Biting the hand that feeds you
Like the pathetic would-be parents we were, we used to abandon our apartment on
weekends just to hang out at various dog parks across Sydney and pretend any one of them was ours. We did this on the pretense of deciding what breed we actually wanted but when crunch time came the decision was made for us with Dog being the only mutt left the day we made our way to the abandoned animals home.
Vulnerable from his time roaming the streets of South Sydney in search of food, Dog spent his early days clinging meekly to our side happy to have someone to call his own.
But while we love him with unconditional abandon, we have come to realise Dog is, and always will put himself first.
Quite content to spend most nights asleep at the foot of our bed, should a visitor come to call he will abandon us in a second to lay claim at the foot of theirs. And despite the fact we have done all we can to keep him off the streets, he spends each and every day digging through our backyard in an attempt to return. While we have no doubt that he still needs us in his life, when push comes to shove it is clearly in Dog's nature to put his own needs first.
It appears the same can be said for Rosemount Australian Fashion Week (RAFW) organisers IMG.
Having faced mounting criticism over the amount it charges on-schedule designers to stage their own shows - rumoured to be upwards of $30,000 a pop - the international marketing group has this year elected to charge event visitors an entry fee as well.
This means that everyone hoping to attend the trade-only event - including international and domestic buyers and media - will be forced to cough up $25 for a "pre-registration" fee.
While the fee itself is nominal, the principle behind it belies the approach taken by both the organisers behind New Zealand Fashion Week and the biggest trade fair gurus in the world, Messe Frankfurt neither of whom charge admittance into their events.
IMG has attempted to justify the decision by claiming the money will help pay for a new onsite registration system as well as to help cover the costs involved in the database construction, compilation of data and sending out of delegate lists to designers.
It claims the additional funds gleaned from new naming rights sponsor have been used to reduce designer participation fees by between 15 and 25 per cent.
But while the marketing organisation should be applauded for taking onboard the criticisms it has faced regarding the shortcomings of its exhibitor area The Source, it is difficult to fathom why it would choose to risk potential sales by charging buyers for the privilege of spending money and media for the privilege of promoting the event. Surely, if it really is a case of gaining greater control over registrations there are better ways to do it.
With labels such as Tight Knickers already abandoning the event because of the lack of what it claims are "quality buyers", why would any buyer incur the additional cost of travelling to Sydney and handing over their $25 when they could make an appointment to view other labels for free? And without buyers, what is to become of the featured labels?
Again the motive behind Australian Fashion Week needs to be examined. Is it to actually promote the industry or is it, as is so often touted, just an exercise in public relations?
In general people don't always react too kindly when they feel they are being taking advantage of. It will be interesting to see whether like Dog and I small indiscretions will be forgiven, or whether loyalties will indeed turn.