Supreme F/W 2009

[fogg]

Probably because they have a tough time even selling the tees unless they throw a box logo on it (and even then the Bad Brains and Miles Davis tees sat), so why would they take a risk at getting stuck with something even more expensive like a jacket?

When the webstore can't even sell out of their regular jackets before they put them on sale I can't see why they'd release one that limits its audience even further by having a screenprint graphic on it somewhere.

[readytoignite]

^^^this pretty much proves how much the perception of gross sales in streetwear is driven by how quickly something sells out, which is sad. what's even worse is the attitude that supreme's creative endeavors are solely informed/driven by how much of it they can sell. thank god the brand is not as cynical as its purported fans.

also dw the bad brains was a coaches jacket not a harrington

[fogg]

I'm talking more from their margin and revenue standpoint. The product selling out means it doesn't have to be sold at a lower pricepoint later at closeout pricing which reduces margins. For a brand of Supreme's size those margins are going to be pretty important.

Speaking from the point of view of distribution in the fashion/streetwear industry excess inventory is death because you close it out for less money or you hang on to it which means holding costs and you eventually sell it for less later (like Supreme does at their warehouse sales) which is more of a loss. So, yes, from that point of view something selling out is important. Not how fast, but the fact that it sells out at all.

Bottom-line, for a brand of Supreme's size its very unlikely that they could sell what they need to at full pop to meet production minimums and make that jacket profitable, which is why they don't do it. It's a niche piece that would lose money.

I might be cynical, but its because I work in the same industry. Like it or not, what garments produced are informed by what will sell. They're a business and cool doesn't pay the bills.

Edit: I'd also add that I'm a fan of the brand and not a "purported" fan. I like the brand's design and direction and appreciate the thought that goes into it, which is why I continue to support it even though it means paying through the nose because I'm not in the US. I'm not a fan because things sell out, or because the brand is hyped. It's certainly not hyped where I am, haha.

At the same time I realize there are limitations on what they can can actually do because there's a balance between doing an interesting piece and actually making money on it. I can't really see anything that interesting coming out of a John Coltrane jacket and I definitely can't see it selling, which is probably their point of view on the matter was well.

[readytoignite]

^^ i don't disagree with most of what you said (elementary small business economics), however i think you are making certain (false) assumptions on why they are doing things:

They're a business and cool doesn't pay the bills.

except when it does. supreme's success has always been about a) being cool and making better stuff and further ahead than the next brand.

if what you're saying was true, there would be no mclaren vans (a complete financial dog whose contract specified could not be put on sale) and they would do multiple box tees a season.

I can't really see anything that interesting coming out of a John Coltrane jacket and I definitely can't see it selling, which is probably their point of view on the matter was well.

well nothing is "interesting" about the t-shirts but they do have their appeal, no? if your argument is that they can only sell through anything if it's on a t-shirt or has a box logo on it then what's their motivation for even bothering with the other stuff?

[puccahead]

everyone, i'm looking for a 2006 tee Supreme x neighborhood 1st collaboration, one with skull and swords with box logo and " Rebel without a pause" on the back

will drop up to $120 shipped to toronto Canada depending on condition

size medium and BLACK one

thanks

[mlproject]

wish i had one of those on ice

[fogg]

I'm not saying they can't make things that might not be profitable but help the image of the brand, but there's a limit of how much. Yes, being cool or forward thinking is part of the brand but at the end of the day they still need to pay their suppliers, expenses, employees and rent and you need products with good margins to do that.

It's silly to argue over one hypothetical jacket for this drop anyways. My point, in general, is that Supreme is like any other brand. They can afford to do a few "image" pieces that might lose money but help advance the image of the brand, but they have to pick their spots because they can't afford to lose money on many pieces. I think we'd both agree with that. With the economy how it is right now that's even more important. Tees are a low risk because they are cheap to source, can be run in pretty much any quantity at low cost for screening (obviously a bit more for a very small batch) and produced locally. Anything cut & sew would be outsourced which means much higher costs, duties, taxes, freight as well as longer timelines. They'd also have to be produced in some minimum quantity, likely 300 at the least. All of that means eating a huge cost if things don't sell. I love this season's tracker jacket (I bought one), but there's no way that thing sells out and probably a good deal of them end up on sale. You can only eat that kind of loss so many times and outwear is likely the most expensive thing to produce.

In this case it's my personal opinion that there is nothing they could do with a John Coltrane license that would be interesting besides tees, which are a no brainer because they're cheap. Yes, they could do it, but there's no point if it doesn't either make some money or help their image somehow. A John Coltrane jacket does nothing for Supreme's image (imo) - either do the tees, really, but I guess James likes jazz so he can do what he likes with his brand and tees aren't a big expense if they end up having to eat most of it. The only other thing I could have seen them doing is reissue CDs or LPs like they did with Miles Davis.

