A little over a month ago, newbie direct-to-consumer e-tailer Everlane, posted the below infographic on their Tumblr.
4,100 notes later, and the image is still going strong. Though a clever and fairly artful depiction of the inner workings of the apparel industry, it’s not entirely accurate.
In his response to the image (which is still one of the best I’ve read to date), Jon Moy, co-founder of Run of the Mill and blogger behind Getting Beat Like You Stole Something and Tina Rated Tina Approved, explained why:
How much should a designer get paid for designing something? How much would you want to get paid to sew the same thing over and over again for 5 days a week? What about the people who work in the warehouse, packing and shipping everything? Things like this just beg more questions than provide any real answers. What is a living wage? More importantly, what’s a wage that you would take for making something? Maybe t-shirts shouldn’t cost 15-20 dollars because it demonstrates that someone down the line isn’t getting paid fairly. No one likes hearing justifications for things they find ‘overpriced’. But when’s the last time someone asked you how much your work is worth?
I reblogged Jon’s response, as did many others. Shortly after, I received the following message:
I respectfully, and forcefully disagree with your characterization of Everlane’s infographic. Clothing retail lacks transparency and anyone who has seen how things work knows that some retailers put out fair markups and others do not even come close. The exact same pants cost $200 from Epaulet and $400 from Ovadia. A T-shirt of the same quality of material, construction, cut and country of origin costs $15 from Everlane and $50 from James Perse. One is a fair price, and the other is overpriced.
I responded:
My issue with Everlane’s infographic is that it’s a dangerous over-simplification. Essentially, Everlane is attempting to demonize any clothing company charging greater than 2.25% its manufacturing costs. That’s ludicrous. Running a clothing company is expensive. Period. No matter how big or small, there’s always going to be unavoidable overhead. Mark-ups exist to cover that overhead. They pay for office space, employee payroll, web hosting, web design. They help to cushion the inevitable losses incurred from factory fuck-ups, shipping damages, fabric imperfections. The list goes on. None of that is accounted for in the image. Instead, mark-ups are depicted as some great ruse being perpetrated on the guileless consumer. And that’s just not true.
While writing my response, I realized that the majority of people who have seen, or are going to see Everlane’s graphic, don’t actually have any first-hand knowledge of how the clothing business works. And so, they have no reason to question Everlane’s claims. With that in mind, I asked some industry friends to share their thoughts on the image as well. I don’t want this to seem like an attack on Everlane, because it’s not. I simply feel there are some glaring inaccuracies in their infographic, and given how popular the picture has become, those inaccuracies must be addressed.
Tom Bonamici | Co-founder | Archival Clothing
I couldn’t help but notice that the Everlane graphic left out the most important part of the equation: people. When you pick the cotton, weave it, dye it, cut it, sew it, transport it, etc, you’ve got to pay people to do those things. The Everlane graphic represents the absolute lowest prices in the world for those tasks, and at the very highest quantity (prices go down as numbers go up). Our Archival t-shirts, by contrast, have a very different path. The fabric is woven, cut, and sewn in the USA, where labor prices are much higher. We also have to be able to pay ourselves for spec’ing, ordering, and marketing the product. Our mark ups reflect a person who’s making a living.
Mac Bishop | Founder | Native(X)
Usually, how it works in the apparel business, is that a company will make a garment for $10, wholesale it for $20, and sell it at retail for $40. This keeps retail prices even across direct and wholesale channels. Consumers are generally surprised when they hear that $10 of labor and material went into a $40 shirt. But what they don’t realize is that apparel businesses have other costs (design, marketing, sourcing, administrative, etc). If you look at the apparel industry, profit margin averages out to about 10% (even for highly successful brands like Ralph and Gap).
Kat McMillan | Co-founder | Pierrepont Hicks
Our manufacturing cost is just one of many. It doesn’t include our custom labels or shipping to our showroom in Minneapolis. It doesn’t include fabric minimums from Europe. It doesn’t include Mac, the co-owner of the company, unpacking each box and performing quality checks by hand, piece by piece. Then there are other costs like photography and ecommerce system fees and babysitters – these add up so quickly. The other issue here is putting a price on creativity. Our business is self-made. We don’t have a conference table full of investors telling us what to do to bring in the best profit. We were inspired from within to create our brand. I don’t know how to price that out.
