Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Forever 21, Which Helped Popularize Fast Fashion, to File for Bankruptcy

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 178 posts

Re: Forever 21, Which Helped Popularize Fast Fashion, to File for Bankruptcy

#11

Post by BrentOzar »

Mathnerd314 wrote: post #4

The only other substantial discussions on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7861442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8971215 I guess "fast fashion" means cheap sweatshop clothes. The bankruptcy is probably caused as much by rising standards of living in other countries as it is by the general shift to online ordering.

> I guess "fast fashion" means cheap sweatshop clothes.

Anecdotal: my wife started calling it "Forever Toilet Paper" because the clothes disintegrated so quickly (as opposed to Zara and other fast fashion brands that, while fast to market, still put at least a little work into quality.)

Re: Forever 21, Which Helped Popularize Fast Fashion, to File for Bankruptcy

#12

Post by kabacha »

BrentOzar wrote: post #11
Mathnerd314 wrote: post #4

The only other substantial discussions on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7861442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8971215 I guess "fast fashion" means cheap sweatshop clothes. The bankruptcy is probably caused as much by rising standards of living in other countries as it is by the general shift to online ordering.

> I guess "fast fashion" means cheap sweatshop clothes. Anecdotal: my wife started calling it "Forever Toilet Paper" because the clothes disintegrated so quickly (as opposed to Zara and other fast fashion brands that, while fast to market, still put at least a little work into quality.)

Yes, who would have guessed that you get better quality by paying almost 10 times the price. Shirts at Zara are 60$ while forever21 like 10$.

The problem with clothes manufacturing is that there's huge diminished returns - by paying 6 times more you don't get 6 times higher quality. Clothes technology is rather simple.

Re: Forever 21, Which Helped Popularize Fast Fashion, to File for Bankruptcy

#13

Post by Mathnerd314 »

kalleboo wrote: post #6
Mathnerd314 wrote: post #4

The only other substantial discussions on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7861442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8971215 I guess "fast fashion" means cheap sweatshop clothes. The bankruptcy is probably caused as much by rising standards of living in other countries as it is by the general shift to online ordering.

If that was the issue, it would be affecting Zara, H&M, Uniqlo etc as well. Zara is seeing record profits, H&Ms revenues are up but profits are down as they spent their money investing in online sales, Uniqlo profits are also up

Zara, H&M, and Uniqlo are actually somewhat fashionable, at least as "value" brands. Apparently there is some effect where the top 20 remain the top 20 because they are well-known or have other competitive advantages: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/the-...

For example https://martinroll.com/resources/articles/strategy/the-secre... lists Zara's 1-week supply chain and responsive customer service as Zara's advantages. And Uniqlo similarly has some proprietary fabric technology: https://martinroll.com/resources/articles/strategy/uniqlo-th.... Meanwhile https://martinroll.com/resources/articles/branding/forever21... lists nothing besides their knockoffs being really cheap (and the associated piracy and labor lawsuits).

I don't have time to go through all the other failing stores like American Apparel, Dressbarn, JCPenney, Gap, etc., but the story is probably similar, pointless products with no obvious differentiation. H&M is more interesting, massive chain with CEO/management trying to turn it into something more lean / innovative. It's kind of like Amazon with Whole Foods. The eventual outcome of both is uncertain but so far they're moving along.

Re: Forever 21, Which Helped Popularize Fast Fashion, to File for Bankruptcy

#14

Post by achow »

kalleboo wrote: post #6
Mathnerd314 wrote: post #4

The only other substantial discussions on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7861442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8971215 I guess "fast fashion" means cheap sweatshop clothes. The bankruptcy is probably caused as much by rising standards of living in other countries as it is by the general shift to online ordering.

If that was the issue, it would be affecting Zara, H&M, Uniqlo etc as well. Zara is seeing record profits, H&Ms revenues are up but profits are down as they spent their money investing in online sales, Uniqlo profits are also up

This is addressed in the article:

Mark A. Cohen, the director of retail studies at Columbia Business School, said that he believed fast fashion was as popular as ever, pointing to the success of Zara, but that Forever 21 had expanded far too quickly “without regard to a reasonable outlook. It’s a self-inflicted catastrophe”

Re: Forever 21, Which Helped Popularize Fast Fashion, to File for Bankruptcy

#15

Post by Arnt »

Mathnerd314 wrote: post #4

The only other substantial discussions on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7861442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8971215 I guess "fast fashion" means cheap sweatshop clothes. The bankruptcy is probably caused as much by rising standards of living in other countries as it is by the general shift to online ordering.

Fast fashion means three-week fashion cycles. That a fashion cycle is a single delivery, and the shop cannot order more if something is a great success.

