posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 10:44AM

Thanks for this post Faran! Is there any way you could post the full WWD article on Mayle closing? So sad!

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 10:52AM

Thank you Fashionista for acknowledging the harmful effects "fast" fashion has on the environment.

posted by Cassette Love

Aug 18, 2008 10:57AM

"Jane Mayle's decision to close shop"

What? Noooo!

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 10:58AM

OK i do enjoy reading adventures in copyrights and i know i am the only one

posted by fauvism3

Aug 18, 2008 11:00AM

ILY too Faran. get that Nylon paycheck girl....also PLEASE post Barney's warehouse sale buys, if any...always one of my fave posts.

posted by FWD

Aug 18, 2008 11:05AM

I understand your reasoning, but your site would be more interesting and readable if you championed the cause of young designers by showcasing their clothes more often.

At this point, the only designer you're really exhibiting is Forever 21, and they are old news. It's boring and repetitive.

Think about young designers, but think about us too. We're your readers sitting in cubicles all day hitting "refresh." Show us something new, someone we may not have heard of.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 11:06AM

Really is there any evidence to support knock-offs really take away from the profits of an original designer? The designers you mention in most circumstances will not share the same customer base as F21 and thus there is no correlation that the designer with or without F21 would have shown a higher profit margin. Also, companies of ALL price points are guilty of using cheap labor. See the article here on D&G and other Italian brands ripping off Chinese laborers http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2007/12/02/designer-labels-sweatshop-scandal-98487-20191613/. Thirdly, people of all income levels buy disposable clothing and your idea of what's disposable may differ from someone else's idea of what's disposable. I've had an F21 dress that I bought from the sale rack that has lasted years whereas a pair of Miu Miu flats had to have the soles replaced after a month of wear. Also, there's really nothing remotely original about the design posted in this entry. And I like the F21 better.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 11:11AM

That's all well and good. However, If that's your stance, it seems wildly hypocritical to then have 'DIY' posts. Sure you're not making money, but you are teaching others how to take a designers idea and then how to recreate it for a fraction of the price. The problem is that you're stealing the designer's design, without paying the designer a cent. If you believe in supporting the designer, then I don't understand why you think that your DIY posts are acceptable.
As I said above, sure you're not making a profit, but you're still stealing the design so that you can save some money.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 11:11AM

i like this feature..keep it up.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 11:15AM

I'm really glad you decided to address this issue in a smart, well-contemplated way. Much applause.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 11:27AM

I support you on this, even though I really only object to direct copies (not inspired clothing). Your points on the environment, disposable clothing and sweatshop conditions are completely on point. If a dress retails at $21, someone somewhere is being screwed over (F21 like most retailers wants to make a profit and has costs to cover so that dress had to be made for a pittance). It also won't last--the one F21 item in my wardrobe fell apart the first day I wore it. To my knowledge, it wasn't a copy, but it made it a reasonably expensive buy--price per wear (real gauge of value), $20. If I had bought a $100 dress and worn it 20 times, it would be so much cheaper. My more expensive clothes last forever and are true bargains, even if I had to save for them.It is a false economy to buy the cheapest of cheap clothes.

As to Mayle, I am shocked and upset that she's closing. I saw a girl wearing the Florinda F21 knock off yesterday and the only nice thing was the original design, rendered in cheap, paper thin shiny fabric which ruined it (the fabric was so sheer it looked like a plastic carrier bag). I think this has to have been a factor in her closing shop--it both ruins any exclusivity she might have sought while losing business.And, yes, if that dress had been $150 (a more reasonable price for it IMHO), I'd have bought one and she'd have sold boat-loads. At $500, I can't justify a cotton jersey dress, like her original.

And that reinforces your final point, Faran. If Mayle had reduced her price point back to where it was even three years ago, I would have bought more of her clothes even at full price. She went from selling $300-400 dresses (still very expensive for most of us) to $600-750 ones. Her blouses similarly went from $250 to $450. I know clothing inflation has been rampant but I imagine sales would have increased if her prices had stayed more affordable. I am sure people wouldn't be sweeping her sales racks and sample sales exclusively if her retail prices had stayed sane.

Now I'm wondering which independent designers will fold next. I love Lyell too but have suspected they would close for a while now. With costly rents, I can't see many of these firms surviving in a depressed economy which is too bad.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 11:28AM

You do make some valid (if slightly hypocritical) points about consumerism, but it could be handled more interestingly. For example put up links to articles that really talk about child labour, environmental issues, but please address this subject also for the luxury industry.(For example I would be very interested in the connection between the leather used by luxury brands and child labour in Pakistan.) What it comes down to that Adventures in Copyright seems sloppy, inconsistent and another way to put up some easy content without making the effort to really write something.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 11:30AM

There is definitely evidence that knockoffs take away from the profits of the original designer. It may not seem so bad for the likes of DVF who have multi million dollar companies and corporate backing, but for young designers it is a HUGE problem. For instance, ButterByNadia's Signature Wrap Dress (one size, countless ways to wear it) is being knocked off like crazy (in unflattering colors and fabrics) by companies like Victoria's Secret and Two Birds Bridesmaid. Every time the knock-offs get press, it steals thunder from the brooklyn-based designer who came up with design in the first place. It's awful when a young designer's creativity is stolen by fashion vampires.

posted by Holly

Aug 18, 2008 11:36AM

I agree with FWD. I'd love to see some new and fresh designers featured on your site more often.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 11:39AM

interesting that a couple of you are complaining that there are never new and fresh designers on the site and the designer studio interviews (http://fashionista.com/designer_studio/) never seem to get comments...

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 11:40AM

I love it! Don't stop!

