It’s one small leap for online shopping everywhere, and yet another instance of Canadian retail being left in the dust wondering what just happened.

UK luxury retail favorite Selfridges, owned by the Canadian billion dollar Weston family, has finally launched an online shop.  While the navigation is still quite poor (they could take note from Net-A-Porter), things are coming along. Hell, actually having an online environment where customers can buy is leaps ahead of Holt Renfrew‘s current store only situation.

Let’s finally get Canada shopping the luxury circuit without fears of insane shipping and import duties… Holt Renfrew, hear our cries!!

Fashion Television has been banned in India by the moral police, thanks to the tittular model on the right.

According to the Indian Information and Broadcasting Industry

“..women with nude upper body which was offending (sic) against good taste and decency..”

These prudes must have tuned into Fashion Television for the first time, because I can recall barely there breasts being flaunted on that show since I was about 9. If models do show their front fat sacks, they’re so minimal that it’s like looking at a bare chested man!

If the Indian moral police are so concerned about sexual deviancy, maybe a ban of child marriages should be made to law and enforced by the Indian 5-0. I’m sure that would do more for their country than some half-wit ban on a fashion program.

Justin Theroux is in Paris Fashion Week to research the antics and eccentricities of the well dressed world, which means that the inevitable is occuring – after 9 years, there will be a Zoolander sequel.

Ben Stiller is reportedly not directing but is co-writing with Theroux, who will have sole directorial responsibilities along with writing with Stiller.  I can’t even imagine how this movie would be comparably funny to the original. Zoolander was hilarious because of its film firsts; nobody had quite lampooned the fashion industry or models quite like that before.

Without its freshness or originality, this sequel is predictably doomed for the straight to DVD racks while a legion’s worth of cult fan base emo sighs in unison.

Besides, how could Le Tigre or Blue Steel be topped, and will the cast that made the film what it was remain intact?

As the opening day of NYFW creeps closer, invites are being sent out along with rejections to the most popular runway shows.

The costs of runway presentations have been headliners within the last year, especially with the credit crunch still menacing the world’s economies. Designers are downsizing their shows; they are cutting guest numbers, changing their locations (many to off-site), and taking other cost cutting measures.

One thing producers haven’t done to cut costs and keep the presentation’s integrity intact is axing paid celebrity front row bench warmers. The majority of these visitors (Kanye, Emma Watson, Lily Allen, Dita von Teese) are there for the art and would [likely] show up, paid or not.

It’s the butts in the seats which are only there to get press that can be done away with; the average tabloid reader couldn’t dream of purchasing an off-the-runway piece, thus investing in these faces is pointless. Give their seats to buyers, editors, stylists; you know, the people who will push the brand into the public’s hand.

A secondary bonus would be allowing more public seats to the shows; while the average runway voyeur will never make or break a brand, you never know what the person in the back row may be capable in time.

Celebrity bribe price sheet:

A-List

Rihanna ($100,000 or more)
Beyonce ($80,000-$100,000)
Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen ($80,000 each)
Julianne Moore ($60,000)
Maggie Gyllanhal ($60,000)
Chloe Sevigny ($60,000 or more)
Jennifer Lopez (circa 2005: $80,000; circa 2010: $30,000)
Lindsay Lohan (circa 2006: $60,000; circa 2010; UNINVITED)
Colin Firth (pre- A Single Man: $5,000; post-A Single Man: $15,000)

B-List

Blake Lively ($50,000)
Leighton Meester ($40,000)
Hillary Duff ($40,000)
Other Gossip Girl cast members ($25,000 a piece)
Jared Leto ($25,000)
Cliven Owen ($10,000)
Kristen Bell (unpaid, though airfare, makeup and clothing are provided)

C-List

Kim Kardashian ($35,000-$50,000)
Amanda Bynes ($25,000-$30,000)
Eliza Dushku (unpaid, though airfare, makeup and clothing are provided)

After the laughable failure that was Vancouver’s Fashion Week’s last public performance, VFW’s administration has decided to give the event new life as the Vancouver Music & Fashion Festival.

There is no official website, but their Facebook page states that after ‘overwhelming success for the past 14 seasons’, this fuse event has been created. This producer must be medicated, since it has been years since Vancouver Fashion Week has produced an event that wasn’t a complete embarrassment.

