The Shot Callers of the Fashion Capitals

In each fashion capital there is an entity that orchestrates fashion weeks and upholds the standards of their country's position in the fashion world: The Council of Fashion Designers of America out of New York, the British Fashion Council out of London, In Milan the Camera Nazionale della moda Italiana, and in Paris, the Fédération Française de la couture, du prêt-à-porter des Couturiers et des Créateurs de Mode–That last one is quite a mouthful–And there's another chapter of the authority in Paris, The Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture, which presides over the Haute Couture classifications and organization of Haute Couture Fashion Week. 

While they act more like men behind the green curtains, they are arguably the most important decision makers in fashion in the big picture sense. These organizations are responsible for the image that is projected on a national level through this multi-trillion dollar industry and maintaining their respective nations' status at the top of the fashion totem pole. This means creating programs for cultivating new businesses and catering to the long established houses to ensure they have what I consider the respect due to the the elders. 

When fashion comes down to the bottom line, the goal is to ensure that the major companies on a global scale, like Louis Vuitton to France or Ralph Lauren to the USA, continue to thrive, and that new companies continue to open and find success to keep the economy dynamic and growing.

There is a lot at stake here, far beyond the spectacle of fashion week parties and runway shows. And because of the major publicity tool it has become, has fashion week outgrown its own reason for being? Or has it just taken on a new role? 

These are questions for the fashion councils, answers to which we might be seeing in the next few years. Or maybe ten. (For an industry that moves fast, fashion sure can move slow).

---

Logistically, it is hard to imagine how fashion week ever ran, or how these cities developed the fashion identity we know today without these groups to coordinate the schedules and uphold the creative and qualitative standards of the city's official calendar. CFDA was founded in 1962, The Fédération Française in 1973 (Syndicat de la Haute Couture, however has been around since 1868), the BFC in 1983, and the CNMI in 1958. Then again, the fashion week we know today is far from the private, no cameras allowed showrooms of couture and the early days of ready-to-wear, and is almost nothing like fashion week as it existed even ten years ago. Recent phenomena in particular, such as the internet, then bloggers, then social media, made sure of that.

Evolution continues, but within the unchanging structure of fashion week there is a feeling that fashion week has become too much. Too formulaic. Too crowded. Too messy. Too scene-y. But is that feeling shared across the board by the decision makers? There is little pressure to change when the establishment is so powerful that any challengers are quickly dismissed. Maybe it's a question of changing leadership, fresh eyes, that will ignite some kind of transformation. Maybe it's a question of time, and change coming from the decision of individual designers to break the mold. Think of Oscar de la Renta, for example, reverting to a private showroom presentation rather than producing a full-on runway show.

The recent appointment of Ralph Toledano to replace Didier Grumbach at the Fédération Française creates an oportunity for change, much like the installment of Jane Reve to the Camera della Moda. While Grumbach is a champion of many modernizing efforts to the French fashion industry, and has arguably witnessed and participated in the major moments that have transformed the identity of French fashion, any person in one position for too long can lead to stasis. 

Ralph Toledano, president FFCPAP

Didier Grumbach, former president FFCPAP

Jane Reeve, chief executive of the Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiana

---

While Fashion Weeks are popping up in other cities all over the world from Berlin to Beijing, they have followed the same model and thus add to the content without contributing to the modernization of the system. And so the aforementioned capitols still represent the four pillars of identity that explain modern fashion: Paris, the original fashion capitol, is the hub of the Avant Garde and the no-expense-spared creative artistry; London, the hip and edgy side with a dose of traditionalism and Savile Row heritage; Milan, the home of timeless, understated luxury and family run businesses; New York, the sportswear and street-savvy mega brands. 

Across all boards, France remains the city where international designers come in to show on the official calendar, while London, Milan and New York are more nationalistic. I think, in particular, of the Belgian and Japanese designers who represent some of the most exciting moments on the Paris calendar. 

It remains the most exciting of all the cities for that reason, as well. The diversity and the creative richness being unmatched & leaving it appropriately as a climax at the end of the long month of running around the globe to runway shows and showrooms.

