When Women’s Wear Daily features ‘Cheap Week’ as a branded theme, that’s a sure sign of the times. Rosemary Feitelberg writes Frugality in Fashion Amidst Economic Slump:

While restrained spending has always gone hand-in-hand with a shaky economy, now, more than ever, Americans are bragging about their rock-bottom fashion finds.

Really? I’ve been doing that with my friends since the 80s. Apparently cheap chic has gone fully mainstream. And ‘fast fashion’ outlets are all too happy to provide alternatives to the traditional department store outlets.

Forever 21 - Times Square flagship store from Sugar Rock Catwalk

While the average American may not be glued to London’s FTSE or Japan’s Nikkei, he or she is more inclined to acknowledge the reality of his or her own financial situation. At Forever 21’s new 90,000-square-foot Times Square flagship Friday with her teenage daughter, Donna Georgio said she is definitely shopping at stores such as Marshalls and TJ Maxx more than Bloomingdale’s like she used to. “Part of it is due to clothes being too expensive and I’m afraid of losing my job or getting into debt,” she said. “I’m 50 years old. I’ve had all the clothes and have gone from having Audis and BMWs to a Volkswagen. My priorities have changed. But I can still hook it up and look good.”

What is interesting to note is that nowhere in this article does Feitelberg mention, even in passing, the essentially slave labor necessary in this race to the rock bottom price. Not that designer labels are above exploitation, mind you. It’s just that, ironically enough, the big names have been the target of enough high profile anti-sweatshop campaigns to force them to implement at least minimal supervision of their subcontractors. But the Forever 21 customer is highly unlikely to care about much beyond getting that trendy dress for $12.

Consumers have plenty of reasons to be frugal and will keep trading down and saving money for years to come, according to Howard Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates Inc., a New York-based retail and consulting banking firm. “People are looking for value and the consumer mind-set has changed forever. All you have to do is look at what’s going on with Mango, Zara and H&M [financially],” he said. “The most dramatic example is Japan. I have a home there. It used to be the biggest place for luxury [shopping]. Everything has changed there because the standard of living is declining and that’s what is going on here.”

W. David Marx noted this shift in Japan back in 2008 at Businessoffashion.com in a blog post titled Japanese Women: From Luxury to Yuru Nachu:

Just five years ago, the Japanese luxury market looked like it was headed for an era of permanent dominance. The economy had finally started to uptick after a long decade of recession in Japan. In came a relatively-unprecedented New Rich — mostly, internet millionaires and employees at foreign investment banks — who ushered a wealth-obsessed zeitgeist into the popular culture. Conspicuous consumption was in.

As an analogue to this movement, female style gravitated away from the street fashion of the 1990s to a style called O-nee-kei (“big sister style”), popular among mainstream females in their early twenties. The O-nee-kei girls were convinced that the only chance at future happiness was a rich suitor, and the bibles of this fashion movement — magazines CanCam and JJ — told them exactly how to dress in order to snag a man in a decent income bracket. The styling was mostly cute office conservative, but instead of designer fashion like in the 1990s, the clothes came mostly from cheap domestic labels. Handbags, however, needed to be from Louis Vuitton or Gucci, and jewelry meant Tiffany, Bulgari, and Cartier. The bling was all in the accesssories.

These O-nee-kei girls would not think for a microsecond about Parisian mode. In fact, these girls started to openly preach a love of “real clothes” — a term to describe inexpensive, trendy apparel from exclusively Japanese companies, mostly designed by young women the same age as customers. Although CanCam‘s focus on looking “classy” to attract rich men kept the luxury handbag on the menu, the “real clothes” rhetoric of “unreal foreign fashion labels vs. real Japanese brands” offered omens of wide-scale luxury rejection.

Ah ha. Keep the easily recognizable status symbol, but skimp on the quality couture clothing that the men they were chasing didn’t care about, anyway. What happens, however, when the supply of rich young men dries up with a global recession? While some girls just step up their game, all too many decide to play a different one.

