INTERVIEWS
Questions you aren't really supposed to ask
PRICE TAG tells its story not only through images, clothing, and staging.
PRICE TAG also tells its story through questions.
The interviews are conducted by Anna, a fashion management student from Berlin. Originally from Poland, she is currently in her penultimate semester. As part of her final thesis, she is focusing on changes in the fashion industry, the effects of globalization, and the economic and social developments of the fashion market in Berlin.
Her questions are direct.
Sometimes uncomfortable.
Sometimes provocative.
And sometimes exactly the questions that many young creatives don't dare to ask out loud.
Together with Sven Appelt, she talks about partnerships, responsibility, cultural funding, consumption, sustainability, and the future of fashion.
The interviews are not standard PR conversations.
They are critical.
They are honest.
And they reflect the challenges that an entire generation of young designers faces today.
Between falling student numbers at fashion colleges, changing consumption habits, and an industry in transition, the interviews pose a simple question:
What future does fashion actually have left?
And who will shape it?
I am Anna, 22 years old, and I am conducting these interviews.
Question 1
Anna: Sven, I'm 22. For my generation, sponsorship is a matter of course. Why do we at PRICE TAG often first have to prove that we are trustworthy?
Sven Appelt:
Because I actually don't like the word sponsorship.
Sponsorship always sounds like: "Give me money."
Partnership sounds like: "Let's build something together."
That is a huge difference.
We no longer live in the same economy as we did twenty or thirty years ago. Companies can no longer operate as they used to. Many are struggling themselves with uncertainties, restructuring, and markets that have changed completely.
And we Germans are unfortunately not innocent when it comes to that.
For years, we had advertising slogans like "Geiz ist geil" (Greed is good). Back then, everyone found it funny. Today, we see the consequences.
We taught ourselves that everything always has to get cheaper.
That the lowest price is more important than quality.
That a discount is more important than value.
And eventually, society believes that too.
For me, "Geiz ist geil" was one of the most damaging advertising slogans of all. Not for Saturn or MediaMarkt. For us as a society.
Because it promoted exactly what we see everywhere today:
Distrust.
Price pressure.
And the expectation that everything should cost as little as possible.
That's why at PRICE TAG we often first had to prove that we aren't people who just want to collect money.
We had to explain why we are doing this.
Why it's important to us.
Why there's more to it than a fashion show.
And honestly?
I actually think that's right.
Because trust should be earned.
And it shouldn't be for sale.
Question 2
Anna: I've noticed that many companies in the fashion, beauty, and lifestyle sectors decline very quickly or don't respond at all. At the same time, banks, tech companies, or other industries were often significantly more open to talks. Is this impression wrong, or has the fashion and beauty industry been too preoccupied with itself in recent years?
Sven Appelt:
No, that impression is not wrong at all.
And I think we also need to speak honestly about it.
The fashion, beauty, and lifestyle industry is not doing well.
That has nothing to do with people suddenly not wanting to look good anymore or no longer buying cosmetics. Germany will continue to buy perfume, wear makeup, dress well, and want to present itself in the future, too.
The problem lies much deeper.
The industry has oversaturated itself for years.
How many new fragrances does the world really need?
How many new lipsticks?
How many new collections?
How many new versions of the same product?
Eventually, the customer looks and says:
"Wait a minute. That’s just the same product again with new packaging."
And that is exactly what is happening right now.
People are becoming more critical.
Especially your generation.
My generation consumed.
We bought phones.
We bought shoes.
We bought clothes.
We bought, bought, and bought some more.
We were the generation of excess.
You are the generation of questions.
You ask:
Do I really need this?
Where does it come from?
Who made it?
How long will it last?
And that is exactly what is changing the market.
By the way, I think that's great.
Because you are the legacy of our generation.
We raised you.
We taught you to think critically.
We taught you to act more sustainably.
We taught you to prioritize quality over quantity.
And that is exactly what you are doing now.
When I used to tell my niece: "Better to buy yourself one good coat that lasts ten years instead of five cheap coats that fall apart after one winter," that is exactly the way of thinking that I recognize again in many young people today.
That's why it doesn't surprise me at all that companies from the fashion and beauty industry have become more cautious today.
Many are struggling with their own problems right now.
Many are so preoccupied with themselves that they can hardly look beyond their own horizons.
And unfortunately, you notice that in partnership requests, too.
Some companies don't even read the request properly.
Let's take Douglas or McFit as an example.
In those cases, we sometimes had the feeling that the request was answered without even understanding what it was about.
