Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for April, 2018

Revelations about the Facebook – Cambridge Analytica affair last month (March 2018) invoked a heated public discussion about data privacy and users’ control over their personal information in social media networks, particularly in the domain of Facebook. The central allegation in this affair is that personal data in social media was misused for the winning political presidential campaign of Donald Trump. It offers ‘juicy’ material for all those interested in American politics. But the importance of the affair goes much beyond that, because impact of the concerns it has raised radiates to the daily lives of millions of users-consumers socially active via the social media platform of Facebook; it could touch potentially a multitude of commercial marketing contexts (i.e., products and services) in addition to political marketing.

Having a user account as member of the social media network of Facebook is pay free, a boon hard to resist. Facebook surpassed in Q2 of 2017 the mark of two billion active monthly users, double a former record of one billion reached five years earlier (Statista). No monetary price requirement is explicitly submitted to users. Yet, users are subject to alternative prices, embedded in the activity on Facebook, implicit and less noticeable as a cost to bear.

Some users may realise that advertisements they receive and see is the ‘price’ they have to tolerate for not having to pay ‘in cash’ for socialising on Facebook. It is less of a burden if the content is informative and relevant to the user. What users are much less likely to realise is how personally related data (e.g., profile, posts and photos, other activity) is used to produce personally targeted advertising, and possibly in creating other forms of direct offerings or persuasive appeals to take action (e.g., a user receives an invitation from a brand, based on a post of his or her friend, about a product purchased or  photographed). The recent affair led to exposing — in news reports and a testimony of CEO Mark Zuckerberg before Congress — not only the direct involvement of Facebook in advertising on its platform but furthermore how permissive it has been in allowing third-party apps to ‘borrow’ users’ information from Facebook.

According to reports on this affair, Psychologist Aleksandr Kogan developed with colleagues, as part of academic research, a model to deduce personality traits from behaviour of users on Facebook. Aside from his position at Cambridge University, Kogan started a company named Global Science Research (GSR) to advance commercial and political applications of the model. In 2013 he launched an app in Facebook, ‘this-is-your-digital-life’, in which Facebook users would answer a self-administered questionnaire on personality traits and some personal background. In addition, the GSR app prompted respondents to give consent to pull personal and behavioural data related to them from Facebook. Furthermore, at that time the app could get access to limited information on friends of respondents — a capability Facebook removed at least since 2015 (The Guardian [1], BBC News: Technology, 17 March 2018).

Cambridge Analytica (CA) contracted with GSR to use its model and data it collected. The app was able, according to initial estimates, to harvest data on as many as 50 million Facebook users; by April 2018 the estimate was updated by Facebook to reach 87 millions. It is unclear how many of these users were involved in the project of Trump’s campaign because CA was specifically interested for this project in eligible voters in the US; it is said that CA applied the model with data in other projects (e.g., pro-Brexit in the UK), and GSR made its own commercial applications with the app and model.

In simple terms, as can be learned from a more technical article in The Guardian [2], the model is constructed around three linkages:

(1) Personality traits (collected with the app) —> data on user behaviour in Facebook platform, mainly ‘likes’ given by each user (possibly additional background information was collected via the app and from the users’ profiles);

(2) Personality traits —> behaviour in the target area of interest — in the case of Trump’s campaign, past voting behaviour (CA associated geographical data on users with statistics from the US electoral registry).

Since model calibration was based on data from a subset of users who responded to the personality questionnaire, the final stage of prediction applied a linkage:

(3) Data on Facebook user behaviour ( —> predicted personality ) —>  predicted voting intention or inclination (applied to the greater dataset of Facebook users-voters)

The Guardian [2] suggests that ‘just’ 32,000 American users responded to the personality-political questionnaire for Trump’s campaign (while at least two million users from 11 states were initially cross-referenced with voting behaviour). The BBC gives an estimate of as many as 265,000 users who responded to the questionnaire in the app, which corresponds to the larger pool of 87 million users-friends whose data was harvested.

