Mildly triggering because this was like the coolest store back in the day, but I could never afford it because my family's middle class.

有一點觸發，因為這家店在當時簡直是最酷的，但我卻永遠買不起，因為我家是中產階級。

Now that I'm here, I'm noticing two main things.

現在我在這裡主要注意到兩件事。

One is that everything is kind of affordable, which was definitely not the case in high school.

一是所有東西都很實惠，這在高中時絕對不是這樣。

The other thing that I'm noticing is that everything is just a little bit shittier than you would want it to be.

我注意到的另一件事是，所有東西都比你希望的要糟糕一些。

I'm seeing a lot of like loose threads on things and a lot of stuff that's just made out of 100% synthetic fabrics.

我看到很多東西的線頭都鬆了，還有很多東西都是用 100% 的合成纖維製成的。

The clothing just doesn't feel like this nice, firm, high quality that I associated with Abercrombie.

這些衣服給人的感覺並不像我印象中的 Abercrombie 那樣漂亮、結實、質量上乘。

Abercrombie still does sell some high quality clothing.

Abercrombie 仍在銷售一些高品質服裝。

Actually, I really like this dress and would totally buy it.

事實上，我真的很喜歡這條裙子，完全可以買下來。

And I'm glad they've decided to start using normal lighting in their stores, but seeing so much cheap and low quality stuff there made me wonder, did clothing used to be better when I was a teenager?

我很高興他們決定開始在店裡使用正常照明，但看到那麼多廉價低質的東西，我不禁要問，我十幾歲的時候，服裝是不是比現在好？

Not just at Abercrombie, but across the board.

不僅僅是在 Abercrombie，而是在整個行業。

So I scoured eBay, Depop, and Poshmark for clothes from trusted brands of the 90s and 2000s.

於是，我在 eBay、Depop 和 Poshmark 上搜索 90 年代和 2000 年代值得信賴的品牌服裝。

Then I went to those same stores and bought the 2024 version of each item.

然後，我又去那些商店買了 2024 年版的每件物品。

Abercrombie was like legendary for really high quality denim.

Abercrombie 就像是傳說中的高品質牛仔褲。

To compare the old and new,

新舊對比、

I got help from Amanda McCarty.

我得到了阿曼達-麥卡蒂的幫助。

I worked as a buyer in the fashion industry for about 20 years.

我在時裝業做了大約 20 年的採購員。

In the span of my career,

在我的職業生涯中

I saw how what we sell people changed.

我看到我們賣給人們的東西是如何改變的。

The two major changes, I would say, are one, nothing fits properly anymore.

我認為，兩個主要變化是：第一，沒有什麼東西再適合了。

It's not you.

不是你

It's nothing about your body.

這與你的身體無關。

You're great.

你真棒

And two, the longevity of these clothes, even how you feel when you put them on, has degraded so much.

其次，這些衣服的壽命，甚至你穿上它們時的感覺，都大大降低了。

It's just not a good deal.

這不是一筆好交易。

It's not just in my head.

這不僅僅是我的想法。

It has gotten harder to find quality clothes that last, even at brands you used to like.

即使是你以前喜歡的品牌，也越來越難找到經久耐用的優質服裝。

If you're wondering why, keep watching.

如果你想知道為什麼，請繼續觀看。

I want you to think about how many new pieces of clothing you bought last year.

我希望你們想想去年買了多少件新衣服。

If you're anything like the average American, it was around 68.

如果你和普通美國人一樣，那就是 68 歲左右。

In 1980, that number was 12.

1980 年，這個數字是 12。

But wait, it gets crazier.

但等等，還有更瘋狂的。

In the 80s, Americans spent about 7% of their annual income on clothes.

上世紀 80 年代，美國人將年收入的 7% 用於購買服裝。

Today, it's just 3%.

如今，這一比例僅為 3%。

We spend half as much, even though we're buying five times more.

雖然我們買的東西比別人多五倍，但我們花的錢只有別人的一半。

This Abercrombie ad from the 80s helps explain why.

這則 80 年代的 Abercrombie 廣告解釋了其中的原因。

The high quality wool was a huge selling point.

