Array ( [0] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 2538 [post_author] => 1 [post_date] => 2024-09-16 09:40:59 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-09-16 09:40:59 [post_content] =>   you come from a family who have been running a textile business for generations. has the industry changed in that time? if so, how?   The industry has certainly changed in the last six to seven decades since my grandfather started his first spinning business. Major changes over the years have included moving factories offshore in order to meet quotas, gain better access to labor, reduce distance to markets, reduce taxation, and lower costs. In this period, demand grew consistently, so we continued to expand. Fast forward to today and fast fashion is so prevalent. The appreciation of high quality and natural fibers has gone down, and many high-performance synthetic materials are available at lower costs. This makes for a challenging situation. Our orders are in smaller quantities and multiple colors, the order placement lead time is shortened, delivery lead time is also shortened, production efficiency is often adversely affected because of small lots, and margins are squeezed. Added to this are external factors that make business even more challenging, such as the changing geopolitical situation, world events like COVID 19, and demand for compliance (which is sometimes not so reasonable). Players who can invest in automation, can modernize, and steer away from difficult markets have a better chance of survival.   requirements have been changing as well. in a world that seems to have embraced the search for sustainability, fashion is a huge business that needs to change and become more sustainable. what do people want from fashion? are they really looking for sustainable products? is the generation of your daughters sensitive to the issue? in addition, data from McKinsey seems to suggest a diminishing interest in sustainable products, particularly among young consumers. this could be due to price constraints or simply a desire for convenience. does this reveal a contradiction between what people say they are willing to buy and what they actually choose? does this make difficult for sustainability to reach critical mass? Again this is based on my limited exposure and experience to our customers. There are a lot of additional requirements and standards that we have to adhere to as a manufacturer and a supplier. For example, the traceability of raw materials, the compliance of processing standards, even where the cotton is picked, by whom, and whether or not that picker is being well treated by his employer. While I understand the overarching purpose of subjecting manufacturers to such compliance demands, I often wonder if these measures serve more of a deterrent than an incentive. Manufacturers are subjected to these additional requirements, and they cost us. But the customer does not factor in these additional costs, and still demands the lowest price, highest quality, on time delivery, excellent after sales service, etc., etc. That leads me to ask whether people are really willing to pay a premium for sustainable options. In our experience working with different customers, there are a small number that truly embrace circularity and sustainability. They are very proud to tell their stories and are willing to pay a higher price for production. They do charge a premium for their products, but they have a loyal following who understand and support this whole process. But they aren’t many of this type of customer. For most of the big brands that we have worked with, the focus still seems to be on price and quality. There is a lot more talk about embracing sustainability than action on a large scale that incorporates sustainability into the design, production, and sales processes. What do people want from the fashion industry? I think the number one thing is still newness. People look to different brands, different designers, different retail outlets to provide newness in a very convenient way. Because one can purchase clothing, nowadays, very cheaply and conveniently, this desire for something new can be realized very easily, leaving many of us with garments in our closet that we hardly ever wear.  That is probably because in the moments when we are looking for newness, perhaps to make ourselves feel good, we buy something that we don’t really need. There ARE people looking for sustainable options in fashion, but I think they’re turning to vintage clothes more than buying clothes that are made with sustainable materials. Why? Because it is the more accessible, more available, and more reasonably priced option. Also, the consumer is not participating in the additional production of new garments, sustainable or not. My youngest daughter is the most sustainable-minded person among my three children. She buys the most vintage and the least new stuff. I believe young people in general are more aware of, more educated, and more concerned about how we have been destroying nature, using up resources, and not seeing a real solution on the near-term horizon. And yet, the number of people who are truly changing their lifestyle, their behavior, their consumption and disposal cycles are probably relatively small. We often don’t realize how bad the problems are until we literally have to stand in the middle of it. Go visit a landfill. Look at an aerial photo of one. The image will convey the shocking reality.   