A key advantage credited to the model is that it requires only data on ‘likes’ by users and does not have to use other detailed data from posts, personal messages, status updates, photos etc. (The Guardian [2]). However, the modelling concept raises some critical questions: (1) How many repeated ‘likes’ of a particular theme are required to infer a personality trait? (i.e., it should account for a stable pattern of behaviour in response to a theme or condition in different situations or contexts); (2) ‘Liking’ is frequently spurious and casual — ‘likes’ do not necessarily reflect thought-out agreement or strong identification with content or another person or group (e.g., ‘liking’ content on a page may not imply it personally applies to the user who likes it); (3) Since the app was allowed to collect only limited information on a user’s ‘friends’, how much of it could be truly relevant and sufficient for inferring the personality traits? On the other hand, for whatever traits that could be deduced, data analyst and whistleblower Christopher Wylie, who brought the affair out to the public, suggested that the project for Trump had picked-up on various sensitivities and weaknesses (‘demons’ in his words). Personalised messages were respectively devised to persuade or lure voters-users likely to favour Trump to vote for him. This is probably not the way users would want sensitive and private information about them to be utilised.

  • Consider users in need for help who follow and ‘like’ content of pages of support groups for bereaved families (e.g., of soldiers killed in service), combatting illnesses, or facing other types of hardship (e.g., economic or social distress): making use of such behaviour for commercial or political gain would be unethical and disrespectful.

Although the app of GSR may have properly received the consent of users to draw information about them from Facebook, it is argued that deception was committed on three counts: (a) The consent was awarded for academic use of data — users were not giving consent to participate in a political or commercial advertising campaign; (b) Data on associated ‘friends’, according to Facebook, has been allowed at the time only for the purpose of learning how to improve users’ experiences on the platform; and (c) GSR was not permitted at any time to sell and transfer such data to third-party partners. We are in the midst of a ‘blame game’ among Facebook, GSR and CA on the transfer of data between the parties and how it has been used in practice (e.g., to what extent the model of Kogan was actually used in the Trump’s campaign). It is a magnificent mess, but this is not the space to delve into its small details. The greater question is what lessons will be learned and what corrections will be made following the revelations.

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, gave testimony at the US Congress in two sessions: a joint session of the Senate Commerce and Judiciary Committees (10 April 2018) and before the House of Representatives Commerce and Energy Committee (11 April 2018). [Zuckerberg declined a call to appear in person before a parliamentary committee of the British House of Commons.] Key issues about the use of personal data on Facebook are reviewed henceforth in light of the opening statements and replies given by Zuckerberg to explain the policy and conduct of the company.

Most pointedly, Facebook is charged that despite receiving reports concerning GSR’s app and CA’s use of data in 2015, it failed to ensure in time that personal data in the hands of CA is deleted from their repositories and that users are warned about the infringement (before the 2016 US elections), and that it took at least two years for the social media company to confront GSR and CA more decisively. Zuckerberg answered in his defence that Cambridge Analytica had told them “they were not using the data and deleted it, we considered it a closed case”; he immediately added: “In retrospect, that was clearly a mistake. We shouldn’t have taken their word for it”. This line of defence is acceptable when coming from an individual person acting privately. But Zuckerberg is not in that position: he is the head of a network of two billion users. Despite his candid admission of a mistake, this conduct is not becoming a company the size and influence of Facebook.

At the start of both hearing sessions Zuckerberg voluntarily and clearly took personal responsibility and apologized for mistakes made by Facebook while committing to take measures (some already done) to avoid such mistakes from being repeated. A very significant realization made by Zuckerberg in the House is him conceding: “We didn’t take a broad view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake” — it goes right to the heart of the problem in the approach of Facebook to personal data of its users-members. Privacy of personal data may not seem to be worth money to the company (i.e., vis-à-vis revenue coming from business clients or partners) but the whole network business apparatus of the company depends on its user base. Zuckerberg committed that Facebook under his leadership will never give priority to advertisers and developers over the protection of personal information of users. He will surely be followed on these words.

Zuckerberg argued that the advertising model of Facebook is misunderstood: “We do not sell data to advertisers”. According to his explanation, advertisers are asked to describe to Facebook the target groups they want to reach, Facebook traces them and then does the placement of advertising items. It is less clear who composes and designs the advertising items, which also needs to be based on knowledge of the target consumers-users. However, there seems to be even greater ambiguity and confusion in distinguishing between use of personal data in advertising by Facebook itself and access and use of such data by third-party apps hosted on Facebook, as well as distinguishing between types of data about users (e.g., profile, content posted, response to others’ content) that may be used for marketing actions.