優質羊毛是一大賣點。

They even tell you exactly where it's from.

他們甚至會告訴你它的確切產地。

And notice how they say this is part of their fall collection?

注意到他們說這是秋季系列的一部分嗎？

Because in the 80s and 90s, stores only had new clothes a couple times a year, usually a spring-summer collection and a fall-winter collection.

因為在上世紀八九十年代，商店每年只推出幾次新款服裝，通常是春夏系列和秋冬系列。

And designers would start working on each collection up to nine months in advance, because clothing production takes a lot of work.

設計師會提前九個月開始設計每個系列，因為服裝製作需要大量的工作。

They had to think of hundreds of unique designs and whittle them down to the dozen or so best ones, send the designs to the factory, go back and forth with them for months to create a prototype, choose the best fabric, the right embellishments, and figure out the proportions for different sizes.

他們必須想出數百種獨特的設計，然後篩選出十幾種最好的設計，將設計寄給工廠，與工廠反覆溝通數月，以製作出原型，選擇最好的面料和合適的裝飾，並確定不同尺寸的比例。

After all that, they'd place a massive order with the factory and then just pray the design would sell.

做完這一切後，他們會向工廠下一大筆訂單，然後祈禱設計能賣出去。

It was kind of like a game of chance.

這有點像一場概率遊戲。

You'd place two huge bets per year, and if your styles flopped, you'd be stuck with a whole bunch of clothes you'd have to sell at a discount or just throw away.

你每年會下兩次大賭注，如果你的款式不成功，你就會被一大堆衣服纏住，不得不打折出售或直接扔掉。

That risk is why so much care and thoughtfulness went into making each piece of clothing and why you could expect quality at every price point.

正因為存在這種風險，所以每件衣服的製作都是如此精心和周到，也正因為如此，你可以期待每個價位的衣服都能有高品質。

Even discount stores like Sears or JCPenney.

即使是西爾斯或 JCPenney 這樣的折扣店也不例外。

Just look at the way JCPenney advertised their suits in this ad from the 80s.

看看 JCPenney 在 80 年代的這則廣告中宣傳西裝的方式就知道了。

Two-piece suits that are expertly tailored, classically designed, and have an elegant touch.

兩件式西裝剪裁考究，設計經典，盡顯優雅氣質。

They're not selling you on the price or the trendiness, but on the craftsmanship and design.

他們不是以價格或時尚為賣點，而是以工藝和設計為賣點。

Even one of the cheaper suits on the market was still pretty high quality, which is probably why if you adjust for inflation, this $160 suit would cost $600 today.

即使是市場上比較便宜的西裝，品質也相當高，這可能就是為什麼如果根據通貨膨脹率進行調整，這套價值 160 美元的西裝今天的價格為 600 美元。

If you go to JCPenney now, you can easily get a two-piece suit for under $200.

如果你現在去 JCPenney，花不到 200 美元就能輕鬆買到一套兩件套西裝。

So in the 80s and 90s, people were buying fewer clothes, but they'd be well-made pieces that would be worn for years.

是以，在上世紀八九十年代，人們買的衣服越來越少，但都是做工精良、可以穿好幾年的衣服。

And keeping up with all the trends, well, that was something only wealthy people could do.

而緊跟潮流，只有富人才能做到。

Pull the latest brionis and charge them to our account.

把最新的布里奧尼拉到我們的賬戶上。

Yes, ma'am.

是的，夫人。

What are brionis?

什麼是布里歐尼斯？

Six months of my car payments plus a car.

我六個月的車貸加上一輛車。

Then came a little store called Zara, and everything began to change.

後來，一家名為 Zara 的小店出現了，一切都開始發生變化。

The New York Times coined the term fast fashion in this 1989 article about the first US store of Zara.

紐約時報》在 1989 年發表的這篇關於 Zara 美國首家分店的文章中創造了快速時尚一詞。

The latest trend is what we're after, a Zara executive told the Times.

Zara 的一位高管告訴《泰晤士報》，我們追求的是最新潮流。

It takes 15 days between a new idea and getting it into the stores.

從有一個新想法到把它送進商店，需要 15 天的時間。

Remember, that took most stores nine months.