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 11:44AM

I totally respect this, but I agree that these up and coming designers are not often featured on the site. I'd love more pictures of their stuff, more reviews (I know we'll get a flurry during fashion week but rtw is coming out all the time and you don't cover it often enough), more, well, fashion! And I love the designers you cited, but would love even more to have designers I've never heard of featured here.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 11:49AM

To guest 16: No they don't get comments. I wonder how they do on readership though. I love those features, and read them, but its not controversial--it's interesting to read, but what am I going to say? All there is to say is what you like or what you don't like, which isn't so interesting for other readers. Especially commenting as guests--you don't know other people's styles etc. (Yes, I comment as a guest. I had hacking/stalking problems and now avoid it so I don't blame any of you for doing the same.)

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 11:51AM

Alright, well, getting back on the merry-go-around:
1. Yes, perhaps F21 and other designers should consider the ethics of ripping a small-time designer, but where do you draw the line and who will draw it? I could not afford Mayle, so if I get a version of a shirt at F21, how have I cost her business???
2. Well, so much of what we buy is "made in china". Do you refuse to buy these basic household or electronics items, too? Target's clothes are made in sweatshops, too--let's not kid ourselves. Again, where do you draw the line?
3. Not always true. I am wearing an F21 shirt right now, which has made it through countless washing-machine cycles for the last 3 years. I've also bought shirts and jeans at Nordstrom which are being recycled as dish rags. Not to say I've also bought F21 shirts that became dish rags THE next day.
4. Sounds good.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 11:59AM

A New Yorker article on Knock-Offs based upon actual research...

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2007/09/24/070924ta_talk_surowiecki

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 12:01PM

i agree with everything you said but apparently that wasn't the reason mayle closed.

The closure is not for financial reasons — the designer told WWD her business is healthier than ever — but rather due to the accelerating fashion calendar:

The customer gets tired before the collections even hit stores . . . That mystery and remoteness and insouciance have disappeared from fashion in order to accelerate the product. I feel I have just become another cog in that machinery.

from fashionologie

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 12:09PM

Forever 21 may have clothing made from cheap materials, but I have some items from there that are nearly 10 years old, and still goin strong!

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 12:20PM

I also like adventures in copyrights post, simply because I think it's interesting to see how high fashion trends translate into mainstream.
That being said it would be great to see up and coming designers featured.

posted by bastylefilegirl

Aug 18, 2008 12:32PM

Faran you are right on all points especially the ethincal ones as fars as the enviroment, and working conditions. But lets call out all companies not just ones that produce knockoffs of poor working conditions and eco offenses. There are sweatshops in Italy too, so just because something seems nicer doesen't mean it is!

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 12:32PM

o, ic.
so if shops stopped making knockoffs, people would stop using sweatshop labor? then everyone would use that extra twenty dollars to buy a pair of balenciagas!

and of course designers never use sweatshops, nor do their clothes ever rip or break.

wow fashionista, thanks for clearing that up for me.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 12:34PM

I love adventures in copyrights!!
fashion is not known for being socially responsible, and the fact that you guys care about those issues is one of my favorite parts of this blog. being into fashion, to me, means being interested in it from an artistic point of view, because its beautiful and an art form, not a commercial point of view, because you're a capitalist whore with no values and all you want is to follow a trend with no thought to the effects on the environment or struggling artists.
hooray for calling people out on stealing the work of others (not acceptable in journalism, fine art, or academia, why should it be acceptable in fashion?) hooray for fashionista.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 12:36PM

Jane Mayle closing shop may also have to do with the fact that Phillip Lim does her production, and lately his clothes have been looking mighty similar to hers...Scandal?

posted by Ruby

Aug 18, 2008 12:47PM

"2. Because knockoffs are made in poor conditions. "

Fashionista, please don't fool yourself by thinking that just because you paid a ton of money for an item the person who made it was compensated fairly.

I absolutely understand your reasoning in #1 and #4 - that I can't disagree with. But please realize that the "bad karma" option really doesn't apply to anything in the apparel industry.

posted by chasing pavements

Aug 18, 2008 12:47PM

Here's why the tone of Adventures in Copyrights has always bothered me:

Some of us don't have a lot of choices. I used to live in New York, but now I live in a college town in the Midwest, and my shopping choices are largely limited to the typical mall stores and a handful of small boutiques. There's no sample sales, no Nordstrom's Rack, no Tokio 7, no good thrift stores, no Woodbury Common (I wish!). There's not even a Banana Republic. I know I can snag clothes online, but that's more expensive and more difficult.

The other thing is that, while I follow fashion, I don't have time to look at every slide of every collection on Style.com. (If I had my dream job in fashion, maybe ...) I read Fashionista and a couple other blogs and I buy magazines, but unlike some readers, I don't have an infinite memory for pieces I've seen. Which means that when copied things trickle down to F21, I may not have ever seen the original, or I may have forgotten I did.

And lastly: price. I'm a grad student; I'm not in the market for designer anything if I don't find it on my yearly pilgrimage to Loehmann's. I don't think I'm taking away from anyone because the fact of the matter is, I'm not in the market for a $600 skirt. Maybe one day ... but right now, I'm just not.

I would love to support small designers, but at the price points most of them have, I can't. And I understand that they can't lower their price points, either, that those high prices are necessary for survival.

In the meantime, I don't seek out knockoffs, but if I accidentally wear one, I have a hard time feeling really guilty over it.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 12:55PM

all these arguments are a load of shit.. think through them more vigorously. AND who the fuck is Faran, and why should I give a fuck about what she/he says.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 12:57PM

Faran, thanks for explaining you stance on Knock off's in an objective and intelligent way (the more recent posts have been condescending and rude). However, if designers continue to price their clothing above and beyond what any college student can afford (most people generally interested in fashion are between the ages of 16-25), then people will continue to buy knock-offs. Its a 2 way street. You wouldn't buy gas from a gas station charging $5.25 if the one across the street is selling for $3.69; even if its Premium. These are hard economic times!

