Current Events > luxury brands burn millions worth of clothing so the "wrong" people

(+) Yeah! (+)

Tropicalwood posted...

I think I've come up with a great idea for them, they could make a bunch of ebay accounts and sell them as Chinese knockoffs, really convincing Chinese knockoffs.

You kind of see this already with cereal and soda, but without the need to change countries. Companies sell the same product twice, just one for a little cheaper as an off brand. If you check the labels, you'll usually find that they come from the same company with virtually identical ingredients.

Of course, they can do that because the brand is tied to the product name, not the company name. I don't know if clothing brands have that same freedom.

orcus_snake posted...

once you sell at a discount, people expect the discounted prices.

Just look at people here going "I'll wait fo the steam sale

and the arguments that PC gaming is much cheaper cause "steam sales" its the same reason Nintendo does shit discounts and sells years old stuff at full price, they want none of that shit.

Guilty as charged. Sometimes I even feel bad for buying some of the games at outrageously low prices (I got Darksiders 2 at 90% discount), but with our weak currency I can't afford to buy them new.
---

Genius. They should also burn $60 video games before the lowly basement dwellers get a chance at a sale or worse, clearance.
---

thronedfire2 posted...

devalue the brand

the big thing we all have to remember is that what makes this brand valuable isn't build quality

it's the fact that they do this
---

Antifar posted...

thanosibe posted...

Their product, their decision.

Is this what we reach to get controversy for clicks?

You aren't obligated to view everything from the business's side

Well no. But when you criticize a business for logical business practices it seems moot to bring in morals when a business is all about profit. Especially one that caters to the affluent.
---

Woohoo. Go capitalism. It's better for people to die of exposure than devalue my product.
---

im not 13 posted...

That's actually genius

Most people would do the same if they had the chance

Is this the go-to argument for every stupid and wasteful thing that happens under capitalism? "This guy is getting paid millions to stream video games" "That's actually genius. Most people would do the same if they had the chance" or "This person is almost the youngest billionaire because she comes from a family of the biggest attention whores of all time" "That's actually genius. Most people would do the same if they had the chance" or "This virtual ring sells for $100" "That's actually genius. Most people would do the same if they had the chance"
---

1337toothbrush posted...

im not 13 posted...

That's actually genius

Most people would do the same if they had the chance

Is this the go-to argument for every stupid and wasteful thing that happens under capitalism? "This guy is getting paid millions to stream video games" "That's actually genius. Most people would do the same if they had the chance" or "This person is almost the youngest billionaire because she comes from a family of the biggest attention whores of all time" "That's actually genius. Most people would do the same if they had the chance" or "This virtual ring sells for $100" "That's actually genius. Most people would do the same if they had the chance"

You wouldn't?
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Woohoo. Go capitalism. It's better for people to die of exposure than devalue my product.

much like with food, the issue of proper clothing access is not one of resources, but of distribution.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

1337toothbrush posted...

im not 13 posted...

That's actually genius

Most people would do the same if they had the chance

Is this the go-to argument for every stupid and wasteful thing that happens under capitalism? "This guy is getting paid millions to stream video games" "That's actually genius. Most people would do the same if they had the chance" or "This person is almost the youngest billionaire because she comes from a family of the biggest attention whores of all time" "That's actually genius. Most people would do the same if they had the chance" or "This virtual ring sells for $100" "That's actually genius. Most people would do the same if they had the chance"

You wouldn't?

People will do what they can, especially within the confines of the law, to prosper themselves. Im not sure what this generations hangup on capitalism is. But advancing yourself through capitalism doesnt mean youre harming anyone else unless you directly are. Its almost like a lot of people dont understand it.
---

thanosibe posted...

Their product, their decision.

Is this what we reach to get controversy for clicks?

It's fucking awful for the environment for one.
---

Big companies tend to be pieces of shit

In other news, the sun is hot
---

thanosibe posted...

Antifar posted...

thanosibe posted...

Their product, their decision.

Is this what we reach to get controversy for clicks?

You aren't obligated to view everything from the business's side

Well no. But when you criticize a business for logical business practices it seems moot to bring in morals when a business is all about profit. Especially one that caters to the affluent.

It's moot from the standpoint of "why would businesses do this?" But it's important to recognize how the systems we encourage through participation bring about outcomes that we as members of our society might find morally questionable.

thanosibe posted...

Im not sure what this generations hangup on capitalism is

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/12/wealth-inequality-reasons-richest-global-gap
---

exclusivity makes people wish to purchase things.

water is wet.

more news at 11.

Dragonblade01 posted...

thanosibe posted...

Antifar posted...

thanosibe posted...

Their product, their decision.

Is this what we reach to get controversy for clicks?

You aren't obligated to view everything from the business's side

Well no. But when you criticize a business for logical business practices it seems moot to bring in morals when a business is all about profit. Especially one that caters to the affluent.

It's moot from the standpoint of "why would businesses do this?" But it's important to recognize how the systems we encourage through participation bring about outcomes that we as members of our society might find morally questionable.