Abe Burmeister | Co-founder | Outlier
Only thing I can say about that graphic is, to quote Ed Lover, “C’mon SON!” The most interesting thing on there is the footnote. What does that footnote say? That they made up their numbers based on their “own experience.” C’mon SON! How are we supposed to believe that? Everlane is funded by Kleiner-Perkins the same people who funded Google and Amazon back in the day. So you’ve got Kleiner-Perkins money and you still need to make up your own sources? C’mon SON!
All that said, there is a reason Kleiner-Perkins was willing to back them, and it’s because there is an element of truth in all that. Traditional retail is very expensive. It requires expensive real estate, a lot of people hours and a lot of inventory risk. The internet dramatically reduces the real estate cost, makes better use of labor hours and can sometimes pull down the inventory risks too. It’s tough though because there are amazing aspects to the traditional retail experience and people are going to fight hard to keep them around even as the internet cuts into the margins. My best guess is that the reality of it all won’t quite look like Everlane’s distorted numbers but the face of clothing retail is going to change and change quicker than people expect.
Saager Dilawri | Owner | Nieghbour
With a physical store, covering operating costs while ensuring comparable price points is often an extremely difficult task. However, despite that difficulty, I still believe there is a need for brick-and-mortar shops. B&Ms provide a unique experience to consumers, as well as help spread recognition of emerging – often local – brands that can face enormous barriers. While I thank Everlane for causing people to think about where their clothing comes from, this infographic is too much of an oversimplification, and doesn’t do justice to those in the industry who work hard to make an honest living.
Todd Barket | Co-owner | Unionmade
When people shop at certain stores, they’re paying not just for the product, but also the experience. They want to be a part of something bigger than the act of consumption. There’s a reason people wait in line at the 5th ave Abercrombie and Fitch, even if they’re only buying socks. The same applies to small stores too. Shoppers want to participate in something aspirational. And it costs money to create that experience. Combine that with the dozens of behind the scenes expenses, and you start to understand how expensive it can be to run a store. But that’s what people want and expect. If they didn’t, everyone would just be shopping at discount stores with no atmosphere.
Michael Shapiro | Projects Coordinator | Ovadia & Sons
Based on the prices they are quoting in the illustration, I think we can assume the garments are made in China. If that is in fact the case, they’re “forgetting” to include a flood of other costs, such as: opening letters of credit, currency exchange and banking fees, quality inspection fees, importing the garment, taxes and duties, shipping from the port to the warehouse. Add that to all the non-manufacturing expenses, like time and money spent developing design and fit, employees, rent, insurance, supplies, etc, and suddenly, that $6.70 shirt is actually costing closer to $10 or $12. If an illustration like this is going to be out there for people to see, the consumer deserves to have the honest figures. And honestly, there’s no such thing as a $6.70 shirt.
Euince Lee | Founder | Unis
First thing’s first: is their product made in the USA? If not, then it’s not a fair comparison. WWD reported in 2010 that the average minimum wage in China was $0.93 and in Mexico was $0.53. The current minimum wage in New York is $7.25 and in California it’s $8.00. You just can’t compare items made here and abroad. Second, what about the cost to design the shirt? Either you’re doing it, or you’ve hired someone else to. Regardless, the shirt’s not going to design itself, so someone has to get paid. Thirdly, not everyone uses fabrics as cheap as $2.75 per garment. And then what about all the other steps involved in the manufacturing? Moving fabric from one area of the factory to the other. Cutting. Dying. Fittings. Fit models. Pattern changes. Production markers. Damages. These are all related to the final cost, and they’ve all been left out. The commenter from Nansblog does make a good point about products changing hands too much. That’s absolutely true. But Everlane’s model doesn’t actually change that, or offer a solution to it, it just doesn’t mention it.
Christian McCann | Founder | Left Field NYC and Choctaw Ridge
It’s a numbers game. If you make 200,000 t-shirts you can afford a lower margin then if you make 200. Bottom line though, we live in a capitalist society. If something is expensive, and there’s a demand for it, competition will step in and offer a cheaper alternative. That’s how it works. In the end, you just have to hope your customer can tell the difference between your product and the knockoff.
Emil Corsillo | Founder / Co-owner | The Hill-Side / Hickorees
In this infographic, Everlane is trying to create the biggest gap possible between cost of production and retail price, in order to set up a stark contrast to their own model. The most misleading part of this graphic is the $15 wholesale > $50 retail markup (3.3x). Everlane is being intentionally misleading here because they want to shock you into thinking that you’re being ripped off every time you buy a $50 t-shirt. I don’t know where they found evidence of this 3.3x markup, but it’s certainly not happening at any of the independent men’s clothing stores in the US that I know.
