Latest news with #BayardWinthrop
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Made-in-US clothing company CEO says tariffs are boosting demand
US President Trump has made tariffs a central part of his second administration in an effort to bring back manufacturing in the US. Clothing companies are among those hardest hit by hefty tariffs on imports from China. American Giant founder and CEO Bayard Winthrop joins Julie Hyman on Asking for a Trend to discuss how tariffs have boosted demand for the company, which sources and manufactures almost all of its products in the US. Winthrop also discusses the company's new partnership with Jason Kelce. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Asking for a Trend here. This earnings season has been littered with companies cutting or abandoning growth targets because of uncertainty over tariffs, but for a company that makes all of its products in the US, there could be benefits. Joining us now, Bayard Winthrop, CEO of American Giant. Bayard, thank you so much for. Being your American giant is an American company that makes t-shirts and sweatshirts on their apparel all in the US. So, first, I guess I would just ask, have you seen an increase in demand because of having all of your products made here? Yeah, I think that the, the general uh uh awareness and thoughtfulness about where products are coming from is, is helping our business in that, in that way for sure. And what about, you know, we've been hearing from a lot of companies that are saying they're going to see increased costs, uh, because of the tariffs, particularly other apparel companies that are importing their products. So what's talk to me about your costs and what you have seen and what you think you will be seeing. Yeah, there's no question that if, if the tariffs take any anything like the shape that they're being talked about now, particularly in regards to China, that that's gonna increase costs for traditional apparel companies that are sourcing in. In China, Vietnam, uh, and internationally. I think for us, um, when you make domestically, I think it is labor that you're really, uh, paying a differential on primarily. The, the sources of fabric and things like that are, are, are quite equal to our international competitors. Um, but we think that's a good thing. We think that that good quality jobs and communities that need them, particularly low skilled work is a really critical piece that's been missing in the, in the American economy. And I think, uh, um, that's why we chose to make our stuff prominent in the US and, um, and I think it's, uh, it's, we pay a premium for that, but we think that's a good thing. we transitioned to good quality and the customers understand that. um, you know, it seems as though maybe some of your competitors will be raising prices as they see these increased costs. If competitors are raising prices, do you then see an opportunity to raise prices or the opposite? No, I don't think so. I don't think that we really are gonna respond to what our competitors are doing. I think we're pretty focused on our core business model, which is making really great quality stuff in the US. It's been that way for going on 15 years now, and we intend to continue to do that. And the gyrations that are happening in the marketplace, I think, aren't gonna affect us very much. And so we, we, we plan on just staying the course, um, and, you know, hopefully some of this volume is gonna come back to the US and, uh, and drive more, uh, more. In the domestic supply chain that really needs it, and I think we would benefit from that. So, so we're hopeful that that's going to result in more companies deciding to reshore domestically and bring some of their production closer to home. Um, Byron, I'm curious about something more of sort of a bigger picture question for you. It's almost a cultural question. One of the things that Treasury Secretary Scott Besson has said is that we need to wean Americans, I'm I'm paraphrasing here, wean Americans. Off of buying cheap crap from overseas and as somebody who makes both premium product that you sell directly as well as making contract stuff for the likes of Walmart, do you think it is possible to see that kind of possible and or desirable to see that kind of cultural change where people buy less but maybe spend more on those few items they're going to last? Yeah, I think, I think what the secretary is saying is actually maybe a little bit more nuanced than that. I think he's saying that the results of the policies of the last 40 years have resulted in a real addiction to cheap disposable goods and the outsourcing of all our manufacturing capability from textiles all the way through to uh to war fighting ships, things like that, and that there's a real need to rebalance our economy and the Chinese economy, that the Chinese economy has really tilted too far. away from a consumption-based economy too much towards the manufacturing and exporting-based economy, and the US economy really has become too overextended as a purely consumption-based economy. That may not be the best thing for your viewership that are very fixed focused on the performance of the stock market, but I do think the secretary has said quite clearly that he believes that the US economy needs to reclaim some of