Im saying its less about actual morals and more about expectations. I personally care less either way in this instance but Im surprised at people balking at a business doing what is profitable. This is the system we chose and these are the things that happen within it.

People saying it was a waste and donating could help others ignore the fact that this company and other wasteful ones like it arent responsible for others shortages. In the US its not a matter of resources, its a matter of how the plentiful resources are distributed. Theres plenty for all despite this incident.
---

thanosibe posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

1337toothbrush posted...

im not 13 posted...

That's actually genius

Most people would do the same if they had the chance

Is this the go-to argument for every stupid and wasteful thing that happens under capitalism? "This guy is getting paid millions to stream video games" "That's actually genius. Most people would do the same if they had the chance" or "This person is almost the youngest billionaire because she comes from a family of the biggest attention whores of all time" "That's actually genius. Most people would do the same if they had the chance" or "This virtual ring sells for $100" "That's actually genius. Most people would do the same if they had the chance"

You wouldn't?

People will do what they can, especially within the confines of the law, to prosper themselves. Im not sure what this generations hangup on capitalism is. But advancing yourself through capitalism doesnt mean youre harming anyone else unless you directly are. Its almost like a lot of people dont understand it.

look around you

and the idea that people get rich without hurting others is laughable
---

Esrac posted...

The X Dawg posted...

I mean...I get it from a business point of view.

I don't. It seems like they're leaving money on the table. Or more accurately burning it, when they could make some money by selling the older I bought items at a discount.

Nope.

Luxury goods make money on their margins, not in quantity.

Say in 2010 Burberry sells 1000 scarves at 1000 dollars. That's 1,000,000 dollars.
They expect to sell 1000 scarves at 1000 again in 2011, but they only sell 500. If they sold those 500 at $10 they'd make $5000. If thy sold them at 100 they'd make $50,000.

Sure, they're leaving $50,000 in the table for 2011. But their business model is to sell 1000 scarves at $1000 in 2012 again. If you see 500 people wearing wifebeaters or MAGA hats wearing Burberry scarves out there, you will have to sell your scarves at $100 o maybe $200 in 2012, instead of $1000

this has always been the case

Louis Vuitton does the same thing with their unsold bags
---

This is the fault of everyone dumb enough to spend more than $30 on any one article of clothing
---

The X Dawg posted...

I mean...I get it from a business point of view.

how? they're literally burning money and cutting off a huge amount of potential consumers.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

The X Dawg posted...

I mean...I get it from a business point of view.

how? they're literally burning money and cutting off a huge amount of potential consumers.

Luxury companies make money off of exclusivity. How is this so confusing.

TheVipaGTS posted...

The X Dawg posted...

I mean...I get it from a business point of view.

how? they're literally burning money and cutting off a huge amount of potential consumers.

Those are not the customers they are targeting though.

They want people who will buy them at full price.
---

Wouldn't it make sense to...not overproduce instead???
---

St0rmFury posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

The X Dawg posted...

I mean...I get it from a business point of view.

how? they're literally burning money and cutting off a huge amount of potential consumers.

Those are not the customers they are targeting though.

They want people who will buy them at full price.

then why overproduce your product and then just burn it? Produce enough to remain exclusive.
---

Plenty of companies do this rather than donate their products once they reach end of life. But many times things that could be at least recycled(books, for example) or composted(food) to save the Earth by decreasing landfill space used are trashed due to either liability concerns(possibly spoiled food being donated to food banks and shelters) or because stores have agreements with publishers/manufacturers to destroy them for credit towards other products.

Gamestop and Best Buy do this with game guides that are printed on paper every so many months with district managers going so far as to fire employees giving away or taking home such things. Yet routinely you'll see videos on YouTube of people dumpster diving behind GS stores and finding boxloads of untouched products.

Best Buy may actually send them back to a clearinghouse where they're repackaged and sold in bulk to places like Big Lots and other after market stores.

Stuff that goes salvage from stores like Target routinely end up at Goodwill stores in some areas of the country and chains like TJ Maxx and Marshall's have agreements with stores like J.C. Penney to buy their bulk castoffs once they go to salvage. I know this because I worked through a temp agency at a JCP in 2013 and we had to box up stuff from JCP to go to a TJX distribution center to be reticketed with their labels/tags.

But those two are the exception and NOT the rule. There's so much waste in this country.
---

TheoryzC posted...

Wouldn't it make sense to...not overproduce instead???

Yeah but see that would require actual planning
---

fair. you don't want some stinky bum trying to look like you. it kills everyone's value for like one loser to feel slightly less awful
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

St0rmFury posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

The X Dawg posted...

I mean...I get it from a business point of view.

how? they're literally burning money and cutting off a huge amount of potential consumers.

Those are not the customers they are targeting though.

They want people who will buy them at full price.

then why overproduce your product and then just burn it? Produce enough to remain exclusive.

I don't imagine companies want to burn product. Rather, they make enough to reach projections. And those projections are probably a little on the high end to account for the potential growth of their customer base. But fashion is a fickle, cycle-based industry, and so companies end up with excess inventory.

And remember, they can't produce too few, because that's an even bigger waste of money from the company's perspective.