After past performances, I’m incredibly skeptical that the VMFF will bring together the ‘truly eclectic mix of music, fashion and beauty’ they claim. The last season I bothered to show up to was SS09, and the talent was not to par; at that event models showed shearling coats while wearing FUggs, insulted survivors of 9-11, featured flea market design, had bulging models in lingerie and assaulted us with the design talent of Marc Ecko.

With that rich history, one can only imagine what delights the VMFF has in store for us.

Their ‘poverty sucks’ t-shirt was one thing, and the company supports anti-equality Republicans, but whom would have thought they would be so brazenly offensive!

As you can see, Urban Outfitters has classified their BDG Burnout Henley tee as being “Obama/black”. Not only is this terribly offensive, but this fugging shirt is grey! When double checking to see what political figure they associated with the white shirt, it’s labeled as ‘white/charcoal’; a wee bit more appropriate for a top.

SO! Today we’ve learned today that Urban Outfitters are pretty much massive dicks.

Thoughts?

UPDATE:

UO has taken down the item, with no explanation as to why it was allowed to get past editors in the first place.  At least the star rating was true; 1 out of 4.

We see what you did there, Forever 21. 

While it was undoubtedly only a matter of time for this to happen, it’s Forever 21 has become coporate copier of iconic stencilist Banksy’s work. 

The item in question is the Love Heart pullover.  The ripoff features the near identical concept of the Banksy work, only the balloon is in the back, and the girl holding it [appears to be] a tween instead of a child.

SHAME, Forever 21!

Gilt Noir has been launched.  Officially, unless you spend $10,000 at Gilt Groupe over the course of the year you won’t be considered for an invite – this is for super spenders only.  Supposedly Noir members get to preview all sales early before the regular marauding deal hounds, and access to special events like training with the U.S. ski team in New Zealand. 

The kicker to all this?

Gilt remains completely unfriendly to their fellow North American compatriots in Canada.  For those unfamiliar, Gilt only accepts US credit cards - even if you’re intending to ship the order within the US for pickup at a shipping receiver.  It’s completely unfair, not only because we’re so damn close but why the hell should only Americans have access to Gilt’s amazing deals?!

For instance, Gilt began their Pour la Victoire sale today and though boots were priced at an amazing $200 (ish, from about $400) I couldn’t buy a damn thing.

Myself and many others have appealed to Gilt concerning the credit card issue, and all we get is a canned “we’re considering it” type of reply. 

Enough!

If you can create a specialized service level for 0.01% of your customers, you can make a few edits to your electronic billing system to accept Canadian credit cards.

Let’s stop this corporate fail.

It’s official – by October 2010, you will see a horrific hybrid boot by Jimmy Choo and Ugg.  Yes.

It appears that Tamara Mellon has sold her soul for revenue (who knew the Choo brand was doing so poorly.. hah!).  This is eternally worse than the horror that was the release of Manolo Blahnik doing an Ugg collaboration – Jimmy Choo actually makes some exceptional footwear.

Maybe they’ll stud the Fuggs.. the street is going to become a rodeo of bad taste.

HAPPY WEDNESDAY, EVERYBODY!

Innnnnteresting!

I just received this response from H&M‘s support regarding my inquiry on corporate responsibility; specifically the clothing destruction debacle.

This is what I received:

Hello Victoria,

Thank you for contacting H&M regarding the recent article in the NY
Times.

H&M is committed to taking responsibility for how our operations affect
people and the environment. We donate garments that do not meet our
quality requirements to organizations such as Gifts In Kind, UNHCR,
Caritas, the Red Cross and Helping Hands. When possible, we also donate
faulty garments that have been returned to our stores. However, we do
not donate clothes that do not meet our safety requirements, chemical
restrictions or are damaged. We have agreements with reputable aid
organizations in most of our sales countries. In total, more than
500,000 pieces of H&M garments were donated during 2009.

We are currently looking into if we can further improve our routines.

Sincerely,
H&M Customer Service Team

I have suspicion this was the official canned response before the official release by New York rep Nicole Christie took her stand on the matter.

From the response provided by the Customer Service Team, it isn’t a stretch to conclude the destruction of items by the company may have been treated as a loophole. Since the H&M employees were creating garments that were damaged, they were free and clear to throw them out without going against corporate policy.

