MANUFACTURING
Letter to the Editor: In Response to Coverage of the Otis Creative Economy Report
In Response to Coverage of the Otis Creative Economy Report (California Apparel News, March 13–19 Issue)
Once again, there is an issue of data vs. substance, and clarity continues to be required when gathering and reporting on the diverse industry that is called “fashion.”
Economists analyze data in individual ways. Every time there is a “new” economist on the project, the “old” analytics are discarded and new procedures are developed. That is exactly what has happened here. Since the Otis Report of 2008, new procedures and “cluster-gathering” data have been redeveloped twice! Comparing statistics from 2008 to 2015 is more than apples to oranges. It’s more like apples to potatoes.
For example:
The entertainment/communication arts industry data includes “agents,” graphic artists, technical services, transportation, security, food service, photography studios, etc.
Not so for “fashion.” In the statistics of services required to produce, design and distribute the $32 billion of product shipped from this region, there is no research into the numbers of sales “agents” housed in our downtown “marts,” no mention of the industry-dedicated technology companies, the garment-only transportation companies, the tri-party warehousing required for online distribution, or the warehouses and distribution centers throughout the region that receive and then ship the globally sourced product—among other categories.
With regard to salaries paid to our accomplished technicians, designers, patternmakers, etc., there are accurate accumulated data researched every year by 24/Seven in its annual report. I have reports from 2009 to the present. They reflect an entirely different picture than those shown in the Otis report.
We can go chart by chart, graph by graph and paint a much different picture detailing the changes in the fashion industry that have affected its growth, not its decline.
Ilse Metchek
President
California Fashion Association
