The Debrief

President Donald Trump announced an unprecedented wave of tariffs on April 2, imposing duties as high as 54 percent on fashion imports from key manufacturing countries, including China and Vietnam, and 20 percent on goods from the EU. These measures immediately sparked panic across global markets, ratcheting up the odds of a US recession and causing sharp stock price declines for major fashion brands such as Nike, Victoria's Secret and VF Corp. Sustainability correspondent Sarah Kent and luxury correspondent Simone Stern Carbone join executive editor Brian Baskin and senior correspondent Sheena Butler-Young to break down the tariffs’ effects on manufacturing, luxury brands, consumer behaviour and potential future shifts within the industry.Key Insights: The belief that these tariffs could quickly restore US-based fashion manufacturing is unrealistic. "It would take years of investment to build up the infrastructure and skill base within the US to replace manufacturing capacity that has been moving abroad for decades. For the apparel industry, it just does not exist on the scale that would be needed," explains Kent.Luxury brands, traditionally insulated by European-based production, will also face pressure. "Even for luxury brands that pride themselves for their production in countries like mostly France and Italy, they are going to be hit with some tariffs too," Stern Carbone points out.The tariffs introduce a complex challenge for luxury brands, requiring careful balancing of price adjustments, consumer sentiment and creativity amid ongoing economic uncertainty. "It's this mix between pricing, demand, maybe a lack of creativity, and also incentivising customers to actually purchase luxury goods," says Stern Carbone. "You don't know what [Trump] is going to do next, you don't know if this is going to stick, so are you going to spend $10,000 on a handbag - even if you can technically afford it - when you don't know what tomorrow brings?" emphasises Kent.The industry isn’t entirely powerless. "Brands have a voice. Brands are part of the global economy. Brands can lobby," says Kent. "They can make it known that they don't like this. If you're not raising your voice and saying, 'hey, this is really hurting big business and it's not making America great again,' then you're not even trying."Additional Resources:Trump’s Tariffs Rock Fashion’s Supply Chain | BoFExplainer: How Trump’s Tariffs Threaten Luxury Fashion | BoFOp-Ed | Fashion’s Reset: What Tariffs Are Forcing Us to Finally Fix | BoF Executive Memo | An Action Plan for Navigating Trump’s Tariffs 

Fast-fashion giant H&M recently announced its plans to deploy AI-generated "digital twins" of real-life models in marketing campaigns. While H&M argues it's proactively managing inevitable industry changes, including by working with models to compensate them for use of their AI versions, the decision has sparked significant backlash. Comments on social media and statements by industry figures highlight deep-seated anxieties around job security, creative integrity and the value of the human element in fashion. BoF correspondents Marc Bain and Haley Crawford discuss the potential outcomes and tensions arising from AI’s expanding role in fashion marketing.Key Insights: H&M is just the tip of the iceberg: Fashion brands are increasingly embracing AI, from fast fashion to luxury. While AI-generated imagery has quietly infiltrated lower-end markets for some time, H&M's public embrace signifies its move out into the open, and into the world of high-profile campaigns. High-end brands like Coach and Estée Lauder have started using AI for product-focused imagery, indicating a cautious yet clear shift. "Coach uses Adobe Firefly to create digital twins of its products… to scale marketing content and test designs," says Crawford, highlighting how AI is already reshaping marketing across the fashion spectrum.Transparency around AI use in marketing is still inconsistent, and regulations are lagging behind. "The technology is moving so rapidly, it's making its way out into the world already, and the law is trying to catch up," Bain explains. While the EU is moving toward legislating transparency in AI-generated imagery, the lack of clear rules globally adds complexity for brands and consumers alike, creating uncertainty around ethical marketing standards.The rise of AI-generated imagery raises concerns over the loss of the creative collaboration intrinsic to traditional fashion shoots. "What's really at risk of being lost here is that communal process of creating fashion imagery," says Bain. "Some level of creativity and humanity, in addition to all the jobs themselves, which are also hugely important, will also be lost."As AI image generation continues to be adopted by brands, it is creating increased competition, forcing both digital and traditional creatives to innovate further. "You can't only live in an endlessly self-referential cycle of AI image generation, even if AI is piecing different concepts together to generate newness," Crawford says. "People working on photography, art, whatever the artistic format is, will only get more creative and people are going to experiment more to stand out."Additional Resources:H&M Knows Its AI Models Will Be Controversial | BoFThe Fake Fashion Campaigns That Show AI’s Future in Marketing | BoF

