In this weekend's Washington Post, Fashion columnist Robin Givhan posed a growing conflict that has been of great discussion in the fashion industry as of late: live-streaming. On the forefront, live-streaming seems not only logistic but also a valuable asset for advertising. But in the long run, does it really hurt a fashion brand?
Sure, live-streaming is just another evolution in fashion, making those front rows traditionally reserved for editors, buyers, and retailers available for anyone with internet connection or a mobile device. In creates a devoted relationship between the designer and the customer. But in retrospect, it is creating instant interest in a collection that won't be available for months. By the time they do hit the racks, their consumer base is on to something more relevant, and have at times lost interest in the collection entirely. And more than that, live-streaming garners interest in pieces that quite possibly won't ever hit the racks. "The shows still pretend that the frocks on display will eventually end up generously stocked by stores, but they reality is that merchants rely heavily on pre-collections for the bulk of their merchandise."
It use to be that only the editors, buyers, and retailers saw these collections to "plan for business six months down the road,"--gain inspiration for trends, stories, and photo shoots, and decide how and what to sell at their stores.
So ultimately, live-streaming is creating an instant demand for something that may be available six months later. Designers aren't, however, keeping up with this demand. Their employing new-school technology while still playing by the old ways. This is quite a dilemma--you don't just change tradition. And tradition dictates that we see the collections six months ahead of time. But at the risk of losing your customer base, and for the retailers sake, I can only hope a compromise will be reached. Give us our frocks when we want them or quit the damn live-streaming!
Sure, live-streaming is just another evolution in fashion, making those front rows traditionally reserved for editors, buyers, and retailers available for anyone with internet connection or a mobile device. In creates a devoted relationship between the designer and the customer. But in retrospect, it is creating instant interest in a collection that won't be available for months. By the time they do hit the racks, their consumer base is on to something more relevant, and have at times lost interest in the collection entirely. And more than that, live-streaming garners interest in pieces that quite possibly won't ever hit the racks. "The shows still pretend that the frocks on display will eventually end up generously stocked by stores, but they reality is that merchants rely heavily on pre-collections for the bulk of their merchandise."
It use to be that only the editors, buyers, and retailers saw these collections to "plan for business six months down the road,"--gain inspiration for trends, stories, and photo shoots, and decide how and what to sell at their stores.
So ultimately, live-streaming is creating an instant demand for something that may be available six months later. Designers aren't, however, keeping up with this demand. Their employing new-school technology while still playing by the old ways. This is quite a dilemma--you don't just change tradition. And tradition dictates that we see the collections six months ahead of time. But at the risk of losing your customer base, and for the retailers sake, I can only hope a compromise will be reached. Give us our frocks when we want them or quit the damn live-streaming!
5 Discuss
An interesting post. Great job!
good point.
Simply put, fashion shows are basically trade shows for buyers and the like. At the point at which designers decided they wanted celebrities’ front row as branding objects everyone started clamoring for access to be a part of the celebrity exclusivity. All this resulted in more of the general public (read people not in the fashion industry) getting a view of merchandise that’s always a season ahead. Seeing clothes so far ahead for most usually does one of two things – 1) make hearts swell with anticipation or 2) lead to vexation. For quite some time people such as Donna Karan have lobbied to reverse fashion shows to directly correlate for the appropriate seasons. With the mass media coverage of fashion today one has to wonder if at some point things will change to address the salivating demands of the masses. We unfortunately live in a time of instant gratification and I seriously doubt that the fashion world can continue to postpone clothing lust the way they do today.
http://www.curatorofdcstyle.com
I don't think a reversal of fashion shows to correlate with appropriate seasons needs to be done. I just think that fashion shows need to revert back to being simply trade shows.
Great discussion. I think Proenza Schouler are on the right track - they live streamed their Fall 2010 show AND directly following the collection debut they made available a selection of straight-off-the-runway fall 2010 handbags for anyone to order. And they made them available for 24 hours only - which judging from the Gilt Groupe phenomenon - seems to work well. I think others will have to adapt as well. Many of the Fall 2010 pieces could easily transcend seasons and similarly for Spring and Resort collections. So it's not unlikely that people will buy some items, specially accessories, immediately after seeing the show.
Post a Comment