If ever there were a quintessential example of advertising preying on insecurities of those too young to know better in order to drive consumption of a bunch of junk the entire planet would be better off not having at all, here you have it. From the NY Times Masculinity in a Spray Can:

One bathroom in Stefanie Mullen’s home in a suburb of San Diego is stocked with enough products to line an aisle in a drugstore:

Body wash. Face wash. Exfoliator. Exfoliating wash. Body hydrator. Body spray. Deodorant. Shaving cream. Shampoos and conditioner. Hair gel, of course.

All told, 18 different containers.

They belong to her sons Noah Assaraf, 13, and Keenan Assaraf, 14. They have been dousing themselves for years.

“Every day they walk out the door in a cloud of spray-on macho,” Mrs. Mullen said.

When boys pile into her car, that’s her cue to roll down her window, no matter the weather. “The smell drives me nuts.”

Nooooo! That stuff smells nasty. It does not drive women wild. I’m all about good grooming habits for boys, but soap and deoderant and maybe some zit cream should suffice. Where did these guys collectively come up with the notion that drowing themselves in this eye watering equivalent of glade air freshener is what women want?

“More insecurity equals more product need, equals more opportunity for marketers,” said Kit Yarrow, a professor of psychology and marketing at Golden Gate University.

For “Gen Buy,” a new book she co-authored about marketing to tweens and teenagers, Ms. Yarrow held focus groups with boys. “The 10-year-olds are copying the 14-year-olds, trying to be cool,” she said. “Everything is moving down the spectrum. It’s getting younger and more pronounced.”

So boys are turning to hypermasculine guideposts like Instinct from Axe, Swagger by Old Spice and Magnetic Attraction Enhancing Body Wash by Dial with results that are poignant, comic, confused — and stinky.

“It’s not necessarily a hygiene thing,” said Paul Begley, a physical education teacher at Messalonskee Middle School in Oakland, Me. “If they’ve been sweating, they’ll use it as a mask instead of a shower.”

Nooooo!!! Just take a shower, please? But apparently my views aren’t shared by my eigth grade female counterparts:

What further drives the boys’ rush to the products are girls themselves. Marshal Cohen, chief industry analyst for the market research firm NPD Group, said that in a recent survey, 41 percent of boys ages 8 to 18 said that one of their best friends was a girl.

“They shop with girls, and girls influence them,” Mr. Cohen said, much as the girls in the hit Nickelodeon tween show “iCarly” hold sway over Freddie, their hapless male buddy.

“Boys are paying attention to personal brands more than ever because it’s too easy to be criticized virally by a girl,” said Pat Fiore, a market consultant for body image products in Morristown, N.J. “The peer pressure is starting from the girls, who are discussing how much someone smells or what they look like, and it’s being recorded in real time by e-mail and texting.”

These girls are also becoming sexualized at earlier ages, applying lip gloss and wearing racier clothes. Boys, a bewildered developmental step or three behind, feel additional pressure to catch up.

Ms. Wiseman, who also wrote “Queen Bees & Wannabes,” a nonfiction book about the social pecking order of tween girls, speaks with students around the country. Even in rural North Dakota, she said, 12-year-old boys were highlighting their hair, a focus on appearance that was almost nonexistent five years ago.

“We consistently look at boys in a position of privilege and power,” she said. “But if you ask a 12-year-old boy if they’re in a position of power, they feel out of control of themselves, their bodies.” She added: “I defy anyone to tell me that an eighth-grade girl doesn’t look like she has more power and control than a boy.”

The blogosphere has been having a great time with the 6 pages of detailed dress code rules for the Pi Phi rush at Cornell that were leaked to Fashionista.com. A few choice ones are listed in the text, but the pages themselves have been scanned in and are worth a read in their entirety. Many years from now this will prove invaluable to a costume designer or historian.

