HOME/ARCHIVES http://www.kazooweb.com/textes/
Merci de choisir un ou plusieurs textes plutôt que d'imprimer la totalité... Les arbres vous sont reconnaissants...

Moins de textes nouveaux, mais une innovation dans la présentation, avec un bis pour les textes ayant suscité le plus grand intérêt la semaine dernière.

********************************
THE REGULARS: Summary
A) Le texte plus abordable de la semaine/Kidzworld: Understanding Global Warming [Comprendre le rechauffement de la terre.]
B) CNN/Global Office: Where best to base your business [Les meilleurs pays où créer une entreprise.]
C) The New York Times/The Ethicist: Domestic Deceit [Conseils sur l'éthique et la déontologie. Cette semaine : Ma femme de ménage soutraite son travail à une immigrée clandestine qu'elle exploite. / Une amie essaie d'adopter. Dois-je avouer que je me méfie de son mari lorsque l'agence d'adoption m'intérroge sur cette famille ? / Je me marie bientôt ; est-ce dans mon intérêt d'offrir de beaux cadeaux aux amis qui se marient avant moi ?]
D) Audio feature/Movie speeches "Jerry Maguire" (1996) [Lire et écouter un extrait marquant d'un film, ici Jerry Maguire explique pourquoi il a besoin de sa femme.]

*******************************
C*) CNN/Global Office: Corporate psychopaths at large [Vos collègues sont-ils des psychopathes ?]
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/08/26/corporate.psychopaths/index.html
'Corporate psychopaths' at large

By Lisa Desai for CNN
Thursday, August 26, 2004 Posted: 1616 GMT (0016 HKT)

LONDON, England (CNN) -- If you work in an office, watch out -- your boss or the person sitting next to you could be a psychopath. But not every psychopath is a budding Hannibal Lecter or Patrick Bateman, the Harvard Business School-educated Wall Street banker with a sadistic murderous streak who is the anti-hero of Brett Easton Ellis' brutal novel "American Psycho".

They may not be violent, the New Scientist magazine warns, but their character traits are identifiable as psychopathic and they're helping them climb the corporate ladder. According to Professor Robert Hare, an expert in psychopathy at the University of British Columbia, Canada, "corporate psychopaths" are ruthless, manipulative, superficially charming and impulsive -- the very traits that are landing them high-powered managerial roles. "Psychopaths are social predators and like all predators they are looking for feeding grounds," he said. "Wherever you get power, prestige and money you will find them."

The key characteristics shared by all psychopaths -- Professor Hare estimates that as much as one percent of the population of Britain and North America are clinically psychopathic -- are their lack of compassion and inability to empathize with others. And while they may thrive in high pressure environments, they can also harm the companies they work for and make life a misery for their co-workers, throwing fits of rage, blaming others when things go wrong, and taking credit for other people's work.

To combat this Professor Hare has teamed up with corporate psychologist Dr. Paul Babiak to design a test that allows companies to detect corporate psychopaths before they can do serious damage in the workplace. The "Business Scan 360" test is used to assess managers who may carry psychopathic traits yet come across as ideal corporate leaders.

Professor Hare is also examining economic crime in the U.S., such as the Enron and WorldCom scandals, to see how corporate psychopaths operate. "The psychopath is the kind of individual that can give you the right impression, has a charming facade, can look and sound like the ideal leader, but behind this mask has a dark side," Dr. Babiak told the Vancouver Sun. "It's this dark side of the personality that lies, is deceitful, is manipulative, that bullies other people, that promotes fraud in the organization and steals the company's money."

Hare believes that individual employees who suspect they are working with a psychopath should also take steps to avoid becoming their next "victim." "The most important thing is to be aware," he says. "Once you take that position you are in a better position to deal with them."

Paul Farmer, from the mental health charity Rethink, agrees that "corporate psychopaths" pose a major threat to harmonious workplace relations. "The danger is that they build up a power base and turn everyone in the organization paranoid, everyone becomes afraid of everyone else and the work culture begins to reflect the personality of the leader," said Farmer. "The workplace is often the most stressful place a person finds themselves in, employees and managers need to keep an eye out for signs of deteriorating mental health in fellow colleagues.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
F*) Washington Post/Miss Manners: Divided Attention [Mon mari m'ennuie avec ses histoires de boulot]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50991-2004Aug31.html
Divided Attention

By Judith Martin
Wednesday, September 1, 2004; Page C08

Q:
Dear Miss Manners:

On several occasions, my husband has accused me of being rude because I am easily distracted by our children and not paying attention to his talk about work.

