...so much so that I will go out of my way to read it to avoid doing other things, like writing. (Hence significant delays in my output here.)
I read The Toronto Star most days (probably about 1/3-1/2 of the online version), and when I've finished that, I move on to the front page of Digg.com. If somehow I manage to exhaust those sources during my day, the interweb is replete with alternatives. Apart from work, this is probably the largest chunk of my day. In my reading, I keep track of what is going on in the various worlds I inhabit--the geopolitical, the socio-cultural, the technological-scientific, the pictures of cute animals--ostensibly because I am interested in them, but, sadly, the truth is that I'm simply addicted. I can't stay away. I must know! And I haven't exactly made any moves to improve the situation. At least I'm not the only one, if the explosion of blogs and social news and networking are any sign.
Now, I am interested in what is happening in the worlds--I love to be informed about things--but I'm also interested in getting things done; and I have no shortage of personal projects to occupy my time. What I recognize about my addiction to news, and what I imagine might actually apply to any addiction that is more psychological than physiological, is that I indulge it to procrastinate. (In other words, maybe I'm not really addicted, but I am a compulsive procrastinator.) Something else I've noticed is that I no longer bother justifying it to myself, but I do feel guilty about it. Actually, I suppose I read news to rationalize my procrastination. Still, I guess there are worse addictions and compulsions.
The thing I feel guilty about is that I rarely synthesize the media I consume; I often don't even digest it. I mean, I look and I read and I remember somewhat, but I don't always engage. Or that's how it feels anyway. So now I'm doing something about it, and you will help me. Basically, you're looking at my addiction therapy. (And hopefully engaging it, too.) Wish me luck!
Read on..!
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
Monday, 10 March 2008
To the people of Stanfield's Limited of Truro, Nova Scotia
My name is Adam Gorley. I am a young writer, editor, artist, and magazine publisher from Toronto. When it comes to underwear - briefs, trunks, boxers, and tees - I wear almost exclusively Stanfield's garments. A large part of the purpose of this letter is to thank you for making excellent products. They are comfortable, stylish, and competitively priced. And perhaps most importantly, they are made in Canada, by the hands of Canadians. Thank you Stanfield's!
It warms my heart and fills me with pride that a Canadian company chooses to maintain its local operations in the face of increasing competition from outsourced labour in other countries. That says to me that you respect your employees, your community, your customers, your country, and the world. It pleases me immensely to find a brand in stores that proudly displays a label: "Made in Canada" among the sadly more common labels of distant provenance. I try very hard to avoid products that are made in countries with suspicious labour and environmental practices, and where possible I buy Canadian goods. Indeed, I have actively boycotted companies who have removed their production from their traditional locales. Levi's, for example, who used to produce jeans in Canada and the U.S.A., now manufactures in Mexico for the North American market. (Except their premium labels, which are still made in the U.S. But I don't buy $200 jeans.)
This brings me to the second point of this letter. I offer some friendly unsolicited advice, completely without condition. It is borne from the pessimistic fear that some day, some factor might convince you to move your manufacturing to distant lands and cheap hands. (Though, your creed gives me hope that this would never happen.) I do not doubt that you have heard of a company called American Apparel, many of whose products compete with Stanfield's. They have expanded exponentially over the last several years based on two simple premises (as far as I can tell): moderately priced hip basics and fair wages and conditions for workers - in the U.S. That is, AA positions itself as hip, young, and socially conscious. I won't comment on the veracity of these claims or why it's so important that their Montréal-born owner chose to manufacture their products in southern California, but my point is, they promote themselves heavily as "Made in America", and it works. I shop there because I can feel comfortable that no worker was exploited to make the clothes that I buy. And the thing is, their products are of only average quality - much poorer than Stanfield's; and they're more expensive, too.