Yuru Nachu style featured on Businessoffashion.com. W.David Marx photograph

With the less robust economy and a visible rise of underpaid young workers, the New Rich Pageant of 2003 has gone out with a whimper, making the princess-y O-nee-keilook appear somewhat shallow. In this recession-adjusted cultural atmosphere, everyone wants inexpensive, low pressure, and comfortable clothing. This year has thus seen the rise of the Yuru Nachu (“relaxed, natural”) style, which could be a long-term challenge to previous luxury attitudes. This “fashion ethic” is based on relaxed silhouettes, muted colours, and layering organic textiles. From loose “Bohemian” flower print dresses to off-white linen tunics, young women from all taste and consumer subcultures have embraced some variation of this fashion look.

Although Yuru Nachu reflects many of the global industry’s spring trends, the look has succeeded wildly thanks to its ability to connect with young women’s need for a less consumerist take on fashion. Out with the exclusive leather handbag, and in with the $12 “eco bag.”

When the cheap canvas tote replaces the Louis Vuitton as the anti-status status symbol, something is afoot. Back to WWD:

“If you look back at the boom years, a lot of that spending was accessed through credit. Debt-fueled affluence or aspirational consumerism is going to be challenged to return and is not about to get us back to where we were.”

Needless to say, he is not counting on shoppers to start spending more freely anytime soon. “From a big-picture macroeconomic standpoint, we are expecting a very sluggish recovery in the economy that is probably not conducive to consumers waking up one day feeling a lot better about everything and willing to spend again,” said Tuhy

This is bad news for big name ‘luxury’ brands that depended on the aspirational consumer to provide the bread and butter by overpaying for logo laden bags cranked out in third world factories.

“Conspicuous consumption is not very chic right now,” Christopher said. That behavior is counter to the Veblen effect, named after economist Thorstein Veblen, who first noted that decreasing the value of high-end goods only decreases people’s interest in buying them, he added.

Obviously Veblen wasn’t around long enough to witness The Gilt Groupe website. What’s different about now versus Veblen’s Victorian age is that the ‘democratization of fashion’ has 21st century ‘aspirational’ (translate - can’t really afford it but buy it anyway) consumers going after the same luxury brands as the actually rich, which in the long run turns into a cannibalistic effect of sorts. Decreasing the price doesn’t necessarily increase the interest - for it’s safe to assume that, by definition, far more people are interested in these items than can afford them - but instead increases the accessibility of the brand. Which will, in time, decrease the interest of the truly rich who establish the status of the item in the first place.

Consumers are kidding themselves if they think fast fashion distinguishes them from the masses, said Ellen Ruppel Shell, author of “Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture.” Topshop may have certain status for being London based and the same might be said of the Swedish chain H&M, but the reality is that neither is all that different from Wal-Mart, she said. “Frugal chic is kind of a label in itself now. But I would argue that we are deluding ourselves. These goods are mass produced, sold all over the world, available to everyone and they don’t involve a lot of creativity,” Shell said. “Truly fashionable people are able to go to thrift stores to find something stylish.”

Yes! Count me amongst the truly fashionable, then.

From Neiman Marcus' fall offerings

The Associated Press article featuring Neiman Marcus’ Fashion Director Ken Downing’s predictions for the fall has been widely featured in newspapers around the country. But the declarations of Downing I found most useful were not his recommendations of what to buy this season (feathers, lace, pantsuits, whatever). Of far more interest were the words on what compels her to buy at all, which are especially relevant in a belt tightening economy:

“A customer’s not interested in buying something she already owns,” he said. “She wants something that has absolute newness that she just desires and can’t live without.”

Ah yes, the perfect quote to support my irresistible sells fashion category!

Author Jamie Stengle offers a few more gems that give us further insight into the process of forecasting and influencing the trends we see in the malls at every price point:

Downing, luxury retailer Neiman Marcus’ fashion director, has been digesting designer offerings from New York to London to Paris to Milan to come up with a list of trends sure to get people running to the mall.

“I really create the attitude and the message and the mood of the season that the company will be following,” Downing said.

His fashion forecast is then integrated into everything from the Dallas-based company’s (www.neimanmarcus.com) marketing message to what buyers look for to how mannequins are dressed.

Do not try this at home

I really like Stengle’s use of the term digesting in reference to the trend distillation process. No, all the big name designers do not coordinate their lines around specific trend messages.

