Macy's-The Asteroid that Killed Retail- REPOST 2025 The sign says, "Coming sooner than you think"

Not too long ago, I wrote The Evolution Solution, which explained the rise of Amazon and the Category Killers according to Darwin’s Theory of Survival of the Fittest. 

The evolution of all events on Earth is part and parcel of natural history, therefore is subject to the same rules and principles. This includes the evolution of retail business in US and globally.

66 million years ago, a huge asteroid hit earth, forming the Chicxulub Crater in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. The effects of this cataclysmic event resulted in the death of 75% of the plant and animal species on earth- including dinosaurs and creatures who had existed for something like 165 million years previous. The balance 25% were those who were able or enabled to survive and grow after the event.

Fast Forward to December 19, 1994. Federated Department Stores “bought” Macy’s (but yet it was Macy’s management that ran the show and still is). Eleven years later, in 2005, Fedmacys bought May Company Stores, completing the hat trick the same year with the purchase of Broadway Stores. By March 2005, All units were converted to Macy’s stores. The other names, their histories, and maybe their loyal followings, were dead.

Look at the list of those stores sanitized to be Macy’s (Wikipedia, The Dead Department Stores–you can see the rest of the names in the graveyard here:

·      Abraham & Straus (Macy's in 1995)

·      D. M. Read Macy's In 1990

·      Ames (Eastpoint)

·      Bamberger's (Macy's in 1986)

·      The Bon Marché (Macy's in 2005)

·      C.C. Anderson's Golden Rule (The Bon Marché in 1923)

·      The Paris (The Bon Marché in the early 1980s)

·      Barnes-Woodin Co. (Yakima, Washington, The Bon Marché in 1952)

·      Columbia River Mercantile

·      A. M. Jensen's (Walla Walla, Washington, The Bon Marché in 1951)

·      Missoula Mercantile Co. (Missoula, Montana, The Bon Marché in 1981)

·      Montague-McHugh (Bellingham, Washington, The Bon Marché in the 1950s)

·      Runbaugh-Mclain (Everett, Washington, The Bon Marché in 1952)

·      Stone-Fisher Co. (Tacoma, Washington, The Bon Marché in 1952)

·      Russell's (The Bon Marché after World War II)

·      Bullock's (Macy's in 1996)

·      Bullocks Wilshire

·      Burdines (Macy's in 2005)

·      Maas Brothers

·      Carter Hawley Hale Stores (merged into Macy's West 1996)

·      The Broadway (Southern California). Headquartered in Los Angeles.

·      Emporium-Capwell (Northern California)

·      Capwell's (East Bay)

·      The Emporium (San Francisco and South Bay, North Bay)

·      Hale Bros. (San Francisco and Sacramento)

·      Weinstock's (Sacramento and Reno)

·      Davison's (Macy's in 1986)

·      The F & R Lazarus and Co. (Macy's in 2005)

·      Shillito's

·      Rike Kumler Co. (Rike's)

·      William H. Block Co. (Blocks)

·      Joseph Horne Co. (Horne's)

·      Herpolsheimer's

·      Famous-Barr (Macy's in 2006)

·      William Barr Dry Goods Co.

·      The Famous Clothing Store

·      Filene's (Macy's in 2006)

·      Filene's Basement (separated from Filene's in 1988, closed in 2011)

·      G. Fox & Co.

·      B. Peck & Co. (sold to Gamble-Skogmo, Inc.)^[1]

·      Steiger's

·      Foley's (Macy's in 2006)

·      May-Daniels & Fisher

·      Daniels & Fisher

·      May Company Denver

·      The Denver Dry Goods Company

·      Z.L. White

·      Sanger-Harris

·      A. Harris

·      Sanger Brothers

·      Gold Circle (discount store chain) Founded in 1967 by Federated; merged into Richway in 1988 and later dismantled during 1990 bankruptcy

·      Gold Triangle (discount store chain for electronics, appliances, home building supply, sporting goods, photography, housewares) Founded in 1970 - closed in 1981, 6 Florida locations - 3 Miami, Plantation, Tampa and Orlando.

