杜嘉班納的潰敗

Yesterday, Xiang Kai, a director and writer based in Shanghai, burned more than $20,000 worth of Dolce & Gabbana products, including coats, a vest and bags. A previous fan of the brand, he said he also threw his shoes and watches from the label in the trash.

昨天，家住上海的導(dǎo)演兼作家向凱燒掉了價(jià)值超過2萬美元的杜嘉班納(Dolce & Gabbana)產(chǎn)品，包括外套、背心和包。他以前是這個(gè)品牌的粉絲，他說自己還把這個(gè)品牌的鞋子和手表扔進(jìn)了垃圾箱。

“The purpose of burning my clothes is to awaken the Chinese people and the Chinese nation,” said Mr. Xiang, who posted photos online of his products in flames. “Some people say you’ve wasted a lot of money. I’m willing to waste this money for the nation’s dignity.”

“我燒衣服的目的是引起中國(guó)人、中華民族的警醒，”向凱說道，他把焚燒的照片發(fā)到了網(wǎng)上。“有人說你浪費(fèi)了不少錢，我愿意浪費(fèi)，在民族的尊嚴(yán)面前，我可以浪費(fèi)更多的錢。”

He was among an untold number of people who have revolted against the Italian fashion brand that built its reputation on the ability to make Sicilian widows’ weeds sexy. Earlier this week, the company released video clips widely seen as racist, pandering to old stereotypes (they featured a Chinese model being taught to eat spaghetti, pizza and a cannoli with chopsticks) in advance of a planned extravaganza of a show in Shanghai. Then Stefano Gabbana, a company co-founder and designer, appears to have engaged in a bout of insulting name-calling (including suggesting that the Chinese eat dogs) with a critic on Instagram. Mr. Gabbana said his account was hacked.

他是這個(gè)意大利時(shí)尚品牌無數(shù)抵制者中的一員。這個(gè)品牌出名靠的是它把西西里寡婦的喪服變得性感的能力。本周早些時(shí)候，這家公司為原定在上海舉行的時(shí)裝大秀提前發(fā)布了視頻短片，人們普遍認(rèn)為這些片子有種族主義色彩，迎合了刻板印象(視頻中，有人教一個(gè)中國(guó)模特用筷子吃意大利面、披薩和奶油甜餡煎餅卷)。之后，公司聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人兼設(shè)計(jì)師斯蒂芬諾·加班納(Stefano Gabbana)似乎在Instagram上與一名批評(píng)者展開了一場(chǎng)侮辱謾罵(包括暗示中國(guó)人吃狗肉)。加巴納后來說，他的賬戶被黑了。

Someday this still escalating debacle may form the body of a new industry fable, one with a moral about the dangers of ill-considered direct communication, the swift retribution of the crowd and the hazards of cultural arrogance. But right now the story’s most striking revelation is what happens when a history of playground-bullying online meets the economic force of the fastest-growing, most important and very autocratic luxury market.

也許有一天，這場(chǎng)仍在不斷升級(jí)的災(zāi)難會(huì)成為一套新的產(chǎn)業(yè)寓言故事中的一個(gè)，寓意包括欠考慮的直接溝通、群眾的快速懲罰，以及文化傲慢危害的危險(xiǎn)之處。但是，現(xiàn)在這個(gè)故事最引人注目的啟示是，當(dāng)一個(gè)學(xué)校操場(chǎng)霸凌的歷史與增長(zhǎng)最快、最重要且非常專制的奢侈品市場(chǎng)的經(jīng)濟(jì)力量在網(wǎng)上相遇時(shí)，會(huì)發(fā)生什么。

The dominoes begin to fall. The pigeons come home to roost. The rats abandon the sinking ship. You become a veritable paragon of clichés! And a cautionary tale. After all, in the four days since, the brand has, in no short order:

多米諾骨牌開始倒下。自作自受。老鼠逃離沉船。這件事成了各種陳腐套語的名副其實(shí)的化身!成了一個(gè)發(fā)人警醒的故事。畢竟在短短四天的時(shí)間里，下列事情已很快地在這個(gè)品牌上發(fā)生：

• Been forced to cancel the show;

• 被迫取消時(shí)裝秀;

• Been excoriated by the Chinese celebrities and models slated to walk in the show;

• 遭到原定出席時(shí)裝秀的中國(guó)名人和模特的痛斥;

• Been the subject of videos of consumers burning, destroying and otherwise renouncing their Dolce products;

• 成了消費(fèi)者燒掉、銷毀，或用其他方式放棄杜嘉班納產(chǎn)品的視頻主題;

• Had their physical locations altered, with the label’s storefronts plastered with “Not me” posters mocking Mr. Gabbana’s response to the scandal;