shein—a global fast fashion retailer—in 2022 surpassed zara to represent a fifth of the global fast fashion market and 50% of the us market. It’s like a drug. Retail therapy. And it’s made so much easier and so much more accessible because the prices are low and the styles are cool—often copies of the current season’s high fashion. People like to look good, they like newness. When fast fashion makes it so easy for us to feel good, we tend to think less about how our “regular and frequent but unnecessary shopping” at fast fashion outlets is contributing to the problem.   many of the native ‘sustainable brands’ have closed. why do you think this is? Not to play with words, but it seems like sustainable fashion is not a business that is easily sustainable. It mainly comes down to cost. People often have this misconception that recycled and upcycled materials must be cheaper because the “raw materials” are free. If I can easily collect large quantities of natural fiber excess inventory or dead stock in the same material and same or similar color, then my unit cost would of course go down. But in the years that I have operated The Billie System, I have only had this kind of “ideal situation” once or twice. So, until economies of scale can be reached, the cost will remain high. And expensive clothes simply don’t sell as easily, as quickly, and as much as fast fashion.   according to the 2024 edelman trust report, consumers trust in fashion business is growing, and people trust businesses more than governments. companies and industry stakeholders seem to have embraced a narrative of compliance and esg that intercepts the requirements made by some of the public. how are these plans working? is everybody walking the walk? is business really improving its operations? It’s probably not the most meaningful to compare trust in anything to trust in governments! (Haha!) There are endless stories of how manufacturers are slapped with documents and contracts thicker than phone books, all stating often impractical and unreasonable compliance requirements. However, failure to agree and sign could mean the end of orders from the customer. And yet, for many vendors, in order to hold on to whatever narrow margins are left, sometimes perhaps not every single requirement is met… it’s a game of risk.   why is the situation like this? is it a result of product price? profit vs. costs? difficulties in the business? etc. This is a multi-level question and it’s difficult to answer. I suppose the factor that touches every point on the supply-consumption chain is price. For suppliers, even if one had unlimited resources to keep investing, and few do, at some point you’re going to ask yourself: is this worth it?  Is this endless loss-making worth it? Why should I keep putting efforts into an initiative that doesn’t move the needle? When do I accept that this doesn’t make business sense, common sense? For consumers, it may seem easier to just buy less. But not enough people are practicing that to make an impact. Society’s message to consumers is buy, spend, use, discard, buy more! On a recent trip to the US, I was shocked to see the amount of single use plastics everywhere.     [post_title] => dialogues: RONNA CHAO. [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => ronna-chao [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-10-24 05:10:34 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-10-24 05:10:34 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://appraisalatpresent.com/?p=2538 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [1] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 2397 [post_author] => 1 [post_date] => 2024-09-16 09:00:25 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-09-16 09:00:25 [post_content] => Annie Ernaux’s The Years documents the latter half of the twentieth century through collective memory. Winner of the Pulitzer Prize, the novel speaks in terms—not of I have—but rather we. What we, together, remember, hope for, desire. It is told as much through speech and sound as it is through objects: the physicality of photographs, LPs—things. The story of the 20th century is the story not of people but of stuff. Of how this gained a new life, transcendent and glittering, that seemed almost more real and precious than that of the human. Not even in terms of consumerist desire, which, at the end of it, is not so different to that of past centuries: the want for fine things, for beauty. But in the fact that everything—time, love, meaning—takes on the hard, quantifiable aspect of a commodity. Of a thing. The rumors of objects’ demise have been greatly overstated. Spotify hasn’t killed the CD any more than photography did painting. The dematerialized internet has become a global shop for filling our houses with impulse buys. The thing is the thing, still. Perhaps now more than ever. For all the airs and graces of its adjective-fattened press releases, luxury obeys the same rules as the rest of the market, apes even the essentials of fashion. It comes down to this. How do you make folk want stuff they don’t need? One way luxury differs is that it gets away with murder. Global inequality ensures high-end items remain recession-proof, with growth in the sector so obscene that LVMH owner Bernard Arnault declared shares in his company to be a luxury item. People want