Zuckerberg noted that the ideal of Facebook is to offer people around the world free access to the social network, which means it has to feature targeted advertising. He suggested in Senate there will always be a pay-free version of Facebook, yet refrained from saying when if ever there will be a paid advertising-clear version. It remained unclear from his testimony what information is exchanged with advertisers and how. Zuckerberg insisted that users have full control over their own information and how it is being used. He added that Facebook will not pass personal information to advertisers or other business partners, to avoid obvious breach of trust, but it will continue to use such information to the benefit of advertisers because that is how its business model works (NYTimes,com, 10 April 2018). It should be noted that whereas users can choose who is allowed to see information like posts and photos they upload for display, that does not seem to cover other types of information about their activity on the platform (e.g., ‘likes’, ‘shares’, ‘follow’ and ‘friend’ relations) and how it is used behind the scenes.

Many users would probably want to continue to benefit from being exempt of paying a monetary membership fee, but they can still be entitled to have some control over what adverts they value and which they reject. The smart systems used for targeted advertising could be less intelligent than they purport to be. Hence more feedback from users may help to assign them well-selected adverts that are of real interest, relevance and use to them, and thereof increase efficiency for advertisers.

At the same time, while Facebook may not sell information directly, the greater problem appears to be with the information it allows apps of third-party developers to collect about users without their awareness (or rather their attention). In a late wake-up call at the Senate, Zuckerberg said that the company is reviewing app owners who obtain a large amount of user data or use it improperly, and will act against them. Following Zuckerberg’s effort to go into details of the terms of service and to explain how advertising and apps work on Facebook, and especially how they differ, Issie Lapowsky reflects in the ‘Wired’: “As the Cambridge Analytica scandal shows, the public seems never to have realized just how much information they gave up to Facebook”. Zuckerberg emphasised that an app can get access to raw user data from Facebook only by permission, yet this standard, according to Lapowsky, is “potentially revelatory for most Facebook users” (“If Congress Doesn’t Understand Facebook, What Hope Do Its Users Have”, Wired, 10 April 2018).

There can be great importance to how an app asks for permission or consent of users to pull their personal data from Facebook, how clear and explicit it is presented so that users understand what they agree to. The new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union, coming into effect within a month (May 2018), is specific on this matter: it requires explicit ‘opt-in’ consent for sensitive data and unambiguous consent for other data types. The request must be clear and intelligible, in plain language, separated from other matters, and include a statement of the purpose of data processing attached to consent. It is yet to be seen how well this ideal standard is implemented, and extended beyond the EU. Users are of course advised to read carefully such requests for permission to use their data in whatever platform or app they encounter them before they proceed. However, even if no information is concealed from users, they may not be adequately attentive to comprehend the request correctly. Consumers engaged in shopping often attend to only some prices, remember them inaccurately, and rely on a more general ‘feeling’ about the acceptable price range or its distribution. If applying the data of users for personalised marketing is a form of price expected from them to pay, a company taking this route should approach the data fairly just as with setting monetary prices, regardless of how well its customers are aware of the price.

  • The GDPR specifies personal data related to an individual to be protected if “that can be used to directly or indirectly identify the person”. This leaves room for interpretation of what types of data about a Facebook user are ‘personal’. If data is used and even transferred at an aggregate level of segments there is little risk of identifying individuals, but for personally targeted advertising or marketing one needs data at the individual level.

Zuckerberg agreed that some form of regulation over social media will be “inevitable ” but conditioned that “We need to be careful about the regulation we put in place” (Fortune.com, 11 April 2018). Democrat House Representative Gene Green posed a question about the GDPR which “gives EU citizens the right to opt out of the processing of their personal data for marketing purposes”. When Zuckerberg was asked “Will the same right be available to Facebook users in the United States?”, he replied “Let me follow-up with you on that” (The Guardian, 13 April 2018).

The willingness of Mark Zuckerberg to take responsibility for mistakes and apologise for them is commendable. It is regrettable, nevertheless, that Facebook under his leadership has not acted a few years earlier to correct those mistakes in its approach and conduct. Facebook should be ready to act in time on its responsibility to protect its users from harmful use of data personally related to them. It can be optimistic and trusting yet realistic and vigilant. Facebook will need to care more for the rights and interests of its users as it does for its other stakeholders in order to gain the continued trust of all.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

When the fashion house Maskit originally flourished in the 1950s and 1960s, no one probably thought about it as a brand; actually, not many back then thought about ‘brands’ in general, at least not in Israel of those years. Yet if we look at Maskit retrospectively according to the standards of brands known today, it would be acknowledged as a name brand in fashion. The contemporary fashion house of Maskit, revived after a long recess of two decades, has adopted not only the name but also the genuine styling ideation and design creativity of the former fashion house, thus deserving the ‘license’ to exist again. Maskit of our days has already been planned to be a luxury brand based on current knowledge in marketing and management.