Although I would like to give him my undivided attention, he talks to me about his work using acronyms and engineering details knowing that I have no idea about what he is speaking. It is so boring and when our children interrupt to talk to me, it is natural to answer since I cannot follow what he is talking about anyway.

Do manners require that I must listen uninterrupted for, say, 15 minutes of boring talk when the person knows I cannot possibly understand? I love my husband, but wish he could talk about something interesting to both of us. He is hurt that I do not listen and I think he is rude for not considering that his talk is foreign to me.

A:
You believe that your husband is rude for not realizing what a bore he is? For wanting to talk to you about his life's work? For expecting you to spare 15 minutes for him? Oh, and for not understanding that the children should feel free to interrupt him?

Have some free etiquette advice. Miss Manners assures you that it is more of a bargain than you will get from a divorce lawyer.

There is no more effective way to belittle and insult someone than to indicate that he bores you. We all encounter bores in life, but polite people find that when they cannot deter or avoid them, enduring a bit of boredom is better than inflicting humiliation.

And you are talking about your husband. Has it not occurred to you that you have an obligation to him -- not only to refrain from hurting him, but for taking an interest in him? If you do not understand the language of his profession, get him to teach it to you. If, for the sake of common courtesy, you fake an interest until you begin to understand, real interest is likely to follow.

Meanwhile, Miss Manners would like to suggest gently that you improve your own domestic job performance. You need to work on your scheduling so that you have uninterrupted time to talk to your husband without neglecting the children, and you need to teach them respect for their father as well as the manners not to barge in on a conversation.

Depending on their ages, you might suggest that your husband explain his work to them as well. He is likely then to keep it simple. And if you find that the children and he are having an interesting time with this, Miss Manners begs you to remember not to interrupt them.

********************************
2*) Yahoo/Associated Press: Employers, Schools Issue New Dress Codes [Des employeurs et établissements scolaires imposent de nouvelles règles vestimentaires]
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=
519&ncid=519&e=3&u=/ap/20040908/ap_on_re_us/wear_this

Employers, Schools Issue New Dress Codes

Wed Sep 8, 5:07 PM ET, By MARTHA IRVINE, AP National Writer

CHICAGO - It's the latest trend in fall fashion: Workers and students who dress down or show too much skin are being told to button up.

Tired of staff members who they see as pushing the limits of professionalism and good taste, a growing number of employers are issuing lengthy dress codes, some with photos to illustrate the do's and don'ts. More schools also are getting stricter about student attire.

M.J. Dean, who's starting his senior year Thursday at the private Cape Cod Academy in Osterville, Mass., discovered new rules at his school when he received the updated student handbook this summer. Among the new guidelines: no pants with side pockets, including popular cargo pants, or T-shirts with writing on them — and "no tight or excessively loose clothing."

"This very strict new dress code is, quite honestly, ridiculous," says the 17-year-old student body vice president. "You can't really represent yourself the way you'd like."

Likewise, some employees think they should be trusted to use good judgment about their clothes. Joe D'Adamo, associate creative director at Chicago ad agency LKH&S, usually wears jeans, a T-shirt and sneakers to work, and dresses up when he sees clients. He says a specific dress code would be "irritating" — but that hasn't stopped bosses at some companies.

Effective this week, Target Corp. has a new, 20-page dress code for employees at its Minneapolis headquarters. Men must now wear a sport coat or tie if they leave their usual work area. Women are required to wear a jacket over any sleeveless blouse; sweater sets are among the other options.

The staff at G.S. Schwartz & Co., a New York investor and public relations firm, also received a recent e-mail memo asking them to bump up their apparel choices "at least one more notch." "For example," the memo read, "we would prefer that properly fitting sweaters be worn with a collared shirt underneath. Certainly, khakis should be neat and clean ... Shaving regularly also is a good idea," the memo suggested, "for either sex."

