> How did your time at The Gap shape your thinking about what you do at Herman Miller?
> I interviewed a guy who became my head of digital. He had worked in retail, and he said, “Do you know what excites me most about coming to this industry? I feel like I’m going from making landfill to making heirlooms.”
Making a generalization off of that specific anecdote is pretty unfair IMO, there's a huge difference between Gap and Herman Miller. Gap is closer to IKEA while Herman Miller is closer to a well tailored suit. A range of quality exists in both industries.
A cotton t-shitt doesn't contain 'chemicals', but a synthetic one is obviously made of microplastic, and it's manufacturing process might produce them and release them .
that statement is false for the majority of cotton clothing. from dyes to preservation or even agents that prevent wrinkles, a new cotton shirt can be blessed with a nice array of potentially carcinogenic substances. and since you mention the manufacturing process: look up some studies on the deaths and environmental havoc caused by pesticides used in cotton production. chemicals are everywhere.
There is also the water consumption. One cotton t-shirt uses more than 2000 litres of water. That's about a month's worth of daily showers. It wouldn't be too bad if the garment would last 10+ years, but they don't.
Unfortunately the people (mostly women) who drive this are addicted to the churn of clothes. It's not about a basic need to be warm and protected. It's about maintaining a constant source of novelty by buying new clothes almost every week. In my experience, half of the clothes they buy don't fit and/or they don't like them when they get them home.
When I was little my mum used to buy most our clothes second hand from car boot sales and the like. I can't believe people buy brand new children's clothes. You know they are going to grow out of them. Unfortunately, in the UK at least, second-hand clothes have been largely stigmatised and many people won't even consider them. I have recently seen apps which specialise in second-hand clothes. This would be great but I think it's going to take a lot to convince people not to think of clothes and consumables.
> There is also the water consumption. One cotton t-shirt uses more than 2000 litres of water. That's about a month's worth of daily showers. It wouldn't be too bad if the garment would last 10+ years, but they don't.
What does that even mean? Does the water just disappear?
No but it had to be turned into fresh water suitable for use which uses energy and also can’t be used by someone else. There are water shortages all over the place.
Too bad that the incentives given by a capitalist trade system don't really care about that. Without regulation, the environment or the health of expendable humans can, will be and is exploited to the maximum.
Their quality dropped a long, long time ago. I would never buy anything there now. I'm wearing a plain white Gap t shirt today - only 5 years old and not worn much, but the fabric is very thin and has stretched comically.
It sounds like a move made out of desperation. But personally I don't see them surviving the online marketplace long-term. At least in a mall your competition is limited to the local stores. Online, it's everyone. Want to offer cheap clothing? You are competing with everyone from H&M to Amazon Essentials (https://www.amazon.com/stores/page/F8FB6F3C-F896-455C-BC52-7...). Want to offer slightly better quality at slightly higher prices? Congratulations, you're now going to face off against Uniqlo (https://www.uniqlo.com). Want to go higher? Then you need quality and brand power, which are hard to recover once you go for cheaper fast fashion the way Gap has. I struggle to identify a competitive advantage for Gap.
Idk if that's really a big deal, they already compete at other prices with old navy and banana republic. Unless those are struggling brands too, that would be news to me.
Well, that doesn’t work for everyone, there are still some of us out here that would really like to try on clothes before we buy them. I hate having to return something that doesn’t fit, I don’t care how easy they try to make it, if I had tried it on at a retailer first, it would have saved us time, money, and effort.
Judging by all the signs up in windows, many retailers (and pubs/restaurants) seem to be struggling to find staff right now, at least in London. There can’t be that many retail workers still on the furlough scheme?
As of May, around 11.5m jobs are on furlough [1] with total labour force size of 35m [2]. This is slightly apples-to-oranges as one person can hold 2 jobs and be furloughed on both, but at face value it is about 1/3 of UK working population.
I heard an interview with Angela Leadsom that it is very difficult to take people off furlough. Many people found another job while also getting furlough pay and are resisting going back to work. Under UK labour laws the employer needs to accommodate employee needs with regards to health and safety. So if an employee says they would come off furlough but feel unsafe about the working environment, it is hard to resolve that.
Ah yes, obviously the problem is those pesky regulations protecting workers... /s
A serious government would just end furlough. Businesses had more than a year to adapt their working conditions to be safe, while also having their wage bill paid by the taxpayer. It's time for them to take their responsibilities seriously.