stuff, he seemed to affirm. They always will. It’s worth noting, too, that Arnault’s statement already unwittingly demonstrates a paradigm shift. A share is not an object but an idea. Here, the thing—the bag, the piece of jewelry, the dress—has vanished. Having something becomes merely having. Luxury is no longer material. It is a state of mind. But there is something else going on here. The story of the 20th century is not, by any means, the story of the world. As in The Years, it is the story of Europe and, of course, the story of America. Of burger bars and trainers, of clipped sentences and bright, bright screens. The rest of the world repeats this narrative, but it is not ours. The 21st century’s story, on the other hand, will be told by China. As Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics becomes the economic base for the new dominant world narrative, its peculiar arrangement of the constellation between the individual, the object, and time will drastically reconfigure what we consider to be luxury—even what we consider to be a commodity. This is what data coming out of China demonstrates: that the consumer is no longer interested in objects as much as ephemeral sensations. Atmosphere, ritual, nostalgia, even love. A desire for things that are not things. We see this in hotels, pop-ups, cafes. French fashion brand Jacquemus partnered with Four Seasons to create a summer experience at The Ocean Club, its Bahamian resort. In China, Louis Vuitton launched the first resort activation of the year by partnering with Galaxy Macau on an exclusive pop-in and a poolside takeover from May this year. Dior followed this with one in Sanya, decking out pool sides in branded cushions and parasols. The Fila Hotel is earmarked to open in Shanghai in 2024. Gentle Monster’s latest outpost in China is more an art and lifestyle space than a retail mecca, with only 20 percent of the space dedicated to sales. In fact, Mintel data has shown that 42 percent of Chinese consumers see luxury goods not as goods at all but rather “a form of self-enjoyment.” The significance of this should not be understated. Nearly half of the country’s market demand has switched from the objective to the subjective. Beauty is no longer within the eye of the beholder. It is the eye itself. The same research shows that, even as an object, luxury no longer means what it once did. A Louis Vuitton handbag has, of course, always been about what the item means as much as any kind of aesthetic or material worth: the social status it confers, the image of carefree wealth it projects. Such dematerialized characteristics are still inalienably linked to capital, and as such remain a vital part of the bag as a thing. But this, too, is now vastly reduced. Luxury’s function as "a symbol of status" is diminished while, Mintel notes, “spiritual enjoyment” remains valued. “Pleasure” and “self-enjoyment” have maintained their importance even as other parameters declined. The subjective has, it seems, overcome the objective. The concept of luxury shaming is denting China’s love of flexing. Mintel explains how “the industry is undergoing a shift in consumer perception; the happiness derived from luxury consumption is not only from the purchase of material goods. Traditional forms of luxury consumption (using luxury items, such as handbags, to display a superior lifestyle or social status) are no longer the only option. People are more inclined to pursue the expression of individuality and the relaxation of their mental state.” What does this mean for the luxury industry? The report affirms that “brands must consider consumers' individual expression and emotional experiences in their products and services, creating a more valuable experience in the consumption process.” It is a striking admission of the switching of places between the consumer and the commodity. This doesn’t mean that objects have lost their importance. Let’s be clear: it is the relationship that has changed rather than any intensity of value. China’s consumers are by no means becoming ascetics, wearing sackcloth in empty rooms. In fact, the desire for objects is still just as pronounced—perhaps even greater. Research by Kantar illustrates discrepancies between the China and global markets whereby consumers are far more likely to buy luxury items, with 48% planning to spend more on luxury bags in 2024 compared to the global 36%. Like Mintel, Kanter argues that it is the nature of the desire that has transformed. Purchases have taken on the form of ritual. The object—when connected to a meaningful subjective, even spiritual, experience—becomes even more powerful. The challenge for brands, then, is to move from the factories and workshops of the 20th century and from the exclusivity of the influencer lifestyle that marked the early 21st: to become, not shops, but homes, temples, intimates. Perhaps the luxury brand of the year 2050 will be more like your favorite underground band. They will speak for you, to you. They will be a part of your deepest sense of self, your identity. Alongside the records and photos that mark the passage of time in Ernaux’s The Years, those whispers and cravings, the hidden parts of ourselves that we only vaguely recognize. Now distilled into our bags, necklaces, shoes. [post_title] => GEMMA WILLIAMS. [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => gemma-williams [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-02-22 