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 1:03PM

guest 30, if you find that you don't recognize knock offs because you don't have the time/resources to seek them out, then doesn't that make you the target audience for adventures in copyrights? and if you live near a forever21, then you def at least live near an old navy or something. just because it's not designer or a knock off of designer doesn't mean it's unsuitable.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 1:08PM

#32--a lot of people over 25 are very interested in fashion. In most major cities like NYC, you'll see people well into their 40s and older buying fashionable designers. That's one reason why the price points are high. You'll also see lots of rich people buying designer clothes for their teenagers. A little off topic, yes, but as an over 25 year old, I can attest that love for fashion/design/style doesn't end in the college years. For many of us, it just accelerates.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 1:13PM

I personally believe that for the larger designers the problem with knock-offs is not directly losing the money from that one customer. The problem lies with the brand dilution for those big power brands. I for one will not go anywhere near a brown LV bag because of how knocked off it is and how it is on everyone and their grandmother real and/or fake. The driving away of potential buyers because of the existence and the extent of knock-offs hurts all houses attempting to maintain a level of cache.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 1:31PM

2. Because knockoffs are made in poor conditions.

Plenty of brands that do not knock off are also made in shitty conditions. Increasingly, high end brands are being manufactured in Asia and the Middle East. Furthermore, a brand you recently championed, Zara, is made in the same environment as Forever 21.

3. Because fast fashion is shitty for the environment.

Fast Fashion/throwaway fashion is what you make it. There are plenty of millionaires who hoarde clothing or buy a tank for 200 and toss it. There are plenty of people who CANNOT AFFORD anything more expensive than Forever 21 who treat their pieces well and make them last as long as possible. This argument is extremely classist, but all your adventures in copyright arguments are.

4. Because we have hope.

This is the biggest load of bullshit. You constantly say things like "only $250" and the like. To you, that is affordable. In the end, Forever 21 doesn't directly affect your lives and stop imposing your values on others.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 1:43PM

Thank you, Faran, for stating your opinion in a non-condescending fashion. While I may not agree with everything you said above, I do sincerely appreciate that you back up your statements and don't sink to the level of pretentiousness that many posters on this blog do. Bravo, F - please come back to Fashionista, it's not the same without you!

posted by cesarcmma

Aug 18, 2008 1:46PM

Great post Faran...seems like people don't take the time to search in the site and read about the Designer Studio interviews that are great and support new Designers and not so new. Did you haters read the interviews with Anna Sui or Elise Overland or Henry Holland...as for the Adventures in Copyrights I just find them very funny because some of them are just ridiculous... if anyone want to buy them do it and the ones who don't goot too. Both sides have their reasons to do it or not.

posted by chasing pavements

Aug 18, 2008 1:57PM

#33: Yeah, it does make me the target audience. That's why I didn't say I was against the idea of Adventures in Copyright, but rather the condescending tone it sometimes takes.

And we technically don't have a big F21 where I live, but rather a Gadzooks. I've never had luck with Old Navy; most of the clothes I've gotten from there fall apart really quickly.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 2:04PM

For me, as for many others, apparently, designer pieces are simply not an option; no amount of saving would make them a feasible purchase. And, like others, don't seek out F21's knockoffs, but I do buy from them. I have at least 6 shirts/sweaters from them that have held up about as well as a $5 garment can be expected to and since they are simple v-neck shirts, they're not knocked off. That hardly matters though, buying from F21, no matter what it is, supports their knock-offs by supporting their brand. I wish I had the means to pursue other options, but my approach to fashion values a fair price over the authenticity that Fashionista seeks.

Further, though a designer/brand may support fair wage and low environmental impact, that doesn't mean that they're truly ethical or that their vision genuinely matches your own. I'd love to buy from American Apparel because their wage/environment ethics appear so fair; unfortunately, the way they present women in their advertisements and Dov Charney's repeated sexual harassment episodes make me feel pretty yucky when I'm wearing AA. There are so many sides to consider when acting as a consumer, wage and environment are hardly the end-all be-all in an industry that supports treating women as objects/clothes hangers/mannequins, supports starvation and anorexia in young women, and generally cultivates an anti-feminist ideal.

Plus let's face it, when you do an Adventures in Copyright, at least half the people who come across the article will use it to find affordable knock-offs. Everyone who suggested you stopped acknowledging the knock-offs and started acknowledging the designers is right.

posted by allisonwrote

Aug 18, 2008 2:04PM

I don't really buy it. I think there is a huge element of condescension in criticizing those who buy cheap knock offs rather than the real thing. Might I just reference Kyle's post about cringing and judging his friend for her shoes?

Nobody wants to support the sweatshop industry, but conditions are often deplorable regardless of whether the item cost $40 or $400. Everything is made in China, and the greater cost of an item is often made to cover publicist costs or other fees that chains don't have to deal with. That, or the designer just makes a larger profit.

As far as the copying, it's obnoxious to say the least, but not earth shattering. Brand dilution IS an unwelcome consequence: now, seeing those LV monogrammed bags makes most people gag rather than covet the design. But I agree with countless others that say a company like Louis Vuitton or YSL is not losing a customer because the price points between their items and the F21 knock offs are so huge. It's not a matter of tens or twenties, it's a matter of HUNDREDS. People who go for the cheap knock off are not going to reconsider and spend thousands more. They're looking at the knock off because it's all they can afford.

And about disposable fashion: again there is condescension here. Plenty of my more expensive items have fallen apart more quickly than something from F21 or Steve Madden. Look at Alexander Wang's tricot line that are so whisper-thin and delicate that the slightest jagged nail will snag the fabric.