Rachel Honig Peters, a senior vice president at the company, says the e-mail was sent after company officials noticed their clients dressing up more.

Elsewhere, business owners in the service industry say customer complaints are driving them to put tougher dress codes in place. That was the case for Erika Mangrum, owner of the Iatria Spa and Health Center in Raleigh, N.C. She recalls sending one employee home to change after she came to work wearing a cropped Playboy T-shirt that showed her stomach and a navel ring. "This is really tough stuff," says Mangrum, who understands how frustrating dress codes can be for employees. Mangrum herself once got in trouble, more than a decade ago, for not wearing panty hose when she worked at a major telecommunications firm. Now, she's had to institute a dress code at her own company — "no shorts, no denim, no flip-flops." And she's wondering if she should add rules about piercings. "How far can and should a company go? We're wrestling with that," Mangrum says. "And frankly, we don't have an answer."

The good news, say those who monitor trends, is that modesty and more formal attire are gaining favor even with teens and 20somethings. Many employers say that young workers are the most frequent dress code offenders. Tina Wells, the 20something CEO of Buzz Marketing, says anxiousness over the economy, the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and the upcoming election have created a mood that's more "focused and serious." "Besides, how much lower could low-rise jeans get?" quips Wells, whose New Jersey firm compiles feedback from teen advisers.

In the end, Thomas Evans, headmaster at Cape Cod Academy, says he'd rather not have to police student attire. But he says administrators at the K-12 school had little choice after parents of younger students complained about some older students' clothing.

Much the same has happened at schools elsewhere, from Texas to Kansas and Illinois. In Chicago, for instance, strict dress codes — and uniforms — are a matter of safety, since the way a student wears a pant leg, a bracelet or a hat can indicate a gang affiliation. And even Dean, the student body vice president at Cape Cod, acknowledges that a few students at his school dressed inappropriately last year — "skankily," he says, "if that's a word." He just doesn't think everyone should be punished over the actions of a few. So he and other students plan to meet with their headmaster to see if he'll loosen the dress code. Asked what he thinks their chances are, he sighs: "Slim to none."

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
5*) BBC News: Ice-cream firm agrees fat pay-out [Un fabricant US de crème glacée prétendue allégée dédommage les clients victimes du fait qu'elle était plus grasse qu'annoncée... sous forme de glace gratuite.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/3150556.stm
Ice-cream firm agrees fat pay-out

A US ice-cream firm has settled a lawsuit brought by weight-watching customers - by giving them extra ice-cream. Florida-based DeConna had been hit by a class-action court case, after complaints that its famous Big Daddy brand was not as low-fat as its advertising had claimed. Although marketed towards the health-conscious consumer, Big Daddy has three times as many calories as some labelling claimed, the plaintiffs argued.

But in a $1m settlement of the two-year-old case, the firm has offered angry customers two scoops of ice-cream for every one they purchased. Anyone who bought Big Daddy ice cream between 1995 and 2001 can take part in the hand-out, even if they did not have the foresight to save their receipts for the past eight years.

Business is booming

The case is a minor one within the heavyweight context of US corporate lawsuits, but it illustrates the growing power of the consumer. US firms are particularly vulnerable to class-action legal cases, which bundle together hundreds of thousands of claims into complaints that can sometimes be worth many billions of dollars. Some 10,000 class-action suits are filed every year in the US, mainly against companies.

It is big business for lawyers: one online service, Classactionamerica.com, operated by law firm Kahn Gauthier, claims to have settled cases totalling more than $46bn. And the food business - currently under threat over allegations that it is responsible for obesity - is seen as one of the main areas of future litigation growth.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
6*) The Economist: Anti-social behaviour [La GB met en oeuvre une nouvelle arme contre l'incivilité (très d'actualité, d'après ce que j'ai vu à Londres.]

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id
=S%27%298H%28P%21%23%2B%21P%214%0A&CFID=34337405&CFTOKEN=
5605da1-1a315607-f744-4b03-a8d1-0040c225ee90

Anti-social behaviour: The war on incivility
Jul 22nd 2004

Britain's latest crime worry is anti-social behaviour. It's hard to define—and even harder to police

ARE those uncouth teenagers hanging around on the street corner just going through a difficult phase, or are they chipping away at the foundations of decent society? The tendency these days is to think the worst. “Our country faces two major threats”, says Frank Field, a Labour MP and a veteran crusader against anti-social behaviour. “One comes from international terrorism, the other from neighbourhood terrorists.”