·      Goldwater's

·      Goldsmith's Merged into Rich's in mid-1980s. (Macy's in 2005)

·      Hecht's (Macy's in 2006)

·      Castner Knott (Hecht's in 1998)

·      Miller & Rhoads (Hecht's in 1990)

·      Strawbridge's (Macy's in 2006)

·      Thalhimers (Hecht's in 1990)

·      Woodward & Lothrop

·      I. Magnin, owned by Federated 1965-1988 and R.H. Macy Co. 1988-1994; most stores closed 1988-1993, remainder of stores converted to Macy's West and Bullock's or sold to Saks Fifth Avenue. Union Square, San Francisco location eventually incorporated into adjacent Macy's.

·      John Wanamaker or Wanamaker's (Philadelphia and New York City flagship stores), sold to Carter Hawley Hale in 1979, then Washington DC-based Woodward & Lothrop owned by Alfred Taubman; sold to May Company in 1995; merged with Federated Department Stores in 2005 (now known as Macy's, Inc.)

·      The Jones Store (Macy's in 2006)

·      Jordan Marsh (Macy's in 1996)

·      Kaufmann's (Offices merged with Filene's in 2002, Macy's in 2006)

·      May Company Ohio

·      O'Neil's (department store)

·      Stark Dry Goods - Canton (department store)

·      Sibley's

·      William Hengerer Co.

·      Strouss-Hirshberg

·      L.S. Ayres (Macy's in 2006)

·      Stewart's

·      H. & S. Pogue Company

·      Wolf and Dessauer

·      Liberty House (Macy's in 2001)

·      Marshall Field's (Macy's in 2006)

·      Dayton's (Marshall Field's in 2001)

·      Frederick & Nelson (defunct in 1992)

·      The Crescent (department store) (defunct in 1992)

·      Lipman's

·      Halle Brothers Co.

·      Hudson's (Marshall Field's in 2001)

·      J.B. Ivey & Co.

·      Meier & Frank (Macy's in 2006)

·      Zions Cooperative Mercantile Institution (Meier & Frank in 2001)

·      O'Connor Moffat & Co., purchased by R.H. Macy in 1945, renamed Macy's in 1947. Their Union Square, San Francisco location is Macy's flagship West Coast store and headquarters of Macy's West.

·      Rich's (Macy's in 2005)

·      Robinsons-May (Macy's in 2006)

·      May Company California (Robinsons-May in 1993)

·      Hamburger's

·      J. W. Robinson's (Robinsons-May in 1993)

·      Steiger's (May in 1994)

·      Stern's (Macy's in 2001)

·      Gertz

The list above comprises 85 distinguished, in some cases legendary, units that became extinct by 2005. Just like the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. Only this time the asteroid, the destructive force for those store units and their customers, was Macy’s/Federated. Also like the dinosaurs, maybe more than 100 years, wiped out.

Do you remember these stores? Maybe your mother or grandmother took you there as a child? Did you go there to see Santa? These stores were more than just memories; like Bailey Savings and Loan in It’s a Wonderful Life, they were neighborhood institutions with loyal followings.

I know. I worked as a buyer at Abraham & Straus before this merger. A&S, as it was known by its customers, was the leading unit of Federated, competing (favorably) with Macy’s for the attention of the New York City area shopper. A&S was moderate priced, though not immune to sales, which people took seriously because they WERE serious-not marketing BS.

There were many local units in the NYC area at the time- There were the “carriage trade” department stores- Saks, Lord& Taylor, Martin’s, Gertz(look at them now-two gone and two a shell of what they were), then the Moderate-Macy’s, A&S, Stern’s, Bamberger’s. Below them were the discounters-EJ Korvette, Mays.And the few who stood alone as the fashion arbiters-Bergdorf Goodman, Bloomingdale’s (which latter is the only Federated unit not renamed Macy’s- though you wouldn’t recognize it if you saw it then). Each had its disntinctive niche and its loyal following.

Now we have Macy’s- trying to be all things to all people. Which never works. So then we have the 25% survivors-those velociraptors who saw the opportunities to feast on the suddenly open environment. Is it any coincidence that Amazon also began in 1994?

And what about the loyal customers in EVERY major city and region in the US? What were they left with? Those stores which had been a part of their lives-gone. Replaced by-who? Macy’s. Famous for the Miracle on 34^thStreet, but not about catering to customers in Chicago, Boston, Atlanta, Miami, San Francisco, Akron, etc. Did Macy’s distinguish itself with superior merchandise to what had been there before? Not in my opinion. 