The barrier for entry in Paris feels higher than in any of the other cities, maybe because of the showmanship required to be considered for the official calendar. In all cities around the world there are off-calendar events, many multi-brand showrooms, and boot-strapping efforts to gain visibility from the traffic brought during fashion week. But until a company is recognized by their country's fashion council, they have to fight that much harder for visibility. And that recognition has to be earned.

---

Natalie Massenet, centre, chairman of the BFC. Caroline Rush, right, CEO of BFC
 

While the leaders of these organizations share similar job responsibilities, the structure in each city is quite different, as are the initiatives that they develop to further their country's fashion industry. Among many other things, New York is celebrated for their Fashion Fund and incubator, and also for their legislative efforts in Washington to pass the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act, while Paris has recently introduced the Designer's Apartment showroom and the Mode et Finance fund to influx cash into promising young designer businesses. 

Although the Didier Grumbachs and Steven Kolbs, along with their teams, are the drivers behind these programs and the authority behind so many decisions regarding the fashion world, they are surprisingly under the radar for the larger fashion community. A broader look at the boards, however, and some more familiar names appear at the top of the list. In London the Chairman of the BFC is Natalie Massenet of Net-a-Porter fame with Caroline Rush as Chief Executive, and in New York Diane Von Furstenberg is the president of the Board of Directors–and is arguably the most prominent face of the organization because of her celebrity–while Steven Kolb acts as CEO.

Steven Kolb, CEO at CFDA

Diane Von Furstenberg, President of the Board of Directors, CFDA

What it comes down to is that these people behind the scenes create the space in which fashion is presented and received and born and grows and finds community. The inner workings of individual companies will ultimately determine their longevity and their relevance, but the way the greater fashion community, and public at large, understand fashion, national identity, big brands versus emerging companies, rally behind young designers and anticipate big shows as we count the days off on the official calendars is through the context of these shot callers. 

Having a structure does limit the flexibility for change because there are more approvals to seek and more rules in place, but change will come, as change is inevitable. These organizations are vessels for change, and for communication. Maybe the hold up is that we don't know where to go next. And until that question is answered, we assimilate where we should innovate. We continue doing what we know. 

A good place to start is for the larger fashion community to recognize the importance of these organizations and to communicate through them. As a centralized force, their influence is wide and the community reactive when that influence is applied. Sometimes it's good for the man to operate quietly behind the green curtain, but sometimes we don't see the big picture until he comes out and talks to us face to face.

The Next Black: A Video

The Next Black, a documentary about the future of clothing, exemplifies the common goals of science and technology based advances in fashion and those of sustainability advocates. Sustainability is not a hippie notion, it's a side effect of technical and technological advancement, and is thus an inevitability. It should not be seen as a threat to luxury, or a demand for compromise, but rather as a way for us to be more efficient which is always good for the bottom line (the second most unsexy thing in fashion after the word sustainability). It's easy to brush off because it still seems so far from the reality. We have yet to even imagine the ways in which the industry will transform as our experiments and research in the textile development and manufacturing process become more advanced. 

"How did we end up with fast fashion? Where did this come from?" Rick Ridgeway, responsible for environmental initiatives at Patagonia, asks. The ability to produce fashion is the most likely reason. With that capability, manufacturers responded to the growing demand for new things at an ever faster rate. The desire from the consumer is driving it, and "that's where the change has to come from." So while it's technology that got us into this cycle, it's technology that will also get us out. 

There are some odd and likely un-commercialize-able ideas in the video, but oh, man, it's pretty cool to see how science-y fashion can be.

A conversation I had yesterday with a friend who was gathering perspectives on the future of fashion, particularly within fashion and technology, began much the way this video does. It is a train of thought that resonates, but also frustrates, because the answers still feel vague and far away:

While fashion moves faster and faster, the concept of clothing hasn't changed much in over 100 years...Maybe it doesn't make sense to disrupt a $1.7 T industry, but shouldn't there be something more progressive than design and style changes? Shouldn't there be innovation that alters the entire concept of clothing?