Pat McGrath is widely regarded as one of the most influential makeup artists of all time. Known simply as “Mother” to some in the industry, she’s been behind some of the most memorable runway beauty moments for decades. In 2015, she launched her namesake brand, Pat McGrath Labs, which quickly became a beauty phenomenon – going viral with its glittering gold pigment and reaching a $1 billion valuation just two years later.But almost a decade on, the business tells a different story. With its valuation now a fraction of what it once was, high executive turnover, limited product accessibility, and internal challenges, the brand’s future hangs in the balance – even as McGrath's own star continues to rise with a new role as beauty director for Louis Vuitton.The Business of Beauty editor Brennan Kilbane and executive editor Priya Rao, explore what went wrong and how the business can get back on track.Key Insights: In its early years, Pat McGrath Labs thrived as a high-concept beauty brand that translated runway artistry into consumer excitement. The first product, Gold 001, was a multipurpose pressed gold pigment that sold out within minutes and crashed the website. As Kilbane describes, the brand began as “a direct pipeline from her creative brain to the cosmetics market.” The initial success solidified McGrath’s cult status – and set high expectations for what came next.When Pat McGrath's 'glass skin' look went viral after the Maison Margiela couture show, it could have been a pivotal brand moment. But the product inspired by the look – and released more than a year later – failed to maintain momentum. “They tried to capitalise on it by scheduling a masterclass a week later,” says Kilbane, “but it wasn’t fast enough.” Additionally, according to Rao, the bigger issue with late deployment was product wearability: “It’s not something that’s everyday or wearable in any capacity.”Pat McGrath’s artistry is legendary, however operationally, Pat McGrath Labs fell flat. “Pat McGrath Labs was Pat McGrath. She is the CEO, she is the founder, she's the creative director – the buck stops with her,” says Kilbane. With final say on everything from product formulation to packaging, this all-encompassing control created a bottleneck that affected every part of the business. The result was a company where decision-making was slow and fragmented.With valuation plummeting and Sephora shelf space dwindling, both Kilbane and Rao agree that McGrath’s company needs a reset. “Does it need new investors? Probably,” says Rao. “But it also needs leadership and operational know-how for it to actually scale. Otherwise, it’s going to be a pet project in comparison with what she does with Louis Vuitton.” Kilbane adds, “Fixing the company culture is going to be integral – if not even more impactful than integral – to the brand’s longevity.”Additional Resources:What Happened to Pat McGrath Labs? | BoF Louis Vuitton to Launch Makeup Line | BoF 

Once a dominant player in fast fashion, Forever 21 recently filed for bankruptcy for the second time in six years, marking the likely end of its run as a physical retailer. The chain, known for introducing ultra-affordable, trend-driven clothing to American malls, struggled to remain relevant as competitors like Zara, H&M, and later Shein and Temu offered faster, cheaper, and more digitally-savvy alternatives. After its initial bankruptcy in 2019, Forever 21 was acquired by Authentic Brands Group and mall operator Simon Property Group, but despite various turnaround attempts – including unusual collaborations and international relaunches – it failed to recapture its former success.Retail editor Cathaleen Chen joins The Debrief to unpack what Forever 21’s fall says about the future of fast fashion.Key Insights: Chen argues that Forever 21’s downfall is largely due to its loss of cultural cachet. “You don't see influencers peddling Forever 21 in the way that you see influencers still promoting Shein, and I think that's a huge factor. You have to spend that money to be relevant,” says Chen.Chen contends that fast fashion retailers like Forever 21 have always struggled with establishing a unique identity, which ultimately made it difficult for them to maintain customer loyalty. “The problem with Wet Seal, Rue 21, and now Forever 21 is that these retailers never really had any kind of identity,” she explains.The retailer’s failure to evolve beyond chasing transient trends has left it vulnerable to more agile competitors. “It's not about just chasing fashion, fashion, fashion the way that I think Forever 21 never got out of, the way that Shein dominates. It's about going the other direction and creating products that your customers want at a level of quality,” says Chen.Looking forward, success in fast fashion will require more than affordability. Chen believes future winners must combine low prices with a compelling retail experience: “There is an element of surprise and delight in that shopping experience. It can't just be cheap, affordable – it needs to offer something more.”Additional Resources:The Year Ahead: Deconstructing Fast Fashion’s Future | BoF Why Shein Keeps Buying Its Rivals | BoF