The 11.5m is a cumulative figure, not the current number of jobs on furlough! That was 3.4m as of 30 April according to official statistics, and should be substantially lower by now:
Interesting problem - we're going to have to downgrade people's aspirations if we're not going to import people to do base-level jobs. Will cause social unrest.
Not sure that anyone's aspirations need to be downgraded. Businesses may need to be more willing to invest in efficiency improvements and automation. They may need to take on and train lower-skilled employees that they might not have considered before. And pay higher wages to attract the skills/talent they need.
It will probably die once all matter has been converted to Primark clothing and the Earth is nothing but a ball of thrown away hoodies and sunglasses. No further need for it then.
a lot of the cheapest Primark tee-shirts are made of this thin, slightly stretchy material, Funnily enough, it's been v hot recently and this is now ideal - thicker tees get too hot. Only problem is, if I do sweat* it sticks to me like glue..
I wonder if this is a short-term strategy to force commercial property rents further down, and re-enter when they hit a feasible low.
In India, GAP apparently uses their retail stores in an omnichannel strategy to "warehouse" products closer to customers in an attempt to provide next-day delivery. [1]
You might need to do that in India, in the UK it's so small relatively speaking that a couple of distribution centers in the right places can probably serve the entire country.
> In India, GAP apparently uses their retail stores in an omnichannel strategy to "warehouse" products closer to customers in an attempt to provide next-day delivery.
I believe this is the eventual move a lot of brick and mortar stores are going to make to compete with Amazon. I've been told by a Best Buy manager their end goal is to turn a majority of their stores into fulfilment centers.
This is what Sainsbury's appear to be doing - consolidating some of their Argos branches with larger Sainsburys stores and added general fulfillment centres. Not sure if this is across the country, but it was interesting to see the apparently-quick turnaround during Lockdown at some local stores here.
I wondered if they were just looking at how Uniqlo operate. Here in the UK, Uniqlo only have stores in London. You can find one or two other cities - Oxford, Manchester, but that's it. For anywhere else you have to shop online.
For tall guys, Gap is one of the few places you can buy 36" leg trousers and jeans. I wouldn't consider buying them anywhere else and the quality is pretty good too. I wonder if they even realise they almost have a monopoly on that.
I get nearly all my jeans from Next, they are the only retailer I trust to be consistent in their sizing across styles, makes buying from them online much easier. Other retailers could learn a lot I'm that area alone.
I'm 1.70m tall and living in the Netherlands with exactly the opposite problem. Most pants and other clothes are for taller men. I used to buy my clothes in River Island which had a good fit, but they closed the store last year. Buying men's clothes outside the norm is a pain.
but what about 'long torso' tall folk? I'm yet to ever find a good place for that - beside bespoke clothes (which just feels weird to order a v-neck from)
Not sure how present they are in the UK but Express has tops available in ‘Tall’ which is essentially long torso sizing if you buy in slim or extra slim trims.
They were deep discounting everything, it couldn't continue. I bought my 3-year old three hoodies last month for £10, and the quality of their stuff I found was still good.
I'd say things have been heading south for Gap UK shops for the last 10 years and accelerated recently. They have been on a downward quality path for a long time with no apparent strategy. Every time you go back, they have different ranges, so no repeat purchases are even possible. Found something you like and want to buy again? Tough. And the quality got progressively worse. For basics like jeans and t-shirts, I switched to H&M and Muji about 5 years ago. I suspect we will lose Muji soon as well though.
I base the Muji prediction on their hopeless online presence, frequently changing stock items, the lack of customers in the clothing section and my experience with other UK retailers. I hope I'm wrong.
I've tried UniQlo but so far have been unable to find an item I want to buy in there. I seem to recall on a recent visit that their winter coats have goose down, which I avoid.
Muji is very very very late to online purchase. Mostly because of their attitude that customer should go to the store and see the product first.
But that is changing, my guess is that UK is lower down on the list for those upgrade. I mean those online improvement only started with Japan and China in the last few years.
Gap's quality is higher than H&M, IMHO. Zara is another of Gap's rivals that seems to be expanding in the UK highstreet, although I rarely find anything worth purchasing.
Inditex (Zara) is a juggernaut compared with Gap or Primark. The differences in scale of operations, targeting, and branding are massive. It is like comparing AWS with Cloudera.
