|
|
Post by Winterland on Sept 25, 2015 11:09:42 GMT -6
Is it the norm for all these start up denim company's to resort to fbombs all over social media when called out on anything or is it just the ones that tend to show up in this thread? Yes I am confused on who was even writing that and who it was directed at. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 25, 2015 11:18:59 GMT -6
Interesting that Freeriders IG is now taking direct aim at Feltraiger. Let me again state, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's a sh*tshow. http://instagr.am/p/8D77iToza7 |
|
|
|
Post by devastitis on Sept 25, 2015 11:34:15 GMT -6
Interesting that Freeriders IG is now taking direct aim at Feltraiger. Let me again state, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's a sh*tshow. http://instagr.am/p/8D77iToza7 goddamn.. What's wrong with these people. |
|
|
|
Post by danfeltraiger on Sept 25, 2015 12:12:33 GMT -6
haha Ya i just saw that. Desperate attempt todo something about the shit show they are in but what they probably dont understand is that those are references to obvious huge companies... not meant to be hidden hahahah, like someone doesnt know what the Harley logo looks like...
Anyway, just spoke to someone that was called to be a model and they said they spoke to a girl from Freeriders named LIZ... is that not 100% undebatable evidence that this is the lawless guys?
|
|
|
|
Post by exophobe on Sept 25, 2015 12:12:58 GMT -6
Is it the norm for all these start up denim company's to resort to fbombs all over social media when called out on anything or is it just the ones that tend to show up in this thread? Yes I am confused on who was even writing that and who it was directed at. It was directed at hgs in regards to his question about whether or not they're involved with Roman Acevedo. The first response was adequate, the second one with the f-bomb is what made it suspicious, and knowing the Jamison connection to this new brand directly ties them all together, given our past experiences with Jamison here on this board. I feel for the guy if this was his attempt to restart, but putting yourself out there on the internet on a basis of lies within a relatively small community isn't the way to get yourself moving. He also appears to have picked the wrong people to associate with, in several different incarnations. |
|
|
|
Post by oatwilly on Sept 25, 2015 12:49:52 GMT -6
I just checked out their site and other than vague photos of people on motorcycles wearing jeans I don't see a connection. There aren't any shots of the jeans to know if the same details are being used There are jeans up for order on their website with pics |
|
|
|
Post by exophobe on Sept 25, 2015 12:55:22 GMT -6
haha Ya i just saw that. Desperate attempt todo something about the shit show they are in but what they probably dont understand is that those are references to obvious huge companies... not meant to be hidden hahahah, like someone doesnt know what the Harley logo looks like... Anyway, just spoke to someone that was called to be a model and they said they spoke to a girl from Freeriders named LIZ... is that not 100% undebatable evidence that this is the lawless guys? While I understand where you're coming from, the problem is in understanding of copyright or trademark. A logo or a brand identity is legally protected, whereas designs or cuts of clothing is not (something the garment industry has become very aware of with the advent of fast fashion). So they're trying to get you in trouble with something that you can actually get in trouble for. This is especially a concern because if a company doesn't defend their brand identity, it becomes public domain, so in-house counsel tends to take these things pretty seriously, and I'm not sure who owns Thrasher these days (or, honestly, if it still exists). While you're working with your lawyer, I would recommend asking them the potential ramifications, it may be recommended you stop selling that stuff (based on existing designs) while you're embroiled in this mess -- if it were me I'd likely remove that stuff from my site for the time being anyway. I think what you're doing looks good, I'd hate to see you in a bunch of trouble as the result of this, though. If it does turn out that these guys are related to the Lawless folks, know that they play dirty and have threatened many former employees. You being in New York likely takes away a lot of the ability to intimidate, though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2015 12:56:45 GMT -6
People have been doing derivative text logos forever. Look how many companies use Iron Maiden style text, Metallicas lightning bolts, play off of AC/DC's design etc.... hell, look at Kiss's logo, that SS came from someplace else.
Don't care.
Don't care if the company is legit or not. Don't care about the logo. Don't care about Jamison or Roman or who the chick on the bike is sleeping with.
Just.Don't.Care.
These clowns will all either adjust their methods or fail. I think we've done enough to link them all together. I'd say lets all walk away now, but it's not up to me to say. That's what I'm doing.
Something about fighting with pigs....
