Gucci Resort 2010

[dior_couture1245]

It's just so terrible. So pathetic. Everything looks incredibly cheap and ordinary.

This nightmare has to end sometime, doesn't it?

[pasha]

If what we deem to be attractive is skinny jeans,tank tops and leggy dresses combining them with very expensive and out there accessories, then Frida is a great designer, but let's face it that is what street fashion came down to. The fashion or style which makes sense I should say.

Nobody dresses up anymore. Or they do not spend the money to do so. If you do not have a strong accessory line and production facility/mentality, then there is no way you can get big and survive in today's luxury goods and fashion market. Unfortunately the garment sales from these huge labels are plunging. This has nothing to do with the recession: it is a moment in fashion. It has a lot to do with looking as young and 'cool' as possible. Like Lagerfeld said, they take care of their bodies before their wardrobes. And everyone wants to look young. Things like a Chanel blazer or a YSL something have almost turned into novelty items.

It may sound like I am generalizing way too much, but if we look at the big picture, most companies do see their RtW collections as almost prestige/PR magnets: the way people used to see couture. I do wonder how many pieces of clothing Marc Jacobs/LV sold form that gorgeous collection in comparison to all of their accessories. (not only the ever successful city bags)

We do not see fashion being pushed hard enough, or women being challenged, because that client doesn't really exist anymore - maybe still in India, China and Russia, but not in Europe or the US. I know people here on tfs will pan what I am saying here, but the genius of Frida's business plan is to see 'young' looking clothing with extremely simple and conventional shapes and putting a lot of embellishments on them season after season. And also the Gucci label tag - the seal of approval. Of course by doing that, she does create a somewhat blank palette to push for her accessories as much as she can. And of course by doing precisely that, she can only create pieces looking like merchandise that can be compared to the likes of Zara, H&M or the best, Macy's level of diffusion brands.

That is the problem isn't it?

We all expect more and then what happens: Theyskens is getting fired, and Frida outsells everyone in the industry. And the only reason why he gets fired is because he doesn't sell a thing. People used to say Tom Ford was not a designer but only a stylist. I wonder what these same people think about him now seeing what Frida does and how much it sells. I think it is pointless to talk about the fashion-forwardness of Gucci anymore: they still produce a million products outside their seasonal collections and some small traces of Tom Ford still exists in them. They are still high quality and reliable products. I do not think the value and prestige of the Gucci brand is absolutely lost, but they do not operate the way they used to anymore.

This is a perfect collection for the new Gucci client, and I am sure it will sell a lot, if priced accordingly. The scary thing, I say they are not a trend setting brand anymore: but I guess in reality they are exactly the trend setting brand today, and the trend is this mentality right now and has been for a long time.

[disco54]

some of your points are valid ....but tastes change , yes Fridas accessories are fine but her clothing is horrid , thing is accessories maybe the bread and butter of a brand but its clothing is its USP , if you dont have a creative fashion cache you quickly lose power as a brand and Gucci is in that process , this is what happened to it in the early 80s , and I think history will repeat itself again

[pasha]

^ I am sure of that.

People will get sick of this mentality too, I do realize. We look at women like Kate Moss, Daria Werbowy etc. and see them as the coolest fashion icons ever, because they look like they just don't care with vintage t-s and jeans etc. carrying the Chanel 2.55s.

This is a period now, and it is bound to change as anything is bound to within fashion. But also, business is business.

[reese06]

Pasha,

I agree with quite a few of your points but most of the people buying the accessories have no clue who designs for Gucci and Gucci is still operating on the cache that Tom Ford established. That's going to end sooner or later so then what do you do? Start over?

[pasha]

^ Unfortunately most people do not even know/remember who Tom Ford is or his connection to Gucci: even some younger members here on tfs, believe it or not For most of them, Frida is Gucci. Her aesthetic is what they know and got to familiar with in terms of the brand Gucci.

'Start over'... That is precisely what Frida claims to be doing actually.

She believes what she does is more women-friendly, personal, sophisticated, and less "footballer's wife" than anything Ford has ever done... the last is actually her own words. She claims that she understands the modern women and her customer much better than Tom ever did. I am with you guys, and the only reason why I still have a soft spot for Gucci is Tom and the seductive heritage he left behind. It pains me to search for Tom ford pieces on ebay and stuff that were iconic to his reign over at Gucci. But Gucci is systematically working on erasing every trace he left for the Gucci DNA: the store interiors, the total design philosophy and look... I believe if she could, Frida would even change the fragrance bottles he designed. I own the Sarah Mower book Gucci by Gucci that was released after his departure as a 'f- you' to his book TOM FORD, and believe me; they do not even mention him properly. Of course, there are millions of images from his ads and collections, but just as much -if not more- from Gucci before Tom... Also, so much from Frida's worst reviewed collections which were only like 4 maybe 5 seasons at the time the book came out and were not even comparable to his period, due to duration and how little she had done up to that point.

They did start over. It is not going to a place fashion-worthy; that is another story.

Like I said, the runway shows are the source of prestige and image for these brands, and Gucci used to set the bar for Milan, even more effective than Prada at the time. In three seasons, Frida completely destroyed that superiority for the sake of sales. LV -I am sure- did not sell that many lame bar blazers or those obi-belted jackets this season, but they do help to maintain their ultra-lux standard and level in today's harsh hierarchy of luxury design and fashion. Gucci doesn't understand that. They lose prestige and credibility among the fashion elite. But they are the biggest selling force in the business, so does it really matter?

[pasha]

I apologize from the moderators if my last post will be considered 'off-topic' here on this thread, but I believe it is relevant to post it here due to the fact that this collection is the latest effort from Frida Giannini.

Therefore, discussing the general Gucci strategy, and the design philosophy that is reflected by this collection, can be considered acceptable to ponder upon here. Hopefully you will agree.

[reese06]

It does matter that they are losing prestige and credibility among the fashion elite because it's only a matter of time before that trickles down to the actual buyers that include the fashion elite and those that are not. The fashion elite are what have helped create what Gucci is and a luxury brand can not afford to lose that credibility.

[pasha]

Well then they are doomed... other than Sarah Mower, no one writes anything good for Frida!

And I do not even remember the last time when a major Gucci statement piece was shown in American Vogue either.

Are there any more looks to this 'collection' or is it just limited to these? It seems there must be more!

[elle_gb]

very surprise that this time they didn't have a show but have look book instead.

[disco54]

btw Louis Vuitton is the most powerful fashion brand and given the current trajectory , i predict chanel will take over by 2015-2020 , as chanel has begun to have a lot of street cred with young girls and men. In 1978 , gucci was a top flying brand by 1983-84 it was panned I remember how fake gucci watches and purses flooded canal street in NYC at that time, so in short , fashion is fickle , you can make huge profits for many years then all of the sudden its gone . IMO gucci died the day Tom Ford left .

[disco54]

btw i meant chanel will takeover gucci by then not LV .

[pasha]

Chanel's mensline is very very limited though to be a serious competition.

Fragrance is another story of course.

I thought Gucci sold a lot more than LV because of their fragrances (LV has none), plus Gucci goes on seasonal sales etc. and LV never does. Also, Gucci's apparel distribution is a lot wider including department stores. I am sure Gucci's menswear still sells a lot more than LV.

[Street_a_Licious]

...

only when you find guys who fit into Frida-pants and got the money

[reese06]

Originally Posted by disco54

btw i meant chanel will takeover gucci by then not LV .

Chanel and Gucci are really kind of two totally different brands. Gucci has a lot of offer for men while Chanel is very limited. Chanel is targeted towards a much smaller audience where as Gucci has a wider assortment of products to offer.