Fur flies as debate rages: is the fur industry bouncing back?

Is the fur Industry Bouncing Back?

The fur industry is trying to focus on the bright side. After five consecutive years of declining sales, 1992 was a relatively good year for furriers, and 1993 should be even better, according to the Fur Retailers Information Council (FRIC), an industry group. The New York Times reported last May that furriers now "see the light at the end of the tunnel. Five years ago, a worldwide recession and sporadic attacks by animal rights activists interrupted a 15-year old growth in sales. But a cold winter, a mild upturn in the economy and the reappearance last year of women wearing furs have contributed to the feeling that the worst is over."

While tailoring public relations and advertising efforts to emphasize what they see as a furwearer's right to exercise "freedom of choice," fur industry representatives downplay or dismiss outright the effects of anti-fur activities on their bottom line: "Our biggest problems are the recession and oversupply," says Carol Wynne, FRIC's executive director. "We can't quantify the animal rights movement's effect, but in 1992 we had a 10 percent increase in sales." One study, commissioned by FRIC, concluded that "animal activists are not a significant factor in the fur consumer's decision about whether to purchase a fur coat," since fewer than 15 percent of nonfurbuyers cited concern about treatment of animals as their reason for not buying fur. Such treatment, according to animal advocate groups, includes the intensive confinement and barbaric slaughter of ranch-raised animals, and the leghold trapping of wild fur-bearing creatures.

Yet public opinion polls vary depending on the phrasing of the questions and who's doing the asking. A Parents Magazine poll found that 85 percent of respondents disapprove of wearing fur and 63 percent believe that the killing of animals for furs should be prohibited by law. A poll by USA Today shows 20 percent in favor of banning fur sales and 74 percent who say people should be able to buy and wear fur if they want. The FRIC study found that 25 percent of their sample felt that the fur trade should speak out more strongly about the "right to wear fur," with the figure at 40 percent for fur owners.

Perhaps a better indicator of the fur industry's misfortunes is the toll taken at the retail level. Department stores like Macy's, Filene's, Lord & Taylor, I. Magnin, Nordstrom's, and even Sears opened fur salons in the 1980s, only to close them in the early 90s as sales plummeted. The Fur Vault, a nine-store chain in the Northeast, has closed five of its stores and was unloaded by owner "Fred the Furrier" in 1989. That same year, Antonovich filed for bankruptcy. And the Hudson Bay Company closed its doors in 1990.

Evans, the largest fur company in the U.S., closed 42 of 84 department store fur salons in 1992, the same year that Harrod's of London closed its fur salon. Hundreds of independent furriers and auction houses have gone out of business since the 80s. And things haven't gotten much better lately. "Making a mint in conducting a going-out-of business sale is the name of the game in the fur trade these days," reported Fur World, a trade publication, last March. "The conspicuous consumption of the Reagan years is not fashionable anymore," says Stephen Sanders, fur buyer for Marshall Field's.

Just what is fashionable when it comes to fur? In recent years, trends have been toward sheared and dyed furs that look more like fabric; fur trims as opposed to all-fur garments; and a surge in interest in fake fur - all developments that indicate that real fur that looks like real fur may be on its way out. Meanwhile, fur's losses seems to be fake fur's gains: sales of the pile fabric used to make fake furs have increased dramatically, and retailers are optimistic. Donna Salyers, who operates Fabulous Furs, a mail-order firm offering fake fur garments and kits, credits her firm's success ($1 million in sales in 1992) to consumers' aversion to real furs: "Most of our customers are motivated by animal rights concerns - they're almost matter-of-fact about it," she notes. "Fakes aren't thought of as a cheap imitation but as the thing to do," says Salyers. Matteo Fabra, owner of Tissavel, a fake fur manufacturer, agrees: "Women used to be ashamed of fakes; now they're proud."

A number of prominent clothing designers, including Bill Blass, Giorgio Armani and Caroline Herrera, have been recognized for their pointed omission of real fur. And designers who continue to use fur may come to wish they hadn't. Designer Bob Mackie, whose fur collection was featured in a New York City fashion show last May, was targeted by protesters from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). But when a contingent of fur industry members showed up as a counterforce, one furrier became angry and punched a photographer from the New York Post, with the resulting bad press hurting the industry's image more than the protesters' efforts. PETA spokesperson Dan Mathews says they plan to "go after all the designers, one by one, until they are too embarrassed to make furs."

Meanwhile, furriers assert that the public is tired of "negative tactics" from animal advocates, and they envision a backlash as they encourage frustrated furwearers to bring their furs out of the closets and onto the streets. "People are tired of activists' confrontational tactics," says FRIC's Carol Wynne. "Ninety-five percent of our customers are women and they support freedom of choice. Activists are entitled to their opinion but not to impose it on others."

PETA is planning "Speakout" demonstrations in five major Midwestern cities this winter, complete with placards bearing messages like "Nice coat - how did you get the blood out?" PETA also plans to station "Fur Detector" activists in airports during the holiday season to confront fur-wearing travelers. Numerous animal organizations will stage "Fur-Free Friday" events on November 26th, the day after Thanksgiving, and Beauty Without Cruelty is countering fur ads with ad campaigns of their own.

What's fur's prognosis for the future? Says Newsweek, "Believing people have a right to buy fur isn't the same as buying it...most of the skins were bought [at last year's auctions] for collars and cuffs, trimmings that furriers would have scoffed at in the free-spending 1980s. The message of that decade was that every secretary deserved to wrap herself in mink. Today furriers are happy if she frames her face in fox." Says fake furrier Salyers: "I have two college-aged children and I believe their generation will represent a total change in attitudes about fur. They and their friends are horrified at the idea of using fur and perhaps 25 percent are vegetarians...We don't want to tell people what to wear, but we're thrilled to offer an alternative. We think compassionate people will want to choose the less harmful alternative."

Glamour summed it up in this way: "The industry is showing some signs of recovery, but there is no question that politics and the economy have made fur the choice of fewer women in the 90s." The fur industry is hoping for its best year since 1987, and is launching a major television and print media ad campaign this fall. A writer for The Tobe Report, a fashion publication, recently waxed poetic about fur: "This winter women can truly express themselves with the purchase of a special and unique fur coat. We feel this is the beginning of a new life as furs are poised at the threshold of a dream." Or a nightmare, depending on one's point of view.

Contact: Beauty Without Cruelty, 1129 Industrial Avenue, Petaluma, CA 94952/ [phone]; Fur Retailers Information Council, 447-A Carlyle Drive, Herndon, VA 22070/[phone]; Humane Society of the United States, 2100 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20037/[phone]; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, P.O. Box 42516, Washington, DC 20015/[phone].