Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Love!


Surely ya'all remember how I kept taking on Emma Stone's stylist for dressing her unseasonably.. Well, I am now fully on board. Because this I love and covet, ever so badly:


Its Valentino, from the Fall Ready to Wear:


I love everything.  Everything except the shoes. Versions of these studded Valentino heels have been all over the celeb circuit for quite some time, and they are too tired by now. I understand the thinking behind them - the outfit skewed a little too sweet (hate, btw., the obvious choice of the maryjanes that they sent down the runway) and the spikes on the shoes give it a bit of hard edge. But they are too mass market by now... too ubiquitous.

Case in point: the other day I'm taking the elevator in my building. Three girls walk in. One is in these Valentino flats, similar to the ones on Stone:
 Retail price? $900. Oh - and the other one is casually carrying a Celine bag. This one:
Retails for over $2k.
To be young and rich (cue wistful sigh...) Or either one. 

But my point stands - if randoms in my building are sporting these shoes stars should stay away. 

Soup


It is the last day of April and all I can think of is soup. I'm sitting at my desk, my fingers are cold and when they hit the keyboard I can sense chill spreading. It might be just the millions specks of dust hiding around the keys, but I swear these are actually particles of cold.

Soup.

Not just any soup. Borscht. Because I'm sitting here and writing about Malevich's love for food, and I'm translating what he wrote, and it was about borscht. With potatoes, and beets, and beans. With a large dollop of sour cream. Borscht is where the Russian soul is.  Don't bother looking elsewhere.

Here is a recipe that is kind of an amalgamation of many. And remember - like with any Russian item, the key to a good borscht is eating it on the next day. Deferred satisfaction. Its a Russian thing, ladies.


Beef-less Borscht (I don't like meat in my soup..)
Ingridents:


3 14 oz. cartons of beef stock
1 small head of cabbage, shredded
5 large potatoes, cubed into 1/8s
1 large carrot, sliced
3 large or 2 extra large beets, grated
1 med. onion, sliced thinly
1 bay leaf
2 tablespoons tomato paste
a teaspoon of sour salt
3-5 cloves garlic, mashed
salt and pepper


Preparation:



Bring beef stock to a boil. Add cubed potatoes, carrots, beets and bay leaf - bring to a boil again. Cook, simmering for about 30 minutes. Add the cabbage and simmer another 10 minutes.

Meanwhile, in a separate pan fry the sliced onion until it begins to caramelize, stirring gently from time to time. Add tomato paste. Mix everything and fry for another minute or two. Remove from stove and add mashed garlic. Then add fried onion with garlic to the soup, mixing well. Add butter and sour salt (that's the secret of a good borscht!). Season with salt and pepper to taste.

Cover and simmer on very low heat for another 30 minutes.

Then take off heat and wait for a day.

Reheat. Serve with garlic rubbed slice of rye bread, a bit of chopped parsley, and a dollop of sour cream.



When bad clothes happen to good people


Debra Messing lost quite a bit of weight yet managed to do so without looking gaunt in the face, and that is awesome. What is less high-five-worthy is her get-up at a New York Pops event:


The dress itself is mall-tacky. The shoes seem to be intent on proving, despite the length of the dress, that DMess has rather dubious legs. And then the topknot... I get it, it is an insta-facelift, but still. Mall-tacky.

Another lady of similar age but a much more jealously observed weight was also at said event - Sarah Jessica Parker, and this was even worse:


What is this? A not-so-sexy librarian with a gypsy past? Ergh. Her hair and face though look really good, as does her makeup.

Brands, Mass Retail, Herd Mentality

Business of Fashion is rapidly becoming my favorite serious fashion read.  Their stories tend to be thoughtful and less gossipy than NYMag, profound and less glossily superficial than those in fashion magazines - although they do do those lighter, fluffier pieces as well. This time I'm reposting an interview with the new CEO of Uniqlo.

To those of you in countries where Uniqlo does not have an outpost (yet), it is a Japanese mass retailer with a highly reasonable price point - closer to H&M than to Zara - but a higher quality product. Uniqlo is less trend driven than H&M, it does not introduce new lines on a weekly basis, but what it offers tends to hold up better to a closer scrutiny.