I find the rapid store expansion a problem and wouldn't be surprised if they repeat the same mistake, although they haven't plastered their clothes with Zara logos.
Uniqlo is the only store that hasn't yet repeated this mistake.
Zara always has queues when I see it, but my wife tells me the quality of everything she's bought from there has been dismally poor, especially given their relatively high prices. Usually the issues she's described are around the quality of the work and not the material, seams falling apart, buttons and accessories falling off etc.
Ah, a fellow Islington local! I agree Muji is popular, but call it my retail 6th sense. Nice places like that just don't seem to survive in the UK. The retail market seems quite segmented into dirt cheap rubbish and ultra high end. The middle ground has been decimated, Gap being another example.
I've been working on a startup (owned by a large fashion corp.) that develops a digital showroom for the fashion industry, and this is a clear shift I've been noticing. It's quite interesting.
1) Sticking Gap on everything. That kind-of logo/advertisement in huge lettering is great on the way up, but not on the way down. Superdry take note. You could not pay me to wear either.
2) Pricing and price point. It's frankly been bizarre for years. Overpriced when compared to new competitors, such as Uniqlo. Not quite good enough to compete with other stores, such as Levi's or more designer brands. Its position in the market felt awkward in recent times.
I still buy chinos and plain t-shirts from Gap. No logo and so nobody knows. Despite their crazy vanity sizing, they still offer a range of sizes unlike Uniqlo, which only offers tailoring in-store at present in the UK.
Agreed, although they're not at the same price point in the market and haven't run into problems yet, at least not here in the UK. There was a period in time where Gap rapidly expanded and had stores almost everywhere. Once the shoppers deserted the brand, the logos themselves became a problem itself, at least for those of us that were bothered by it :) The logos/branding can be good, but also a massive negative once its no longer a desirable brand.
1) The only thing GAP has going for them IS brand recognition. Otherwise, they’re in some weird in-between of Old Navy and Banana Republic and there are numerous brands out there that have taken their market share (H&M, Uniqlo, etc.).
Not in the UK - Old Navy is unknown here, Banana Republic pretty much the same (you can buy it online). H&M, Uniqlo, and Zara have certainly affected Gap's standing in the market.
I have never liked wearing obviously branded clothing, it always seemed counter-intuitive to me.
People want to show off their brands, and I'm ok with that, but as a nerdy guy who has never had style as a priority (though I'm quite militant about the cut of one's suit being just right), it just isn't me, so that's always ruled out GAP for me in the past.
If a brand splashes their name across the clothes they sell, I'll avoid them, but this limits options a lot of the time.
When it comes to Superdry, I like a lot of their clothing and own a few pieces of it, but I often choose not to wear many pieces because of the branding. I have some really nice jumpers from them which have a little label on the arm, which I find unnecessary. For work I'm more casually dressed than outside of work so I keep the Superdry branded stuff purely for work.
A couple of years ago I found Uniqlo, it was basically perfection, they have a line of chino type trousers I like the fit of, and a T-shirt I like the cut of, as well as some light jumpers, no branding or markings whatsoever, so I bought about ~20 of each in various colours (some of which go unworn to this day because they were a little too wild), and then a year or so later bought another ~10-15 of each.
EDIT: Trying to work on making my writing/comments less bullet pointed and monotonous so restructured a bit.
I don't mind brands/logos but it's a double-edged sword. It's hard to like or want to wear something that's perceived to be in decline if there are logos/branding all over it. Gap, Superdry, Hollister all seem a bit passé to me. I still buy Gap, but never with the logo on it.
Uniqlo seem fairly on the ball. The single length trouser size is very astute, although problematic for me as I live outside of London. Basically, I don't bother to buy trousers from them as they will never fit. T-shirts and sweatshirts are fine though!
I had no idea they had a single-length trouser size. How does that work? Did I luck-out that they happen to be the perfect length for me, or is it directly tied to waist size rather than a global single-length?
I first came across Uniqlo when I was in Japan, and their "shove everything in this box and close the door to scan your items into the self-service checkout" impressed me (as an Engineer, I enjoy these things). They recently, in the past year or two, caught up here in the UK and the store I visit has them now.
Also I find their face masks to be the best fitting and most comfortable out of the many, many brands I've tried.