In the 2010s and early 2020s, a new generation of sexual wellness companies selling sex toys, massage oils and other bedroom aides broke taboos by championing pleasure and redefining sex as wellness. Startups such as Hanx and Playground, often founded by women, introduced sleek products that contrasted sharply with the hyper-sexualised image of legacy players like Trojan and Durex. However, recent regulatory restrictions, cultural conservatism, and social media censorship have forced these brands to pivot toward a more health-focused approach. In this episode of The Debrief, editorial associate Yola Mzizi explains how these changes are reshaping marketing strategies and consumer perceptions in the sexual wellness market.Key Insights: Brands in the sexual wellness category initially reframed sex as a wellness benefit. “They didn’t just focus on pleasure but other health benefits that come from engaging in sex,” says Mzizi. “This is a big deal because attitudes around sex were changing and therefore we saw all of these brands come up during this time to reflect that change.” However, as cultural conservatism gains ground, with stricter regulatory and social pressures emerging, those once-radical messages are now being muted, forcing brands to temper their bold narratives in favour of more sanitised, health-focused messaging.Despite early success, sexual wellness brands now face significant challenges due to tighter social media censorship and advertising restrictions. “If you just look at Meta, which owns Instagram, they have very clear policies that their ads cannot promote the sale or use of adult sexual arousal products or services,” says Mzizi. “That can mean anything from erotica to fan fiction, sex toys, but what they do allow are ads centred on reproductive health and sexual health, but only if they're shown to users 18 years or older.” Sexual wellness brands can continue their mission by staying true to their unique identity. “By doubling down, brands can rest assured that they're not diluting their message and the customers who are coming to shop with them know exactly who they are, what they stand for, and what they sell,” says Mzizi. “If you position yourself as a healthcare startup, and then you're selling lube, it may be very difficult to get someone to click purchase because they were duped into getting there.” Abstaining from going overboard with compliance can help preserve brand integrity and keeps loyal consumers engaged even as external pressures push for alternative narratives.Additional Resources:Can You Sell Sexual Wellness Without Sex? | BoF How Sex Toys Broke Into Beauty Retail | BoFAre Condoms Ready for the DTC Treatment? | BoF

Once hailed as a pioneering platform for online luxury, Farfetch is now undergoing a dramatic operational overhaul. The South Korean e-commerce giant Coupang acquired the luxury marketplace in 2023, rescuing it from near-bankruptcy. Since then, Coupang has implemented sweeping cost-cutting measures that have narrowed losses significantly, but are eroding Farfetch’s footing in the luxury e-commerce space and alienating its core customers. DTC correspondent Malique Morris joins Executive Editor Brian Baskin and Senior Correspondent Sheena Butler-Young to examine Farfetch’s path to profitability.Key Insights: Coupang's relentless drive to push Farfetch toward profitability clashes with the premium expectations of luxury shoppers as cost-cutting is prioritised over customer experience. “Coupang is so hyper‐focused on getting Farfetch to profitability ... and when you're dealing with people who are spending $100,000 a year on the marketplace, it doesn't quite work that way,” explains Morris. “They’ve also cut teams dedicated to working with Farfetch’s VIP customers, who can make up as much as 30% of the company’s annual sales.” This tension between operational efficiency and delivering a high-end experience is at the heart of Farfetch's challenges.Farfetch’s “sold by Farfetch” programme highlights its growing disconnect with luxury brands. As luxury powerhouses like Celine, Alaia and Kering – which includes Gucci, Saint Laurent and Bottega Veneta — pull their collections from the platform, Farfetch has turned to a grey market tactic to maintain its inventory. “Instead of sending the goods straight from the retailers to the customers, the items are now going to a warehouse in Amsterdam to be repackaged,” says Morris. “It's not only a knock to Farfetch's relationship with top brands, but it also risks deteriorating customer service.” This move, intended to sidestep brand resistance risks undermining transparency and trust among high-end partners.Farfetch's biggest superpower is that many independent boutiques still rely on it. “If Farfetch can at least do right by those retail partners, then it probably has a shot of stabilising its footing in online luxury,” says Morris. “Coupang will eventually have to allow Farfetch to reinvest in their relationships with customers and brands. That might cost them a couple million, but hopefully with the renewed focus on just the marketplace, Farfetch won't go back into the red in the process.”Additional Resources:Inside Coupang’s Tug of War With Farfetch | BoFFarfetch Owner Coupang: Everything You Need to Know | BoF 

