Opener / Andrew Tuck
Slippers? Pack it in
Round two. A couple of weeks ago I took a gentle swipe at slipper ownership, implying that – in some instances – they can be an indicator of an unwillingness to have fun, to go out, to ditch the fireside. For many readers this was a step too far. There were accusations of cultural sensitivities being trodden on: apparently I would never dare say such things if I had experienced a Canadian or Nordic winter. I was also told that I had failed to grasp how donning a pair instantly generated a relaxed frame of mind (slipper as Prozac, I guess). I was even threatened: I should stop attacking the slipper world if I knew what was good for me. But then, my colleagues have always been outspoken.
Well, I am sorry. But over the past few weeks I have become slightly obsessed with another oddity of the slipper set. And I think that after you have read this column, you will agree that the chargesheet against them is growing. The new problem needs a little set-up so bear with me.
When I pack to go on a work trip or holiday, I do a simple thing: put all the clothes I will need in a suitcase. This includes footwear: some runners, perhaps a pair of Birkenstocks and a good brogue. At this point, slipper fanatics do an odd thing: they leave the very things that they are obsessed with at home. They believe that airlines and hotels should provide them with the necessary homely footwear.
And so a staggering business has grown: companies manufacturing single-use slippers. Millions of pairs are placed by bedsides in hotels around the world every night; then, the next morning, they are chucked in the rubbish.
Twice in recent weeks I have stayed at hotels that are at the top of their game when it comes to sustainability. Both are free of plastic water bottles, one has got rid of plastic toiletry bottles (you’ll have seen that California intends to ban such things in all of its hotels) and the other has cut down on electricity consumption by using efficient lamps and bulbs. Yet both these hotels offer their guests one-use slippers.
Oh, but in both instances they are “biodegradable”. Now there are a few words going around that conjure gentle images of our waste turning into soil shortly after being popped into the ground; “compostable” is another one. I am not so sure. First, who is burying the slippers? Second, how long does it take for them to biodegrade: a day, 10 years? Third, who is monitoring all this – are we sure that the slippers don’t end up in a furnace?
Wouldn’t the better solution be to provide a really amazing slipper that can be cleaned and reused, like a bathrobe? Or, better still, just get slipper crazies to pack all the footwear they need for a trip, including their slippers. I don’t expect a hotel to give me shoes to use in its gym so why this obsession with handing over towelling tootsie-warmers?
Now, before you fret, I am not arguing for less luxury or against going out into the world to have amazing experiences. This is about better luxury: providing impeccable service, catering to people’s real needs and offering products made to last. So much of what passes for luxury is just rubbish – in every sense. Just look at the amenity kits handed out on planes: who needs another comb or plastic shoehorn?
Since launch Monocle has argued that, if they can, people should buy less but better: make homes that last a lifetime, invest in clothes that will still look good after one season, purchase furniture that will stand up to a few scuffs and knocks, design shops that won’t get ripped apart the minute a new creative director arrives. We have never championed luxury as disposable. We make a magazine that we believe is collectible. And we have always seen hotels and airlines as potential champions of good change; companies that can raise standards.
We have also always believed in making small changes. Perhaps one of these can be telling slipper folk to pack their own footwear.