The designers care less about knock offs than you do, and I doubt it's for integrity's sake. This website drips of derision for the "common man" (and woman).

How do you explain the hypocrisy, Faran, in fawning over Zara and J.Crew's balenciaga blazer knock off? They're selling someone else's work for a profit. But they do it at higher price points, so it's okay, right?

x
allison

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 2:07PM

So will you do a DIY of a Mayle piece still even though she is closing shop? This makes no sense if you are championing smaller designers or larger ones by teaching others how to knock things off, as opposed to creating something original for people to make. That is bad karma.

posted by ShaSha

Aug 18, 2008 2:15PM

lol @ hope.

In America, Capitalism + Greed >>>>>> Hope

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 2:21PM

I completely agree guest 36, i love fashion i spent atleast 2 years plus countless time interning to get into fashion. I can not afford designer clothes maybe if i save the ocasional sunglasses.
250 for a shirt is affordable for me.

I have had stuff from f21 that has lasted a long time, and fell apart. The samething from higherend companies. Do not judge people on what they can afford and can't afforf

posted by fauvism3

Aug 18, 2008 2:43PM

I am pretty sure Fashionista has never said 250 on a shirt was "affordable" outright. But if you take it into context, it can be--let's say you are a TRUE fashion lover who wants to buy into the vision of say, Ghesquire. His dresses and pants and jackets and bags are all waaay too expensive, but you manage to save up 300. In that context, it is "affordable" Balenciaga. And I am not saying that many people buy these shirts and I wouldn't pay that much for a t-shirt ever, but taken in context, 250 is the cheapest Balenciaga you can get.

Notice in Bazaar how their "Great Finds" section that celebrates "fashion at affordable prices" is not really chep? True, for some people 500 dollar Philip Lim pants, 300 dollar J. Crew jackets are unattainable. But for those who save up, fashion IS affordable to those who truly love it.

posted by allisonwrote

Aug 18, 2008 3:01PM

Not to cause undue trouble, but I also notice the Richard Chai for Target banner ad at the top of Fashionista. Is that line certified as sweatshop-free? No? Well...isn't there some hypocrisy going on here?

posted by hipstersdontlie

Aug 18, 2008 3:07PM

I 100% agree that fakes and knock offs suck and mostly hurt young designers. But not much can be done to stop them.

The average consumer cannot afford a luxury item. So they will turn to a fake or find a knock off at Forever 21 at a cheaper price.

The average consumer might not be able to afford a young designer either because the young designer, unlike Forever 21, can't make prices cheaper.

Part of the problem is self-induced by the industry. The point of luxury is that most people can't afford it, right? If prices go higher and higher, which is the trend, fakes and knock offs will proliferate.

I'm glad the industry is recognizing some of this by promoting cheaper lines at Target, H&M and Uniqlo. Hopefully, there will be more collaborations!

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 3:08PM

Thought you might find these interesting, I did wonder when I saw them what the legality is! For the record I have both the original pairs of these shoes and they are so far superior to the copies it's ridiculous:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/draculesti/stevemaddentarget.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/draculesti/aldotarget.jpg

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 3:39PM

I thought the point of Adventures in Copyright was to ENCOURAGE readers to shop at Forever 21. Seriously, actually. There's no reason to spend tons of money on trendy clothes. Trendy expensive clothes is the epitomy of "fast fashion." Just because something MIGHT last a bit longer doesn't mean you will be wearing it any longer.

posted by fauvism3

Aug 18, 2008 3:51PM

Right, #49, but then wouldn't you just avoid buying BOTH f21 and designer versions, if you wanted to avoid a trend? Seriously buying into trends is the fast track to victimization.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 4:05PM

Everyone already has pretty much addressed all the flaws in the original argument regarding labour, taking money 'away' from designers, etc. Though Fashionista seems to have skipped over the fact that Forever21 started off in LA what 15 years or so ago by a Korean couple creating designs (moving on to reproducing them) entirely by themselves. And I truly don't believe Mayle went out because she felt like a cog in the fashion machine. I would be surprised if her numbers were healthier than ever since she overcharges for designs that are a copy vintage pieces she picks up and for materials that are not worth the money. I would also suggest that the escalating prices of luxury good only empowers retailers and those who are coming from emerging markets like China, Russia and the Middle East. Those are the people who are now the bread and butter of these companies, not American shoppers. I personally don't buy knockoffs, but all the arguments you have furthered against buying them are inadequate. At the end of the day, I really see now difference between LVMH receiving money versus Forever 21

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 4:18PM

amen.

if you cant afford the real one. dont get the fake.

its as simple as that.

most fakes are obviously so, and when wearing/carrying them you dont look chic, stylish or creative in your individual style.

vintage/thrift store finds + basics (even if they are from f21) mixed with a hint of your own personal style (ie: fav color, or hat or jewelry/scarf/belt/etc.) will look a million times more fashionable than the knock-off's fashion victim look.

seriously i HATE fakes. if it isnt on sale at barneys than i've never purchased it at barneys... but i'd never buy a ripped off version elsewhere!!!

PERSONAL STYLE + confidence= stylish women at every budget(+the end of knock offs because WE ALL boycotted them!!!)

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 4:51PM

i agree with some other commentors, it'd be nice to have a featured designer once a month or something.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 5:11PM

One issue is the outright knockoff. Reproducing the Chanel logo on a handbag and passing it off to a consumer who wants to carry what appears to be a Chanel, but who can't afford a Chanel. That, IMO, dilutes the very quality of Chanel and is a disservice to the people who carry real designer merchandise. I enjoy carrying my LV bags (given to me by my mother) but feel annoyed when I spot someone who is carrying what I know is a fake. I (well, my mom) worked hard for those bags, and there's pride in owning what can be interpreted as a piece of art. And when someone buys the knockoff, it takes away from that.

