Our Town

The CFDA held a ‘town hall’ meeting yesterday to talk about all the issues the fashion industry’s facing as we enter SS10 Fashion Week.

We like to think there was yelling and hand raising and a chalkboard and a gavel, but really it sounds like Diane von Furstenberg did her best to calm everyone’s nerves and focus on one problem at a time while Anna Wintour made silly statements like, “We have friends in the White House now,” while proposing something illegal.

The general consensus is that the root of the problem (aside from the obvious economic woes) is the customer’s confusion. And as anyone who’s ever worked in retail can attest, it is in fact baffling for most customers to face a fur coat in July and a bikini in January. Why would they buy it then when they can wait until it’s actually cold (or hot) outside and buy it for 70% less? The Pres repeatedly advocated shipping wear-now product, something Elie Tahari says he’s been doing very successfully.

Diane also mentioned the celebrity quotient. She suggested, brilliantly and yet so obviously, that designers not loan out their samples the day after the runway show, but instead wait until the buzz can result in actual sales. If someone sees an SS10 dress on Rachel Bilson in October, they’ll forget about it by the time they can actually buy it in January.

Obviously the fashion industry has a lot of revamping to do if it’s to emerge from this with a penny in its pocket so if you’re in the industry, whether editor, buyer or designer, send your suggestions to fashionweek@cfda.com and keep your fingers crossed.

posted by shharvin

Jul 29, 2009 11:51AM

Consumer confusion does have something to do with it, but I think the real problem is money. People just can't spend money on $5,000 dresses or $800 shoes anymore. These companies should seriously consider lowering their prices, even if they think it will hurt their brand image. What good is keeping the brand image when no one is buying the product?

Designers need to realize that the economy will never go back to the way it was before the recession, and comsumers won't have the same ideas about spending.

posted by guest

Jul 29, 2009 12:34PM

Seasons and sizing,seriously.

Jul 29, 2009 1:21PM

I think that this is a great post. I work in retail and I hate seeing down vests in July! I think retailers should start selling clothes appropriate for the given season and ship the clothes for the following season a month ahead. i.e. fall clothes in late august.

It's ridiculous and annoying how early fall clothes are shipped out. I agree with post #1.

http://amandasfashionspot.blogspot.com

Jul 29, 2009 2:56PM

I hate when you see celebrities in the clothes from a desinger a week after the show. Its like what the hell is the point when everyones wearing winter clothes in summer. It totaly kills it by the time when the clothes are actually in stores.

Jul 30, 2009 3:26PM

Why is it "customer confusion" to wait to buy clothes they can wear now at 70% off? Isn't this "retailer confusion" or "designer confusion"?

Jul 30, 2009 3:42PM

I agree on the timing and pricing issue. The designer prices have crept up to such a point that even people who saved for a much coveted pair of shoes or winter coat can no longer justify the expenditure. Ten years ago, I bought my first Gucci bag on sale, and paid $350. I made sure it went back in its felt bag at night and treated it like a piece of rare gold. The past couple years, I didn't blink to spend the same amount on less than highest end designer shoes (i.e. Stewart Weitzman), with the occasional splurge on a pair of LVs. But times, they have a-changed. I can't justify dropping $800 on a pair of shoes when there is so much job uncertainy. Maybe the bottomline is that high end designer goods really are for the people who don't have to keep track of their money. The designers need to make the call on whether that niche market is truly enough to keep them afloat (doubtful given the glut of designers). If not, it's time to adjust - even slightly downward. Hear that LV? People maybe can still save for $400 shoes - but not $800!