4 ms·

Looks like they sell designer items at low cost: https://www.everlane.com/about https://www.everlane.com/about

the_economist 14y ago
They are able to provide cheaper pricing by avoiding the costs associated with physical retail outlets. That is their pitch, anyway. Everlane model: Cost to make shirt + profit for everlane + shipping -> total cost Conventional clothing model: Cost to make shirt + profit for manufacturer + shipping + cost of operating retail outlet + profit for retail outlet -> total cost They are still outsourcing their manufacturing so the above isn't completely accurate, but it's close. This is the future of the clothing business and I for one am very happy about it.
- justjimmy 14y ago
  It'll be interesting to see how they will handle scaling. Selling T-Shirts is easy - what happens when other factors come in? Neck sizes, different size standardization (UK vs US), measurements, units/scales, suits, pants, female vs male. It's a whole can of worms and there are startups dedicated just to solve this measurement issue for clothing.
  - gabemart 14y ago
    >It'll be interesting to see how they will handle scaling. Selling T-Shirts is easy As someone who is a non-standard size, I hope that new business models provide a much greater range of clothing sizes. Offering three or four sizes of T-shirts is profoundly ridiculous. They will only fit a small percentage of people well. I look forward to the day when you enter your height, neck, chest and waist measurement, specify your desired style of fit (slim/casual/loose) and they find the closest out of (perhaps) 20 sizes and send it to you. As a thin, tall person, it's virtually impossible to buy clothes that fit properly (even T-shirts). If someone provided a way to buy custom fit essentials, or even just a granular range of sizes, at internet-margin prices, I would sign up tomorrow.
- larrys 14y ago
  "cost of operating retail outlet" The cost of the retail outlet though is spread among many goods. While there are stores that are certainly devoted to one product (and run by the manufacturer or designer) there are more stores that contain many designers. So what what matters it the incremental cost of adding one extra product to the store and what their markup is on the goods. Also, you will most certainly sell more total products (and lower your costs) by having, in general, multiple channels for those products. Lastly, as the point I made in another reply here said, you can't discount the amount of what you are paying that goes to the designer for lending their name to the product or getting involved. Tiger Woods is paid to put his name on golf clubs. Ralph Lauren makes shirts and all sorts of goods. People like and buy the label. Some of it is about quality and some is about cache. By eliminating the retail outlet you only remove one part of the costs. "We eliminate the middleman" is a pitch that has been around for a long time. And yet, people still manage to do business selling through retail channels at the point of purchase. And there is certainly room for both.
- eps 14y ago
  ... lower pricing
larrys 14y ago
"designer items" "Designer clothes typically sell for 8 times what they cost to make. But it doesn't have to be this way. We've set out to challenge conventions and build a new retail model. We have no physical stores, no middlemen taking their cut and no crazy brand markups. Instead, we create our own luxury basics and sell them exclusively at everlane.com." One thing this model is missing is that part of the reason designer goods cost more is because people are paying for the name as well as presumably better quality. To the point where people knock off designer goods and there is an entire IP infrastructure in place to police those brands. So while this is pretending to be the "Louis CK" model of selling it's really not. First, they don't have a known "Louis CK" brand. 2nd removing the middleman only removes a part of the markup of a luxury brand. This might be similar to someone offering to sell a Hyundai that performs on the same level as an equivalent Porsche or BMW but is a Hyundai. By "performs" I mean same quality of materials, same cornering, acceleration etc. (Let's suppose they could do that). What you would end up with is only part of the allure of the Porsche. The brand does mean something and that's part of what you are paying for. (In addition to the commission the dealer makes and the salesperson makes). Part of the money that goes into a brand is what you are paying for when you buy the brand. If what they want to do is simply sell better quality goods and cut out the middleman that's fine. But they shouldn't dismiss the value (in some people's brains) of having a "brand" of anything and paying more for it either.
- HyprMusic 14y ago
  Couldn't agree more. There's plenty of shops here in the UK that mimic designer goods at a very reasonable price (Burtons is a good example). However designer clothes aren't bought on purely the value of the material, they're bought on the perceived added value of a particular brand (which relies heavily on its exclusivity). Wearing a brand that everyone can afford detracts from that perceived value.