Then a standardized refusal comes back.
"We don't support projects like that."
And you sit there and think:
Wait a minute.
Did you even read what our request is about?
Did you understand that it's about supporting young students?
That it's about education?
That it's about responsibility?
That it's about the question of what price people pay for our consumption?
Or did you just click "decline"?
I always hope for the latter.
Because the alternative would be much worse.
And that is exactly why many conversations with companies outside the classic fashion and beauty industry were often much more pleasant.
They asked more often:
"How can we help?"
And not:
"How many followers does the project have?"
For me, that was one of the most surprising findings of PRICE TAG.
Question 3
Anna: If I'm honest, that scares me. We are studying fashion, but the very industry we want to work in later seems in some ways the most difficult to access. Is this the reality that awaits us after graduation?
Sven Appelt:
If I'm honest?
Yes.
And no.
Yes, because the industry has become more difficult.
No, because at the same time it has become more exciting.
However, what really worries me is something else.
Look at how universities have changed.
Look at how many people used to want to study fashion design.
And look at how many still want to today.
There are worlds of difference between them.
In the past, young people applied for university places.
Today, some degree programs are struggling to get enough applicants at all.
That is not a problem of the universities.
The UdK is not to blame for that.
The Lette Verein is not to blame for that.
The AMD is not to blame for that.
And the professors, in most cases, aren't to blame for it either.
Most do outstanding work.
The problem lies much deeper.
As a society, we have stopped viewing education as something special.
In the past, a degree was a goal.
Today, it is often treated like a product.
And you can tell.
Many young talents have long been going abroad for their Master's degree.
To London.
To Milan.
To Paris.
To Copenhagen.
To Basel.
Because they see prospects there.
Because they see networks there.
Because they see opportunities there.
And that should actually give us pause for thought.
When I speak to students today, I hear the same sentence more and more often: "Why should I do my Master's in Germany?"
And I find that sad.
Not because our universities are bad.
But because, as a country, we are apparently becoming less and less capable of convincing the best minds to stay.
Yet we are constantly talking about innovation.
About the future.
About creativity.
About skilled workers.
But if the most talented young people see their future elsewhere, then we have a problem that we should be talking about much more often.
However, what makes me optimistic are people like you.
People who ask questions.
People who question things.
People who are no longer satisfied with the first answer they get.
Your generation is significantly more reflective than my generation ever was.
You consume more consciously.
You question more.
You are less easily dazzled.
And that is exactly why I believe that the future of fashion will not get worse.
It will just get more honest.
Maybe smaller.
Maybe more sustainable.
Maybe less glamorous.
But probably significantly more honest than what we have experienced in the last twenty years.
And perhaps that is exactly the future that this industry needed.
Question 4
Anna: What surprised you the most while searching for partners?
Sven Appelt:
What surprised me the most was the incompetence of individual companies in dealing with requests.
That sounds harsh.
But unfortunately, it is my experience.
You invest days and weeks in a concept.
You explain the idea.
You explain the objectives.
You explain why it is about education.
Why it is about young people.
Why it is about responsibility.
Why it is about the question of what price people pay for our consumption.
And then an answer comes back where you have the feeling that no one even read the request.
Let's take Douglas as an example.
The response that came back was essentially:
"We don't support projects like this."
And you sit there and think:
Wait a minute.
Did you even read what it is about?
Did you understand that students are working here?
Did you understand that it is about education?
Did you understand that we are talking about child labor, responsibility, and consumption?Or did you just click "decline"?
After we asked, they pointed to other social projects.
And of course, it is commendable when companies engage in social issues.
But that wasn't the point at all.
It was about the original question.
And that was never answered.
That is what surprised me.
Not the refusal.
Refusals are part of the process.
Rather, it’s the fact that some companies have apparently unlearned how to listen.
And that is precisely something I am increasingly encountering in many areas of our society.
Everyone is talking.
Hardly anyone is listening anymore.
Question 5
Anna: Was searching for partners more difficult than developing the show?
Sven Appelt:
No.
Not at all.
The show is many times more difficult.
Writing to partners is tedious work.
You research.
You write emails.
You make phone calls.
You present your project.
Eventually, acceptances come in.
Eventually, rejections come in.
That’s part of it.
The real challenge begins afterwards.
Because we consciously decided against simply printing logos on a wall.
That would be boring.
That would be easy.
And anyone could do that.
We want to make our partners visible.
Every important partner gets their own stage.