Shouldn't there? And if so, how do we get there?

"Fashion passes, style remains" Coco Chanel

Maybe we need to start selling style again, not fashion. Sell to last. Trust Patagonia when they tell you "don't buy this coat." Ignore the 5 "Must have" pieces in Vogue.

'The Next Black' is a documentary film that explores the future of clothing. Watch as we meet with some of the most innovative companies on the planet to get their opinion on clothing and its future, including: heroes of sustainability, Patagonia; tech-clothing giants, Studio XO; sportswear icon, adidas; and Biocouture, a consultancy exploring living organisms to grow clothing and accessories.

Every day that we continue to explore and experiment with strategies and innovations for the future of fashion brings us closer to a better, more healthy, and more sustainable fashion industry. It's anyone's move to make. 

Read more about the video here.

Of Brands and Distributors

We are witnessing a shift at this time in the fashion industry, a rapprochement to the tech industry, opening up opportunities in distribution and marketing models that were not possible before the internet. From the fashion industry side, we've barely tapped into the potential of this alignment. The challenge is finding a way to introduce the concept of endless possibilities to the fashion community in terms of technological tools and innovations, and the endless possibilities of branding through design (back and front end) to the tech community getting their toes wet with fashion companies. 

Fashion companies are accustomed to the idea of "anything is possible" in terms of realizing a creative vision, but when it comes to compromise concerning industry pain points, there is a consensus that generally accepts things to remain the same. Why can't we imagine our businesses with the view that anything is possible– design our businesses with the same precision and care with which we design our garments? 

Emerging product based technology doesn't need fashion designers for the time being because the most important and relevant innovations are in the health and fitness realms where tech-y looking things are ok. The innovation in online platforms is mostly coming from the tech and business side and acting as distribution models or branding 'basics' by adopting an existing aesthetic identity and ameliorating the experience through technology/online. There is an available space here for brands with unique and distinctive creative identities to step in, answer to a lifestyle and also define the direction of that lifestyle by carrying it into the future. That being said, there has to be a point of entry, a place for the consumer to connect with the product from where they stand, but for the brand to take the consumer away from the predicted trajectory–the rote of the fashion cycle, for example–and into a better and more highly designed, curated, and cared for experience.

What is the difference between a brand and a distributor? 

A brand has to have a creative ethos & a specific customer they create products for a lifestyle. It's about the aesthetic and the narrative.

A distributor speaks to a specific lifestyle through its curated selection of products from a variety of wholesalers. It's about range and customer experience.

Naturally, a bridge of similarities exists between the two and the obstacle is the status quo of how products reach the end consumer. Technology offers the chance to create a model  the benefits of both: reinforcing the brand identity through the methods of lifestyle curation pioneered by distributors.

What can the brand do beyond the creative ethos to add value?

A distributor focuses on experience, and hierarchy amongst distributors is determined by the quality of service and the level of personalization. Distributors take on characteristics of a brand when they capitalize on consistency. The narrative power of the distributor is in the brands they use to help tell their story. Again, rather than existing as two separate entities, the benefits of each to the other can be realized in one hybrid business model.

If the brand could provide a service that became a powerful acquisition tool, the product can tell a narrative that strengthens the ethos of the distribution model. It's something like a perfect storm of design, experience, online, offline, service, and communication. Empowering the business to prioritize all of these things through the use of technology. In places where digital can be more effective than brick and mortar, for example, the online experience will differentiate itself from the offline experience and already create two different demographic appeals. 

That bridge between brand and distributor is as real as the bridge between fashion and technology, but we're still swinging across the divide one by one, and even then it's only a brave few. In many cases I believe the fashion brands of the future don't exist yet and what we know of the industry today will get stuck in it's own vicious cycle. We adventure and explore more easily with lighter loads, so if brands start experimenting while small and agile rather than follow the predetermined business model of fashion brands which seems more certain at the time, we'll see some exciting changes in the way consumers engage directly with brands to get their hands on beautiful things while sharing a beautiful experience.

