Posts Tagged ‘Gucci’

Service of Fur Clothing and Accessories: To Ban or Not

Thursday, May 16th, 2019

NYC Crest–Note beavers. Photo: en.wikipedia.org

Sales figures don’t lie. Suzanne Kapner reported that compared to the low in 2009 [reflecting recovery from the mini crash of 2008 no doubt?] fur sales more than doubled in 2018, reaching their “highest level in 17 years, according to Euromonitor International.” The all time high was in 1999.

In her Wall Street Journal article, “Bans on Fur threaten a Resurgence,” Kapner wrote that in spite of brands such as Michael Kors, Ralph Lauren and Gucci which no longer use fur and others, such as Coach, that won’t as of fall, others add it everywhere. “Once mainly used in coats, fur is now used to adorn everything from sneakers to pillows to purses. Sales at Canada Goose Holdings Inc., known for its down parkas trimmed in coyote fur, jumped 50% in the most recent quarter from a year ago. Macy’s Inc., which sells a number of fur products including mink coats and rabbit-fur keychains, has said fur sales are ‘fairly strong.’” Kapner noted fur lined gloves and loafers as well and don’t forget hats and scarves.

Photo: friendsoranimals.org

The impact of those who support the fur ban is powerful. The Federal Trade Commission, according to Kapner, “settled charges against Neiman Marcus and several other retailers that were accused of selling real fur labeled as fake.” Imagine that!

LA and San Francisco already have banned sales and New York City, California and New York State are considering doing so.

About New York City, CBS News reported yesterday: “The council’s Committee on Consumer Affairs and Business licensing will consider the fur ban which would prohibit the sale of fur apparel in the city except for fur that is worn for religious reasons.” Fines would range from $500 to as much as $1,500.

WCBS Newsradio 880 morning show’s Wayne Cabot tweeted: “Notice two beavers on the official crest of NYC, which was built on fur and remains the USA’s fur capitol. A city council bill to ban sales has fur flying.” Reporter Alice Stockton-Rossini responded: “Thanks for the Beaver update! Not sure you can ban fur w/o banning leather and eating meat! Can we be humane to animals and still wear and eat them?”

Photo: couponsforbloggers.com

CBS news: “Members of the fur industry say such bans could put 1,100 people out of a job in the city alone. Supporters dismiss that and emphasize that the wearing of fur is barbaric and inhumane.”

Kapner “‘Fake fur is made from petrochemicals and plastic, which is very harmful for the environment,’ said Nancy Daigneault, a vice president at the International Fur Federation, a trade group. ‘It will end up in a landfill and is not biodegradable. Real fur will decompose naturally.’”

Kapner added: “‘Virtually all legislatures that have banned fur—or are considering doing so—have exempted sheepskin,’ said Tom Garcia, the general counsel for Deckers Outdoors Corp., which owns Ugg. ‘They recognize that, unlike luxury furs, sheepskin is a byproduct of food like leather.’”

Back to CBS: “The furriers cast the argument in stark economic terms, pointing out that 98 percent of the industry business owners said they would move out of New York City if the ban were to go into effect…… costing New York City $3.3 billion in revenue in the next decade and leaving lots of empty storefronts.”

Should fur be banned in NYC and everywhere? If you own a fur coat or hat, will you continue to wear it if fur is banned in your city? What will furriers do to make a living? Will the public’s hunger for fur stay steady or be influenced by the bans? How will prices be impacted? If you’ve always wanted a fur coat and couldn’t afford one, will this be your chance to buy one or as contraband will they be even more expensive? Faux fur looks real: Won’t wearers be in danger of protester ire if they wear it?

Faux fur–Photo: dhgate.com

Service of Live and Learn: Did You Know Unsold Luxury Fashions & Accessories are Destroyed at Season’s End?

Thursday, September 13th, 2018

Burberry Scarf. Photo: uk.burberry.com

I knew that mutilated US currency is destroyed but I didn’t know that at the end of a season unsold luxury goods are as well. Matthew Dalton explained the practice in a recent Wall Street Journal article and reported that one internationally known brand—Burberry–is bucking the custom.

“Destroying unsold inventory is a widely used but rarely discussed technique that luxury companies perform to maintain the scarcity of their goods and the exclusivity of their brands. In Italy and many other countries, they can also claim a tax credit for destroying the inventory.”

Stefano Ricci suit. Photo: Stefanoricci.com

Dalton also wrote that one Italian menswear brand, Stefano Ricci, fills dozens of boxes–it sells its fashions in Italy, China and the U.S.–with cashmere suits, silk ties and cotton shirts and ships them off to be burned. “The companies hired to incinerate the clothing film the destruction so that brands can prove to the Italian tax authorities that their inventory has truly gone up in smoke.” The owner would like to give some of the clothing to charity “but the tax credit ties the company’s hands.”

He also reported that the Swiss conglomerate that owns Cartier bought back unsold watches worth “hundreds of millions of euros in recent years…. which were piling up at retailers because of a drop in demand from Chinese consumers. The company pried off the jewels and melted them down, but is reusing the materials.”

As I noted above, Burberry Group won’t be following suit, bowing to pressure by environmental groups “who say it is wasteful.” [Now that we know I doubt these groups are the only ones to share this point of view!] “The amount of stock Burberry destroys had risen sharply in recent years, from £5.5 million in fiscal year 2013 to £28.6 million in the last fiscal year.” And Dalton added that the brand’s younger target market is particularly concerned about the environment. It will no longer sell fur. Elizabeth Paton who covered the story for the New York Times wrote that the company is researching sustainable materials with a group at the Royal College of Art in London.

Gucci Fall 2017 menswear collection. Photo: gq.com

High end holdouts don’t want to see their goods deeply discounted as “luxury goods command higher prices because they are inherently more valuable.” Gucci reuses cloth and leather and claims that it destroys a “relatively small” part. In addition, “it unloads unsold clothes through discounts for friends and family and through outlet stores.”

Decades ago I bought a traditional Burberry raincoat that I still wear every fall and spring. The quality of the material is unequalled—the cuff and coat edges have never frayed; the lining is solid. It cost a king’s ransom but given its longevity was fairly priced. I can’t attest to the quality of luxury goods today nor do I know how many people who buy them would dream of wearing them this long even if they lasted. I’ve always been too practical. When I’ve bought eccentric bits of clothing I’ve paid as little as possible. Even if I could afford them, the unconventional looks customers expect from some luxury fashion designers will date themselves too quickly for my taste.

Did you know that high end manufacturers destroyed their goods? I understand the reasoning behind the convention to preserve the value of fashions and accessories, but the practice doesn’t seem fitting today, do you think? Dalton doesn’t say what Burberry will do with its leftovers. How might companies protect their exclusivity and extravagant prices yet skip the step of annihilating their products–or should they continue the process?

Ballon Bleu de Cartier Photo: cartier.com

 

Get This Blog Emailed to You:
Enter your Email


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Clicky Web Analytics