> You're suggesting it's some kind of feminism promotion piece?
No I'm suggesting it gets covered because of a female founder. A lot of companies in that size go broke all the time without being covered. Maybe it hasn't anything to do with her gender but I can't help to think it has since the news otherwise is incredibly boring.
I'm sorry you find this boring, but it is of a lot of interest to many other people. The company had a good origin story, a charismatic founder, rapid growth, and great branding. It's interesting that such a rapidly growing company and brand could come to a screeching halt like this.
That and the company had a fairly provocative name, and targetted young women (read: teens) thus it was tailor made for family values controversy.
Also, the female founder is an author who heavily markets her book on business techniques and has publishers who are dedicated to calling newspapers and getting her name in them.
Startup bankruptcies are a very common topic and Nasty Gal isn't any different. To suggest that it's news just because of the founder's gender is ridiculous and trivializes the hard work and emotional roller coaster everybody involved went through.
No it doesn't, don't be ridiculous. 'Why is this getting voted up when I've never heard or the company' was my reaction to seeing it when skimming the top links this morning. It being a female founder helps answer that question without implying anything else other than what you willfully project onto others.
I disagree. Why would that "trivialize" the work behind building the company? Of course the people involved care deeply about the outcome.
But for me, as a total outsider, this has 0 news worth since from my understanding the company has no real public interest except for their customers and founders/owners. AFAIK the company isn't even public so it isn't like anyone has anything invested in it.
It is for me obvious that the company bankruptcy is covered because of the gender of the founder. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't really see any other reason to why.
If you live/work someplace like Los Angeles where "fast fashion" startups are doing a significant amount of tech hiring, it's useful to understand what they do and the difficulty of being "disruptive" in that space.
It's also useful, as a man, to have a basic understanding of the fashion industry as part of being an educated human being. You can tell a lot about a woman by how she dresses herself. Especially her shoes. :)
That's the point, that you can be successful and go broke doing it.
The reason fashion is a tough nut to crack is the short business cycle and associated inventory risk. You need to anticipate fashion trends, get product to market quickly, and if you screw up you have to dump your inventory at clearance sale prices and eat that loss. Big retailers are experts at finding ways to manage that risk, and that's why the Forever 21's of the world sell crap clothing made overseas.
Seriously, when Britney Spears popularized low-rise jeans, every teenage female in the USA had to go to the mall and change out her wardrobe. When Clark Gable appeared in a movie wearing a men's dress shirt with no undershirt, the market for men's undershirts tanked.
How does one plan for that sort of thing within the constraints of a VC-backed company?
Fashion is a pretty hard industry especially when you're targeting younger people with less disposable income. If you sell your brand to the mall type retailers, your brand image is pretty much dead. If you don't sell to them, they copy your designs and sell for less anyways.
No I'm suggesting it gets covered because of a female founder. A lot of companies in that size go broke all the time without being covered. Maybe it hasn't anything to do with her gender but I can't help to think it has since the news otherwise is incredibly boring.