In menswear, there is a glaring paradox within “fashion journalism.” I’m not a trained writer, yet I find myself constantly frustrated at the lack of interesting, or noteworthy coverage I see in the fashion space. If you haven’t figured it out by now, the vast majority of articles you see published on GQ, The New York Times, and other fashion media conglomerates are sponsored. At the very least, they are articles that avoid critical thinking on what they cover, instead encouraging insatiable consumption– chasing the dragon. Why is this you may ask? For the simple reason that these publications do not want to disrupt any future potential business and sponsorship deals with brands. I find this lack of transparency from larger fashion media to be extremely unethical, but what can I do as the consumer? These “walking on eggshell” vibes exuded from B.F.M. (Big Fashion Media) are exactly why we have ended up with such a consumerist monoculture in the world of fashion.
Oh, a snappy article about the jacket style Adrien Brody wore on British GQ! Let me talk about why firefighter jackets are trendy for spring. I enjoy Jacob Gallagher’s work, but I feel there’s a lack of transparency in this article. There’s no recognition of how stylists work, with some even getting free garments from brands to dress on their celebrity clients. Adrien Brody obviously didn’t dress himself, the shoot was styled by Kit Swann. Furthermore, how many average readers of the New York Times know what WGSN or trend forecasting is? I find it borderline unethical to label something like the firefighter jacket as a trend, as that would suggest it has accrued organic popularity. These brands and stylists subscribe to companies, like WGSN, which in turn tell an entire cornucopia of brands what to make one or two seasons in advance. Much of the time, the inspiration then trickles down to smaller labels if they don’t hold a subscription. There is no organic “trend” to be found in this article, this is the sort of manufactured concoction that led to a bunch of designers all ending up with some iteration of western wear for FW24. There is no artistic epiphany that somehow strikes the multiverse of fashion at once. You rarely see an opinion piece where the writer comes out punching at a trend or style they don’t like–perhaps that is why Highsnobiety recently appointed Noah Johnson their Editor in Chief, whose gutsy anti-chore coat article shook up the scene last fall.
Few realize when the media is free, your subconscious is the thing paying for it. If multiple established menswear brands randomly debut their new firefighter jackets this season, it feels all too convenient that an article comes out, and highlights this fresh crop of inventory, that potentially wouldn’t be branded as “cool” otherwise. This is why I describe it as a manufactured concoction. One needs to look inwards and ask what decides the trend: multiple brands releasing the same type of jacket, or people who naturally gravitate towards that one style at a particular moment in time? Look, I am not saying I reject this entirely. This has been the way the fashion machine churns for decades. It is fun to try and stay up to date with trends, thrift something that feels chic, but where I struggle is with the severe lack of regulation or explanation to the thousands of consumers who do not understand the inner workings of these cycles. In my eyes, that is how we further exacerbate the burden of overconsumption so heavily aligned with fashion.
As someone who enjoys staying up to date on all things fashion, this troubles me because it greatly limits the truly untainted media options. Publications such as Blackbird Spyplane or StyleZeitgeist, exist in this narrow chasm of independent, non-sponsored fashion media, yet for the majority of enthusiasts they are far away from the eyes of the algorithm. These are writers who typically focus in on the nitty-gritty independent aspects of fashion that often get overshadowed by the LVMH/Kering behemoth B.F.M. seems to adore. My words aren’t meant to suggest boycotting larger media groups, I still read plenty of articles from them. If anything, this is meant to highlight an ethical gripe I wish more consumers were also aware of.
Short form content has led to even worse coverage in this menswear space, where it seems like the sole purpose of virtually any creator is to share items they have been buying lately. What the audience misses in these videos is the sort of under the table sponsoring these creators are doing to purchase so much. Whether it is a little discount in-store as a thanks for featuring them, or being sent a product for free without any real sponsorship deal, these are incentives your audience is not aware of.
Furthermore, there are even a handful of journalists/influencers who have managed to land personal order wholesale accounts (In a recent interview, the global editorial director of i-D magazine, Steff Yotka, shared this bit of insider information). This means that those people get access to purchasing from brands for typically between 50% and 70% off what the consumer pays. Obviously, this is something any fashion enthusiast would love access to, and the issue isn’t that it exists, but more so that the outside consumer does not understand that this is how the consumption cycle works for those in the know. It was only once I started working in fashion that I saw how this under the table quid pro quo stuff works.