Their own story.
Their own staging.
But that also means that every partnership has an impact on the show.
On the costumes.
On the dramaturgy.
On the visual language.
On the entire execution.
And that is exactly what makes the work so demanding.
What really surprised me, however, was something else.
The first acceptances didn’t come from the fashion industry.
Not from the beauty industry.
Not from traditional retail.
They came from technology.
From infrastructure.
From sectors that actually have nothing to do with fashion at all.
And for me, that shows something very clearly.
Traditional retail is in a crisis.
And many companies are so occupied with their own problems that they are barely able to look left or right anymore.
That’s a pity.
But it’s reality.
Question 6
Anna: Did anything disappoint you particularly during your search for partners? Not as a designer, but as a person?
Sven Appelt:
Yes.
And that was not Douglas.
Not McFit.
Not some random company.
I was disappointed by the city of Berlin.
And not because of a lack of funds.
But because of a lack of transparency.
If someone tells me:
“There is no money for your project.”
Then that’s perfectly fine.
I can live with that.
What I cannot accept is this constant shifting of responsibility.
These loops of jurisdiction.
This:
“Ask over there.”
“Ask here.”
“We are not responsible for that.”
“Someone else is responsible for that.”
And in the end, no one knows anything.
Or at least that’s the impression given.
A concrete example was my communication with the Mitte-Tiergarten district office.
I was explicitly told there which institutions I should turn to. It was conveyed to me that these institutions benefit from subsidies or would pass on or manage the corresponding funds.
So I did exactly that.
I made phone calls.
I wrote emails.
I made inquiries.
And that is exactly where my frustration began.
After I had followed the suggestions of the Mitte-Tiergarten district office and subsequently inquired with the mentioned institutions, I received partly completely different information.
Several of the mentioned offices explained to me that the described relationships were not accurate or that the described funding structures did not exist in that form.
And this is exactly the point where the real problem begins for me.
Was the original information wrong?
Was it misleading?
Or did the person themselves not know exactly what they were talking about?
I still don’t know to this day.
And that is precisely the problem.
Following that, I inquired with the Senate Department.
I was told there that the matter would be investigated.
And suddenly you sit there and ask yourself:
How can it be that you, as a citizen, ask a simple question and after weeks still don’t know which statement was actually correct?
That scares me.
Not because of PRICE TAG.
PRICE TAG will take place.
I have no doubt about that.
But what happens to people who aren’t so persistent in their inquiries?
With students?
With young designers?
With people who are just starting out?
If even experienced people have difficulty figuring out who is responsible and which information is actually correct, how is a new generation supposed to orient themselves?
How is trust supposed to develop?
How are you supposed to learn to take responsibility if you cannot even comprehend how decisions are made?
And that is exactly where my real problem begins.
We are constantly talking about cultural funding.
We are constantly talking about the creative economy.
We are constantly talking about millions in funding.
We are constantly talking about grant programs.
We are constantly talking about programs.
But as soon as you ask concrete questions, things become astonishingly opaque.
And something else has made me think.
It is explained again and again that external auditing and consulting firms are involved in order to check funding programs, the use of funds, and processes.
Then names like KPMG or McKinsey are dropped.
And of course I understand that public funds must be audited.
That is right.
That is important.
But as an outsider, you eventually and inevitably ask yourself a simple question:
How much money actually goes into the funding itself?
And how much money goes into the administration, auditing, and control of this funding?
That is not an accusation.
That is a question.
And precisely these questions should be answerable in a transparent system.
Because transparency does not mean writing on a website that you are transparent.
Transparency means that citizens, creatives, students, and companies can track how decisions are made and where funds actually flow.
For me, transparency is not a minor matter.
Transparency is the basis of trust.
And trust is the basis of every partnership.
Not just in business.
But also in politics, culture, and society.
So if you ask me what disappointed me the most, the answer is:
Not the lack of funding.
Not the lack of acceptances.Rather, the fact that you sometimes have to expend more energy finding out who is responsible than on the actual project itself.
Question 7
Anna: Many students believe that without wealthy parents, investors, or large grants, they could never realize their own show. Do you think that is an exaggerated fear – or a real problem for our generation?
Sven Appelt:
I don’t believe you have to be afraid.
I believe you have to understand the city you are working in.
Berlin has built a reputation over many years that was not always positive.
There were the glory days of Fashion Week.
There was Mercedes-Benz.
There was IMG.
There were big names.
But there were also many things that led to partners becoming more cautious.