And when it came to the sales and promotions that brought people in passionate droves, did Macy’s do a better job than the dead souls that had been there before? Not in my opinion. Macy’s quickly trained the customers with predictable behavior what and when to buy.

What was gained and what was lost in this transition from distinguished regional and local department stores?

Gained- NOTHING. Only the arrogant satisfaction of Macy’s management knowing their previously local name had been proliferated nationwide. The merchandise was not better; the prices were not better; the service was not better.

Lost- 

For the Customers: A comfortable, trusted shopping place where their momma took them and where they take their kids; 

For the Retail Business- Instead of a dynamic local or regional retail department store environment, the entire nation is sanitized to one store, one name. Maybe, in some regions, one that they don’t know or trust.

Imagine if Baskin-Robbins (and every ice cream shop nationwide), eliminated all flavors but one-vanilla. What would be the fate of their business? People would learn to eat somewhere else.

Somewhere else- Amazon, Zara, H&M, Uniqlo. The Category Killers are the velociraptors who were invitedby this arrogant marketing move to build a customer base. For parents, there was no comfortable destination; for their children, left as orphans of a bygone era, left to make their own friends.

The result is clear and obvious- the demise not only of the regional department store, but of the department store in general as a shopping destination. Don’t underestimate the role that this played in today’s retail “apocalypse.”

What could Macy’s have done differently? Leave it alone. Buy it, and see the wisdom to keep the regional and local customer base coming. Many areas-merchandising, sourcing, logistics, etc. and economies of scale could be applied in a group situation. Without burying the locals.

I believe now you can see how the Macy/Federated buyout was akin to the asteroid hitting earth 66 million years ago; its destructive force wiped out life as it was before, and impoverished a rich department store culture.

Also, I hope you can see, again, how retail business is governed by the same rules and principles as all other natural history. And that Darwin probably had no clue how far reaching his principles of natural selection were. 

Final note: Break up Macy’s and give people back their local commerce? Would work, even in Amazon World.

Spring, Sowing, Vegetables! Sowing your own vegetables while wearing Lotus & Michael's 100% plant-dyed clothing?

 

Wait- Sowing your own vegetables while wearing Lotus & Michael's 100% plant-dyed clothing? See what we are planting this spring.
You can do it! Protect your health, pocketbook and environment.

Lotus is wearing our chrysanthemum-embroidered, plant-dyed CPO shirt:
https://www.lotusandmichael.com/products/captain-chrysanthemum-lotus-cpo-shirt and man-tailored plant-dyed pants with Double Happiness Embroidery "Bamboo x Happiness" https://www.lotusandmichael.com/products/bamboo-x-happiness-lotus-pants
Our sustainable alternative to denim. Wear them to garden, shop, work!

Kindred styles for men and women. Value- Luxury Quality.

See our web store: https://www.lotusandmichael.com/ 

Join our journey on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@lotusandmichael

Is Recycling the Answer to the Textile Clothing Catastrophe? Nice, but NO.

  

 

A landfill in Ghana (contents no way all came from there)(source)

Is Recycling the answer to the Textile Climate Catastrophe? Nice, but no.

(Mainly Facts and Inescapable Conclusions-Let’s solve the problem together!)

First, the facts:

What is the extent of the problem?

According to businesswaste.co.uk (source):

• 100 billion new garments are produced annually around the world

• The worldwide fashion industry is responsible for 10% of all greenhouse gas emissions

• The UN Environment Programme estimates that today people buy 60% more clothes and wear them for half as long

• Around 20% of worldwide industrial wastewater pollution is from the fashion industry

• It takes around 2,700 litres of water to make one cotton shirt

• Of all the clothing thrown away across the world 57% is sent to landfill

• 25% of global clothing waste is incinerated

• Clothes made using synthetic fibres such as polyester and acrylic are responsible for more than 60% of global apparel purchases

• Synthetic fibres take 80 to 800 times longer to decompose than natural fibres like cotton

The solution to the problem, if we want to face it, lies within the above facts.