To create that trend list, Downing watches for recurring themes at fashion shows around the globe. Then he checks out whether designers are producing enough of those trendy items he’s honed in on to fill store racks.

“We start to talk about do we have the critical mass to make these bold predictions?” he said.

For instance, he said, “If we believe in green, we need to have green everywhere.” (This fall, by the way, green will be everywhere, he says, especially in the military-influenced olive.)

Boots of all heights are also in the fall forecast, he said. And a structured handbag is a must, not to mention pearls, “ropes and ropes” of them. Also, he says, keep an eye out for capes, ponchos and vests.

Olive green military? Excellent. Easy to thrift. And looks good with my new red lipstick kick. Ropes and ropes of pearls? Hello 80s retro Chanel knock off possibly spurned by Patricia Field’s god-awful costuming in Devil Wears Prada? And ponchos? Seriously? C’mon, we were giggling about that in 2003, it’s got to be a least a decade before you can try that again. If you’re going to invest actual money, go for that pantsuit with a killer cut. Frilly lace tops can be found at the Buffy.

Mochila bags featured in NY Times' "Mochila Bags: In the Moment, and Long Gone"

Apparently the latest ‘It Bag’ fought over by ‘It Girls’ isn’t coming from the usual logo ladened corporate conglomerates.

It takes the women of the Wayuu tribe of Colombia and Venezuela up to a month to weave a mochila bag, working eight hours a day, every day. It took no time at all for J. Crew, which featured the strappy satchels in its June catalog, to sell all of them. In fact, they were gone before many customers had even flipped open the issue.

But however wonderful it might seem to be supporting ancient indigenous artisanal craft,  what happens to this new mini industry once the fashionistas abandon these for the next big trend? Karin Nelson writes for the NY Times:

Recently, the mochila has become something of a cult item, toted around town by fashion editors and It girls, and the subject of chatter on style blogs. “It seems to be the iconic tribal bag,” said Anne Slowey, the fashion news director of Elle, who has picked up a few on her travels. “The perfect mix of practical, exotic and chic.”

The PR folks at J. Crew offer the following explanation for the bag’s popularity.

“Craftsmanship is something rare and very valuable,” said Jenna Lyons, J. Crew’s creative director, who was not at all surprised by how quickly the bags went. “There are few things that are still made by hand, much less in a technique that is handed down through generations and is a means of support for a community.” On top of that, she added, “It’s a beautiful bag.”

It’s not entirely untrue, of course, but completely neglects the obvious fact that these amazingly crafted items have been around since long before J. Crew… why now are they all of a sudden so hot? Nelson writes:

Much of the craze can be traced to November when the Vogue editor Lauren Santo Domingo organized the Mochila Project. For it, 40 designers, from Alexander Wang to Oscar de la Renta, were each given a traditional bag and asked to rework it in their own style. The extraordinary results — the Calvin Klein was trimmed in snakeskin; the J. Mendel, in fur — were then auctioned off at a charity event in Miami that left those nowhere near South Florida somewhat envious.

Ah yes, the real truth. Craftsmanship is one thing, but when the fashion cabal creates an elite insider event, carrying around the signifier that marks you as in the know? That’s what the ‘It Girls’ will shell out the big bucks for.

And who knows, given the shift away from corporate symbols and towards the status of individual quality crafts, perhaps some entrepreneur might find a way to enlist the work of of the Wayuu tribe into the next great thing.

The most wonderful interview with Tom Ford appeared on Fresh Air the other day. Ford speaks on how fashion reflects a moment in time:

Fashion is very quick. It’s very disposable. It’s immediately - it tells you exactly where we are in our culture, especially women’s fashion.

If we’re having a glitzy over-the-top moment, fashion is very glitzy and over-the-top, you know, over-the-top. If we’re having a moment where things are, you know, we’re in a recession, fashion becomes quiet.

Gucci in the late nineties

Terri Gross asks:

Of all the things that you’ve designed, do you have any favorites that you really hope will endure because you think they were wonderful?

Ford replies:

I do. I have to say, I think my last few collections for Gucci and for Yves Saint Laurent in 2003-2004, in terms of complexity and construction, were some of the most interesting things I ever designed because I had learned at that point how to make more complex clothes, both cerebrally as well as technically.