What you say sounds wrongish... In a fast fashion shop you can try on ten things this week and ten _other_ things next week, and rate of change makes online ordering look slow.

Re: Forever 21, Which Helped Popularize Fast Fashion, to File for Bankruptcy

#16

Post by Angostura »

achow wrote: post #14
kalleboo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that was the issue, it would be affecting Zara, H&M, Uniqlo etc as well. Zara is seeing record profits, H&Ms revenues are up but profits are down as they spent their money investing in online sales, Uniqlo profits are also up

This is addressed in the article: Mark A. Cohen, the director of retail studies at Columbia Business School, said that he believed fast fashion was as popular as ever, pointing to the success of Zara, but that Forever 21 had expanded far too quickly “without regard to a reasonable outlook. It’s a self-inflicted catastrophe”

I would hope that the reason for failure was more about this:

> Forever 21’s struggles have provoked questions around the appeal of fast fashion more broadly. The industry has faced backlash surrounding the environmental impact of quickly disposable clothes and concerns about worker safety

...

> Younger shoppers have increasingly turned to consigned goods and brands that claim sustainability as a value...

But I wouldn’t bet big money on it.

Re: Forever 21, Which Helped Popularize Fast Fashion, to File for Bankruptcy

#17

Post by lallysingh »

kabacha wrote: post #12
BrentOzar wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess "fast fashion" means cheap sweatshop clothes. Anecdotal: my wife started calling it "Forever Toilet Paper" because the clothes disintegrated so quickly (as opposed to Zara and other fast fashion brands that, while fast to market, still put at least a little work into quality.)

Yes, who would have guessed that you get better quality by paying almost 10 times the price. Shirts at Zara are 60$ while forever21 like 10$. The problem with clothes manufacturing is that there's huge diminished returns - by paying 6 times more you don't get 6 times higher quality. Clothes technology is rather simple.

"paying almost 10 times the price. Shirts at Zara are 60$ while forever21 like 10$."

That's six times.

Re: Forever 21, Which Helped Popularize Fast Fashion, to File for Bankruptcy

#18

Post by VvR-Ox »

Angostura wrote: post #16
achow wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is addressed in the article: Mark A. Cohen, the director of retail studies at Columbia Business School, said that he believed fast fashion was as popular as ever, pointing to the success of Zara, but that Forever 21 had expanded far too quickly “without regard to a reasonable outlook. It’s a self-inflicted catastrophe”

I would hope that the reason for failure was more about this: > Forever 21’s struggles have provoked questions around the appeal of fast fashion more broadly. The industry has faced backlash surrounding the environmental impact of quickly disposable clothes and concerns about worker safety ... > Younger shoppers have increasingly turned to consigned goods and brands that claim sustainability as a value... But I would…

It's not about those brands really being sustainable etc. - it's about their claims (the same with food and their labels).

If those claims seem authentic enough they will ease the mind of the customers it helps them enjoy their spent money again though deep down they should know how bad this consumption is for our environment and the poor people involved in the production.

Re: Forever 21, Which Helped Popularize Fast Fashion, to File for Bankruptcy

#19

Post by kart23 »

Good. The only fast fashion brand I truly like is uniqlo, but forever 21 was always at the bottom of my list. All of their clothing had prints that looked like it came out of a machine learning algo that wasn't trained properly. I dont understand how they afforded to open these giant stores in the hottest malls. A fun game that I played with friends is to go into f21, try on clothes and see who can assemble the most absurd outfit.

Re: Forever 21, Which Helped Popularize Fast Fashion, to File for Bankruptcy

#20

Post by HunOL »

Angostura wrote: post #16
achow wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is addressed in the article: Mark A. Cohen, the director of retail studies at Columbia Business School, said that he believed fast fashion was as popular as ever, pointing to the success of Zara, but that Forever 21 had expanded far too quickly “without regard to a reasonable outlook. It’s a self-inflicted catastrophe”

I would hope that the reason for failure was more about this: > Forever 21’s struggles have provoked questions around the appeal of fast fashion more broadly. The industry has faced backlash surrounding the environmental impact of quickly disposable clothes and concerns about worker safety ... > Younger shoppers have increasingly turned to consigned goods and brands that claim sustainability as a value... But I would…

> goods and brands that claim sustainability as a value... Claiming sustainability and being sustainable are two different things. For instance "C&A" is making a lot of things from "Bio Cotton", but you if search for Bio Cotton on their website https://www.c-and-a.com/uk/en/corporate/company/sustainabili... you find this:

"BIO COTTON is all of that. It guarantees you that no genetically modified seeds are used, it supports farmers, saves the environment and feels good for you and your loved ones."

Maybe I am biased (I am not opposed to GMO), but I have doubts that this is the best way to be environment friendly.

Post reply on HN