10:01:03 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-02-22 10:01:03 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://appraisalatpresent.com/?p=2397 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [2] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 2552 [post_author] => 1 [post_date] => 2024-09-16 09:44:17 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-09-16 09:44:17 [post_content] => As the global fashion industry shifts toward a more sustainable future, a contradiction has emerged between the growing consumer demand for eco-conscious products and the continued dominance of fast fashion. Nowhere is this paradox more apparent than in Africa, where the fashion scene is experiencing a surge of new brands offering luxury, sustainable alternatives, yet struggling to compete with the allure of cheap, fast fashion. Sustainability has become a key word in fashion, driven by the increasing awareness of environmental concerns and the call for transparency. In Africa, consumers are becoming more conscious of the impacts their purchases have on both the planet and people. This shift is reflected in the rise of brands focused on ethical production, fair labor practices, and eco-friendly materials. However, the challenge remains in translating this growing awareness into consistent consumer behavior. For many brands, including my own, we strive to offer products that are beautiful yet ethically crafted providing an alternative to the mass-produced, disposable items that dominate the fashion market. Despite these aspirations, fast fashion continues to thrive globally, including in Africa. Consumers are drawn to its affordability, convenience, and constant stream of new collections. The reality is, for many consumers, the immediate satisfaction of low prices outweighs the long-term benefits of investing in sustainable fashion. This is where the contradiction lies: while consumers express a desire for sustainable options, their purchasing habits often don’t reflect these values. Why is that? Several factors contribute to this paradox including affordability, education and awareness, convenience, and cultural influence. Sustainable fashion, particularly in the luxury space, often comes with a higher price tag due to the costs associated with ethical production. In developing markets, affordability remains a priority, making it difficult for sustainable brands to compete with fast fashion’s low-cost offerings. While awareness of sustainability is growing, there is still a gap in understanding the full environmental impact of fast fashion. Many consumers may not fully grasp how their purchasing choices contribute to pollution, waste, and labor exploitation. Educating customers on the value of sustainability and the long-term benefits of investing in quality products is crucial in changing these behaviors. Fast fashion thrives on quick turnover and accessibility. Frequent releases and easy online shopping meet consumers' desire for immediate satisfaction. Sustainable fashion, often promoting slower production cycles, struggles to align with this instant gratification culture. In parts of Africa, fast fashion has become a way for consumers to access global trends quickly and affordably. This creates a challenge for sustainable brands trying to shift consumer behavior toward more mindful purchasing patterns that emphasize quality and longevity. Adding to this contradiction is the growing issue of fast fashion waste in Africa. The continent, and particularly countries like Ghana, have become dumping grounds for unwanted clothing from the Global North. Each year, massive amounts of discarded fast fashion make their way to markets like Kantamanto in Accra, creating environmental and economic burdens. The cost of cheap fashion doesn’t end with the purchase—it’s paid for later in waste, pollution, and the strain it places on local economies and ecosystems. This is yet another dimension of the sustainability paradox: while consumers may seek out affordable fashion options, they often unknowingly contribute to a cycle of waste that disproportionately affects countries like Ghana. Addressing this contradiction requires a critical look at not just consumer behavior, but the global fashion system itself. For sustainable fashion ventures to thrive in this environment, innovation, education, and community-building are key. It's not enough to simply offer eco-friendly products—brands must engage consumers in meaningful ways, addressing the deeper impacts of their choices. Finding ways to make sustainable fashion more affordable is essential. This might involve introducing different price tiers, offering versatile products, or promoting accessories as investment pieces that can last a lifetime. In addition, offering customizable, sustainable components—like interchangeable straps or decorative elements—can provide customers with options to refresh their products without needing to buy new ones frequently. Brands have a unique opportunity to lead by example and engage audiences through transparency. Sharing the craftsmanship behind each product and the impact of sustainable production can help shift consumer behaviors. The more consumers understand the value behind sustainable fashion, the more likely they are to align their purchases with their values. Creating a loyal base of customers who share your values is