The revelation this year of child labour in India’s cotton fields and modern-day slavery in Taiwanese garment factories is the latest scandal concerning worker treatment in fashion’s supply chain. New abuses keep emerging despite efforts by brands, manufacturers, activists, and governments to set clear labour guidelines. Watchdog groups try new tactics to combat the problem, but they face systemic forces far beyond fashion.Sustainability editor Sarah Kent joins executive editor Brian Baskin and senior correspondent Sheena Butler-Young to discuss the problematic labour dynamics underpinning the fashion system.Key Insights: Persistent abuse in fashion’s supply chains is not merely about isolated incidents but reflects deep-rooted socio-economic challenges. In India’s cotton industry, for example, many farmworkers come from extremely marginalised and impoverished communities where exploitation is a norm rather than an exception. Families often work together under hazardous conditions, with little oversight or recourse. “So you're not just dealing with an issue of exploitation that is coming from the [fashion] industry, you're dealing with a culture that is ingrained in the way that community works – and that is a very difficult, complicated thing to try and manage, ” explains Kent. Transparency in supply chains remains critical. Despite decades of advocacy, many brands struggle to verify the origins of their cotton. The global cotton supply chain’s complexity—where materials pass through multiple suppliers and traders—makes tracing raw cotton back to its source extremely difficult. “The traders will have been getting the cotton from ginners who will have got raw cotton from … maybe hundreds of thousands of small family farms aggregated it, ginned it, sold it onto a trader who then sells it up through the supply chain. So by the time it even gets to a spinning factory, tracing it back to the farm where it came from is really, really difficult,” says Kent.In Taiwan’s textile industry, systemic issues like excessive recruitment fees burden migrant workers, yet change is stalling. Despite growing awareness and repeated calls for reform, manufacturers have little incentive to alter longstanding practices without coordinated industry action and regulatory intervention. As Kent notes, “Without other brands operating in Taiwan coming together and trying to do the same thing, the industry as a whole isn't going to move.” And without regulatory shifts, manufacturers have little reason to remove recruitment fee burdens from workers.Consumer trust in ethical claims is vital for brands that present themselves as responsible. However, when ethical certifications and claims are diluted by inconsistent practices and opaque supply chains, consumers quickly lose faith. This erosion of trust can undermine efforts to promote responsible consumption. “If consumers lose trust in what is meant to be a signifier of doing better, then you risk people not caring at all,” Kent warns. “No one's going to pay more for a product that promises to be more responsible and more ethical when it's when they don't believe that it is.”Additional Resources:‘Ethical’ Cotton Is Being Picked by Child Labourers in India, Watchdog Finds | BoFWhy Can’t Fashion Eliminate Labour Exploitation From Its Supply Chains? | BoF 