Not done yet. There’s more:

• About 5% of landfill space is taken up by textile waste

• Textile production releases 2 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere annually

• Producing textiles creates 42 million tonnes of plastic waste each year

• 10% of microplastics that enter the ocean every year are from textiles

• Around 15% of fabric used to manufacture garments is wasted

• Less than 13% of textile waste is recycled in the European Union (EU)

• 72% of bedding ends up in landfill

• Textiles are the third largest category of waste in landfill sites across India

• Natural fibres break down fastest – cotton takes around three months to decompose, linen takes a few weeks, and silk takes one to two years

• Synthetic textile waste takes much longer to decompose – polyester can take between 20 and 200 years to break down, nylon takes anywhere from 30 to 40 years, and rubber takes 50 to 80 years

And how about fast fashion? It is atop the most unwanted list:

• How many times an item of clothing is worn before being discarded has fallen by 36% in the last 15 years

• Fast fashion brands produce 50% more items today compared to the year 2000

• An average American throws out 37kg of clothes every year

• Buying a single white cotton shirt produces the same emissions as driving 35 miles in a car

• Extending clothing life by nine months would reduce carbon, water, and waste footprints by 20 to 30%

• Using clothes for an extra nine months would also save £5 billion in resources used to supply, launder, and dispose of clothes

Now, let’s look at fiber production:

• Global fiber production per person has increased from 8.3 kilograms in 1975 to 14.6 kilograms per person in 2022.

• Polyester production volumes increased from 61 million tonnes in 2021 to 63 million tonnes in 2022. Polyester continues to be the most widely produced fiber, making up 54% of the global market in 2022.

• Recycled textiles’ market share slightly decreased from around 8.5% in 2021 to 7.9% in 2022. Pre- and post-consumer recycled textiles accounted for less than 1% of the total global fiber market in 2022. (source)

So, is recycling the answer? Let’s see. More facts:

“Textiles collected via clothing containers consist of 55% reusable textiles and an average of 37% suitable for recycling (Boer Group figures). But how much of this is actually recycled? In reality, only 1% of all post-consumer textiles are recycled into new clothing. 12% is downcycled into something of lesser value and 87% of textile waste is pure loss. The amount of clothes that is recycled is thus much lower than the marketing campaigns of the big fast fashion chains would suggest.” (source)

Recycling is not the “magic bullet” for textile environmental erosion. Here are some more facts (source):

• Recycled clothes are recycled mechanically and chemically. Those with more than one fiber are recycled chemically, with one of the fibers being lost in the process

• Even clothes that are 100 percent polyester can’t be recycled forever. There are two ways to recycle PET: mechanically and chemically. Mechanical recycling is taking a plastic bottle, washing it, shredding it and then turning it back into a polyester chip, which then goes through the traditional fibre making process. 

• The polyester chips generated by mechanical recycling can vary in colour: some turn out crispy white, while others are creamy yellow, making colour consistency difficult to achieve. Some dyers find it hard to get a white, so they’re using chlorine-based bleaches to whiten the base, inconsistency of dye uptake makes it hard to get good batch-to-batch colour consistency and this can lead to high levels of re-dyeing, which requires high water, energy and chemical use.

• According to a study by a team from Plymouth University, in the UK, each cycle of a washing machine could release more than 700,000 plastic fibres into the environment. To help prevent microplastic pollution when washing items you can place them in a filter washing bag to prevent shedding during the wash.

So it seems that recycling synthetics like polyester, which the above said were 54% of global production, may be causing more harm than good.

How about donating my old clothes? Is that the answer?

Sadly, no. Only a small percentage of those gently used clothes that you donate actually get worn by those who need them. More facts: (source)

• Consider: only between 10 and 30 percent of second-hand donations to charity shops are actually resold in store. The rest disappears into a machine you don’t see: a vast sorting apparatus in which donated goods are graded and then resold on to commercial partners, often for export to the Global South.

• The problem is that, with the onslaught of fast fashion, these donations are too often now another means of trash disposal—and the system can’t cope. Consider: around 62 million tons of clothing is manufactured worldwide every year, amounting to somewhere between 80 and 150 billion garments to clothe 8 billion people.

• The only way that donating is a solution is for you to give unwanted garments DIRECTLY to someone who needs them, or find an organization who does so.

Above I have presented the facts. Now what should we do and not do (my conclusions)?