While I’m no stranger to picking on sorority girls, after reading through the rules I don’t find them absurd at all (for sorority rush, that is) and in fact, I think the rush chair did the girls a favor. What, you think those rules never existed just because someone hadn’t written them down? Or leaked them to a blog? Of course, if we could jump in the time machine and go backwards or forwards a few years, the rules themselves would look different (I assure you at Cornell 5 years ago a boot cut or flared leg jean was a-okay) but would be just as strict.

from the Cornell Pi Phi webpage

And the rest of us who scoff at sororities can act all indignant that people choose friends based on the way they dress, when in reality all of us do the same thing to some degree, just not in a structured, institutional ‘rush’ sort of way. We dress to appeal to ‘People Like Us’ as anthropologist Ted Polhemus notes, and any girl taking the time, energy (and expense) to rush a sorority obviously finds appeal in that particular intersection of taste and class. Its no secret that a huge part of the greek system is all about setting up social networks that will help the kids connect with jobs and mates that are a part of a particular lifestyle, and the rules of what to wear and what not to wear that are internalized through a good 4 years of feedback from your sisters will serve you well applying for that corporate marketing job or snagging that lawyer who has visions of running for office. Not so much my cup of tea, but if they didn’t all conform then what would the rest of us have to riff against?

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.

At the Buffalo Exchange buying counter (image pulled from exploringberkeley.wordpress.com)

I dug up a fantastic article by Reyhan Harmanci for the San Francisco Chronicle, Rag Trade: Cashing in on Vintage, or Just Old, Clothes. The article is written in 2005, but from what I’ve observed personally, here in Austin, the practice of professional pickers selling to BX (Buffalo Exchange) has only grown:

The opportunity to convert used clothing into cash has created a new job: professional seller. Known as “pickers,” professional sellers can be a blessing or a curse to a store, depending on their approach to their line of work and the store’s reliance on their goods. The push and pull at the buy counter between the buyer and seller can be contentious; at its best, it’s a symbiotic relationship, based on a singular love of fashion.

At its worst, it’s a parasitic situation, in which the picker leeches off the store, preying on inexperienced buyers or dealing in stolen merchandise. Buyers, too, can sour the deal by rejecting good clothing to spite the seller or copping an attitude that, as Mascola says, “makes you feel like you’re going to see your social worker.”

Again with the judgement/shame issue I’m mentioned in other BX posts. But where do these professional sellers find enough clothes worthy to pass the knowing eyes of the buyers… and still turn a profit?

Through a friend, he heard that the place to go to was As Is, a nickname for the giant Goodwill on Van Ness and Market streets that wheels out bins of newly donated clothing every morning. “I started to get clued in, looking around at what was current, started reading fashion magazines for inspiration.

“Now I treat it like an art form,” he says, without a smile. Although Mascola has sold clothing at least once a week for six years, it’s never been a full-time job. “The profit margin is too thin; it would be too hard,” he says. “It’s more like a hobby.” He does allow that selling clothes beefs up his income from his retail job in the Castro.

from textile_fetish photostream on flickr

The Austin version of the ‘As Is’ in San Francisco? The Blue Hangar. There, I’ve said it. The secret is out in the open, and surely I’ve made an enemy or two. And the only reason I’m revealing this juicy little secret (that’s sort of out and about with the insiders, anyways) is because my day job prevents me from regular digs and pays me enough to just go buy the stuff for a higher price all pre-picked and sized at BX anyways.

The Blue Hangar on Springdale is supposedly where the clothes that have been sitting unsold on the racks for over three weeks at the regular Goodwills go to be tossed in piles on giant tables and sold for $1.25 a piece. They clear the tables and replace with fresh stock once, sometimes twice, a day and at that point the still unsold goods are compacted into bales and sold as such, often to third world countries. But a few years ago on one particularly stellar run, I quizzed the employee checking me out about the sources and she told me that often when the Goodwill stores were full and they were getting more donations than the stores could process, they’ll send the overflow straight to the Blue Hanger, unsorted. Ah ha! I knew the things that I found wouldn’t have lasted three weeks in the Goodwill store. So folks, right at the end of the month when everyone is moving and ditching stuff is THE time to hit the Blue Hanger.