Now, buying the $30 dress that looks similar to the $3,000 D&G, I don't mind. There's a difference there - it's what appears to be similar, but definitely isn't the same. Copying trends, passing them down to the consumer, that's fine. After all, where would high fashion be if it weren't for consumers in the grocery line buying canned goods along with the Vogue?

But copying logos, passing them off as real, that just irks me.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 6:08PM

Thanks for the smart reasons, but it really it seems like the major reason you guys left out was: you enjoy being pretentious. This is the fashion industry, after all.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 6:11PM

granted i would support smaller designers if i could, but my issue is not necessarily with the price points, it is that the knock off's go up to my size. A small designers collection often only goes up to a size 8 at the largest whereas i am a 12 at the smallest, and places like topshop and co go up to my size. So maybe if the designers were willing to use a couple of inches of extra fabric so that i can invest in their quality clothing i would.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 6:20PM

the debate over knockoffs will persist, and no one will be happy with the result.

the great thing about fashionista is that it bonds readers over the common thread of fashion. This surpasses socio-eco brackets, and while anyone can oogle Vena Cava, Phillip Lim, and Balenciaga-not everyone can afford them. So yeah to some, a hot designer purse is 3 months worth of saving-to others those savings can be applied to rent/tuition/gas/food/etc.

so while it would be great for everyone to just save up for their luxury item, it just may not be a reality-ever. F21 is not stealing a luxury designer's clientel. They shoot for completely different sociobrackets. They are not in direct competition.

I personally love adventures in copyrights, because it's fun to see where the designs come from-all over the map. But i think the editors should understand that by completely snubbing the f21-set, they're also snubbing their readers....

its all about delivery. and yes faran, your approach was 10x better than kyles...

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 6:41PM

As someone who has shopped at Mayle since she launched Phare, I have to say that I am sad. Yes prices rose, but as did the costs of her production, expenses and fabrics. Her $700 dresses were amazing quality, exquist lace and worth every penny. I rarely see someone on the street wearing Mayle - but I always see people wearing the same old Philip Lim stuff. F21 didnt put Mayle out of business the business is putting Mayle out of business. How about little editorial support? for one Jane didn't even her her own post about this - i mean she is lumped into another article which is really sad. Also as someone who has shopped there forever customers complained when the dresses were $400 and the tops were $250. Everyone always waits for the sample sale-and buys then (not me - i do go to buy the "maybe" pieces). I have spent $80K there in the past 5 years and I am proud to have supported this small business and wear her new pieces each season. I am so sad that I am not going to have anywhere to shop anymore where the sales girls are nice and the clothes are so chic. I plan on buying as much of fall and the holiday resort as I can. And I hope that one day Jane starts a new line.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 8:15PM

I agree with guest 58--there should have been a post on Mayle closing. I don't have the income you do 58, so I have to shop at Mayle on sale. I've bought the very occasional full price item, but regardless I agree that her clothes are worth every penny of the thousands of dollars I've spent on them. They are made beautifully, drape amazingly well, have wonderful details and last forever. I'll miss the great sales staff too. It's really sad.

And, 51, you are wrong about her fabrics and construction. I have coats that I wear every year and the fabric is as good as new despite heavy use, dresses that remain special and wear well after multiple dry cleaning, sweaters that don't pill etc. Her quality is higher than most and the construction is very good.

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 8:18PM

listen GOD DAMN it not everyone can afford luella or proenza and what you people in the fashion industry don't seem to understand that when you label clothing as "affordable" and its 200 dollars some of us in the real world can't even afford these "affordable" brands shit some of us can't even afford 50 dollars for an american apperal hoodie, so what are we supposed to do wear tacky shit from wal mart HELL NO thats why us non-snobs shop @ h&m and gap and your least favorite of the actual affordable stores forever 21 we all love the up and comers but what about the real people who dont have paris hilton dollars who don't know how to sew but find inspiration in these beautiful clothes and just want to own a piece of beautiful or trendy clothing, what i'm really trying to say is get off your high horse and understand that all of us are not rich but we still want to look good

posted by guest

Aug 18, 2008 9:52PM

I agree with most of what was said in this post, with the exception of the line that Fashionista in general uses over and over in this argument. "People choose to buy the $20 knock-off instead of the $200 real thing, and that hurts the original designer." Sorry, but no. It's not an issue of having plenty of disposable income but being a cheapskate. If I could buy nothing but $200+ dresses from designer labels, I would. In a heartbeat. That said, I can't. I'm a college student and I'm broke and then some. Designers aren't losing business on me because I can't afford so much as a designer keychain. Even "up and coming" is way out of my price range.

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 1:31AM

this is getting so old.
seriously, everythings been said already thats worth saying for either side.
can we move on please?

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 3:20AM

just acknowledge that a cheats a cheat - or better yet, a thief - and see if your mentality changes. i used to download music for free, and there was never a single time that i did it without realizing that i was a cheat=thief.

you may not realize where your cheaper=stolen fashion comes from ORIGINALLY, but Adventures in Copyright makes me think a little bit more about the fashion process. it's very easy to go through life without a conscience if you don't want to acknowledge the source or consequences of filtered-down=stolen designs.

i am small fashion designer who used to work for a corporate company that brought clothes in at lower pricepoints - and about 60-80% of what got "shopped" and copied=stolen were gorgeous clothes from smaller designers and big designers. and these clothes, once copied=stolen by my employer, always represented the "best sells" of the season, and brought people in to buy other things in the store like their line of basics. instead of supporting their designer who would make original designs, it was more important to support a copier=thief who could work quickly and please their shareholders - and make them more money. and at this point, this is all legal.