Let them get muddy. Don't jump in the pen with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffrx on Sept 25, 2015 12:56:53 GMT -6
I just checked out their site and other than vague photos of people on motorcycles wearing jeans I don't see a connection. There aren't any shots of the jeans to know if the same details are being used There are jeans up for order on their website with pics I'm holding out for a sale. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2015 13:02:16 GMT -6
There are jeans up for order on their website with pics I'm holding out for a sale. THAT is flippin funny! |
|
|
|
Post by Dirty_Denim on Sept 25, 2015 13:22:38 GMT -6
I wish people would stop using transparency to sell inexpensive jeans. Here is the problem with selling a jean at $64 when you are similar to a LD and so close to what just happened. Selling jeans for $64 even if it cost you $24 to $30 doesn't mean jack. These people think just because they are profiting on paper all is well. So much goes wrong when u are dealing with tight time restraints and such low profits. These are shady times where customers feel tentative with anything similar to LD and now Jack Knife. The better sales tactic is to give assurances someone will receive what they pay for. I could care less how much I saved or how transparent u are being. I WANT A DAMN PAIR OF JEANS NOT AN EXTRA $75. Where the hell did these people learn business from. At $64 u will have to sell a whole lot of jeans to get yourself nice and comfy. Dealing with button manufacturers, fabric suppliers, leather patch cutters, screen printers, pattern makers, sewing factories will all but wipe out your measly $30 profit you thought you had. Yes $64 minus the $25 it took you to make the jeans equals $34 BUT where the hell is your "JUST IN CASE" money. This is why these brands go defunct. They are idiots who know nothing. EDIT: Looks like the IG post was updated to include buttons & hardware lol http://instagram.com/p/8EsEeEIzSc http://instagr.am/p/8EC3kIIzXF |
|
|
|
Post by Old26 on Sept 25, 2015 13:23:40 GMT -6
He should have named his new rip-off scheme "Groundhog Day denim co". Should we trademark that now? Absolutely. I'll chip in. Totally worth it. I see my future now... Off to go camping for 2.5 days kids. Keep the fort down. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 25, 2015 13:27:58 GMT -6
Dont forget the checkered shirt!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2015 13:29:46 GMT -6
Dirty_Denim hit the nail on the head so hard it went right through the wood. This X 1000
|
|
|
|
Post by gaseousclay on Sept 25, 2015 13:31:03 GMT -6
While I understand where you're coming from, the problem is in understanding of copyright or trademark. A logo or a brand identity is legally protected, whereas designs or cuts of clothing is not (something the garment industry has become very aware of with the advent of fast fashion). So they're trying to get you in trouble with something that you can actually get in trouble for. This is especially a concern because if a company doesn't defend their brand identity, it becomes public domain, so in-house counsel tends to take these things pretty seriously, and I'm not sure who owns Thrasher these days (or, honestly, if it still exists). While you're working with your lawyer, I would recommend asking them the potential ramifications, it may be recommended you stop selling that stuff (based on existing designs) while you're embroiled in this mess -- if it were me I'd likely remove that stuff from my site for the time being anyway. I think what you're doing looks good, I'd hate to see you in a bunch of trouble as the result of this, though. If it does turn out that these guys are related to the Lawless folks, know that they play dirty and have threatened many former employees. You being in New York likely takes away a lot of the ability to intimidate, though. good points, especially when it comes to copyright infringement versus trademark infringement. The Thrasher parody could very well come under fair use laws, but i'm no lawyer and wouldn't risk the potential backlash. And as exophobe pointed out, the garment industry is chock full of 'borrowed' designs. I know Gustin has gotten a lot of flack for their twill bags and have been accused of ripping off Filson. It's even harder to prove you originally came up with a garment design for a vest or jacket. The clothing industry is one giant pot of people borrowing ideas from one another. I would also like to point out that consumers aren't stupid and will see through the BS. If Freeridersco wants to continue to make an ass of himself via IG or any other social media platform then let him. I know I won't be spending a dime with their company based on their shitty responses |
|
|
|
Post by Dirty_Denim on Sept 25, 2015 13:43:33 GMT -6
The guy who bought the font being discussed likely purchased the rights to use it for his clients.