And I had worked with a great atelier in Italy for Gucci and in Paris for Saint Laurent. So, I had learned a lot. However, the collections that I feel influenced popular culture the most were early on, in 1995, 1996.

And I think that those were the collections that I’ll be remembered for because at that particular moment in time, fashion was in one place. It was very subdued, very sedated, and in a sense, I brought back sensuality and sexuality to clothes. And the things I did at that time were simpler in construction but maybe more powerful in content.

…the first collection I did that really, you know, brought me a lot of attention and brought Gucci a lot of attention and a lot of business were hiphuggers in velvet, satin shirts, simple coats, but what was new about them at that time was that they were very, very sensual. They were very colorful, as well. There was an enormous amount of color. And they were a throwback to a period in the 1970s when fashion was more touchable.

Benjamin Schupp on Conceptar.org

And then it gets really interesting as Ford contrasts the sensuality of the seventies with the hard edge ‘femme bot’ sexuality of now:

Today, you know, fashion is not - our beauty standard today is harder. It’s beautiful but it’s off-putting. It’s like, don’t touch me, I’m hard.

It’s so interesting how female form, less male form, mirrors where we are culturally, aesthetically, as well as - for example, right now everything is pumped up.

Cars look like someone took an air pump and pumped them up. They look engorged. Lips pumped up, breasts pumped up, everything is pumped up. And it’s also kind of off-putting.

It’s sexual but in such a hard way that it’s, for me, not sexual at all, whereas the 1970s, breasts were smaller. People were not wearing bras. Farrah Fawcett’s sexuality and sensuality was a very touchable sexuality. She was kissable. She was friendly.

And that was what I brought back in the ’90s with some of my early collections for Gucci that we hadn’t seen in a while. And I think that right now we’re in a very hard moment and off-putting. I mean, look at shoes today, women’s shoes. They couldn’t possibly get any higher and meaner and sharper. But then again, you go and watch most films today, they’re violent, and we’re living in a world that is, at the moment, quite hard.

Terri asks him to elaborate on the breasts issue:

I don’t understand all these breasts right now, and they don’t look like breasts. They look like someone’s taken a grapefruit half and inserted it under your skin. I mean it’s - it doesn’t even bear any resemblance to what a natural breast looks like. But we’re starting to think that this is what women should like.

And young girls are looking at these breasts and thinking, oh, I need to go have my breasts done because they’ve lost touch with what a real breast actually looks like. I find it fascinating. I find it disturbing. I mean, you could consider it more fascinating because we’re becoming post-human.

…We are actually - we are. We are actually starting to manipulate our bodies, because we can, into a shape. We are becoming our own art. But what happens for me is that it desexualizes everything. You know, you start to look more and more polished, more and more lacquered and you look like a beautiful car. Does anyone want to sleep with you? Does anyone want to touch you? Does anyone want to kiss you? Maybe not because you’re too scary.

But you’re beautiful, you’re glossy, you’re shiny, but you’re not human. Very interesting. And I say that in a very detached way, I’m not making a judgment about it. I’m just saying it’s fascinating culturally.

“In fashion, one minute you’re in… and the next minute, you’re OUT.” Stephen Foley writes, Why American Apparel is Going out of Fashion:

It is impossible to say if there is a straight line from the salacious gossip – usually culled from the sensational lawsuits that the company attracts – to the financial peril in which American Apparel finds itself, but this much is clear: it is no longer the hottest place to shop. An equally bright and breezy foreign interloper, Uniqlo, is expanding fast on its home turf; H&M and Zara are buzzing with bargain-hunting fashionistas, hip to styles that change in those stores faster than they ever change at an American Apparel.

A fickle hipster clientele has moved on to other things? Never woulda believed it.

From Gawker.com

Foley cites Gawker media as AA’s thorn in their side. American Apparel’s PR department is no match for Gawker’s solicitation of the real story from former employees.

