Monday, September 28, 2026

Fashion Week or Campaign Season

This month, fashion week took over all the big cities. While watching the runway shows, I kept wondering where these pieces end up. The pieces are sculptural, full of clashing patterns, and extravagant materials. Yet at the same time, these brands' stores are full of cream sweaters, black trousers and a wall of simple handbags. For a long time I assumed the runway was just art for art's sake; I now know this is a strategic move. The runway is a party platform's "extreme stand."

In a two-party system, parties pack their platforms with an overlapping mass of moderate policies in the middle of the scale, where most voters are. But a party can't go completely bland, or it loses its most loyal supporters at the edges. So each party will sprinkle a few extreme stands to please its far-out voters. A fashion house does exactly this. Its stores are the moderate mass, full of wearable basics that could belong to almost any label. Its runway is the sprinkle of extremes for editors and collectors. Like a party's extreme stands, those looks aren't meant to win over the average shopper. Take Loewe under Jonathan Anderson. His runways featured heels made from nail polish bottles, birthday candles, and cracked eggshells. Yet the brand's defining product was the Puzzle bag, a structured, clean leather bag. 

Although they might not be consumed, these extreme stances let a customer differentiate one brand from another. Strip away the logos, and one luxury house's camel coat is nearly impossible to tell from another's. The runway isn't where a brand makes its sales. It's where a brand shows what it stands for.


 

Sunday, September 27, 2026

A Transfer Portal Dilemma

The introduction of the transfer portal into college sports, particularly football and basketball, created an interesting example of the prisoner's dilemma. Coaches and programs can choose to cooperate and minimize their use of the portal, or they can defect and seek out transfer players. For our purposes, let us consider only two programs. There is a Pareto-efficient outcome where each decides not use the portal (cooperate). However, each program has an individual incentive to defect; using the portal while the other does not gives them a competitive advantage. Since each faces this incentive, they defect and are both worse off than they would be had they each cooperated. What if they didn't reach this equilibrium?

Let's consider a comparison of two coaches currently participating in the transfer portal dilemma: Curt Cignetti and Dabo Swinney. Cignetti turned around an Indiana team that went 3-9 in the year prior to his arrival to a 16-0 national champion in just two years. He did this with a roster that added 52(!) transfers during this period. Dabo Swinney has been stubborn in his refusal to allocate resources towards the portal in favor of developing high school recruits, taking only 3 transfers over the same period. Swinney has fallen from the heights of his pre-portal success and Clemson has turned into a middling program. As noble as Swinney's motivations may be, Cignetti's defection and Swinney's insistence on cooperation have created the outcome we may expect. Cignetti's behavior demonstrates the benefit programs can gain from defection while others continue to cooperate.