|
|
|
|
Post by david2403 on Sept 25, 2015 13:43:47 GMT -6
Yeah, with a cost of doing business at 23%, that $34 profit becomes about $26 before taxes. Some of these people think that they'll make it up in volume but that never happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty_Denim on Sept 25, 2015 14:02:51 GMT -6
Yeah, with a cost of doing business at 23%, that $34 profit becomes about $26 before taxes. Some of these people think that they'll make it up in volume but that never happens. $220 jeans likely cost $100 after everything but these silly brands charge under $100 but add in the obvious things like fabric & labor. What about the $.80 per button or the $2 leather patch and printing. How bout the pocket liners and thread. Those things can bring that supposed $25 jean up to $30-$32. What about the situation Ciano is in? He had no buttons and was being told by the manufacturer they were delayed but coming. He had customers waiting 5 months but if he had a "just in case fund" he could have jumped on buttons that were $.50 more per ($2 extra per jean). By short changing your self just so you can prove the point that you charge $85 for a fabric someone else charged $200 for. Customers will fight back now that these people have ruined this concept with incompetence. I mean it could work but we are all tentative non believers now. Dear sudden denim brand owner, If the carpet cleaning business u ran went under because of mis management, I think the denim brand u now own will too. |
|
hgs
New Member
Posts: 27 
|
Post by hgs on Sept 25, 2015 14:03:59 GMT -6
Freeriders is doing a good job making a big f!@king deal out of something they claim is not a big deal. If only that was the kind of volume that made a business successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by gaseousclay on Sept 25, 2015 14:17:42 GMT -6
$220 jeans likely cost $100 after everything but these silly brands charge under $100 but add in the obvious things like fabric & labor. What about the $.80 per button or the $2 leather patch and printing. How bout the pocket liners and thread. Those things can bring that supposed $25 jean up to $30-$32. What about the situation Ciano is in? He had no buttons and was being told by the manufacturer they were delayed but coming. He had customers waiting 5 months but if he had a "just in case fund" he could have jumped on buttons that were $.50 more per ($2 extra per jean). By short changing your self just so you can prove the point that you charge $85 for a fabric someone else charged $200 for. Customers will fight back now that these people have ruined this concept with incompetence. I mean it could work but we are all tentative non believers now. another statement I see being made by kickstarter denim companies is this idea of 'cutting out the middle man' and making jeans affordable. As you stated, this is all good in theory but unless you're selling in volume there's no way in hell you'll be profitable. I think people see Gustin and want to do what they're doing but Gustin's business model allows them to produce in volume and sell most of their jeans below market value. I'm all for affordable denim but at the same time I think pricing your goods to undercut the market devalues your brand and gives the perception that your stuff is cheap. I'm not saying this is the case for all startups but unless you're doing everything in-house there's no way you're going to make it in this business if you don't have sound financial advice. Look at what Railcar Fine Goods is doing. They're doing everything in-house and they don't price their jeans cheaply just so they can make a sale. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 25, 2015 14:33:49 GMT -6
$220 jeans likely cost $100 after everything but these silly brands charge under $100 but add in the obvious things like fabric & labor. What about the $.80 per button or the $2 leather patch and printing. How bout the pocket liners and thread. Those things can bring that supposed $25 jean up to $30-$32. What about the situation Ciano is in? He had no buttons and was being told by the manufacturer they were delayed but coming. He had customers waiting 5 months but if he had a "just in case fund" he could have jumped on buttons that were $.50 more per ($2 extra per jean). By short changing your self just so you can prove the point that you charge $85 for a fabric someone else charged $200 for. Customers will fight back now that these people have ruined this concept with incompetence. I mean it could work but we are all tentative non believers now. another statement I see being made by kickstarter denim companies is this idea of 'cutting out the middle man' and making jeans affordable. As you stated, this is all good in theory but unless you're selling in volume there's no way in hell you'll be profitable. I think people see Gustin and want to do what they're doing but Gustin's business model allows them to produce in volume and sell most of their jeans below market value. I'm all for affordable denim but at the same time I think pricing your goods to undercut the market devalues your brand and gives the perception that your stuff is cheap. I'm not saying this is the case for all startups but unless you're doing everything in-house there's no way you're going to make it in this business if you don't have sound financial advice. Look at what Railcar Fine Goods is doing. They're doing everything in-house and they don't price their jeans cheaply just so they can make a sale. Exactly. My initial response when I saw Dirty_Denim's note with their IG - someone needs to ask "what about the just-in-case fund?" - I'm guessing the response will be "50% off sale!"... |
