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.