請記住，這花了大多數商店九個月的時間。

How did Zara do it in 15 days?

Zara 是如何在 15 天內做到這一點的？

By streamlining this part of the production process with something called Greige Goods.

通過使用一種叫做 "格調商品 "的東西來簡化這部分生產流程。

Rather than manufacturing overseas,

而不是在海外製造、

Zara built their own high-tech factories in Spain, all connected to headquarters by an underground monorail.

Zara 在西班牙建立了自己的高科技工廠，所有工廠都通過地下單軌鐵路與總部相連。

There, robots working around the clock cut and dye fabrics to create unfinished, uncolored pieces that can be turned into any garment.

在那裡，機器人晝夜不停地對布料進行剪裁和染色，製成未加工、未上色的布料，可以製成任何服裝。

Once a design is created, Zara can send those Greige Goods to their network of small shops in nearby regions where they're transformed into finished dresses, trousers, and tops.

設計完成後，Zara 可以將這些 Greige Goods 送到附近地區的小商店網絡中，在那裡變成成品的裙子、褲子和上衣。

Instead of huge orders,

而不是鉅額訂單、

Zara makes a small batch of each style to start with.

Zara 每種款式都會先做一小批。

The retail stores can then send feedback to headquarters about what's selling and what's not, and they can quickly ramp up production on whatever's popular, restocking within days if needed.

然後，零售店可以向總部反饋哪些產品暢銷，哪些產品滯銷，總部可以迅速提高受歡迎產品的產量，並在需要時於數天內重新進貨。

It massively reduced the risk that came with clothing production.

它大大降低了服裝生產的風險。

Instead of losing money on clearance sales or throwing away unsold goods,

而不是在清倉大拋售中損失金錢或扔掉未售出的商品、

Zara's styles often sell out quickly.

Zara 的款式通常很快就會售罄。

The designers don't have to predict trends a year in advance.

設計師不必提前一年預測流行趨勢。

They can just respond to fashion trends as they emerge, though sometimes that gets a little sketchy.

他們可以順應時尚潮流的發展，儘管有時這有點草率。

For example, here's a look from the high fashion designer Celine from a collection that debuted on the Vogue runway in 2013.

例如，以下是高級時裝設計師 Celine 2013 年在《Vogue》時裝秀上首次亮相的系列造型。

This skirt would have retailed for at least $1,000, and here's a very similar-looking skirt selling on Zara's website for just $80.

這條裙子的零售價至少在 1000 美元以上，而 Zara 網站上一條非常相似的裙子售價僅為 80 美元。

According to the Wayback Machine,

根據 Wayback Machine、

Zara had this skirt for sale by August, which would have been just a few weeks after Celine's version landed in boutiques.

Zara 在 8 月份就開始銷售這款裙子，這與 Celine 的裙子登陸精品店僅相隔幾周時間。

These runway knockoffs and how quickly Zara could get them into stores were wildly popular.

這些天橋上的山寨貨，以及 Zara 能以如此快的速度將它們送進商店，受到了瘋狂的追捧。

By August 2008, Zara's parent company, Inditex, became the world's largest fashion retailer.

2008 年 8 月，Zara 的母公司 Inditex 成為全球最大的時裝零售商。

This is also when you had the rise of two other fast fashion giants of the new millennium,

新千年的另外兩家快時尚巨頭也是在這個時候崛起的、

Forever 21 and H&M, which pioneered a new way to bring the runway to the masses.

Forever 21 和 H&M，開創了一種將時裝秀帶入大眾生活的新方式。

They'd partner with luxury designers to make exclusive lines for H&M at affordable prices, starting with Karl Lagerfeld in 2004.

從 2004 年卡爾-拉格斐開始，他們與奢侈品設計師合作，以合理的價格為 H&M 設計獨家系列。

Karl, is it true?

卡爾，這是真的嗎？

Of course it's true.

當然是真的。

This part of the story, it seems sort of like a win for the 99%.

這部分故事，似乎有點像 99% 的人的勝利。

Fast fashion was making it so that anyone could wear runway designs while they were still popular.

快時尚讓任何人都能在天橋設計流行的時候穿上它們。

That was a new thing.