• 讓實(shí)體店遭到改變：品牌店的門面被人貼上了“Not Me(不是我)”的海報(bào)，嘲笑加巴納對(duì)丑聞的回應(yīng);

• Disappeared from the site of Chinese e-tail giant Alibaba’s TMall platform as well as jd.com, secoo.com, and department store Lane Crawford, which said customers had been returning the brand’s products;

• 讓品牌從中國(guó)電商巨頭阿里巴巴的淘寶商城平臺(tái)，以及京東、寺庫(kù)和百貨商店連卡佛(Lane Crawford)消失，這些零售商說，客戶已在退貨該品牌的產(chǎn)品;

• Been excoriated in the fashion press and the fashion enthusiast communities, with particularly passionate coverage coming from fashion industry watchdog Diet Prada;

• 受到時(shí)尚媒體和時(shí)尚愛好者社區(qū)的痛斥，時(shí)尚業(yè)監(jiān)察者Diet Prada的報(bào)道尤其怒不可遏;

• And increasingly been abandoned by its European and American supporters, including the influencers the brand has expensively wooed over the last few years.

• 正被越來越多的歐洲和美國(guó)支持者所拋棄，包括這個(gè)品牌在過去幾年里不惜重金爭(zhēng)取來的影響制造者。

Net-a-Porter, the luxury e-tailer headquartered in London and owned by Richemont, has removed all Dolce products from their Chinese website. Lucky Blue Smith, a model/influencer with 3.2 million followers on Instagram who has become a millennial Dolce staple, posted a note on his account explaining his decision to skip the show that read in part, “We are all gods children and we should all be treating EVERYONE, EVERY CULTURE with respect. I will be back to China soon — love you all so much.”

總部位于倫敦、歷峰集團(tuán)(Richemont)旗下的奢侈品電商N(yùn)et-a-Porter已從其中國(guó)網(wǎng)站上下架了所有的D&G產(chǎn)品。在Instagram上有320萬名粉絲的模特/影響制造者Lucky Blue Smith曾是杜嘉班納在千禧一代當(dāng)中的主要代言人，他在自己的賬號(hào)發(fā)貼解釋了他不參加時(shí)裝秀的原因，帖子里有這樣的話：“我們都是上帝的孩子，我們應(yīng)該尊重對(duì)待每個(gè)人、每種文化。我很快會(huì)再去中國(guó)——非常愛你們所有的人。”

And apparently fearful of damage by association, fellow Italian brand MaxMara made a proactive statement Thursday on its WeChat account, stating “China, you’re the best! I love you, homeland!”

顯然是害怕因牽連而受傷害，意大利品牌麥絲瑪拉(MaxMara)周四在其微信賬戶主動(dòng)發(fā)表聲明稱，“中國(guó)，你最棒!我愛你，祖國(guó)!”

Various fashion brands have been previously accused of cultural mistakes or insults. Australians took Chanel to task for its sale of a luxury boomerang. Zara was accused of using Nazi and alt-right hate symbolism on their products. Just this week Dior came under fire for ads featuring Jennifer Lawrence while purporting to celebrate Mexican heritage. Still, the Dolce incident is the first time this kind of misstep has had such global repercussions.

幾個(gè)時(shí)尚品牌都曾因文化錯(cuò)誤或侮辱行為而受到指責(zé)。澳大利亞人曾嚴(yán)厲斥責(zé)香奈兒銷售豪華回力鏢。Zara被指責(zé)在其產(chǎn)品上使用納粹和另類右翼(alt-right)仇恨符號(hào)。就在本周，迪奧的一個(gè)由詹妮弗·勞倫斯(Jennifer Lawrence)主演的廣告受到抨擊，該廣告號(hào)稱要慶祝墨西哥文化遺產(chǎn)。不過，杜嘉班納事件是此類錯(cuò)誤首次具有如此大的全球性影響。

Spokespeople for Secoo and Net-a-Porter could not remember either company ever dropping a brand for such reasons before. As Angelica Cheung, the editor of Vogue China, wrote in an email, “This case is a wake-up call: a 1.4 billion population is for sure a huge consumption power, but if you don’t get it right, hundreds of millions of people voicing their outrage on social media is a powerful force, hard to ignore.”

寺庫(kù)和Net-a-Porter的發(fā)言人都不記得各自的公司以前因這種原因下架過品牌。《Vogue》雜志的中國(guó)版主編張宇在一封電子郵件中寫道，“這次事件給人們敲響了警鐘：14億人口肯定是一個(gè)巨大的消費(fèi)力量，但是，如果你的做法不對(duì)的話，數(shù)億人在社交媒體上表達(dá)他們的憤怒是一種很難忽視的強(qiáng)大力量。”

Dolce & Gabbana released three statements, first saying its accounts had been hacked, then offering words of support for the people who worked on the canceled show and declarations of love for China. But it wasn’t until the end of the week that the founders officially apologized in a video in Mandarin. They seemed to have underestimated the importance of Chinese national identity while also overestimating their place in the wider fashion ecosystem.