The highest markup we charge on any product at Hickoree’s is 2.5x the wholesale price. For clothing, we use the standard markup of 2.3x, which would make the $15.00 t-shirt in this graphic cost $34.50 at Hickoree’s. If you buy a $50 t-shirt at Hickoree’s, we’re charging $50 because we paid $21.75 for it. It costs us $21.75 because it cost the brand somewhere between $8.50 – $10 to design and produce it. We sell $29 t-shirts at Hickoree’s as well as $120 t-shirts. In both cases you’re paying 2.3x what we bought it for, which in turn is 2x-2.5x what it cost the brand to make it.
We believe in these products and we’re friends with the people who design and produce them. Rather than feeling ripped off, when you buy one of these products you should feel good about the fact that you’re supporting both Hickoree’s and the people who made the stuff. By doing so, you help ensure that we’ll be able to put more cool stuff in our shop next season, and that the brands we carry will be able to keep making cool stuff going forward.
45 Comments
I actually started off by thinking this graphic was bullshit, and I agree with the input from the companies you asked for comments.
On thinking deeper into this issue however, I feel that graphic is actually somewhat relevant, but only for certain contexts.
I have no doubt that a $75 GAP shirt probably costs GAP about $10 in direct costs (made in China, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, etc.). When we factor in all the indirect costs, such as admin, advertising, website, returns, damaged goods, etc., the price would go up. But I still think brands like GAP, Banana Republic, H&M, etc. are ridiculously marked up.
If, however, you compare it it to better quality, made in the US and Canada products, then this infographic goes out the window. As they said, labour is 8-10 times higher, they use better materials most of the time, and spent more time on quality assurance.
In summary, if you’re talking about a mass-market, made-in-the-third-world brand, then yeah, it’s a good infographic. If you’re talking about quality products, made in the first world with good material, then it’s highly inaccurate.
Hello,
This was a really interesting post and I found it to be very informative.
I think the first commenter makes a very good point however. In the retail world, not all products are created equal and there is a huge difference between products made in China and those made more locally. I don’t think Everlane is comparing itself to independent brands such as Unis. I think they are targeting “luxury” brands that manufacture in bulk and overseas (i.e. Banana Republic or Armani Exchange).
I’m Canadian and I have to say that we quite often feel over charged for clothing. For example, a pair of Levi’s jean in Canada cost twice as much as in the States, despite the fact that our dollars are relatively on par. Furthermore, most of the brands you’ve mentioned above are not available here (especially since I don’t live in Toronto) and we have very limited selection in terms of retail.
In any case, I thought this was a great entry. Keep up the good work.
AKT
The difference between Gap/Old Navy/Banana Republic and domestic produced is that (typically) the big brands have larger volume (lower costs) and have marketing departments (higher costs). So I can’t see why those big companies are charging so much for such a cheap product.
On the other hand, there are the “designer” labels that sell tee shirts with their name printed on them for 3x, 4x, etc. of the cost of the Gap/ON/BR shirts. Give me a break – being a “designer” is not something that should command $200 for a tee shirt that was made in China, Taiwan, India, etc.
The vendors above represent a sampling of small, independent, domestic shops. The graphic doesn’t directly represent their products, but it does represent CK, BR, ON, Gap, RL, etc. that do that sort of markup for their names.
In the end, it’s a capitalist society and we can choose where we shop. I choose to support domestic production, independent companies, and get a better product.
How about just the simple fact that product pricing is often a facet of brand positioning? Of course production costs and all the unseen expenses are wrapped into a portion of even just the wholesale costs, but then the brand must take into consideration it’s target market.
It’s over-simplification on the part of your reader who submitted that “one is a fair price, one is overpriced” (in reference to the $200 + $400 identical items). As consumers we make a value judgement at the point of purchase; we know we’re buying more than the tangible item itself. If you don’t care, go buy the $9 mass-produced tee from Target.
absolutely the biggest mistruth here is the 3.3 markup everlane claims. as emil corso says, 2.3-2.5 is definitely the standard markup in the states. i’ve heard of premium menswear as high as 2.67, but never more.
while i don’t agree with everlane’s breakdown of costs ($1.25 for “finishing?”), it’s not impossible to find a US made t-shirt for that price. but for me, the biggest thing missing is “warehousing” cost… that easily adds $1-2 to the cost, whether you’re paying a third party location to do it for you, or renting the space and paying a stockboy to pick and pack.
