Something New from Something Old
It’s no secret that the fashion system thrives on creating and selling new products—constantly. In fact, the fashion industry is very adept at built-in obsolescence, with an especially short lifecycle, wherein the very item that was heralded as the “must have” in September is no longer even desirable or cool in February. Because the fashion system is built on seasons—fashion brands must deliver something completely new at least every six months—spring and fall—to replace the old. And in some cases, brands are delivering specialty seasons such as holiday and resort on top of that, or simply forgoing seasons altogether and dropping new styles on a weekly or monthly basis.
While tech companies are often “called out” and even sued for supposedly building in obsolescence, consumers rarely make the connection to the same techniques fashion companies have been engaged in for decades. In 2017, a class action lawsuit in France, was brought against Apple for this very issue. Earlier this year, Apple settled the case for $500 million. And yet, the irony is that a Chanel bag costs much more than a $900 iPhone, and it is replaced or updated multiple times a year. The iPhone typically only updates once a year.
New products, or perpetual updates of old products, keep fashion brands in business, despite the effect this throwaway culture creates, and the devastating consequences it has on our environment. A large movement has coalesced around issues of sustainability in fashion, primarily focused on materials sourcing and end-use, but little has been done to combat the root of the problem—shifting consumer supply and demand. Because, that would require businesses to rethink their entire revenue model, and ability to grow and scale. For public companies, this goes directly against shareholder expectations for year-to-year growth, adding another reason for companies like LVMH, Kering Group and Tapestry to focus their sustainability efforts elsewhere. Smaller fashion companies are often at the mercy of contracts to deliver more product, more often, by the retailers they rely on. And in order to stay “in the mind’s eye” of the consumer, and to drive sales on their own D2C retail platforms, these brands are forced to play within a social media mechanism that constantly requires and churns out new content, pushing these smaller brands into the vicious circles they were trying to avoid.
On top of this, we have an educational and cultural system that continues to churn out would-be entrepreneurs that want to add their products to an already saturated market—even though they are more aware then previous generations of issues around sustainability. Perhaps they believe they will change the system, but more often than not, the cycle continues.
Finally, fashion branding and marketing experts have known for years that customers prefer heritage brands—brands that have long, colorful histories —to newer fashion brands. In fact, it’s easier to resurrect an old label than it is to create a new, lasting label, and this awareness has led to the rebirth of many luxury fashion companies since the 1990s. But these customers don’t want old products from these brands, they want new products. And so, brands hire a rotating cast of creative directors to modernize them, keep them fresh and keep the cash flowing. It’s no wonder these creative directors create styles that cater more to the fast fashion customer than to their core, legacy customer—leading to $700 Balenciaga sneakers and $1500 Balmain hoodies. In effect, the calculation is simple – something new from something old – is a winning combination.
So, it’s time to start really asking why we, as customers, continue to support brands that have no real impetus to change, no matter their storied histories. It’s time to start putting our money where our mouth is. If we want change, then things must actually change and that may mean letting go of nostalgia, so that fashion brands will be forced to adapt, or make way for more innovative brands that don’t trade on built-in obsolescence.