Fashion=SustainableFashion=Fashion Tech=Fashion

“Fashion is not something that exists in dresses only. Fashion is in the sky, in the street, fashion has to do with ideas, the way we live, what is happening.”

Fashion is a polarized industry. Subsectors that alienate parts of the community through stigmatizing language or seemingly foreign concepts have stagnated change. Sustainable advocates are out at one end, and high-tech engineers at the other end. In the middle are the companies that were established without leaning towards one or the other of these poles, but should consider both as they move forward. Although there is a disparity between the discussion of Fashion and Tech and the discussion of Sustainable Fashion, two separate communities, two separate vocabularies, two separate futures, from where I stand, the two are actually very much in line.

Both fashion tech and responsible fashion are complete with early adopters, skeptics, and campaigns for change. In both cases, the supply is out of sync with the demand. Eco fashion carries a stigma that alienates a large portion of the audience, and fashion houses hesitate to implement what can be high investment change in that direction. High-tech fashion in the product category hasn’t proved useful to the general public, and the fashion industry has adopted tech into their brand experience largely as novelty rather than internalizing it.

The concepts being discussed across all factions of the industry are in sync, it is the distinctive vocabularies that maintain the divide between them. Once we are able to change the narrative from subjective beliefs to measurable behavior, it will become clear that we all want the same thing: a thriving industry that can access new channels for growth, and then sustain itself. Responsible choices and technology can help on both counts.

Some brands have chosen to experiment with one or the other, but might find they are doing both:

It seems to me that there are many ways in which the two are mutually supportive and can build an audience based on combining their values. Fashion of the future is fashion with a conscience. Technology can answer so many questions in the ethics of the manufacturing and distribution, and both ethically conscious transformations and technological disruption offer opportunity for great change through which values can be rewritten and rebuilt upon.

Technology can help through commerce platforms – Bonobos, for example, can sell lower price and better quality and create amazing customer experience by eliminating the middleman between wholesaler and consumer– mechanical innovation – Recycling, for example, is becoming more advanced in the textile industry – and transparency – the Sustainable Apparel Coalition is proposing a QR bar code system that will detail the provenance of garments.

As a larger community, we are already in line with both of these two movements:

Without thinking about it, we all use technology everyday in ways that are unintimidating, and enhance our experiences. Fashion brands are being outpaced by companies coming from the tech world, which are disrupting the industry particularly through distribution channels and eventually in wearable tech. Consumers are growing accustomed to keeping up with these innovations, which are all conceived in answer to perceived consumer demand. Fashion design houses are finding they are limited in growth, unable to achieve the big brand scale of Ralph Lauren/Louis Vuitton. Fashion brands should be aware that technology offers new possibilities for business growth and scalability not limited to product but inclusive of service and experience.

Escaping the stigma of ethical fashion is also a question of changing the narrative. The mentality that the ethical fashion movement is trying to espouse is actually how just about half of the population shops without considering it responsible shopping: Men. If we use different narratives to bring understanding of what is means to shop responsibly, you might be surprised to realize you do this already. In this recent sustainable fashion discussion, we discussed that men already approach fashion as an investment, spending more and buying less. It might because they don’t like shopping and want to go as little as possible, but that in itself is a win against waste.

There are also many women who, like myself, begin adopting standard looks that require less inventory and more focus. Before I was aware of the dimensionality of sustainable fashion, I never considered myself an advocate. My choices were made based on my own desire to pare down, and settling into my own sense style. It’s a level of maturity that could be encouraged in shoppers that is completely outside of the lexicon of the sustainable fashion movement, but in which we find many of the same values.

As Coco Chanel states: “Fashion is not something that exists in dresses only. Fashion is in the sky, in the street, fashion has to do with ideas, the way we live, what is happening.” Fashion is “of the moment,” and just as cultural shifts happen over time, adaptation in the most complete sense, that is from both supplier and consumer, won’t happen right away, but these movements are fashion nonetheless. Eventually conscious consumption will be a no-brainer, and fashion companies will adapt to agility in technology or be replaced. Everyone will do it, it will be the norm, and we won’t need to classify it with imperfect words. 