A decade ago, people worried about tangible crimes like burglary and car theft. As figures released on July 22nd showed, those are now in remission. But the overall level of anxiety appears not to have diminished at all. In the kind of psychological shift that unnerves governments, public worries now focus sharply on petty incivilities like vandalism, loud music and public loutishness.

The need to crack down on such annoyances was the main theme of two speeches this week by Tony Blair, the prime minister, and David Blunkett, the home secretary. It was also the chief spur to plans to put 12,000 more police on the streets in the next four years, along with 20,000 extra community-support officers.

The war against anti-social behaviour may have been formally declared this week, but it has been heating up for the past few years. The state's arsenal starts, softly, with “acceptable behaviour contracts”, first introduced in 1999, in which tearaways promise to calm down. Should they fail to do so, they are liable to be slapped with an “anti-social behaviour order” (ASBO)—a list of prohibitions, issued by a magistrate, which may prevent them doing uncivil things, hanging out with known troublemakers, or even visiting their favourite stomping grounds. A petty tyrant who steps out of line is liable to spend up to six months in prison.

Such remedies are draconian, particularly given that vandalism—the most measurable kind of anti-social behaviour—has been declining since 1995 (see chart). Even coppers are surprised. “I never thought I would live in a country where the police would have these powers,” says Stuart Chapman, a chief superintendent from the South Yorkshire force.

The powers are also virtually unique. Other countries fret about youthful misdeeds, but mostly because they are thought to lead on to more serious stuff. In America, the fear about teenagers hanging around the streets is that they will get sucked into gangs. There, as in much of continental Europe, a distinction is drawn between minor indiscretions, which are dealt with through informal negotiation or community sanctions, and criminal offences, which lead to custodial sentences.

Britain's innovation is to have criminalised behaviour that is not necessarily an offence in law. To obtain an ASBO, local authorities and the police do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. They only have to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the local lout is making other people's lives difficult. That is fairly easy, which explains why, of the 2,497 orders sought before the end of March 2004, only 42 were refused. But while civil standards of proof apply to the issuing of ASBOs, criminal sanctions can be applied to those who break them. And they can be handed out for anything, from egging houses to dealing in drugs. Kate Hammond, a specialist prosecutor in Manchester, says, mildly: “It's quite a large stick.”

For local authorities, the new laws are a blessing. They now have a weapon against troublesome tenants—even the ones who live in private accommodation, who were formerly difficult to reach. They can disperse groups of youths and drunks from traditional trouble-spots, some of which now proudly display signs declaring them areas free of anti-social behaviour. Some authorities have made more use of ASBOs than others—about a third of the national total comes from Greater Manchester, for example. But pressure from voters and the government means that local authorities are likely to level up, not down.

Oddly, though, not everyone is happy. Some point out that ASBOs are likely to put more young people in prison, or into the care of the already struggling probation service. The number of under-21s in the slammer rose by 69% between 1992 and 2003; the trend reversed last year, but a few breached ASBOs would soon change that.

And even those in the front line worry that they have unleashed a monster. Council staff report an increasing number of calls about crying babies and children playing football in the street—petty annoyances that used to be dealt with by a quiet word, but which they are now expected to do something about. As Jan Wilson, the leader of Sheffield City Council, says, “this thing seems to be gaining a momentum of its own.”

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
A) Le texte plus abordable de la semaine/Kidzworld: Understanding Global Warming [Comprendre le rechauffement de la terre.]
http://www.kidzworld.com/site/p3946.htm
Understanding Global Warming

You've probably heard the term "global warming" before, but what does it mean? Is it really all that bad that the earth is getting a little warmer? Read on for the essential info.

What is Global Warming?

Climate is the pattern of weather over the long term. The climate has always changed, getting warmer and cooler over years. Though climate change isn't new, the speed with which the climate is changing is. Global warming is a term used to describe the increase in average global temperatures due to the greenhouse effect. But what is that?