這是一件新鮮事。

Of course, encouraging lots of consumers to buy low cost clothes that would go out of style quickly would shockingly have some downsides too, but we'll come back to that.

當然，鼓勵大量消費者購買很快就會過時的低價服裝也會帶來一些令人震驚的弊端，但我們會再討論這個問題。

Because we can't give the minds behind Zara and H&M all the credit for the rise of fast fashion.

因為我們不能把快速時尚的興起全部歸功於 Zara 和 H&M 背後的頭腦。

We also have to give some credit to Bill Clinton?

我們還得感謝比爾-克林頓？

No, not because of his sick style.

不，不是因為他變態的風格。

In 1994, President Clinton signed NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which made it cheaper to make clothes in Mexico.

1994 年，克林頓總統簽署了《北美自由貿易協定》（NAFTA），這使得在墨西哥生產服裝變得更加便宜。

And a few years later, he normalized trade relations with China.

幾年後，他與中國實現了貿易關係正常化。

Textile factories started moving out of the U.S.

紡織廠開始遷出美國

because now clothing retailers had access to the largest pool of cheap labor in human history.

因為現在，服裝零售商可以獲得人類歷史上最大量的廉價勞動力。

Luckily, there was a law from the 70s, the Multifiber Arrangement, which limited how much clothing American and European countries could import from other nations.

幸運的是，70 年代有一項法律，即《多纖維安排》，限制了美國和歐洲國家從其他國家進口服裝的數量。

Unfortunately, the World Trade Organization let it expire in 2005, ushering the heyday of fast fashion.

不幸的是，世界貿易組織於 2005 年讓它失效，迎來了快速時尚的鼎盛時期。

Because now, there was nothing stopping companies from producing everything in the countries with the lowest wages, the fewest labor laws, and the laxest environmental regulations.

因為現在，沒有什麼能阻止公司在工資最低、勞動法最少、環境法規最寬鬆的國家生產一切產品。

We've arrived at the fashion landscape that I remember from my teens.

我們來到了我十多歲時記憶中的時尚版圖。

In the 2000s, you had four distinct buying options ranging in price and quality.

在 2000 年代，你有四種不同的購買選擇，價格和品質各不相同。

High fashion or luxury brands, department stores, mall brands, and fast fashion.

高級時裝或奢侈品牌、百貨公司、商場品牌和快時尚。

But these days, it kind of feels like the bottom of this pyramid has collapsed and everything's a little cheaper and shittier.

但如今，人們感覺這座金字塔的底部已經坍塌，一切都變得更便宜、更糟糕了。

J.Crew, Anthropologie, Abercrombie, these didn't used to be considered fast fashion, but now they arguably are.

J.Crew、Anthropologie、Abercrombie，這些品牌過去並不被認為是快時尚，但現在可以說是了。

And that's because of two very big things that changed the experience of shopping into the hellscape of today.

這是因為有兩件大事將購物體驗改變成了今天的地獄景象。

The first is the 2008 financial crisis.

首先是 2008 年的金融危機。

Middle-class consumers no longer had as much money to spend, so they began drifting over to cheaper options.

中產階級消費者不再有那麼多錢可花，是以他們開始轉向更便宜的選擇。

While all of the other non-fast fashion retailers were struggling, Forever 21 was opening store after store after store.

當所有其他非快時尚零售商都在苦苦掙扎的時候，Forever 21 卻在一家接一家地開店。

H&M, the same thing.

H&M 也是如此。

Zara is spreading into other cities.

Zara 正在向其他城市擴張。

And so the conversation began, how do we compete here?

於是對話開始了：我們如何在這裡競爭？

What if we continue to show the same prices on the price tags that we always have, but we know that we're gonna sell most of the units of that style on sale?

如果我們繼續在價格標籤上顯示與以往相同的價格，但我們知道我們會在打折時售出該款式的大部分產品，該怎麼辦？

And we planned for that.

我們也為此做了計劃。

So let's say this dress costs $40 to make, and it retailed for $100 in 2007.

假設這條裙子的製作成本為 40 美元，2007 年的零售價為 100 美元。

In 2010, during the recession, the retailer would keep the price tag at $100, but expect that most pieces will only sell once it goes on sale.

