Vanity Fair Corporations first started out as the Reading Glove and Mitten Company in
Pennsylvania back in 1899. In the year 1914, the company had expanded into lingerie and finally in 1917 the company had officially changed its name to Vanity Fair. For the most part, the company had specialized in the production and selling of jeans. However, they widened their horizon and became affiliated with over 30 brands. The company now sells jeanswear, contemporary brands, outdoor and action sports, sportswear, and imagewear. These items are called coalitions which are essentially the categories they offer. Vanity Fair is a very successful corporation; however, they still have their flaws.
The company, for many years has been seen as just a “jeans” …show more content…
This method is when a single supplier is used. What that means is that the supplier is held responsible for the whole operation; raw materials to finished goods and shipping into the market (9). The supplier in this case was compensated on a piece basis, meaning however many products they made they were paid for. However, that supplier was responsible for paying the subcontractors, raw material suppliers, and logistic costs (9). Package sourcing is a low cost which means that more time and money can be spent on getting the brands’ name know and aware to public eyes. However, Vanity Fair would not have ownership of the materials or process in this case. These sourcing methods were both beneficial, however they did have multiple issues.
One major issue with Vanity Fair 's outsourcing methods was that there was inefficiency due to the lack of coordination. For starters, the lack of coordination would most likely create a bullwhip effect. This meaning that, when one tier messes up it affects the other tiers. The “cut and make” contracts usually lasted on a short-term basis, according to the reading it was typically for one season only (9). Yearly, suppliers would wage wars on one another in order to receive new business from companies. Another issue with this was that they would take on as many companies as possible. This would heighten the risk of error in production seeing as many companies would want their items made differently. …show more content…
When the suppliers and Vanity Fair have open flows of communication, both are going to be more trusting of one another. Knowing where one another wants to go will help in the development of the relationship and will cause a sense of trust. Knowing that the supplier fully in on board with what the company wants to do will only help. By having a common goal, the supplier and the company will have a successful relationship. Having a common goal will also only strengthen the supplier relationship. Being honest at the beginning will help not waste time when figuring out if the supplier is right for Vanity
Pennsylvania back in 1899. In the year 1914, the company had expanded into lingerie and finally in 1917 the company had officially changed its name to Vanity Fair. For the most part, the company had specialized in the production and selling of jeans. However, they widened their horizon and became affiliated with over 30 brands. The company now sells jeanswear, contemporary brands, outdoor and action sports, sportswear, and imagewear. These items are called coalitions which are essentially the categories they offer. Vanity Fair is a very successful corporation; however, they still have their flaws.
The company, for many years has been seen as just a “jeans” …show more content…
This method is when a single supplier is used. What that means is that the supplier is held responsible for the whole operation; raw materials to finished goods and shipping into the market (9). The supplier in this case was compensated on a piece basis, meaning however many products they made they were paid for. However, that supplier was responsible for paying the subcontractors, raw material suppliers, and logistic costs (9). Package sourcing is a low cost which means that more time and money can be spent on getting the brands’ name know and aware to public eyes. However, Vanity Fair would not have ownership of the materials or process in this case. These sourcing methods were both beneficial, however they did have multiple issues.
One major issue with Vanity Fair 's outsourcing methods was that there was inefficiency due to the lack of coordination. For starters, the lack of coordination would most likely create a bullwhip effect. This meaning that, when one tier messes up it affects the other tiers. The “cut and make” contracts usually lasted on a short-term basis, according to the reading it was typically for one season only (9). Yearly, suppliers would wage wars on one another in order to receive new business from companies. Another issue with this was that they would take on as many companies as possible. This would heighten the risk of error in production seeing as many companies would want their items made differently. …show more content…
When the suppliers and Vanity Fair have open flows of communication, both are going to be more trusting of one another. Knowing where one another wants to go will help in the development of the relationship and will cause a sense of trust. Knowing that the supplier fully in on board with what the company wants to do will only help. By having a common goal, the supplier and the company will have a successful relationship. Having a common goal will also only strengthen the supplier relationship. Being honest at the beginning will help not waste time when figuring out if the supplier is right for Vanity