I came to Uniqlo during their fantastic and much missed cooperation with a high end designer - Jil Sander (whose eponymous company has since ceased to exist). Sander's minimalist, construction-oriented design translated well to mass-retail and items from that line are still popular on resale sites like Ebay.   It was also, in my view, one of the only truly, deeply, successful high-low collaborations of the kind that proliferated over the past few years (Marni, Karl Lagerfeld, Sonia Rykiel with H&M; Phillip Lim, Proenza Schuler with Target; Vera Wang and Narciso Rodriguez with Kohl; and many others). I am not a big fan of these collaborations over all - i think they dilute the vision of high fashion brands and offer cheap knockoffs. I understand that designers  likely feel that such knockoffs will exist no matter what (it is, after all, what retailers like H&M specialize in) and are motivated by a 'can't beat 'em join 'em' kind of thinking, hoping to at least pocket the profits themselves. Yet most of the items sold under such collaborations are terrible shit. Except for the +J collections (the collaboration lasted a few seasons) at Uniqlo.


What I have from there - a navy skirt with a paper-bag waist and this amazing dress (above) -  I still wear a lot and LOVE.

Anyways. The following interview is a delight. I think. Read for yourselves:


Uniqlo CMO Jörgen Andersson on Why Consumer Culture is ‘Generic’

Uniqlo’s newly-appointed co-global chief marketing officer Jörgen Andersson shares his insights from over 30 years of experience in fashion retail, including why personal style is not as individual as one might believe.
STOCKHOLM, Sweden — In their paper, “The Law, Culture and Economics of Fashion,” law professors Scott Hemphill and Jeannie Suk define fashion as being simultaneously characterised by ‘differentiation’ and ‘flocking.’ On the one hand, consumers wish to belong to a group. On the other hand, they desire to assert their individuality and dress differently from others.
As fashion continues to be reshaped by digital media, ‘differentiation’ would seem to have the upper hand. ‘Personal style,’ ‘beyond trend’ and ‘individual expression’ are catchphrases of our day as social media puts more power in the hands of individual consumers and, in theory, allows for the growth of more variety in tastes, styles and brands.
Jörgen Andersson sees things a little differently. The newly-appointed co-global chief marketing officer at Uniqlo was previously chief marketing officer and global brand and new business director at retail giant H&M. Last week, at a seminar in Stockholm entitled ‘Swedish Innovations & High Street Fashion,’ Andersson shared insights from more than 30 years in the retail business and his thoughts on what he calls the ‘generic’ nature of contemporary consumer culture.
BoF: In your address, you used the word generic, both about fashion consumers and brands. Could you tell us a little more?
JA: I think today a lot of consumers talk about wanting to be unique and having their personal style, but in actual fact, almost everyone belongs to one of a few sub-groups of style. Since fashion went digital, everyone has access to the same information at the same time. And a lot is still very influenced by what goes on at the large luxury houses. Most shopping centres and main shopping streets have the same stores — many of them vertical retailers owned by multinational corporations who all have the same goal: to make money and expand. In order to do so, they have to look at what trends can be adapted for the mass market, which means the products are pretty much the same everywhere.
BoF: People do seem to look for influences in more different places though?
JA: Yes, but what they will find in those places is the same kind of different things. Take the Brooklyn style, with guys in shirts and selvedge denim and beards. Everyone in Brooklyn looks like that now. At the Selfridges office in London, they have a fantastic suite of photographs with people from different sub-groups. You have The Computer Nerds, The Skaters, The Rockers and so on. It is absolutely striking how different the sub-groups are, but also how similar they look to their peers within the group.
BoF: How about the luxury houses? Are they more different from each other?
JA: The large groups, Kering and LVMH, operate according to the same formula. They acquire smaller brands, help them broaden their customer offering for example by adding accessories, perfumes and bags. And if you do a blind test with luxury perfumes, of course, very few people can tell which brand they are from. It’s all about the packaging and the advertising, [and] ultimately the brand experience. I think that can be true about a lot of ready-to-wear too. A jumper with the label cut out can be from a lot of different brands.
BoF: You did include a slide with advertising campaigns by Givenchy, Gap, H&M and Burberry. It was striking how similar they looked.
JA: Well that, I think, is because there is this special profession, which is being a ‘fashion art director.’ Which is odd, because as far as I know there is no such thing as a ‘car art director’ who only does car advertising. This small group of fashion art directors, they all work with the same stylists and photographers and models, so it is no surprise most fashion advertising looks the same.
BoF: How did you approach the generic nature of fashion when you were at H&M?
JA: Ten, fifteen years ago when we were looking to better define the H&M brand and experience, instead of trying to find or invent something that was unique but still quite similar to others, we decided to keep it generic. H&M was simple; it was all about simplicity. The business concept is ‘fashion and quality at the best price.’
But that is actually something a lot of retailers can say about themselves. One thing made H&M different: H&M stores change constantly. There is always new supply coming in of all different kinds. We decided to build on that, and make everything about how we did things rather than what we did. We wanted to be the fun of fashion, where fun was defined by the width of the assortment, the affordable price, new garments every day, new and unexpected collaborations, and so on.
BoF: The most well-known outcome of that decision is probably the designer collaborations, starting with Karl Lagerfeld in 2004.
JA: At the time, we were known for the outdoor advertising we published in November each year, the women in underwear who [caused] drivers to crash their cars because they couldn’t keep their eyes off them. We were criticised for those, of course, and we felt that we wanted to create something different and new. Something that would keep us top of mind. If people had ten minutes on Oxford Street, we wanted them to spend those in H&M.
Jan Nord, the creative director, and I started thinking about what to do and came up with the idea of a designer collaboration to communicate our business concept — fashion and quality at the best price. Karl Lagerfeld was top of our list, of course. To me, he embodies the changing nature of fashion. He’s said it himself: “I never do or say the same thing twice.”
BoF: How did the collaboration come about?
JA: Donald Schneider, who was then working with Vogue in Paris, and who is now creative director at H&M, put me in touch with Karl. When we met, it took about two minutes before Karl said, “I love it. When can I start?” Would he be in the ad for the collection? “Are you kidding? I love advertising. I love it.” At some point in our discussions I used the word ‘cheap’ about H&M, by mistake. He’s actually the one who said “Cheap, what a depressing word, I would much rather call H&M affordable,” which we ended up using in the commercial we created with him.
BoF: As part of your presentation, you also included six images from six different retail outlets that looked very much the same. And you mentioned that H&M’s CEO, Karl-Johan Persson, had a hard time picking out the H&M store among them. Would you be able to do the same thing with Tadashi Yanai, your new employer at Uniqlo?
JA: No, I don’t think so, because Uniqlo stores – although the interiors are like a white canvas – are merchandised in a particular way with the same pieces: the t-shirts, the lightweight down jackets, the cashmeres, and so on, are all displayed together in different colours. It’s so generic that it is instantly recognisable as Uniqlo.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Can we do it? - A bit more on the "Confidence Gap"