Maskit was unlikely to be regarded as a brand in the 1950s-1960s for two conspicuous reasons: First, brands and their functions in modern marketing came to recognition some thirty years later; Second, Israel had a heavy-laden socialist economy with little competitiveness and a just nascent consumer culture (evolving through the 1960s). Furthermore, Maskit was not run in its prime years as a business enterprise: it started in 1954 as a government agency, turned a decade later (1964) into a governmental company. Only in the 1970s has the government loosened its hold on the company and gradually handed it over to private hands. However, that move has more than anything led to the decline and demise of the former Maskit in 1994.

Maskit is very much the story of the people who built it, then and now. The fashion house was founded in 1954 by Ruth Dayan almost incidentally, but with a great spirit for initiative. She was actually asked by government officials to help in identifying and creating employment opportunities in agriculture for new Jewish immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa. However, Dayan noticed that women from North African countries had a special talent and skills in weaving, sewing and embroidery; she also identified that men from Yemen excelled in jewellery. From there the idea of a fashion house employing immigrants started to take form. Since Dayan was not a fashion designer herself, she teamed-up with Fini Leitersdorf, nominated as the house chief designer. Together they developed a unique and genuine concept for fashion design that is at the same time multi-cultural and Israeli-native. Albeit the unusual circumstances of her enterprise, Ruth Dayan was by our current understanding an early woman entrepreneur in Israel of that period. The privatised company did not manage to continue in the footsteps of Dayan and Leitersdorf following their retirement from the fashion house in the late 1970s. Dayan who just celebrated in mid-March this year (2018) her 101st birthday also belongs nonetheless to the present of Maskit as she has helped in creating the newly born fashion house.

  • ‘Maskit’ can have multiple meanings, such as ‘image’ and ‘figure’, but the most appropriate meaning of this old Hebrew word in relation to what the fashion house does would be ‘ornament’.

Sharon Tal, a fashion designer, re-founded Maskit together with her husband Nir Tal in 2014, following more than two years of preparation, research and planning. Sharon Tal is the fashion house chief designer whereas Nir Tal (CEO) is in charge of the business side, specialising in entrepreneurship. Sharon Tal is a graduate in fashion design from Shenkar College of Engineering, Design & Art in Israel. She has subsequently worked in internship for Lanvin in Paris and for Alexander McQueen in London, where she acquired experience in international fashion design. At McQueen in particular she has learned and later advanced to specialise in embroidery, which would prove especially relevant and important for her professional and business venture of re-launching Maskit. On her return to Israel in 2010 she developed interest in starting a fashion house, and with the help of her husband Nir they discovered that the ideals or goals she has been aspiring for in a fashion house had existed in Maskit of Dayan and Leitersdorf.

Sharon Tal met with Ruth Dayan to talk about her interest in reviving Maskit, and it seems that they connected quite quickly — their first meeting extended into several hours, and they continued to work closely together on the initiative thereafter. It appears that shared thinking, the commitment of Sharon Tal to respect and maintain the original vision of Maskit, and the relevance of Tal’s specialisation as well as international exposure for continuing the heritage of Maskit have helped to convince Dayan that Tal was the right person to revive the fashion house. Ruth Dayan has given her blessing to the Tal couple, and has joined them in guidance during the research and planning process. Indeed the success of Maksit to re-establish itself depends greatly on reviving the heritage of Maskit, which Sharon Tal seems to fully recognise and appreciate, as she also respects the personal legacy of Ruth Dayan.

