frfashion1-5, Exercise 3: Why the couture houses fell in number

Model answer (check the details):

1. The rise of ready-to-wear. As clothes made in standard sizes became better and cheaper, fewer women wanted or needed made-to-measure clothes. Evidence: sales figures for couture and ready-to-wear over time, and the number of clients of the houses.
2. Rising costs. Skilled labour and materials became expensive, and houses found it hard to cover the cost of the ateliers. Evidence: wage and cost records of the houses, and the accounts of those that closed (for instance Balenciaga in 1968).
3. Social change. Fewer women had the time and money for frequent fittings, and the lives of the rich changed with more informal dress. Evidence: surveys of dress, the clients' lists of surviving houses and the press.
4. The shift in where the profit came from. Licensing and perfume made the name more valuable than the dresses, so a house could survive without much couture. Evidence: the accounts of Dior and others, which show the share of income from licences.

Conclusion: it is likely that several causes worked together, and the first and fourth are best supported (check). The label's strict rules also meant that houses that no longer met them dropped out.

Care: "over a hundred" and "under twenty" are rounded figures from general knowledge. Check them against the trade body's lists.