The Greenhouse Effect
Scientists generally agree that the Earth's surface has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past 140 years. That might not sound like much, but it has definitely impacted the earth. Scientists also think the rate at which the earth is heating up is increasing. The greenhouse effect is what scientists believe is causing the sharp increase in global temperatures. The earth's atmosphere traps solar radiation, caused by the presence of gases such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane (from pollution) in the atmosphere, which allow incoming sunlight to pass through it but won't allow the heat to escape back out (like in a greenhouse).

What's So Bad About Global Warming?
Climate change can negatively affect the earth's delicate ecosystems. Global warming has been linked to dying coral reefs, dangerous new weather patterns and the extinction of plant and animal species.

What Can You Do?
# Reducing pollution helps to reduce global warming. Here are a few ideas: Walk to school instead of getting the 'rents to drive you.
# Don't use too much electricity. Turn off the lights when you leave a room and don't leave the TV on when you're not using it.
# Tell your parents what you know about global warming. It's important that they know as much as you do so they can vote for politicians who care about the environment.
# Recycle.
# Plant trees. Trees help to combat pollution by absorbing carbon dioxide from the air.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
B) CNN/Global Office: Where best to base your business [Les meilleurs pays où créer une entreprise.]
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/09/08/go.world.bank.report/index.html
Where best to base your business

By Nick Easen for CNN

(CNN) -- If you are looking for a place to start a new business you may want to consider either Slovakia or Colombia for a new office. Both countries improved their business and investment climates the most over the past year, according to the latest World Bank report. Creating electronic one-stop shops for businesses, shrinking regulatory delays, improving credit registries and introducing more flexible labor laws were just some of the reforms these countries signed up to. "Slovakia was a successful reformer, as was Colombia (even though) they have a low per-capita income," Joe O'Keefe an economist at the World Bank told CNN. "Many of these reforms are simple and not expensive. But in Haiti or Indonesia you can start a business in January and you might not even finish (registering) until June."

Business regulation may not seem like a big deal, but according to the "Doing Business in 2005" report Colombia's improvements in this area resulted in the creation of 350,000 jobs in 2003. "The pay-offs from reform appear large," expressed the report. "A move into the top quarter of countries in terms of doing business is associated with up to two percentage points more annual economic growth."

The global lender's second annual business regulation survey of 145 countries also found that New Zealand was the easiest country to open and manage a business, followed by the U.S. The disparity between rich and poor countries is stark. For example an entrepreneur in a rich country will need on average 27 days to start a new business. In a poor to lower-middle income country the same process takes 59 days. In a dozen countries starting up a business can drag on for more than 100 days.

Incentive for change

One major incentive to reform for a number of Central European countries was the promise of European Union membership. Of the ten most-improved countries, three joined the EU in May of this year, including Slovakia, Lithuania and Poland.

The report also warned that countries which delay the introduction of reforms risk being left behind economically. For instance many African countries are hampered by strict regulatory restrictions, while other states make starting a business a very costly process. "In Syria, the minimum capitalization to start a business is 50 times the (annual) per capita income," says O'Keefe.

The report takes into account time needed to start a new business, labor laws, bureaucracy and credit registries.

According to the report, the most problematic places to do businesses are in Africa. Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Burkina Faso and Chad rank in the last five. "We have not had this kind of comparable data before," explains O'Keefe. The top 20 countries in terms of ease of doing business are New Zealand, United States, Singapore, Hong Kong/China, Australia, Norway, United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden, Japan, Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Ireland, Belgium, Lithuania, Slovakia, Botswana, and Thailand.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
D) Audio feature/Movie speeches "Jerry Maguire" (1996) [Lire et écouter un extrait marquant d'un film, ici Jerry Maguire explique pourquoi il a besoin de sa femme.]
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechjerrymaguireimissmywife.html
[Listen to Tom Cruise delivering this speech at http://www.uttyler.edu/meidenmuller/mp3clips/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechjerrymaguireimissmywife.mp3]

Jerry:
Hello? Hello.

I'm lookin' for my wife.

Wait. Okay...okay...okay.

If this is where it has to happen, then this is where it has to happen. I'm not letting you get rid of me. How about that?