This also happens to be why there is such a collective bartering system in menswear. In a way this philosophy I am describing is like a more elevated trade between two sneakerheads. Instead of trading four pairs of Jordans for a pair of Yeezys, we are talking about an influencer trading their social capital (i.e. followers/potential customers) for a wholesale priced, or even free product. Similarly, many designers will offer to trade their samples or product for things they want to buy from other people in these social circles; maybe this explains all of those random samples you see appear on some archive resale page. Why spend $2000 on a hoodie, when you could trade a sample that cost you $20 to make but has enough cultural capital that someone else would buy it for $2000?
Similar to my firefighter jacket dilemma, another ugly byproduct of this function is the everlasting journey for newness. As the reader we get few critical thinking articles, and instead are berated with headlines about the newest “hype” brand. Recently, that has been the Japanese menswear label, A.Presse. A quick Google search will show you the plethora of articles written about the brand, not to mention the references to it on podcasts and other social media. Of course this is a calculated overlap with the fact that the brand is now being carried by global stockists such as Mr. Porter, Union LA, Haven, and Ven.Space. We have handled a couple things that have come through the Overdye HQ (a leather jacket, a chambray shirt, and the fabled vintage half zip) and without a doubt the clothes are fantastic, but do they reinvent the wheel? No, they do not; therein lies the problem.
There are plenty of other brands that have been doing this vintage reproduction with damage processing for a while, yet they all seem overlooked by these writers and creators. Of course you may assume I am referring to Visvim, which is a valid reference point, but A.Presse is notably cheaper than them in terms of cost. Instead, I am thinking of brands like Old Joe, Chimala, and Fullcount, who have been around just as long as A.Presse if not longer with equal or better quality.
Why is it that fashion media hones in on this one brand rather than reporting on the bigger wave? Part of me wants to say once again it is because of this quid pro quo nature. Certain stores get repeatedly mentioned in association with this brand rather than others who stock it. Do I think this means they are cutting discounts to get those creators not only dripped out, but to report on it and generate hype? Maybe, but I am not trying to write an article based on guesswork. The larger thing I believe is that it points to a lack of exploration outside of these inner circles of the fashion scene. Is anyone getting their hands dirty anymore and actually looking for brands on their own that are far off the beaten path and not yet in your city, or are you just listening to the three buyers or owners at the stores you’re cool with and calling it a day?
There is this common misconception that hypebeast consumerism died with the 2016 era of streetwear, or that it just exists today through brands like Balenciaga and Chrome Hearts. I disagree. This current A.Presse hype feels adjacent to how things felt in 2016, just more expensive. Menswear enthusiasts have managed to convince themselves that they are not falling for the hype when they pay for something like A.Presse because it isn’t “streetwear,” it’s well made, and a smaller clientele wears it. Meanwhile, if you’re in Japan on any Saturday, the typical Japanese release day, you will see people queuing at all your favorite menswear brands. This includes brands like A.Presse or Visvim as if it is a Supreme drop; yes, the clothes actually sell out. There is even an ecosystem of proxies and resellers for all of these “upscale” brands, just like for Supreme back in 2016. The difference is that western stockists have tweaked their presentation of these brands to present it in a different way than in Japan, making it feel more underground and niche. It shouldn’t matter how much or how little hype surrounds the clothes, the quality and fit should be the selling point. I feel as though this alternate identity that western stockists invent is exactly what leads to elitism within fashion. When the average consumer gets caught up in this manufactured vibe, those elitist, gatekeeping tendencies come out. This is all too ironic when you get to the source of these clothes and see that people there treat releases no different than something like Supreme.
Finally, an entirely extra, unspoken element of these B.F.M. websites are affiliate links. Much like your favorite YouTuber wanting you to use Honey or Carrot, these websites all get a cut of the purchases made from links on their website to products they reference. The whole thing irks me. For GQ, it’s a tiny, missable, italicized text at the top of shopping guides, and I doubt the majority of writers on Substack/Patreon even self-report their links. This just adds to the further unspoken complexity and ethical dilemmas of where menswear reporting currently is.
This is just a big rant. There is not meant to be any sort of conclusion or better understanding about how we can approach these grey areas. I am merely encouraging some reflection and transparency. Does that mean we should cancel all these people/outlets, and storm the streets of the Lower East Side demanding accountability? No. But for some reason these not so glamorous facts are gatekept and well hidden from the general public. The average content consumer watches the reel or grazes the article and scrolls onward, they rarely have the time or attention span to think further about how these new “things” got to the person making the content. It is equally important for me to disclose that despite attempting to bring light to this set of circumstances, it doesn’t mean that I am refusing to take part in it. I think it is widely accepted in the professional fashion space that these are just parts of the job that are omnipresent. They are not bugs, but instead unspoken features of the fashion game. As always with Overdye, all we want to do is shed light on the real underlying currents of fashion and how the sausage gets made.