the other mentality is that if we keep resorting to pay for cheaper=stolen merchandise, we could be guaranteeing ourselves a low-income/wage. maybe we should actually go back to our employers and ask for higher wages so that we can afford to make better choices on where our money goes.

in the end most of us will be working for corporate companies who do not honor paying a fair working wage but can offer the security of a regular paycheck, therefore, most of us would not be able to afford designer clothing - and break out of this "poor pattern" of capitalism.

maybe with ebay paying off hundreds of millions to louis vuitton, DVF championing fashion copyrights, and Adventures in Copyright, we might see fashion become a little bit more fair. DVF might take all the blog entries of "Adventures in Copyright" to the high courts, and get the judge to make a decision in favor of protecting original fashion designers.

in christian dior's time, some people would outright copy=steal, but most people bought the right to copy=COPY directly from dior himself - but this was done after the original sold first.

with technology and pictures hitting the web the day of the shows, fashion gets copied=stolen overnight - so by the time the original clothing hits the stores 6 months later, people have already bought cheaper=stolen versions - have moved on and are hungry for the next new thing in fashion. we are feeding the beast and not thinking of the consequences. and that's why stores like mayle are closing. the fashion business is intense in this day and age.

fashion's one of the few businesses where cheating=stealing is generally accepted and allowed without penalties. it's basically shoplifting=shopping without really paying (except for the 1 sample a "copier=thief" wants to copy - and many small-time copiers=thieves actually buy the sample and return it later with a receipt).

if i went into forever 21 or the like and walked off with a "stolen design", i could go to court/jail. everyone knows that. so what's the difference if a company like forever 21 makes money off of another designer's work? at this point, they're allowed to make more money. and all the copiers=thieves justify it by saying, "That's the Nature of the business." It isn't natural - but if everybody does it, we make it natural, so that people don't have to feel bad about it.

thanks faran. please keep Adventures in Copyright. many obviously still read it, whether they get anything out of it or not. i appreciate it. in the very least it gives people a forum to post their thoughts.

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 3:33AM

p.s.

big fashion companies benefit from all this thievery because it's all free press. the 1000's of Vuitton or Chanel knock-offs walking the streets posing as the real thing. and it helps create the desire on the streets, and gets many people to save a little money every month until they can walk into the flagship and buy the sunglasses, perfume and The Ultimate - the IT-BAG of the season.

and all this copying, is helping make designer prices GO UP.

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 6:19AM

i think that people have the right to shop smart at their own budget. not all of us have spare money to spend on the so called "authentic" clothing, even though the quality is amazing. and there is no guarantee that the authentic clothes will still be in our closets seasons from now anyway. so we just need some alternatives so that we can shop and still afford to live.

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 7:36AM

I love fashionista but I always need to take it with a pinch of salt, and this post demonstrates exactly why. There are good fashion bloggers who can intelligently think about the socio-ethical concerns in the fashion industry, but you're not one of them, so stick to what you do best.

As plenty of other commentators have said, your arguments are weak, lazy clichés at best here - there are more hypocritical holes than in a pair of alexander wang's tights. Of course outright copyright theft is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated but there is a difference between the filtered-through effects of mass market fashion and a plastic chanel bag from some market stall. Apart from the self-righteous feel-good piety, what exactly is the message of this post - for a person who may not have the disposable income or access to purchase "authentic" designer goods - resign to wearing blah generic uniforms with no reference to any trends? scrimp, scrimp, scrimp for a teeny wardrobe of a handful of overpriced authenticity? And the supposedly more ethical brands you mention - topshop, h&m - please what a joke! a) their clothes are no more resilient than anyone else's; b) have you looked at the labels to see where they are manufactured recently? This fantasy of clean, well paid factories for these high volume manufacturers is just that - a dream.

And re- thrift/vintage - what about someone taking references from contemporary designers, eg, the lace trend, and then finding a vintage piece? isn't that taking income away from the original??

Of course, what is most annoying is that fashionista hasn't yet deigned to reply to any of these objections and justified this pretentious post in the first place.

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 9:58AM

I agree with # 66 - Fashionista has gone way down hill. I cite young "hipster wannabe's" writing since Faran left. Faran could be annoying but she does know fashion/ And #59 - I know our income vary - but I thinkits great that you at least support the Mayle store - even if it is during sale season. As someone who went from a full-time job to being a freelancer, I have a hard time buying all the things taht I want there now as well - but I know if i don't m,y size will be gone. I have gotten very creative:)!!

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 10:26AM

I don't know #67, I think the current crop of writers are really talented.

posted by funny_fringe

Aug 19, 2008 10:41AM

Why does everyone feel the need to defend Forever 21? What great awesome things in the world of fashion have they really done, besides making it harder for smaller designers to get their names out there? It doesn't cost a lot to support the smaller designers. Save the money you'd spend at F21 and buy something from these smaller designers. That's how I shop and I'm a college student. It's not about having Paris Hilton dollars as one comment suggested (seriously people, this "I don't have a trust fund excuse" is getting old, we get it! I don't have one either!), it's about spending wisely on your fashion choices. Stop supporting/defending F21 and support your small independent designers and their creations!

posted by allisonwrote

Aug 19, 2008 11:14AM

#69, I don't think you understand the limits of some people's budget. It's not a matter of, "Well, mommy and daddy pay for my tuition and rent, but I only get a certain finite allowance to spend on myself, so I'll just save up that allowance til I can afford something nice rather than blow it on F21!" Yes, that makes sense for those people.

But for others, they're paying for everything. Their own rent, their own tuition, food, gas, everything. And does it really make sense in this case to blow $900 on a dress? That's just ridiculous.

#66, your comments are spot on.