The two things that don't last long, ready to wear cosplay outfits and luxury clothes

Luxury clothes don't last long. It's not like a Rolex or Jewelry where they can last (and can be repaired).
---

Paper_Okami posted...

$37.8 million of unwanted products

And it didn't even cost a fraction of that to produce it
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

St0rmFury posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

The X Dawg posted...

I mean...I get it from a business point of view.

how? they're literally burning money and cutting off a huge amount of potential consumers.

Those are not the customers they are targeting though.

They want people who will buy them at full price.

then why overproduce your product and then just burn it? Produce enough to remain exclusive.

I don't imagine companies want to burn product. Rather, they make enough to reach projections. And those projections are probably a little on the high end to account for the potential growth of their customer base. But fashion is a fickle, cycle-based industry, and so companies end up with excess inventory.

But the company in the article burned three times as much last year as four years ago. That either suggests they're not learning or that the inflation rate of designer value is ridiculous.
---

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

St0rmFury posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

The X Dawg posted...

I mean...I get it from a business point of view.

how? they're literally burning money and cutting off a huge amount of potential consumers.

Those are not the customers they are targeting though.

They want people who will buy them at full price.

then why overproduce your product and then just burn it? Produce enough to remain exclusive.

I don't imagine companies want to burn product. Rather, they make enough to reach projections. And those projections are probably a little on the high end to account for the potential growth of their customer base. But fashion is a fickle, cycle-based industry, and so companies end up with excess inventory.

But the company in the article burned three times as much last year as four years ago. That either suggests they're not learning or that the inflation rate of designer value is ridiculous.

Sounds like somebody somewhere made a pretty big production mistake or an ill-advised projection. Those things also happen.

Dragonblade01 posted...

And remember, they can't produce too few, because that's an even bigger waste of money from the company's perspective.

But shouldn't that just allow them to raise the price because it's then more exclusive? Why not just make 1 of the item and sell it for a million dollars Jesus fucking Christ why are human beings like this
---

MorbidFaithless posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

And remember, they can't produce too few, because that's an even bigger waste of money from the company's perspective.

But shouldn't that just allow them to raise the price because it's then more exclusive? Why not just make 1 of the item and sell it for a million dollars Jesus fucking Christ why are human beings like this

I mean, they probably would if an analysis of the product's price elasticity told them that was the best option.

fairest of the nexus
---

Bio1590 posted...

TheoryzC posted...

Wouldn't it make sense to...not overproduce instead???

Yeah but see that would require actual planning

Also would require a crystal ball to know exactly how much of a product to produce to meet the actual demand for it.
---

Lulz luxury brands.

Lulzpeople whoactually buy into that shit.
---

Is it exclusivity that makes it costly, or the materials, or what?
---

Tupacrulez posted...

Lulz luxury brands.

Lulzpeople whoactually buy into that shit.

Guilty.
---

Sounds wasteful.
---

Almost 40 million dollars worth of product that could have been dismantled and recycled towards other uses.
---

Fuparulez posted...

They're creating scarcity.

---

Makes perfect business sense. Whats the problem?
---

SK8T3R215 posted...

Bio1590 posted...

TheoryzC posted...

Wouldn't it make sense to...not overproduce instead???

Yeah but see that would require actual planning

Also would require a crystal ball to know exactly how much of a product to produce to meet the actual demand for it.

And hiring people who actually know how to forecast and then giving them the tools to actually do their jobs.

Not like, Excel spreadsheets.
---

LightningAce11 posted...

Is it exclusivity that makes it costly, or the materials, or what?

It's the status awarded the brand, which is built carefully through advertising and design. Which in turn brings high price, which brings exlusivity, which supports the brand's status.

In the end, it's Burberry's property, and they can do whatever the hell they want with it.

DavidWong posted...

rather than burning it, couldn't they recycle it into textiles and sell the material?

Cotton can at least be composted.
Polyester can't be composted, but burning artificial fiber seems like a bad idea anyway. Can polycotton even be recycled?

VandorLee posted...

Genius. They should also burn $60 video games before the lowly basement dwellers get a chance at a sale or worse, clearance.

Incidentally, Gamestop does that.
https://consumerist.com/2015/03/16/gamestop-dumpster-diver-accuses-employees-of-deliberately-destroying-usable-products/

Bio1590 posted...

SK8T3R215 posted...

Bio1590 posted...

TheoryzC posted...

Wouldn't it make sense to...not overproduce instead???

Yeah but see that would require actual planning

Also would require a crystal ball to know exactly how much of a product to produce to meet the actual demand for it.

And hiring people who actually know how to forecast and then giving them the tools to actually do their jobs.

Not like, Excel spreadsheets.

Considering this accounts for about 1% of their revenue I'm gonna assume they use forecasts already and have to deal with these forecasts not being 100% accurate in an industry of changing styles and trends since forecasting isn't absolute.
---

I am hopefully going to enter the fashion industry in the future. They dont want everyone wearing their brand. They only target to the rich and famous who can afford their astronomical pricing. Thats how they make their money.
---