Even With a 100% Discount These Clothes Aren’t Free
Your fashion news digest is here.
This is the Wednesday NEWSletter (ON A SATURDAY!) where I break down a few fashion news stories you should know about this week and why. The fashion industry has a lot of news and not all of it makes it to the masses with the assumption that it’s too “insidery.” Fashion often tells one side of a larger story, and usually, it impacts us all.
PrettyLittleThing gives 100% discount on Black Friday.
I don’t need to regale you with thoughts on how Black Friday is a symptom of our major consumption issues. I’m a human, and I recognize that a sale can be more enticing than an ethical stance sometimes. When it comes to clothing though, it seems like the day went from an opportunity to offer a discount to a way to offload clothing that has already been overproduced.
Pretty Little Thing, a fast fashion brand owned by BooHoo, went so far as to offer a 100% discount. Clothing is not free to make, and there should be no world in which a company can give away their product and still make millions in profits – but of course, PLT does. The brand has already been under fire for using factories that pay workers less than $6 an hour. It’s not a leap to assume that these poor labor practices allow them to give away dresses once a year. What’s more is that it speaks to just how much inventory they have and the value it’s given. How easy is it for a customer to look at something as disposable when the brand that made it didn’t even give it value?
Peloton sued Lululemon over bras and leggings dispute.
A new lycra filled saga is emerging after Peloton sued Lululemon this week. The workout brand, known for its massive following of at-home bikers, recently released its own line of apparel, and phased out the sales of other brands it once carried. After the release, Lululemon threatened legal action against Peloton for allegedly infringing on patents for the strappy bra, high neck bra, cadent peak bra, cadent laser dot bra and cadent laser dot leggings. According to CNBC, Peloton took action to protect the new line claiming that Lululemon’s pieces were too obvious. “On top of the numerous clear and obvious differences in design, Peloton and Lululemon’s brands and logos are also distinctive and well-recognized, making confusion between products a virtual impossibility,” a spokesperson said.
On the one hand, it seems odd that one company can claim rights on something as simple as a high neck sports bra. If you search that very style, several other brands will come up in the results. On the other hand, why does every brand need their own merchandise? Is it necessary to create more clothing that is all very similar just to get a cut of the profits?