Fantastic job gathering these good folks to speak to the fallacy of the Everlane infographic.
Great read as always my friend!
Thanks J!
My first thought when seeing the infographic was how simplified the process was, how much it was missing, from paying designers, to the sales staff, from paying the rent on the various properties required to maintaining equipment required to a whole slew of other costs that are somehow invisible (one that comes to mind is things like insurance, another is making sure you still make a profit even if a certain line of t-shirts doesn’t sell). It’s frustrating to see such a naïve infographic and know that because it’s nicely designed, people will take it’s word as gospel without it having any sources that anyone can check up on.
One of the best post Ive read in a long time! Educating the consumer is what its all about. Kudos & Cheers.
What about Uniqlo? Their entire business model is proof that everything above is posturing.
I love how only a few of the experts touched on the actual hard numbers. Most of them said things like “hey if you want to be cool and rock my pants, you gotta pay, playa!” I have nothing against these brands. Heck, I shop these brands, but to proudly boast about high markups because you have to create an experience or because you are hand checking products is silly. Why would a founder of a company hand check items, while valuing his time at $exec dollars, when he could hire a student to do it for $10 an hour?
I find this article incredibly interesting. I work for a high-end fashion brand myself, although we do produce overseas, we pride ourselves on using quality materials that will last a lifetime. Although we have expensive products, you do get what you pay for. Just because a product has a high price, doesn’t mean you are being ripped off. We know our customers can tell the difference in materials between us and Target.
David:
This is Kat from Pierrepont Hicks. Since you specifically called out my comment re: hand-checking items, and wrote some nonsense about “proudly boasting” I figured you’d like a response.
We use a 2.75 mark up which is industry standard. I am sorry if that was unclear. I am already paying a babysitter $15 an hour so not too sure I could find a college student to pay $10 an hour to look at ties when he would have no idea what to look for to confirm 100% top notch quality.
I’m not sure where I said we were getting paid exec dollars for hand-checking our items for quality assurance. I think you misread that. We are such a small brand, everything we make goes right back into the next line or project. We don’t get paid basically. We have nothing to hide. I’ll send you my tax returns.
We both drive cars that have 100k+ miles on them. We have a mortgage. Two actually. Two kids to put through school and then weddings because they are girls. Times are scary out there. We could move over to China and make a tie for $1. And still charge $120. Do the math.
What about Warby Parker? Many industry folks love what they’re doing because it doesn’t cut into their business and their business model.
No doubt the infographic is misleading though.
Everlane’s tees and ties are all made in the US.
The tees in LA and the ties in NY.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/17/LVGL1LTRJR.DTL
Wouldn’t it have been more fair to reach out to someone at Everlane and ask for them to comment?
There is no industry standard for markups.
Such an interesting topic! First, thank you for addressing one of the more important issues of the clothing industry that so many marketing departments are loathe to discuss. I would love to give my two cents, and though I don’t own a brand, I do buy and sell more clothing than almost all of these brands put together, and I’ve been at it for almost 25 years.
One issue that has not been addressed in this discourse is the difference between what a brand that owns its means of production charges for its goods, versus a brand that contracts its labor.
In the old school model, owning a factory meant greater profits, and that was the goal of nearly all clothing manufacturers. But in today’s complex market, some brands choose to limit their respective liabilities and contract labor. It can make economic sense, depending on size and scale. Let me try to make this relevant to the contemporary hipster:
Last summer, Yuketen tried to sell me (I’m a buyer for an unbelievably kick-ass store, by the way) a particular model of gorgeous, handmade, Cordovan dress shoes. They very closely resembled the Alden 990s that I was wearing on my feet, but had two distinct, yet imperceptible differences: first, they, they were made in Mexico. They also cost about double what my Aldens retail for. So, “why?” I asked the tall, bearded fellow selling them.