I’ve shopped there for years, and during my last unemployment stint I’d go and load up with a combination of items for myself… and items to sell at BX. It’s super tricky, because you really have to know what those buyers want. I was pretty much able to break even and cover my costs of the whole run, but then again I took BX credit not cash. I was still out a wee bit of cash overall, but got to shop at BX basically for the cost of my time. I’d occasionally see BX employees there digging, too, but my costumer friend who’s there all the time has said that recently its intensified. And on a recent BX sell, I got into a conversation with a buyer who told me about a friend who was supporting her live music/drinking habit through selling finds from the Blue Hanger to BX.

Which brings up an accusation I’ve heard many times that BX employees favor their friends, or friends of friends, or ‘cool people’ when buying. (more…)

(Image from NY Times article cited in this post.) I could see some potential issue with the Karen Kane pocket or the Jones Apparel one, but those are off label mass brands that sell for less than Levis. The Jelessy, Von Dutch and Fossil examples are distinct, and those brands are positioned as more premium than Levis, not imitators trying to cash in on Levis brand equity

The past week has found me deep down the Google blog search rabbit hole weighing perspectives on the proposed Design Piracy Prohibition Act. Almost all who oppose the bill (myself included) voice a concern that the small, independent, struggling, up and coming designers this act purports to protect would in practice find themselves victim to a flurry of frivolous lawsuits in a climate of legal intimidation. Immediately my mind went to a January 2007 article in the NY Times, Levis Turns to Suing its Rivals, as a shining example of the type of activity sure to grow like a cancer on an already challenged industry if this bill were to become law.

So Levi’s is becoming a leader in a new arena: lawsuits. The company, once the undisputed king of denim and now a case study in missed opportunities, has emerged as the most litigious in the apparel industry when it comes to trademark infringement lawsuits, firing off nearly 100 against its competitors since 2001. That’s far more than General Motors, Walt Disney or Nike, according to an analysis by research firm Thomson West.

The legal scuffles offer a rare glimpse into the sharp-elbowed world of fashion, where the line between inspiration and imitation is razor thin. After all, clothing makers’ trade secrets are hung on store racks for all to see, and designs can be quickly copied with small changes to exploit a hot trend.

The lawsuits, which Levi’s says it is compelled to file to safeguard the defining features on its jeans, are not about the money — one settled for just $5,000 in damages. Instead, the company says, they are about removing copycats from stores. Nearly all the cases have settled out of court, with Levi’s smaller rivals agreeing to stop making the offending pants and to destroy unsold pairs.

Returing to 2009 for a moment, let’s take a look at professor and copyright attorney Kenneth J. Sanney’s post “Overlawyered or Just Over Simplistic on his blog, The Music Law and Copyright Blog, He accuses Kathleen Fasenella of Fashion Incubator of being ill informed and hyperbolic. While taking a patronizing tone against Fasenella - who has decades of experience in the nuts and bolts of garment production - for simplifying the law, he appears oblivious to the fact that while he might be an expert in the music industry, he clearly does not understand how he has oversimplified the inner workings of the fashion industry and the dynamic of trends and how they interface with culture.

He cites legal recourses available to designers if they are unfairly litigated against, but fails entirely to consider that even with said resources in place, designers would still be stuck in spending countless hours of time and energy dealing with this hassle in the first place. Sanney then goes on to ask the question:

Furthermore, in the current business environment how many large corporations are looking to task resources (both time and money) litigating against small businesses and individuals unless they have a serious claim that pasts muster under the most strict cost/benefit analysis?

LOTS OF THEM.  Think this is lame? Sign the petition here.

Let’s return to the Levis situation to try and determine if they are indeed protecting their trademark from imposters trying to cash in on their brand equity, or simply harassing the designers who are successful because they are offering desirable alternatives to the Levis trademark that had become diluted to the point of being unfashionable. It pretty much boils down the following quote by Steven Shaul:

“It was an original design,” he said. “Why would I use Levi’s stitching? If my jeans sell for $200, I would not knock off $40 jeans from Levi’s.”