A month or so ago a story was making the rounds. It appeared in the Atlantic and in it two reporters reported the sad evidence of the existence of a confidence gap between men and women.

If I sound ironic it is because I am. I've been sitting on this story for a while, wondering whether to post or not to post. Some of the material in it does resonate, and some data quoted is interesting. Then today I saw the following headline in the NYMag: "Christiane Amanpour Calls the ‘Confidence Gap’ B.S." (The story itself is copied below, scroll down).

So is the confidence gap real or is it BS?

I can't say that agreeing with Amanpour is a natural inclination. Far from it. But in this case I tend to agree, if with reservations. Yes, we can have confidence, and we should. Almost everything  the 'confidence' story cites as evidence - for example the 'impostor' phenomenon - is indeed BS (plenty of successful men plagued by the same problem). What Amanpour and the story conveniently forget are the reasons we often don't succeed - despite the confidence. And those reasons are, for most of us, children. 

For women in the West children are not a societal obligation or even a biological, unavoidable necessity. No, children are a choice. And by making that choice we are, by necessity, put in a position where sacrifices are inevitable. We take some of the most productive years - professionally - and dedicate them to reproduction. Yes, it is possible to work and raise children. But childrearing takes time, and time is a precious commodity if you are also working. Something has to give - and what that something is, is your choice. You give up your career, if only for a while, or you give up raising children, if only as much as you would like. No one can have it all. 

We make choices. And we pay for them. It isn't confidence that we lack. It is time.

* * *

Here is NYMag's story:


Christiane Amanpour was one of four daughters, and at yesterday's New York Women in Communications 2014 Matrix Awards, she told us that “she never grew up in this atmosphere that women somehow couldn’t do X, Y, or Z.”
We asked her about the "confidence gap" proposed in the Atlanticearlier this month — which argued that women's self-doubt holds them back professionally — and she remarked pointedly that she had 'never suffered from this 'confidence gap.'" She's "upset," she said, "by these articles on confidence. To be honest with you, I think it’s reinforcing and beating a dead horse. There are so many women out there who just don’t get noticed."
Amanpour went on, “Let’s face it: 40 percent of the American households are being powered by women. Women are either the sole or main breadwinners in 40 percent of American households. And multiply that by a million around the world. Women are the main breadwinners." She suggested that “parity,” not “this notion that we’re not confident somehow,” is the problem.
"Now is the time to leverage our major, formidable economic power," she told a gathering crowd of rapt, mostly female reporters. "Negotiate like guys, get what we want, get what we deserve, and forget this confidence gap B.S."