[ms. sally]

According to their site, Supreme has 7 Retail Locations and 10 Wholesale Accounts globally. Not sure what # you had in mind for minimums, but i'd say 17 outlets for product plus a web store could probably create a demand to meet any product minimum.

Even on an item that hits 50% discount, Supreme isnt operating at a loss, as they are the maker and their cost is more than likely 50% of the deep sale price.

Just saying.

[fogg]

everyone, i'm looking for a 2006 tee Supreme x neighborhood 1st collaboration, one with skull and swords with box logo and " Rebel without a pause" on the back

will drop up to $120 shipped to toronto Canada depending on condition

size medium and BLACK one

thanks

You're Canadian so I'll help you out, bro: http://strictlysupreme.com/showthread.php?t=7125

You need to register on that forum to be able to open that link, though.

He's selling that exact shirt, DS in medium with a starting ask of $100

[fogg]

According to their site, Supreme has 7 Retail Locations and 10 Wholesale Accounts globally. Not sure what # you had in mind for minimums, but i'd say 17 outlets for product plus a web store could probably create a demand to meet any product minimum.

Even on an item that hits 50% discount, Supreme isnt operating at a loss, as they are the maker and their cost is more than likely 50% of the deep sale price.

Just saying.

FOB cost isn't the only cost of producing an item. I'm sure those sale prices are above the raw item cost, though. But that doesn't take into account paying the design staff, freight to get the product to stores, duty, tax or other costs. For example, duty alone for goods from China into the US can range anywhere from 16% to over 30% depending on fabric content.

Wholesale accounts don't get the whole line, and don't get much of what they do get, but I get your point.

The stores don't create the demand, though, they just are the medium for selling it. No matter if they have 17 outlets or 1,700 if its not an interesting piece it still sits. The number of stores might mean that they need to produce enough to furnish product to them, but it doesn't mean that the product would sell. My point about the minimums was more that, if the minimum is 300 you would want to be pretty sure you can sell close to 300 if you want to keep the brand healthy, not so much that you'd need somewhere to put 300 pieces.

[ms. sally]

. But that doesn't take into account paying the design staff, freight to get the product to stores, duty, tax or other costs.

Even with all the poor decisions they made over the years, the staff/office/design team is paid handsomely.

Wholesale accounts don't get the whole line, and don't get much of what they do get, but I get your point.

They may not pick it up, but the entire line is made available to them.

The stores don't create the demand, though, they just are the medium for selling it. No matter if they have 17 outlets or 1,700 if its not an interesting piece it still sits. The number of stores might mean that they need to produce enough to furnish product to them, but it doesn't mean that the product would sell. My point about the minimums was more that, if the minimum is 300 you would want to be pretty sure you can sell close to 300 if you want to keep the brand healthy, not so much that you'd need somewhere to put 300 pieces.

Minimums on a jacket are not that high. The factories Supreme is using, i'm sure realize they are dealing with smaller company that has lower production runs. Take the dumbest jacket you can think of and maybe 30 are produced, if cost is traditionally 1/3 of retail, than sell 10 and you have broken even for that item.

Supreme can sell 10 dumb things.

I

[dunkin deeznuts]

fogg i understand you are in the industry so you may be more educated in the subject than I, but realize that they dont need to sell out to make a profit. I'm sure their break even point (for the cost of the actual clothing, not the other business related expenses) for most of their articles of clothing is probably about half of the product, meaning if they sell half of the timberline jackets at retail, they are breaking even on that piece.

They probably make even more one tees selling at retail (probably close to 4xs cost I would guess and 2xs to their whole sale accnts)

I understand all the other costs involved (inventory, staff) but at the end of the day, with its retail outlets and wholesale accounts, I dont think Supreme loses money on very many of its products and its winners definitely more than make up for its losers.

[fogg]

Minimums on a jacket are not that high. The factories Supreme is using, i'm sure realize they are dealing with smaller company that has lower production runs. Take the dumbest jacket you can think of and maybe 30 are produced, if cost is traditionally 1/3 of retail, than sell 10 and you have broken even for that item.

Supreme can sell 10 dumb things.

I

Generally, from my experience factories could care less about who they're dealing with and are more concerned with the fact that they make money, which requires certain minimum runs. I'd be very surprised if the minimum is as low as 30 but you seem to be speaking from a point of some expertise on this, so I'll defer to your point here.

[fogg]

fogg i understand you are in the industry so you may be more educated in the subject than I, but realize that they dont need to sell out to make a profit. I'm sure their break even point (for the cost of the actual clothing, not the other business related expenses) for most of their articles of clothing is probably about half of the product, meaning if they sell half of the timberline jackets at retail, they are breaking even on that piece.

