分析師、專家和消費者多年來所預言的時裝行業的喪鐘終于敲響。尼曼集團(Neiman Marcus)、J. Crew、Centric Brands和Brooks Brothers只是開始。PVH和蓋璞(Gap)今年都已經虧損超過10億美元。路易威登(LVMH)和開云集團(Kering)最近公布的上個季度收入分別減少了38%和44%。這個行業內的關系錯綜復雜,它的發展建立在剝削創造性勞動的基礎上,任人唯親的現象無處不在,生產大量不受歡迎的商品然后把它們拋到了垃圾填埋場。我們正在見證這個行業最終的崩潰。
如果你熟悉許多時裝公司微薄的利潤和緩慢的改革速度,你就不會對媒體報道的那些巨額虧損感到意外。如果你來自知名的行業網絡,還在爭論修改時裝日程表、Ins風的T臺時裝秀和稍微更受控制的降價,你并沒有抓住問題的要點。
時裝業的每一個問題幾乎都能追溯到一個癥結:庫存。
對前期大批量生產的依賴,需要在消費者還沒有表現出對某種款式的偏好之前,分配時間和寶貴的資源。我在按照傳統時裝日程表設計服裝的時候,被要求大批量生產一種款式的服裝,這時候距離回款還有180天的時間。還有人告訴我,售罄率達到75%可以視為“業績出色”。我提前幾個月購買的庫存至少25%會滯銷,這個偶然的假設讓我突然醒悟。被浪費的資源變成了時裝行業體系的一部分。想象一下,如果收入增加超過25%,這筆錢可以用來培養人才、進行可持續采購或者運營開發等。這些年來,時裝行業對這些方面的忽視已經臭名昭著。這種投資的浪費導致整個行業出現了螺旋式下降。在漏洞百出的供應鏈里,領著低薪的團隊不知不覺中開始生產表現不佳的衣服款式,沒有任何回收再利用的方法。
如果某種款式滯銷,公司處理庫存的方案并不多。他們首先想到的是大減價和低價銷售渠道。這些策略無處不在,已經培養了一代消費者,導致他們會低估購買的衣服的價值,使行業陷入降價大戰,根本無法體現商品的實際成本。不受歡迎的商品如果通過大減價和低價渠道也賣不掉,它們就會被扔進垃圾填埋場或者燒毀[比如博柏利(Burberry)或H&M的做法]。每年有價值數十億美元的服裝被這樣銷毀,所造成的污染使時裝業成為全球最不可持續的行業之一。僅紐約市每年就會填埋約10萬噸或2億磅服裝。
庫存的浪費不止這些。眾所周知,時尚周期還涵蓋了售后市場。不受歡迎的商品降價出售,不太可能產生效益,不會被經常穿,也無法被成功轉售,甚至不會被作為捐贈品。這些商品對任何人都沒有好處,但現有的體系卻要求大量生產。
包括我的公司在內的許多公司都在嘗試去庫存經營模式。只有這樣我們才能經受住當前的危機,不會遭遇競爭對手所面臨的庫存壓力。這種觀念并不新鮮。比如豐田(Toyota)等許多工業企業數十年來一直堅持準時生產模式,只是服裝和配件行業對此視而不見。要實現去庫存并沒有哪一種方式是完全正確的。我們合作的工廠可以在10個工作日內按需生產任何商品。Betabrand的每一種款式都采取了眾包的形式。Wylde是眾多根據預訂訂單生產女裝的品牌之一。我們的共同點是都希望從財務和環境方面進行更明智的資源分配。直到發生了新冠疫情和后續的經濟危機,零售業巨頭們才開始更深入地分析這些阻礙行業發展的落伍的模式。與此同時,多年來小公司一直在挑戰行業標準,他們能夠取得利潤豐厚的驚人業績,并不是依靠大量消耗資源和喪失人性。
我呼吁時裝行業重新考慮應該進行哪些方面的改革,為自己掙得一線機會。包括我在內,有越來越多企業家已經在研究數字T臺時裝秀,完善“產品降價”和簡化季節降價促銷等。如果依舊依靠消耗資源生產大量庫存,妨礙產品設計,繼續污染地球,即使減少商品種類、調整季節性和優化網站,也不會使公司變得更健康。
有創意、有彈性和不受束縛的庫存才是未來的方向。缺少了這些的服裝企業沒有任何投資價值。(財富中文網)
本文作者米莎·諾努是一位紐約市的時裝設計師,她最知名的是以其姓名命名的女士成衣。諾努是美國時裝設計師協會(Council of Fashion Designers of America)成員。
翻譯:劉進龍
審校:汪皓
分析師、專家和消費者多年來所預言的時裝行業的喪鐘終于敲響。尼曼集團(Neiman Marcus)、J. Crew、Centric Brands和Brooks Brothers只是開始。PVH和蓋璞(Gap)今年都已經虧損超過10億美元。路易威登(LVMH)和開云集團(Kering)最近公布的上個季度收入分別減少了38%和44%。這個行業內的關系錯綜復雜,它的發展建立在剝削創造性勞動的基礎上,任人唯親的現象無處不在,生產大量不受歡迎的商品然后把它們拋到了垃圾填埋場。我們正在見證這個行業最終的崩潰。