• DON’T stop recycling your old clothes by sending to a reputable recycler. It is better than throwing them away. BUT it is not the solution to the problem.

• DON’T think that selling your clothes to a secondhand shop or web store is resolving the problem. You may be making money, but in the end you are transferring the problem to someone else.

• DON’T BUY SYNTHETICS- NONE, NEVER, EVER, NO MATTER WHAT THE AD OR THE COMPANY SAYS. They are a ticket to nowhere.

• DON’T be swayed by the promise of discounts and unbelievably cheap prices. Losing your planet will be expensive.

• DO face the facts. You may be only one person, but you ARE part of the problem, unless you:

• DO buy less and buy better- Practice Wabisabi as your lifestyle

• DO Buy only what you need. ONLY buy clothes you can use for many occasions (multifunctional) and that are sustainable once they do die.

• DO stop buying crap because its “cute” or “so cheap” or both.

• DO look at your closet and take a serious inventory of what you can wear where and when. DO stop buying until you’ve figured that out.

One Amsterdam company, Cosh! Has a “Wear for Life” pledge on their website. It  looks like this: (source)

Will you take this pledge? For Life? Hopefully, that’s a long time, but not practical. How about for several years? By how much would the Ghana landfill shrink if all your clothing could last for years?

OK, here comes the commercial part, stay with me. Rectifying the situation laid out for you above is the founding mission of Lotus & Michael. “People, Planet, Product”—

• We want to make people so happy with their clothes that they want to wear them all the time;

• Nothing we do harms our planet- NO plastic in any phase of our supply chain; Plant dye fabrics to eliminate chemical pollution;

• If we make Product you love, and is of high enough quality to last, we have contributed to a solution for a catastrophic issue.

Still have doubts? Google it for yourself. If you find disputing evidence, send it to us. If not, join us—we have a lot of work to do!

Join us at Lotus & Michael. Your purchase is your statement: https://www.lotusandmichael.com

Are your denim jeans sustainable? No. Is there a better alternative? Yes.

Are your denim jeans sustainable? Maybe the cotton is, but how about the dyestuffs and spandex?

Plant dyes from Lotus & Michael for men and women are a sustainable, non-toxic alternative to denim. The original denim that Levi Strauss used in the first 501 was plant dyed!

Every time we wear one, we feel like we have contributed to the planet's future without sacrifice of comfort or beauty.

Check out our plant dyed denim alternatives- Wear them and be proud! Collect them as we release more in future seasons.

Find them HERE: https://www.lotusandmichael.com/collections/our-plant-dye-collection

If you want the facts about plant dyes' sustainability, read our blog article, "The Story of Plant Dyes" here: https://www.lotusandmichael.com/blogs/news/back-to-the-future-the-story-of-plant-dyes

We are the future, saving the past for the present!

A Slow Afternoon in a Man's Lotus & Michael Wonderland- Video- watch then go have one of your own!

A Slow Afternoon In A Man's Lotus & Michael Wonderland

Stressed? Dizzying pace of life got your heart rate up? Try this: Put on your 100% plant-dyed garment as a gesture of partnership with nature and leave your devices behind. Natural Renewal.
Like this:
Wearing our chrysanthemum-embroidered, plant-dyed CPO shirt:

Michael's Plant Dyed CPO shirt with Chrystanthemum Embroidery

Up close and personal--Captain Chrysanthemum!

Try it wearing our plant dyed garments; you will truly be one with nature.

Kindred styles for men and women. Multifunctional. Sustainable. Value Luxury.

Like our videos? Visit our YouTube Channel and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/@lotusandmichael

The Failure of Modern Decency™ : Saks Global takes the Fall?

i. What happened

Valentine’s Day 2025- WSJ runs an article entitled,” Saks Warns Suppliers They Will Have to Wait for Payments: Luxury retailer moves to reassure vendors after merger with Neiman Marcus (WSJ 2/14/2025 byline Lauren Thomas

Which tells of a promise (?) to pay bills for new orders within 90 days and past due payments to be paid in 12 installments  starting in July  . That means that vendors who are owed money February 2025 (however old the debt) cannot expect to be repaid until July 2026.

What was not stated was the original due date of these orders. According to other news sources including the Wall Street Journal state that these problems have gone back at least more than 2 years. That journal cites an Australian company named Luna Bronze that shipped 5 orders between July and October 2023, and got paid for none of them.