Maskit has made different types of garments in the days of Leitersdorf and Dayan. The concept that was special in many of them was mounting quality fabrics with motives of different ethnic cultures in embroidery.  They combined modern styles of the times with design traditions of embroidery embellishments “made by immigrants, as well as by Druze, Bedouin, Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian women” [E1; also see Maskit.com: About]. They used for decoration articles like buttons (e.g., made from river stones and shells), some were initially brought by immigrants from their countries of birth. Maskit also produced jewellery, pillow covers, and other home artifacts. Silver and gold for jewellery were also used in decorating garments. The Hungarian-born Leitefsdorf created the integration of Western (European) practices, materials, and design styles known to her with ethnic styles of different communities she came familiar with in Israel. It was a unique way of adopting cross-cultural ethnic fashion styles and designs, fabrics and colours, and fitting them to the Israeli habitat (nature, climate, and contemporary culture), hence making their clothing and other products ‘Israeli native’.

  • Ruth Dayan provided employment to the immigrants and hence has given them an opportunity to assimilate in the country, as well as helping them to preserve their traditions. It should be noted, however, that immigrants fleeing from Arab countries were at great disadvantage with limited choices compared with more veteran immigrants, mostly from European countries, who formed the dominant classes in the young state. Dayan benefitted from belonging to the latter (‘elite’) classes and was close also to ruling political circles (married at the time to General and later Defence Minister Moshe Dayan), which further helped in obtaining funding.

Sharon Tal has the will and intention to proceed along the same guiding lines of design and craftsmanship set by Dayan and Leitersdorf. But the aim of the renewed Maskit is not to relive the past; instead, the Tals strive to fit the concepts and practices of former Maskit to contemporary styles and tastes of our days. Their priority is to keep the fashion house being Israeli-native, representing its culture and nature, but that also means expressing the multiple original ethnic cultures that make up the Israeli society. Their emphasis also appears to be on handwork production and authenticity in everything they do. These implied ‘values’ could be key to achieving high quality, uniqueness and luxury positioning. Authenticity is seen as a basis for differentiation of the fashion brand; it is also approached as a way of establishing luxury in the sense that authenticity has become hard to find in many areas, and in fashionable clothing in particular. Maskit may be authentic in the fabrics and other materials they use, the methods they apply, and the personal and attentive treatment and service they would provide to their customers (including personally customised designs).

Here are some aspects in which Sharon Tal works to continue the heritage of Maskit. The fashion house uses, for instance, soft fabrics as in the past (including silk, linen as well as leather). Weaving in-house is no longer feasible as in the past so quality fabrics are imported (e.g., from the same suppliers as those Lanvin and McQueen work with). Yet Tal still sees hope that it will be possible to acquire quality fabrics made locally, and perhaps produce at Maskit, in the future [H1]. Among the creations of Leitersdorf, one that has given Maskit greater fame is the desert coat (or cloak) — Sharon Tal designed a new ‘desert collection‘ that is “re-interpreted for today’s woman and her lifestyle”. One of the differences in the desert coat of today from the previous is in its being made in linen rather than wool [E1]. Embroidery designed and prepared in-house remains an identifying signature of Maskit. However, the renewed Maskit is ready to give more credit to artisans working with the fashion house, unlike in the past.

Sharon and Nir Tal are clear about their high ambitions. They want Maskit to be an international leading luxury fashion brand. It is meant to compete on a world stage against international fashion super-brands and challenge renowned fashion retail chains. They do not see their competition against fashion designers in Israel since they look forward to see more Israeli designers succeed and the whole fashion industry in the country developing (H2). That may sound a little co-descending but it can also be interpreted as saying that they hope Maskit will be able to pull the fashion industry in Israel up with them, as Maskit has done before in its earlier life. Accordingly, while they aspire to reach overseas, they intend to extend their efforts to global markets only after establishing Maskit in Israel [E1], and wish to be able to return Maskit into being an international fashion house operating from Tel-Aviv [E2], apparently keeping this home base as their anchor.

Maskit led by Dayan has already reached overseas, mainly to the United States. Since 1956 the fashion house presented in fashion exhibitions in New-York and other American cities. Their designs sold at department stores of Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, and Saks Fifth Avenue, and they featured in leading magazines like Vogue. Sharon and Nir Tal expect to take the renewed Maskit in the same direction, and their emphasis at least at start also is on the US. Targets are shifting with time, however: many female customers turn to fashion chains to buy their casual and less costly clothing, then invest in more special dressing, higher quality and enduring, from name designers or specialty boutiques — the latter is where Sharon Tal seems to be aiming. As a luxury brand, Maskit would also target women who buy primarily from famed designers [H2]. In addition, Maskit of the past attracted in Israel tourists visiting the country and their relatives (i.e., mostly Jewish, American, and more wealthy). Yet, Israeli customers also used to buy gifts from Maskit, mostly when they wanted to bring or send them to their relatives abroad to leave a good impression on them. This should stay valid today as then. Maskit may also be able to tap a growing desire in Israel to return to its roots (‘authentic Israeli’) or to connect generations of customers wearing Maskit then and now.

