Gucci Loses Shoppers to Louis Vuitton as Fashion Cachet Fades

[the-smiths]

This is true. 2004 was when Gucci died. They've been coasting since.

LV has been coasting since 2006. They'll soon feel it.

[fashionista-ta]

Originally Posted by Spike413

It's not a shock. This article basically sums up what I and many others have been saying four times a year for 2 years now.

I don't think Gucci's been managed well at all, at least not for the long haul. Yes their profits peaked right away, but they sacrificed prestige, cachet and a sense of exclusivity for a quick buck....and after all, what's a luxury fashion label without prestige, cachet and exclusivity?

Maybe they can carve out a niche among people who are lacking in fashion sense/taste & yet have money to spend? (i.e., the nouveau riche) I guess there's a point at which even these folks realize a brand has no cachet ...

The odd thing is, I really like Frida's interior decorating (she's been profiled in Bazaar I think a couple times). She seems to have some taste--why doesn't it translate to the runway

[Spike413]

^ I agree with your first comment. That's what I think of when I think of the Gucci customer today, young, trendy and rich. It's certainly not someone with a confident style of their own, nor is it a discerning luxury client....and I think that's a terrible way for a house with such a legacy of style and luxury to go in.

And I think you're right, eventually even the tasteless and trendy will wake up.

[smartarse]

^ au contraire. it's LV's niche, plus the Japanese are still flocking heavily , steadily and continously to LV.

[kezme44]

Originally Posted by fashionista-ta

Maybe they can carve out a niche among people who are lacking in fashion sense/taste & yet have money to spend? (i.e., the nouveau riche)

haha, it has alreay happened, just go into the gucci boutique in nyc or bal harbour and you'll see it infested with eastern european "business" men, their families, hip hop people, etc. it will always sell with them

[pout306]

Originally Posted by Spike413

It's not a shock. This article basically sums up what I and many others have been saying four times a year for 2 years now.

I don't think Gucci's been managed well at all, at least not for the long haul. Yes their profits peaked right away, but they sacrificed prestige, cachet and a sense of exclusivity for a quick buck....and after all, what's a luxury fashion label without prestige, cachet and exclusivity?

Well said.
Although Gucci was never in my top favorites, I think it is evident to anyone who knows something about 'fashion' that it has lost its trademark or that classic Gucci feel. Everything seems thrown together now, and it doesn't seem as if things 'flow' together or follow a particular vision.

[Salvatore]

See...
This is all that I have been talking about. Gucci is not luxury anymore and Frida was only about dispelling all of what was set before without realising that she had an amazing platform to build upon! Her aesthetic is too cheap, too commercial, and too uninspired to handle Gucci. It was not about just Tom Ford as some wanted to believe, but it was more about Frida and her cheap hand at designing things and now they see that it was not such a smart decision. Gucci history is repeating itself. Remove Frida as soon as possible.

(I have more to say but it's so much that I cannot even type.)

[borjacapella]

it's so funny the article mentions canal street.
not too long ago i saw a picture of Bernard Arnault (president of LVMH) with i think NYC major and an article followed mentioning how they are trying to eradicate all those knock-offs of the group's brands in china town.
telling about it to my sister, she told me her boss went to Canal street not too long ago and that the only bags that were on display in the fake-shops were from brands like gucci, goyard and prada, and that the LV bags were a lot harder to find, and when she asked the people in the shop, they first refused to show her any LV.

do you think these two things could be related at all? like a trickle down effect (less LV in canal st, more fake gucci on the streets, lv seen as more exclusive, it damages gucci's rep.)
i dont think, of course that this THE reason for gucci having worse results, but i thought it could certainly have some effect.

PS: i don't think lv needs this to happen to be seen as more exclusive
PS2: i do think frida should be replaced

[fashionista-ta]

I went into the Gucci store here for the first time not long ago to check out a pair of shoes for someone here on tFS. (They were totally ugly in person compared to the pic but be that as it may.) The store was in complete disarray--seems like there was an electrician there on a ladder right smack in the middle of the store rewiring the ceiling fixtures or something. The SAs ignored me, they seemed to be preoccupied with some gangstas. The carpet/padding was so deep/soft that my heels sank into it & I could barely walk. (First time that's happened anywhere ... ) Meanwhile they were also ignoring another actual Gucci customer ... a middle-aged woman who I think it would be quite fair to say was fashion-unaware, but was carrying a Gucci bag & apparently was in the market for more. One of the SAs finally spoke to me on my way out.

Based on this experience I have absolutely no trouble believing this report. I have actually never seen a "luxury" store in such disarray.

[nyc_art_style]

Originally Posted by tctra

Finally, people are seeing Giannini for the novice she is. Someone with absolutely no vision

thank you!

[Spike413]

Originally Posted by fashionista-ta

I went into the Gucci store here for the first time not long ago to check out a pair of shoes for someone here on tFS. (They were totally ugly in person compared to the pic but be that as it may.) The store was in complete disarray--seems like there was an electrician there on a ladder right smack in the middle of the store rewiring the ceiling fixtures or something. The SAs ignored me, they seemed to be preoccupied with some gangstas. The carpet/padding was so deep/soft that my heels sank into it & I could barely walk. (First time that's happened anywhere ... ) Meanwhile they were also ignoring another actual Gucci customer ... a middle-aged woman who I think it would be quite fair to say was fashion-unaware, but was carrying a Gucci bag & apparently was in the market for more. One of the SAs finally spoke to me on my way out.

Based on this experience I have absolutely no trouble believing this report. I have actually never seen a "luxury" store in such disarray.

Really, that's pretty shocking. I haven't been into a Gucci boutique in about a year, but in the past (say around 2004/05) I remember the staff being very eager to help, and that was in the 5th ave store so it's not like it was quiet.

And no luxury boutique should have work being done during store hours unless it's an all out emergency....

I guess it's safe to say that along with the clientele the service has gone south as well.

[Yanka]

gucci is totally shameless in their money-grabbing ways. The irony is, it doesn't even do them any favours financially.

[Bahiyya]

Originally Posted by smartarse

^ au contraire. it's LV's niche, plus the Japanese are still flocking heavily , steadily and continously to LV.

I partly agree with you except that I think Gucci has lost far more prestige than LV; and LV is helped by having an actual designer who can send out looks that show some kind of inspiration and vision (the FW 08/09 collection, for eg., even if you don't like it). He's something of a good marketer as well (hooking up with trendy artists to produce ugly "to die for" accessories). The Gucci line is at times "hip" and wearable...which is low aspirations for a high-end luxury house. It's more or less becoming Versace II (except that Donatella is showcasing her chops with the couture line and Frida...? Apparently interior decorates).

I love Tom Ford but he really commercialised the brand. It worked because Tom Ford is a charismatic force (love him or hate him). You didn't have to know fashion to know Tom Ford. No one knows Frida, she doesn't have the designing chops to build her cred and she's not a savvy brand builder.

[Andymoon]

They still have the name "GUCCI"...and it means a lot.

[Bahiyya]

Eh. It only means as much as the current caretakers allow it to. A house can't rest on its laurels forever and once the generation that remembered its cachet dies out and the new one only knows it for cheap luxury-logo goodness who's gonna care that it used to mean a lot, except historians? Chanel and Dior are still Chanel and Dior (but as entirely new incarnations, IMO) only because of their current head designers. No young 20 somethings would be flocking to Chanel because the PR team held up old black and white photos and waxed on about how great the dead founder was while a Frida-type sent out merely adequate lines season after season.