Let’s hope H&M continues to deal with this attention ethically, and not through loopholes.

H&M has agreed thanks to the intense fervor and distress over their destruction of wearable clothing, to donate the items to local charities.

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that there were more than 10 unanswered calls to H&M’s headquarters after they were found to destroy unsold garments before they are deemed garbage.  Today, H&M has released a statement that the destruction will morph to donation.

It has been stated by H&M’s New York rep Nicole Christie that it was always H&M’s policy to donate unworn clothing (of course), and they will ensure this is understood as required practice.

Regardless if this was or was not the practice worldwide, at least the attention brought to this issue has won positive change for the poor of New York.

The Swedes have an excellent record for being socially and environmentally conscious, but the latest report by the New York Times puts a massive spot on their record.

The Times has reported that the 34th Street H&M in New York first renders the items unwearable by destroying each item, then proceeds to throw the items into the trash for disposal.  These destructive acts are being done in a city where the poor are freezing, and the items could easily be donated to not for profit organizations to not only benefit those in need, but gain positive PR for the H&M brand.

Instead of helping the city that allows the store to thrive, H&M has machines to destroy clothing and shoes that they would rather make into garbage than recycled to the needy.  I’ll remind you that these accusations are not alleged, they are proven – a Times reporter has actually located mutilated clothing behind the 34th Street H&M location.

It has been reported that 1/3 of the city is poor, yet H&M continues towards the path of social and environmental destruction.

If you find this disturbing, I urge you to send H&M your thoughts regarding their extreme lack of corporate responsibility.

For as long as there have been retailer giveaways, there has been the coveted prize of a shopping spree.  Now with retailers tightening their contest purse strings, we are more often seeing prizes worthy of the term ‘giveaway’, rather than ‘spree’.

To have a spree is to engage in sudden indulgence, carefree and perhaps careless behavior.  While it’s never favorable to look a gift horse in the mouth, it’s not proper to use such an ill-fitted term to market a contest.

With the average wage being what it is in the First World, I can’t fathom how a $100 prize can be considered a shopping ‘spree’, yet contests of this kind have spread like rapid marketing fire across kindling.

While the term spree will always be subjective to the earning of the individual entrant, the average middle class style conscious individual would not consider a total of $100 to be that of a spree.

Business offered spoils are always appreciated by willing recipients, but to take advantage of a term which does not apply to your event is terrible form.

Let’s all use the proper naming conventions, and break this horrible affair with inconsistency!

When a company says no to a paying customer, it’s poor business any way you swing it.

In the dusk of 2009, it’s a sad thing to report that many reputable businesses still deny Canadian customers their products; even when the Canadian card holder would be shipping the item to a US billing address.

While I accept that certain companies choose not to ship beyond American borders, it is wholly ridiculous to deny orders on the basis of a credit card billing address. In every buying environment, there is an option to select a different shipping address than the billing one; there is no excuse for not accepting a Canadian method of payment!

I’ve personally experienced this when dealing with Payless, Levi’s and Forever 21. Some of those companies do have Canadian sites, but the product availability is severely stunted (which is a whole other issue). I’ve recently been made aware that Uniqlo and Gilt Groupe have the same issue as well.

Business owners, Canadians have money to spend and we want to spend it at your boutique – please stop turning us away!

While I support vintage and humanely harvested fur, manufacturers are selling real fur as faux are despicable.

Apparently there’s a loophole in US federal clothing labeling laws that allows real fur to be used on a piece that is designated as fake, as long as its value is below $150. I’m sure this is enough to have any serious animal defender up in arms, and even those that are not usually joining in the ranks.

According to an undercover investigation in retailers Arden B, Rocawear, Bloomingdale’s and Grasshoppers (children’s wear), these lines were found to contain real furs when advertised to be synthetic.  Basically, it’s these guys that end up on your clothing when you think it’s fake.. that kind of deception is simply rancid!

New York is one of the only US states that has enacted a law requiring accurate labeling of faux and real fur under the Federal Fur Products Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 69) and Regulations Under the Fur Products Identification Act (16 CFR 301).  The state’s product definitions are thankfully extremely precise;

“Faux fur” denotes “artificially manufactured fur which is made to resemble real fur but which is not derived from animals.”