This used to be my specialty, you know. I was good in a living room. They'd send me in there, and I'd do it alone. And now I just... I don't know...

But tonight, our little project, our company had a very big night - very, very big night.

But it wasn't complete, wasn't nearly close to being in the same vicinity as complete, because I couldn't share it with you. I couldn't hear your voice, or laugh about it with you. I miss my -- I miss my wife.

We live in a cynical world, a cynical world, and we work in a business of tough competitors.

I love you. You -- complete me. I just had --

Dorothy:
Just shut up. You had me at hello. You had me at hello.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
THIS WEEK'S TEXTS

********************************
1) Slate/Fashion: Fashion week FAQ [Un professionnel répond à nos intérrogations sur la semaine des défilés des collections de mode.]
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2106639/
Fashion Week FAQ: Your nagging questions answered.
By Josh Patner
Posted Monday, Sept. 13, 2004, at 4:01 PM PT

This year, as New York's annual fashion week rolled around, the Slate staff found that the event leaves many of us perplexed: Just what is fashion week about, anyway? Is it, as one editor put it, "a snooty scam perpetrated by New Yorkers on poor slobs elsewhere"? Or is it an occasion for designers to present their artistic ideas and try to influence taste? We asked our resident expert, Josh Patner—former assistant designer for Donna Karan and co-founder of the popular label Tuleh—to answer a few of our most burning questions.

1) What is the purpose of fashion week?

Simply put, fashion week initiates the two major seasons—fall and spring—in which designers present their new collections for the fashion press, retail buyers, and others with influence in the fashion world. Fashion journalists review the collections just as film critics might cover new releases at Cannes. Fashion magazine editors assess the mood of the season and identify the trends to be photographed and written about. Buyers, who make selections for department stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue or smaller boutiques, identify those same trends and assess how their funds might be best spent. Others with influence—Hollywood stylists in search of Oscar night dresses, socialites and celebrities whose wardrobe choices are widely copied—make what essentially are shopping lists of the looks they'll buy and wear.

But there is also a broader, more complex answer to this question. Fashion week, while often seeming like a business convention, is not solely about business. It means something different depending on your place in the fashion world. Designers rely on the fixed date of a fashion show to end a creative cycle that might otherwise last indefinitely: Proportions might be finalized after months of tinkering; color combinations might be refined. Fashion journalists often use the week to search for a good story—a flash of brilliance from an unheard of talent, say, or the crash-and-burn tale of a once-beloved star—or they might just as easily be repaying a social favor with an undeserved great review, placating one of the publication's major advertisers after a previous slam or, more benignly, giving budding talent a pass when the clothes fail to impress. For fashion buyers, who choose the inventory for the stores, the shows are a chance to look up from their computer screens and socialize; they will not make their purchases until weeks after the shows. In other words, business, the stuff of deals and budgets, is not conducted under the tents. The shows leave an impression—of sexiness or invention—and in this field where impressions count immeasurably, that is business enough.

2) Does the perceived success of a fashion show at fashion week correlate to how well a designer fares in a given season?

Yes and no. If editors and buyers leave a show feeling exhilarated, it only serves the designer well. Major stories might be written and photo shoots planned. Orders might be increased and the clothes featured in a store's advertising or window display. This is particularly true for a new name. For established designers, a knockout show might increase media exposure, but it doesn't necessarily translate into more money.

3) Do the designers make any money from the shows themselves (not from increasing their profile or getting into newspapers and magazines), or are they just a massive expense? How do young designers afford stylists, makeup artists, etc.?

Designers don't charge admission for fashion shows. Even fashion addicts have limits; no one would go. An average show—generally thought of as a promotional expense—costs about $150,000, though many are produced for less and certainly many for much more. Major expenses are the venue (the largest of the three tents offered in New York costs $42,000, the smallest $18,000); the models (fees start at $2,500, and most shows include about 25 models); invitations (design and printing costs can run to $5,000); hair and makeup artists with a team of assistants (top stylists can get more than $25,000, and each assistant might get $250); and shoes (even at a wholesale price of $275 per pair, shoes can total tens of thousands of dollars for multiple pairs). Fledgling designers are lucky if they can get sponsorship—perhaps from a liquor company or trade organization—to help deflect costs. Some break the bank trying to produce shows beyond their means. Paradoxically, the more prestigious a show, the less money the designer may have to shell out: Marc Jacobs is rumored to never pay models, who consider it a badge of honor to walk his runway, whereas more commercial houses, say Kenneth Cole, have to pay up when they don't have much status to trade on.

