Free The Knockoff Economy by Christopher Sprigman Kal Raustiala Page B

The impact of social norms in the fashion industry, however, appears to be far more modest compared with other areas we look at later, such as comedy and cuisine. We are skeptical that normsmeaningfully influence either the level or type of copying that takes place in the apparel industry.
    The second possible argument relates to what economists call “first-mover advantage”: the notion that a first mover in a market can reap enough benefits before others move in to compete to make innovation worthwhile. While first-mover advantage appears to have some role to play in fashion, that role is also relatively small. Finally, we take up some possible implications of our arguments about copying’s paradoxical effects, in particular the implication that if we are correct, fashion designers ought to sometimes knock off their own designs.
Social Norms
    Some creative industries remain innovative in the face of imitation due to the power of social norms. These norms act as extra-legal checks on copying; they keep copying within certain bounds or act to exact costs for copying that goes “too far.” Do such norms matter among designers?
    At the high end of the fashion world overt copying is sometimes frowned upon. To be derided as overly derivative can derail an ambitious designer’s career. A recent analysis of knockoffs argues that the American fashion industry indeed operates in a norm-based system. The norms about copying, it is said, constitute an effective control system which “can render stiff penalties on offenders, such as critical disparagement or neglect from the American fashion media, that can ultimately harm their brand name and their bottom line.” 66
    The evidence that norms really constrain copying by fashion designers is, however, pretty thin. As the example we gave earlier about Nicholas Ghesquiere and Kasik Wong illustrates, leading designers do copy. Fashion insiders can name many other examples, both high and low. Of course, the sheer fact that a norm is violated does not mean the norm has no power. And to be sure, Ghesquiere’s point-by-point copy of a lesser known (and dead) designer is, as a practical matter, different from copying the work of a living, breathing fashion titan such as Marc Jacobs.
    Yet the Ghesquiere affair suggests that norms against copying among the fashion elite are not especially powerful. According to the
New York Times,
Ghesquiere not only spoke candidly about the matter; he also didn’t seem embarrassed. “I’m very flattered that people are looking at my sources of inspiration,” he said, comparing what he did to the practice of sampling in themusic industry. “This is how I work. I’ve always said I’m looking at vintage clothes.” He didn’t think the incident would hurt his reputation. “No, I’m known for many things,” he said. 67
    Moreover, the
Times
suggested, Ghesquiere was not alone in his optimism that the incident would produce no lasting harm. “Although Julie Gilhart, the fashion director of Barneys New York, expressed astonishment when she saw how similar the two garments were, she said: ‘I don’t think this diminishes Balenciaga’s creativity at all. How many people have copied Yves Saint Laurent? My question is always: Who can do it better? We’re all savvy enough to know what’s been borrowed and what hasn’t.’” 68
    Ghesquiere is just one designer, albeit a well-known one, and so we cannot rest much on this particular vignette. But a look around at the fashion press suggests that he is hardly alone in either his actions or his views. Marc Jacobs has been widely accused of being derivative of the work of John Galliano, Chanel, Martin Margiela, and others. (Jacobs himself offered an interesting defense to this charge: “I’m attentive to what’s going on…. I have never insisted on my own creativity, as Chanel would say.”). 69 In 2008, the design team of Proenza Schouler was criticized for riffing too much on Ghesquiere’s work at