
分析師、專家和消費者多年來所預(yù)言的時裝行業(yè)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(jīng)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(yè)內(nèi)的關(guān)系錯綜復(fù)雜,它的發(fā)展建立在剝削創(chuàng)造性勞動的基礎(chǔ)上,任人唯親的現(xiàn)象無處不在,生產(chǎn)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(yè)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(yè)網(wǎng)絡(luò),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(yè)的每一個問題幾乎都能追溯到一個癥結(jié):庫存。
對前期大批量生產(chǎn)的依賴,需要在消費者還沒有表現(xiàn)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(tǒng)時裝日程表設(shè)計服裝的時候,被要求大批量生產(chǎn)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(yè)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(shè)讓我突然醒悟。被浪費的資源變成了時裝行業(yè)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(yǎng)人才、進行可持續(xù)采購或者運營開發(fā)等。這些年來,時裝行業(yè)對這些方面的忽視已經(jīng)臭名昭著。這種投資的浪費導(dǎo)致整個行業(yè)出現(xiàn)了螺旋式下降。在漏洞百出的供應(yīng)鏈里,領(lǐng)著低薪的團隊不知不覺中開始生產(chǎn)表現(xiàn)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(jīng)培養(yǎng)了一代消費者,導(dǎo)致他們會低估購買的衣服的價值,使行業(yè)陷入降價大戰(zhàn),根本無法體現(xiàn)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(shù)十億美元的服裝被這樣銷毀,所造成的污染使時裝業(yè)成為全球最不可持續(xù)的行業(yè)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(chǎn)生效益,不會被經(jīng)常穿,也無法被成功轉(zhuǎn)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(xiàn)有的體系卻要求大量生產(chǎn)。
包括我的公司在內(nèi)的許多公司都在嘗試去庫存經(jīng)營模式。只有這樣我們才能經(jīng)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(yè)企業(yè)數(shù)十年來一直堅持準時生產(chǎn)模式,只是服裝和配件行業(yè)對此視而不見。要實現(xiàn)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(nèi)按需生產(chǎn)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(jù)預(yù)訂訂單生產(chǎn)女裝的品牌之一。我們的共同點是都希望從財務(wù)和環(huán)境方面進行更明智的資源分配。直到發(fā)生了新冠疫情和后續(xù)的經(jīng)濟危機,零售業(yè)巨頭們才開始更深入地分析這些阻礙行業(yè)發(fā)展的落伍的模式。與此同時,多年來小公司一直在挑戰(zhàn)行業(yè)標準,他們能夠取得利潤豐厚的驚人業(yè)績,并不是依靠大量消耗資源和喪失人性。
我呼吁時裝行業(yè)重新考慮應(yīng)該進行哪些方面的改革,為自己掙得一線機會。包括我在內(nèi),有越來越多企業(yè)家已經(jīng)在研究數(shù)字T臺時裝秀,完善“產(chǎn)品降價”和簡化季節(jié)降價促銷等。如果依舊依靠消耗資源生產(chǎn)大量庫存,妨礙產(chǎn)品設(shè)計,繼續(xù)污染地球,即使減少商品種類、調(diào)整季節(jié)性和優(yōu)化網(wǎng)站,也不會使公司變得更健康。
有創(chuàng)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(yè)沒有任何投資價值。(財富中文網(wǎng))
本文作者米莎·諾努是一位紐約市的時裝設(shè)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(shè)計師協(xié)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(yù)言的時裝行業(yè)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(jīng)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(yè)內(nèi)的關(guān)系錯綜復(fù)雜,它的發(fā)展建立在剝削創(chuàng)造性勞動的基礎(chǔ)上,任人唯親的現(xiàn)象無處不在,生產(chǎn)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(yè)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(yè)網(wǎng)絡(luò),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(yè)的每一個問題幾乎都能追溯到一個癥結(jié):庫存。
對前期大批量生產(chǎn)的依賴,需要在消費者還沒有表現(xiàn)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(tǒng)時裝日程表設(shè)計服裝的時候,被要求大批量生產(chǎn)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(yè)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(shè)讓我突然醒悟。被浪費的資源變成了時裝行業(yè)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(yǎng)人才、進行可持續(xù)采購或者運營開發(fā)等。這些年來,時裝行業(yè)對這些方面的忽視已經(jīng)臭名昭著。這種投資的浪費導(dǎo)致整個行業(yè)出現(xiàn)了螺旋式下降。在漏洞百出的供應(yīng)鏈里,領(lǐng)著低薪的團隊不知不覺中開始生產(chǎn)表現(xiàn)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(jīng)培養(yǎng)了一代消費者,導(dǎo)致他們會低估購買的衣服的價值,使行業(yè)陷入降價大戰(zhàn),根本無法體現(xiàn)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(shù)十億美元的服裝被這樣銷毀,所造成的污染使時裝業(yè)成為全球最不可持續(xù)的行業(yè)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(chǎn)生效益,不會被經(jīng)常穿,也無法被成功轉(zhuǎn)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(xiàn)有的體系卻要求大量生產(chǎn)。
包括我的公司在內(nèi)的許多公司都在嘗試去庫存經(jīng)營模式。只有這樣我們才能經(jīng)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(yè)企業(yè)數(shù)十年來一直堅持準時生產(chǎn)模式,只是服裝和配件行業(yè)對此視而不見。要實現(xiàn)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(nèi)按需生產(chǎn)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(jù)預(yù)訂訂單生產(chǎn)女裝的品牌之一。我們的共同點是都希望從財務(wù)和環(huán)境方面進行更明智的資源分配。直到發(fā)生了新冠疫情和后續(xù)的經(jīng)濟危機,零售業(yè)巨頭們才開始更深入地分析這些阻礙行業(yè)發(fā)展的落伍的模式。與此同時,多年來小公司一直在挑戰(zhàn)行業(yè)標準,他們能夠取得利潤豐厚的驚人業(yè)績,并不是依靠大量消耗資源和喪失人性。
我呼吁時裝行業(yè)重新考慮應(yīng)該進行哪些方面的改革,為自己掙得一線機會。包括我在內(nèi),有越來越多企業(yè)家已經(jīng)在研究數(shù)字T臺時裝秀,完善“產(chǎn)品降價”和簡化季節(jié)降價促銷等。如果依舊依靠消耗資源生產(chǎn)大量庫存,妨礙產(chǎn)品設(shè)計,繼續(xù)污染地球,即使減少商品種類、調(diào)整季節(jié)性和優(yōu)化網(wǎng)站,也不會使公司變得更健康。
有創(chuàng)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(yè)沒有任何投資價值。(財富中文網(wǎng))
本文作者米莎·諾努是一位紐約市的時裝設(shè)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(shè)計師協(xié)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).