If you live in London, you can/could go into the store, buy the trousers (34" length?) and have them tailored within the day (can't remember if there is a charge for it). If you're outside of London (not sure if the Oxford, Manc stores do it), you're out of luck :(
I am in London, but my local store is just outside. I has no idea this service was a thing. Fortunately for me, the off-the-shelf length is a perfect fit (34" for me).
The point of visible branding is that you leverage the brand value and marketing yourself. By purchasing the product and showing the label, you rely on other people's opinions of the brand to colour their opinion of you. This can work either way, of course, but you get to choose the brand and, indirectly, the type of people you're trying to change the opinion of.
Chinos are a brand all of their own, just not a trademarked brand. They're usually (if they're pastel coloured) relatively conservative, business casual, more formal than jeans but less formal than a suit. A bit middle-aged, or something you'd expect to see a businessman in on the weekend. You can't really escape branding when you appear in public. Even if you showed up naked, it would be a brand.
Identity
Image
Personality
Character
Culture
Essence
Reputation
You mark out which group you're a member of in part by the clothes you choose. Some groups are anti-labels and you're partially opting in to them by eschewing labels.
Almost everything is cyclical in fashion. There was a period not long ago when jeans became unfashionable in the UK because they were associated with middle-age dads. People looked towards chinos (not the type you're talking about) as something different - you could get skinny/slim/athletic chinos. We've seen the same with skinny jeans - wider-leg jeans and other trousers now seem to be gaining pace.
Interesting points. I suppose I've been subconsciously taking part all along.
As a child my parents dressed me in corduroys, as a teen I refused to wear blue jeans, always wore casual shirts.
School uniform was a blazer, sixth form was a suit. Even amongst a school full of suits my English teacher accused me of being "debonair" and "dapper", University was dark jeans, t-shirts, hoodies.
The early years of my career as a Software Engineer I wore shirt/tie, but got sick of standing out for being a smartly dressed software engineer and switched to chinos, converse and hoodies.
Since becoming a parent I maintain chinos, boots, t-shirt, jumper, wool coat out of work, and hoodies, chinos, converse, t-shirt for work.
Outside of Converse I've never worn trainers (Reebok, Nike, Adidas etc) in public unless I'm running.
My usual reasoning is, if there's conspicuous branding on the clothing, then the money should be flowing in the opposite direction. Why should I pay a company to advertise for them?
My dream is not paying 100-200 EUR for clothing which cost 1-10 EUR to produce. Don't care about your lifestyle, philosophy, trends, influencers, brand and logo. I want it vulgar - cash for good quality clothes.
There are lots of mid-price clothing retailers across Europe who produce reasonable quality clothes (better than Primark quality). I find it hard to believe these stores sell poor quality chinos, jeans, etc in the 30-50 price range.
Having said that, I'm sure everyone has a story of how a cheaply priced item of clothing turned out to be of better quality and durability than a equalivent expensive item.
(Aside: In the UK, I'd place clothing retailers like John Lewis and Marks & Spencer in the mid-price to high-price category.)
In Germany, there's also the excellent grundstoff.net, which has remarkably cheap basics that are still of high quality and fairly produced. Highly recommended to anyone who is in Europe (though I don't know whether they deliver outside the EU).
I'd have no issue paying 100-200 EUR for clothing if it wasn't for the constant stream of news reminding me, that the people who made my clothes are payed less than a dollar per week and getting sick while doing so.
I've recently found a (Swiss) shop which has the main business of printing and stitching logos onto bulk shirts, but will happily sell me low volumes of the blank clothes as well.
Those do typically have shit quality at bargain prices, but as soon as you pay more than, let's say 10 EUR for a simple shirt, the quality is quite good (certainly better than C&A or most branded merch).
That might be an avenue worth investigating for you as well!
Please mind what I said above though - I've trialed some <10 CHF shirts that completely warped and fell apart after a few washes, so don't expect too much for too little.
I can recommend the "B&C Mens V-Neck T-Shirt TRIBLEND" for V-neck shirts and the "Fruit of the Loom Mens Poloshirt PREMIUM" for polos.
Does your dream trend toward paying less for clothing which cost 1-10 EUR to produce or paying 100-200 EUR for clothing for which people were paid reasonably to produce?
There's plenty of the latter out there if you're looking for it[0].
But there's two separate approaches for people who hate that markup: lowering the markup or increasing the production cost. Given current industry standards, I think the second approach is reasonable. It's also very easy to do, if you can afford to.
