Fast fashion refers to a shift in the industry to faster production processes at lower costs. It is a term used to describe readily-available and affordable fashion that’s brought from the catwalk to stores supersonically. With the advent of globalization, the supply chains in the fashion industry have become international. By virtue of this, every step of the supply chain- right from cultivation of fibres to production of garments- has shifted to those countries and regions that make it exponentially cheaper. Fast Fashion brands have been lambasted at recurrently for being tainted with human right abuses, discrimination, and forced labour, among many things. Here are some of your favourite brands that are known to be notorious in one way or the other. 

H&M : As of 2020, H&M is the second largest retailer in the world. It is the world’s largest buyer of garments from Bangladesh. It’s safe to say that the brand has been involved in many cases of rampant human rights violations. The average wage in H&M’s supply chain is still far from a living wage in Bangladesh and several other countries. Factory owners from Bangladesh claim that the buyers from the retail giant use aggressive negotiation practices and settle for the lowest prices only. 

Faria Mustafi, who works in one of these factories, testifies to being paid so little that she is forced to borrow money from her neighbours to fill her stomach. 

 Moreover, there are reports on gender based violence in H&M’s supply chain. The report claims that these acts of violence are a direct result of the pressure on these women to meet fast fashion deadlines. H&M lists 235 Indian garment factories among its suppliers, according to the report. A dispute in Bangalore about working conditions and wages led to a female tailor being physically and verbally assaulted. There exist similar cases of violence in factories that work for H&M all over the world. 

In 2018, a racist advertising image was put up in which a Black child was pictured wearing a sweatshirt with the slogan “coolest monkey in the jungle” on the brand’s United Kingdom website. H&M’s failure at creating an environment that lacked cultural awareness and diversity was met with strong backlash from consumers. Artists like the Weeknd severed ties with the brand, and consequently the company’s stock took a nosedive. 

In 2020, the global chain was slapped with a whopping $41 million fine for violating its workers’ privacy in Germany by recording private information about ‘several hundred employees’.

Victoria’s Secret (VS) : There exist deep, systemic notions of misogyny in the very idea of the brand. The thought that women must don over-the-top lingerie to attract the male species does not only objectify women but is also redundant in the 21st century. Back in 2008, the infamous brand was slapped with accusations of putting formaldehyde in the lingerie that it sold worldwide. 

A class action lawsuit was filed which stated that the consumers experienced very uncomfortable symptoms like rashes, hives and permanent scarring from Victoria’s Secret bras.

The New York Times interviewed former VS models and employees and unearthed a pattern of gross objectification and harassment of women. Most of them spoke against Ed Razek, one of the top executives at L brands (parent company of Victoria’ Secret) ,who reportedly made vulgar physical advances at the models. The interviews highlight the brand’s culture of misogyny and its failure to embrace the changing notions of beauty, individuality and feminism over the years.

On top of this, the workers at factories that manufacture the lingerie have time and again complained of underpayment and poor working conditions. The brand was sued for the same earlier this year in a class action lawsuit.

This only highlights how all the stakeholders – the workers, employees, models and even consumers have borne the brunt of the fashion giant’s blunders. 

Fashion Nova : Often described as a social media phenomenon, Fashion Nova is an average 

Gen-Z’s dream-place. The brand counts for over 20 million followers on Instagram and around 2,000 influencers — including Cardi B , Kylie Jenner, Khloé Kardashian and Nicki Minaj — create roughly 6,000 pieces of content about the brand each month.

The fast fashion brand reigns over all of Instagram and is growing rapidly. Apart from incredible marketing and promotional tactics, what actually seals the deal is the inexpensiveness of the clothes. Fashion Nova is selling more clothes than ever because of the cheap rates at which the consumers can buy trending apparel. And the only reason they are able to pull this off is by making scapegoats out of the workers and employees that are paid illegally low wages.

Popular faces, when representing them, increase the brands’ profits and also encourage notoriety in multiple ways. Singer Cardi B’s collaboration with Fashion Nova in 2018 led to the company making $1 million in the first 24 hours of its launch. The fact that she was a regular customer at the brand for years added an air of authencity and it led to consumers increasing profits and sales for a company that underpays its workers. Model Cara Delevingne’s collaboration with Nasty Girl had a similar effect. Nasty Gal’s comfortable and trendy clothes wreak devastating environmental havoc, from the byproducts of factory production seeping into rivers, to microfibres from washing fast fashion clothing polluting oceans. It is imperative that celebrities, stylists and other popular figures recognise the impact they have on the increasing fast fashion culture and actively dissociate themselves from such notorious brands. 

