Newme seeks to engage students with Campus Challenge
'At Newme, we're building more than just a fashion brand- we're creating a movement where technology and Gen Z creativity come together to redefine the future of Indian fashion," said Newme's co-founder and CEO Sumit Jasoria in a press release. "With the Campus Challenge, our goal was to give young Indian talent a real-world opportunity to solve the next big challenges in fashion using tech-driven solutions. The ideas we saw were bold, entrepreneurial, and incredibly future-forward- a true reflection of how Newme, alongside this new generation, is revolutionising the Indian fashion landscape. We see so much energy across campuses that this case study opens new doors for talent to join the fashion world.'
The contest received entries from over 5,000 teams, with notable participation from institutions such as NIFT, SRCC, NMIMS, Lady Shri Ram College, Christ University and St. Xavier's. With the initiative, Newme aimed to combine creativity, technology, and youth-led innovation.
Seven finalist teams competed in the concluding round, with a total prize pool of Rs 10 lakh. The winner, Rasna from Lady Shri Ram College for Women, received Rs 5 lakh. The Consulting Sharks and Derivatives, both from Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies, were awarded Rs 3 lakh and Rs 2 lakh respectively as first and second runners-up.
Held exclusively for undergraduate students, the challenge encouraged participants to explore themes such as AI-enabled shopping, digital-first fashion, sustainability, and product innovation. Finalists received mentorship, exposure to industry leaders, and an opportunity to pitch their ideas directly to Newme's leadership. The initiative forms part of Newme's broader strategy to foster youth engagement and build a tech-driven, innovation-led fashion ecosystem in India.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LeMonde
8 hours ago
- LeMonde
Buffeted by Trump, India seeks to strengthen ties with Russia and China
The harsh treatment meted out to India by US President Donald Trump has produced the opposite effect to what was intended, pushing an ally into the arms of its adversaries. The American president, who deployed threats and then imposed tariffs in an attempt to distance India from Russia, may end up bringing New Delhi closer to both Moscow and Beijing. On the very day that 50% penalties were announced on Indian products due to imports of Russian crude oil, August 6, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a pointed move toward Moscow, India's longtime partner and its leading arms supplier. Facing the most serious diplomatic crisis since taking office in 2014, the Indian prime minister had little choice but to find a swift response to the American humiliation. He had largely built his legitimacy with Indians on his international stature, often emphasizing his ties with other world leaders, including Trump. The crisis with the US and the ongoing military confrontation with Pakistan have exposed the limitations of his "multi-alignment" or "strategic autonomy" doctrine, which rests on multiple, sometimes contradictory partnerships without true alliances. India found itself more isolated than ever on the world stage.
Fashion Network
3 days ago
- Fashion Network
Well-heeled shoppers shrug off price hikes for Birkenstocks and Bugaboo strollers for now
Well -heeled shoppers around the US seem - so far at least - willing to soak up price hikes for aspirational products from trendy Birkenstock sandals to Bugaboo prams, despite the impact of trade tariffs and belt-tightening elsewhere. German sandal and clog brand Birkenstock has enjoyed strong consumer demand with little pushback from US retailers since hiking prices at the start of July, its chief executive said on Thursday. As brands raise prices and cut costs to mitigate the impact of higher US tariffs on their imported products, a key question is the extent to which consumers will be put off and buy less, or simply walk away from purchases. Comments from Birkenstock, Bugaboo, Coach, Ralph Lauren and other brands at the premium end of the market suggest that, so far, affluent consumers are shrugging off price hikes. "We saw no pushback or cancellations following the July 1st price increases implemented in response to tariffs," Birkenstock CEO Oliver Reichert told analysts on a call, adding demand for the brand has been "tremendously strong." Bank of America, the largest consumer facing US bank, said this week that middle- and upper-income earners spent more on their credit cards in July than the same month last year. In contrast, spending among the lowest income bracket remained flat, the bank found. Overall US consumer spending may stay strong, Bank of America said, as long as higher-income individuals keep spending. Lower-income earners account for only 15% of all US consumer spending, according to Bank of America. However, Procter & Gamble, maker of Tide detergent, reported signs of spending cutbacks among higher-income consumers, indicating that shoppers may be becoming more selective with their purchases. Bugaboo, a Netherlands-based maker of expensive baby gear, also raised prices on its strollers, high chairs and play pens by $50-$300 in May because of US tariffs. Retailers were open and accepting. "In general we did not see any pushback. They are like us. They understand it is a fluid situation," Chief Commercial Officer for North America, Jeanelle Teves, said. Bugaboo manufactures in China and sells strollers for more than $1,000 at Target, Nordstrom, Bloomingdales and independent mom and pop stores. Coach handbags also remain in strong demand despite a gloomier economic outlook: the brand drew in more than 4.6 million new customers in North America this year, many of whom are Gen Z and millennials, Tapestry CEO Joanne Kuvoiserat said on Thursday. Coach, whose popular Tabby shoulder bags retail for $350, will maintain its operating profit margin despite the pressure of tariffs, Kuvoiserat said. Ralph Lauren, meanwhile, raised its annual revenue forecast as shoppers snapped up items like its $398 Polo Bear sweaters. But consumers' behaviour in the coming months remains hard to predict, CEO Patrice Louvet highlighted on a conference call with analysts. "The bigger unknown here today is the price sensitivity and how the consumer reacts to the broader pricing environment. So that's what we're watching very closely as we head into the second half."