4) What happens if you have a fashion show and no one shows up? How do you induce people to come when you're just starting out?

The chances of absolutely no one showing up are slimmer than a model's legs. Somebody always wants to go to a fashion show: Throw up a velvet rope, and a line will surely form. But getting the heavy-hitters—Vogue's Anna Wintour, Women's Wear Daily's Bridget Foley, the International Herald Tribune's Suzy Menkes, and the New York Times' Cathy Horyn, plus retailers from Saks Fifth Avenue, Neiman Marcus, and Barneys—is no easy feat, even for established names. While it's common knowledge that top editors pay their respects to top advertisers by showing up to sit in the front row, you can bet your Vogue subscription that Anna Wintour is not keen to be at, say, the Ellen Tracy show at 9 in the morning (at such shows, commercial offerings geared toward department store chains are on view). But business is business.

As for the shows of young designers, fashion professionals are creative people who are inspired by and supportive of creativity, and personal relationships—with publicists, salespeople, or the designers themselves—go a long way toward filling seats. Plus, fashion people move in a flock—if a few of the heavy-hitters support a young designer, the pack will follow.

5) How are the shows scheduled to avoid conflict? Is there a particular night/time slot that is the most coveted or a time slot that the heavyweights usually win (say, Marc Jacobs)? If you're a small designer, how do you make sure there are no bigger shows scheduled when you schedule yours?

An industry firm called the Fashion Calendar has long managed the tangled problem of too many designers trying to show over too few days (approximately 150 designers over seven days); the service is run by subscription and produces a weekly schedule of international fashion-related events that buyers and editors look to throughout the year. Conflicts do arise with overlapping shows. Editors and buyers must choose whose show to see, and the little guy generally loses out.

6) Do designers choreograph the show? Do they pick the music for their show, or do they work with a DJ? Is there a dress rehearsal?

Most designers are quite actively involved in selecting show music. They work with a DJ—many, like Michel Gaubert who mixes music for New York design darlings Proenza Schouler, specialize in runway tracks—with the idea that every detail of a show makes an impact on its success. Designers are often inspired by a particular song or band while conceiving their collections, and that plays into the music selection. Shows are staged more than choreographed, with the outfits carefully placed in a particular order to be shown on particular models and timed to hit the runway at certain points in the music. Shows are, after all, shows, and everything is carefully planned for effect.

7) Is this why the clothes are so ridiculous? Do the designers think that the overdoneness of the models (both clothes and makeup) looks good, or are they just doing that for effect?

While it's true that much of what is shown on runways is crap, this is often owing to a lack of talent on the part of the designer, rather than a meretricious reaching for effect. In fact, there are too many shows, particularly in New York, where the clothes are not ridiculous enough, if ridiculous means imaginative. Fashion is not simply about utility, especially on a runway, where ideas are on parade. Do we really need to see a tank top and trousers trotting down a runway and masquerading as fashion? (Remember that fashion and clothes are not the same thing: Clothes keep you from being naked or cold, and pockets provide a place for your house keys. Fashion, when it's good, sends the imagination racing and speaks for the wearer's dreams in a way words can't.)

So, why do designers go for what might seem over the top? There are two very basic answers to this question; one gets to the heart of everything that is right about fashion, and one to everything that is wrong.

Fashion is both democratic and exclusive. Some fashion is meant for broad audiences—New York showman-extraordinaire Isaac Mizrahi, for example, has revived his defunct high-priced label by designing clothes for Target—and some—like the extreme styles of Nicolas Ghesquiere's work for Balenciaga—is frankly not intended for uneducated eyes. The opinion of the man on the street is irrelevant when it comes to clothes designed for connoisseurs. When great designers such as Rei Kawakubo at Commes des Garcons or her protégé Junya Watanabe propose extreme—what some might call ridiculous—style, it is because they are working with the formal properties of fashion (cut, fabrics, complex finishing techniques) in an innovative way. Their client base is intentionally small because a larger business would require responding to mass market demands, and the influence of their innovation is felt primarily within the industry. But so what? Fashion is a community as well as a business, and communities have their own language. A unique use of lace or a well-cut dress are nuances that might be lost on your average shopper but provide secret thrills to fashion insiders.