Precisely. Shaul’s customer might very well be paying for the status of the logo on the back pocket, but they are paying for something to distinguish themselves from the masses in Levis. And Levis has the right to sue Shaul for this? Apparently so…

Back in the 1980s - when Levis were still cool and Americans were offered big bucks for the jeans off their butts when traveling overseas - there were counterfeiters producing jeans that people bought because they could pass them off as Levis. Just like ladies heading to Canal Street today looking for the guys that will take them into a back alley and sell the fake Louis Vuittons that they are trying to pass of as real. And in that circumstance a company should have the right to pursue legal action. That appears to be the sort of activity that the law was designed to protect against, not declining companies out of touch with the current zeitgeist intimidating upstart designers creating distinctive and highly marketed as such new brands that people are paying four times as much for because they are not like the big mass brands…with but as Mr. Sanney will be quick to point out, I’m not a lawyer, so what do I know.

From the blog, Seattle Trademark Lawyer: "Not identical or nearly identical, so no dilution: Levi’s “Arcuate” and Abercrombie’s “Ruehl” stitch designs "

As noted in the Times quote at the beginning of this post, the vast majority of these 100+ lawsuits were settled out of court by designers unwilling or unable to take on Levis, but what happened when Levis picked on someone their own size?

The image on the right is taken from attorney Michael Atkins blog, Seattle Trademark Lawyer, in a post titled Court Finds Abercrombie’s Stitch Design Does Not Dilute Levi’s Stitch Design

In summary, the court found that the subject marks (depicted above) were not “identical or nearly identical,” so Levi could not prevail on its dilution claim.

The court found: “The advisory jury found that [Abercrombie’s] Ruehl design and [Levi’s] Arcuate mark were not identical or nearly identical. In order to be nearly identical, the two marks must be similar enough that a significant segment of the target group of customers sees the two marks as essentially the same. ‘In the dilution context, the ‘similarity of the marks’ test is more stringent than in the infringement context.’

I couldn’t tell whether or not Atkins firm represented one of the parties in this case. I am, however, curious as to what would have happened to the smaller designers Levis pursued if they’d had the resources to defend themselves as Abercrombie did. I also hope that this case provides the precedent necessary for indies to find attorneys willing to come to their defense without large retainers up front.

(more…)

Photo found at Trendhunter.com, believed to be from a Michael Kors campaign

For several months I’ve been collecting articles about the luxury industry’s contraction and resulting mandate for a new strategy if they’re to survive. Sameer Reddy writes for Newsweek, Luxury’s Image Problem: Having Lots of Fancy Toys is Suddenly Not So Chic:

Until now, the luxury world has represented an ideal lifestyle that the masses aspired to achieve. The models in advertising campaigns for companies like Michael Kors and Jimmy Choo are perpetually stepping off private jets or lounging poolside in five-inch stilettos.

The luxury industry will still represent an ideal lifestyle that the masses will aspire to achieve, it will just have to adjust to the new ideal.

But the economic meltdown has left luxury with an image problem. Signifiers of social status are suddenly out of fashion…

The old signifiers are out of fashion. What will be the new ones? (more…)

Coinciding with the revival of swing dancing over a decade ago, there has been a continual stream of articles alerting us to the popularity of vintage clothing in contemporary fashion. Unlike trends that disappear in a season or two, the interest in and demand for quality vintage has only increased. Given the fact that there is an absolutely finite supply of clothing made in 1955 (or any other year), it was inevitable that archival remakes would appear on the scene.

House of Vionnet 2007

The fashion industry right now seems poised in a moment of cognitive dissonance - watching the hype machine formula that served them so well contract and crumble around them, nervous about committing to a new direction while knowing that their survival depends on it. While there are no doubt many independent designers who relish striking forward into new visions for 21st century, the business machinery who back the vast majority of manufacturing and distribution are groping for a sure thing.

In her article for the Financial Times, Nicola Copping explains “fashion’s love affair with reinventing its own past:”

“The demand for archive pieces is huge in the fashion market,” says Jean Bousquet, managing director of Cacharel, which launched a vintage collection, in collaboration with Liberty, to celebrate its 50th anniversary in April. “We are arriving at the end of a fashion cycle; there has been nothing very new for a long time and a general tiredness has been established. The comeback of vintage testifies to a passion for the renewal of the past. We look at past successes to create the new. We might do several more archive collections in the future.”