It’s only natural for brands and clothing companies to aim for fame to make it big in the industry. And more often than not, their way to achieve that takes an unfortunate turn. Lack of transparency, contribution to environmental degradation, human rights violations, racial discrimination are some pressing concerns that almost every brand has to tackle in order to be ethical, sustainable and clean. Brands like Boohoo, Zara, Pretty Little Things, Urban Outfitters are no exception. The Fashion Transparency Index, in its 6th edition, reviewed and ranked 250 of the world’s largest fashion brands and retailers according to what information they disclose about their social and environmental policies, practices and impacts, in their operations and supply chain. 

In today’s time, consumers are actually trying to decide their purchases based on the ethical and social values of a brand, and such reports along with rising awareness among celebrities that promote brands are what can potentially lead to a safer, cleaner and less notorious industry.

Formal fashion has long been a symbol of power and discipline. Power suits, that came embellished with broad shoulders and bold shoulder pads, became a game changer for women’s formals in the 1980s. They worked as a symbol for women stepping up and into the man’s world with just as much authority, like an intersection between conservative patriarchy and rising feminism. This period may be considered as the pinnacle of the evolution process of formal fashion in the 20th century. Many would assume, and rightly so, that the Covid pandemic caused a paradigm shift in consumer choices when it comes to formal fashion. However, the notion of conventional formal wear has been on a downward slippery slope for sometime now. 

A very important facet of fashion is that it is never the same. Change, in fashion, is the only constant. Trends, sure, are ephemeral but an entire category of fashion can also reach a point of extinction. So, has formal fashion stopped evolving only to become redundant in the 21st century?

The dichotomy –

Formal wear imposes a curtain of uniformity on its wearers. Uniforms, for instance, curtail one’s ability to dress differently than others. There exists an inherent dichotomy between fashion and uniforms. Fashion is about creativity, while uniform is about conformity. However, both are intricately related. Designers have taken inspiration from school uniforms (pleated skirts, striped blazers) and work uniforms – Chanel’s 2015 collection was based on the uniform of Parisian waiters, even including a clutch bag in the shape of plates.  Military uniforms have also continually had a strong influence on fashion, with designers such as Ralph Lauren applying braid, gold buttons and epaulettes to female fashion. 

On the other hand, a greater dichotomy is when we observe how differently the mass population deals with fashion and uniform, in comparison to the big fashion houses mentioned above. Many people took a step forward and brought in constructive changes to eliminate the hazards of formal fashion. 

Examples –

The 1990s saw the rise of Casual Friday movements in USA. On Fridays, rather than wearing standard business attire, employees at many companies were allowed to dress casually. An idea of self-expression through individuality in fashion came into existence. Quite naturally, the rest of the world caught up with these emerging alternatives to formal fashion, thanks to the trickle down effect.

Nicola Thorp, a temp worker from London, had been sent home from her receptionist job for refusing to wear heels. She started a petition for a parliamentary hearing titled “Make it illegal for a company to require women to wear high heels at work.” This ultimately led to the agency changing its policy by now allowing women to wear flats – something men had been doing since the beginning. Owing to the conversations and awareness about gender fluidity and equality, many of the conservative aspects of formal fashion now seemed to be discarded. 

Today’s hoodie wearing billionaires, and the rise of Silicon Valley point to the idea that success didn’t need to come buttoned up in a suit and tie. Suits – which once symbolised professionalism – became associated with more traditional companies, as tech workers who mastered innovation redefined what a CEO should look like. Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive of Facebook, is famous for his grey t-shirts and hoodies. He says the shirt is his typical daily uniform because it helps him limit the number of small decisions he has to make in the morning. The grey t-shirts  have become as aspirational an outfit as a Savile Row suit once was. 

“There has been a dramatic change very recently,” said Susan Scafidi, a law professor at Fordham University and founder of the Fashion Law Institute. 

“Dress is now open to the interpretation of the individual, rather than an institution,” Professor Scafidi said. 

An Elle Woods would probably not be mocked for her fashion choices as a law student in the year 2022. Her soft defiance to the traditional norms of well – dressed lawyers fits well with the ongoing conversation on fate of formal fashion. 

Current situation –

Of course, with the pandemic, zoom-casual has blurred the lines between work and home. Formal fashion, which was already becoming less popular, started getting replaced with casual wear, athleisure and the like. Many companies that sold athelisure and casuals online thrived even during the pandemic.