On the other hand, it happens all too often that runway shows are filled with high jinks for high jinks' sake. Fashion has become entertainment, and so the thinking of many designers goes like this: Zany looks will get the attention of TV producers or stylists with celebrity access (and getting the name out there equals business success). Shenanigans like silly hairdos, exaggerated makeup, or overzealous styling can also hide a lack of skill or true ideas.

The larger issue, however, is that fashion is a big business, and it has suffered from overexposure. What was once the province of an elite and limited audience is now scrutinized on the red carpet and in tabloids at a rate that forces cheap attempts at keeping up with news cycles that move faster than fashion's own natural seasonal reinvention. The industry, of course, has invited the attention. Hype, the theory goes, means profit. But when there are hours of fashion television that need programming and costly tents to fill, no serious fashion professional would deny that much of what gets shown is an embarrassment.

8) Who gets the front row? (And who gets usually stuck in back or in the standing section?) Is there a hierarchy among fashion editors and journalists, fashion buyers, and celebrities? Does the publicist decide the seating arrangements, or does the designer usually insist on looking at the placement?

Publicists and sales teams generally review the guest list, and they apportion the seats accordingly; they work their way back, putting the most important people in front and from there following the natural hierarchy of the guests (editors in chief before associates, store presidents before buyers, etc.). Celebrities, who have been wooed by invitation months before, either make a grand entrance in the final moments of a show and are shepherded to their seat by a PR escort, or they park themselves in their seats before the show begins for added paparazzi time. The idea, of course, is that a shot of a celebrity at a show will give added value to that designer's cachet. As for the designers, most give a glance to the front row seating plan, but any designer too concerned with that ought to go back to his fittings.

9) How much does a model get for a show? How are the shows cast?

Top models like Daria Werebowy and Gemma Ward can get up to $20,000 for a show, plus a 20 percent commission to their agencies. The fee includes up to three preshow fittings and the show itself. Designers hire casting agents, who specialize in runway shows and advertising campaigns, to cast the shows. Every show wants the top models, and there is often a tug of war over certain stars when shows overlap. In the end, a model's agent determines the better career move. Relationships—between agents, designers, the modeling agencies, and the models themselves—play a big part in assembling the ideal cast. Conflicts do occasionally occur between houses, as the models are booked in advance of the listed show time to have their hair and makeup done, which makes appearing in every show impossible.

10) Do the models get to keep the clothes?

Models often work for clothes rather than money, especially when the designers have small houses but growing prestige. While fashion can be a brutal business, support is shown by the modeling agencies and by the models themselves when the shows are cast. Models generally do not keep the actual clothes they wear in the show, as those pieces will be needed for sales appointments or magazine shoots. But they do order clothes, which are sent to them later.

11) How many models does a designer generally use in a single show? And how do they change clothes so quickly?

The current runway vogue is for no more than 40 looks (or "exits" as they are often called) and for one model per look, with no backstage changes. However, it's often hard to find that many suitable lovelies, and so some models might have two outfits to show. In cases where a change is required, each model has her own dresser to facilitate a fast turnaround.

12) Where do the models get their shoes? Some of them must wear 11s and 12s—and yet these sizes are almost impossible to find. Do they hobble around in shoes that are too small? Or is there a secret stash of big-foot shoes?

Shoes are generally designed specifically for the runway, in collaboration with shoe designers like Manolo Blahnik and Christian Louboutin. (Houses that sell shoes under their own label, like Donna Karan or Gucci or Prada, tend to use their own shoes.) Shoes complete an outfit—some would say they make it—and so they are an integral part of the design process. They are designed months in advance and are paired with the clothes during fittings. Top shoe designers generally do make shoes in sizes 11 and 12, but the average model size is 8 and a half.

Josh Patner was a founding partner of the design house Tuleh and has worked for Bergdorf Goodman and Donna Karan. He has written for the New York Times and is currently working on a book.

^RETURN TO TOP^