“Real Fur” denotes an “animal skin or part thereof with hair, fleece, or fur fibers attached thereto, either in its raw or processed state.”

More information on fur labeling, how the current law is deceptive and the harm that it is doing to animals and uninformed buyers (.PDF)

I advise those offended by this law and the deceptive usage of real fur when labeled as faux on the above labels to write each company and hold them responsible for their actions.

If you are unsure if your country has a similar loophole as the US which allows the usage of real fur when labeled as faux, do some research.  If you find that it does, please write a letter condemning this acceptance to your local politician.

No matter what a company may be hawking, whether it may be fur boots or pencil skirts, the lookbook is an extremely important customer and editor launch point. When a house has an embarrassing lookbook, it not only shames themselves but degrades their product.

Recently I came upon Capelta boots; apparently they’ve been featured within magazines and the like. I was curious about the brand so I explored further, and what a sight awaited!

Capelta appears to be catering to the club skank crowd, but this was too much. The photos looked like half the pages of Hustler were scanned and the boots digitally added. My personal favorites include one lady looking like she farted right before the camera went off, and another doing her best feral Gollum impression.

This kind of trailer trash implied sex image assault is best left to some back alley published gentleman’s magazine, not product advertisements.  If a company is shooting for lowbrow imagery, they could at least acquire a model that can do her job; this girl looks like a constipated escort.

If you wish to endure a flash based gallery and more of these images, don’t come crying to me when you’re sorry you did so.

As an avid trend jumper and thrifting maniac, I’ve been a highly enthusiastic Value Village shopper for as long as I can remember. My grandparents took me there to thrift while I was very young, my mom as I got older, and I have continued to spend my hard earned money at your shops throughout Vancouver and the Lower Mainland.

Over the last five years, your prices have faced an extreme jump. While I acknowledge that there must be a monetary buffer as the years pass, though your current prices do not match the economy or world’s shopping habits.

This company needs to understand who its demograph is; a typical Value Village shopper is on a budget, enjoys shopping for ‘new’ things in a sustainable manner, and enjoys the thrill of the hunt and find. What I’ve seen [especially] over the last few years is that items are unclean and priced highly inappropriately.

For instance, not half an hour prior to writing this I found a delightful leather jacket which stank of cigarette smoke. This jacket was $70 Canadian. This piece would have had to been professionally cleaned and mended, and yet it was priced by some lackey in the back room for seventy freaking dollars. When I inquired about the pricing of a clearly uncleaned item, I was told that many people would find this a ‘good deal’ – I’d like to know which Value Village shopper would think this is such a thing, but since they don’t exist I may be waiting for a damn long time.

To add insult to gaping injury, the woman whom I assumed was in charge yelled at me for having a cart of clothing in the ‘designated area’, when no such signage was posted within customer view. She was very abrasive and took the cart from me and replaced it in the area where the carts were apparently supposed to go. Before I even began to collect a few items to try on, she rudely and loudly announced that there was a five item limit. Nobody is expecting grace and full service at this store, but for your employees to be rude and insulting is beyond what I find acceptable for a thrift shop.

When I negatively tweeted about this encounter with the official Twitter account @SaversVVillage, there was no response. I have posted positive tweet which included their username in the in the past, and have gotten an incredibly fast response. It is quite obvious that anything negative is blatantly ignored, rather than attempting to reach out to an unhappy customer to fix the situation. Using social media for customer service goes beyond thanking them for loving you – as a company you are equally as responsible for dealing with the customers that have had a negative experience. It isn’t as fun, but hey, life ain’t all sunshine and stwrainbows.

I really love that Value Village gives back to the community and provides such a large outlet for clothing and other items to be recycled to new homes, but this behavior is insanity. You’re alienating your customer base with poor attitudes and blatant price grabbing, and the majority of shoppers there aren’t doing so by choice, they are shopping used for financial necessity.

Don’t spit on your customers, Value Village. We’re watching, and we don’t forget.

If you are a Value Village customer that has had a similar experience, I encourage you to tweet your feedback and send an e-mail to VV headquarters.

During the summer months, Holt Renfrew held a correspondent contest to highlight the new Contemporary web environment and report on current trends, attend HR parties and provide blog content for a year.