|
|
|
Post by devastitis on Sept 25, 2015 15:17:12 GMT -6
I wish people would stop using transparency to sell inexpensive jeans. Here is the problem with selling a jean at $64 when you are similar to a LD and so close to what just happened. Selling jeans for $64 even if it cost you $24 to $30 doesn't mean jack. These people think just because they are profiting on paper all is well. So much goes wrong when u are dealing with tight time restraints and such low profits. These are shady times where customers feel tentative with anything similar to LD and now Jack Knife. The better sales tactic is to give assurances someone will receive what they pay for. I could care less how much I saved or how transparent u are being. I WANT A DAMN PAIR OF JEANS NOT AN EXTRA $75. Where the hell did these people learn business from. At $64 u will have to sell a whole lot of jeans to get yourself nice and comfy. Dealing with button manufacturers, fabric suppliers, leather patch cutters, screen printers, pattern makers, sewing factories will all but wipe out your measly $30 profit you thought you had. Yes $64 minus the $25 it took you to make the jeans equals $34 BUT where the hell is your "JUST IN CASE" money. This is why these brands go defunct. They are idiots who know nothing. http://instagr.am/p/8EC3kIIzXF except, they weren't completely transparent, they forgot to add the fifth row: order and receive nothing - $64. |
|
|
|
Post by gaseousclay on Sept 25, 2015 15:42:03 GMT -6
The funny thing is, saying you're not out to scam us implies you know someone who has, like Lawless. Also, stating that expensive brands are scamming you is taking a cheap shot at those companies who actually deliver high quality goods. Can't wait to see this so called company crash and burn
|
|
|
|
Post by exophobe on Sept 25, 2015 15:43:00 GMT -6
Dirty_Denim - well, if you steal your patterns that's a huge savings right there. I'm curious where they arrive at $15 material cost. Pacific blue charges that (at least) per yard for that 23oz fabric, and conservatively it takes three yards to make a pair of jeans. Maybe for roll-end cone you can hit that price, but that's just denim, never mind broken needles, the 15 some-odd rivets, the buttons, pocket material, etc. they post these numbers as if there is no overhead, which is your point, while making the claim that any compensation for overhead is greed. I think gustin is doing this about as cheap as a company can, which is why these arguments about the waste in $100 jeans is ludicrous. Ciano is seeing this, and reacting accordingly by charging for the work he's doing. These guys are charging the same as high-volume Levi's without the volume or bulk material purchase to back it up, while still indicating they're nimble enough to reduce the production time to 1/10th that it takes a brand like Levi's. $300 boutique brands, that's different, and so is the cost model due to the way they do business. Quit pointing fingers at them when you're the one failing to produce. And then those that doubt you are made into bad guys. Hey lawless, you told me about the inherent waste in others models, assured me you'd done the math, and then completely failed to produce as you ran out of money. That tells me that the problem is with your model, not theirs.
|
|
|
|
Post by exophobe on Sept 25, 2015 15:45:13 GMT -6
Dirty_Denim - well, if you steal your patterns that's a huge savings right there. I'm curious where they arrive at $15 material cost. Pacific blue charges that (at least) per yard for that 23oz fabric, and conservatively it takes three yards to make a pair of jeans. Maybe for roll-end cone you can hit that price, but that's just denim, never mind broken needles, the 15 some-odd rivets, the buttons, pocket material, etc. they post these numbers as if there is no overhead, which is your point, while making the claim that any compensation for overhead is greed. I think gustin is doing this about as cheap as a company can, which is why these arguments about the waste in $100 jeans is ludicrous. Ciano is seeing this, and reacting accordingly by charging for the work he's doing. These guys are charging the same as high-volume Levi's without the volume or bulk material purchase to back it up, while still indicating they're nimble enough to reduce the production time to 1/10th that it takes a brand like Levi's. $300 boutique brands, that's different, and so is the cost model due to the way they do business. Quit pointing fingers at them when you're the one failing to produce. And then those that doubt you are made into bad guys. Hey lawless, you told me about the inherent waste in others models, assured me you'd done the math, and then completely failed to produce as you ran out of money. That tells me that the problem is with your model, not theirs. Oh. I had hat wrong. They're saying that you can make a pair of denim with a single yard of fabric. The material cost alone is the final number they've arrived at, without accounting for thread, hardware, or mistakes. |
|