In regard to the recent article about Grooming, it is 100% true. Not only do they have it on paper, they also have a team from “corporate” who come to the stores just to see what we’re wearing. Just a couple weeks ago, a posse of power tripping nineteen year olds came in (literally everyone from this corporate fantasy land is a maximum age of 20) and made me go to the bathroom and wash my makeup off (and by makeup I mean a splash of liquid eyeliner and mascara and nothing at all hooker inspired). And then they scolded me for not being on the sales floor. Also, whenever we get considered for raises/promotions, we’re required to have our photos sent in for approval. My co-worker was recently denied a spot as Manager because she didn’t fit the company image. I have no idea why we continue to work there. And more importantly how are none of us involved in a lawsuit?

And it goes on and on, a litany of examples of an entire company of individuals riding the crest of last decade’s trend waves (and competing with each other to see who could do blow with the boss) with no clue how to evolve the brand into a post boom zeitgeist.

But the financial troubles go deeper. In-store sales are still running down 10 per cent, while the rest of the high street has tiptoed out of recession, suggesting a bigger malaise among shoppers.

Worse, the company jacked up its debt levels to fund its expansion just as the slowdown hit, and its failure to get back into profit means it will almost certainly breach promises to its lenders at the end of this month. London-based investor Lion Capital bailed the company out with a loan a little over a year ago; as it totters under the weight of $91.4m (£64.6m) in debt, Lion will have to decide if it wants to turn that debt into a share of the company, or put American Apparel into bankruptcy.

This is a company that has been built on the personality and creativity of Dov Charney. If his power is waning, there are plenty of critics who will declare that this is no bad thing.

I suppose I’d better invest in that lifetime supply of thigh high socks pretty soon. (the only thing I buy there. If I could find them anywhere else I would.)

When Simon Doonan, Creative Director of Barney’s, (one of the handful places where fashion forward designers have access to the rare slice of edgy yet wealthy clientele that can afford their pieces), the extremely influential guy who the rest of the fashion industry knows to pay attention to… when Simon Doonan declares The Death of Trends then it’s a zeitgeist shift worth pondering. There are still going to be shapes and norms that we collectively select (whether you follow them or rebel against them) but I see this as more of a backlash against the accelerated cycle of the spending on disposable clothing hamster wheel and a coalescing around an iconic vocabulary of modernist elements; classics that are tweaked and revised with the times.

photo by Roxanna Lowit for the Jewish Daily Forward

Doonan writes for the Observer:

Fashion is no longer icy and aloof. Fashion is a massive, forgiving, ambiguous melting pot where people and trends can dig in their Lee Press-On nails and hang on for years and years without ever being out.

He goes on to list a few examples:

Uggs. Style pundits may have broadcast their out-ness for years, but last week’s snowy streets were packed with Uggs-sporting fashion plates.

There is a delicious personal irony in this example given that back in 2004 Uggs were cited in a lengthy discussion in Fashion Theory class as an example of trendy for trendy’s sake. Even though this trend might have been initiated by celebrity sitings, (so awesome to slip on between takes on outdoor shoots) could it be that they’ve had staying power because those who bought them discovered they were super comfortable and well made and lasted forever?

Skinny jeans. Despite their supposed out-ness, they have managed to become a fashion staple, especially when tucked into riding boots. Tally ho!

Key term, “Fashion Staple.” So they became ‘in’ a few years ago as the bootcut finally reached mass market saturation, but could it be that one fashion staple was traded in for another? Could it be that people want fashion staples?

Filson clothing, used as an example of 'American Workwear' trend on brand consultancy blog "We Are The Market"

Of course, now that the skinny jean is headed for eventual  mass market saturation, it will eventually go the way of the mom jean (which has been ‘out’ almost long enough to be revived…), so it’s not as if the trend cycle is no longer. But given that ‘fast fashion’ retailing cycles had accelerated to the point of new trends every six weeks, could it be that more and more consumers are weary of this and seeking alternatives?

These alternatives - especially to spending too much - have been found for the past few decades in the ‘indie’ and ‘alternative’ subcultures continued fascination with vintage. As these ‘trends’ arise in the vintage industry about which items are hot and eagerly sought after, it was a natural progression for designers to use said items as inspiration for re-issues.

from Hypebeast.com: Comme des Garcons launch at Tokyo H & M

Why would trendy fashion for the masses palace H & M deliberately ruin mountains of brand new, perfectly wearable garments rather than mark them down or give them to people who really needed them? Jim Dwyer of the NY Times reports:

At the back entrance on 35th Street, awaiting trash haulers, were bags of garments that appear to have never been worn. And to make sure that they never would be worn or sold, someone had slashed most of them with box cutters or razors, a familiar sight outside H & M’s back door.