如果你熟悉許多時裝公司微薄的利潤和緩慢的改革速度,你就不會對媒體報道的那些巨額虧損感到意外。如果你來自知名的行業網絡,還在爭論修改時裝日程表、Ins風的T臺時裝秀和稍微更受控制的降價,你并沒有抓住問題的要點。
時裝業的每一個問題幾乎都能追溯到一個癥結:庫存。
對前期大批量生產的依賴,需要在消費者還沒有表現出對某種款式的偏好之前,分配時間和寶貴的資源。我在按照傳統時裝日程表設計服裝的時候,被要求大批量生產一種款式的服裝,這時候距離回款還有180天的時間。還有人告訴我,售罄率達到75%可以視為“業績出色”。我提前幾個月購買的庫存至少25%會滯銷,這個偶然的假設讓我突然醒悟。被浪費的資源變成了時裝行業體系的一部分。想象一下,如果收入增加超過25%,這筆錢可以用來培養人才、進行可持續采購或者運營開發等。這些年來,時裝行業對這些方面的忽視已經臭名昭著。這種投資的浪費導致整個行業出現了螺旋式下降。在漏洞百出的供應鏈里,領著低薪的團隊不知不覺中開始生產表現不佳的衣服款式,沒有任何回收再利用的方法。
如果某種款式滯銷,公司處理庫存的方案并不多。他們首先想到的是大減價和低價銷售渠道。這些策略無處不在,已經培養了一代消費者,導致他們會低估購買的衣服的價值,使行業陷入降價大戰,根本無法體現商品的實際成本。不受歡迎的商品如果通過大減價和低價渠道也賣不掉,它們就會被扔進垃圾填埋場或者燒毀[比如博柏利(Burberry)或H&M的做法]。每年有價值數十億美元的服裝被這樣銷毀,所造成的污染使時裝業成為全球最不可持續的行業之一。僅紐約市每年就會填埋約10萬噸或2億磅服裝。
庫存的浪費不止這些。眾所周知,時尚周期還涵蓋了售后市場。不受歡迎的商品降價出售,不太可能產生效益,不會被經常穿,也無法被成功轉售,甚至不會被作為捐贈品。這些商品對任何人都沒有好處,但現有的體系卻要求大量生產。
包括我的公司在內的許多公司都在嘗試去庫存經營模式。只有這樣我們才能經受住當前的危機,不會遭遇競爭對手所面臨的庫存壓力。這種觀念并不新鮮。比如豐田(Toyota)等許多工業企業數十年來一直堅持準時生產模式,只是服裝和配件行業對此視而不見。要實現去庫存并沒有哪一種方式是完全正確的。我們合作的工廠可以在10個工作日內按需生產任何商品。Betabrand的每一種款式都采取了眾包的形式。Wylde是眾多根據預訂訂單生產女裝的品牌之一。我們的共同點是都希望從財務和環境方面進行更明智的資源分配。直到發生了新冠疫情和后續的經濟危機,零售業巨頭們才開始更深入地分析這些阻礙行業發展的落伍的模式。與此同時,多年來小公司一直在挑戰行業標準,他們能夠取得利潤豐厚的驚人業績,并不是依靠大量消耗資源和喪失人性。
我呼吁時裝行業重新考慮應該進行哪些方面的改革,為自己掙得一線機會。包括我在內,有越來越多企業家已經在研究數字T臺時裝秀,完善“產品降價”和簡化季節降價促銷等。如果依舊依靠消耗資源生產大量庫存,妨礙產品設計,繼續污染地球,即使減少商品種類、調整季節性和優化網站,也不會使公司變得更健康。
有創意、有彈性和不受束縛的庫存才是未來的方向。缺少了這些的服裝企業沒有任何投資價值。(財富中文網)
本文作者米莎·諾努是一位紐約市的時裝設計師,她最知名的是以其姓名命名的女士成衣。諾努是美國時裝設計師協會(Council of Fashion Designers of America)成員。
翻譯:劉進龍
審校:汪皓
The death knell for the fashion industry—heralded for years by analysts, pundits, and consumers alike—has finally arrived. Neiman Marcus, J. Crew, Centric Brands, and Brooks Brothers are only the beginning. PVH and Gap have both lost over $1 billion this year. LVMH and Kering recently reported revenue drops of 38% and 44%, respectively, last quarter. We are witnessing the final crumbling of a tightly knit industry built on exploiting creative labor, wholesale cronyism, producing vast amounts of undesirable goods and dumping said goods into landfills.