And to this day, there are smaller events that collect money, make big promises, and end up delivering little.
Naturally, such experiences stick with companies.
And naturally, a partner eventually asks themselves:
Why should I trust a Berlin label?
Why should I invest here?
Why should I provide time, money, or resources?
The problem is not fashion.
The problem is trust.
And that is exactly why we are conducting these interviews.
We want to show young people that they don’t have to be afraid.
They just need to learn how to take responsibility.
Because in the end, no one cares if your parents are rich.
No one cares if you have an investor.
The question is:
Can you convince people?
Can you take responsibility?
Can you deliver?
Can you build trust?
Because that is exactly where partnerships come from.
Not from money.
But from credibility.
Question 8
Anna: After everything we have experienced together: does one need more talent, more money, or more perseverance for a fashion show today?
Sven Appelt:
Perseverance.
One hundred percent.
You either have talent or you don’t.
One can discuss that for a long time.
But talent alone gets you absolutely nowhere.
And money is overrated.
Of course you can build a larger stage with a lot of money.
You can rent more technology.
You can run more advertising.
But money doesn’t give you experience.
And money doesn’t give you responsibility.
Many people only truly learn something when they are dependent on partners.
When they need acceptances.
When they get rejections.
When they have to solve problems.
When they have to convince people.
That is exactly where experience is born.
And that is exactly where growth happens.
For me, the most important realization was always:
You must never take a rejection personally.
Today someone says no.
Next year the same person might say yes.
That is why you should never burn bridges.
You should build them.
And sometimes perseverance simply consists of remaining friendly, even though you have just received the tenth rejection in a row.
That is much harder than many believe.
Question 9
Anna: We have spoken about sponsors, trust, the past of the Berlin fashion scene, and the difficulties faced by young designers. But isn’t that also whataboutism? Isn’t there a danger that we are shifting the responsibility for our own future onto the mistakes of others?
Sven Appelt:
I love this question.
Really.
Because it addresses something that is discussed far too little.
You encounter whataboutism everywhere.
In politics.
In companies.
In administrations.
In everyday life.
And it is often used to deflect from one problem to another.
But legitimate criticism is not whataboutism.
If something isn't working, you must be allowed to talk about it.
If transparency is missing, you must be allowed to point it out.
If partners have had bad experiences, you must be allowed to talk about them.
If structures are not working, you must be allowed to question them.
That is not an excuse.
That is responsibility.
The real mistake begins when people use criticism as a way to avoid doing anything.
That is where criticism becomes an excuse.
And that is exactly what I reject.
Personally, I try to get rid of problems as quickly as possible.
Maybe that sounds radical.
But problems don't get smaller when you ignore them.
They get bigger.
That’s why I prefer to address things directly.
Not to create conflict.
But to solve them.
And that is precisely why I believe that valid criticism is never dangerous.
It only becomes dangerous when people no longer allow criticism.
Because those who hold responsibility must also be able to endure criticism.
In companies.
In politics.
In administration.
Everywhere.
And perhaps that is the most important lesson of all:
Criticism is not a threat.
Criticism is the prerequisite for things to get better. And perhaps that leads us directly to the next interview.
Because many of the problems we are talking about today are, for me, also generational issues.
Not all of them.
But many.
In principle, I have no problem with people continuing to work at 70.
On the contrary.
If someone wants to work, they should work.
If someone wants to pass on their knowledge, they should do so.
If someone wants to support young people, that is actually something beautiful.
However, what I do have a problem with is the question of responsibility.
For I am of the opinion that if a state stipulates that people are allowed to retire at 65, then one should at least be allowed to discuss whether certain positions of power and decision-making should eventually be handed over to the next generation.
Not because older people are worth less.
But because every generation has its own time.
Its own experiences.
Its own mistakes.
And its own solutions.
I personally do not believe that progress happens when people cling to positions for decades.
I believe that progress happens when experience is passed on.
And when responsibility is handed down.
Anyone who wants to remain active at 65 or 70 should support, advise, and mentor.
But at some point, space must also be created for new perspectives.
For new ideas.
For new ways of thinking.
Because it serves little purpose to cling to concepts that haven't worked for years while a new generation is waiting to be allowed to take on responsibility.
For me, this is not a question of age.
But a question of respect.
Respect for one's own life's work.
And respect for the people who come after us.
That is exactly what we will talk about in the next interview.
About generations.
About responsibility.
About the baby boomers.
And about the question of who the future actually belongs to.
 |
PRICE TAG |