It seems contradictory that the antidote to tiredness and lack of newness would be to remake old pieces rather than innovate new ways of dressing. But perhaps the sameness and monotony lamented refers more to what’s hanging on the racks in the mall right now - hundreds of thousands of similar versions of the same WGSN trend dictated pattern blocks. Against that backdrop, an dress from the fifties seems intricate and novel by comparison. Not to mention nostalgic:

“With all the recent concerns in the economy, people are feeling a bit nostalgic; they are looking to brands they can trust, who have a significant heritage and who offer great quality and value,” says Sir Stuart Rose, executive chairman of M&S…After all, when the future is uncertain, why not rely on the stability of the past?

It makes me wonder, though, how this demand for archival quality vintage remakes fits in with Cathy Horyn and Simon Doonan’s observations I quoted in an earlier post:

“It’s impossible to think of something you can drag out from the land of naffness and make cool,” Mr. Doonan said, referring to the process by which banal or out-of-date styles are brought back and, after much analysis and decoding and finally brand approval, become fashionable. He offered up the drop-waist denim dress, a wholesome style from the ’80s, saying it was rife with ironic potential.

I laughed. That was really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

When the term ‘vintage’ has reached the point where it is applied to intricately tailored designer suits from the forties and the pilled rayon floral drop yoked dresses from the early nineties all over the racks of ‘vintage’ stores on South Congress alike, it’s time to dig deeper and get more specific.

At which point I venture into subjective commentary that threatens to reveal the inner old lady I’m cultivating, who’s ever so sure that things were much better in her day… (more…)

Vanessa Friedman writes for the Financial times, Bernard Arnault: How to manage the transition into quality:

Bernard Arnault, chairman of Möet Hennessy Louis Vuitton, the largest luxury company in the world, does not like the word “luxury”.

“I prefer to think of it as quality,” he says, a caveat that may seem semantic, but is, in fact, significant: it speaks to the permanent change in the industry that he sees occurring post-recession.

Why is the word ‘luxury’ so problematic? Couldn’t have anything to do with the past decade or so that his illustrious company spent courting the aspirational upper middle class with celebrity bling associations, could it? The photo to the right was pulled from a blogger named Behonce in Malaysia. I thought the text notable as well:

this bag is like a Christmas ornament or a Chinese New Year fortune cookie; the few things you just wanna show off! Combining the richness of gold and the luxurious nature of Louis Vuitton, this bag screams “I am rich, bitch!”.

Forget about being practical. Forget about not being Over the TOP! Honey, it is all about the bling! Paris Hilton has it. So does Kim K. Why not Behonce B? Costing at about USD2080, that is the reason why NOT, Mr Behonce B!

This is why Stealth Wealth has had an underground appeal all throughout the bling decades. But the fact that it’s rising to the forefront is a strong indicator of a seismic shift in culture and values. Back to Arnault:

“The availability of money not just for consumers but buyers will disappear for a very long time – maybe 10 years, maybe until the next bubble,” says Mr Arnault, who believes sector growth will be driven by the real economy, and will not be much more than 2 per cent a year in developed markets – half the rate of the past. What this means for the luxury industry is more competition, not from more brands, but from a – permanently – more discerning consumer base: one that demands legitimacy in all its goods, from history to conception to manufacturing, along with all the information and communication that implies.

In Irony and the Old Lady, a semi-autobiographical pondering of what women over 50 can and can no longer get away with in fashion, Cathy Horyn ventures into a succinct history lesson:

Irony is harder to part with — for the simple reason that many of us who are now in our 50s grew up with that kind of cerebral fashion and were happy to have clothes that made reference to ideas, worlds, that only those in our orbit could understand. Our mothers (mine, anyway) did not see the point in adopting flannel shirts or rummaging through Goodwill bins for just the right filthy cardigan.

And why would they? Grunge and deconstruction, which provided a counterpoint to the slick, aggressive fashion of the late 1980s, were our peculiar trip.