Earning Your Stripes: The Shoe


For the woman who needs stripes in her life what better way to introduce levity and fun than a striped, spring/summer shoe?



DREAM:

High Heel: Nordstrom:


Low Heel: Kaye:


WISH:

High Heel: Tory Burch:

2) Yoox: 

Low Heel: Vince
2) Marc Jacobs:


WANT:

High Heel: French Connection


Low Heel - Madewell:


3) Zara!

Love!


Miz Stone hits it out of the park, at least in my book:


Tween Problems


Hot on the heels of my "Dress Your Age" post, a new study has conveniently affirmed what all of us with tweens at home already know - most tween TV is downright terrible. If you've happened to check out what your tween has been watching on TV or Netflix you have seen insipid, shallow programming that affirms the most inane stereotypes - most importantly about looks and beauty. Girls need to be attractive to succeed.
Thank god science was there to prove it!

Here ladies, take a look:

Tween’ Television Programming Promotes Some Stereotypical Conceptions of Gender Roles, MU Study Finds

April 21, 2014
Story Contact(s):
Jeff Sossamon, sossamonj@missouri.edu, 573-882-3346
COLUMBIA, Mo. – The term “tween” denotes a child who is between the ages of 8 and 12 and is used to describe a preadolescent who is “in between” being a child and a teen. This demographic watches more television than any other age group and is considered to be a very lucrative market. Tween television programming consists of two genres: “teen scene” (geared toward girls) and “action-adventure” (geared toward boys). Researchers at the University of Missouri found that these programs could lead tweens to limit their views of their potential roles in society just as they begin to shape their future.
“Tween viewers are undergoing an important developmental stage and actively seek cues about gender,” said Ashton Lee Gerding, a doctoral student in the Department of Communication at MU. “Television programming can play an important role in that development, so we examined tween television programming. Overall, girls were portrayed as more attractive, more concerned about their appearance, and received more comments about their appearance than male characters. However, female and male characters were equally likely to be handy with technology and exhibit bravery. This sends the message that girls and boys can participate in and do the same things, but that girls should be attractive and work to maintain this attractiveness.”
The study analyzed 49 episodes of 40 distinct American tween television programs that aired in 2011 on Disney Channel, Disney XD, Nickleodeon and the Turner Cartoon Network. Gerding and Nancy Signorielli, professor of communication at the University of Delaware, examined more than 200 characters in terms of their attractiveness, gender-related behavior and personality characteristics such as bravery or ability to handle technology.
Study results showed that gender distribution in the teen scene genre mirrors the overall male-female distribution in the U.S. population; however, males outnumbered females by more than 3 to 1 in the action-adventure genre.
“Tween television programs may help to shape the way kids think about the roles that are available for them,” Gerding said. “Therefore, we advise parents to watch these programs with their kids and talk with their tweens about their roles in society. We also advocate for media literacy programs that could mitigate some of the potential negative effects of these programs.”
The study, “Gender roles in tween television programming: a content analysis of two genres,” was co-written with Signorielli and was published in the journal Sex Roles.

Monday, April 28, 2014

The Business of Fashion

The following, from BOF, was interesting, partially for referencing Lululemon, a brand that makes great marketing sense:

Op-Ed | The End of the $1 Billion Fashion Brand


There will never be another start-up fashion brand that will reach $1 billion in revenue. In fact, it is very possible that there will not be a fashion brand that was started in the past five years that will generate that amount of revenue. All of the money invested in fashion start-ups to maintain their early growth rates will not drive the returns venture capitalists had hoped for when they invested huge sums of money at sky-high valuations. Much of this capital will be lost, leaving in its wake a general malaise and depression that will affect the fashion start-up ecosystem for years to come. But, ironically, this impending reality will also mark the beginning of the most incredible time in the history of fashion for entrepreneurs to build great brands.
What Makes a Brand?
A brand is a connection between a business and its customer. My favourite definition of a brand is the first image that pops into someone’s mind when their eyes are closed and they hear your company’s name. In reality, your brand is your business, because your business is your relationship with your customer and the sale of your product is merely confirmation of that relationship.
Over the past few decades, as the global market for fashion has reached hundreds of billions of dollars in size, specialty brands and retailers that are more attuned to specific consumer interests, values and aspirations have flourished in each of the industry’s many segments, forging increasingly strong bonds with their customers.
Notwithstanding the transparent-yoga-pants tempest in a teapot and the company’s self-inflicted investor and customer relations fiascos, Vancouver-based Lululemon remains one of the best fashion and apparel brands built in recent years. Since its founding in 1998, it has succeeded through great specificity in market focus, deeply connecting and becoming intertwined with the lifestyles and activities of its customers. Wearing Lululemon speaks volumes about who you are as a woman: active, engaged, physical, spiritual and connected to your environment; the personification of the Yoga practice. And by creating this connection with its customers, Lululemon has grown into a $1.6 billion company that has created $9 billion in shareholder value.
But five years after its founding, Lululemon was only a $5 million annual revenue business. What a failure in comparison to the famous Internet brands that you read about every day! But in those five years, they refined their brand and their message to customers; they learned and perfected the brand experience, they hired people who grew as the business grew, forming the basis of an organisational infrastructure; they learned how to make stuff well and did all the other things that every successful company needs to master if it hopes to become great. In its sixth year, Lululemon tripled in size and never looked back. As it spread across North America, customers first heard about it, then yearned for it. And if you were smart enough to recognise that this was a budding juggernaut and wanted to compete head-to-head, you needed a lot of capital and physical stores — and you had to face a five-year learning curve.
The Internet Changes Everything
With rise of the Internet, businesses can reach customers without the constraints of geography or capital. Given this, one can build a business that is really specific to a very tightly defined group of target customers and not have to worry about there being enough of them in any given geography.
All new brands will be born on the Internet, as it provides the ubiquitous and omnipresent platform for a deeper and more intense relationship with customers. The Internet has also provided new brands with an incredible opportunity to launch their business at a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time it took before.  What’s more, the Internet creates incredible market transparency. As an investor, if I want to get a very rough idea of your sales traction and market interest, I only need to look at your social media following and engagement metrics.  I can also use Google to see how much you show up in searches. It’s not exact, but it gives me (and everyone who is thinking about starting a brand) a pretty good idea of where your company is in terms of its growth.
I would bet that Lululemon, if it were founded today, would have started on the Internet. The trajectory of this new Lululemon — Lululemon Prime, let’s call it — might look like this: they make a beautiful product that their customers adore and then scrape together a store on Shopify to sell it (disclosure: Shopify is a FirstMark portfolio company). In their adoration, customers scream at the top of their lungs about this incredible brand on social media. Everyone runs online to Lululemon Prime and buys its products. The company grows rapidly, trying to keep the wheels on the car as it screams down the highway. The founder is tied up speaking to the press about how brilliant they are and how they have reinvented fashion.
Meanwhile, with huge amounts of hype and exposure surrounding this great new company, other entrepreneurs see the market opportunities they are missing: the Lululemon for serious Yogis, the Lululemon for women who are a little larger, the Lululemon for women who are a little smaller, the Lululemon for women who want to do Yoga in luxury clothing, the Lululemon for women who practice Hot Yoga, the Lululemon for women who want to only look like they do Yoga, and so on — each brand addressing a micro-segment of the Lululemon Prime target market and each one connecting with customers better and more specifically than Lululemon Prime, because these brands are aiming to mean something more to fewer people. As Lululemon Prime adds products and tries to appeal to a broader audience, they diluted their message and begin to mean less to their original core audience. The smaller, more focused competitors take the edges of their core market by meaning something much more specific and true to their customers. If you don’t think that would happen, a few quick searches on Google turns up more than 100 very specialised competitors in the Yoga apparel market.
Now, the original Lululemon had five years to figure things out. Lululemon Prime would have less than a year. By demonstrating early traction and a very high growth rate, companies have been able to raise a lot of money at point where their revenue size and growth rate are out of sync with their level of organisational competence and capabilities. When you don’t have any money, you do things you need to do. You build muscle and strength as you build your team; you learn your customer better and you master the processes that you need to scale. When you have too much money you do things you can do. You hire people who, in turn, hire more people. And all these people have bought into the hype of being part of a mega-valued, social media darling.
The science of scaling a business is built upon the replication and amplification of processes that matter. When you have lots of people doing lots of things that may or may not matter, how do you scale successfully?
Think of a company as a boat with rowers. Putting too many rowers in a given boat sinks it; putting the right rowers in the right seats with the right cadence wins a gold medal. Lululemon, had five years to figure it out before anyone really knew they existed. Lululemon Prime would have months.
The Impact on Investment Returns
The biggest mistake investors and entrepreneurs make repeatedly is they infer long-term growth from short-term growth. On the Internet you are connected to everyone so your ability to find a customer is unprecedentedly easy — at first. As with Lululemon Prime, a brand is discovered, customers go crazy on social media and the company sells a lot of product. The revenue ramp looks amazing, so investors flood the company with money expecting it to continue to grow at this rate. But the company grew so rapidly at first, because it was so specific and was able to reach the customers with whom their message resonated really easily. As the company reaches a certain size, competition and a diminishing remaining pool of potential customers make the acquisition of each incremental customer increasingly difficult and expensive. Revenue flattens. Investors who thought that unprecedented growth would go on forever are, instead, left with a company that, while meaningful in size, falls far short of the expectations that drove their frenzied investments.
As both an entrepreneur and investor in this market, I have the opportunity to meet with dozens of people each week who tell me that they will be building the next billion dollar company behind the brand that they have created. I’m amazed at the indignation I get when I ask: “What if you have a brand that is only $100 million in size?” The typical response is something like, “Well, I’ll show you” (and I hope they do). But my amazement stems from the fact that they believe $100 million is a failure or a consolation prize.
But who would not want a $100 million revenue company with 20 percent EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes and deprecation and amortisation) that is making something beautiful and wonderful for a base of customers who would kill for them? At a typical 10x multiple of EBITDA, the company would be worth $200 million. Is this a great return? Sure, if you raised a relatively small amount of money at reasonable valuations. But not if you raised a lot of money at a high price.
For instance, let’s say you raised $200 million at a valuation of $1 billion post-money (i.e. you sold 20 percent of the company for $200 million). This sounds great because you only gave up 20 percent for a large amount of capital. Except for one thing. The investors get their money first, because in most private company transactions, investors have preferred stock. So, in the end, depending on how much you raised, there may not be much, if any, left for you, the entrepreneur, despite having built a very successful business — and that’s in the case of a great outcome.
Many start-up brands who have enjoyed early success have believed that they are worth more than social media platforms that have achieved valuations of billions of dollars with little or no revenue. What they are missing is that these social media companies are platforms for the expression of millions of opinions, while a brand is the expression of one specific opinion — and the brands that will be born from now on will stand for very specific opinions. Indeed, they must mean more to fewer people than ever before if they hope to achieve success.
The Path Forward
There might be exceptions to my prediction that there will be no more new $1 billion fashion brands. I think wholesale-driven brands started by large manufacturing-oriented companies with wide distribution will always be able to create mass-oriented, license-driven product, though whether these kinds of brands will last remains to be seen. Another exception could be a case where there are finite or proprietary manufacturing or technology resources that a company has secured. But these types of companies are few and far between and most entrepreneurs will not find themselves in a position to execute on these types of strategies.
I truly believe that there has never been a better time for an entrepreneur to build his or her business, because so many barriers to entry have been lowered or removed. Rather than fight the new laws of the universe that have come into place because of advancements in technology, embrace these changes and build a brand that truly connects to a specific group of customers across geographies in a highly intimate and personal way.
Will this type of business be a $50 million revenue company or a $500 million revenue company? Nobody knows until you build it. But with the right capital structure, any company that can build a brand that delights its customers can be an economic win for all involved.