They probably make even more one tees selling at retail (probably close to 4xs cost I would guess and 2xs to their whole sale accnts)

I understand all the other costs involved (inventory, staff) but at the end of the day, with its retail outlets and wholesale accounts, I dont think Supreme loses money on very many of its products and its winners definitely more than make up for its losers.

I fully agree with you. They're definitely doing alright, but that's due to good design choices and management (in my opinion). Part of that is not producing a piece just because you can, but doing it instead because it's a good piece. Even the losers Supreme makes are generally well thought out products. It's rare for one of their products to be a complete miss (again, in my opinion).

[dunkin deeznuts]

I'm sure they can find someone to make 30 jackets for them (especially someone they work with) but generally you can expect to pay more per peice for lower minimums

[fogg]

You might be able to find someone to, but most factories have hard minimums they won't go below regardless of who you are because the fixed cost of doing the run is too high to make it worthwhile.

If it's a factory that they work with a lot, maybe they'd make an exception in the interest of the relationship, but I can't see many factories being consistently willing to do runs that low, because either the factory would not be making much off it (if they did it at a reasonable cost to help the brand) or the brand would have to charge a lot for the product (because the factory charged the brand for all the costs of a small run).

Maybe for things that are already really expensive like the varsities, though. You can also do things like spread a minimum over multiple colorways, but then you also usually would have a minimum material amount to buy from a supplier so unless you were using the same materials in other pieces you'd get into trouble that way.

[JohnnyRed]

This is actually pretty interesting talk. I have no idea about the industry so this is all good insight to me.

Do you have any idea how many shirts they make? I have no concept of how many shirts are actually out there. Like box tees vs a design, any idea how many would be out in the world?

[readytoignite]

In this case it's my personal opinion that there is nothing they could do with a John Coltrane license that would be interesting besides tees, which are a no brainer because they're cheap. Yes, they could do it, but there's no point if it doesn't either make some money or help their image somehow. A John Coltrane jacket does nothing for Supreme's image (imo) - either do the tees, really, but I guess James likes jazz so he can do what he likes with his brand and tees aren't a big expense if they end up having to eat most of it. The only other thing I could have seen them doing is reissue CDs or LPs like they did with Miles Davis.

i guess this pretty much sums up my argument - there's nothing inherently more interesting about the same trane design on a t-shirt vs fleece vs jacket vs car fresheners (i'd think of a great design idea, but i'm not paid handsomely to do so). so why not do something else besides a t-shirt? it's not really anymore complicated than that. the miles CDs proves my point, no way they made any appreciable money on those - they were a vanity project all the way.

Part of that is not producing a piece just because you can, but doing it instead because it's a good piece. Even the losers Supreme makes are generally well thought out products. It's rare for one of their products to be a complete miss (again, in my opinion).

another example that discredits your argument that their decisions are based on the short-term cash revenue - they produced an entire run of NY/LA monogram hoodies then pulled the plug on its US release. (presumably because they realized how awful they were and how damaging they'd be to their reputation). boxes and boxes unsold at the warehouse sale and they probably burned the rest. yes they need to make money but sometimes you need to take the long-term view

final point - hopefully they'll continue to work with the coltrane foundation in the future, however i can't think of a single designer who could say "i put someone else's designs and photography on a stock t-shirt" and pat themselves on the back. maybe they weren't given the chance to do otherwise but from my perspective it's still a missed opportunity in one way or another

[fogg]

i guess this pretty much sums up my argument - there's nothing inherently more interesting about the same trane design on a t-shirt vs fleece vs jacket vs car fresheners (i'd think of a great design idea, but i'm not paid handsomely to do so). so why not do something else besides a t-shirt? it's not really anymore complicated than that. the miles CDs proves my point, no way they made any appreciable money on those - they were a vanity project all the way.

I'm not sure how the CDs prove your point. If anything, they prove mine. About the only thing that is cheaper to produce than tees would be CDs. It costs cents, plus the rights fee (and they'd have to pay rights fees on any apparel). The CDs are a pretty no risk investment. As far as why not do anything else - it is more complicated than that. A lot more work would go into coordinating production of a cut & sew piece (even if we assume they do nothing else other than slapping the same design on it) than on screening a tee.

another example that discredits your argument that their decisions are based on the short-term cash revenue - they produced an entire run of NY/LA monogram hoodies then pulled the plug on its US release. (presumably because they realized how awful they were and how damaging they'd be to their reputation). boxes and boxes unsold at the warehouse sale and they probably burned the rest. yes they need to make money but sometimes you need to take the long-term view

Sometimes the best longterm decision can also be "lets not make a ton of stuff with this license just because we have it". I never said they were entirely based on short-term revenue. That factors in to the decision, but so does the long-term (hence the image pieces which would have negative short-term revenue but a positive long-term effect). I would think things like the monogram hoodie would be precisely why they would be more careful now before deciding to make a piece. Once you get burned like that once or twice you learn to be more careful (I can speak from experience on that, haha).