its manufacturing capabilities. Um, I think that will Address the question you're talking about this, this, uh, this addiction to cheapness that really I think all Americans kind of intuitively understand that a lot of the things that we buy uh are quite different than they were 30 years ago when things lasted for a longer period of time, they were less disposable, better for the environment, arguably, um, so I think that's an ancillary impact from what the core uh intent of the policy that they're trying to enact is. Um, Bayard, uh, uh, from a very big sort of existential question to a more fun one, you guys have partnered with Jason Kelsey for his, uh, clothing line. Um, how did that partnership come about and, and how's it doing so far? Well, if, if you know anything about Jason, he's a, he's a solid authentic guy that believes in the course of the values. He has a, a foundation called Underdog that benefits kids in Philadelphia and beyond. Um, and he, uh, felt that it mattered a lot to him and his value system that he made his clothes locally. And, um, it's not the easiest thing to do. And so he reached out to me about a year and a half ago and said, hey, could we do something together here? And he's just been a great partner. He's a, he's a heck of an advocate for real working people, and I think this partnership is an extension of that. And, uh, it launched today. So I'm hearing that it's selling like crazy. Uh, you can go to the underdog site and buy it and support his foundation, uh, but it's early, so we're looking forward to a lot of good stuff to come.
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Made-in-US clothing company CEO says tariffs are boosting demand
US President Trump has made tariffs a central part of his second administration in an effort to bring back manufacturing in the US. Clothing companies are among those hardest hit by hefty tariffs on imports from China. American Giant founder and CEO Bayard Winthrop joins Julie Hyman on Asking for a Trend to discuss how tariffs have boosted demand for the company, which sources and manufactures almost all of its products in the US. Winthrop also discusses the company's new partnership with Jason Kelce. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Asking for a Trend here. Sign in to access your portfolio
Business Insider
21-04-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
My company's American-made sweatshirt was called the 'greatest hoodie ever.' US trade needs a fundamental reset.
This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Bayard Winthrop, founder and CEO of California-based apparel-maker American Giant. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. I've had a career of running small consumer product manufacturing businesses. Early on, I had really taken the Chicago School libertarian economic thinking to heart. I felt that all trade was good trade, and that moving manufacturing overseas was what you did, and made financial sense, so I followed that script. Over time, what began to dawn on me is that I was becoming increasingly disconnected from the product that I was selling, and I really hated that feeling. I also hated that I would work with these people that helped me stand the business up and then, because I could get a part that was stamped for 10 or 15 or 20 cents cheaper, I could cut my labor rates. When I had my first daughter in 2010, I just didn't want to do it anymore. I got this pretty naive notion to start American Giant. I grew up in the 70s and 80s with the great American clothing brands like Levi's and Wrangler and Champion and Red Wing and Woolrich. Not only did they make the best products and clothing in the world, but I also felt that they said something about me when I wore them. They were substantive. By 2010, there were no clothing brands like that anymore. They'd all shipped overseas. I launched with a men's sweatshirt, because I was just interested in that category, and a news article called it " the greatest hoodie ever made." That article just went crazy. It tipped us into a back-order status for almost three years, and it convinced me that there was a real consumer demand for this. The last 40 years have been really bad for the working middle class When you live in a place like San Francisco, where I do, and you're surrounded by people with college degrees, like I have, and you've been in the stock market, life looks pretty good. But if you've been living in a rural or urban community, and you have a high school degree, and you don't own stocks, the last 40 years have been really bad. I think that sets up a bad framework for the country, and I think we've got to do something about it. American Giant was my small way of trying to build a business that I felt was contributing and was doing the right thing. With the textile industry in particular, the US basically took a very robust, rapidly modernizing industry and basically stopped it in its tracks. In 1970, something like 95% of all clothing bought by Americans was made in America. Now it's less than 5% so the bottom is falling out of that market. What has been left is a very kind of disaggregated supply chain, meaning you'll have a yarning operation here, a dying and finishing operation there, a knitting operation there. If you want to have production