2010 年，在經濟衰退期間，零售商會將標價保持在 100 美元，但預計大多數產品只有在打折時才會售出。

So they'll only spend, let's say, $15 to make it, so they'll still make a profit.

比方說，他們只花 15 美元製作，是以仍有利潤。

And how do you make clothes for cheap?

你是如何製作廉價服裝的？

Well, by making cheaper clothes.

嗯，通過製作更便宜的衣服。

You add synthetic materials like polyester instead of selling pure natural fibers like cotton and wool.

您添加了聚酯等合成材料，而不是銷售棉花和羊毛等純天然纖維。

You skimp on details like pockets, buttons, and zippers, and offer less sizes.

你在口袋、鈕釦和拉鍊等細節上吝嗇，提供的尺碼也較少。

I could see all these things play out in the clothing I bought, like these men's jeans from Abercrombie from the 2000s versus now.

我可以從我買的衣服上看到這些東西，比如這些來自 Abercrombie 的男士牛仔褲，是 2000 年代的款式，而現在則是新款。

The vintage pair weighs a hefty 761 grams and is 100% cotton.

這雙古董鞋重達 761 克，100% 全棉。

They feel substantial, long-lasting, really high-quality denim.

它們質感厚實、經久耐用，是真正的優質牛仔布。

They have a decent amount of distressing on here that was probably done by hand to sort of break down areas, make them softer.

這裡有大量的壓痕，可能是手工壓制的，目的是將一些區域分解，使其更加柔軟。

In the fast fashion era, a lot of this is skipped, where it's just like, let's just spray them with acid or do other things that are actually very toxic.

在快速時尚時代，很多東西都被省略了，比如，我們可以用硫酸噴灑她們，或者做其他實際上非常有毒的事情。

The new pair weighs less at 720 grams and is a cotton-elastane blend.

新款重量更輕，僅為 720 克，採用棉氨綸混紡材料。

This is that fast fashion trick of, okay, if we add a little bit of stretch, it will fit more people, theoretically, and they'll be less likely to return them.

這就是快時尚的訣竅，好吧，如果我們增加一點彈性，理論上就能讓更多人穿得上，他們也就不那麼容易退貨了。

But putting elastane in jeans shortens the lifespan pretty significantly.

但在牛仔褲中加入彈性纖維會大大縮短牛仔褲的使用壽命。

Those elastane fibers that are woven in here, they're plastic, and they break.

這裡編織的彈性纖維是塑膠，會斷裂。

And the more you wash them, the sooner they break, but you get into this cycle where you have to wash the jeans more often to get them to go back to size because they get stretched out.

你洗得越多，它們就破得越快，但你會陷入這樣的循環：你必須更頻繁地清洗牛仔褲，才能讓它們恢復尺寸，因為它們會被拉長。

The other main difference between these jeans, the zippers.

這些牛仔褲的另一個主要區別是拉鍊。

We have a legit, luxurious zipper, long-lasting, 100% metal.

我們有一條合法、奢華的拉鍊，經久耐用，100% 金屬材質。

They smoothly go up and down.

它們平穩地上下移動。

These are things that you take for granted until you get a bad zipper.

在拉鍊壞掉之前，這些都是理所當然的事情。

The new pair, when you were trying to unzip these, that sound, you can feel like this zipper's gonna be a problem soon.

這雙新鞋，當你試圖拉開拉鍊時，那種聲音，你能感覺到拉鍊很快就會出問題。

This is a difference of maybe 50 cents, but it's a pennies game to get the pricing to work with the targets you're given.

這也許只是 50 美分的差別，但要讓定價與給定的目標相匹配，就得一分錢一分貨。

Another area that you can really see how quality degraded is with sweaters.

另一個能真正看出品質下降的領域是毛衣。

We compared an anthropology sweater from today to a vintage sweater made in the 90s.

我們將今天的人類學毛衣與 90 年代的古董毛衣進行了比較。

This sweater is Liz Claiborne, which is like anthropology before anthropology.