杜嘉班納發(fā)表了三個(gè)聲明，先是說其賬戶被黑，然后對(duì)參與已經(jīng)取消的時(shí)裝秀工作的人說了幾句支持的話，再后來是聲明愛中國(guó)。但是，直到一周結(jié)束時(shí)，品牌聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人才在視頻中用普通話正式道歉。他們似乎低估了中國(guó)的民族認(rèn)同的重要性，同時(shí)高估了他們?cè)诟鼜V闊的時(shí)尚生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中的地位。

“The consumer is more selfish right now in feeling that China has a rich history and culture and is now a world power — that we know we are your most important customer base and you need to respect them,” said Ben Cavender, a senior analyst at China Market Research, a consultancy based in Shanghai. According to the Boston Consulting Group, Chinese consumers are currently responsible for 32 percent of luxury goods sales worldwide, a number expected to grow to 40 percent by 2024, at which point the Chinese will drive 75 percent of the growth of the global market.

“消費(fèi)者覺得中國(guó)有悠久的歷史和文化，如今中國(guó)是一個(gè)世界強(qiáng)國(guó)，他們現(xiàn)在更自私了，因?yàn)樗麄冇X得——我們知道我們是你們最重要的客戶，你需要尊重他們，”上海的咨詢公司中國(guó)市場(chǎng)研究(China Market Research)的資深分析師本·卡文德(Ben Cavender)說。據(jù)波士頓咨詢集團(tuán)(Boston Consulting Group)的數(shù)字，中國(guó)消費(fèi)者目前承擔(dān)了全球奢侈品銷售額的32%，到2024年，這個(gè)數(shù)字將達(dá)到40%，屆時(shí)中國(guó)將推動(dòng)全球市場(chǎng)75%的增長(zhǎng)。

The hacking excuse, which could have been accepted at face value as a way for supporters to embrace the brand, has had almost no traction, in part because of Mr. Gabbana’s history of hitting back at any criticism of the brand on his Instagram feed. Though traditionally the brand has seemed impervious to such controversies — indeed, has seemed to thrive on being politically incorrect — this time is different.

黑客的借口原本可能會(huì)被支持者作為支持該品牌的表面理由接受，但這個(gè)借口已經(jīng)幾乎沒有附著力，部分是因?yàn)榧影图{在自己的Instagram上回?fù)羧魏闻u(píng)品牌者的歷史。雖然在歷史上，該品牌似乎未受到過這些爭(zhēng)議的影響——的確，這個(gè)品牌似乎曾因其政治不正確而繁榮——但這次不同了。

In the eyes of many in the international community, Mr. Gabbana has become the designer who cried wolf. You can’t take on everyone from Selena Gomez to gay parents with bluster and venom and then claim you were hacked and expect to be believed.

在國(guó)際社會(huì)很多人的眼里，加巴納已成了那個(gè)喊狼來了的設(shè)計(jì)師。你不可能用咆哮和惡毒語言與從賽琳娜·戈麥斯(Selena Gomez)到同性戀雙親等眾多對(duì)手打嘴仗，然后聲稱你被黑客攻擊，同時(shí)指望人們相信你。

As Susie Bubble, a London-based critic, street style star and front-row regular, posted to her 440,000 Instagram followers, “this is yet another example of a misguided diva creative director in the upper echelons of the industry throwing his weight around and vomiting over social media in a reckless manner that impacts on a billion dollar company with thousands of employees as well as umpteen parts of the industry that would have been flown into Shanghai for what was supposed to be a media/celebrity fueled extravaganza.”

正如倫敦的評(píng)論人士、街頭風(fēng)格明星，以及秀場(chǎng)的前排?？吞K茜·布波爾(Susie Bubble)對(duì)她的44萬名Instagram粉絲所說的，“這是又一個(gè)行業(yè)上層的著名創(chuàng)意總監(jiān)判斷失誤的例子，他自以為是，用魯莽的方式在社交媒體上胡言亂語，不顧對(duì)一家有數(shù)千名員工的十億美元公司影響，也不顧對(duì)本來會(huì)飛到上海去參加一個(gè)媒體/名人推動(dòng)的盛會(huì)的無數(shù)公司的影響。”

Estelle Chen, the Victoria’s Secret model, had a similar reaction, writing: “saying your accounts (both personal and official: Dolce & Gabbana) were hacked shows how much of a coward you are. Could you please at least take responsibility for your behavior?”