crucial. Fostering a community of eco-conscious consumers can build lasting connections that go beyond individual purchases and transform them into advocates for sustainable fashion. In Africa, sustainable brands must tailor their strategies to local market realities. Adjusting price points, promoting multi-functional products, and offering limited-edition pieces that tap into the desire for exclusivity while maintaining sustainability can bridge the gap between aspiration and affordability. The tension between aspiration and reality in Africa’s fashion industry will continue to challenge sustainable brands. However, by staying true to their values, educating consumers, and finding innovative ways to make sustainability accessible, these brands can begin to close the gap between what people want and what they buy. Ultimately, the future of fashion in Africa depends on both brands and consumers aligning their aspirations with their actions, creating a more responsible and sustainable industry. [post_title] => MONAYAT ABUBAKAR. [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => monayat-abubakar [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-04-09 06:46:06 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-04-09 06:46:06 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://appraisalatpresent.com/?p=2552 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [3] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 2542 [post_author] => 1 [post_date] => 2024-09-16 09:42:55 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-09-16 09:42:55 [post_content] => Currently, almost all of the top 250 global companies are involved in sustainability reporting, reflecting a substantial increase of over 50% since 2002. We have finally entered an era where terms like sustainability, ESG, and ethics have become must-have words in brand marketing. The fashion industry has also engaged in extensive discussions surrounding sustainability, with the global sustainable fashion market valued at $7.7 billion in 2023 and projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 23% during the forecast period from 2024 to 2031. Initiatives aimed at fostering a sustainable world have been implemented. However, many of these practices have failed to achieve their intended outcomes. Many movements, wrapped in the language of client experience and eco-consciousness, often hide the complex—and sometimes contradictory—realities of “sustainability.” How often have you scrolled through Instagram and seen a brand claim, "We're a sustainable young label" with no convincing details? Or perhaps you’ve experienced a neatly attired courier arriving at your doorstep to personally collect a luxury item you’re returning, all while wishing you a great day? Would you choose Made-in-France garments made from Indian organic cotton, knowing that it results in higher water usage and carbon emissions from transport? Sustainable fashion is complex, with various trials and failures evident in the following aspects: recycled polyester: the non-biodegradable dilemma of mass production European shoppers are at the forefront of the trend toward sustainable awareness. According to the 2023 Europe Luxury Report, 77% of European consumers express an interest in purchasing sustainable luxury products. Furthermore, 51% of shoppers indicate a willingness to pay up to 10% more for items that are sustainably made or shipped. Several brands popular among European youth are making strides in sustainability: Uniqlo incorporates 30-80% recycled polyester in various product lines, resulting in a 63% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions compared to virgin polyester. In 2023, Adidas reported that 96% of the polyester used in its products is recycled. Similarly, Patagonia claims that 91% of its fabrics are made from recycled polyester, which helps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 12.3 million pounds. However, Uniqlo's parent company, Fast Retailing, is one of the largest users of polyester in the industry. The company's mass production practices, which facilitate an accessible price range, heavily rely on chemically synthesized fabrics. While these high-tech materials assure extremely high performance, they are non-biodegradable and contribute to long-term pollution. Today, fashion brands produce almost twice the amount of clothing that they did in 2000. In 2024, the Chairman, President, and CEO of Fast Retailing Group, Tadashi Yanai, stated, "Our group operates around 3,600 stores worldwide… Each year, we deliver about 1.3 billion articles of clothing to customers around the globe." Data shows that synthetic fibers accounted for 62% of all fibers used globally in 2023. The non-biodegradable nature of these fibers leads to massive waste accumulation, with approximately 92 million tons of textiles discarded annually, a large portion of which consists of synthetic fibers, further intensifying the environmental crisis. Although brands promote extending the lifespan of garments, data reveals that global fashion consumption continues to rise, making it difficult to curb waste accumulation. e-commerce and high return rates: hidden carbon emissions behind environmental promises E-commerce platforms are often considered environmentally friendly as they reduce the energy consumption associated with physical stores. However, high return rates, driven by issues like size and