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 11:42AM

#70, you're presuming that commenter #69 has mommy and daddy to pay their rent and tuition. However, you certainly do not know the commenter, nor do you know what their economic standing is like.
I know plenty of college students who have taken out loans, or who got scholarships to attend college, who are also able to budget what little money they have to intelligently splurge on a few key pieces a couple times per year.
I can't stand the argument that if you believe in supporting younger designers rather than shopping at F21, then you must come from money.
Of course there are plenty of kids who are still reliant on their parents. However, even if commenter 69 had that luxury, there would still be absolutely no need for the condescending tone.

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 11:55AM

As someone who has been on their own paying their own rent/bills and the such since the age of 17 when I graduated HS, I have to say that its all about Budget. I love designer clothes and I love the freedom of being able to purchase them. I work and make a good living as a freelancer and I have to say that if you want something - really want it you will save up to buy it. People always gave me a hard time back the mid 90's when I would buy 2 Gucci bags a season ( and they were only $600 then) but they made me happy and I saved for them - or used my tax refund. seriously i almost purchased a balenciaga le dix bag knock off once and it made me so ill that I just opened a Barneys card and bought the real thing (and got 10% off to boot). I don't support going into debt to stay ahead of the fashion game but if you want something, you will think of a creative way to buy it. That said I do like F21 - they have great accessories. And if you are ok with the fact that these accessories are going to break/fall apart in a week then shop for them there. I have to say that I am really taking Mayle closing hard. Genius designs, gorgeous patterns/fabrics - this is a true shame.

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 12:17PM

what irks me is when people suggest that it is only an either/or situation: either you save your pennies (and your karma) for the designer brand, or you go down the path of damnation and pick a cheap piece of tat that will have fallen apart before you've even made it out of the door. There's nothing wrong with saving up for a few key pieces, I'll do so myself if I know it's something I'll love till I die, but that shouldn't rule out the cheaper brands - it's disgustingly snobbish to say, as one commentator did above, if you can't afford the real thing, don't wear the knock off.

and sometimes you do have to do a leetle reality check and add up the numbers - do I save up for a month to buy a £300 pair of shoes, and spend the rest of the time in relative empty-pocketed misery, or do a buy a cheaper version, and have change left over for a few more wardrobe additions, a bit of a social life and a lot less guilt?

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 12:17PM

I've always loved knockoffs, but you guys have converted me. xoxo

posted by allisonwrote

Aug 19, 2008 12:40PM

#71, I'm not talking about that specific commenter. I'm talking about when people reference saving money, they seem to have a perception that it's easy to save (which IS easy, if you have a large disposable income).

Either way, saving one's money is admirable, but there is a difference between the person who gets an allowance they can choose to spend or save and the one who has to pay for everything on a monthly basis with little to nothing left over.

All I'm saying is that too many people are speculating that most Forever 21 shoppers are in that first category rather than the second.

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 1:00PM

75 and others--I've been so poor that clothes weren't in my budget, F21 or otherwise, so I know how that is and I look like I could be heading back there soon in this economy. But I doubt many people here are really so desperately short of money that they can't save at least $20 or $30 a month and then buy an item when it goes on sale.

There's this conception here from those of you defending F21 that you can't go elsewhere. I think F21 has been singled out here because it rips off designers for most, if not all, its stock whereas Topshop, H&M work with trends and maybe get very close to ripping off designers here and there but also offer original, trend/fashion influenced pieces. F21 seems to be a limit case--generally bad quality and completely unrepentant about stealing the work of others.

At the other end is the assumption that all designers are expensive. There is huge price variation between the major collections, contemporary brands and independent designers. All of them also have sales and with the internet, 50-70% reductions can be had by more people than in the past. I've got contemporary and independent designer clothing for $75-$125 this way. I save for the sales and wait to see what I want--as well as what is left in my size.

Even in the F21 price range, you can do better. Sales at Club Monaco, Gap, Urban Outfitters, H&M offer better quality clothing at low prices (I've gotten many great finds for under $30 at Club Monaco that last years). Obviously some of these store have ethical issues regarding production but if we return to the Adventures in Copyright issue, they aren't stealing other people's designs as egregiously as F21.

It's never easy to save--and I've done it in grad school on next to nothing and no trust fund either--but there are very few people who can't find somewhere to save. That $20 F21 dress, the $3 coffee and the $4 magazine can all be renounced and used to get the dress/top/shoes that you really love and will have for some time--even if it is from Club Monaco's sale rack rather than from some designer. If you can't save, can you afford to buy that F21 item which ultimately will come with a high cost per wear (the true measure of affordability) as it likely won't survive more than a wash or two.

posted by blythespirit

Aug 19, 2008 2:37PM

faran,thanks.As struggling little designers,we need your kind of article to support our cause....we do our best to keep it real,and then see direct knock offs by designers as diverse as catherine M,Jcrew.you rock for this article,please keep it up!
all at THE FALLS
fallsdesigns.com

posted by HiFashionLvr

Aug 19, 2008 3:17PM

im totally against knockoffs, bcuz even if theyre not ripping the designer off financially, theyre stealing their original, creative ideas. fashion is an art and what's any form of art with no idea? its like wen 5 year olds do abstract art; its nice, but not inspired and totally meaningless. however, as someone else had mentioned, i don't care if one cheaper store takes inspiration from the runway. even the two dresses u posted were very different. i mean, yes, they hav the same button style, same length, and almost the same collars, but come on, it's a different look. and someone talked about the DIY posts. i believe that is quite a shame as well. i mean, its like saying "i wont buy a knockoff, but ill make 1," which is outrageously ridiculous. in the DIY sections of magazines like Teen Vogue, at least the designer is essentially getting credit - within the magazine at least - and probably money, or at least publicity.

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 4:31PM

I'm very curious what the demographics for this website are now versus when it first started out.