The same article also states that:

 “Reports of Saks stiffing suppliers surfaced last year. The retailer had been conserving cash as it negotiated to buy rival Neiman Marcus. The $2.65 billion acquisition, announced in early July, is awaiting approval from the Federal Trade Commission. 

The deal irked vendors to whom Saks still owes payment. ‘You have the money to do an acquisition, but you can’t pay the people that you owe?’ Shnitzer-Bartocci said. ‘They sold the merchandise we’ve given them. They’ve made money on it, and yet they still haven’t paid us back.’” 

Saks response to inquiries: 

“The Saks spokeswoman said funds that support operations or vendor payables wouldn’t be used to finance its Neiman Marcus acquisition." 

Does that statement make the problem better or worse?

Not paying vendors on time (or at all), whether it is Saks or anyone else, is a selfish and reprehensible practice, no doubt. Think about it: If Saks’ customer didn’t pay their bills, and told Saks that they were just going to have to wait and would pay over 12 months (without interest, I assume), would Saks accept that? Especially after the customer has taken possession of the item and used it?

I am going to assume that Saks did not pay a deposit of any sort to their vendors when they placed their order. Let’s assume they ordered some apparel from a foreign country. The vendor should pay for all the materials, labor, packaging and at least preparation for shipping on their own nickel. If we assume a processing time of 90 days and shipment of 30 days, plus Saks proposed 90 days from receipt term, even on time payments will be 210 days, or 7 months, for the vendor to bear. IF paid on time.

Saks is calling attention to itself, after the much-glorified merger, but it is by no means alone in not paying its vendors on time or at all. To Saks’ credit, at least they are addressing the problem. Further investigation would be pointless, but I would like to hear from the retailers that are actually paying on time. That could be a deafening silence.

ii. What is the problem?

So, what’s the problem? Answer: The Failure of Modern Decency™.

First, what is Modern Decency™? It is a term I coined, and later incorporated into my university Playbook (non-textbook learning), The Way of the Unicorn(C), to signify an attitude and best practices which are the opposite of Modern Slavery:

Modern Decency™ is: Running your business and living your life in a manner that considers all people in all countries as the same as you: deserving of respect, fair compensation, and a living wage; they, as you, have the desire and the right to preserve our planet for future generations. 

Modern Slavery is defined as: “when an individual is exploited by others, for personal or commercial gain. Whether tricked, coerced, or forced, they lose their freedom. 

Wait. Isn’t it a bit extreme to accuse Saks and others who either pay their vendors late or don’t pay of Modern Slavery?

You decide. If someone orders something and doesn’t pay for it or doesn’t pay as agreed, is this not exploitation?

As I said before, it is not just Saks. If anything, their (eventual) transparency sets them above those who just don’t pay and, if confronted, lie about the outcome. What is wrong is the selfish and greedy mindset that considers the factory or supplier something on a level lower than the buyer. 

This mindset has become institutionalized. Let’s look at some internet definitions of Global Sourcing:

* Global sourcing is the act of searching for a domestic or foreign manufacturer to produce a product. 

* Global sourcing refers to a procurement strategy that a business uses to find the most cost-effective location for manufacturing one or more of its products (Upcounsel.com)

* it is the process of sourcing goods and services from the international market across geopolitical boundaries. It aims to exploit global efficiencies such as lower cost skilled labor, cheaper raw materials and other economic factors like tax breaks and low trade tariffs. (Purchasing Procurement Center)

* Global sourcing refers to buying the raw materials, components, or services from companies outside the home country. In a flat world, raw materials are sourced from wherever they can be obtained for the cheapest price (including transportation costs) and the highest comparable quality. (saylordotorg)

a. What’s the problem with these definitions?

1. Cost-effective. That’s it? Just cost?

2. Exploit? OMG. Cheaper? So exploitation to achieve a cheaper price is the goal? Yeah, it says global efficiencies but that is a BS term that legitimizes taking advantage of low wages and bad working conditions.

3. Cheapest price and highest comparable quality? First, price and quality almost always have a linear relationship; second, compared to what? And which wins, price or quality? 

What is my definition of Global Sourcing?