final point - hopefully they'll continue to work with the coltrane foundation in the future, however i can't think of a single designer who could say "i put someone else's designs and photography on a stock t-shirt" and pat themselves on the back. maybe they weren't given the chance to do otherwise but from my perspective it's still a missed opportunity in one way or another

Also agreed. Although I can think of plenty of designers who do that same thing and pat themselves on the back

[16steps]

breaking down the logistics of the textile/fabric/fashion game is enthralling and all but can we dumb this thread back down to what might be releasing tomorrow...

im gonna hold off until tomorrow to place my order for either the timberline or fishtail parka, you guys dont think theyll pull em down to put new shit up tomorrow, do you?

[fogg]

the outdoor zip up on the webstore, I hope. I've had no luck trying to get help getting one from the store.

Hopefully the divine mercy hoodie, too.

I doubt they pull the parka, but the timberline's been up there a while so you never know. Unless they put up a new jacket I doubt they take one down, though, and I think all the jackets (besides collaborations) from the preview are already released.

[skoolingsession]

another example that discredits your argument that their decisions are based on the short-term cash revenue - they produced an entire run of NY/LA monogram hoodies then pulled the plug on its US release. (presumably because they realized how awful they were and how damaging they'd be to their reputation). boxes and boxes unsold at the warehouse sale and they probably burned the rest. yes they need to make money but sometimes you need to take the long-term view

The LA monogram hoodies hit the floor here. They were marked down during the seasonal sale for 30% and ended up at the warehouse sale for $40.

[zackl111]

i haven't ever seen them pull something off the webstore that hasn't sold out, but i may not have been paying attention that closely lol.

[puccahead]

You're Canadian so I'll help you out, bro: http://strictlysupreme.com/showthread.php?t=7125

You need to register on that forum to be able to open that link, though.

He's selling that exact shirt, DS in medium with a starting ask of $100

he's saying highest offer is $170, I dont really think I can drop that much:D

[mlproject]

nothing better than a bullshit PM auction

[readytoignite]

I'm not sure how the CDs prove your point. If anything, they prove mine. About the only thing that is cheaper to produce than tees would be CDs. It costs cents, plus the rights fee (and they'd have to pay rights fees on any apparel). The CDs are a pretty no risk investment. As far as why not do anything else - it is more complicated than that. A lot more work would go into coordinating production of a cut & sew piece (even if we assume they do nothing else other than slapping the same design on it) than on screening a tee.

ok we seem to be going in circles here and even i'm getting tired of this. let's all agree that doing something other than slapping pre-fab designs on a t-shirt is risky, but by the same token you have to do more than that to prove you're a brand worth giving a shit about.

re: your specifics above - you obviously know very little about the music industry but there's no way in hell sony would allow supreme to manufacture the cds on their own. they probably required supreme to have sony produce them and then charged up the ass for the privilege. this is even besides the fact that the royalties (performance and mechanicals) are locked in by the rights holders and can't be negotiated. i wouldn't be surprised if the per unit cost to supreme for the cds was higher than the per unit cost for the t-shirts, which they charged 3x for and probably sold more of

also your arguments fail to make sense of the mickey mouse t-shirts, the margins and outlay would be far less on a stock blank than a cut and sewn.

onwards and upwards

[fogg]

We'll just agree to disagree in general and leave it at that then, haha.

The Mickey Mouse stuff is a whole different issue I won't bother going into as this has gone on enough and we don't need another tangent.

[rhythmandsound]

i'm enjoying this, keep going!

ps i always figured Supreme retail was 4x cost on everything...would be interesting to find out what it really is

[ms. sally]

This seasons Fishtail is $188/298 wholesale/retail so while it does dispute my mark up theory it does give a point of reference.

I can say from my own experience as a past manager of a boutique (streetwearzzzzz) that was owned and operated by a company with its own clothing line, I personally unpacked an entire production run of Tech Jackets that was just north of 30 pieces. Factories are a dime a dozen in China/Hong Kong and there are plenty that will cater to a small numbers company.

Just saying....again.

[readytoignite]

i'm enjoying this, keep going!

voyeur...

ps i always figured Supreme retail was 4x cost on everything...would be interesting to find out what it really is

i vaguely recall that the rule of thumb in fashion was 1/4 of retail accounted for material costs and another 1/4 represented other costs related to production (and maybe overhead, can't remember). which brings us to....

This seasons Fishtail is $188/298 wholesale/retail so while it does dispute my mark up theory it does give a point of reference.

right, so even at 30/40% off supreme are still making money on sale items (we assume they don't sell wholesale at a loss).

i'm sure somewhere at chapter 4 someone is pissing themselves laughing at us