The Guardian UK picked up the story, too:

Inside the bags were gloves with the fingers cut off, socks, patent leather shoes with the instep cut up, and warm men’s jackets slashed across the body and arms. “It was a very frigid night, and there were bags upon bags of warm winter clothing not 50 feet away from where a homeless man slept on cardboard boxes,” she said.

…Paradoxically, five blocks away from the H&M store is a group called New York Cares, which mobilises support for the community by co-ordinating volunteers wanting to help homeless and poor families in the city. It holds an annual drive that distributes 70,000 secondhand winter coats to needy individuals.

The group points out that nine in 10 homeless adults need to replace their winter coat each year because they have no place to store it during the summer.

But neither article dares to venture near the ugly underlying truth that the reason H & M doesn’t give those coats to the people right outside who need them - or even mark them down to a level affordable by the working poor - is because those aren’t the people it wants its look to be associated with!

It’s a class thing. While H & M is talked about in fashion circles as cheap, disposable clothing, the fact remains that $25 tee shirts and $69.90 jackets are what the middle - or even upper middle - class can afford. Heck, I don’t even consider it something I can afford full price!

But this middle class will pay $49.90 for a really low quality pair of pants… that look a whole lot like elite contemporary fashion brands that cost 3 - 20 times as much. H & M offers the middle class a chance to participate in the fantasy of the designer fashion lifestyle and how do you think that customer is going to react when she sees the blouse she paid $39.90 for 6 weeks later on the streetperson she passes or the clerk selling her a sandwich?

And believe me that H & M isn’t the only hype dependent retailer doing this. A friend used to manage at Abercrombie and Fitch several years back and she said they, too, destroyed clothing rather than mark it down to where it could fall into the wrong hands.

Why wouldn’t a retailer want to at least recover 25% of the retail price rather than toss it? Because they don’t want to train customers to wait for the sales. The whole system is based on urgency and scarcity - better buy that hot item now before its gone. The belief that (insert latest fly by night trend here) is the thing to have would be challenged by customers pawing through the 75% off remains of last month’s ‘it’ trend and deeming it just as useful to them and a much better buy.

H & M might have gotten busted and I’m sure their current ‘no comment’ is buying time whilst the PR team scrambles to do damage control and come up with some corporate responsibility drek and token donation to a needy cause. But rest assured, the toss and destroy practice will continue, this time under tighter wraps.

Austin Buffalo Exchange

This will be the first post in a series exploring both the behind the scenes mechanics as well as cultural implications of the buying process at Buffalo Exchange. I’ll also be repeatedly stating, for the record, that if you give me $100 to spend on clothing in one store in Austin, it would be Buffalo Exchange - it’s my favorite place to shop and I always consider it a triumph to trade in as much - or even more - than I spend on merchandise. I have, as such, always harbored a keen fascination for the buying process - both from the perspective of a seller as well as an armchair urban fashion anthropologist.

Today I’m going to highlight some excerpts from a Time Magazine article I dug up from a couple of years ago that articulates the psychology of seller’s anxiety. Anita Hamilton writes in The New Trend of Used Clothes:

Viki Stevenson stands behind the counter, passing fashion judgment.

With the rare exception of those fashionistas who’s entire bag gets bought, anyone who’s ever sold to ‘The Buffy’ knows this feeling. And speak with anyone who’s had their entire bag (or the vast majority of it) rejected and they might just go off on a tirade somewhat similar in tone to telling the story of being rejected at a party by someone you were trying to chat up. People take it personally; I know I have, even though I understand that they have a business imperative to buy what they know will sell. Still, it is a judgement of one’s taste - do you have so many fabulous clothes that the ones you’re tired of still maintain cash value? Or are your cast offs long since out of fashion or even worse, never in style to begin with.

It can provoke all those junior high anxieties of being judged and teased by ‘the cool kids’, even if you supposedly didn’t care what they had to say.