The best way to demonstrate that a movement is happening is to show individuals that they have already adopted the movement without realizing it, without overthinking it, and without identifying with a group because of that choice. This is happening right now in fashion technology and sustainable fashion. No one needs to be singled out for their choices, because both poles are joining together to create one common definition of fashion. That is the fashion of the future.

The Story of Wearables Through the Headlines

It's hard to keep up with the wearables market, especially when every other article on the subject has a headline that contradicts the one before it. Here are some examples from recent news articles that sensationalize, dramatize, celebrate, and forebode the future of wearables.

Is your wearable tech helping you -- or watching you?

Smart devices, wearables pose security risks for consumers

Are they threatening to our security, or could they save our lives? Or both?

Wearable tech: It could save your life

JWT Singapore's New Line of Wearables Will Keep You Safe

Image From CNN

9 Provocative Ways for Brands to Flaunt Wearable Tech

Does the wearable sector have sex appeal?

Google Glass gets sex appeal with new Ray Ban deal

The Case Against Wearables, Or Why We Won't All Look Like The Borg This Year

---

Exclusive: Nike fires majority of FuelBand team, will stop making wearable hardware

Nike’s pull away from wearable tech might be good for field

Why an Apple/Nike Partnership Would Sell Wearables

If anything, this erratic approach to news keeps us active in finding those articles that actually add substance to the discussion, rather than playing on our anxieties and weakness to click on any provocative link.

Better yet, we can add to those substantive headlines by making informed, productive contributions of our own.

Challenge of Making Wearable Technologies Meet Real Needs in Our Lives

There's also a lot out there about wearables as data gathering tools for brands, and ways to have round the clock immediate access to users. But the day wearables are ubiquitous will be the day the user becomes the main benefactor, not the supplier. Brands will never maintain an audience through wearables until users see and experience real value in their wearables. This means answering real needs, which seems, so far, within all these spasmodic headlines, to be the one element that still eludes both engineers and designers.

'Designer' and 'Entrepreneur' Have Become Synonymous but are still Divergent

While working on a writing project, on Starting Somewhere, the words ‘artist’ or ‘designer,’ and the word ‘entrepreneur’ kept popping into my writing interchangeably. It occurred to me that I should be addressing one or the other, as it might get confusing and certain thoughts might be misconstrued as exclusive to one or the other. I realized the dilemma: that I’m trying to reach both with the same message because both are functioning in much the same way these days, we just don’t recognize it yet in our rhetoric or in our communities. I know this because I actually consider myself a hybrid of these categories, and but have had a hell of a time coming to terms with that and communicating to people where I fit in this disjointed system.

Although their activities are very similar, just packaged differently, it still challenging for an artist or a designer to be seen as an entrepreneur. The worlds are entirely separate, although the values and experiences are often the same. For artists, as for entrepreneurs the goal is to connect with an audience to sell your product or service. The term ‘design’ is being used more often to describe business practices and in job titles as industries evolve. The relevance, therefore, of the artist in the business world is understood now not to be a purely aesthetic thing. Design is systems and programs and infrastructure and interface. Startups use design skills everyday, employing their creativity and their inner artist.

Because artists are always expected to make choices for the sake of their art rather than to make money, they do not fit our conventional idea of an entrepreneur, whose primary pursuit is commerce. But this line has been blurred now that artists run businesses of their own and have access to many of the same outlets as businesses through which to reach their community, some of whom might be other businesses looking to outsource artwork or design work. Artists have had to learn to become entrepreneurs to promote themselves and build a following. And so a conversation with an entrepreneur and another with an artist might have many parallels. The startup and the artist pass through the same phases of discovery, experimentation and diffusion.

