> I was pretty convinced until now that the stylists were just algorithms but it looks like I was wrong

Katrina Lake talks a little about the way they've structured this during her How I Built This interview[1]. They seem to have a pretty large engineering / data science org, and it feels like the stylists are effectively human curators of algorithmic recommendations.

1. https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759594143/stitch-fix-katrina-...

"Today (Sep 2019), it has about three million customers and brings in more than a billion dollars in annual revenue."

Wow!

It always amazes me what people will pay for that seems to have zero utility from my perspective.

In the face of a billion dollars of revenue, what do you think is more likely: 1) everyone using stichfix gets "zero" utility from it or 2) You don't understand the thing you also have an opinion about for some reason?

For some people, buying clothes is a really stressful and difficult psychological process. You really don't know anyone who does not like shopping for clothes and would be willing to buy away that stress from a personal shopper/algorithm ?

Maybe you personally don't find value in that, or your tastes don't agree with Stichfix's style, but it seems quite understandable to me that many people would want this.

Of course people are getting utility from it. But I was stating if I was presented with StitchFix as an investment opportunity, I wouldn’t be able to imagine how it would be valuable to people, so I might pass on it. I’m not denigrating anyone who does get utility from it.

That seems to be a systemic problem in tech. Most VCs are dudes and they can’t see the value in startups that do things men are less interested in, making it harder to get funding to solve problems women have. Might be why some folks are (rightfully) sensitive about the topic.

Katrina Lake definitely had this problem getting her first funding rounds - the VCs she talked to thought it wouldn't work, because there's a perception that most women like to go shopping, or just not seeing the value for themselves.

VC funding comes down to gut decisions, and I suspect there are a lot of other billion-dollar opportunities out there in spaces that are overlooked by the demographic of wealthy white american males between the ages of 25-50.

My wife is a customer, and initially I was irritated that she had signed up, since I viewed Stitch Fix as akin to the subscription services that send food, etc.

But being smart, I decided to avoid expressing my skepticism about how she was spending her money. Turns out that for her, it's a great idea. She hates to shop, hates to spend time shopping, but has to look professional for work. Like many women, she's not a size 0, so finding stuff that fits as well as looks good can be a challenge.

With Stitch Fix, they always send the right size. And the styling (as much as I can tell as a dude) looks fine. If you don't like something, you just send it back.

Prices are higher than I would have expected, but again, that's because I'm a dude who buys cheap stuff. Women's clothing is both more expensive, and less sturdy than much of what men wear.

I kind of get what you're trying to say, but it's important to remember that the definition of 'utility' is not universal.

One example comes to mind from the recent thread[1] about hiring for older programmers - someone gave an example of an older friend of theirs who started getting substantially more offers once he changed the way he dressed:

> It began with a friend who was in the job market as a 50+. More on the hardware side. This guy has some cool experience. He gets lots of interviews, they go well, but no offers. As his frustration grows, he grows desperate to try something different. He dyes some color back into his hair, gets some tinted glasses, and lets his daughter take him shopping for some more hip interview clothes. A month later and he's in bidding wars for who to hire him. He said the difference was night and day. He was now pointing out his age in interviews "are you sure I'm not too old?" and the interviewers were like "no way man."

In a case like that, fashion has clear social utility and a very real, tangible value to that person.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23320974

I agree fashion has utility. But if I needed help with it, I would go look at some manakins or clothing websites or whoever you want to emulate and copy that. I wouldn’t see a reason to pay someone else to do that for me.

You mean, like movies and video games? Or food other than rice and beans?

Most people in first world countries are well above the subsistence level, and much of what they spend their money on isn't useful. It does, however, improve their quality of life. Clothes are no better or worse than my own hobbies, and I suspect, yours.

I meant paying someone else via a subscription service to do it. Clothing is important for signaling, and there is definitely utility there, but I would think there are other ways that are cheaper/easier/more reliable.

My assumption has always been that it's a supply side problem to solve and their style choices are limited. If I made a business like this, I would source unsold/unwanted clothing at a discount and try to pair it up with people who might actually buy it. I've just assumed that's what they're doing... anyone know either way?