For Vancouver, Karolina Jez was selected. The unfortunate truth is that Karolina lacks adequate linguistic and grammatical skills to properly report on events and trends for a corporate website. She does not utilize any creativity when reporting on trends and designers and does not inspire a reader to investigate these products at Holt Renfrew in person.

This was personified within a recent post regarding animal print trending; all five examples given displayed the same animal print in the same color. This displayed a complete disregard the industry’s current interpretation of the trend (Lanvin’s neon leopard, Alice + Olivia’s zebra blazer, etc) to which she would have complete access to at Vancouver’s 135,000 square foot Holt Renfrew location.

Anyone who spends even a minimal amount of time exploring HR’s mecca knows that there is an unbelievable selection at your fingertips. Karolina’s creative stunt and poor grammar are an insult to a Holt Renfrew’s potential and existing customers, and truly puts the chain in a negative light.

I sincerely hope that Holt Renfrew tightens their reins when it comes to quality control on the Contemporary Correspondent blog, as this current display of lackluster styling and reporting failure certainly does not reflect positively upon the company.

What a complete embarrassment this recent opening of Forever 21 has been for both Metrotown and the store itself.

For starters, Forever 21 spurned the media with the lack of any media pre-opening party to view the pieces and increase customer hype, then Metrotown completely ruins the opening.

Here is the entire time line of this disaster:

• May 2009: Forever 21 is confirmed by Metrotown on their official site to be opening November 2009.

• September 2009: Forever 21 is once again confirmed, this time to be opening on October 9th 2009.

• October 5th 2009: Metrotown advertises on various Vancouver radio stations that Forever 21 will be opening on October 10th (Saturday, not Friday as initially reported on their Facebook and official site).

• October 9th 2009: Various local Twitter contacts of mine report that F21 in Metrotown is open for business as of 10AM today, despite advertisements still on the air today stating the opening is 10AM on October 10th. Metrotown’s official Facebook page also confirms today that F21 is to open on October 10th, not the 9th (today).

What the bloody hell is going on with this mall? This is incredibly poor management of their so-called administration and their social media networks; either communication was so abysmal that the opening date of October 9th was always the intended day, or someone was severely negligent in updating their customers.

Either way, this is an incredible corporate fail.

Shame on you, Metrotown.

UPDATE:

Apparently today was their soft opening, and tomorrow is still the grand opening, though this was not advertised or provided in any information in advance by Metrotown or Forever 21 on either their websites or the Metrotown Facebook.

The individual who let on this information let me know that she only knew because of a MallVibes forum posting.  Silly me, I figured a massive mall and a highly successful clothing chain would have the wits to put together a proper PR statement in advance of a large opening. What a fool I am.

Well, ugly people aren’t the only ones finding internet love these days.

As of today, Glamour and GQ readers can sign up for a fresh service to get matched up with ‘ glamorous girls’ or ‘fashion-conscious’ boys. TrulyMadlyDating.com is here, whether you’re ready or not.

May I be the first to point out this reeks of fiscal irresponsibility on Condé Nast’s part. If they had such intense recent budget cuts that Anna Wintour had to return to America from Paris Fashion Week to clean up the mess, there is no way the Condé empire should be risking their dwindling funds on such a risky venture as online dating.

This site has two possible futures; and neither of them are pretty.

Possibility #1: The site will be overrun by sad online dating averages that don’t meet Condé Nast’s standards of stylish and drag the brand into a fairly immediate nosedive.

Possibility #2: There will be a decent first impulse wave of people joining but then gradually drop off within 6 months to a year from lack of results or good faces, which result in a quiet site closure from lack of interest.

Either way, this bleeds like a rotten business proposal.

Not only is the site itself an incredible risk, but the fact that the dating vertical of ‘fashionable’ people only poses risks that far outweigh the gains. There is no way CN can police their standard of attractiveness (in the physical or clothing realm), so the claims they make are spoiled moments after they are read.

Condé Nast’s head brains must be lost in the Vogue wardrobe closets because this seems to be the silliest business venture I’ve seen them enter in many a year.

Let’s have an honest opinion – would you ever [even secretly] hit up this site? Comment aliases are accepted.

Aren’t you inspired by that brutal graphic design? DAYMN