They are able to provide cheaper pricing by avoiding the costs associated with physical retail outlets. That is their pitch, anyway. Everlane model: Cost to make shirt + profit for everlane + shipping -> total cost Conventional clothing model: Cost to make shirt + profit for manufacturer + shipping + cost of operating retail outlet + profit for retail outlet -> total cost They are still outsourcing their manufacturing so the above isn't completely accurate, but it's close. This is the future of the clothing business and I for one am very happy about it.

justjimmy 14y ago
It'll be interesting to see how they will handle scaling. Selling T-Shirts is easy - what happens when other factors come in? Neck sizes, different size standardization (UK vs US), measurements, units/scales, suits, pants, female vs male. It's a whole can of worms and there are startups dedicated just to solve this measurement issue for clothing.
- gabemart 14y ago
  >It'll be interesting to see how they will handle scaling. Selling T-Shirts is easy As someone who is a non-standard size, I hope that new business models provide a much greater range of clothing sizes. Offering three or four sizes of T-shirts is profoundly ridiculous. They will only fit a small percentage of people well. I look forward to the day when you enter your height, neck, chest and waist measurement, specify your desired style of fit (slim/casual/loose) and they find the closest out of (perhaps) 20 sizes and send it to you. As a thin, tall person, it's virtually impossible to buy clothes that fit properly (even T-shirts). If someone provided a way to buy custom fit essentials, or even just a granular range of sizes, at internet-margin prices, I would sign up tomorrow.
larrys 14y ago
"cost of operating retail outlet" The cost of the retail outlet though is spread among many goods. While there are stores that are certainly devoted to one product (and run by the manufacturer or designer) there are more stores that contain many designers. So what what matters it the incremental cost of adding one extra product to the store and what their markup is on the goods. Also, you will most certainly sell more total products (and lower your costs) by having, in general, multiple channels for those products. Lastly, as the point I made in another reply here said, you can't discount the amount of what you are paying that goes to the designer for lending their name to the product or getting involved. Tiger Woods is paid to put his name on golf clubs. Ralph Lauren makes shirts and all sorts of goods. People like and buy the label. Some of it is about quality and some is about cache. By eliminating the retail outlet you only remove one part of the costs. "We eliminate the middleman" is a pitch that has been around for a long time. And yet, people still manage to do business selling through retail channels at the point of purchase. And there is certainly room for both.
eps 14y ago
... lower pricing

larrys 14y ago

"designer items" "Designer clothes typically sell for 8 times what they cost to make. But it doesn't have to be this way. We've set out to challenge conventions and build a new retail model. We have no physical stores, no middlemen taking their cut and no crazy brand markups. Instead, we create our own luxury basics and sell them exclusively at everlane.com." One thing this model is missing is that part of the reason designer goods cost more is because people are paying for the name as well as presumably better quality. To the point where people knock off designer goods and there is an entire IP infrastructure in place to police those brands. So while this is pretending to be the "Louis CK" model of selling it's really not. First, they don't have a known "Louis CK" brand. 2nd removing the middleman only removes a part of the markup of a luxury brand. This might be similar to someone offering to sell a Hyundai that performs on the same level as an equivalent Porsche or BMW but is a Hyundai. By "performs" I mean same quality of materials, same cornering, acceleration etc. (Let's suppose they could do that). What you would end up with is only part of the allure of the Porsche. The brand does mean something and that's part of what you are paying for. (In addition to the commission the dealer makes and the salesperson makes). Part of the money that goes into a brand is what you are paying for when you buy the brand. If what they want to do is simply sell better quality goods and cut out the middleman that's fine. But they shouldn't dismiss the value (in some people's brains) of having a "brand" of anything and paying more for it either.

HyprMusic 14y ago
Couldn't agree more. There's plenty of shops here in the UK that mimic designer goods at a very reasonable price (Burtons is a good example). However designer clothes aren't bought on purely the value of the material, they're bought on the perceived added value of a particular brand (which relies heavily on its exclusivity). Wearing a brand that everyone can afford detracts from that perceived value.