For those familiar with the razor-thin margins and glacial pace of change found in many fashion organizations, the monstrous deficits making headlines are no surprise. For those in prominent industry networks hotly debating a revised fashion calendar, Instagram runway shows, and vaguely more controlled markdowns, you are missing the point.
Nearly every flaw in the fashion system can be traced back to a single issue: inventory.
The reliance on upfront, bulk production requires time and valuable resources to be allocated before consumers are able to indicate a preference for a style. When I produced collections on the traditional fashion calendar, I was asked to mass-produce a style 180 days before I could expect payment. I was also told a 75% sell-through rate was considered “great performance.” This casual assumption—that at least 25% of the inventory I bought months beforehand would go unsold—was a rude awakening. Wasted resources are built into the system. Imagine if upwards of 25% more revenue could be allocated to nurturing talent, sustainable sourcing, or operational development—all of which the fashion industry has become notorious for neglecting in recent years. This wastage of investment has enforced a downward spiral across the industry, where under-compensated teams in flawed supply chains unknowingly commit to producing underperforming styles without any way to recover.
When a style does not sell, there are few options to get rid of the inventory. Markdowns and off-price channels are the first ports of call. The ubiquity of these strategies has trained a generation of consumers to underestimate the value of the clothes they buy and resulted in a race to rock-bottom pricing that is unreflective of the actual cost of goods. When markdowns and off-price channels fail to sell the unwanted product, it is thrown into landfills or burned (see Burberry and H&M). Billions of dollars in clothing is discarded in this way annually, contributing levels of pollution that make the fashion industry one of the least sustainable in the world. New York City alone landfills around 100,000 tons, or 200 million pounds, of clothing every year.
The wastefulness of inventory does not stop here. As we know, the fashion cycle continues in the after-sale market. Undesirable product that is sold at a markdown is far less likely to have a productive life, is less likely to be worn frequently, to be successfully resold, or to be wanted even as a donation. These are products that serve no one well, and the existing system requires that they be made by the thousands.
A handful of businesses, including my own, have pioneered an inventory-less fashion model. It is down to this that we are weathering the current crisis without the inventory strains our competitors face. This concept is not new. Many industrial businesses, such as Toyota, have produced just-in-time for decades, though it has generally eluded apparel and accessories. There is not one right way to do this. We have partner factories that produce every item on demand within 10 business days. Betabrand vets each style by crowdsourcing. The Wylde is one of many brands producing women’s wear by preorder. What we have in common is a commitment to allocate our resources wisely, both financially and environmentally. It took nothing short of a pandemic and subsequent economic crisis for the retail giants to even take a closer look at these archaic models stifling the industry. Meanwhile, small businesses have been challenging the norm head-on for years, with profitable, impressive results not brought on by resource gluttony and dehumanizing practices.
I urge the industry to reconsider its perspective on which changes should be made in order to give fashion a fighting chance. I am among a growing number of entrepreneurs who have already tackled the digital runway show, perfected the “product drop,” and streamlined seasonal markdowns. The arguments for fewer collections, adjusted seasonality, and better websites will not result in healthier businesses if bulk inventory production still ties up resources, hamstrings design, and pollutes our planet.
The future is creative, resilient, and liberated of inventory. Anything less is no longer worth the investment.
Misha Nonoo is a fashion designer based in New York City, best known for her eponymous line of women’s ready-to-wear clothing. Nonoo is also a member of the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA).