Suits are back (cf. pg's submarine essay) | Hacker News Reader

Suits are back (cf. pg's submarine essay)

uk.reuters.com

34 pointsximeng18 comments

The point of PG's essay is well-taken, but I'm not really sure how the linked article really applies other than at a superficial level. I can't find a recent press release from which this article was derived; the closest one is the cited Bain & Co. note from Oct. 2012, which is pretty old by current standards.

Additionally, the reporter here seems to have at least done a modicum of original research, given that he's quoting actual clothing makers. This is in contrast with the USA Today article cited in PG's essay, which quoted a PR guy, a GQ editor, and a consultant.

Thus, to the extent that the submarine theory applies here, it's probably just to show the long reach that a well-manufactured eight-year-old marketing campaign can have. But there were plenty of other marketing campaigns from that time that didn't stick around this long, so maybe that's an indicator that there is some real substance to this trend?

Of course, I've only done a little research into this. If someone can turn up the actual press release or other marketing push from which this article was derived, I will gladly reverse my opinion.

This one also quotes a GQ editor!

Milan fashion week apparently started today.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/8475bc40-7087-11e2-a2cf-00144...

http://www.gq.com/fashion-shows/F2013/new-york/top-10-milan-...

PG's submarine essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

(In case others are like me, and didn't have it memorized. :))

For an in depth look at quite how bad this has become, see the excellent book Flat Earth News by Nick Davies.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flat-Earth-News-Award-winning-Distor...

It makes it very hard to mourn the passing of the newspaper industry.

EDIT: before someone chips in about how the PR industry is so powerful because journos are pressured by the 'net - the rot had already started back in the 80s, and it's because of corporate owners squeezing the numbers. Primarily murdoch.

Annnnd on the flip side are bad PR dudes pissing a journalist off by offering to ghost write and ending up on Jim Romanesko's blog: http://jimromenesko.com/2013/02/19/pr-mans-jaw-dropping-offe...

Having spent a year and a half developing software for journalists, I'm certain that there are some lazy, careless journalists, but there are a whole lot more overworked and underpaid journalists, some of whom may not have the savvy to know when they're being duped (some due to ignorance, some due to lack of experience, some due to lack of resources).

PG notes that they were paying their PR firm 16k$ a month. Take a moment to ask yourself how much you think the starting salary for a reporter is, and then follow the link below:

http://gawker.com/5829589/average-starting-journalist-pay-30...

> Having spent a year and a half developing software for journalists

That sounds interesting. What did you write?

I work on DocumentCloud at Investigative Reporters & Editors.

http://www.documentcloud.org http://github.com/documentcloud http://ire.org

Lazy and careless OR unpaid and overworked - what difference does that make to me as a critical reader of journalism?

What difference does that make to whether the Reuters puff-piece about Savile Row "bespoke" tailors is a submarine PR hit or not?

It makes a great deal of difference if you work in an industry that is built on trust.

Many reporters have been wrong, and the diligent amongst them will file retractions or corrections for their mistakes (and endeavor to make those mistakes few and far between).

That contrasts with someone like Jonah Lehrer who was both wrong and mendacious.

You can work and have your readers best interests in mind, and be wrong. You can't lie to your readers and have their best interest in mind.

Systematic bias within the media, especially when driven by the PR industry is a substantial problem that reporters and editors should contend with, but PG seats the blame almost entirely with journalists, and I think that's at least a little dishonest. There's a market here, and one side is constrained in its resources, human and financial, and the other side has oil companies, tech giants, and lobbyists funneling in billions of dollars.

All I'm saying is that as far as analyses go, "journalists are dishonest" may be a convenient narrative, but it's not a very useful or illuminating one (in fact, it sounds like it was written from the perspective of a PR shill :P ).

Thanks for posting this. Good to see the evidence before the essay. I had no idea why anyone would post, or even care, about suit being 'in fashion'.

Fascinating read-- thanks for sharing.

> When I think how hard PR firms work to score press hits in the traditional media, I can't imagine they'll work any less hard to feed stories to bloggers, if they can figure out how.

I wanted to add that PR firms have indeed figured out how to pitch to bloggers, and do so all the time. I am close with several folks who work in PR and pitch to bloggers every day.

Anytime you read a blogger's review of any product, it was because they were sent free samples from the PR firm that represents the product maker. This sometimes backfires when the blogger doesn't like the product and expresses that in the review. But more often than not, the blogger is flattered by the gifts and praise and is happy to give glowing reviews of the new widget.

I don't think it can be emphasized enough how eye-opening that essay is. It totally changed the way I consume media. Reading about the "submarines" should be mandatory reading for anyone in school because it's that important.

It always confounds and frustrates me how fashion labels are always some of the worst offenders in adapting to new technology. For one, so many of their websites use Flash, and it can generally be a pain to find any information about them.

I was in Paris a while ago, and I had to rely on a French version of Yelp to get some basic information of where I could get my shopping on.

I'm curious about one thing -- the suits that are making a comeback, how similar exactly are they?

I think from afar they look great and very close to clothes from the past, but how is the fitting -- comfortable? Or has there been zero innovation in clothe-making and clothes back then were just as comfortable to wear and fit just as well?

This will probably sound obvious, but well made suits and properly fitted shirts and suits aren't really uncomfortable a all. Of course most people don't factor in the costs of tailoring into their suit purchases, and buy inferior suits like the Jos. A Bank sales, which hey great if you're on the road all the time, but otherwise 2-3 basic suits, 2 pairs of shoes, some ties, and a few white and blue shirts will go a long, long way.

This is a startup that's trying to apply new materials (think high-tech athletic wear) to dress clothes: http://ministryofsupply.com/

So far they have some dress shirts.

I'm a big fan of English suits, wish I had the money.

Here's a good example: http://tailgate365.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Ralph-Fien...

The title of the article ("Timeless suits from London's Savile Row back in fashion") is a contradiction in terms. Either the suits are timeless OR they go in and out of fashion. Can't have both.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com