Except now the tacky colorful excess of the eighties - and even the nineties - are the new thing to be ironic about.

But now that every sitcom re-run look has been re-hashed ad nauseum, how much longer will this irony be truly ironic? Will sporting the ugliest thing in the thrift store (like the early nineties floral dress blech currently selling for $40+ at the local ‘vintage’ store) finally lose its cool? Horyn muses:

It may just be that we’ve had a bellyful of abstractions like irony and now hanker for something direct and concrete. This desire for clarity isn’t limited to an age group — young people seem to crave it, too — and it’s not a defense against the standard complaint that you’re not cool enough to get the joke. Who cares if the joke is available to everyone through the Internet?

Madonna’s bunny ears are just the last gasp. Fashion needs a new antidote for modernity.

“It’s impossible to think of something you can drag out from the land of naffness and make cool,” Mr. Doonan said, referring to the process by which banal or out-of-date styles are brought back and, after much analysis and decoding and finally brand approval, become fashionable. He offered up the drop-waist denim dress, a wholesome style from the ’80s, saying it was rife with ironic potential.

I laughed. That was really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

He thought for a moment. “To be overweight and not care, like Beth Ditto, is the most transgressive you can be right now.” But he only said that, I think, because plus-size stories were in a couple of newspapers that day. And you know what they say about newspapers.

Everyone knows it, but the fashion industry won’t admit it - they deliberately shun women over size 10, even though they comprise more than half of the women in America and a good deal of them have plenty to spend on clothing. Emili Vesilind writes for the LA Times, Fashion’s Invisible Woman:

Many retailers aren’t even game to discuss “plus.” When contacted for this story, nearly every major retailer — including Nordstrom, Macy’s, H&M, even Wal-Mart — declined to give interviews on the subject or didn’t respond to requests. It’s an odd silence, considering how ripe the market is. With hardly any high-end resources at their disposal, full-figured women still spent $18.6 billion on apparel in stores and online from December 2007 to November 2008, according to NPD Group.

The good news? That all might be about to change. Sameer Reddy writes for Newsweek, Turning a Page - In Response to Tough Times, the Fashion Industry Discovers Inclusiveness:

After a decade of fantastical growth, the fashion world finds itself confronted with a shift in its fortunes—magazines are folding or cutting back, iconic department stores are losing hundreds of millions of dollars, and designers send out conspicuously commercial collections in a dubious attempt to entice consumers to spend. As the economic picture deteriorates, a glaring discrepancy is beginning to emerge between the glossy images the industry uses to portray itself and the state of the external world. The fashion system is quick to react to shifts in popular mood as tastemakers search for a new editorial formula. That’s how it came to pass that on one of the inaugural covers of Love, a biannual niche title launched this month by Conde Nast, Beth Ditto, the beautiful, overweight lead singer of the Gossip, poses naked, her modesty preserved by nothing more than a cover line and a froth of hot pink organza.

Even though none of the major retailers would talk to her, Vesilind still manages to dig deep into the taboo issue to get at the truth of why larger women are ignored:

It often seems that it’s easier to find and buy stylish clothes for Chihuahuas than for roughly half the country’s female population.

Americans are getting larger, and 62% of females are already categorized as overweight. But the relationship between the fashion industry and fuller-figure women is at a standoff, marked by suspicion, prejudice and low expectations on both sides. The fear of fat is so ingrained in designers and retailers that even among those who’ve successfully tapped the market, talking plus-size often feels taboo. The fraught relationship between fashion and plus-size is far from new, but seems particularly confounding in a time when retailers are pulling out all the stops to bring in business. Carrying a range of sizes that includes the average female would seem like a good place to start.

But why have they not been doing this already?

At the crux of the inequity, according to some plus-size designers, models and retailers, is prejudice toward women the industry doesn’t find particularly glamorous or sexy. Like fifth-grade girls who secretly live in fear of being ostracized from the cool clique, they don’t want to be caught talking to the fat girl.

Yup, there we have it. Underneath it all the fashion industry is just as cruel as junior high. But they couldn’t sell this exclusive mystique if people didn’t buy into it. (more…)