Dressing your age


Thought I'd be writing about older ladies, didn't you? Actually, this post is about young starlets and how the Hollywood publicity machine pushes us to accept teens as twenty-somethings, twenty-somethings as women in their thirties, and forgets about most women in their forties altogether.

Hate to sound like some crazy, crusty conservative old lady, but these girls make me frightened and double my urge to hide the girl-child away until she's 24.

Check this out:
Hailee Steinfeld is 17. This dress is cute and almost perfectly age appropriate, yet somehow she manages to look way older (Keira Knightley, just for reference's sake is 29), maybe because of the super high heels she's wearing, or her smug experssion:


Or so: this is Kiernan Shipka, who has been vocal about her interest in fashion. The dress is lovely, and completely age appropriate. The shoes are nicely matched, but again, why would a 14 year old wear such a grown up shoe???

Finally, Chloe Moretz, age 17. This kid wants IT so bad, she reeks of want.  I honestly have a hard time looking at her.

The Ultimate: Black Trousers


There really is almost nothing (correction, nothing!) in my closet that lived as long, saw as much action, and still gets trotted out despite its age - as my dress black trousers. No, they are no longer in good shape, the material has acquired a bit of an over-used sheen. No, the cut is not longer as fashionable as it was when I purchased them for my first big time conference talk back in grad school a decade and eons ago. Yes, they need to be replaced.  But they still fit and in a pinch they do.

My loving tribute to my black slacks (Theory, 2003 vintage) aside, it is clear that despite changing fashions some things remain classic. And those things are worth splurging for. If you calculate cost (say $250) and prorate it per-wear (at least 30 per year, every year), those Theory pants came out to be the cheapest thing I have ever bought, the best bargain.