I also had this conception, then learned most if not all of my items have been from Stitch Fix’s internal brands and that’s why I didn’t recognize any of them. I thought they were a curator of brands and styles I might want to check out, but it seems to me they’re running it like a D2C high-volume fashion label.

So I’m guessing by owning the brands themselves they get even higher margins than if they were buying unwanted brands in bulk at a discount. And each of the brands goes for a certain generic style, e.g.: “Even Tide brings the vacation to your closet with a mix of coastal colors and mid-century modern inspired lines.” [1]

Kind of a let down for me as a subscriber, but I still buy quarterly as I’m so bad at picking a wardrobe out on my own.

[1] https://www.stitchfix.com/men/blog/the-service/exclusive-bra...

I tried them out for 4 months. I kept one garment per delivery on average. I buy my clothes from thrift shops all the way to Barney's/Neiman Marcus. You can find quality at any price point. However, when their internal brands began showing up more and more in my boxes I started suspecting they were offloading "junk" on me at a premium. I thought about whether the stylists make a commission or have flexibility in pricing the garments. There were many items that I thought were overpriced for theor quality. They sent me a "flannel" shirt that had the feel of paperboard.

I thought about applying for their ML positions, because it's definitely an interesting business problem. But I got a strong feeling they don't actually use ML in their product. They're just a retailer after all.

Likewise. The one time I used them, I was sent some pretty generic stuff that had little to do with what I specified within my profile.

It's almost as if it didn't matter what I put in my requirements, I was going to be given the same stock pack du jour. I even got this heavy winter coat from them that maybe would have made sense in Minnesota, but had no place in the Bay Area. They were not geography-aware at the time, from what I could tell.

Never used them since, it's easier to go into the store myself.

Generic in terms of your taste or generic in the larger population? IMO the whole reason to have human helpers is to avoid both, while algos can do both kinds of generic well.

Anecdotal, but my wife is a stylist and is very much listening and providing individual feedback. She feels so bad when someone doesn't like what she picks so it's her goal to make them happy. Not all are bad.

I believe this. I love the idea of StitchFix but have not had great experiences with them. I finally had a stylist explain that they just don't get much inventory that matches my style preferences. This makes perfect sense, since they need to stock clothes that will fit/suit the widest variety of people, which leads to a lot of baggy, shapeless choices.

Don't forget drab colours and ridiculous lapels and pleats!

That much is true, she often gets frustrated that she can't pick from their entire inventory.

Even for stylists, the choices they've made for the models on the front page are... tacky, to say the least. I don't consider myself fashionable in the slightest but that the outdated camo jacket on a sky blue tee is a freakin eyesore. It seems like just over half of the photos are appealingly color-coordinated.

If that's what their stylists are coming up with then... ew

I gave StitchFix a couple of shots. It was okay, I got a couple decent items out of it, but didn't amaze me.

But I canceled when I very specifically stated in both my profile and my message to the stylist that I did not want any white/tan colored items (I'm fair skinned) or polo shirts (just not my style).

My next order contained a white polo shirt and a tan knit beanie (in the summer!). smdh.

I, too, figured it was just some algorithm dressed up as personal stylists, but knowing that it is actual people just makes it even more unforgivable.

Same, shocked they have this many human stylists when they seemed to make out they were using ML to predict taste.

> In fact, I was pretty convinced until now that the stylists were just algorithms but it looks like I was wrong.

Maybe the stylists really exist to train an algorithm that can replace stylists in the future?

I would be very surprised if an algorithm did not make suggestions that the stylists would confirm, deny or modify.

I agree. Tried the service a few times and didn't keep a single item. A lot of their recommendations were actually from their own Stitch Fix clothing line, which felt like at best Gap quality for Gap full retail prices.

I love Stitchfix. In my experience, however, this is accurate.

I've received orders from good stylists and bad ones. The bad experiences were exactly as described: my preferences were clearly not read, they specifically picked things I had already rejected on the style-carousel-rating thing. It felt like they just dumped a bunch of excess crap on me. When this happens, the pieces don't even fit right. Very frustrating.

On the other hand, I have gotten shipments that were clearly respecting my requests and preferences. Those interactions absolutely send me over the moon, and make me much more likely to buy something.

it always amazes me how many human filled jobs are very very robotic. It is often indiscernible on if a job is filled by a human or robot