivity (Dior) to determine their pricing. When something seems too cheap or expensive to be realistic and fair, it probably is. Sales-discounts play a part in this too. When a product can still be sold for a significantly reduced price without a loss, it means the consumer has been fooled with the original product sales-price.

[BRAND NAME] wants to offer products that are priced fairly to sustain a good product quality and a reasonable and publicly communicated growth percentage (revenue). This means products shall be priced accordingly, and any devaluation in pricing won’t be possible nor necessary.

No out of stock items

Sales-drops and limited edition products have become a mainstay within the global (fashion)economy. They are a sales tactic with revenue as the prime incentive, not creativity. Why else would a great product design only be offered to a limited amount of people. This sales-tactic is used mostly to lure customers to a baseline product offering by creating the perception of scarcity and belonging. The scarcity is false, as it’s entirely within a brand’s power to make as many items of any product as they wish. The sense of belonging is created by making people think they are part of a select group of people that are “in-the-know” or these special editions/drops. Even if they couldn’t actually make a purchase of said item, by buying any other mainline product they feel connected to this urge they have to belong to the in-crowd.

[BRAND NAME] wants to offer products fairly and indefinitely based on people’s desire to purchase, through either pre-order listings, item inventory or archive reproductions. A product might be produced and launched in a specific quantity at first. Afterwards it might immediately be reproduced based on consumer demand or placed into a product archive from where re-runs and reproductions can be requested by prospect buyers (in active communication with the brand).

Published by

Observations on trend

Clothing design creates garments that may or may not be trendy.

Trend is based on community, on mass; when a majority considers something of a new/unique (design)style and want to associate themselves with it, you could see a trend appearing of appreciation for this certain style.

When a garment or style is in trend i.e. trendy, you could also say it is in fashion.

A trend being constant would mean it at some point becomes the norm to some extend. When a trend increases for it to degrease at a later stage, you could say it is a fashionable trend. For example; it has come into fashion to be associated with this trend (A), but trend A subsequently becomes surpassed by another trend (B), thus A is not able to sustain itself to become the new norm.

Fashion design therefor is a rather misguided term as it is not the designer that creates fashion, its the people that decide what is in fashion (which in tern is based on trend).

Something can be fashionable when it is designed to go along a certain trend that is currently in fashion. However, it is very unlikely that a designer creates something that will become fashionable, if it is not linked to a current trend within society. The term fashion designer therefor merely means that the designer is designing something that follows a currently fashionable trend (which either can be on the rise or decline, depending on the foresight of the designer). Success as a designer, or the success of their designs, is somewhat dependent on a variety they can bring within the boundaries of a current trend and on the suitability with a currently fashionable trend.

Published by

Global vs Local, Fashion vs Clothing

Current trends in fashion seem to be mostly self referential, in the sense that the clothing designs feed off (street)style and archival pieces/references. This creates a strong image that is coherent but refreshing as it’s based on designs and styles that float around in the subconscious minds of the wearer and creator simultaneously (at least amongst those that closely follow/relate to the fashion world). Extending beyond this realm of reference, it has become apart that a wider perspective on art has become a secondary source of inspiration (e.g. music, sculpture, painting).

Although it seems to be aspirational for many to become familiar with these reference points that have instigated pieces of contemporary fashion, it has become less important to know (or show, in the designs) a cultural background and history. Taking Louis Vuitton (Virgil Abloh) and Givenchy (Matthew Williams) as examples here, there is a certain influx of American perspectives within the fashion world (and within traditionally Parisian houses). But also beyond that, when you look at Balenciaga for example, Demna Gvasalia (Georgian) uses inspiration found in Eastern Europe. This however often seems to be a referencing a certain styles, which in turn is often an aspirational versions of an American one.

Thinking about this further

Is it possible to express locality in fashion design? Within the current day and age, in which everything is instantly shareable and readable online, is it even appropriate? Or is that precisely the reason why it would be important to share local identities, exactly because we are so connected and therefor loose a sense of place within the world?

How does expressing locality within fashion design look like? Is clothing design the same as fashion design? Can clothing more effectively represent a local identity than fashion, as fashion suggests a globally shared acceptance of something being “fashionable”?