“These are handmade in one of Mexico’s most historic cobbler towns, and each pair is a work of art,” was the enthusiastic reply. Ok. But Aldens aren’t shabby, and have a provenance worthy of a John Lobb price tag, in my opinion. So here’s the dirt: Yuketen, like many of the hipster brands basking in the warm sun of blogosphere relevance, are simply a design, marketing and third party logistics firm. They design the shoes, they market the shoes, they take orders for the shoes, they sell the shoes to folks like me, and they fulfill the orders when the shoes arrive at their Hermosa Beach headquarters. They do not, however (and despite the contrived marketing effort to the contrary) make the shoes. They contract various cobblers around North America to execute that particular task. Don’t let the veggie tanned aprons fool you.
So why on earth would a pair of shoes made in Mexico, which, as the transcendent, radiant, sublime (read: swoon) Eunice Lee points out, has a ridiculously low minimum wage, cost nearly DOUBLE what Alden, based right in my state of Massachusetts, charges for a similar product?
Here’s your answer: because. Haha. It’s because Yuketen (whose products I love and promote unabashedly), is simply a design and marketing firm. They are a middleman. They designed this pair of shoes and had them produced by a venerable operation in some far-flung, romantic corner of the Northern Hemisphere. Alden, however, produces their line of shoes in Middleboro, Massachusetts, in their own factory. The women and men who hand-stitch their shoes are actually on their corporate payroll, and there is no additional logistics cost when they fulfill orders.
This is a grossly oversimplified anecdote, but it illustrates one of the substantial differences between a brand- regardless of perceived status (folks pay top dollar for both Alden and Yuketen)- that owns its means of production, and a brand that contracts its labor. Other brands that Well-Spent readers are probably familiar with, that fit into the former category (or at least own some of their production facilities) are : Danner, Filson, Canada Goose, Arcteryx (Veilance), Johnson Woolen Mills, Pointer Brand, New England Shirt, Alden and Red Wing, to name a few. That may explain why “collabs” done with these brands usually cost nearly double what their core offerings go for: Junya Pointer, Commes de Garçon Aldens, Beams Arcteryx, Nigel Cabourn Red Wings… you get the idea. These “hot” brands have to buy these goods at the same price as everyone else, and when you factor the 2.5+ margins into the equation, the end product can go for an arm and a leg.
Is it worth it? I’m no hater when it comes to wardrobe expenditures. Trust me, young Jedi, I have blown a small fortune on ill threads. It is entirely up to the guy who shells out for, and wears, whatever plumage it is they’re after.
In modern times, it makes economic sense for a brand to limit its respective liability, and contract its labor. When you’re fulfilling orders for 10,000+ units, a LOT can go wrong from the factory to the sales floor. That’s why uber brands like Levi’s no longer own factories in the US. Just imagine the headaches involved with labor laws, unions, insurance, warehousing… It’s endless.
As an interesting side note, this is why you see a brand like Rancourt emerging on the scene. They are a savvy bunch, and are capitalizing on their position: everyone knows they make shoes for much bigger brands, and they have just decided to begin selling directly to their customers.
In the end, the only advice I can offer (to anyone who is still reading this) is to think. Seriously. Think about your purchases. The only vote you have in this corrupted democracy is your dollar. All posturing, and long winded blog comments aside, real change comes from giving a shit, and putting your money where your mouth is. Being ethical is a more enduring look than this season’s particular denim wash, or fishtail parka, or hottest Doc Marten.
Thanks to Brad for hosting this forum. He is truly an underrated gem in the clothing blog world. The kid’s legit.
<3,
eggie
Like I said yesterday Jason, always a pleasure!
One question: why do the retailers reap the greatest margin in this equation when they always do the least to bring a product to life? Our goal, to reverse this reality. Put the power in the hands of the manufacturer.
Also, someone should tell Christian McCann that capitalism and a free market are not interchangeable, of course a free market is a tenet of our capitalist society but they are not the same thing. What he is describing is a free market. regardless, the product that wins is the one with the greatest financial backing i.e. BIGGEST MARKETING BUDGET, not the cheapest.
I was curious about Everlane so I joined their site and logged in. The entire selection is basic t-shirts. Let’s get real here.
I make band merch and buy wholesale shirts all the time from American Apparel. Made in america. They’re about 7 bucks a pop with a suggested retail price of 18.00. Everlane’s “luxury” t-shirts are 15.00.
Everlane isn’t doing anything groundbreaking, it’s just clever repackaging.