Most clothes are complex items and the manufacture of them is very unlikely to ever be fully automated within a reasonable time frame (such as our lifetimes). People will always be a part of the process. Many tasks are just too expensive to automate vs a cheap labourer.
Clothes should be like many other things: cost more, have better quality, longer lifespans and have less negative impact on those who produce them and the environment where they are produced & recycled.
I never quite understood the economics of clothing. Primark is well-known for being cheap, but also for having not exactly great quality, so clearly part of the cost-saving is in the production (e.g. materials, thickness, etc.)
An average wage for a factory worker in Bangladesh seems about $0.33 USD; in Cambodia it's $0.85 USD; other countries are somewhere in between.
I don't know how many clothes a single worker can make, but let's be extremely conservative and say it's two pieces of clothing per 10-hour workday. So that's between $1.65 an $4.25 in wages for a single piece of clothing. I suspect it's actually much much less (but can't find any resources on this at a moment's notice). Even this amount is ... not that much. A 50% or even 100% increase would make a huge difference in people's lives, while having a fairly minor impact on this end.
I grew up fairly poor and for the first 25 years or so I basically never had enough money for anything, so I understand that "a few € more or less, who even notices?-attitude that someone more well-off/middle-class might say is actually not so easy. I know from experience that those "few euro" actually can be quite significant. This is one reason Primark is so popular in the first place.
But still: the difference is stark, and there is little doubt in my mind what is clearly The Right Thing™ to do is here.
I understand that companies want to keep costs down, and that's perfectly reasonably, but this is just ridiculous and extreme. In many cases workers barely have enough money to buy food. And for what? So it's €1 or €2 cheaper? I find it so hard to believe that, as I said in the first line, I must not understand the economics of this somehow. Or maybe I do and people involved in this are just ... ugh...
When production is only motivated by profit, why would any company choose to reduce its profits? That eventually leads to losing to the competition and more consolidation into fewer companies that are ever more ruthless.
You’re just observing how capitalism works. It’s why some of us would prefer rationally and democratically planned production motivated by needs.
I think we can have capitalism(-ish) economies without outright exploitation. I don't even think it's necessarily that hard: we already have a powerful government that can step in and say "you're just being evil, quit it". It's just that we choose not to.
Actually, recently I've been thinking that our legalistic attitude towards a lot of these problems is actually the core issue. "It's legal so therefore we can do it". Well, okay, but that doesn't mean it's ethical. On the other hand we also don't want a government that can make arbitrary decisions on what is or isn't "ethical", but I do think a lot of problems could be solved if we would just focus more on what "the right thing" would be rather on that what is legal by the letter of the law. This is a thought I only had the other day and haven't fully fleshed out my thoughts on this yet though.
What you're describing sounds like "democratic communism", and that didn't really work out especially well in the past. A lot of communist countries started out with democratic aspirations; "any country with the word democratic in the name isn't democratic" is an old joke, but it's also true.
Even if we manage to avoid the "tyrant problem" we're still left with a central planning that may not necessarily make the best decisions, and I'm not so confident that any democratic controls we put in place would correct for that. A significant amount of China's problems in the 50s-70s for example weren't out of sheer tyrannical malice like in Stalinist Russia, but just gross incompetence of the leadership. Not a "democratically planned" economy, granted, but still an important lesson to heed IMHO: when a centrally planned economy screw up the effects can be disastrous.
You’re describing social democracy, which was the post-war consensus. As we’ve seen, it decays over time because it is still subject to capitalism’s basic contradictions. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall is not prevented by social democracy.
A lot of what is commonly believed about socialist countries is in fact propaganda by capitalists. Most of the actual problems were and are caused by being under constant siege by capitalist countries.
Socialism is the process of the working class gaining state power and overthrowing the capitalist class. There will still be contradictions and problems, but with planning we at least have a chance to solve them. Leaving it up to markets or the dictatorship of a few capitalists is admitting defeat from the start.
> A lot of what is commonly believed about socialist countries is in fact propaganda by capitalists. Most of the actual problems were and are caused by being under constant siege by capitalist countries.
The way I'm reading this is that the problems in Stalin Russia, Maoist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, North-Korea, etc. was/is caused by capitalist countries. And while these were "the worst of it", the practical implementations in many other countries wasn't exactly great either. I don't know of a single example where it worked well, and that's not for lack of trying.
I'm not sure if this is what you meant. It would help being a bit more concrete.