This quickening cycle of fashion lets secondhand stores be pickier than ever. Unlike nonprofits such as Goodwill and the Salvation Army, which accept most donations, the fast-fashion resale shops typically buy only about 5% of the apparel that people bring into the store. It can be a humbling experience for a novice seller, who may find herself leaving the shop with the same bag of castoffs that she walked in with.

Only 5%? I had no idea, I’d love to find out more details on that statistic. Now I don’t feel as bad when they only take about a third of what I bring in.

And it also speaks to the fact that even though recycling is the eco thing to do, most of the clothes hanging on the racks *new* don’t have enough fashion mojo to hold their value and make it through the gatekeepers to have a second life… that someone will pay for. To those who are feeling the sting of rejection, think about this - if Buffalo Exchange took most of what people brought in, it would look a heck of a lot like Goodwill.

The rise of fast fashion, which uses a speeded-up production cycle to rush designer-inspired clothes to moderately priced retailers like Zara and H&M, has breathed new life into secondhand stores like Buffalo Exchange by boosting their supply of barely worn apparel. “H&M is our bread and butter,” says Stevenson, 27, as she flips through a carousel of blouses from H&M, American Apparel, Benetton and the Gap with prices ranging from $7.50 to $14 apiece.

Since more shoppers are loading up on cheap chic every few weeks instead of purchasing a few higher-priced basics once every few months, they’re less sentimental about quickly unloading them to help finance the next round.

But what happens when people stop buying as much fast fashion? I love recycling, don’t get me wrong, but ever since my first thrift forays 2 decades ago I’ve been keenly aware that my opportunities as such - to recycle but still be fashionable - are entirely dependent on others excessive consumerism. As soon as that starts to dip, it’s going to be a lot more competitive - and expensive to find the finds.

There’s a lot of talk about whether or not copyright protection should be extended to fashion designs, and I’m concerned about the gap between the general, idealist vision about how designers, manufacturers and retailers should behave… versus what the reality would be if this bill were to become law. So I thought it would be helpful to pause and spend a post looking in to some of the relevant language and details. Because you don’t have to be a lawyer to know that in a court room, that’s what it’s all going to boil down to.

from Bertaut.com

The Nixon Peabody law firm does a great job of explaining the act in their post, Legislation to extend copyright protection to fashion designs reintroduced in Congress and except where noted, all block quotes below are from their site, but the underlining is mine. (If you want to read the nitty gritty text of the DPPA amendment itself, it can be found here.)

If passed, the act would amend 17 U.S.C. §§ 1301, et seq., which governs copyright protection of vessel hull designs, to afford copyright protection to fashion designs embodied in, among other things, clothing, handbags, wallets, belts, footwear, headgear, and eyeglass frames.

Vessel hull? What does that have to do with anything? Well, the reason that fashion designs (as in the cut of a garment as opposed to the print of the fabric) haven’t been afforded copyrighted protection already is because they are considered a ‘useful article.’ So someone had to dig deep to find a reference of another useful article that is protected. Like a vessel hull.

But enough about vessels, what does the DPPA define as a ‘fashion design?’

As currently drafted, a “fashion design” constitutes the appearance of an article of apparel as a whole, including any ornamentation,

Marc Jacobs Fall 09 on style.com's trend report "Party like it's 1983." Do you think these garments would be filed as 'original designs' by LVMH, the parent conglomerate?

Alright so we’re looking at the entire garment, not just a piece of it. so if someone came up with a particular sleeve detail no one had ever seen before - or copied something interesting from an obscure vintage piece and filed it with the copyright office as their own original design - and you had the same detail in your garment but the other parts and pieces were different… but wait…

…and specifically protects any original elements or the arrangement or placement of any elements incorporated in the overall appearance of the article of apparel.

So if you can’t prove that said clever sleeve detail was public domain, done before somewhere by someone else, and not an ‘original element’ (and not having access to the same exclusive vintage collections it might be a hard one to research) the designer - or company backing them - that filed the design would ‘own’ that sleeve detail. For three years. Just because they said it was theres first. And just like Levis, could hire dozens of detectives to scour the racks of the big stores to find things they deem ’substantially similar’ to file lawsuits against - but we’ll get to that part of the language in a bit.