• The practice of planning, developing, manufacturing, and shipping products from the location(s) that are optimal according to Comparative Advantage;

• Developing partners who can work with you over the long term for mutual benefit of workers, employees, and customers;

• The solemn responsibility of providing beneficial work to peoples in other countries for a fair price and wage;

• The even more solemn responsibility of making sure these workers are treated fairly and not abused in any way, and that local and global laws and social standards are obeyed.

iii. Why the current situation sucks and needs to change

How many times have I heard buyers refer to the supplier as “the factory” as if it is an inanimate object, not a group of people working to make something for a fair wage? Too many.

Are factories not of a level that they can expect the simple quid pro quo: You buy. I sell. You pay. You get. 

Because they are a supplier and not a buyer, are they somehow lower order of being? 

If I give you something before you pay, I trust you to pay later. If you don’t, I lose trust. (So what, right? There is always another factory that will accept my order and doesn’t know my history of paying)

What makes the situation worse is when sellers continue to take orders despite already being owed past due debts. They are afraid to lose the customer, but is a customer who doesn’t pay really worth having? Financially, Dignity-wise, the answer is no. But in doing so, they reward the buyer's behavior.

Here’s the worst part: Do you think that those business owners who got stiffed on their payments will pay their workers what they are owed, on time? After all, they did what they were hired to do, right? So now buyer mistreatment works its way into the kitchen.

We have always paid a deposit, usually 30%, when our orders are placed. This gives us skin in the game, and vendors know it. It also strengthens our negotiation position on future orders.

Why does it need to change? There are plenty of factories out there, right? Am I being too soft? 

If we are in business for the long term, our success as retailers, wholesalers etc. depends on the same factors as those of our final customers: Trust, loyalty, integrity, quality, dependability. The quality of those factors add up to CLV (Customer Lifetime Value), which is everyone’s goal. 

We can also say that Sustainable Value Creation is the goal of every investor. Stiffing vendors or causing them problems that result in workers getting F**ed, will be a route to buying from the vendors who are looking for one-order stands and don’t care too much about relationships or their workers. Those vendors who care about relationships and profitable business over the long term will not be willing partners until the above relationship factors are built.

Finally, no matter whether our vendors are in a foreign country or our own, they deserve to be treated decently with the same standards we would apply to our company and family. Why? Because that is the DECENT way to do business. 

As I said in my definition of Global Sourcing, suppliers need to be treated as equals, deserving of the same respect as buyers want. Not paying is a sign of disrespect. Ordering more when you can’t pay is the same.

I believe that the only difference between those who do and don’t pay, be it Saks or another buyer, is mindset. Paying their suppliers should be priority one for a retailer, because without suppliers their shelves and floors are empty. Fair play cannot be discarded temporarily. Either you are an honest businessperson, or you aren’t.

That and terribly poor merchandising.(if you buy something, or a lot of somethings, that don’t sell, it’s you who made the bad choices, not your supplier). But that’s another story.

(C)Michael Serwetz 2025

Lotus: My Year of Flowers: a video

 

This video chronicles a full year of flowers in our garden. Each of the flowers (more than 50) shown was nurtured by us using only cow manure, water and love. 

Can you count them?

As always, we wear Lotus & Michael clothing to do--everything.
The poem Lotus is calligraphing and translates to English in the video is called "The Burial of Fallen Flowers" which echoes our sadness at losing the flowers' beauty until next year. But now, with Spring on the horizon, we are happy to anticipate, rebirth, regrowth, recycle and natural beauty that is new every year.

Give us your feedback- which flower do you like the best?

Lotus is wearing our modern use for an ancient flower as our statement in fabric that is 100% from plants and free of toxins: our chrysanthemum-embroidered, plant-dyed CPO shirt, "Captain Chrysanthemum"
https://www.lotusandmichael.com/products/captain-chrysanthemum-lotus-cpo-shirt

As always, kindred styles for men and women. Multifunctional. Sustainable. Original design and artisanal quality.

Read our modern tale about the origins of chrysanthemum in our blog: “Persistence of Chrysanthemums":
https://www.lotusandmichael.com/blogs/news/persistence-of-chrysanthemums

Like our videos? Our life, our garments! Real and authentic. Subscribe!
Visit our YouTube Channel-- www.youtube.com/@lotusandmichael