style discrepancies, introduce hidden costs, including transport, logistics, checks, packaging, and warehousing. These factors contribute to increased carbon emissions from transportation and packaging operations in the apparel industry. In the case of Chinese women's fashion e-commerce, the average return rate reached 60% in 2022. To meet consumer demand for fast deliveries, many platforms use air shipping, significantly increasing carbon emissions. According to the China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing, logistics account for 11% of global carbon emissions, with frequent return shipments being a significant contributor. Globally, a 2024 survey revealed significant online return rates among internet users, with 73% in India, 51% in Germany, and 49% in both the US and UK. In 2023, one in four Americans returned clothing purchased online. Carbon emissions from e-commerce logistics are projected to reach approximately 25 million metric tons of CO2, highlighting the hidden environmental costs associated with this shopping model. This increase underscores the significant impact of online shopping on sustainability, particularly in the context of transportation and logistics. fast fashion: the eco-dream of garment recycling Groups like H&M and Inditex have launched clothing recycling initiatives to tackle textile waste. By incentivizing consumers to recycle old garments in exchange for Zara store coupons to be used within a limited period, one might question whether these retailers are merely using environmental responsibility as a facade to boost fast-fashion consumer spending. Furthermore, the fate of these recycled clothes raises concerns—where do they actually go after being collected? Are they genuinely transformed into new products? Or do they end up in landfills despite the recycling claims? Currently, there are two primary methods for recycling used textiles: mechanical and chemical recycling. Mechanical recycling is a well-established process that shreds textiles, such as worn cotton jeans, into smaller pieces to produce new yarns for re-entry into the fashion supply chain. However, a study published in Nature indicates that cotton recycling is quite expensive, requiring specialized solvents and equipment, costs that ultimately fall on consumers willing to bear them. In contrast, chemical recycling employs chemical processes to break down textile waste at a molecular level, mainly being applied to specific fiber types, including polyester, cellulose, and polycotton blends. Research shows that approximately 100 billion garments are produced globally each year, but less than 1% of materials are successfully recycled through chemical processes to create new clothing. This means that the majority of recycled clothing is still landfilled or incinerated, with recycling far underperforming expectations. the resource burden of customer choice: organic cotton & ocean waste fabrics Many fashion brands have touted their initiatives to transform ocean plastic bottles into textiles as part of their environmental commitments. While this innovation is heavily promoted, the energy consumption involved in the process remains largely unexamined, necessitating high temperatures and multiple chemical reactions. This process consumes more energy than recycling plastic into everyday products, which tend to be less ‘green’ and fashionable. Moreover, once these plastics are converted into clothing, they cannot be recycled further like virgin plastics and are ultimately discarded. The production of these fibers, derived from oil and gas, has surged over the past 20 years, showing no signs of deceleration and failing to address the root problem of plastic pollution. Another popular customer choice is organic cotton, which is considered a sustainable fabric source. However, the production process for organic cotton is more resource-intensive than traditional cotton. Producing 1 kilogram of organic cotton requires around 2,700 liters of water, and global organic cotton supply accounts for less than 1% of total cotton production. In certain cotton-producing regions, the promotion of organic cotton has put enormous pressure on water resources and the local ecosystem. Recent analyses highlight that while consumers may feel reassured by such eco-friendly claims, this "pseudo-environmental" strategy has not effectively alleviated environmental pressure. In fact, it may have done the opposite. Due to the increasing demand for sustainable fabrics, the global organic cotton market reached US$ 443.1 million in 2022 and is expected to reach US$ 733.3 million by 2030. In conclusion, while the fashion industry has made progress in sustainability, many initiatives expose significant shortcomings. The reliance on recycling, the hidden costs of e-commerce, and the resource demands of sustainable materials highlight the need for a more transparent and systemic approach. True progress requires addressing these challenges to create a genuinely sustainable fashion landscape.                 [post_title] => ZOE ZIYI LIU. [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => ziyi-liu [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-02-22 10:27:28 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-02-22 10:27:28 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://appraisalatpresent.com/?p=2542 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) )