Gucci has long been the shining star of Kering’s luxury portfolio, but the brand's recent struggles have exposed weaknesses in the conglomerate’s position. Gucci’s sales plummeted 24 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024, dragging Kering’s overall performance down by 12 percent. The shock departure of Creative Director Sabato De Sarno after less than two years only deepens the group’s instability.Luxury editor Robert Williams joins executive editor Brian Baskin and senior correspondent Sheena Butler-Young to discuss how Gucci’s downturn is affecting Kering’s broader portfolio, why its attempt at a creative reset didn’t resonate, and what’s next for the group as it searches for a new vision.Key Insights: Gucci's downturn has been severe, with sales falling by almost a quarter in 2024. This dramatic slide highlights the challenge of reinvigorating the brand. “[Gucci] has had a few really big booms, but then also some pretty big busts afterward. That creates additional complications for the group and how much they're able to invest in acquiring new brands, in developing the brands they have. And honestly, to also just continue to exist,” says Williams.Gucci’s identity has become muddled as it leans too heavily on its heritage, potentially limiting its appeal. “Gucci can stand for a lot of things and I think that's where they got a bit confused. It's the biggest Italian luxury brand and maybe they started to think that it was more of a heritage house than it should be,” Williams explains. Williams outlines a protective strategy where the group is preemptively selling off valuable real estate. He cites the sale of luxury jewellery house Boucheron headquarters and flagship store on Place Vendôme, stating, "choosing to cash in on the fact that this building is worth a lot of money is a bit worrying that they feel the need to get that treasury right now." Gucci’s potential for a rapid rebound hinges on securing the right creative leadership to tell a compelling story of the brand and leveraging its extensive assets. “I think real potential for the rebound is there if they can get the right person in place just to tell a very convincing fashion story. It can go very high, very fast again,” Williams says. “They have a lot of real estate, they have a lot of stores in great locations and they have a whole supply chain behind them that's really like rooting for their comeback because it's the biggest client for so many suppliers in the Italian fashion system.”Additional Resources: Can Kering Bounce Back From Its ‘Annus Horribilis’? | BoF The Problems with Gucci and Dior | BoF 

Estée Lauder was long celebrated as a pioneer in prestige beauty, building a global empire on the strength of family legacy, innovative product lines, smart acquisitions and a high-touch in-store experience. However in recent years, the company has lost its wat on each of those strategies, leaving it poorly equipped to stay on top of rapidly shifting consumer tastes. In its latest earnings call, new CEO Stéphane de La Faverie candidly acknowledged that the company had “lost its agility,” and promised to quickly implement an ambitious modernisation plan. The Debrief explores how Estée Lauder’s legacy is now proving to be a burden, and how it can still overcome its challenges. Key Insights: Holding around 86% of the voting rights, Estée Lauder’s tight family control helped maintain a tight focus on prestige beauty, but has contributed to a risk-averse culture that caused the company to miss out on important trends. “A lot of their beliefs are around beauty being a prestige category and a prestige experience and that being the way to win,” says Morosini. “That message in the wider beauty consumer base has been diluted a little bit. People are much more open to shopping for products in different ways and from different kinds of founders. They didn't really let go of their values.” Estée Lauder also made a big bet on China, at one point deriving 25 percent of its sales from the market. However, when demand cooled post-COVID, it exposed weaknesses in its home market strategy. "Not only did the China business really, really sharply decline, but when the Chinese market took a really big hit, it exposed just how much they had neglected their home market of the US and just how much market share they had ceded without anyone really realising,” says Morosini.The company’s new CEO, Stéphane de La Faverie, is spearheading a major strategic overhaul with his "Beauty Reimagined" plan. This vision aims to reinvigorate the brand by streamlining the corporate structure, tripling the pace of innovation, and placing an obsessive focus on the consumer. "They've created more of a skincare brand cluster, a makeup brand cluster, and they've also really simplified the geographic way that they're dividing up the markets and who's overseeing them. I think that could lead to greater agility and better sort of more targeted marketing for each region," says Morosini.Estée Lauder’s model of fuelling growth through brand acquisitions is increasingly unsustainable in today’s volatile market. The company's ability to innovate and adapt has been hampered by heightened domestic competition and an unpredictable economic climate. "I think as time has gone on, it's just got harder and harder because the competition, especially in the US in their domestic market has really, really ramped up. And they don't seem able to accurately forecast what's gonna happen next,” says Morosini. “It's really hard to convince people that something that's been around for a long time is actually cool."Additional Resources:Estée Lauder Knows How to Cut Costs. Can It Also Rebuild Growth? A First-Day Agenda for Estée Lauder’s New CEO