I understand fashion brands feeling threatened when Everlane is spreading really sketchy info around, but it’s a marketing ploy. The brands that commented have nothing to worry about because the truth is Everlane won’t be much more than a repackaged american apparel where the focus is on end price (vs AA focus on fair wages). They’re not going to make major waves when it comes to aesthetics.
so lots of people I know work in China…ever wonder how a company can chrage 15 dollars for a pair of jeans and make money? The answer is simple..nothing, for a large clothing operation in china (large means large, using opti or gerber…everything is rip off a picture to production in a day at most…nothing costs more then 5 bucks nothing….so these retailers can sell for 400 or 15 which explains the constant markdown in the chain system. By contrast making something stateside is only possible if it is either very high end and has high brand value or is highly mechanized requiring no labour other than machinery. So tshirts and socks are easy…they are spun out by machine. This is how fruit of the loom, and American apparel and Gildan can make garments in Canada and the USA and still compete..on occasion things like jeans can also be highly automated…i can tell you that it is scales of economy, technolgy and materials that affect mfg costs. I make leather jackets. I use the best leather in the world. Mine is almost 10 per sq foot, you can buy leather for as low as 1.50 per sq foot…sewing in pakistan is 5 to 8 dollars per jacket…in Canada more like 160-400 per jacket…and that does not include other material costs, labour costs and development costs. Gerber software if you wanted to lease it can be as much as 20k per year…a plotter cutter or pattern print out will run 100k per …so reality is good luck being a small clothign producer like me…there is no glory in it…while high end brands are just making high end profits…this is the reality of the schmata business do not get distracted by the various analysis here
I attempted to email you and my email was rejected from brad@well-spent.com do you have other contact information?
I think all the independent clothing designers and small artisans posting rebuttals to this graphic are missing the point here. Sure, it is far more costly to manufacture a high quality product in the Unites States. And you get what you pay for. But regardless of the cost of manufacturing the product, what I took away from the graphic was that largest fraction of the consumer’s cost is the retail markup. Whatever your product costs to produce, the fact is you are selling it for 200-300% as much. That’s not about quality; that’s about profit. Seems excessive to me, regardless of the “industry standard.”
Hi David,
WS email has been down for about a week now. Still working on getting it back up. In the meantime, you can get in touch via wellspent.blog@gmail.com
Thanks,
Brad
There’re a lot of interesting stories here, but I’m stuck on the fact that some idiots out there don’t think people should make a profit.
WE ARE NOT JUST TRYING TO COVER COSTS.
NOBODY just wants to cover costs.
We want to make MORE than it takes to pay our bills. I want to have a savings account, and so do any of these t-shirt-buying idiots.
And so does every person down the supply line.
Everlane is going to make a profit. How? I bet they’re cheating.
This makes me think about Gildan tshirts – a popular tshirt brand in the “screenprinting” world.
You can pick up one of those for $3.54/each retail. (Even less for higher volume orders). So you’ve gotta think – surely the retailer, the wholesaler AND the manufacturer are still making profit on that. So what’s the third-world manufactured cost – $0.88 each?
http://www.cheapestees.com/gilulcotheav1.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/fashion/29ROW.html
This is an article about Band of Outsiders manufacturing costs which speaks to this discussion.
Not always the case Kyle maybe before the internet. The internet has leveled the field a bit. Fashion blogs and sites like Superfuture who review my brand free of charge allow a brand like mine with almost 0 marketing budget to compete with brands like Everlane who have massive amount of funding from angel investors. I have been playing David and Goliath since I started Left Field, while on umemployment with only an American Express card and a $11,000 loan from Fleet bank.
The info-graphic is a Marxist view of value. But it’s total BS.
Sure, run a business with only those steps. Then, enjoy a diet of T-shirts.
How much should something cost? That’s a decision for the BUYER, not the seller. Get real.
By the way, I guarantee there are at least 20 steps – each with a cost – that are not included in Evergreen’s supply chain info-graphic. What BS.
Unfortunately, Evergreen is able to rely on the terribly uneducated public to fall for its economic hoax.
To make a comment to the Band Of Outsiders article about “quality control”. I purchased a shirt from BOO for over $200 because I wanted a “quality” well fitting shirt. I felt better about it being made by people who care about the things they produce. The problem that happened was the craftmenship was horrible. The button threads literally disintegrated off. I wrote a letter to them and was sent a very similar shirt as a replacement. Which was very nice of them considering it was over a year old. But after 2 wears and a wash the same exact problem happened again. With every wash I’d find a button missing or on its way to falling off. I have a gap shirt thats 4 years old that is still solid as a rock. Now don’t get me wrong, I’d much rather support the ideas and products of a smaller company and who’s identity I seem to follow and believe In. But how can I be fulfilled with buttons flying off in the name of a “made in the USA” tag. I dont really care where the hell something is made as long as its quality and performs well. Function as well as form!
