I am nowhere near the fashion industry, but my kneejerk reaction is that the industry might be slow to adopt technology because they don't have that much to gain.
If they are very familiar with still photographs and (I assume) can somewhat predict how still photographs will be perceived by the market, what is the incentive to switch to something new?
As a consumer, my guess would be that a video or 3D display would not create a huge spike in revenue. In fact, if done poorly I could even see it having the opposite effect.
So what is the incentive to invest time and money into switching to something new and risky?
-------
CGI models however seem to be a different story. The cost saving aspect is clear cut and I as the consumer likely won't even realize anything has changed.
Those are good points, but fashion exists in a logic-adjacent (interesting, infuriating) intersection of Art and Commerce; on a big set you can almost map where someone is on that continuum by their order on the call sheet.
On one hand, it makes total sense to ask if embracing 3D stuff, or pushing (to my mind) a more appropriate use of the digital mediums in which we create and experience most things will lead to spike in revenue:
If you do it poorly (read: solution looking for a problem) I wouldn’t expect that to make much of a leap in any real metrics—and if companies are trying to pass off images on the wrong side of the uncanny valley that’d be more likely to hurt than help.
But it’s the Art that actually sells the “lifestyle” (read: clothes), and if you can create a gobsmacking incredible experience that makes people feel things you will absolutely see that in metrics and earned media and attention...
There are so many interesting technologies that are widely accessible today that fashion companies aren’t embracing because 1) they don’t know to look for them and 2) they don’t understand how they work. Small example: I absolutely blew a (publicaly-traded) client’s mind showing them a projection mapping concept... 2 years ago, well after the tools made it a 15 minute job they could have gotten the savvy intern to execute.
If they are very familiar with still photographs and (I assume) can somewhat predict how still photographs will be perceived by the market, what is the incentive to switch to something new?
As a consumer, my guess would be that a video or 3D display would not create a huge spike in revenue. In fact, if done poorly I could even see it having the opposite effect.
So what is the incentive to invest time and money into switching to something new and risky?
-------
CGI models however seem to be a different story. The cost saving aspect is clear cut and I as the consumer likely won't even realize anything has changed.