So, what does this mean for the businesses that produce and manufacture formal-wear? 

The new work-from-home reality has rapidly recalibrated the fashion code for professional wear, which is presenting challenges for retailers that sell formal clothing.The circumstances surrounding 2020 accelerated the comfort movement that was already underway within the U.S. fashion apparel and footwear markets. While total apparel sales declined by 19% in 2020, comfy cozy categories such as sweatpants (+17%), sleepwear (+6%), and sports bras (+10%) grew during a challenging period for the industry

In the UK, clothing sales plummeted 25% in 2020, the largest annual drop since record-keeping began 23 years ago.In total, sales of suits in the UK have fallen by 2.3 million over five years, according to the market research firm Kantar Group. The picture was similar in the US, where fashion companies saw a 90% decline in profit in 2020. In India, even before the pandemic, apparel retailers had witnessed a consumer trend towards ‘casual formal wear’ such as chinos and cotton shirts. However, with the pandemic, as people worked from home, demand for formal clothing was wiped out entirely. 

The statistics show that even though the business-fashion sector took a hit during the pandemic, the ones selling formal wear suffered even more. With introduction of hybrid working conditions and increasing affinity to casual wear, brands are now restructuring their models of business. Once a destination for suits and formal wear, Marks & Spencer is arguably betting on casual fashion and no longer selling suiting in most of its stores. However, there are some companies that remain in the race and are slowly witnessing increasing sales. “Most recently we are seeing dresses back to the same level in the mix of our business as it was two years ago,” Rachel Osborne, from Upmarket retailer Ted Baker, told Reuters. “We are seeing people coming in for suits, the wedding season is hopefully starting.”

In a challenging situation like this, fashion companies and businesses must keep up with the changing consumer behaviours and should also be tailoring their strategies to fit their individual priorities, market exposure and capabilities.  

Formal Fashion, irrespective of how redundant and out of fashion as it might be, is still in demand by those employed in traditional workplaces and professions. Consumers who don western formals across the world for events, weddings and the like, are also contributing to increasing its sales in the post pandemic era. Only the forthcoming consumer behaviours and trends can decide the fate of what once was the most powerful type of clothing – Formal Fashion. 

]]> https://fashionlawjournal.com/journey-of-formal-fashion/feed/ 0 https://fashionlawjournal.com/fake-famous-influencers-and-how-to-identify-them/ https://fashionlawjournal.com/fake-famous-influencers-and-how-to-identify-them/#respond Tue, 07 Sep 2021 15:55:33 +0000 https://fashionlawjournal.com/?p=2262 Picture this: You are scrolling through Instagram and stumble upon a rather humdrum post of an XYZ brand you’ve never heard of. The determined scroller in you doesn’t wait up to read what the post is about, and quite organically moves on to the next post ready for you by the algorithm. Now picture a slightly different scenario. The difference is that this time it’s your favorite internet personality promoting this very brand. Call it FOMO or your inquisitiveness, you’d want to know what the hype is about. Chances are, you might visit the brand’s website. In the best case scenario, the brand’s products are purchased by you in the next five minutes. A study by Olapic found that 31% of the respondents have purchased a product or a service in such cases. This internet personality, whom you trust enough to make or break your purchasing decisions, is an Influencer.

How much Fame to be Famous?

From Tiffany and Co. to your local businesses, every brand with a social media presence is scrambling to work with Influencers to reinforce brand trust and increase targeted reach, resulting in a multi-billion dollar influencer marketing industry.

There are several parameters that help determine the ‘fame fortune’ of an Influencer but what tops the list is the number of followers they have. More often than not, this factor is proportionate to their fame. Influencers with a colossal fan following are not only sought out by brands but also make a fortune out of such arrangements. Access to a large audience who rely on your credibility opens gates for brand collaborations and opportunities to rake in a lot of money. This is probably why fake Influencers are sweeping across social media giants and manufacturing Influencer Frauds.

According to a study by a cyber security company Cheq and the University of Baltimore, it was predicted that Influencer frauds cost advertisers 1.3 billion in 2019, projected to grow to 1.5 billion in 2020. With the pandemic and rapid increase in Influencer marketing from home, one can only imagine the current risks that brands might be facing.

When brands collaborate with influencers, the latter become the face of the brand in the eyes of the average consumer. Engaging with a fake Influencer is risking the brand image, consumer trust, campaign effectiveness – thus incontrovertibly leading to financial losses. And that’s why it is imperative that a brand perform an authenticity check before sealing the deal with any influencer.

How Fake to be Famous?