domestically, you have to support all of that separated and atomized production, and that just makes it harder. In China, you can go and say you need 100,000 purple T shirts with frills on the sleeves, and you'll have 20 factories bidding. We had to really get into the supply chain, assemble it ourselves, in many cases, and hold it together. It's gotten a lot easier now because our volumes have grown and now we're not the only people doing it. It's harder and it's more expensive, but I think the quality is a lot higher because you can just get a lot closer to the source. It's definitely not the easy way. There's a lot of misunderstanding about what's possible here You can absolutely, particularly in knitwear, make very high-quality, very large volume knitwear in the United States — most companies have just forgotten how to do it. Instead, we have trade agreements that are in varying degrees of bad or less than ideal. I think China is squarely in the zone of really bad. US trade needs to get fundamentally reset. Trump's tariffs have shoved that entire conversation into the middle of the country, which I think is a good thing. The country is finally having robust conversations in DC and on Main Street about what is wrong with our trading relationships and what needs to get fixed. This was not part of the national discourse eight years ago. It is now. The fact that we are aggressively targeting, in my judgment, China is a good thing. As the pandemic showed, if they turn off supplies like medical masks or medical gowns, it's very bad for the country, and it puts the country at risk. On the other hand, I think that the way that the administration has been communicating this has been very disjointed. People say Trump is a master negotiator, and that all may be true, but for private businesses big and small, it is very destabilizing. When private sector businesses feel like things are unpredictable or unstable, that freezes capital and people stop moving — and stop investing. There are going to be supply chain ramifications for the current approach, and so the speed at which it plays out is going to be challenging. There are still many, many things that we rely on China completely for, like pipe fittings, that we take for granted and make the economy work. What happens if those become two or three times more expensive to small, medium, and large businesses that supply our plumbers? I don't like the instability. I don't like the threat of the speed and the breadth of this stuff. And I certainly don't think that we ought to be treating, you know, our friendly allies, like, let's say Canada and Vietnam, the same way we're treating China. Those are very, very different situations, and ought to be treated as such. The United States was the knitwear capital of the world for a very long time The US is still a net exporter of cotton. Our primary yarn supplier is a net exporter of yarn. There is plenty of cotton and yarn to handle whatever business we could throw at the US supply chain. Dying and finishing capacity would be fine. It's really at the very end — the sewing, which is the most manual step in the process — that would take some time to spin up. We now have a T-shirt program at Walmart that is very large volume, and we've had no problem meeting that demand, and it could quadruple overnight fairly easily. And that's just little old American Giant. So there's plenty of knit capacity here, and plenty of cotton and yarn capacity to handle any kind of increase in volume. Much of textile machinery is coming from Korea, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy, which raises an interesting question: Why is it coming to the United States versus being made here? The skills gap question is also a really interesting one. We don't have people who want to fill some of these jobs. How do we convince people to come over here instead of working at a fast-food restaurant? We'll train you to seamstress, we'll give you 40 or 50 hours a week, you could learn a lot, you can grow. I think that will happen, it just will take a bit of time to respond. Rebalancing trade will involve some trade-offs I am a believer that if the net effect of these tariffs are that we do have to pay a bit more for a T shirt and that results in increased labor rates for people that are living in places like Middlesex, North Carolina, I'll take that trade-off. The speed at which this is all happening, however, I think that's going to create some problems. My hope is that there is this shift toward better-quality stuff made closer to home that provides good, viable work to people that need it. If the effect of that is that average Americans need to begin to be a bit more conscious of how they're consuming, I'll take that trade. This shouldn't become such a crystallized, polarized discussion. It should matter to all of us as Americans. We can't build a country that has half the country in the stock market and doing great, and the other half struggling to find work. It just doesn't work. We're not going to rewind the clock to the 80s, and we're not going to revert back to a place where everything that we consume is made here. But between there and where we are now, there is a more rational middle ground that I think will reinject some vitality back into these communities that need work.