When fashionista.com first started out, it seemed very industry focused; the voice in the posts seemed directed at those already inside the fashion industry. Exhortations not to buy knockoffs seemed to be pleas to the poorly-paid fashion assistants who supposedly read the site: "Don't cannibalize this industry we work in and love! Saving for the real thing is worth it!"

Now this site's readership is more diverse, and includes many, many voices who have identified themselves as outside the fashion industry. They clearly read the site for a variety of reasons, but they are not fashion insiders. Therefore, the tone, perspective, and arguments of the posts on this site may ring ridiculous (not that some of them, like Kyle's last week -- shouldn't) to those living outside the industry.

If Fashionista.com is now a "universal" fashion site, it should give more creedence to the views (and financial realities/priorities) of its non-insider readers, and focus its content accordingly.

But if the site written for industry-insiders, (and therefore providing us non-insiders with a peek inside the world of fashion is just an incidental benefit), then the site should unapologetically identify itself as such. Then its content and argument could be viewed in proper perspective.

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 4:45PM

Great, great, great, great article!

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 4:53PM

I wholeheartedly agree with commenter #66:
"As plenty of other commentators have said, your arguments are weak, lazy clichés at best here - there are more hypocritical holes than in a pair of alexander wang's tights."

That is mean, but very funny and even more true.

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 5:37PM

I can totally understand where Advs/Faran is coming from. Sometimes seeing women swarm the knockoffs at the flea market makes me a bit nauseous. But it's their money, their choice, their happiness.

But...apparently everyone is forgetting that Forever 21 shoppers, for the most part, have no freaking clue who Mayle or Philip Lim and the like are! Faran, and others, when was the last time you all strolled into an F21 in the middle of America? I live in St. Louis, MO, and I can tell you that if you said to one of the teenagers or early/mid 20 yr olds shopping there, "OMG, I can't believe you bought a Mayle ripoff--you biatch!"...they'd look at you like WTF are you talking about?? And would probably go off because you were blocking their shopping.

For the most part, these girls don't identify with the name of the designer--they identify with the celebrity that wore that outfit last night at the VMA's or some crappy ass awards show. All they're thinking is I want THAT. But I can't spend $1000 on it and if someone can get it for me at $50 then I'll buy it. There's no thought of ethics, sweatshops, poor kids in China...they're aware that it exists but you know what? For some of them, it doesn't even matter.

I don't know what grudge Fashionista is holding against F21--and don't really care--but seriously, we've now reached the threshold of pain tolerance when it comes to mentioning that silly store. I think everyone is in agreement when I say...

Ripping off designers SUCK. But as long as us greedy, materialistic, fashion following biatches exist...so will they. When the divide between the haves and the have nots/never will haves (and growing every single day) ceases to exist, then people will stop worrying about the latest fashion and just wear what they want. Regardless of the cost. And unless something major happens, we all know that won't happen either.

-SOME designers, high/low end, mass market retailers or whatever, aren't ethical. For every retailer/designer that doesn't use this or that, there are another 10 that DO. Throwing stones won't do a damn bit of good cause the minute you think that you've found a bad guy, well one you thought wasn't, is.

-Being able to wear what your favorite celebrity wears is what counts for many of the people out in the "real world." Those of us who aren't fortunate enough to wear the latest and greatest $200 tee shirt but can afford the $25 one cause well hey, maybe I can't BE a Gossip Girl but I can wear something close enough that I'll FEEL like one.

All the back and forth in the world doesn't matter. Sure, people can be lofty and feel superior because they can afford it (and for those who say well I save and save--good for you--you apparently don't live in the "gotta have it NOW" world that most of the rest of us subscribe to), but in the end, you saying you paid $250 for a shirt just because so and so designed it and it looks like ass means absolutely bupkus to the Average Jane walking the street.

posted by guest

Aug 19, 2008 10:05PM

love your mettle!

posted by guest

Aug 20, 2008 1:21AM

SERIOUSLY? Do you really believe what you wrote?

I think you need to read Gomorrah by Roberto Saviano. Like some of the commentors wrote, just because that dress cost $5000 doesn't mean it wasn't made in a sweatshop. It doesn't mean that little kids weren't forced to work, people killed and lives ruined.

Do a little research before you spout nonsense.

posted by guest

Aug 20, 2008 11:58AM

84--I think many people who agree with Faran do as much research as they can. I look for made in NY labels and while that's no sign that sweatshop conditions weren't involved, it beats F21 any day who clearly have to use sweatshops or the like. It does take time but I know smaller designers who have ethical standards, and if all else fails, there are great designers on Etsy who make their own clothes.

I think you blame the messenger. Of course some of the luxury conglomerates have ethical issues in production. But isn't it better for this debate to be here so that maybe some of the readers recognize that that $20 price tag in F21 comes at costs to others?

And once and for all, Faran and others aren't recommending $5,000 dresses. Designers can be charging $50 for their skirt on Etsy--there are many levels and price points.

posted by guest

Aug 15, 2009 2:55PM

When you talk about sweatshops I think you guys have the best intentions in mind. However, it's silly to think that you can fix the problem by not buying lower end lines.

First off, with child labor, it's not like these children have a lot of other options. Would you rather having them working in a factory or begging on the street, digging through toxic trash, etc.? Because those are generally the other options and judging by their actions these children would rather work. It's not like once they're off the hook from making clothes they'll just skip along to school.

It's admirable to want to improve the working conditions of workers around the world, but you have to consider whether your actions will have any impact, or whether the impact you have will be the one you intended vs. a negative, albeit unintended one.

posted by guest

Aug 17, 2009 11:39AM

I love Adventures in Copyright. I like knowing where I can find more affordable versions of the designer originals. Keep it up! Thanks.