Zara, Melbourne, Fast Fashion & Fashion Addiction

Zara opened in Melbourne on
the 15th of June 2011

With great anticipation, the Zara juggernaut launched their latest store in their quest for global retail domination. Situated on pedestrian-friendly Bourke St, next to traditional department stores Myer and David Jones, Zara has picked prime real estate for their Melbourne incarnation.

After several weeks of frenzied activity with tradies in hard-hats and high-vis vests pulling double shifts throughout the night, the store opened with less fanfare than its Sydney rival. That said, the rope barriers for the queues were in full force, bouncers on the door, and a team of lowly paid security guards prevented wayward shoppers from stepping in-front of passing trams while gawking at the freshly painted fittings.

In terms of retail and clothing, Zara is something of a maverick. In began in 1975 and has now grown into a global player with over 2000 stores in 77 countries. It's owner, Amancio Ortega, is now the 9th richest man in the world. Zara usually copies fashion trends and designs around the world, rather than creating its own.

Almost all global clothing chains, from high end to your Kmart garden variety, have outsourced the manufacturing of their product to cheaper labour factories in Asia. However Zara opts for European clothes manufacturing, where it owns the factories and distribution methods. The upshot of this situation is that Zara can quickly turn out new stock much faster than its rivals. It is said that Zara can design, model, create and distribute new product within a 3-4 week period, compared to the industry average of 6 months. Most outlets might produce 2,000 to 4,000 new pieces each year, whereas Zara produces in excess of 10,000. 

Security guards prevent wayward shoppers from
swelling onto the tram tracks

Fast Fashion

With considerable control over the supply chain and a frenzied approach to creating new product, Zara has pioneered the concept of fast fashion. This concept not only embodies the idea of quickly moving new creations from the catwalk to the store window, but also completely blasts the once normal concept of fashion seasons out of the water. Fast fashion thrives on the endlessly unquenchable desire for something new and requires constant change with new product to match. While traditional stores supply stock based on four seasons, Zara pumps out fresh stock twice a week, for a '104 seasons' a year cycle. 

The emphasis on fast fashion has a interesting effect on buying behaviour with customers. Normally, customers might visit a store a couple of times a year, whereas Zara sees repeat business in the order of 6 times greater than its rivals. It is reported that the customers return on average to Zara seventeen times in one year.

Crowds gather on the opening day, eager to dive into fast fashion

Fashion Addiction?

There is no denying that Zara are very savvy at what they do. They have not only created a successful business, but their business model is built upon the new and ever-changing. They have begun a sweeping change of the way customers view clothing, from seasonal, to twice-weekly. Constantly producing new designs and updating floor stock give the customer the impression that to keep up-to-date requires purchases on a weekly basis. This model though, encourages classic addictive behaviour. Clothing has moved beyond the realm of practicality and into the disposable, instant and one-time-use. While one can critique the fashion pros and cons of the situation, the implication is that clothing puts greater demand on the wallet. While we are encouraged to pursue the fashion-bleeding-edge, the Ortegas of this world smile all the way to the bank.

-------------

Further Information

For a concise overview of Zara, check out this Hungry Beast video: http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/beast-file-zara

Do We Still Need the King James Bible?

Last month marked the 400th anniversary of the printing of the King James Bible. This bible translation was not the first English version, but it is by far the most famous and for several hundred years, was the most read English translation. The first English translation was by a theologian called John Wycliffe who in the late 14th century, for both political and religious reasons, wanted a version of the bible in his own tongue. Prior to this point - and until after the protestant reformation in the 16th century - the bible was exclusively written in Latin. The reason for this is both historical and political.

A Brief History
When the Roman Empire in the 4th century became Christianised, the language of the day was Latin and scriptures were translated into this dominant language. After the fall of the Roman Empire and the subsequent rise of the Catholic Church, the use of Latin was initially used as a universal common language, but over the next 1000 years, became increasingly the language of the educated and clerical classes of society. The religious impact of this outcome was that the general populace could not read the bible for themselves and required a trained clergy to interpret the scriptures into their vernacular. The meant that there was no method for a commoner to check the text on their own, which lead to all sorts of heretical practices and false doctrines that essentially meant a consolidation of political and financial power to Rome.

The King James Bible completed in 1611.

When Wycliffe translated the bible into English (from the Vulgar Latin version), it was seen as an affront to the establishment and this act was seen as illegal as it would have the potential to upset the balance of political and religious power in Europe. His version survived the strict censorship bans in England, but even in the early 16th century when another man called William Tyndale produced a far superior translation, Tyndale was strangled and burnt at the stake for his efforts.

Tyndale's work though was more influential than Wycliffe for two important reasons. Firstly, his version was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew texts, leading to a better English understanding of the original wording and intent. Secondly, while Wycliffe's work was disseminated by handwriting, Tyndale's work was the first to make use of a new invention, the printing press. These two factors spread the reformist ideas throughout Europe. As the reformation gathered momentum and the Henry the 8th separated the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church, suddenly the idea of having a "proper" version of the bible in English made political sense, so King James 1 of England convened a working group of 47 scholars from the Church of England to perform the task. In 1611, the scholars presented a copy of the bible to the King, who authorized it through an act of parliament.

Today
Within Christendom, the King James is usually viewed in one of three, mutually-exclusive, ways:

1. The King James is the only valid translation and it is the exclusive source of the scriptures.
2. The King James is a error-ridden, invalid translation that should be relegated to history.
3. The King James is an interesting historical translation that could be used along with a collection of other translations to gain a wider perspective of God's word.

To understand these different perspectives of the King James Bible, it first requires an understanding of the how the bible came to be. The Bible, from the Protestant perspective, is a collection of 66 writings split into two major groups: the Old Testament and the New Testament. It is generally accepted that 40 authors wrote the 66 books of the bible over a period of 1500 years in three continents. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, while the New Testament was written in Greek. 

This last point is important to reading the Bible today. All English versions of the Bible are translations of the original text and like all translations, while they provide an reasonable insight into the intended meaning of the authors, they do not provide a perfect understanding. Additionally, all translation works rely on the translators having an acute understanding of ancient languages, theology and culture, and in turn, an accurate understanding of the modern day equivalent. 

Compounding this situation is that each translation is usually the result of a desire to re-translate the scriptures from a particular world view, whether it be from a political, religious or doctrinal perspective. Today, there exists hundreds of different English translations from the poetry of the King James to ultra-modern SMS versions, with each version catering for a different demographic, denomination, political or theological persuasion.

So, as to the original question: do we still need the King James Bible? The heart of this question lies in your understanding of the purpose of the Bible. For some Christians, the Shakespearian language of the King James is familiar and reverential, while for other Christians, the old English prevents them from understanding the words and meaning. 

A particular strength of more modern translations is that they have the benefit of accumulated knowledge of the current era, particularly with greater access to ancient manuscripts (like the Dead Sea scrolls) and recent archaeological finds which help interpret the ancient writings.

Personally, I fit into the third group. I think that I can have a better understanding of God's Word by reading from multiple translations which provide a greater perspective by relying less on a single group of translators in one particular point in history. I simultaneously do not think that the King James version is completely perfect or completely invalid and I find the Old English words too difficult to understand. Obviously, it is a question of personal choice.

--------------
Wycliffe Bible Translators is an modern day organisation named after John Wycliffe, who are involved in nearly 1300 translation projects around the world. The Bible is the most printed book in history and has been translated into 4000+ languages and dialects world-wide. Wycliffe are aiming for every language in the world (over 6800) to have a version of the New Testament by 2025.
-------------
The Age recently did a write-up about the anniversary of the King James Bible: The Book That Changed the World.