維多利亞的秘密(Victoria’s Secret)模特兒陳瑜(Estelle Chen)也有類似的反應(yīng)，她寫道：“說你們的賬戶(包括個(gè)人和官方的：杜嘉班納)都遭了攻擊，表明你們是怎樣的懦夫。請(qǐng)你們至少對(duì)自己的行為負(fù)責(zé)，行嗎?”

The brand’s track record of insensitivity has not helped. Dolce has been called out in recent years for labeling a $2,395 pair of shoes “slave sandals” (in 2016; they later changed the name to the more innocuous “decorative flat sandal”) and including earrings that looked like they were made of blackamoor faces in a 2012 collection. They have also banned a number of critics from shows (The Times has not been invited to a Dolce show for over a decade; Women’s Wear Daily, W magazine, Italian Vogue and Vanity Fair have also been rejected at various times).

該品牌反應(yīng)麻木的記錄對(duì)此次事件沒有幫助。近年來，杜嘉班納多次引起爭(zhēng)議，一次是給標(biāo)價(jià)2395美元的鞋起名為“奴隸涼鞋”(那是在2016年;他們后來把鞋的名字改為不冒犯人的“裝飾平底涼鞋”)，還有一次是他們?cè)?012年推出的系列產(chǎn)品中有看似黑鬼臉的耳環(huán)。他們還禁止許多批評(píng)者出席時(shí)裝秀(已經(jīng)有十多年不邀請(qǐng)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》參加杜嘉班納時(shí)裝秀了;《女裝日?qǐng)?bào)》[Women’s Wear Daily]、W雜志、意大利《Vogue》以及《名利場(chǎng)》[Vanity Fair]雜志都有過被拒絕出席的時(shí)候)。

Dolce & Gabbana is also the only major Italian brand that has refused to join the Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiano, Italian fashion’s governing organization and lobbying group, and does not appear on the official Milan Fashion Week schedule. As a result, Carlo Capasa, the president of the Camera della Moda, which has always been fiercely protective of Italian brands and industry and which might have been expected to come to the brand’s defense, simply said he couldn’t make a statement about the situation because Dolce was not a member.

杜嘉班納也是唯一拒絕加入意大利全國(guó)時(shí)裝商會(huì)(Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiano)的主要意大利品牌，該商會(huì)是意大利時(shí)裝行業(yè)的管理組織和游說團(tuán)體;它也不參加官方的米蘭時(shí)裝周。意大利全國(guó)時(shí)裝商會(huì)一直極力保護(hù)意大利的品牌和時(shí)裝行業(yè)，本來也許能指望商會(huì)出面為品牌說句好話，結(jié)果時(shí)裝商會(huì)主席卡洛·卡帕薩(Carlo Capasa)只表示，由于杜嘉班納不是會(huì)員，他不能對(duì)事件發(fā)表聲明。

The Chinese government, though, seems to be taking steps to try to tone down the reaction. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang, when asked about the controversy, said: “The Chinese side does not want this matter to rise to a diplomatic issue.”

不過，中國(guó)政府似乎在采取措施試圖緩和人們的反應(yīng)。當(dāng)被問及此次爭(zhēng)議時(shí)，中國(guó)外交部發(fā)言人耿爽說：“我們也不希望它上升為外交問題。”

Chinese state media also sought to limit the fallout. Hu Xijin, the editor in chief of the Global Times, called on consumers to be “more open-minded.”

中國(guó)官方媒體也試圖控制影響?！董h(huán)球時(shí)報(bào)》總編胡錫進(jìn)呼吁消費(fèi)者“更寬容一點(diǎn)兒”。

“Dolce & Gabbana was undoubtedly wrong, but sins do not equate to death,” Mr. Hu wrote on Friday on his Weibo account.

“杜嘉班納毫無疑問錯(cuò)了，但罪不當(dāng)死，”胡錫進(jìn)周五他的微博上寫道。

Mr. Cavender, the analyst, was not so sure. “The reality is this is probably going to kill growth for them,” he said. The last time a consumer boycott erupted on this scale in China was in 2017 over South Korea’s embrace of an American missile defense system that China feared could be used to spy on its territory. Back then, protesters besieged branches of Lotte Mart, a South Korean supermarket chain. This year, it closed all of its stores in China.

分析師卡文德對(duì)此不敢肯定。“現(xiàn)實(shí)是，這可能會(huì)讓他們的增長(zhǎng)完蛋了，”他說。中國(guó)上一次爆發(fā)如此規(guī)模的消費(fèi)者抵制行動(dòng)是在2017年，針對(duì)的是美國(guó)在韓國(guó)部署導(dǎo)彈防御系統(tǒng)，中國(guó)擔(dān)心該系統(tǒng)可以用來監(jiān)視中國(guó)領(lǐng)土。那次，抗議者封鎖了韓國(guó)連鎖超市樂天的門店。今年，樂天關(guān)閉了其在中國(guó)的所有門店。