Great article and thread. Good to at least get consumers and companies to share their 2cents.
Everlane has a snarky response. They don’t address a single issue you raised.
http://tumblr.everlane.com/post/16793958362/oh-my-it-looks-like-weve-stirred-some
I think the infographic was SUPPOSED to be oversimplified to get the point across. All they are saying is that because they have low overhead their shirts are much more affordable, and Brad shouldn’t you be evangelizing these guys for offering such solid products at such a price? Wasn’t the whole point of this blog to show us, the consumers, where to find nice well constructed clothes that don’t cost a fortune?
Great article, and I have to side with the article over Everlane – BUT, I still call bullshit on all these $200+, $300 and $400 button-up shirts from most of these “American made” independent brands – brands that I love.
On a totally different note, it’s too bad they hate me – along with every other overweight man who wants to “try” his best to look good too. I swear I think most of these brands just don’t want to see fat people in their clothes. It’s a bad advertisement I suppose. I’d love a comment on this, anyone? lol
At some point in the debate we all have to acknowledge that there is no “Right” answer. Each commentator makes his/her value judgement based on how he/she assigns value – what is the designer worth? what is the fabric worth? what is manufacturing worth? what is country of origin worth? what is the retail experience worth?… and so on.
Everyone involved – investors, entrepreneurs, employees, vendors and ultimately the consumer – makes their choice based on the composite “score’ of value vs. what they are willing to pay for it. Some of us are convinced that the niche manufacturers who have been vocal on this thread represent fair value. Others choose to buy at warehouses, discount retailers, chain stores and so on…
If the goal is to be a billion dollar enterprise, then one has to match the values of the 100M who value a $10 product. Else you need to find the 1000 who value a $1M product.
A lot of stores and brands I love are sounding off and taking the graphic as an attack on what they do. While I do enjoy the insight into the resurgence of local retail, I think the overall response is hyperbolic in nature. What I am reading is the exact same “charicaturazation” of Everalane that they suppose the graphic suggests about their own business practices. When I first saw the graphic, I was skeptical, but ultimately understood the point– some stores will mark up items at very high costs to cover the “middle men”. It wasn’t saying those aren’t legitimate reasons to pay the retailer’s markup, but that their shirts streamline the process so the savings are passed onto the consumer.
It’s always good to question certain claims, but the way this was handled is a bit like scholarly prooftexting. The question or the way it was posed was already setting up the type of response that was received, without considering the context. You have something that looks like evidence or fact, but without really understanding the source. It’s disappointing to read a response that assumes that these were made in China, and read a response based solely on that assumption. Before you put yourself on the record, do a little research yourself.
I’m actually a bit turned off by the snarkiness of many of the responses.
Guess what guys. You are NOT artists! You are fucking fashion designers! Do you deserve a living wage for your work(?) -yes. But, so do the people who sew and cut your designs. Your work doesn’t change or challenge people. Stop being little bitches about it. Accept that what you do is nominal and adapt to the changes rather than bitch about them.In some cases stop exploiting others and return to American production values.
@Tjvillanuevam@gmail.com
Who is that comment aimed at? Every designer who contributed to this post makes their goods in the US. And every one pays their producers / suppliers fair wages. That’s why their prices are what they are.
Yes, a living wage for all, regardless of your skills, work ethic, desire, risk, or experience. A high school grad operating a machine should make as much as the designer who went to college, paid for and earned a degree, or the guy that decided to take a risk, despite being un-employed and start a company with nothing but a small loan and an AmEx card. Give me a break. Go talk about a living wage with all with those bozos in Oakland over a malatov cocktail.
Christian McCann, you inspire me brother and give me hope for the future of our country.
I know this may go against conventional thinking but that sewer in China who sews 8-10 hours a day may just have insane skill. That bag maker and design house in Hong Kong might just be competent.
Local does not always equal better. Learn to recognize product value wherever it may be made.
For me the one who really get’s ripped of is the producer of the T-Shirt. Having a shop involves a lot of costs. The mark-up of the retailer doesn’t tell us anything about it.
