A while ago, I wrote about pricing out a polo shirt that retailed for $150 then ($175 now).
Today’s post goes to the other end of the fashion spectrum: pricing out a “fast fashion” shirt that might sell at H&M or Zara for, say, $15. The source of my information about Bangladesh is an op ed column, “The Economics of a $6.75 Shirt,” by Rubana Huq, who owns a garment business there.
Just for reference, the factory gate cost of the KP MacLane luxury polo is:
These figures are unusually high for a shirt, mostly because of the small initial lots involved. The unit price could easily be below $15 now, depending on how successful KP MacLane has been in its sales efforts.
in comparison, costs in Bangladesh…
…for an order of 400,000 fast fashion shirts:
–cotton cloth $4.75
–labels, other $1.00
–utilities, factory rent $.11
–debt service (for manufacturing equipment) $.125
The selling price at the factory door is $6.75. Therefore, the per garment profit is $.125. The total order earns the manufacturer, before paying himself (or, in this case, herself), $50,000. In the example Ms. Huq gives in her op ed column, this order represents about five months business for the factory.
what I find interesting
Although the KP MacLane polo and the fast fashion t-shirt sell for wildly different prices at retail, the material costs aren’t that different.
The markup over production cost is 718% for KPM, 140% for the tee. As I mentioned in my earlier post, a Hermès polo sells for $455, or about 2.6x the price of the KPM one. Hermès’ production costs are probably lower than KPM’s, so the markup is likely higher than 1800%. In both cases the buyer is clearly paying primarily for the branding, not the garment.
The operating model for classic luxury goods is far different from that of fast fashion. The former sells far fewer items-most of which have very long shelf lives–at huge markups. The latter sells huge numbers of items with short shelf lives at low markups.
The two styles demand different skills. Fast fashion, in particular, has little room for error in design or sourcing/pricing from manufacturers.
the Bangladesh situation
First of all, we have to remember that the data Ms. Huq present come from a manufacturer in Bangladesh, hardly a disinterested party. Certainly she will want to put her best foot forward. Still, I’ve found the situation she describes to be typical of the garment industry over the decades, whether located in New York City, Japan, Thailand, China or Bangladesh.
Bangladesh employs 4 million garment workers, the vast majority of them women, who are the chief breadwinners in households totaling 20 million. They earn US$70 – $80 a month, which is far more than an unskilled laborer could expect in any alternative employment in Bangladesh. Although their families are barely surviving, the greatest fear of these workers is doubtless that the garment industry will shift away from Bangladesh to other low labor-cost countries, like Vietnam, leaving them unemployed.
The garment manufacturer in Bangladesh may make $100,000 a year if everything runs smoothly. But that could be considerably less if he’s inefficient or if he encounters production delays that, say, require him to pay for shipment by air. So one can certainly understand–not condone, just understand—the temptation an unscrupulous owner may feel to lower rent by turning a blind eye to safety violations. It’s not clear how much leeway fast fashion has to alter its operating model by raising prices, either (look what happened to JCP).
In theory at least, consumer pressure on international retailers for a keener eye to worker safety when sourcing garments may solve that issue–although the same problems seem to recur decade after decade and in country after country.
The more difficult issue to reconcile are the ideas that income of $70 a month is a good situation to be in, which in Bangladesh it is, and that well-intentioned efforts to improve it may make the workers’ lot considerably worse.