But what if you, the designer, don’t claim any ‘original elements’ but do what designers do all the time - take shapes and proportions of collars, sleeves, waistbands, darts, pockets, etc - that are part of the shared design vocabulary and sit down in your studio and come up with a nice, wearable,  ‘classic with a twist’ garment? If it’s related to the current trend zeitgeist (and if you want it to sell then it probably is) chances are it looks somewhat similar to a lot of other garments currently in stores. But where is the line between somewhat similar and substantially similar? And how does the idea of a bunch of lawyers and random John Q. Public jurors off the streets making that determination sound to you?

The Marc Jacobs design above is reminiscent of Dynasty-style 80s wear, so can we expect to see black/silver lame jackets of this shape in stores everywhere? Probably. And I’d venture to guess that John Q. Public, especially if chosen for the jury because of his lack of fashion savvy, would probably notice the fabric as much as the shape in determining degrees of similarity.

The presence or absence of any particular color, or of any pictorial or graphic work imprinted on fabric, is not considered when determining the originality of the fashion design or similarity for the purposes of infringement.

Currently pictorial or graphic work is already protected, and the fabric used - including color - is not protected. So somehow we’re going to get John Q. Public to unconsider that element in his determination of degrees of similarity.

Under the act, it is an infringement to make, have made, import, sell, or distribute any article embodying a fashion design that was: (1) copied from a protected design, or an image of such design, without authorization; and (2) created with knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that such design was protected.

This part is very important and is the basis for Kathleen Fasenella’s concerns she outlines in her Fashion Incubator post; the scenarios dismissed as hyperbolic by lawyers unfamiliar with the way garments get produced and distributed. As a trademark lawyer for the fashion industry once explained to me, she is able to get the big dollar judgements and/or settlements that pay her fees not by going after obscure no-name knock off labels, but the department stores who carry their lines. And what about that factory you contracted to sew your garments? Or even the sourcing company that found that contractor for you? (more…)

I was digging around on Douglas Rushkoff’s website when I stumbled upon the article excerpted below (well worth reading in it’s entirety). It is the most eloquent and concise chronology of marketers attempts to co-opt anti-corporate rebellion.

I’ve been a huge fan of Rushkoff ever since I saw his Frontline documentaries, The Merchants of Cool (how corporations hire cool hunters to co-opt youth culture and sell it back to them) and The Persuaders (behind the scenes study of the tactics that very highly paid marketing gurus use to find out how to trigger our reptilian brains into wanting what they have to sell). For anyone curious about the intersection of trends, advertising and corporations, this is essential viewing.

page from Sportswear International Magazine

Here he writes for Sportswear International, an industry magazine focused on the premium youth denim and casual markets. So keep in mind that he’s addressing the very designers and marketers trying to capture the imaginations of this demographic. From The Pursuit of Cool: Introduction to Anti-Hyper-Consumerism:

Writing this little piece could get me in a whole lot of trouble. See, most of my books and articles are about combating the very same marketing techniques you hope to learn by subscribing to a magazine like this one. My usual readers are the kids who buy Adbusters magazine, the activists who protest at the WTO, and parents looking for ways to bring meaning into their children’s lives that don’t involve a new brand of sneaker. If they even suspect me of selling you clues about how teens think and live in order for you to market fashions to them more effectively, I’m done for.

Yes, friends, there’s a war going on and, as far as America’s youth culture is concerned, you are the enemy.

Yes, they are the enemy. Notice how he frames the battle between the anti-corporate, anti-consumerist resistance and the marketers trying to co-opt that rebellion? He says to the coolhunters:

But you were fighting a losing battle. The minute a cool trend is discovered, repackaged, and sold to kids at the mall, it’s no longer cool….They knew that their own claim to a trend is challenged by its adoption into the mainstream, so they looked for ways to hide from your researchers’ hunting scopes.

By the early 90’s, the so-called Generation X believed they had found their defense against you: adopt a posture and lifestyle that resists the notion of cool itself. These self-proclaimed slackers followed Bart Simpson’s lead, and treated every marketing message with good dose of protective irony. They refused to be intimidated into buying the latest styles of jeans or running shoes, opting instead for the ugliest clothes they could find at the local thrift shop. Grunge style, like grunge music, was a revolt against marketing itself.

(more…)