Fake Influencers commoditize fame, buy fake followers and engagement while posing as conventional Influencers. A simple Google search “how to buy fake followers on Instagram” will provide you with dozens of services that enable you to buy these human forgeries. The costs depend on how many and how promptly you want them.

Image source: Google Images

A huge chunk of these fake accounts are automated accounts known as bots. Typically, these are the spam accounts that post a plethora of generic comments on Influncers’ posts to increase traffic and engagement.

Another way they increase engagement is by becoming a part of comment pods. It’s a barter exchange of comments, a sort of a group where each member comments on the other’s posts, and the favor is then returned.

An experiment by Mediakix breaks down this process and demonstrates how easy it is to buy fame while posing as influencers and even go as far as securing brand deals.

How to Identify the Fake Famous?

Fake accounts and bots are welcomed with warmth by fake Influencers, but they also plague the accounts of those who didn’t ask for it.

In 2014 came the Instagram Rapture. In a quest to put an end to the fakery that was looming over the web, Instagram deleted millions of accounts as a result of which celebrities like Taylor Swift lost millions of followers in just a few days. Apparently, Instagram didn’t delete enough millions. Turns out that these bots are still very much present, and have become smarter. Companies that produce bots earn profits out of these fake accounts, and keep developing them to evade the algorithm and stick around.

And so we face the real question –

“How to identify what’s fake? How can we spot fake influencers?”

Since it is all about the number game, a study of these metrics will give away relatively credible information about fake influencers and their path to fame.

• Engagement to Follower ratio

An Instagram influencer who has bought fake followers is likely to have barely any likes on their posts. It is possible to buy 50k followers over a span of 10 days and still get as little as 50 likes on posts. This means that their engagement rates are  significantly lower than what they should have been, if their followers were all genuine. If you come across such a pattern on any Influencer’s account, it is best to not partner with them.

• Look for bot comments

These auto-generated comments are now ubiquitous on Instagram ranging from being absolutely generic to intrusively abusive. Whether your post is about your recent trip to Mexico or about your neighbor’s cat who’s dying, bot replies like “nice pic”, “get free cash prize on buying 20 bitcoins” flood the comments section of these accounts. High-profile grammers like Kylie Jenner, Justin Beiber also fall prey to these bots. But what makes your influencer different is when you notice a continuous series of such comments on each of their posts. A quick glance through 20 of their recent posts should do the job. If the primary type of comments on their posts are like the ones mentioned above, it is possible that they have signed up for this bot parade.

Image Source: Einstein Marketer

• Look through their ‘followers’ list

This might sound a bit cumbersome, but once you know what you’re trying to uncover, the job gets easier. Fake influencers buy fake followers to appear more popular than they actually are. That’s why their followers are a direct source that help discover whether the Influencer is genuine or administering fakery. The most obvious signs of a fake follower account are having a blank display picture, following thousands of accounts but not having a single follower, 0 posts, a cryptic username. When most of the followers of your influencer embody these features, it is quite possible that they have been bought.

• Tagged photos

Genuine Influencers with a thriving community are tagged in posts by their followers, and even fan pages. Fake influencers generally do not exist in the same capacity in the real world. If your influencer isn’t tagged in other people’s/ followers’ posts, chances are that they have faked their entire web existence and bought their fame.

• The authenticity of their content

In addition to inauthentic practices like buying fake followers, if their content itself seems to be stolen and full of stock photos, then your influencer isn’t really being honest while influencing. Checking the veracity of what they post is another way to identify their genuineness.

• Instagram Analytics offered by platforms

Platforms like Hypeauditor analyze the quality of influencers’ audiences, engagement rate, and comment authenticity. Brands take help from such platforms to do detailed statistical research on influencers to put a value estimate on them and negotiate better. Type any account name in their search bar, and at a certain cost, one can access the account’s insights.

Image source: Hype Auditor

Every social media aficionado is looking for growth and employs different methods to stay at the top of their game. Many get consumed in vanity metrics and resort to the ‘fake it till you make it’ mentality. Because fame, engagement, and everything in between can be traded online, brands are attempting to come up with the right metrics to base an Influencer’s value on. With every attempt of social media giants to eradicate these dishonest practices, there comes a more evolved and evasive bot system that doesn’t get caught and spreads exponentially. Fake influencers and corresponding frauds endanger every stakeholder of the online marketing platform. There is a sincere need for brands, consumers, and followers to be aware of these practices to not only steer away from them but to also report these accounts and take necessary actions to protect themselves.