Fashion Network
5 days ago
- Fashion Network
Modi's trade dilemma: protect textiles or cotton
With two weeks to avoid US President Donald Trump 's punitive 50% tariffs, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn a red line. India, he says, 'will never compromise on the interests of its farmers, livestock producers, and fisherfolk.' That commitment is partly dictated by realpolitik. Nearly half of India's workforce relies on agriculture, a degree of dependence that has increased since the pandemic. It is very hard for a leader to make any concession that appears to let down the very people who have, starting in the 1960s, made the world's most-populous nation self-sufficient in food and dairy — in the face of tremendous constraints. But paeans to the farmer do nothing to alter the harsh economic reality. Even if New Delhi says that a trade war with the US is the price it would pay for shielding growers from a deluge of American corn, soy, and cotton, it isn't clear that local farmers will be grateful for the protection. For the most vulnerable among them won't benefit from it. Already, international apparel buyers are canceling or suspending orders, thanks to Trump's 50% tariff threat. How would India deliver decent returns to farmers on their cotton crop if demand swoons in its biggest overseas market for shirts, trousers and T-shirts? Modi wants his fellow citizens to buy things made with the 'sweat of our people.' But with a belligerent Washington threatening to upend a vast swathe of local factory jobs, there will be less money at home to buy domestically produced goods. Tamil Nadu's garment-exports hub in southern India alone is responsible for 1.25 million paychecks. Losing access to the US consumer may hurt India's farm economy more than slashing its 39% average tariff on imported produce. In fact, Pakistan may have played Trump better. It has a significant cotton-growing population as well. But last year it became the world's largest buyer of US cotton, which it imports duty-free. It might take in more now to appease the White House. India's textile industry, too, has asked the government to let go of the 11% duty on short-staple fiber if it helps sell more of locally manufactured garments at Walmart and Target. After all, this tariff isn't really helping the farmer. Domestic cotton production is languishing at a 15-year low even though 44% of the output hitting the market is being scooped up by a state agency at government-assured minimum prices. The crop in neighboring Pakistan has fared even worse. But at least with a competitive 19% tariff, the apparel industry there can hope to expand its market share in the US. Indian exporters, meanwhile, are staring at a much higher tax — after paying nearly 13% more for the main raw material than the prevailing international price. Cotton is just one example. Domestic prices of most agricultural produce are higher than internationally. While lavish farm subsidies in rich nations make their surpluses globally competitive, New Delhi's elaborate apparatus of state intervention largely channels the difference between local and international prices toward middlemen. Crop yields are abysmal, and climate change is making farm incomes increasingly erratic even behind high trade barriers. The poultry industry is struggling with feed costs, yet tariffs of 45%-56.5% make US soy meal too expensive. If India allows its farmers to grow genetically modified food, they may be able to hold their own against American corn and soybean. At $32 billion, agricultural imports are low for a country of 1.4 billion people; and even this figure is padded by palm oil brought in from Indonesia and Malaysia. The US accounts for less than $2 billion of the total. Why not switch sourcing to US soybean oil and make it duty-free to give Trump a win? More broadly, why not exploit Trump's tariff shock to rewire unproductive agriculture and lift stagnant manufacturing? India has 126 million people answering to the description of farmers even though their landholding is less than five acres.(1) As a 2023 survey of marginal producers showed, their 60,000 rupees ($700) average annual income from selling crops is often less than what they earn from a second occupation as daily-wage labor. They're stuck on the land because of food security — and because the urban economy has nothing for them. Just about one in 10 families has someone in a salaried job, and only a third of these farmers take advantage of state procurement at pre-announced prices. Others sell to private traders. The most popular government support program for this group is straight-up cash in bank accounts; it would stop if they were no longer holding on to the land. Yet the taxpayer is picking up the bills for keeping the land cultivated when imports would be cheaper; and for shielding urban workers from the high costs of locally grown produce. Lest expensive food crush the country's dream of industrialisation, the government gives free rice and wheat to 800 million people so that their employers don't have to pay them high wages. Throw everything into the mix, and the annual cost was in excess of $100 billion during the pandemic. If the tariff-related disruption turns out to be worse than Covid-19, as some exporters fear, then the fiscal drag might only become heavier. Four years ago, Modi was forced to withdraw legislation whose basic premise was to give farmers more freedom to discover free-market prices. If that was a poorly designed makeover, striking a defiant note against a mercurial US president in the name of agricultural interests is also ill-conceived. But with the prime minister's political opponents stepping up their campaign against his 11-year-old rule, it's irrational to expect meaningful reforms. Politics will triumph over economics.