The prices of Maskit to end customers are in the mid- to high-range, not for every occasion.  Their blouse shirts or dresses can be even expensive relatively for their categories. Evening dresses or gowns may cost, for instance, from just below 2,000 shekels ($570, €465) up to a few tens of thousands shekels (e.g., a dress with handmade embroidery in a unique technique was sold for 25,000 shekels or more than $7,000)[H2]. The price of a bridal dress may cost (selling only) in the range of 7,500 to 25,000 shekels (~$2,000-7,000)[H3]. Bridal dresses and customised dresses are the more expensive on offer. A blouse could cost, for example, 900 shekels (leather-trimmed tunic blouse — ~$260, €185)[E1]. The items of Maskit, according to Nir Tal, are made to appeal to women who are “pretty sophisticated, and appreciate the art of this clothing” [E1]. The prices are clearly set to support perceived high quality of garments, and in particular the investments in craftsmanship and dedicated handwork.

  • The flagship shop and studio of Maskit are located in the American-German Colony in the old city of Yaffo adjacent to Tel-Aviv. The place is designed to resemble an atelier of many years in business, and includes museum-like displays next to selling areas (also see photos in H3].

From the business perspective, the Tals approached the launching of Maskit as when creating a start-up, guided primarily by Nir Tal. They wanted the revival of Maskit to be special and different, following the model of revival of brands like Burberry and Lanvin [E1]; it had to reflect the significant achievements of Maskit as a leading fashion house in the country in past years [H2]. It meant that greater effort and resources would have to be invested in the initiative, as in a start-up. The Tal couple gained major funding from key Israeli industrialist Stef Wertheimer, together with his invaluable business wisdom. Launching Maskit as a start-up sounds reasonable in order to recruit the energy needed and concentrate financial and organisational resources in launching the business. However, soon enough comes the time that the fashion house is established and has to realign itself to run for the long-term. There are good indications Maskit could be near that time, if they have not passed it already, and it does not require that they should be established off-shore first. For the long-running fashion house, sustained creativity and innovation are important as much as persistence and discipline. Maskit would be wise not to push itself too far too fast, so as not to burn itself like a start-up.

  • Note: Start-ups in hi-tech, particularly in Israel, do not have too good a reputation in holding for long, hence it would not be wise to use them as a model if the fashion house desires to exist in the long haul and does not plan an ‘exit’.

The brand of Maskit in fashion was not properly valued nor appreciated by the establishment in Israel more than forty years ago (Ruth Dayan noted jokingly in interviews that she lives on a monthly pension of 5,000 shekels as a former worker of the Labour Ministry). But Dayan together with Leitersdorf have demonstrated that a successful brand can be created even without having their minds set to it. Sharon and Nir Tal now have the opportunity to show how high Maskit can reach, and to develop and strengthen its brand, with the much greater marketing and management knowledge and best practices they can now employ. Reborn Maskit is positioned as a luxury brand for women with fine taste in fashion and appeal to nostalgia. The brand’s distinction remains dependent on their commitment to an Israeli-native identity with original creative design in high quality, and keeping their base in Israel even as an international brand.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

References in Hebrew:

[H1] Interview with Ruth Dayan & Sharon Tal at Maskit Studio, Xnet, 18 October 2015 (Xnet is an online ‘magazine’ section of Ynet news website, fashion section)

[H2] The New Life of Maskit, Calcalist (economics and business newspaper), 13 December 2017

[H3] New home for Maskit fashion house, Xnet, 28 June 2016

References in English:

[E1] “A Ready-to-Wear Fashion House in Israel’s Ethnic Past“, Jessica Steinberg, Times of Israel, 26 May 2014

[E2] “How the Israeli Fashion Brand Maskit Delivers Authentic Luxury“, Joseph DeAcetis, Forbes’ Opinions, 16 May 2017

 

Read Full Post »