這件毛衣是 Liz Claiborne 牌的，就像是人類學之前的人類學。

The vintage sweater is 100% wool.

這件復古毛衣是 100% 羊毛製成的。

The one made today is 100% polyester.

現在生產的是 100% 聚酯。

The vintage sweater has metal buttons.

復古毛衣上有金屬鈕釦。

The other one has no buttons at all.

另一個則沒有任何按鈕。

The vintage sweater is a size medium.

這件古董毛衣是中號的。

The one made today is one size.

今天生產的是一個尺寸。

When I see one size in something, I'm like, oh, it's because they couldn't afford to buy it in sizes to meet the margin targets.

當我看到某樣東西只有一個尺碼時，我就會想，哦，那是因為他們沒錢買到符合利潤目標的尺碼。

Even with all these cost-cutting measures, traditional retailers were struggling.

即使採取了所有這些削減成本的措施，傳統零售商仍在苦苦掙扎。

And that's around the time private equity firms started buying them up, saddling them with debt, and letting all the business decisions be made by finance bros whose idea of fashion is that Patagonia vest over a gingham shirt.

就在那個時候，私募股權公司開始收購它們，讓它們揹負債務，並讓所有的商業決策都由那些對時尚的理解就是在格子襯衫外面套一件巴塔哥尼亞背心的金融兄弟們做出。

And on top of all that, there's still that other huge change that I mentioned, the final death knell in quality clothing, the internet.

除此之外，還有我提到的另一個巨大變化，即優質服裝的最後喪鐘--互聯網。

Social media and fast fashion are a match made in heaven.

社交媒體和快速時尚是天作之合。

Social media helps shorten our attention spans, which extends to fashion trends too, which cycle through faster and faster.

社交媒體縮短了我們的注意力，這也延伸到時尚潮流中，使其循環速度越來越快。

That makes fast fashion indispensable to influencers who rely on a steady stream of new clothes for their content.

是以，快時尚對於那些依靠源源不斷的新款服裝來製作內容的影響者來說是不可或缺的。

This puts pressure on all of us to wear a totally unique, never-before-seen outfit every single day, which is pretty hard.

這給我們每個人都帶來了壓力，要求我們每天都穿上完全獨一無二、前所未見的服裝，而這是相當困難的。

Lizzie McGuire, you are an outfit repeater.

麗茲-麥戈瑞，你是個服裝重複者。

I guess now it's time to talk about Sheehan,

我想現在是時候談談希恩了、

Zara's more chaotic little sister.

扎拉的小妹妹更加混亂。

Sheehan is the logical conclusion of fast fashion.

希恩是快速時尚的必然結果。

Sheehan is a company that focuses on selling as much hyper-trendy, super low-quality clothing they can for mind-blowingly cheap prices.

Sheehan 是一家專注於銷售超時尚、超劣質服裝的公司，價格便宜得令人咋舌。

Sheehan raked in close to $10 billion in 2020.

希恩在 2020 年賺了近 100 億美元。

It's currently the biggest clothing retailer in the world, even beating out Amazon in the U.S.

它目前是全球最大的服裝零售商，在美國甚至超過了亞馬遜。

Sheehan is not just fast fashion, it's instant fashion.

Sheehan 不僅是快速時尚，更是即時時尚。

Zara can get products from drawing board to store and Sheehan can do it in three.

Zara 可以將產品從繪圖板送到商店，而 Sheehan 可以在三分鐘內完成。

Zara can release 35,000 new items of clothes per year.

Zara 每年可推出 35 000 款新服裝。

Sheehan will release that many in just a couple of weeks.

希恩將在幾周內釋放這麼多。

So how do they do it?

那麼，他們是如何做到的呢？

Rather than functioning as a cohesive clothing manufacturer with its own factories like Zara,

而不是像 Zara 一樣，作為一家擁有自己工廠的服裝製造商來運作、

Sheehan is more like Amazon, a huge marketplace selling clothes from thousands of independent Chinese factories.

Sheehan 更像是亞馬遜，一個從數千家中國獨立工廠銷售服裝的巨大市場。

And it treats those factories sort of like Uber treats its drivers.

它對待這些工廠的方式有點像優步對待其司機的方式。