Living in a poor country involves a lot of costs, because the price for rice, for paper, for cooking oil, is the same like in Germany (I don’t know about USA). Some things needed for daily life are even more expensive! In western countries, with we like to forget about this fact, because we’ve been somewhere in Asia for holidays and it was cheap. Because hotel costs are cheap, public transport is cheap…
We just made an “infographic”, though I never heard the term before. Please give us feedback.
http://sarahssilks.com/blog/sarah/02-14-2012/map-how-our-playsilks-are-made
We manufacture in China and hear two common complaints:
why are your silk goods so expensive?
how can you feel good about “made in China”?
One thing I try to explain is:
silk is FROM China. We pay fair wages. So things cost what they really do cost. We are not getting rich!
Thanks for this article.
I’m late to the party but have a few comments.
Everybody wants to count your money and it’s not even germane; ibid whoever said no one discusses the 1000% markup on food/alcohol etc so I call red herring. I don’t think a defensive posture is useful to justify pricing.
I work in product development, nearly all domestic. Considering that the typical (68%) manufacturer in the US has fewer than 20 employees, few have economies of scale as most people think of it. There are exceptions but that is another story. What I find more tragic are internal spending priorities. Most spend way too much money.
Re: D Himel, #21
Dave, you should be able to buy a license for less than $20K. I use StyleCAD which at $7,500, costs a lot less and is more efficient (gerber is unwieldy at best). My plotter, a 72″ Ioline pen plotter was 11K.
On the other hand, it is possible you simplified your comment considering the audience and maybe have one of those Taurus cutters. In which case the costs you mention are on the low end and I am exceedingly jealous.
re: JonJon #34
Manufacturing is an equal opportunity business. People get into it and considering the risks, have the freedom to do what they want. There is nothing to stop anyone from starting their own line, no one owes anyone anything. Keep in mind that the average producer is very small (the aforementioned fewer than 20 employees); they don’t have the means to cut the full range of sizes to cover the marketplace. Moreover, starting what we call a plus size line, is equivalent to starting a whole other company and most don’t have all the money they need for their primary line much less another one. If you’re not finding what you feel there is a need for in the marketplace, start your own line. If it is as profitable as you think, it should be a slam dunk.
Everlane should update their chart to show how they are now just as expensive as the luxury, brick and mortar stores.
Everlane’s point is simple:
The more steps in the value chain you make, the more things cost. If you cut out the middle man, you cut out a layer of administrative costs, sales / marketing support, shipping, office space, profits and other economic costs. By being vertically integrated companies like H&M, Uniqlo etc are able to offer relatively low prices for a similar level of quality of what a traditional retailer can. All-digital vertically integrated companies like H&M, Frank and Oak etc can also cut out a series of other costs associated with a physical retail presence like rent, sales staff, insurance, utilities etc.
The point of the inforgraphic isn’t that the prices are “unfair” just that by changing the way they sell to the consumer, they can reduce prices in a major way.
Incidentally, it also means that at the same time that they can creat a better value proposition for the consumer (better prices) they can take higher margins than traditional manufacturers. It’s a win-win for everyone. Unless of course you’re the competition
10 Trackbacks
[...] Well Spent a realizat un studiu despre acest caz de ce hainele au acest cost. [...]
[...] Why Clothes Cost What They Do – Well Spent [...]
[...] Everlane which suggest that retailers are ripping off consumers by over charging for clothing. Click here for more on this. Share this:Like this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]
[...] Ever wonder why clothes cost what they do? [...]
[...] in the market. And if you follow this sort of thing, you’ll know that there is an ongoing debate on how brands price. I’d be foolish to say there is a right and wrong – each brand owner has their own [...]
Makita Akkuschrauber…
[...]Why Clothes Cost What They Do – Well Spent[...]…
[...] infographic spawned a series of reactions around the blogosphere (many neatly collected in this article), which served to even further its reach. It’s that sort of concept that appeals to the people [...]
[...] infographic spawned a series of reactions around the blogosphere (many neatly collected in thisarticle), which served to even further its reach. It’s that sort of concept that appeals to the people [...]
[...] infographic spawned a series of reactions around the blogosphere (many neatly collected in this article), which served to even further its reach. It’s that sort of concept that appeals to the people [...]
[...] like we’ve stirred some controversy with our recent Making Of A Designer T-shirt infographic. At Well Spent, there’s an interesting debate underway among a group of respected retailers. This graphic was [...]