When starting out after graduating from Parsons in 2009, it took me years to understand that the language I was speaking was not the language of a fashion designer, but rather a hybrid of a fashion designer and an entrepreneur. It meant me meeting the right people at the right time, having conversations that I never thought I would have, and stepping off of a path that had been laid out in front of me since my first taste of fashion industry at the age of 18. In doing so, I had to step away from what I knew and into an abyss, hoping to find my voice and my people.

Once you decide to be a designer there is only one path to take, whether you have your own design business or you have a job with another brand: you must keep up with the cycle of all of the other fashion businesses. When you are in a startup you are basically required to do something totally different than what already exists. There is a huge dichotomy here, and for anyone who is interested in change and progress, fashion as it exists is quite suffocating.

 There is a real opportunity here to start considering the business of fashion at all of its levels and in all of its shapes and sizes, and accepting entrepreneur as synonymous with designer.

There are bridges forming between the fashion world and the startup world, but they are all being built from the land of technology towards the land of fashion. The land of fashion has little moments celebrating the innovations of technology, but mostly through content creation and in various novel ways. They know how to create buzz, but they aren’t changing the world. Even an example like Burberry, celebrated for their embracing of all things digital, are only dressing up a business that remains tied to the cycle.

The innovation in these big companies has to be in communication and marketing, because they are too big and working too well to alter from the bottom up. The problem is not that heritage companies all function in the same way, but that all fashion businesses starting out head down the same path by default, without questioning it. that's just the way it's done. We celebrate unique aesthetics and content creation, but new business models cannot take off because they are rejected by the gatekeepers. Our innovation comes in marketing strategies and commercial channels, but not in business models. And where would we go to find a mentor to guide us through innovation? Likely to tech land, where a new idea can be flushed out and developed rather than scoffed at. 

When you are a startup in tech land, you have access to long list of incubators, accelerator programs, and mentors. New ideas are encouraged and plentiful, and are up for grabs to the one who does it best. As a designer our options are limited to competitions, show room sponsorships, and a select few programs, like the CFDA incubator in New York, where the focus on the business is a bit more long term. But these tend to focus on businesses that already have some traction, whereas for a startup you find support from, well, the moment you start up.

This is not a question of fairness, or of all designers deserving a shot. It is an argument that I’ll eventually (in another article) bridge into how fashion can be more sustainable as an industry if we learn a little something from the startup model. And this is speaking to both designers and industry decision makers: we need to start building the bridge back towards tech land. Young designers should consider business models that break from the rules of the gatekeepers, and industry decision makers should encourage this dialogue for future change.

Why are the most exciting things about Fashion the ones happening in underground movements like those of ethics, sustainability and tech?

There is a real opportunity here to start considering the business of fashion at all of its levels and in all of its shapes and sizes, and accepting entrepreneur as synonymous with designer. Conversations on Omni channel retail and Omni channel marketing, interest from big tech companies to collaborate with fashion brands, and organizations like Decoded Fashion are all breaking down the barriers that have restricted movement within the fashion industry for so long.

What I’ve learned is simply that in order to find a place in the no-mans-land that I linger in, somewhere on the fringes of fashion and the fringes of tech, the conversation must continue. Every new discovery leads to a new opportunity, a new idea, and a new door. This is the thrill of innovation and newness that has always inspired entrepreneurs, and has begun to cause fashion to loose its edge. Why are the most exciting things about Fashion the ones happening in underground movements like those of ethics, sustainability and tech? The beauty of the garments becomes, at a certain point, obscured by their detachment from reality.

It’s not just in regards to fashion; the future of all industries is going to be a hybrid way of thinking. To think like an entrepreneur and designer means being capable of imagining new platforms for communication and ways of exchanging and engaging with information, products, and our environments. It means to face problems in the market with a viable solution and become responsible for creating a new way. Not all of us need to be both, but we need to build our businesses and our industries in a way that cultivates this mergence of ideals. We, the individuals to drive that movement already exist and are taking our own steps in that direction. But our real achievement will be showing that it’s possible for us to remove the stigma of classification and adjust perceptions now engrained by adjusting the rhetoric.