And so I wonder if there is not a great opportunity for Stanfield's to market itself similarly to the younger generations. Could Stanfield's products gain the coolness of American Apparel? And how might that happen? AA has retail outlets, and they do brisk wholesale business among artists and independent designers who want stylish and politically correct shirts to print on. Could Stanfield's open a flagship store outside Nova Scotia and staff it with hip young people decked out in your gear? Could you bring aboard a clothing designer to develop a line of youth-oriented basics to compete more directly against AA? Could “Made in Canada” be a label that consumers seek rather than consider a second thought?
I certainly don't claim to know that such a plan would be profitable, or if it is worthwhile at all. I am not really qualified to make such claims. Moreover, I'm certain that you have already a strong marketing and growth strategy, and frankly, I hope you don't find these comments presumptuous or, worse, offensive. The unchallenged dictum of our contemporary economy is surely, "Growth, Expansion, Ever-Increasing Profit, New Markets!", and while I am no fan of this oh-so-modern idea of unfettered growth, I understand that it is a powerful motive that has the capacity to drive innovation and job creation. If Stanfield’s was wondering where it might expand, I feel that the hip and savvy youth market is an area to consider.
In sum, thanks again, and I wish you and your company all the best in the future. I appreciate your time.
Sincerely,
Adam Gorley Read on..!
It warms my heart and fills me with pride that a Canadian company chooses to maintain its local operations in the face of increasing competition from outsourced labour in other countries. That says to me that you respect your employees, your community, your customers, your country, and the world. It pleases me immensely to find a brand in stores that proudly displays a label: "Made in Canada" among the sadly more common labels of distant provenance. I try very hard to avoid products that are made in countries with suspicious labour and environmental practices, and where possible I buy Canadian goods. Indeed, I have actively boycotted companies who have removed their production from their traditional locales. Levi's, for example, who used to produce jeans in Canada and the U.S.A., now manufactures in Mexico for the North American market. (Except their premium labels, which are still made in the U.S. But I don't buy $200 jeans.)
This brings me to the second point of this letter. I offer some friendly unsolicited advice, completely without condition. It is borne from the pessimistic fear that some day, some factor might convince you to move your manufacturing to distant lands and cheap hands. (Though, your creed gives me hope that this would never happen.) I do not doubt that you have heard of a company called American Apparel, many of whose products compete with Stanfield's. They have expanded exponentially over the last several years based on two simple premises (as far as I can tell): moderately priced hip basics and fair wages and conditions for workers - in the U.S. That is, AA positions itself as hip, young, and socially conscious. I won't comment on the veracity of these claims or why it's so important that their Montréal-born owner chose to manufacture their products in southern California, but my point is, they promote themselves heavily as "Made in America", and it works. I shop there because I can feel comfortable that no worker was exploited to make the clothes that I buy. And the thing is, their products are of only average quality - much poorer than Stanfield's; and they're more expensive, too.
And so I wonder if there is not a great opportunity for Stanfield's to market itself similarly to the younger generations. Could Stanfield's products gain the coolness of American Apparel? And how might that happen? AA has retail outlets, and they do brisk wholesale business among artists and independent designers who want stylish and politically correct shirts to print on. Could Stanfield's open a flagship store outside Nova Scotia and staff it with hip young people decked out in your gear? Could you bring aboard a clothing designer to develop a line of youth-oriented basics to compete more directly against AA? Could “Made in Canada” be a label that consumers seek rather than consider a second thought?
I certainly don't claim to know that such a plan would be profitable, or if it is worthwhile at all. I am not really qualified to make such claims. Moreover, I'm certain that you have already a strong marketing and growth strategy, and frankly, I hope you don't find these comments presumptuous or, worse, offensive. The unchallenged dictum of our contemporary economy is surely, "Growth, Expansion, Ever-Increasing Profit, New Markets!", and while I am no fan of this oh-so-modern idea of unfettered growth, I understand that it is a powerful motive that has the capacity to drive innovation and job creation. If Stanfield’s was wondering where it might expand, I feel that the hip and savvy youth market is an area to consider.
In sum, thanks again, and I wish you and your company all the best in the future. I appreciate your time.
Sincerely,
Adam Gorley Read on..!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