The Khmer Rouge weren’t communists, despite what they may have sometimes claimed. Being funded by the CIA is a useful hint. They were also stopped by socialist Vietnam, a second useful hint.
The USSR was actually very successful, especially during Stalin’s time. It went from a semi-feudal country to defeating the Nazis and into space. Eventually it lost the Cold War to the capitalist countries, through infiltration and direct aggression.
All of Eastern Europe was similarly quite successful compared to the conditions from which each country started. Merely ending the periodic environmental famines through industrialisation and collectivisation was a remarkable achievement. My grandparents and parents describe astonishing change in very few years and better conditions overall than today.
China started from an even less developed stage and industrialised very quickly. The material condition of most workers improved greatly, despite the limits imposed by capitalist countries. Later on, other concessions were made so capitalists would no longer block trade and development. And yet the working class is still in control of the state, as we’ve seen during COVID when the state took more direct control of the economy to save lives at the expense of profits.
The DPRK was bombed to an incredible degree by the US, which is still officially at war with it. Despite an almost complete blockade and even losing its socialist trading partners, it persists and to a small extent prospers. Cuba is in a similar position, doing remarkably well despite capitalist aggression.
Vietnam also developed remarkably quickly, despite occupation and a devastating war. Like China, it made concessions to capitalists in order to develop, while workers retain state power as a class.
I’d recommend you at least look at the primary sources for such wild claims, very often they are questionable. The dominant system is clearly capitalism, so narratives that slander alternatives are encouraged.
You could also talk to older people in Eastern Europe like I have, their experience doesn’t match such exaggerations.
> A lot of what is commonly believed about socialist countries is in fact propaganda by capitalists
That’s...true, but not in the way you seem to intend it. The focus on regimes espousing Leninism and its descendants to typify “socialist countries” as opposed to those following what Marx described (and objected to, but Marx doesn't encompass socialism any more than Lenin does) as “bourgeois socialism” and “democratic socialism” is a pretty big problem, especially when dismissing Western socialist movements, which are mostly in those categories, not Leninism or its derivatives.
Looking at old navy versus gap - gap no longer has any point of differentiation from their sister store. Why would I want to spend more at the gap for the same cheap quality as at old navy? The clothes are generic, and there’s not anything that the Gap has that makes them cooler, better designed, or a better value than something anywhere else. Looking broader Uniqlo at least has some points of differentiation with their sizing and styling, and primark beats the gap and everyone else on price.
I would never prefer to buy anything online except in cases when it really is much cheaper this way and there is a pick-up place available during evenings. Delivery is never convenient (as I rarely am at home when they deliver) and pick-up places, when available, also tend to work very inconvenient hours.
Tangential: Can someone from the industry chime in and say what was the reason for a drastic degradation in fabric quality over the last decade? I have some T-shirts from 10 years ago and they hold color, and didn't become fuzzy after dozen washes.
The only keyword I was able to find regarding cotton fabric quality was "ring-spun" vs "open-end" cotton.
The brand in question is Cropp (of Polish LPP, which makes most T-shirts in Bangladesh), but this degradation seems to be industry-wide. Even buying T-shirts from higher positioned brands doesn't make a difference. They're all crap quality.
American Apparel still exists as an online-only brand... wonder what their sales are. However it is owned by Gildan and despite the name, most of its goods are NOT made in America. Dov Charney (AA's founder) now runs Los Angeles Apparel, which does produce all its clothes in the U.S. (Los Angeles), and is employee-owned.
Grim is a funny word here. AA was a small local company that, over a 20 year period, outsmarted and out-sold the giants of the clothing industry. And unlike those giant companies, all products were made domestically, sweatshop-free, at relatively high wages, while providing opportunities for undocumented workers. Of course instead of focusing on anything positive, the press decided it didn't like the male founder and kept reporting on sexual harassment allegations that were never proven and mostly not even addressed in a court of law. And eventually about 2400 workers (says Wikipedia) lost their jobs when the new owner decided to make "American Apparel" somewhere besides America. Yea, that last part is pretty grim, actually.
> How did your time at The Gap shape your thinking about what you do at Herman Miller?
> I interviewed a guy who became my head of digital. He had worked in retail, and he said, “Do you know what excites me most about coming to this industry? I feel like I’m going from making landfill to making heirlooms.”
The fashion industry is the landfill industry.
reply