What should we look for in black pants:

- fit: straight and slim.
  The look of the moment is skinny, but I think that every person needs a pair of dress pants that leave    something for the imagination. A good compromise between what is trendy and what is classic is a slim,  straight cut.

- design: simple
  Again, this is a classic and classy item. Don't muck it up with too many embellishments.

- Material: with a hint of stretch.
  A flowy crepe loks fantastic and says 'class' but if you want these pants do professional heavy lifting, if you   want them to go with you in cabs, trains, and airplanes you want some elstane in the mix. Elastane is your  
  friend.

- length: just around the top of your pump.
  The length of your pants is the most crucial aspect of their fit, after the ass. First you need to make sure
  your ass looks perky and not too flat. Then you deal with length. Since these are dress pants they will be
  worn with some heel. While an ankle length looks cute on some, a classic and classy fit lands so that you
  see the heel but cover the top of the shoe.

Here are some options, in our usual price point scale, although I am beginning it a bit higher this time:
DREAM:
1) Givenchi:
2) The Row (these are like higher end Theory pants by cut and composition):

4) The fantastically named Brunello Cucinelli:




3) D&G - who knew they could do classy?


WISH: 
1)Theory, the indisputable go-to brand for good office wear:


2) Tahari, likewise a favorite with the working ladies:


3) Alice & Olivia - I have a fondness for the wide waist band:


WANT:
1) Banana Republic:

2) Gap:

Memory Days


Living far from home for a long time the list of things you miss unspools like a bobbin let loose. The biggest items in life alternate in it with small and trivial ones in a jumbled mess.  Missing becomes part of your daily routine, like a little ripped cuticle on your finger that throbbs at a low but constant pain level. It is just there.

You miss your parents, your brother, your friends, the beach in Tel Aviv at 6 pm, warmth, the wonder of poppies appearing in the new grass in the spring, cottage cheese. What is unique to Israelis is that you also miss rememberance days - you miss memory itself.  You miss stopping with the sound of the zfira (the alarm that commemorates Holocaust Day and the Day of Remembrance), and just standing there no matter what it is you were doing before. You miss the sombre-Hebrew-only songs on the radio.  I suppose that what you really miss is belonging - being a part of a mass of people.. It is odd, but you do.  I never feel as alone here as on these days, unmoored.


My favorite poet in Hebrew, Dan Pagis, wrote this, the simplest and deadliest of all Holocaust poems:

Written in Pencil in the Sealed Freightcar / Dan Pagis
Here in this carload
I am Eve
With my son Abel
If you see my older boy
Cain son of Adam
Tell him that I...


And this song of Yehuda Poliker's:


Sunday, April 27, 2014

Dress Your Life - Respectable - Nay, Great! - Hoodie


Its cold here in the northeast. Today was drizzly and cold, requiring multiple layers to keep yourself from chilling your core.  I found myself reverting to a disgustingly old, frayed, dirty black hoodie under my coat. It certainly provided the warmth, but it was style-kryptonite, the very essence of anti-style. I will confess to ye all that I am wearing it now as I type. And I solemnly promise I will never ever wear it in public again.

The point is that hoodies - whether with hoods or without - are probably one of the most abused items in your arsenal. Which is precisely why they concern our DRESS YOUR LIFE manifesto.

A day-in day-out staple of your closet it shoudl be stylish, flattering, and a little unusual. You should feel as good in it as in your highest, chicest heels. It should provide not just physical warmth but also the warmth of knowing you look good.

These are also the reasons why you should not feel guilty investing in a great hoodie. Your investment shall be returned in full.

Here is what I require in a hoodie:
- no, it does not have to have a hood, although it is a bonus
- needs to have at least one interesting design detail that would set it apart
- needs to be closeable. As in fastened if desired.

Color? I always go for either black/gray/white in a staple item.

Here's a rundown of current retail offerings, in our usual price-point categorization:

DREAM:

1) the utlimately perfect hoodie, from Helmut Lang (NK, I LOOOVE my black version! which is why it is saved for special occasions...)



WISH:
1) RevolveClothing - fantastic zipper placement:
2) A simple hoddie, refined, from Lululemon:

3) polka dots at Barneys!: 

3) Sleek, at Nordstrom:

4) Stripes at Splendid:

WANT:
1) This, from Anthropologie, comes not just in khaki but in white as well (which is what I would get!):


2) Moto at Nordstrom:


Friday, April 25, 2014

The most expensive and tasteful airport lounge, like, ever?


