3 ms·

Issues with the founder aside, This is the default for most fashion brands that make their mark by being "edgy". Your cool for a while until its the brand that

Issues with the founder aside, This is the default for most fashion brands that make their mark by being "edgy". Your cool for a while until its the brand that your dorky older sister used wear and then you just become another brand. A similar analogy can be made for Facebook, it was cool in 2008, in 2014 when your mom and grandma want to friend you, not so much. Atleast tech companies like Facebook stand a chance of keeping their users as they age. Not many 30 year olds have both the body and the mentality to wear the American Apparel clothes that they bought when they were in university. Restaurants are very similar, which is why they tend to start to group together under uber companies that run each brand as stand alone entities. Fashion also tends to follow this playbook. This atleast lets companies diversify their risk among multiple brands. Its been said that tech companies need to reinvent themselves every 15 years to stay relevant, in fashion, its more like every 4 years and that's depressingly quick.

volaski 11y ago
Well if you look at a lot of top fashion brands that still stick around after decades, they all started out by being "edgy". You can't stand out if you make what everyone else makes.
assface 11y ago
> Not many 30 year olds have both the body and the mentality to wear the American Apparel clothes that they bought when they were in university. Speak for yourself. http://i.imgur.com/C4C9Llb.jpg http://i.imgur.com/C4C9Llb.jpg I'm going to grave with these on. These colors don't run!
npkarnik 11y ago
Same thing with nightlife (except it's closer to 2-3 years), since the target demographics are the same, but the people going to (or used to go to) clubs/bars get older.
- samstave 11y ago
  I call this the Disney/toys r us business model... Fuck the people leaving the age bracket; people always have kids and there is fresh targets moving into your market daily. Disney has mastered this
  - larrys 11y ago
    In a similar way, Starbucks. Can't think of a time when I am in Starbucks and mom or dad is there with kids in tow. All future customers. Ditto for McDonalds obviously. SB is more significant to me only because McDonalds is a place you take kids to, Starbucks is a place you go to and bring your kids with.
newobj 11y ago
Don't know how their monochromatic, print-less clothes can be seen as edgy. The styling of the models, provocative sure, but the clothes were about as plain as can be.
- onedev 11y ago
  It's only partly about the clothes though. The brand and how they portray themselves is definitely "edgy" regardless of the reality reflected in the styling of their clothes. And that portrayal affects how people feel about the clothes.
- ebbv 11y ago
  > monochromatic, print-less clothes You realize that 99% of fashionable, expensive clothing can be described this way right? I'm hardly a fashionable person but even I know that fashion has much more to it than those two aspects; cut, form, material type, etc.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
Actually you're right on the mark-AA was much more fashionable in 2008.
dylanlacom 11y ago
AA was built on their wholesale business, and only later built their direct sales model. So it's hard for me to believe 'edgy' had much to do with their initial growth. As of Q1 2015, retail sales still only made up about half of their total sales[1]. I don't think the wholesale buyer is interested in edginess, but rather price/quality/variety, which, IMO, AA had, especially considering it was all domestically made. [1] http://investors.americanapparel.net/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=912429 http://investors.americanapparel.net/releasedetail.cfm?Relea...
- rhino369 11y ago
  But that expansion into direct sales and direct branding may have been the fatal move. If they expanded too quickly and took on debt (and you pretty much have to if you are doing retail stores) then you can get into a bad situation. It's possible the wholesale business is still profitable, but the retail portion has sunk the entire company. I have no clue if that is what happened, but it certainly is possible.
samstave 11y ago
Please make sure you watch the documentary called "The True Cost" You shall be horrifiee

volaski 11y ago

Well if you look at a lot of top fashion brands that still stick around after decades, they all started out by being "edgy". You can't stand out if you make what everyone else makes.

assface 11y ago

> Not many 30 year olds have both the body and the mentality to wear the American Apparel clothes that they bought when they were in university. Speak for yourself. http://i.imgur.com/C4C9Llb.jpg http://i.imgur.com/C4C9Llb.jpg I'm going to grave with these on. These colors don't run!

npkarnik 11y ago

Same thing with nightlife (except it's closer to 2-3 years), since the target demographics are the same, but the people going to (or used to go to) clubs/bars get older.

samstave 11y ago
I call this the Disney/toys r us business model... Fuck the people leaving the age bracket; people always have kids and there is fresh targets moving into your market daily. Disney has mastered this
- larrys 11y ago
  In a similar way, Starbucks. Can't think of a time when I am in Starbucks and mom or dad is there with kids in tow. All future customers. Ditto for McDonalds obviously. SB is more significant to me only because McDonalds is a place you take kids to, Starbucks is a place you go to and bring your kids with.

newobj 11y ago

Don't know how their monochromatic, print-less clothes can be seen as edgy. The styling of the models, provocative sure, but the clothes were about as plain as can be.

onedev 11y ago
It's only partly about the clothes though. The brand and how they portray themselves is definitely "edgy" regardless of the reality reflected in the styling of their clothes. And that portrayal affects how people feel about the clothes.
ebbv 11y ago
> monochromatic, print-less clothes You realize that 99% of fashionable, expensive clothing can be described this way right? I'm hardly a fashionable person but even I know that fashion has much more to it than those two aspects; cut, form, material type, etc.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago

Actually you're right on the mark-AA was much more fashionable in 2008.

dylanlacom 11y ago

AA was built on their wholesale business, and only later built their direct sales model. So it's hard for me to believe 'edgy' had much to do with their initial growth. As of Q1 2015, retail sales still only made up about half of their total sales[1]. I don't think the wholesale buyer is interested in edginess, but rather price/quality/variety, which, IMO, AA had, especially considering it was all domestically made. [1] http://investors.americanapparel.net/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=912429 http://investors.americanapparel.net/releasedetail.cfm?Relea...

rhino369 11y ago
But that expansion into direct sales and direct branding may have been the fatal move. If they expanded too quickly and took on debt (and you pretty much have to if you are doing retail stores) then you can get into a bad situation. It's possible the wholesale business is still profitable, but the retail portion has sunk the entire company. I have no clue if that is what happened, but it certainly is possible.

samstave 11y ago

Please make sure you watch the documentary called "The True Cost" You shall be horrifiee