我回頭 所以我把握

Why fashion week is passé

為什麼時尚週不再時尚了？

The Economist explains

Why fashion week is passé

Mar 8th 2016, 23:00 BY C.H.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/03/economist-explains-5

DESIGNERS should love fashion week. It is the culmination of months of work. Celebrities clamour to attend their shows, then study each model as if the world’s future rested on the cut of a skirt. But designers are pouting about the biannual ritual—so much so that the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) commissioned America’s perhaps least glamourous group, management consultants, to explore their complaints. The Boston Consulting Group interviewed more than 50 people, including designers, editors, bloggers and retailers. The result of that study was published last week. So why is fashion week no longer fashio­­­nable?

設計師們應該要很愛時尚週才對。這是好幾個月工作後的絕頂高潮(咩按：??)。名人們喧囂簇擁的參加這場盛事，接著開始研究各個媽豆，搞得好像全世界的未來得靠一件裙子的剪裁一樣。

但設計師們卻對這一年兩度的例行公事嘟嘟囔囊起來，其程度已經高到讓美國時尚設計師協會，得派出一群或許是美國裡最不迷人的～管理顧問們，來了解設計師們的抱怨。

波士頓顧問團隊跟超過五十個，諸如設計師、編輯、部落客以及零售商等面談。研究結果在上周出爐。揪竟，為什麼時尚週不再時尚了呢？

Fashion week used to serve a distinct purpose. Designers would prepare collections and present clothes to the press, to major retailers and to select other industry insiders. Fashion editors would then prepare sumptuous magazine spreads featuring the clothes they liked best. Retailers would order this or that dress. About four to six months later, those clothes would appear in shops.

時尚週在過去是別有目的滴。設計師們會準備好目錄，接著把衣服展示給媒體、大宗零售商以及其他精挑細選過的業內人士。

這個時候，時尚編輯們會準備華奢富麗的雜誌照片，來主打他們自己喜歡的衣服。零售商則會說我要訂這件，我要訂那件。大概四到六個月後，這些衣服就會出現在服飾店裡。

(咩按：阿不就是穿著PRADA的惡魔？)

Technology has upended all this. As soon as models sashay down the runway, photographs are posted online and shared endlessly through social media. Fast-fashion brands copy designers’ styles (though the industry prefers the euphemism “interpret”), often stocking look-alikes in their shops before designers’ own clothes make it to department stores. When designers’ clothes do arrive, they seem stale . It is no coincidence that the world's top two retailers are TJX and Inditex. TJX buys brand-name clothes from stores that can't sell them at full price, then offers them at a deep discount. Inditex owns Zara, the pioneer in fast fashion.

但科技翻轉了這一切。正當媽豆故作優雅的走下伸展台那瞬間，照片就已經po到網路上而且透過社群網路不斷的分享出去。

快速時尚品牌則會複製設計師的風格(雖然他們業界比較偏好用”重新詮釋”這個委婉的詞彙)，通常在百貨公司還沒有上架之前，就已經在他們店裡看到類似款式的衣服。結果當設計師的衣服上架時，反而顯得不潮了。

世界最大的兩個零售商叫做TJX跟印地紡，絕對不是湊巧碰上的。TJX是從商店裡收購一些沒辦法用原價賣出的名牌衣服，然後自己大打折扣的賣出去。而印地紡手上有Zara，也就是快速時尚的先鋒。

(咩按：TJX在美國是賣過季跟折扣商品最大的零售商，T.J.Maxx就是他們家的)

Few designers like the current system. Less obvious is what they should do next. One idea is for fashion houses to show clothes to only certain people, such as retailers and some press. Designers would stage a bigger, public presentation four to six months later, when those clothes are available in stores. There would, of course, be the threat that some images would leak. Another idea would be to continue the current system, but make a small subset of clothes available immediately. Designers are already testing new ideas. Burberry and Tom Ford, for example said their September fashion shows would show clothes available immediately. For the forseeable future, experimentation will be in vogue.

很少設計師喜歡現在這樣的體制。他們接下來應該怎麼做就沒那麼顯而易見了。

有個好主意可以給設計公司試試，就是只把衣服展示給特定的人看，像是零售商或媒體。設計師可以在四到六個月後，等到衣服在店裡都買得到的時候，再辦個大型一點的公開發表會。當然，總是會有照片外流的風險。

另一個想法是繼續現在這樣的體制，但是讓一小部分的衣服立刻上架。設計師們已經在測試新的點子。比方說Burberry跟Tom Ford就宣布他們九月的時裝秀會展示立馬就買得到的衣服。

在可以預見的未來，時尚實驗，正在流行。

(咩按：FOREVER 21, GAP, H&M等是知名的快速時尚品牌, 依照本文的說法，他們不是高檔名牌服飾的零售商，而是複製者。快速時尚品牌可參見

http://www.cool-style.com.tw/wd/archives/130847)