This is designer's Gilles Mendel's Manhattan living room:


Call me heretical but I find this dull and corporate. I hate the wall-mounted sitting on the left, dislike the occasional chairs on right. Nothing in this space invites, and even the flowers look fake. It is tasteful, and it looks and I'm sure feels expensive (the 'rug' made from dark-gray calfskin) and it leaves me utterly cold. 
Not even the tiniest twinge of envy. 

Changing Faces, Changing Lives


Do you, ladies, remember "Die Another Day"? It's that Bond movie, pre-Daniel Craig, when a North Korean general's son, who is involved in blood diamond trade, goes to Latin America, gets plastic surgery and emerges as a white super villian, portrayed by the son of none other but the Dowager Countess of Grantham. 

Like so:

Well, the reason I thought of it all was a story I skimmed in the Daily Mail (Yes, I skim the Daily Mail. It is hilariously bad.) about South Korean plastic surgery, and how unbelievably good (?) they have gotten. To the point that the before and after shots no longer look anything alike. At all. No, they don't emerge looking like white super villains, but still, the transformations are incredible. 

So is this bad or good plastic surgery? Yes, the after shots show 'pretty' faces, but utterly generic and almost anime like. On the other hand, who born with unconventional features did not want the perfect little nose, or the perfectly high cheekbones??? I certainly do, even now. So should we condemn such radical procedures as something that robs their subjects of their innate individuality or praise the skill involved in making ugly ducklins gorgeous swans? Sorry for that tires story book metaphor, but I truly don't know.. 

Here, see for yourselves:

Plastic surgery in South Korea is now so good that people travelling home afterwards need CERTIFICATES to prove who they are


  • Some hospitals in South Korea are offering 'plastic surgery certificates' to help overseas patients through passport control on their way home
  • These patients are often seen to have bigger eyes and higher noses
  • They often also have slimmer chins than on their passport photos
  • South Korea is now the plastic surgery capital of the world, figures show  


When people go under the knife for plastic surgery they hope to come out of the operation looking a bit different and a lot better.
They usually do not, however, anticipate looking so different that they are unrecognisable.
However, some of South Korea’s plastic surgeons are so talented that they are leaving their patients with an unexpected problem, it has been claimed. 
Plastic surgery in South Korea has become so successful that some overseas patients are struggling to get through passport control on their way home after the operations
Plastic surgery in South Korea has become so successful that some overseas patients are struggling to get through passport control on their way home after the operations

Those who have flown in from abroad to have the operations are, in some cases, so transformed that they are struggling to get through passport control on the way home, Kotaku reports.
According to Korean sites Onboa and Munhwa, some hospitals have resorted to handing out ‘plastic surgery certificates’ to patients to enable them to get home.
These certificates are said to include the patient’s passport number, the name of the hospital they were treated at and the length of their visit to South Korea.

    The theory goes that these certificates can smooth their path through passport control.
    While hospitals have been aware of the problem for a number of years, it is said to be becoming an increasingly common issue.
    In 2009, 23 Chinese women are said to have struggled to return to China from South Korea after undergoing surgery.
    Some hospitals in South Korea are now offering 'plastic surgery certificates' to smooth patients' paths through passport control when they no longer look like their passport photos
    Some hospitals in South Korea are now offering 'plastic surgery certificates' to smooth patients' paths through passport control when they no longer look like their passport photos
    Women who've had plastic surgery in South Korea often end up with larger eyes, higher noses and thinner chins
    Women who've had plastic surgery in South Korea often end up with larger eyes, higher noses and thinner chins

    The women were stopped at passport control because they were noted to have bigger eyes, higher noses and slimmer chins than were shown on their passports, China Daily reported.
    After careful checks had been carried out, the women were allowed into China but they were all advised to renew their passports immediately.
    'After they took off their huge hats and big sunglasses following our request, we saw them looking different, with bandages and stitches here and there,' Shanghai Hongqiao Airport officer Chen Tao told China Daily.
    'We had to compare their uncorrected parts with their photos very carefully,' he added.
    Some women are having to renew their passports after surgery so as to have a new photo included
    Some women are having to renew their passports after surgery so as to have a new photo included
    South Korea is rapidly becoming the home of plastic surgery and people there have the most cosmetic procedures per head of population, according to global figures released last year by the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons. 
    Indeed, one in every 77 people in South Korea now goes under the knife or needle in a bid to improve their looks.
    Shockingly, some 20 per cent of women aged 19 to 49 in Seoul admit to going under the knife and one of the most popular procedures involves reducing excess skin in the upper eyelid to make the eyes appear bigger and more 'Western'.
    It is believed that the rise of the country's music industry is behind the boom, and many patients visit clinics with photos of celebrities, asking surgeons to emulate American noses or eyes.